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
Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) speaks during a House Financial Services Committee hearing on Tuesday, October 22, 2019.
(Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)
Mondaire Jones, Katie Porter Urge Fellow Democrats to Reject Means Testing Folly
"Means testing is a choice to deprive millions of our neighbors of what they need simply to cope with a budget artificially limited by regressive tax policy."
Oct 15, 2021
Democratic Reps. Mondaire Jones and Katie Porter are again pushing back against any effort to implement means testing to water down potentially historic social investments proposed in their party's Build Back Better plan.
Making the proposed investments in the social safety net--including child care and Medicare expansion--universal is both "good policy and good politics," they wrote in a Washington Post op-ed published Thursday.
Jones (D-N.Y.) and Porter (D-Calif.) made their case a day after they joined other leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in which they similarly pushed for universal programs in the reconciliation package over "complicated methods of means-testing that the wealthy and powerful will use to divide us."
The op-ed also followed reporting indicating that President Joe Biden and some Democrats, including Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, are open to or are directly pushing for means-testing--income caps--on certain programs to lower the plan's overall costs.
However, wrote Jones and Porter, the argument that means-testing aligns with "fiscal responsibility" just doesn't hold water.
"Means-tested programs cost more to administer, because complex systems, processes, and entire offices must be created to determine who qualifies," in contrast to "universal programs [that] allow us to maximize our investment in the American people," they wrote.
In addition, while means-testing proponents point to a need to exclude wealthier households from receiving benefits, Jones and Porter wrote that the practice "often excludes the most vulnerable poor, who aren't always able to jump through the required hoops to prove their eligibility."
Universal programs, the two lawmakers argue, "build solidarity that helps them stand the test of time--when we all have a stake in the success of a public program, it can withstand changing political winds."
The op-ed noted as an example former President Donald Trump's campaign pledge not to cut the widely popular universal programs Medicare and Social Security, as well as the cutting of means-tested programs such as SNAP and TANF by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
Simply put, Jones and Porter wrote, "means testing is a choice to deprive millions of our neighbors of what they need simply to cope with a budget artificially limited by regressive tax policy."
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.
joe bidenjoe manchinkatie portermondaire jonesmeans testingsocial safety netuniversal benefitsbuild back better
Democratic Reps. Mondaire Jones and Katie Porter are again pushing back against any effort to implement means testing to water down potentially historic social investments proposed in their party's Build Back Better plan.
Making the proposed investments in the social safety net--including child care and Medicare expansion--universal is both "good policy and good politics," they wrote in a Washington Post op-ed published Thursday.
Jones (D-N.Y.) and Porter (D-Calif.) made their case a day after they joined other leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in which they similarly pushed for universal programs in the reconciliation package over "complicated methods of means-testing that the wealthy and powerful will use to divide us."
The op-ed also followed reporting indicating that President Joe Biden and some Democrats, including Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, are open to or are directly pushing for means-testing--income caps--on certain programs to lower the plan's overall costs.
However, wrote Jones and Porter, the argument that means-testing aligns with "fiscal responsibility" just doesn't hold water.
"Means-tested programs cost more to administer, because complex systems, processes, and entire offices must be created to determine who qualifies," in contrast to "universal programs [that] allow us to maximize our investment in the American people," they wrote.
In addition, while means-testing proponents point to a need to exclude wealthier households from receiving benefits, Jones and Porter wrote that the practice "often excludes the most vulnerable poor, who aren't always able to jump through the required hoops to prove their eligibility."
Universal programs, the two lawmakers argue, "build solidarity that helps them stand the test of time--when we all have a stake in the success of a public program, it can withstand changing political winds."
The op-ed noted as an example former President Donald Trump's campaign pledge not to cut the widely popular universal programs Medicare and Social Security, as well as the cutting of means-tested programs such as SNAP and TANF by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
Simply put, Jones and Porter wrote, "means testing is a choice to deprive millions of our neighbors of what they need simply to cope with a budget artificially limited by regressive tax policy."
Democratic Reps. Mondaire Jones and Katie Porter are again pushing back against any effort to implement means testing to water down potentially historic social investments proposed in their party's Build Back Better plan.
Making the proposed investments in the social safety net--including child care and Medicare expansion--universal is both "good policy and good politics," they wrote in a Washington Post op-ed published Thursday.
Jones (D-N.Y.) and Porter (D-Calif.) made their case a day after they joined other leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in which they similarly pushed for universal programs in the reconciliation package over "complicated methods of means-testing that the wealthy and powerful will use to divide us."
The op-ed also followed reporting indicating that President Joe Biden and some Democrats, including Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, are open to or are directly pushing for means-testing--income caps--on certain programs to lower the plan's overall costs.
However, wrote Jones and Porter, the argument that means-testing aligns with "fiscal responsibility" just doesn't hold water.
"Means-tested programs cost more to administer, because complex systems, processes, and entire offices must be created to determine who qualifies," in contrast to "universal programs [that] allow us to maximize our investment in the American people," they wrote.
In addition, while means-testing proponents point to a need to exclude wealthier households from receiving benefits, Jones and Porter wrote that the practice "often excludes the most vulnerable poor, who aren't always able to jump through the required hoops to prove their eligibility."
Universal programs, the two lawmakers argue, "build solidarity that helps them stand the test of time--when we all have a stake in the success of a public program, it can withstand changing political winds."
The op-ed noted as an example former President Donald Trump's campaign pledge not to cut the widely popular universal programs Medicare and Social Security, as well as the cutting of means-tested programs such as SNAP and TANF by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
Simply put, Jones and Porter wrote, "means testing is a choice to deprive millions of our neighbors of what they need simply to cope with a budget artificially limited by regressive tax policy."
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.