Category: Pramila Jayapal

  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren speaks during a hearing on February 23, 2021, at Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.

    On Monday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) unveiled legislation proposing a wealth tax that she championed during her presidential campaign.

    The bill, called the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act of 2021, calls for a 2 percent tax on wealth in excess of $50 million and a 3 percent tax on wealth over $1 billion. This would apply to the top 0.05 percent of U.S. households, the bill’s fact sheet says, or about 100,000 households.

    Warren released the bill with Representatives Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) and Brendan Boyle (D-Pennsylvania), and the idea has been co-sponsored by labor unions and a number of other progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont).

    The lawmakers argue that the bill is especially salient as the nation grapples with a pandemic that has only increased the wealth of the already ultrarich. Since the start of the pandemic, U.S. billionaires’ wealth has skyrocketed nearly 40 percent, finds one Forbes analysis.

    Warren and fellow lawmakers argue that because the U.S. doesn’t have a wealth tax, the ultrarich pay proportionally less on their wealth in taxes than everyone else in the bottom 99 percent. “By focusing on incomes, the tax system largely misses the massive amount of wealth this tiny sliver of ultra-rich families has accumulated,” write the lawmakers.

    An analysis by progressive University of California, Berkeley, economists Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez found that, in 2019, the bottom 99 percent of families owed 7.2 percent of their wealth in taxes while the top 0.1 percent owed only 3.2 percent of their wealth. The wealth tax will help to close the gap between the wealthiest Americans and the rest of the country and will especially help to close the racial wealth gap, they say.

    “A wealth tax is popular among voters on both sides for good reason: because they understand the system is rigged to benefit the wealthy and large corporations,” said Senator Warren in a statement. “As Congress develops additional plans to help our economy, the wealth tax should be at the top of the list to help pay for these plans because of the huge amounts of revenue it would generate.”

    Warren emphasized that the plan could pay for popular items on President Joe Biden’s agenda like education and infrastructure investments. Over a decade, Saez and Zucman say, the tax could raise over $3 trillion in revenue.

    Progressives have been calling for more taxation on the wealthy for years, including a wealth tax and higher marginal tax rates. Progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), who proposed a 70 percent marginal tax rate on the nation’s richest individuals, argue that higher taxes on wealthy individuals and households could pay for public programs like Medicare for All, free public college and a Green New Deal.

    Since the idea of the wealth tax was first introduced into the mainstream political sphere, it has been shown to be very popular: A poll by Data for Progress from last year showed that 62 percent of voters are in favor of a wealth tax on households worth over $50 million, and voters from both parties are more likely to vote for a candidate who proposes a wealth tax.

    At a press conference for the introduction of the wealth tax proposal, Representative Boyle pointed out that the idea of a wealth tax isn’t as new as it may seem — a property tax is a similar concept, he argues. But, while many Americans in the bottom 99 percent have been paying this form of a wealth tax over the past decades, the rich have only gotten richer.

    Economists Zucman and Saez found that, between the 1970s and 2019, the wealthiest top 0.1 percent have seen their wealth nearly triple. Part of what has allowed wealthy Americans to accumulate so much wealth over the past decades is 50 years of tax cuts in the U.S. that have benefited only the rich, a recent study found.

    Though the wealth tax is unlikely to be passed, the idea has gained momentum in recent years. With her position on the powerful Senate Finance Committee, Warren has more sway over tax policy than ever.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Biden with Vice President Kamala Harris answers questions from the media in the South Court Auditorium at the White House on January 25, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    The push for a $15 federal minimum wage in President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus is dead as the proposal’s last hope has been abandoned by its main proponents.

    The last best hope for the inclusion of the $15 minimum wage was a proposal by Senate Budget Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont). After the budget parliamentarian ruled that the minimum wage increase couldn’t be voted on through budget reconciliation, Sanders announced a backup plan for the wage raise: implementing a tax on large corporations that didn’t pay their employees at least $15 an hour.

    But, as The Washington Post reports, Sanders and Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), who partnered with Sanders to push for the proposal, have now abandoned that idea after economists and tax experts warned that the proposed corporate tax is full of loopholes and would be difficult to implement. To skirt the tax, for instance, corporations could begin to classify their workers as contractors, they warned. And the proposal still may not raise the wages of the many minimum wage workers who don’t work for large corporations.

    It would also have been difficult to incorporate the proposal into the stimulus at such a late hour since it would need to be drafted and passed around lawmakers for their consideration. Key unemployment benefits are expiring on March 14, so the bill’s passing is on a tight deadline.

    The House passed the current version of the stimulus on Saturday and the Senate will begin to take up consideration of it this week. If senators offer amendments to the bill, the chamber may pass a different version, which would send it back to the House for another vote. The bill, with popular provisions such as the $1,400 direct relief payments, received zero Republican votes in the House.

    The failure to incorporate the $15 minimum wage into this stimulus isn’t only the fault of the complications of Sanders’s tax proposal. In fact, it was the moderate Democrats who had the power to decide whether or not to get the wage increase done soon.

    Democratic senators had a couple of options to implement the minimum wage proposal even after the parliamentarian ruled against it.

    As many progressives pointed out, the parliamentarian’s rule was not a binding ruling but rather a suggestion, since the parliamentarian doesn’t actually wield that sort of power. To get around it, Vice President Kamala Harris could have overruled the parliamentarian’s decision to allow a reconciliation vote on the wage increase anyway.

    A coalition of progressive representatives led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-California) sent a letter to Biden and Harris on Monday calling on Harris to overrule the parliamentarian and implement the $15 minimum wage anyway.

    “This ruling is a bridge too far” in sidelining progressive goals, Khanna said in a press release about the letter. “We’ve been asked, politely but firmly, to compromise on nearly all of our principles & goals. Not this time. If we don’t overrule the Senate parliamentarian, we are condoning poverty wages for millions of Americans.” The White House said last week that Harris was not going to disregard the parliamentarian’s ruling.

    But even if Harris did override the parliamentarian, however, the Democrats would still be faced with another problem: Senators Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona), who have vocally opposed the wage increase. Though it’s unclear whether or not they would have voted against the stimulus outright if Harris had kept the $15 minimum wage, they still stand as a roadblock to getting the wage increase passed in other ways, like abolishing the filibuster — which they also oppose.

    Because of certain Democrats’ unwillingness to buck procedure, some have argued that the blame for the current death of the $15 minimum wage falls squarely on the Democrats. “As long as Sinema and Manchin remain in opposition to it, it will be plainly and literally true that a $15 minimum wage increase is being blocked by Democrats,” writes The New Republic’s Osita Nwanevu.

    Biden’s press secretary, Jen Psaki, said on Sunday that Biden’s team is currently figuring out the best way forward for the wage proposal. “We’re going to have to spend the next several days or even weeks figuring out what the best path forward is,” said Psaki, “but he’s committed to doing that.” As Nwanevu pointed out, however, Biden is also partially at fault for the axing of the $15 wage from the stimulus since he, as the leader of the party, could help to convince Democrats like Sinema and Manchin to disregard procedure.

    Over the weekend, progressives expressed frustration over the current death of the $15 minimum wage, arguing that the failure to implement the proposal will lead to Democrats’ unseating in 2022.

    “We can’t go back to voters in two years and say, ‘you know what, we made you a promise — you delivered us the House, the White House, and the Senate — but a parliamentarian told us that we can’t do it,’” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington).

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Senate Budget Committee Chairman Sen. Bernie Sanders listens during a hearing on Capitol Hill on February 25, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    On Thursday, the Senate parliamentarian dealt a blow to Democratic and progressives hopes of passing a $15 federal minimum wage in the upcoming stimulus package, ruling that it did not fit under the budget reconciliation process. Senate Budget Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), however, a longtime champion of the $15 minimum wage, came prepared with a plan B.

    Shortly after the ruling, Sanders announced a proposal to take away tax deductions from big corporations that don’t pay their workers at least $15 an hour and provide small businesses with incentives to raise their employees’ wages. The Vermont senator wants to put this scheme in Biden’s stimulus package, which the House is scheduled to vote on on Friday — though the House version still has the $15 minimum wage that the parliamentarian struck out.

    “I strongly disagree with tonight’s decision by the Senate Parliamentarian,” Sanders said in a statement. “Because of the archaic and undemocratic rules of the Senate we are unable to move forward to end starvation wage in this country and raise the income of 32 million struggling Americans. That fight continues.” He vowed to work with Democratic colleagues to figure out alternative ways to work in the minimum wage increase.

    President Joe Biden, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and many other Democratic lawmakers have expressed their disappointment with the parliamentarian’s decision.

    Sanders apparently has Schumer’s ear on the issue, and other top Democrats are evidently looking into the proposal, including Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden (D-Oregon).

    Progressives are urging Vice President Kamala Harris to disregard the parliamentarian’s rule and allow for a reconciliation vote on the wage hike anyway. Representatives Ro Khanna (D-California) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) pointed out that the Constitution doesn’t grant the parliamentarian any power — rather, the parliamentarian is essentially an advisory role.

    Biden’s chief of staff, Ron Klain, however, has said that Harris will “certainly” not do that, adding to progressives’ frustrations.

    There is another procedural route that Democrats could take to keep the $15 minimum wage in the bill: They could simply fire the parliamentarian and replace her — a move that Republicans took in 2001 when they tried to push through a series of George W. Bush’s tax cuts. The parliamentarian at the time ruled that the tax cuts couldn’t be considered under reconciliation. Congress was, like today, split 50-50, so the Republicans, sensitive to their narrow majority, dismissed him and pushed through the tax cuts anyway.

    This idea has some support in Congress: Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) suggested the replacement of the parliamentarian on Thursday. “Abolish the filibuster. Replace the parliamentarian,” Omar tweeted. “What’s a Democratic majority if we can’t pass our priority bills? This is unacceptable.”

    Omar raises yet another way that Democrats could pass a wage raise without Republican support: abolishing the filibuster. Budget reconciliation, after all, was created as a way to avoid the filibuster, and Democrats and progressives have been calling to get rid of it for years. If the filibuster is abolished, Democrats could introduce the $15 minimum wage as a separate bill and pass it through with their simple majority.

    This option is the most far-fetched, since centrist Democrats like Senators Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona) have not only come out against the $15 minimum wage but also against the abolition of the filibuster. However, progressives argue that abolishing the filibuster is also crucial to a huge portion of the rest of the Democratic and progressive agendas like Medicare for All and taking bold steps to address the climate crisis.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Senate Budget Committee Chairman Sen. Bernie Sanders arrives for a hearing on Capitol Hill examining wages at large profitable corporations on February 25, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and several other Democratic lawmakers are lambasting a decision by the Senate parliamentarian, a nonpartisan referee in that legislative body, who determined on Thursday that a provision to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour in the COVID economic relief package does not align with the rules for the reconciliation process.

    But while Democrats appear upset over the decision, the party may be disunited on what path they should take next to raise the minimum wage.

    Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough determined that including the wage raise in the $1.9 trillion relief bill did not comport with Senate rules. If the provision is not included in the package, which is set to be voted on soon, any hopes for raising the wage to $15 an hour would require a standalone bill, pending no challenges come about to MacDonough’s decision.

    It would be harder to garner votes to pass a separate bill, as it would require 60 votes in the Senate to overcome threats of a filibuster from Republicans and even some centrist Democrats.

    In a statement regarding the decision by MacDonough, the White House said that President Joe Biden, who advocated for inclusion of the $15 minimum wage in the bill, was “disappointed,” but also believed Congress should “move quickly to pass” the relief package, which includes $1,400 payments to every American.

    Other Democratic leaders appeared to be expressing similar sentiments. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s statement about the decision showed no signs of plans to fight MacDonough’s conclusion.

    “We are deeply disappointed in this decision,” Schumer said. “We are not going to give up the fight to raise the minimum wage to $15 to help millions of struggling American workers and their families. The American people deserve it, and we are committed to making it a reality.”

    Sanders wrote in his own statement that he was in strong disagreement with the parliamentarian’s ruling, believing that the wage raise was in line with the rules of reconciliation.

    “The [Congressional Budget Office] made it absolutely clear that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour had a substantial budgetary impact and should be allowed under reconciliation,” he said in his statement.

    Sanders also pointed out that polling on the subject demonstrated Americans overwhelmingly want a $15 an hour minimum wage. With the president, the House, and possibly the Senate in agreement with the idea, there was no excuse not to pass it, he said.

    “Yet because of the archaic and undemocratic rules of the Senate we are unable to move forward to end starvation wages in this country and raise the income of 32 million struggling Americans,” Sanders added.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) also blasted the decision from the parliamentarian, writing in her own statement that the House would still pass a reconciliation bill with the wage raise included.

    “House Democrats believe that the minimum wage hike is necessary,” she said. “Therefore, this provision will remain in the American Rescue Plan on the Floor [on Friday].”

    Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) wrote a series of tweets criticizing the decision, too.

    “Let’s be clear: raising the minimum wage is COVID relief. The White House and Senate leadership can and should still include the minimum wage increase in the bill,” Jayapal said. “We can’t allow the advisory opinion of the unelected parliamentarian to stand in the way.”

    There are ways to get around the parliamentarian’s decision — indeed, Vice President Kamala Harris has the authority to overrule MacDonough’s conclusion. But so far, it’s unclear whether Harris will take that route or not, and the White House has not signaled what it plans to do on the matter. There has not been a move to overturn a Senate parliamentarian’s decision since the 1970s.

    Jayapal also called for reforms to the Senate as a result of the parliamentarian’s conclusion in the matter.

    “The ruling only makes it more clear that the Senate must reform its archaic rules, including reforming the filibuster to allow populist and necessary policies like the $15 minimum wage to pass with a majority of the Senate,” she said.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Trump is seen in the Cabinet Room of the White House on September 23, 2020, in Washington, D.C.

    Two Democratic lawmakers will introduce a bill that would strip former presidents of pension and other benefits if they were convicted of a felony — legislation that seems to be aimed directly at former President Donald Trump, who is presently the subject of numerous investigations.

    Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-New York) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) have authored the Restoring and Enforcing Accountability of Presidents (REAP) Act, which would change portions of the Former Presidents Act of 1958 by disallowing former chief executives of the $219,200 annual pension if they are convicted of a felony during or after leaving the White House. The bill would also revoke budget payments for other expenses like post-presidential staff or office space reimbursements.

    However, the bill would leave some benefits in place, including Secret Service protection for former presidents and their family, even if they’re convicted of a felony.

    The bill does not single out Trump by name, but it appears to be authored with him in mind, as he faces a number of different investigations presently in at least two states where he could be charged with a felony.

    In Georgia, Trump is under investigation for comments he made during a telephone conversation with Republican State Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Upset with the outcome of the presidential election in that state — current President Joe Biden won in Georgia by less than 12,000 votes — Trump pressured Raffensperger to find ways to alter the result, including a request to “find” the exact number of votes needed to overturn Biden’s win.

    It is a felony crime in Georgia for anyone to solicit, request or command another person to engage in election fraud.

    Trump also faces legal troubles in New York, where Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. is investigating whether the former president, who used to reside in the state, engaged in banking, insurance or tax fraud over the past decade.

    Vance has attempted to obtain tax records from Trump for the past 18 months in order to determine whether charges should be made against him. Trump’s legal team has tried to stop those records from reaching Vance’s office, and has sued to block their release two times all the way up to the United States Supreme Court.

    On Monday, the Court decided against hearing additional arguments from Trump’s lawyers. Later that day, Vance’s office received the tax records.

    Those records will not be released publicly, as they are bound to secrecy under grand jury investigation rules.

    During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump had promised that he would make his tax records accessible, as every major presidential candidate had done since the 1970s. Yet Trump never did, claiming that an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audit prevented him from releasing the records to the public. The IRS later clarified that audits wouldn’t prevent presidential candidates from sharing their tax records.

    Many have speculated on what Trump’s taxes might contain, including shady sources of income or the actual status of his wealth. Former Trump “fixer” lawyer Michael Cohen testified to Congress in 2019 that the former president’s banking and tax records would likely reveal fraudulent activity.

    “It was my experience that Mr. Trump inflated his total assets when it served his purposes and deflated his assets to reduce his real estate taxes,” Cohen said in February that year.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Protestors hold signs saying "Fight for $15" in front of McDonald's corporate headquarters.

    Fast food workers in 15 cities at chains like McDonald’s, Burger King and Wendy’s went on a Black History Month strike on Tuesday to protest low wages and demand a $15 per hour minimum wage. In some cities, the workers were also joined by fellow essential workers in home care and nursing homes to demand the right to join a union.

    “For decades, McDonald’s has made billions in profit off the backs of workers like me, paying us starvation wages,” Taiwanna Milligan, a McDonald’s worker from South Carolina, told The Guardian. “I’m striking today because I need at least $15 an hour to survive and because I know the only way to make change is to stand up, speak out and demand it.”

    A $15 an hour wage has become a benchmark among the left since the national Fight for 15 movement began with striking food workers in 2012. Since then, a $15 federal minimum wage has gone from a fringe demand to a mainstream sentiment, gaining the support of traditionally centrist President Joe Biden, who wrote it into his COVID stimulus proposal, and most Americans, polls find. Even Floridians, who voted for Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election, voted to raise the minimum wage in the state to $15 on the same ballot.

    The current federal minimum wage is $7.25. It has not changed in nearly 12 years, which is the longest it’s ever gone without being raised. With inflation, it’s worth 17 percent less than it was when it was first raised to $7.25 an hour in 2009; meanwhile, the cost of living has gone up nearly 20 percent in that same period.

    Research has shown that a minimum wage increase to $15 an hour would be a huge boon to Americans and the economy, lifting the wages of 32 million workers, including nearly 60 percent of workers whose total family incomes are below the poverty line, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). It would particularly be helpful for Black and Latino workers, who are on average paid less than white workers, EPI says.

    The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report last week that was more conservative and estimated that the wage increase would benefit 17 million workers. The CBO also said in the report that the raise would cost jobs, which many Republicans have since used as a bulwark against increasing the minimum wage. Economists and progressives, however, have disputed their findings.

    A new report has also shown that Biden’s stimulus package, with a $15 minimum wage, stimulus checks and tax credits, would increase the incomes of the poorest 20 percent of families in the country by nearly 33 percent.

    However, Biden has said that the minimum wage hike will likely not make it into the stimulus proposal, despite wide support. Republicans have remained staunchly against the proposal.

    One of the fast food workers striking on Tuesday said that it was important for Biden to not give up on the minimum wage proposal. “My message to President Biden is it’s very important to pass this, it would make a big difference not just for me but for all the others that are struggling,” Texas McDonald’s worker Gloria Machuca told The Guardian.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), chair of the budget committee, has also said that the proposal is essential and has been working on keeping the minimum wage increase in the stimulus, which is poised to pass Congress with a simple majority via budget reconciliation.

    “I stand in strong solidarity with fast food workers all over this country who are going on strike today to demand $15 an hour and a union,” Sanders said on Tuesday. Sanders’s call for solidarity was echoed by fellow progressives like Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington).

    Sanders continued, saying that “The Senate must raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour with 51 votes this year. We have got to end the crisis of starvation wages in America.” Sanders also said earlier this month that he has a “room full of lawyers” working on keeping the proposal in the stimulus.

    Though the $15 minimum wage increase has been championed by the progressive movement, many on the left also say that a $15 federal minimum wage is not enough. Research has shown that if the minimum wage had kept up with productivity, it would be over $24 today. And MIT researchers found last year that a basic living wage in the U.S. for 2019 needed to be at least $16.54 an hour.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Richard Neal stands by as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi speaks at a news conference in the Capitol Visitor Center on July 24, 2020.

    On Monday night, the House Ways and Means Committee released legislation that rejected moderate Democrats’ and Republicans’ proposal to further target the stimulus checks. The legislation keeps the income threshold where it was in President Joe Biden’s original draft of the stimulus at $75,000 for an individual to receive the full amount.

    In the draft legislation, released by committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-Massachusetts), individuals earning less than $75,000 a year and couples earning $150,000 a year will receive checks for the full amount of $1,400. This is the same threshold as was used in the case of the $600 stimulus checks in December.

    In the past weeks, Democrats have been considering lowering the threshold for receiving the checks to those earning $50,000 a year, which is what Republicans had proposed in their pared down version of the stimulus. On the Democratic side, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia), in particular, seemed to have been a vocal proponent of further targeting the checks, and even proposed an amendment with Republican Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) during last week’s “vote-a-rama” to make sure that higher income earners wouldn’t receive the checks.

    Evidently, to Manchin, people making over $50,000 are earning too much to benefit from the checks. “An individual of $40,000 income or $50,000 income would receive it…. And a family who is making $80,000 or $100,000, not to exceed $100,000, would receive it,” Manchin said recently. “Anything over that would not be eligible, because they are the people who really are hurting right now and need the help the most.”

    Many progressives, Democrats and Americans disagreed with the idea that an income of over $50,000 was too much to benefit from the checks — one person told CNBC that lowering the income qualification from $75,000 to $50,000 felt like a “targeted attack” on the middle class. Polls show that, among the public, limiting the checks at $75,000 was more popular than limiting them at $50,000. Lowering the threshold to $50,000, CNN reported, would mean that 29 million fewer people would get the checks this time around.

    Meanwhile, progressives like Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) have been strongly opposed to the idea of lowering the income threshold. Jayapal told Washington Post reporter Jeff Stein that she’s been in “nonstop” conversations with the White House to prevent further targeting. “The idea we should cave to one Democrat” — that Democrat being Manchin — “in the Senate does not make any sense to me,” she said.

    Many have pointed out that, if the goal of the White House was for the checks from this stimulus and the last stimulus to add up to $2,000 as Biden has said, it didn’t make sense to give some Americans $600 and then not give them the $1,400.

    Monday’s legislation also specified that the eligibility for the checks could be determined based on 2020 tax filings, even if they haven’t fully been processed yet. This may have been in response to pushback from people like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) who tweeted over the weekend: “The pandemic hit in 2020. We should not use 2019 income to determine relief eligibility.”

    For his part, Manchin did not seem upset to hear the news that Democrats had kept the original income threshold, saying that, “We’re just trying to make sure that people are truly in need,” The Washington Post’s Erica Warner tweets. Manchin has come under fire before for his waffling over the stimulus checks and progressives have threatened to primary him if he continues to push back on Democratic and progressive agendas.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Ilhan Omar speaks during a press conference on August 5, 2020, in St Paul, Minnesota.

    As talks of compromise and unity in Washington pose the possibility of reshaping a proposed coronavirus economic package, progressives in Congress are sounding off on President Joe Biden’s apparent willingness to change income threshold requirements that would significantly curtail who receives stimulus checks.

    Biden has said he will not change his mind on the amount to be paid out, holding a firm line at $1,400 per eligible person. But in trying to court Republicans in Congress to support the eventual bill, which is currently going through the budget reconciliation process, he has signaled an openness to lowering the income threshold for eligibility to receive the checks.

    According to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, while Biden is unwilling to set the threshold at $50,000 per individual (or $100,000 per married couple), he may be willing to push the eligibility threshold below $75,000 per individual, which was the standard for previous stimulus bills during the pandemic.

    “I think the details can be worked out. And the president is certainly willing to work with Congress to find a good structure for these payments,” Yellen said.

    The Treasury Secretary has also said she doesn’t believe that Biden would dip the threshold to affect anyone earning under $60,000 per year.

    “If you think about an elementary school teacher or a policeman making $60,000 a year and faced with children who are out of school and people who may have had to withdraw from the labor force in order to take care of them and many extra burdens, the president thinks, and I would certainly agree, that it’s appropriate for people there to get support,” Yellen explained over the weekend on CNN’s “State of the Union” program.

    Several progressive Democrats in Congress are outraged, however, by the consideration to lower the income threshold. Doing so, they’ve pointed out, would likely hurt the very people that the coronavirus economic relief packages are intended to help, since the eligibility is based on people’s income from tax returns that were filed before the pandemic started.

    “‘Targeting’ survival checks further is cruel & bad policy,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) wrote on Sunday, pointing out that, according to Census data, 45 percent of households earning up to $150,000 have lost income during the pandemic. Another 25 percent of households earning that much or less, she added, are expecting to lose more income over the next four weeks.

    “When you use 2019 tax data to determine eligibility thresholds, you are simply missing the point. The crisis started in 2020, and people need help NOW,” Jayapal added.

    Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) also blasted the notion of lowering income limits for eligibility. She further expressed doubts that doing so would earn Biden the bipartisan support that he appears to be aiming for.

    “Cutting the income cap will poison this bill,” Omar tweeted. “It already lacks Republicans support and will lose Progressive support.”

    In addition to the concerns expressed by Jayapal and Omar, other Democrats noted that certain parts of the country could be hit harder by the tighter income threshold standards, including places where the cost of living is greater.

    “These lower income thresholds would leave behind struggling individuals and families in regions where the costs are very high,” a letter to Biden from 50 Democrats opposed to such moves said.

    Moreover, dozens of lawmakers, including Jayapal and Omar, are critical of this plan to disburse another round of one-time payments for the reason that they don’t believe it will help families through the remainder of the crisis. Instead, they are calling on Biden to support monthly disbursements to help people during the remainder of the pandemic.

    “$2,000 a MONTH. To EVERY American,” Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-New York) recently tweeted.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.