Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) listens as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) speaks during a press conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)
'Will End Up Hurting Tens of Millions': Progressives Push Back as Dems Weigh Lower Income Cutoff for Relief Checks
"Means testing is a form of austerity. Scaling back on stimulus would be a mistake."
Despite warnings that doing so would be both politically and morally senseless, top Democratic lawmakers are reportedly discussing a proposal to further limit eligibility for direct relief payments by lowering the annual income cutoff, a restriction that would potentially disqualify tens of millions of people from the next round of survival checks.
Citing unnamed people familiar with internal planning, the Washington Post reported Tuesday that "one proposal discussed by senior Democrats includes lowering the threshold for the payments to begin phasing out above $50,000 for single taxpayers, $75,000 for people who file as the heads of households, and $100,000 for married couples."
"We should not be alienating working-class and middle-class Americans by excluding them from Covid relief. The argument is so obvious it's surprising it has to be stated."
--Rep. Ro Khanna
With talks over eligibility for the $1,400 payments proposed by President Joe Biden still ongoing, progressives are vocally making clear that they oppose additional means testing for relief checks that already fall short of the $2,000 Democrats promised on the campaign trail--messaging that helped the party take narrow control of the Senate.
"Democrats in Congress should not waste a single day or shrink their relief package by a single dollar in pursuit of votes from Republican politicians who answer to billionaires and white supremacist insurrectionists," tweeted the Working Families Party. "We need jobs and care now."
Ohio congressional candidate Nina Turner, formerly a top surrogate for Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) 2020 presidential campaign, said late Tuesday that "means testing is a form of austerity."
"Scaling back on stimulus would be a mistake," Turner argued.
The Biden White House said earlier this week that it is opposed to the direct payment counter-offer put forth by Republican senators, who proposed $1,000 checks for which only individuals earning less than $40,000 a year and married couples earning less than $80,000 a year would be fully eligible.
But the new administration has also said it is open to negotiating the eligibility threshold for the $1,400 checks, which at least two of Biden's top economic advisers have said should bemore targeted to those with lower incomes--an argument also made by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's top business lobby.
Previous rounds of relief checks began gradually phasing out for individuals who earned more than $75,000 a year and joint filers who earned more than $150,000; that same framework was proposed by the House-passed CASH Act, which Republicans blocked at the end of last year.
In a letter (pdf) to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) last week, more than two dozen members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus cautioned "against an overemphasis on targeting aid, when we know that it comes at the expense of delivering relief quickly and efficiently."
"At this moment of fiscal crisis, Congress should err on the side of offering generous relief to a larger pool of people, rather than too little," the letter reads. "The cost of doing too little too slowly far outweighs the concerns about a relatively small share of households getting 'too much.'"
Lots of talk these last few weeks about how $600 + $1,400 = $2,000, but I'll note for those of you following along at home that $600 + some amount less than $1,400 because you no longer qualify for the full stimulus does not equal $2,000. https://t.co/bQ9f8RYJ2y
-- Osita Nwanevu (@OsitaNwanevu) February 2, 2021
Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, a left-wing think tank, pointed out in an interview with the Post that "people have not filed their taxes for 2020, meaning that targeted checks would go out based on income information that is now one to two years out of date, with a pandemic and mass job loss having occurred in the interim."
"This is not targeting," said Bruenig. "It is the illusion of targeting, an illusion that will end up hurting tens of millions of people who are currently in need but weren't in 2019."
"This is not targeting. It is the illusion of targeting, an illusion that will end up hurting tens of millions of people who are currently in need but weren't in 2019."
--Matt Bruenig, People's Policy Project
Progressive members of Congress have argued that limiting the number of people eligible to receive relief payments would be a massive unforced error by Democrats, a needless restriction of popular relief that would weaken a legislative package which--according to some economists--is already inadequate to the task of fighting the ongoing recession, public health emergency, looming eviction crisis, and devastating surge in hunger nationwide.
Negotiations over who will qualify for direct relief payments continued as Senate Democrats on Tuesday took the first step toward approving a coronavirus relief package through budget reconciliation, an expedited process that requires a mere simple-majority vote--meaning a unified Democratic caucus would not need any support from Republican senators to pass legislation.
Speaking to HuffPost earlier this week, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) called into question both the political and economic arguments that have been advanced in recent days in favor of curtailing eligibility for the checks.
"We are in a low-interest rate, low-inflation period where the velocity of money has been reduced given the pandemic," said Khanna. "I have yet to hear a single coherent argument on how our economy will suffer if we give people $2,000 checks."
"We should not be alienating working-class and middle-class Americans by excluding them from Covid relief," Khanna added. "The argument is so obvious it's surprising it has to be stated."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Despite warnings that doing so would be both politically and morally senseless, top Democratic lawmakers are reportedly discussing a proposal to further limit eligibility for direct relief payments by lowering the annual income cutoff, a restriction that would potentially disqualify tens of millions of people from the next round of survival checks.
Citing unnamed people familiar with internal planning, the Washington Post reported Tuesday that "one proposal discussed by senior Democrats includes lowering the threshold for the payments to begin phasing out above $50,000 for single taxpayers, $75,000 for people who file as the heads of households, and $100,000 for married couples."
"We should not be alienating working-class and middle-class Americans by excluding them from Covid relief. The argument is so obvious it's surprising it has to be stated."
--Rep. Ro Khanna
With talks over eligibility for the $1,400 payments proposed by President Joe Biden still ongoing, progressives are vocally making clear that they oppose additional means testing for relief checks that already fall short of the $2,000 Democrats promised on the campaign trail--messaging that helped the party take narrow control of the Senate.
"Democrats in Congress should not waste a single day or shrink their relief package by a single dollar in pursuit of votes from Republican politicians who answer to billionaires and white supremacist insurrectionists," tweeted the Working Families Party. "We need jobs and care now."
Ohio congressional candidate Nina Turner, formerly a top surrogate for Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) 2020 presidential campaign, said late Tuesday that "means testing is a form of austerity."
"Scaling back on stimulus would be a mistake," Turner argued.
The Biden White House said earlier this week that it is opposed to the direct payment counter-offer put forth by Republican senators, who proposed $1,000 checks for which only individuals earning less than $40,000 a year and married couples earning less than $80,000 a year would be fully eligible.
But the new administration has also said it is open to negotiating the eligibility threshold for the $1,400 checks, which at least two of Biden's top economic advisers have said should bemore targeted to those with lower incomes--an argument also made by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's top business lobby.
Previous rounds of relief checks began gradually phasing out for individuals who earned more than $75,000 a year and joint filers who earned more than $150,000; that same framework was proposed by the House-passed CASH Act, which Republicans blocked at the end of last year.
In a letter (pdf) to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) last week, more than two dozen members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus cautioned "against an overemphasis on targeting aid, when we know that it comes at the expense of delivering relief quickly and efficiently."
"At this moment of fiscal crisis, Congress should err on the side of offering generous relief to a larger pool of people, rather than too little," the letter reads. "The cost of doing too little too slowly far outweighs the concerns about a relatively small share of households getting 'too much.'"
Lots of talk these last few weeks about how $600 + $1,400 = $2,000, but I'll note for those of you following along at home that $600 + some amount less than $1,400 because you no longer qualify for the full stimulus does not equal $2,000. https://t.co/bQ9f8RYJ2y
-- Osita Nwanevu (@OsitaNwanevu) February 2, 2021
Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, a left-wing think tank, pointed out in an interview with the Post that "people have not filed their taxes for 2020, meaning that targeted checks would go out based on income information that is now one to two years out of date, with a pandemic and mass job loss having occurred in the interim."
"This is not targeting," said Bruenig. "It is the illusion of targeting, an illusion that will end up hurting tens of millions of people who are currently in need but weren't in 2019."
"This is not targeting. It is the illusion of targeting, an illusion that will end up hurting tens of millions of people who are currently in need but weren't in 2019."
--Matt Bruenig, People's Policy Project
Progressive members of Congress have argued that limiting the number of people eligible to receive relief payments would be a massive unforced error by Democrats, a needless restriction of popular relief that would weaken a legislative package which--according to some economists--is already inadequate to the task of fighting the ongoing recession, public health emergency, looming eviction crisis, and devastating surge in hunger nationwide.
Negotiations over who will qualify for direct relief payments continued as Senate Democrats on Tuesday took the first step toward approving a coronavirus relief package through budget reconciliation, an expedited process that requires a mere simple-majority vote--meaning a unified Democratic caucus would not need any support from Republican senators to pass legislation.
Speaking to HuffPost earlier this week, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) called into question both the political and economic arguments that have been advanced in recent days in favor of curtailing eligibility for the checks.
"We are in a low-interest rate, low-inflation period where the velocity of money has been reduced given the pandemic," said Khanna. "I have yet to hear a single coherent argument on how our economy will suffer if we give people $2,000 checks."
"We should not be alienating working-class and middle-class Americans by excluding them from Covid relief," Khanna added. "The argument is so obvious it's surprising it has to be stated."
Despite warnings that doing so would be both politically and morally senseless, top Democratic lawmakers are reportedly discussing a proposal to further limit eligibility for direct relief payments by lowering the annual income cutoff, a restriction that would potentially disqualify tens of millions of people from the next round of survival checks.
Citing unnamed people familiar with internal planning, the Washington Post reported Tuesday that "one proposal discussed by senior Democrats includes lowering the threshold for the payments to begin phasing out above $50,000 for single taxpayers, $75,000 for people who file as the heads of households, and $100,000 for married couples."
"We should not be alienating working-class and middle-class Americans by excluding them from Covid relief. The argument is so obvious it's surprising it has to be stated."
--Rep. Ro Khanna
With talks over eligibility for the $1,400 payments proposed by President Joe Biden still ongoing, progressives are vocally making clear that they oppose additional means testing for relief checks that already fall short of the $2,000 Democrats promised on the campaign trail--messaging that helped the party take narrow control of the Senate.
"Democrats in Congress should not waste a single day or shrink their relief package by a single dollar in pursuit of votes from Republican politicians who answer to billionaires and white supremacist insurrectionists," tweeted the Working Families Party. "We need jobs and care now."
Ohio congressional candidate Nina Turner, formerly a top surrogate for Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) 2020 presidential campaign, said late Tuesday that "means testing is a form of austerity."
"Scaling back on stimulus would be a mistake," Turner argued.
The Biden White House said earlier this week that it is opposed to the direct payment counter-offer put forth by Republican senators, who proposed $1,000 checks for which only individuals earning less than $40,000 a year and married couples earning less than $80,000 a year would be fully eligible.
But the new administration has also said it is open to negotiating the eligibility threshold for the $1,400 checks, which at least two of Biden's top economic advisers have said should bemore targeted to those with lower incomes--an argument also made by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's top business lobby.
Previous rounds of relief checks began gradually phasing out for individuals who earned more than $75,000 a year and joint filers who earned more than $150,000; that same framework was proposed by the House-passed CASH Act, which Republicans blocked at the end of last year.
In a letter (pdf) to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) last week, more than two dozen members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus cautioned "against an overemphasis on targeting aid, when we know that it comes at the expense of delivering relief quickly and efficiently."
"At this moment of fiscal crisis, Congress should err on the side of offering generous relief to a larger pool of people, rather than too little," the letter reads. "The cost of doing too little too slowly far outweighs the concerns about a relatively small share of households getting 'too much.'"
Lots of talk these last few weeks about how $600 + $1,400 = $2,000, but I'll note for those of you following along at home that $600 + some amount less than $1,400 because you no longer qualify for the full stimulus does not equal $2,000. https://t.co/bQ9f8RYJ2y
-- Osita Nwanevu (@OsitaNwanevu) February 2, 2021
Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, a left-wing think tank, pointed out in an interview with the Post that "people have not filed their taxes for 2020, meaning that targeted checks would go out based on income information that is now one to two years out of date, with a pandemic and mass job loss having occurred in the interim."
"This is not targeting," said Bruenig. "It is the illusion of targeting, an illusion that will end up hurting tens of millions of people who are currently in need but weren't in 2019."
"This is not targeting. It is the illusion of targeting, an illusion that will end up hurting tens of millions of people who are currently in need but weren't in 2019."
--Matt Bruenig, People's Policy Project
Progressive members of Congress have argued that limiting the number of people eligible to receive relief payments would be a massive unforced error by Democrats, a needless restriction of popular relief that would weaken a legislative package which--according to some economists--is already inadequate to the task of fighting the ongoing recession, public health emergency, looming eviction crisis, and devastating surge in hunger nationwide.
Negotiations over who will qualify for direct relief payments continued as Senate Democrats on Tuesday took the first step toward approving a coronavirus relief package through budget reconciliation, an expedited process that requires a mere simple-majority vote--meaning a unified Democratic caucus would not need any support from Republican senators to pass legislation.
Speaking to HuffPost earlier this week, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) called into question both the political and economic arguments that have been advanced in recent days in favor of curtailing eligibility for the checks.
"We are in a low-interest rate, low-inflation period where the velocity of money has been reduced given the pandemic," said Khanna. "I have yet to hear a single coherent argument on how our economy will suffer if we give people $2,000 checks."
"We should not be alienating working-class and middle-class Americans by excluding them from Covid relief," Khanna added. "The argument is so obvious it's surprising it has to be stated."