Folks, this proposal to drastically narrow the window of people who’d qualify for bailout checks is terrible. It is bad politics. It is bad policy. It just gives certain legislators a chance to peacock around for a tiny audience of lazy opinion writers who have no concept of policy as a thing that affects people in the real world.
Yes, call your Senators. If you live in West Virginia then call Joe Manchin twice. If you don’t live in West Virginia then please don’t; you’ll just waste time and annoy his staff. Tell them to just give everyone the damn money. The top 1% is by definition just 1% of the population, so it won’t do a thing to the bill’s bottom line to give them an equal share.
NCSteve
Pfft. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from being inside stories about legislation is that when the press says legislators or the executive “are considering” a thing, it’s bullshit fed to them by someone who doesn’t actually know what’s going and what’s actually being considered.
taumaturgo
“Try explaining to the millions who will end up with less why this was done, why White House economists sided with the Chamber of Commerce and the president decided to break a campaign promise while attracting no Republican support for his plan.”
—David Dayen, The American Prospect
Kristine
I emailed my senators (Durbin and Duckworth) and left a phone message for my rep, Brad Schneider, to just send the checks.
hueyplong
@taumaturgo: That is remarkably stupid.
Chetan Murthy
Called Feinstein’s SF office; got a very nice and helpful young man. He also told me Padilla’s office has a form up for contacting the senator, so I did that too.
Thanks for the nudge, Tim F!
Baud
When you’ve lost LGM.
My own reaction wasn’t as strong, which is unusual.
Martin
Already done. Chris Hayes gave a nice beatdown to the proposal in an interview with Tim Kaine. Basing the checks on 2019 income, before everyone lost their jobs is stupid. Send it to everyone and then tax it back in 2021. Not only do you get relief to the people who lost their jobs in the pandemic (sorta the point of the whole thing) but you get the economic boost up front.
Here’s the video.
SpongeBobtheBuilder
I also just called my senators (Durbin and Duckworth). You can’t call Durbin, just fill out a form, but the young man in Duckworth’s office was glad to hear from me. I mean, they always are, but he really did sound like he was happy to give her some support for a position she already holds.
ciotogist
What a great way to convince all those new suburban Democrats that the party doesn’t give a shit about them!
The Moar You Know
Means testing government benefits of any kind builds resentment of any and all government benefits. There has never been a worse idea. Just don’t do it.
Kristine
@SpongeBobtheBuilder: Ah, sugarbits, I should’ve tried to call. I assumed they’d be email-only.
MJS
I need some help with the process here. My understanding is that the House has already passed a bill. If the Senate were to take this foolish step, wouldn’t it have to go back to the House for their agreement? If so, such agreement doesn’t seem likely, meaning this gets dragged out. So Joe gets to take the blame for not only smaller checks, but checks that are delayed.
This seems really, really stupid, which makes me wonder if it has any basis in reality. What would Joe’s rationale be for agreeing to this, when he’s been all “go big or go home” up to this point?
Baud
@The Moar You Know:
None of the COVID checks have ever been universal. They were always means tested. The problem with this one is that for many people their income has dropped since their last tax return.
ETA: As Martin mentions above.
Another Scott
@NCSteve: My quick scan of the RawStory and HuffPo stories lead me to the same conclusion. Unnamed staffers and people who say that Biden “seems” to be thinking this or that.
Biden knows how the sausage is made. He’s not going to make a dramatic change (like changing the eligibility limits from the earlier levels) unless he gets something big in return. It’s not at all clear what that thing in return would be since it’s clear that the GOP won’t vote for anything.
This may all be kabuki to keep nervous Democrats from thinking that they need to change the plan by letting them hear from fired up constituents. And/Or maybe it’s to keep people fired up in general (“make me do it”) so that the plan passes quicker.
People calling is good. We don’t want elected Democrats only listening to folks in their bubble.
Cheers,
Scott.
David ??Merry Christmas?? Koch
@Baud:
@Baud:
Shit. I wish I had came up with that phrase, first. It’s a perfect encapsulation.
Baud
@Another Scott: I agree with this take.
Martin
@MJS: This is an inside the party issue. This is what’s happening to get to 50. Some dem senator(s) are the source of this.
Chetan Murthy
@Martin: I read Manchin quoted as saying this. Ah, well. He’s no Shelley Moore Capito, thank goodness.
Ruckus
@NCSteve:
Very likely the idea. Someone who wants to remain nameless, and does not want to be associated with just giving people money – a republican, puts this out there and now everyone has to talk about how we have to do this, blah, blah, blah for what, 4 weeks, and then offer a compromise of, what was the magic number, $600 and saves the day.
When has it ever happened that Joe Biden has changed course almost completely and decided that he has to turn one of his signature policy ideas completely around and discuss it for weeks in order to destroy any and all concept of it’s need?
I smell something, and it smells like dead rat, lying on a pile of bullshit.
p.a.
If I didn’t have the example of 2009 etc to look back at I’d say this was a joke, but there are Geithners everywhere.
David ??Merry Christmas?? Koch
I think calls are good.
that said, any article from Common Dreams using the dumbest segments of affluent lefty Twitter (Sirota, Matt Bruenig, etc.) makes me think, in the immortal words of Admiral Ackbar, “it’s a trap”
Another Scott
@Martin: Thanks for the pointer. It’s worth a click.
From Kaine’s discussion, it sounds like they’re determined to have the bill be $1.9T. Maybe they need/want to shuffle some of the money around (e.g. lower max income for checks to pay for higher SNAP benefits). Maybe that makes sense.
But it just sounds like “discussions” at the moment. (Of course, they have to have “discussions” before they actually decide to do something…) And if they need to have those “discussions” to get 50 Senators on board, to do the horse trading to enable everyone to claim victory, then discuss away.
People should still speak up.
An instructive tweet:
Click on through to see her discussion.
tl;dr – Politics is a process. Incremental progress is the way forward, while fighting for every thing we can get along the way.
Cheers,
Scott.
Benw
I called Schumer and Gillibrand and told them to just cut the checks or I’d write-in vote for AOC in the primaries! Showed those damn liberals
chopper
@Martin:
also, the payments get processed fast. everyone gets it! and you have tons of time to claw back bits of it after the fact
lowtechcyclist
Called my Rep and both my Senators this morning about this. Told the phone answerers that they should give everyone a check, and claw it back from the rich on their 2021 taxes when they come due next spring, that using pre-pandemic income to determine who gets a check is ridiculous.
I’ll call ’em again tomorrow. I can be persistent like that.
WaterGirl
Dick Durbin’s office said they are having high call volume and to call back. I did leave a message for Tammy Duckworth.
Damn, that’s an annoying recorded response for Duckworth – they make you sit through EVERYTHING, how to get COVID information, what to do if you have a medical question, blah blah blah. So very annoying, no opportunity to press a number in order to leave a message. I barely had the patience to sit through it all. I guess that cuts down on call volume!
And they insisted that you leave every bit of information about who you are, address, phone, etc so they can call back. I don’t want them to call me back, I just want them to make a tic mark on a piece of paper.
Van Buren
Crisis averted. I just sent a sternly worded letter to Schumer.
O. Felix Culpa
Hmm, a story that relies on people like Matt Bruenig and David Sirota somehow doesn’t pass the smell test. That said, it’s always a good idea to let your legislators know what you want them to do. I suspect this is one of those trial balloons that deflates and disappears before any real legislation gets proposed. It was floated to pretend that Biden & co. care about budget hawks and bipartisanship. Biden is way more savvy than people give him credit for.
Shorter: stay calm and call your congresscritters.
artem1s
@Baud:
there is an avenue to appeal. the previous year income measure was used to determine if you received an automatic deposit into the account you used for your tax return in 2019. you can also appeal on your 2020 return if your income changed over the course of the year and you didn’t qualify in March 2020 because your 2019 income put you over the $70K gross limit. Using the 2019 returns lets them put the money in more peoples hands faster. Once the automatic payments are processed they start reviewing the returns and appeals of those who had a change in income or those who didn’t use electronic transfer for their 2018/19 return.
waratah
The senate has been passing amendments so far Republican amendments. Joe Manchin offered one with co Susan Collins on the $1400 checks with restrictions. It passed with one no vote I don’t know who it was. The most fun was Senator Brown picking up a microphone and yelling at Rand Paul to put his mask on while in the chamber. I think Paul was trying to cause a disruption but he left quickly.
Baud
Michael Beschloss continues to kick ass.
moops
I gave the CA Senators a note about my preferences.
WaterGirl
@Baud: On twitter? Or elsewhere?
Baud
@WaterGirl:
MSNBC.
Brachiator
@Martin:
Bullshit.
Sending everyone a check is too goddam expensive. You also fuck over lower income taxpayers.
The current tax law lets most people adjust for amounts on their 2020 tax return.
There are also specific rules to let people take advantage of the fact that 2020 income is lower.
For example. A moderate income family had Earned Income in 2019 and had an Earned Income Credit. In 2020 they had the same dependents but a drop in income and some unemployment compensation. They can “look back” and use 2019 earned income and use the higher amount to get a higher earned income credit.
Sending out a check and taxing it reduces the net amount of income moderate income people might have.
Example. Married couple with 2 kids and income of 45,000. Let’s say they didn’t even file in 2018 or 2019. In 2020 they get refundable credits and $5800 in stimulus payments for a total of $9517 in the pocket to spend. Give them a taxable stimulus of $5800 and they lose most of their refundable credits and end up with $1800 in their pocket.
$9517 vs $1800. Just so that people can say “send money to everybody.” Other people would end up with tax balances.
Yeah, you could Rube Goldberg this shit to re-write the tax code to avoid some problems.
But right now, getting tax free money out to a good chunk of people is a cleaner way to do this.
You put more people in more people’s hands.
Which is the whole point.
SiubhanDuinne
@WaterGirl:
He was just on MSNBC a few minutes ago. Maybe elsewhere, I don’t know.
WaterGirl
@SiubhanDuinne: @Baud:
Oh, okay. I checked his twitter feed and hadn’t seen anything, so that makes sense.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@O. Felix Culpa: I quit reading when I saw the words David Dayen.
God help me, but put me on the side of Governor Beaufort T Justice or Boss Hogg or whatever the head magoo in Charleston calls himself.
Brachiator
@Baud:
Not as much a problem as people want to believe. The Recovery Rebate worksheet lets people use 2020 income to recompute the credit. Even lets them account for a baby born in 2020 after the first checks were sent out.
The tax bill also lets people use 2019 to figure certain credits, if this would give them a higher amount.
Unlike a lot of stuff posted here, the law, even though a bit creaky, actually helps a lot of people, especially lower income taxpayers.
What needs to be opposed are attempts to lower the total amount of the next check, or to lower the income threshold for people receiving checks.
Some conservatives have suggested lowering the threshold to $40,000. This would be cruel.
Some WaPo article that floated around earlier suggested that people earning more than the equivalent of $32 an hour saved their checks rather than spent them. This suggests that the threshold should be at least $66,560. But I am not sure if the WaPo article made a distinction for filing status, which might then reasonably make the threshold at least $133,120 for a married couple.
But here I would say the threshold should be higher, since even a lot of supposedly higher income people have take hits and have had to make adjustments.
Barbara J
Just called Schumer and Gillibrand. FDR knew what he was doing when he said give Social Security to everyone. Means testing is NOT a good idea.
Brachiator
@Barbara J:
Calculations of payments is means tested. Taxability of distributions is means tested.
sab
Give everybody a check, and then reclaim it with taxes policy in April. Rich people know how this works. If your income collapsed in 2020 (hospitality and restaurant workers, anyone in travel, dentists, hairdressers, anyone in most retail, airline people, musicians, actors, most of the gig economy, landlords) you need help. Everyone else whose income didn’t suffer (you know who you are) can just sit on their check and expect their tax return to eat it. This shouldn’t be this hard to understand or to implement.
Just One More Canuck
@NCSteve: not to mention this uproar is being led by such luminaries as David Sirota and Matt Bruenig
randy khan
I have contacted both of my Senators, who generally are good but are potentially susceptible to this nonsense.
Any other Virginians who haven’t done so already probably should do the same.
randy khan
@Brachiator:
When even Republican governors are saying it’s better to overshoot than undershoot, my answer is that anything that covers fewer people than the last check is going in the wrong direction.
Brachiator
@sab:
Not hard to understand, but it may be bad tax policy
burnspbesq
Call my Senators?
I’m sure we can count on Cruz and Cornyn to do the right thing.
Brachiator
@randy khan:
I noted above at #35 how just sending out a taxable check screws over many low income people.
What are you trying to accomplish?
dfh
I emailed my senators (Durbin and Duckworth) and will call in the morning.
Subsole
@David ??Merry Christmas?? Koch:
Patreon proletariat
Subsole
@David ??Merry Christmas?? Koch:
Dude, if it’s coming from Sirota, pitch it in the trash.
Guy’s an outrage farmer.
Subsole
@O. Felix Culpa:
Yeah, but now the online ecosystem that wants Biden to fail so they can smugly preen about how you shoulda picked Bernie has their talking points.
By next week they’ll be spinning shit about how Biden has already betrayed us even worse than that uppit- erm, neorlibral Obama.
The online left exists to fracture our coalition and depress turnout. That’s it. It’s ammo for the ratfuckers.
Subsole
@Just One More Canuck:
The same David Sirota who was on Bernie’s election staff while posing as a disinterested journalist while penning articles about Bernie’s primary opponents?
That shining exemplar of the Revolution?
Subsole
@burnspbesq:
Oh, totally. Especially after the voters, in our bottomless wisdom, sent the sneaky bastards back to Austin for another term.
LOLsob
different-church-lady
I mean, am I the only one who thinks if you’re currently making 70k a year you don’t really need pandemic relief/survival checks?
I’ll repeat: the first $1200 bucks meant next to nothing to me. The expanded unemployment, on the other hand, kept me alive during my industry shut-down. If things keep going the way they have been so far this year, I won’t even be touching the newest unemployment relief extended money. Not gonna bother me a bit to target the money better. Give every grocery worker in the damn country $1800 and everyone above that $600. Make some sense here.
different-church-lady
@Subsole: At this point they don’t even care about Bernie anymore. They just want to be right about how evil they told everyone Biden is. Because they’ve completely lost the plot.
Another Scott
@Brachiator: You make a good point that extra money can have undesired effects. I was worried about the original rescue check affecting benefits for my autistic brother.
But can’t they simply put language in the bill, like they did last time, “This $1400 payment will not be counted as income in determining eligibility for means-tested benefits”, or something similar?
The guys and gals who write the tax laws know what’s in it. It’s not an unsolvable problem, and they should be able to do it pretty easily now (since it will be the 3rd time that the “checks” go out).
Cheers,
Scott.