SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) speaks during a hearing in Washington, D.C. on February 24, 2021. (Photo: Sarah Silbiger/AFP via Getty Images)
'Bad Policy and Bad Politics': Manchin Is Trying to Cut Unemployment Benefits, Limit Survival Checks in Covid Relief Bill
"Cutting UI from $400 to $300 or reducing checks will cause a full blown revolt from progressives."
Mar 01, 2021
Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and other conservative members of the Senate Democratic caucus are reportedly pressing for changes to the emerging coronavirus relief legislation that would cut the bill's proposed weekly unemployment supplement and further restrict eligibility for $1,400 direct payments.
The $1.9 trillion relief measure approved by the House of Representatives late last week proposes extending emergency unemployment insurance (UI) programs through the end of August with a weekly federal supplement of $400, up from the current $300-per-week boost that is set to begin expiring on March 14.
"Further 'targeting' or 'tightening' eligibility means taking survival checks away from millions of families who got them last time. That's bad policy and bad politics too."
--Rep. Pramila Jayapal
But as Roll Call reported late Monday after conservative Democrats met virtually with President Joe Biden to discuss the relief package, Manchin "said he'd prefer to see a $300 benefit in response to criticism that some laid-off workers could end up making more money on unemployment than they would on the job"--a right-wing talking point that Republicans have deployed in their efforts to slash UI benefits.
"We're just looking for a targeted bill," said Manchin, whose support Democrats need to pass the so-called American Rescue Plan (ARP) without any Republican votes.
According to the Washington Post, Manchin and other conservative Democrats also pitched "tightening income eligibility for the $1,400 stimulus payments," a demand that House Democrats rejected in their legislation.
The House-passed relief bill calls for sending full $1,400 payments to individuals earning up to $75,000 per year and married couples earning up to $150,000 per year, with the payments gradually phasing out thereafter--an eligibility structure that resembles the one used for the previous two rounds of checks.
Despite warnings that doing so would be politically "suicidal," Biden has previously said he would be open to lowering the income cutoff for the direct payments.
Noting that progressive lawmakers are already furious over Senate Democrats' plans to move forward with a relief bill that excludes a minimum wage increase--pointing to the parliamentarian's advisory ruling against the provision--economist Arindrajit Dube cautioned that slashing UI benefits or imposing additional restrictions on eligibility for direct relief payments would "cause a full blown revolt from progressives."
House Democrats, who did not have to contend with the Senate's so-called Byrd Rule, included a provision to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025 in their relief bill.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, warned late Monday that "further 'targeting' or 'tightening' eligibility means taking survival checks away from millions of families who got them last time."
"That's bad policy and bad politics too," Jayapal tweeted.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
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 has always been 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, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and other conservative members of the Senate Democratic caucus are reportedly pressing for changes to the emerging coronavirus relief legislation that would cut the bill's proposed weekly unemployment supplement and further restrict eligibility for $1,400 direct payments.
The $1.9 trillion relief measure approved by the House of Representatives late last week proposes extending emergency unemployment insurance (UI) programs through the end of August with a weekly federal supplement of $400, up from the current $300-per-week boost that is set to begin expiring on March 14.
"Further 'targeting' or 'tightening' eligibility means taking survival checks away from millions of families who got them last time. That's bad policy and bad politics too."
--Rep. Pramila Jayapal
But as Roll Call reported late Monday after conservative Democrats met virtually with President Joe Biden to discuss the relief package, Manchin "said he'd prefer to see a $300 benefit in response to criticism that some laid-off workers could end up making more money on unemployment than they would on the job"--a right-wing talking point that Republicans have deployed in their efforts to slash UI benefits.
"We're just looking for a targeted bill," said Manchin, whose support Democrats need to pass the so-called American Rescue Plan (ARP) without any Republican votes.
According to the Washington Post, Manchin and other conservative Democrats also pitched "tightening income eligibility for the $1,400 stimulus payments," a demand that House Democrats rejected in their legislation.
The House-passed relief bill calls for sending full $1,400 payments to individuals earning up to $75,000 per year and married couples earning up to $150,000 per year, with the payments gradually phasing out thereafter--an eligibility structure that resembles the one used for the previous two rounds of checks.
Despite warnings that doing so would be politically "suicidal," Biden has previously said he would be open to lowering the income cutoff for the direct payments.
Noting that progressive lawmakers are already furious over Senate Democrats' plans to move forward with a relief bill that excludes a minimum wage increase--pointing to the parliamentarian's advisory ruling against the provision--economist Arindrajit Dube cautioned that slashing UI benefits or imposing additional restrictions on eligibility for direct relief payments would "cause a full blown revolt from progressives."
House Democrats, who did not have to contend with the Senate's so-called Byrd Rule, included a provision to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025 in their relief bill.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, warned late Monday that "further 'targeting' or 'tightening' eligibility means taking survival checks away from millions of families who got them last time."
"That's bad policy and bad politics too," Jayapal tweeted.
Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and other conservative members of the Senate Democratic caucus are reportedly pressing for changes to the emerging coronavirus relief legislation that would cut the bill's proposed weekly unemployment supplement and further restrict eligibility for $1,400 direct payments.
The $1.9 trillion relief measure approved by the House of Representatives late last week proposes extending emergency unemployment insurance (UI) programs through the end of August with a weekly federal supplement of $400, up from the current $300-per-week boost that is set to begin expiring on March 14.
"Further 'targeting' or 'tightening' eligibility means taking survival checks away from millions of families who got them last time. That's bad policy and bad politics too."
--Rep. Pramila Jayapal
But as Roll Call reported late Monday after conservative Democrats met virtually with President Joe Biden to discuss the relief package, Manchin "said he'd prefer to see a $300 benefit in response to criticism that some laid-off workers could end up making more money on unemployment than they would on the job"--a right-wing talking point that Republicans have deployed in their efforts to slash UI benefits.
"We're just looking for a targeted bill," said Manchin, whose support Democrats need to pass the so-called American Rescue Plan (ARP) without any Republican votes.
According to the Washington Post, Manchin and other conservative Democrats also pitched "tightening income eligibility for the $1,400 stimulus payments," a demand that House Democrats rejected in their legislation.
The House-passed relief bill calls for sending full $1,400 payments to individuals earning up to $75,000 per year and married couples earning up to $150,000 per year, with the payments gradually phasing out thereafter--an eligibility structure that resembles the one used for the previous two rounds of checks.
Despite warnings that doing so would be politically "suicidal," Biden has previously said he would be open to lowering the income cutoff for the direct payments.
Noting that progressive lawmakers are already furious over Senate Democrats' plans to move forward with a relief bill that excludes a minimum wage increase--pointing to the parliamentarian's advisory ruling against the provision--economist Arindrajit Dube cautioned that slashing UI benefits or imposing additional restrictions on eligibility for direct relief payments would "cause a full blown revolt from progressives."
House Democrats, who did not have to contend with the Senate's so-called Byrd Rule, included a provision to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025 in their relief bill.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, warned late Monday that "further 'targeting' or 'tightening' eligibility means taking survival checks away from millions of families who got them last time."
"That's bad policy and bad politics too," Jayapal tweeted.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.