Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) is seen on the House steps of the Capitol during votes on Friday, December 4, 2020. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)
'Not Just Bad Economics, But Terrible Politics': Khanna Warns Democrats Against Restricting Eligibility for $1,400 Checks
"Have we learned nothing?"
Progressive Congressman Ro Khanna on Wednesday cautioned President Joe Biden and the Democratic leadership against further restricting eligibility for any future round of direct coronavirus relief payments, warning that excluding many struggling middle-class Americans from checks would be misguided and politically disastrous.
"This is not just bad economics, but terrible politics," Khanna (D-Calif.) tweeted in response to a new analysis that argues providing stimulus checks only to households that earn less than $75,000 a year would be better for families and the overall economy, given that higher earners are more likely to save the money or use it to pay off debts.
Khanna contended that such an approach would backfire, fueling the widespread view that the federal government doesn't care about the middle class.
"Have we learned nothing?" the California Democrat asked.
The two previous rounds of direct payments phased out for higher earners, with the checks gradually shrinking in size for individuals with annual incomes of more than $75,000 and couples with combined incomes of more than $150,000.
Under the eligibility structure proposed by the House-passed CARES Act, married couples with a combined annual income of $300,000 and two or more children would have been eligible for some money, but the vast majority of the benefits would have gone to lower- and middle-income households.
While the White House has not yet suggested specific eligibility details for its proposed $1,400 payments, Biden on Monday said he would be willing to entertain a lower income cutoff after a bipartisan group of lawmakers led by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), and others raised concerns that the new round of checks would not be sufficiently "targeted."
"I proposed that because it was bipartisan, I thought it would increase the prospects of passage, the additional $1,400 in direct cash payments to folks," Biden said during a White House event Monday. "Well, there's legitimate reasons for people to say: 'Do you have the lines drawn the exact right way? Should it go to anybody making X number of dollars or Y?' I'm open to negotiate those things."
Progressives, already frustrated that Biden is calling for $1,400 checks instead of the promised $2,000, were quick to reject any additional means testing.
"The $2,000 checks initiative does not have to go down the same way the public option went down. The president and congressional Democrats do not have to do what weak-kneed, wimpy Democrats of the past have so often done," argued The Daily Poster's David Sirota. "They do not have to negotiate against themselves, word-parse their way out of campaign pledges and delude themselves into thinking that Republicans are good-faith legislative partners."
"They could instead try to use their election mandate--and the weakened state of the GOP--to demand full survival checks," Sirota added, "rather than pretending that bad-faith Republican senators have any standing to make policy arguments."
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Progressive Congressman Ro Khanna on Wednesday cautioned President Joe Biden and the Democratic leadership against further restricting eligibility for any future round of direct coronavirus relief payments, warning that excluding many struggling middle-class Americans from checks would be misguided and politically disastrous.
"This is not just bad economics, but terrible politics," Khanna (D-Calif.) tweeted in response to a new analysis that argues providing stimulus checks only to households that earn less than $75,000 a year would be better for families and the overall economy, given that higher earners are more likely to save the money or use it to pay off debts.
Khanna contended that such an approach would backfire, fueling the widespread view that the federal government doesn't care about the middle class.
"Have we learned nothing?" the California Democrat asked.
The two previous rounds of direct payments phased out for higher earners, with the checks gradually shrinking in size for individuals with annual incomes of more than $75,000 and couples with combined incomes of more than $150,000.
Under the eligibility structure proposed by the House-passed CARES Act, married couples with a combined annual income of $300,000 and two or more children would have been eligible for some money, but the vast majority of the benefits would have gone to lower- and middle-income households.
While the White House has not yet suggested specific eligibility details for its proposed $1,400 payments, Biden on Monday said he would be willing to entertain a lower income cutoff after a bipartisan group of lawmakers led by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), and others raised concerns that the new round of checks would not be sufficiently "targeted."
"I proposed that because it was bipartisan, I thought it would increase the prospects of passage, the additional $1,400 in direct cash payments to folks," Biden said during a White House event Monday. "Well, there's legitimate reasons for people to say: 'Do you have the lines drawn the exact right way? Should it go to anybody making X number of dollars or Y?' I'm open to negotiate those things."
Progressives, already frustrated that Biden is calling for $1,400 checks instead of the promised $2,000, were quick to reject any additional means testing.
"The $2,000 checks initiative does not have to go down the same way the public option went down. The president and congressional Democrats do not have to do what weak-kneed, wimpy Democrats of the past have so often done," argued The Daily Poster's David Sirota. "They do not have to negotiate against themselves, word-parse their way out of campaign pledges and delude themselves into thinking that Republicans are good-faith legislative partners."
"They could instead try to use their election mandate--and the weakened state of the GOP--to demand full survival checks," Sirota added, "rather than pretending that bad-faith Republican senators have any standing to make policy arguments."
Progressive Congressman Ro Khanna on Wednesday cautioned President Joe Biden and the Democratic leadership against further restricting eligibility for any future round of direct coronavirus relief payments, warning that excluding many struggling middle-class Americans from checks would be misguided and politically disastrous.
"This is not just bad economics, but terrible politics," Khanna (D-Calif.) tweeted in response to a new analysis that argues providing stimulus checks only to households that earn less than $75,000 a year would be better for families and the overall economy, given that higher earners are more likely to save the money or use it to pay off debts.
Khanna contended that such an approach would backfire, fueling the widespread view that the federal government doesn't care about the middle class.
"Have we learned nothing?" the California Democrat asked.
The two previous rounds of direct payments phased out for higher earners, with the checks gradually shrinking in size for individuals with annual incomes of more than $75,000 and couples with combined incomes of more than $150,000.
Under the eligibility structure proposed by the House-passed CARES Act, married couples with a combined annual income of $300,000 and two or more children would have been eligible for some money, but the vast majority of the benefits would have gone to lower- and middle-income households.
While the White House has not yet suggested specific eligibility details for its proposed $1,400 payments, Biden on Monday said he would be willing to entertain a lower income cutoff after a bipartisan group of lawmakers led by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), and others raised concerns that the new round of checks would not be sufficiently "targeted."
"I proposed that because it was bipartisan, I thought it would increase the prospects of passage, the additional $1,400 in direct cash payments to folks," Biden said during a White House event Monday. "Well, there's legitimate reasons for people to say: 'Do you have the lines drawn the exact right way? Should it go to anybody making X number of dollars or Y?' I'm open to negotiate those things."
Progressives, already frustrated that Biden is calling for $1,400 checks instead of the promised $2,000, were quick to reject any additional means testing.
"The $2,000 checks initiative does not have to go down the same way the public option went down. The president and congressional Democrats do not have to do what weak-kneed, wimpy Democrats of the past have so often done," argued The Daily Poster's David Sirota. "They do not have to negotiate against themselves, word-parse their way out of campaign pledges and delude themselves into thinking that Republicans are good-faith legislative partners."
"They could instead try to use their election mandate--and the weakened state of the GOP--to demand full survival checks," Sirota added, "rather than pretending that bad-faith Republican senators have any standing to make policy arguments."