Biden limits eligibility for stimulus payments under pressure from moderate Senate Democrats

[BumRushDaShow]

Last edited Wed Mar 3, 2021, 12:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Washington Post

President Biden has agreed to narrow eligibility for a new round of $1,400 stimulus payments in his $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill, under pressure from moderate Senate Democrats who’ve pushed for more “targeted” spending in the bill. Under the new structure, the checks would phase out faster for those at higher income levels, compared to the way the direct payments were structured in Biden’s initial proposal and the version of the bill passed by the House on Saturday.

The new structure would phase out checks for individuals making $80,000 a year and above and couples making $160,000 a year, or higher. The original proposal, which is included in the bill that passed the House, had phased out the payments for individuals making $75,000 a year and couples who made $200,000 a year. The changes were confirmed by a Democratic aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations.

The change comes as the Senate prepares to take an initial procedural vote to move forward on the bill as early as Wednesday afternoon. Biden and Senate Democratic leaders are scrambling to keep their caucus united since they can’t lose a single Democrat in the 50-50 Senate with Republicans united against the legislation. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) was among those who had called for changing the eligibility levels for checks, telling reporters this week: “I think we could drop it below the $200,000 and still get households that really need it.” She said she would hope to redirect the savings from that change toward other needs, such as hospitals.

Narrowing eligibility for the stimulus checks was just one change moderates like Shaheen and Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) had been seeking. Several were also eyeing changing the structure of federal unemployment benefits in the bill, to keep them at $300 -- their current level -- rather than raise them to $400 as proposed by Biden and passed by the House. That change will not be adopted by Senate Democrats, the aide said.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/03/biden-limits-eligibility-stimulus-payments-under-pressure-moderate-senate-democrats/

---

Original article -

By Washington Post Staff
March 3, 2021 at 11:01 a.m. EST

The plan would phase out the $1,400 payments faster for higher-income individuals after moderate Senate Democrats pushed for more “targeted” spending. The change comes as the Senate prepares to move forward with an initial procedural vote on President Biden’s $1.9 trillion relief bill.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

[jimfields33]

1. Oh boy.....

Honestly 50K for single and 75k for married was brought up before. I hope those aren’t the new maximums. I think that affects a lot of households. These may not be the final numbers but we’re mentioned awhile back.

[EarlG]

3. Looks like it's 80K for single and 160K for couples

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215180731

[jimfields33]

8. Thanks! That's not bad.

[George II]

11. Right. That's actually higher than in the past, which was $75/$150. To be honest I wish....

....there was a better way to do "means testing", but that would overly complicate things.

[dsc]

12. No it isn't

those figures is when the phase out started not when it ended. The starting point is still the same the phase out is faster.

[speak easy]

2. Why would Joe Biden do this? A: Because Manchin was set to sink the Bill.

As in - he would would definitely vote against it.

How to we move forward - blame the culprits - the GOP - building the case for 2022. They are in favor of $0 for everyone.

The one person who is not blame, is President Biden.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. I recall this idea being floated while the bill was still being drafted in the House

I.e., the phase-down of the amount for incomes greater than $75,000 (singles), etc., where the $1,400 amount drops more precipitously (going to $0) than previously.

[speak easy]

6. As I understand the math

Someone will be able to say, I got $600 from Trump, and nothing from Biden. He promised in Georgia I would get $2,000 all up. He broke his promise because the Democrats think I'm rich.

Edit - Scrub that. The upper limit is 80K, so someone who got $600, would get something.

[BumRushDaShow]

15. I don't remember what the upper limit was the last go around

when it hit $0. But I think they wanted to ramp it down faster this go-around.

Whatever the Senate decides as a change to the bill (with the "vote-a-rama" on amendments) will need to be reconciled with the original bill passed by the House, so they are going to have to form a Joint House/Senate committee to come up with some "final" version once the Senate is done with theirs - and then BOTH chambers will need to vote on that at some point.

So we are still going through the sausage-making at this point.

[artemisia1]

72. Exactly. President Biden is doing everything he can in a country where nearly half the voters

think someone like Former President Trump was the Greatest of All Time. I trust Pres. Biden to ultimately prevail in his battles for us; it just takes some times and SUCCESSFUL MIDTERM ELECTIONS -- which is up to US.

[AleksS]

75. And also, as much as it feels good to blame Manchin,

Don't forget that EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN is voting against it. Every single republican is equally to blame as Manchin. And they're even WORSE because they won't vote for ANYTHING; at least Manchin will vote for something and caucuses (D).

Manchin ain't great, but the REAL enemies are EVERY SINGLE (R). The only ones who win by us attacking Manchin, are the R's. Not only do they split us, but they get to enjoy watching us attack our own while they're the ones doing 100x worse!

Any attack on Manchin could equally, and even more validly be applied to each and every single (R) Senator, so don't lose focus!

[Trueblue1968]

77. Because Manchin was set to sink the Bill. Is he being rewarded in some way?

[OhZone]

5. The problem is that -

160K for a couple would make you rich beyond your dreams in some places, but lower middle class in others.

[MANative]

7. And if based on previous year's tax return, circumstances could change dramatically

With those numbers, we won't get anything, but our income was reduced by about 30% this year. Won't kill us not to get it, but it would certainly help.

[dhill926]

10. yep...my income will be down probably 80% this year...

luckily wife's will remain the same. Still...

[dsc]

13. that problem delays the money it doesn't cause you not to get the money

you get it upon filing your taxes for 2020 if you need to use that income to qualify for the checks.

[WA-03 Democrat]

73. One size does not fit all

Bay Area (SFO metro) $160k per year to get close to a safe neighborhood and good schools is not happening. Saving for a down payment on a house...good luck.

Louisville, KY with $160k you are doing well.

Portland, OR on $160k small house fine but would need that money.

If it was just about money, then republicans would agree that checks should only go to states that Biden won. I would love Joe just to have one “Trump” day to really throw it back to them with interest. He could level it all in 24hrs. This is pure fantasy but would it not be glorious? It’s a fantasy so no Democratic Party members are hurt for living in a red state

[Martin68]

83. I'm afraid I can't see how 160K would make you lower middle class any place.

If you make that much, you can afford to find a job someplace cheaper and move. If you work in Manhattan and can't afford it, move to New Jersey and commute.

[TomCADem]

9. The Question Is What Will The Money Be Spent on Instead?

I am not a fan of a one time payment would rather support extended unemployment benefits, plus measures to ensure that schools can reopen safely in the fall. Also, why not start repairing infrastructure and fixing the ACA after years of Trump sabotage and expanding Medicaid, particularly in the midst of a pandemic?

[BumRushDaShow]

18. I just added the update to the OP and this was mentioned --

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) was among those who had called for changing the eligibility levels for checks, telling reporters this week: “I think we could drop it below the $200,000 and still get households that really need it.” She said she would hope to redirect the savings from that change toward other needs, such as hospitals.

[TomCADem]

24. Great minds think alike!

Nt

[llmart]

33. Just having extended unemployment benefits alone without a one time payment...

would eliminate a whole hell of a lot of us seniors who are retired. My income last year as a single retired person is less than $20,000.

[gab13by13]

14. Pass the fucking bill,

the more it gets dicked around the more it gets picked apart. The MSM is already questioning it. Let's go, and then move on to infrastructure. Manchin got his minimum wage removed let's vote.

[Yavin4]

54. And the harder it gets to get the public to comply with public health measures.

The more relief people get. The more likely they will stay at home.

[nevergiveup]

16. I am okay with this

We need to get this done!!!!!!

[ForgoTheConsequence]

17. How many people will have gotten checks under Trump?

Who will now get nothing under Biden? Not good for the midterms.

[gab13by13]

19. Zero under Trump,

all Republicans are voting against the reduced payments.

[Autumn]

20. Big mistake. A lot of people have seen their incomes drop.

[rolypolychloe]

21. If the whole point is to stimulate the economy,

the money should go to people who will spend it right away at stores, and not to catch up on rent/mortgage or car payments. It also shouldn't go to people like myself, that have not had the rug pulled out from under them, and would just bank the money in case things go south this year. Instead of direct deposit, they should be sent debit cards that are only good at stores, preferably local stores.

[niyad]

84. Then donate your unneeded check to a local food bank. That will benefit the local economy.

Dictating how other people should spend their money is not exactly something we do.

[rolypolychloe]

85. I like my suggestion better

Donating to a food bank, while helpful, does not stimulate the economy. Debit cards are a better idea, though not mine. They used debit cards in several towns in Japan, that were only good in local stores. Did great things for the town economies. So, instead of going to a food bank, staffed with volunteers, you go to the local grocery store which employs numerous paid workers plus delivery people.

The reason I don't think the stimulus money should be used to retire debt, is that I don't think it is anywhere near enough. If you haven't been paying rent/mortgage/car payments for a year, that $1400 isn't going to go very far at all. What, maybe a month or two of debt? What is desperately needed is a job, and getting the local economy back on its feet is the quickest way to get a job.

[niyad]

86. So giving money to the food bank, which will use it to buy groceries and goods, is NOT

stimulating the economy, but your plan, dictating how others MUST spend their money, does?? Am I understanding this correctly?

[rolypolychloe]

87. Apparently not

Small businesses employ the most people. That has always been the case. If people take the stimulus check and buy everything on Amazon, it does nothing for the small businesses in your town. If you buy everything from Walmart, it will help a little, but do nothing to get all those small businesses in your town back open. I don't know about where you live, but my downtown area is a ghost town. If you give money to a food bank, I would assume they buy from a wholesaler, likely no where near your town, and your local economy does not benefit.

If the purpose of the money is to stimulate the economy, I don't think it is unreasonable use it in a way that optimizes job creation. Amazon and Walmart don't need any help. Local businesses do.

[niyad]

88. Pretty sure that the bill is not just about businesses. And however you dress it up, your plan is

all about telling people how to spend their money. Under your plan, nobody could use THEIR money to buy groceries, since very few of us live near a local market (and my farmers' market will not open til June).

Will your plan also tell businesses how to spend their relief money?

As a mater of curiosity, how are you going to program these control/debit cards? Will each individual neighborhood have a list of approved stores (and who will approve them?). And how much of a delay in getting desperately-needed RELIEF to people and businesses is this going to take? I remember reading here about the fustercluck of some getting debit cards for the last relief payment. Are you okay with that?

[gab13by13]

22. This bill is a big fucking deal,

it is 1.9 trillion dollars. There are a lot more benefits in this bill for the working class. Let's quit nitpicking it and get it passed.
Let's let Republicans explain why the bill is so bad they don't need any help from Democrats. Pass it now.

[JohnSJ]

37. +++. What I think we are going to see is republicans throw a whole slew of draconian

amendments which most if not all will get voted down, whose sole purpose is to delay the relief package, and effectively hurt Americans who need the help

If that happens, hopefully there is something that can be done to prevent too much of a delay because of this "vote-a-rama" possibility

[obamanut2012]

23. Please ETLI5

If someone single makes, say, $60K, will they get the entire amount or like half of it? One of my staff members is freaking out a but, because she was going to use the $1,400 for much needed dental surgery insurance doesn't cover.

[BumRushDaShow]

26. I think anyone (singles) making $75,000 or less will be fine for the full amount

and then the amount gets reduced for those reporting over $75,000, where it apparently cuts off (goes to $0) once one hits $80,000 (for singles).

[obamanut2012]

27. I read it that way, too, but other folks here are saying the phase out starts at 50K

So, confusing AF!

[BumRushDaShow]

28. There may be various versions of that provision being floated around

and until they finalize it in a piece of legislation that will be voted on, we really won't know AND.... Remember that whatever the Senate passes is now going to be different from the original House version, so they are going to have to go through this negotiation once again to get a single "version" for a vote by BOTH chambers (unless the House is willing to vote on the Senate version lock, stock and barrel).

So they are still "sausage-making" right now.

[obamanut2012]

29. Right

We live in one of the most expensive areas of the USA, red state, very blue area, where 60K is nothing. She is a single mom whose ex moved out the USA a few years ago to avoid paying child support. She has been putting off this surgery until the next stimulus, so she is really upset. Hopefully, it all works out.

[BumRushDaShow]

30. If she has dependents they should be eligible too ($1,400 per dependent)

at least that was in the original bill - https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/covid-19-relief-bill-heres-how-much-you-could-get-in-stimulus-checks-child-tax-breaks/

(that's not counting the tax credit increase for dependents)

So if they left the dependents checks alone, she should technically get that...

[obamanut2012]

34. I know her, and she won't spend that on herself

She will spend it on her kid, but I got what you mean.

[JohnSJ]

38. That is exactly right

[yaesu]

25. This will slow the implementation of the payout by weeks probably because they will need to check

everyone's income.

[jalan48]

31. Moderates? There's that messaging again that keeps the country in the same rut.

[BumRushDaShow]

32. I.e., "Democratic Senators elected in red states".

I was actually surprised (but maybe not) to see Jeanne Shaheen now jumping into this debate (along with the usual Manchin & Sinema).

Of course the distaff side of "Democratic Senators elected in red states" might be Warnock and Ossoff (although GA barely went "blue" for the Presidential)...

(edited to include the correct NH Senator!)

[jalan48]

36. Hard to believe the citizens of red states don't want a larger stimulus check. My guess is that

the wealthy and the big corporations don't want to see their taxes raised to pay for it. That's why some of our Congressional members support the lower amount. They can't say this though.

[BumRushDaShow]

42. As long as we have no campaign finance reform

and big corporations, as well as hidden dark PACs fund the candidates, they don't care what their constituents want.

I wish that reform had happened after Citizen's United because that court case basically killed McCain-Feingold, and it's obvious since 2010 when that happened, the whole campaign finance issue became corruption on steroids .

[jalan48]

43. I agree.

[wryter2000]

58. Sinema lives in the same state as Mark Kelly

He doesn't seem to want to be a pain in the butt.

[BumRushDaShow]

62. Yes

We finally got some "woke" people to vote in Arizona - and certainly Kelley was a good score... although we should also not forget that when Gabby Giffords was in Congress, she was a more "moderate" Democrat herself.

I think a better contrast would be Warnock vs Loopy Loeffler in Georgia!

[BradAllison]

63. THANK YOU

But Krystian has purple hair! Such a fucking maverick!

[AZSkiffyGeek]

68. I think it's more he's keeping his mouth shut since he's up for reelection in 22

His statements during the campaign were definitely more moderate, and Giffords was a pretty conservative Democrat when she was in Congress.

[Polybius]

35. When will the Senate vote on the bill?

This week or next?

[JohnSJ]

39. My bet is within a couple of weeks, because I suspect republicans will throw a whole slew

of amendments to the reconciliation which each need to be voted on to delay things

[BumRushDaShow]

41. Can't be a couple weeks because the UE will expire by then.

[JohnSJ]

47. I know, but if the republicans throw out tons of amendments that each need to be voted on,

I think that can delay things for some time, and maybe past UE expiration

[BumRushDaShow]

48. They call it a "vote-a-rama" (a Senate thing)

and they'll literally just go all day and night (24 hours) until it is done and they collapse. That won't be a couple weeks.

[JohnSJ]

50. I hope you are right, but there is no doubt the republicans in the Senate are going to do everything

they can to delay the process

[BumRushDaShow]

51. They can try

but in real life, they are also a bunch of "entitled" brats who after some point, can't miss their little (maskless) soirees at someone's mansion or exclusive restaurant, and usually there are a small handful of assholes who have their list of amendments ready to go.

It will also depend on how the rules are set up on how many amendments might be allowed (or their scope) too (haven't looked at what they have done with this Senate's reconciliation Rules resolution).

[JohnSJ]

52. yes

[BumRushDaShow]

56. Here's a good little video on the process

Am thinking any amendments would also have the Byrd Rule applied and can be rejected.

(OT - I'm still going to have to discover all the account name changes as I have just discovered yours )

[JohnSJ]

67. An excellent description. Thanks for this

[DENVERPOPS]

70. I can envision an ad

Showing the picture of a Republican Senator on one side of the ad with his net worth in bold print below his picture/name.
The other side of the ad would be a picture of a lower middle class or lower class individual and their annual income.

If this were a vote of raising the House salaries or Senate salaries, the entire congress would, in one day, wait until midnight and pass the raise.

This Biden group needs the Lincoln Project ads big time. And running the ads on normal networks, Cable, and even on fox news.
The citizens in this nation need to see clearly what the stalling by the RepubliCONs is causing the average person that needs the help NOW...........

The Dems have to realize, that we have reached the battlefield, and now it is all out WAR with the stakes being the future of our Nation, The Constitution, Democracy and our Citizens.

Now is not the time to pussy-foot around with the most willfully corrupt party EVER in the history of the United States....

[JohnSJ]

71. I agree

[BumRushDaShow]

40. IIRC the UE benefits expire March 14

so it would need to be passed by BOTH chambers (whatever version) and signed into law by then (preferably earlier so states can make sure their systems keep the payments going, including making any adjustments as needed due to a different funding source).

(ETA - was checking and the current UE apparently ends March 14 - wasn't sure if was the 13th or 14th - https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/27/house-covid-relief-bill-extends-and-raises-unemployment-benefits.html)

[JT45242]

44. Tradeoff $100 unemployment against families between $160K and $200k -- seems OK to me

If our argument is to protect those who are hurt by the pandemic this seems like a fair tradeoff.

If you were hit hard by the pandemic and your income last year fell below the threshold levels, you could file taxes early to hit the new cutoff if your 2019 income was too high for the new threshold.

I am all for protecting the extra cash for the unemployed and would say this is better than what the Repubs were proposing.

Sometimes, we have to compromise -- this may be harder for people in places with extremely high cost of living (Seattle, NYC) but in general this seems like a decent way to go.

[KPN]

45. Stupidity. The public supports the bill by a long shot. Promises have been made that will not be

fulfilled. Where's Rahm Emmanuel this morning with his messaging/unity message?

The Rs pass a monumental tax cut bill that was hugely unpopular and we are picking apart a bill that most everyone favors in order to please a few "moderates" (conservatives in my view).

How about keep it simple? Support the people for crying out loud -- all of the people (minus the wealthy who don't need the support).

[JohnSJ]

49. This has nothing to do with Emmanuel. This is all on Manchin and a couple of so-called moderate

Democrats

[KPN]

89. It has to do with Senate Dems scaling back on promises made rather than digging in and having

resolve to find ways to get the so-called moderates on board.

It has to do with Dems "compromising" to achieve a lesser result once again. It has to do with undermining the trust and confidence of progressives by doing so repeatedly over very many years.

What does Rahm Emmanuel have to do with any of that? Simple. His typically poorly timed and conspicuous mouth makes him one of the better examples.

[JohnSJ]

90. When you have a one vote tie breaker lead, and a few Democrats who refuse to budge, there

isn't much you can do unless we win more seats in the Senate

You might try to change the filibuster rules, but that will face the same problem as getting rid of the filibuster I suspect

[KPN]

91. You misunderstand me. I'm tired of hearing for 45 straight years why we can't do

what we want and should do: what's best for the people of America as a whole (rather than the 1%). We aren't where we are (our society, our economy, our inequality) by sheer coincidence.

[Bird Lady]

46. I am not holding my breath

I would like the money but I have no expectations of receiving it.
The repigs will drag this out until they beat the dems down and they move
on with half of what was expected.

[wryter2000]

53. So, it raises the limit for individuals?

Am I understanding that correctly?

Unfortunately, if this doesn't satisfy His Lordship of West Virginia, nothing is going anywhere.

[BumRushDaShow]

59. It just phases the $1400 amount down to $0 for income

over $75,000 (singles), to be cut off at $80,000 instead of $100,000, and anything over $150,000 (couples), to a cutoff at $160,000 instead of $200,000.

So any "single" with reported income $80,000 or more, or couples with reported income $160,000 or more, will no longer get a check.

[orangecrush]

55. I am getting frustrated

There's always a reason to stall when it comes to giving the people money.

If it were a corporate bailout, it would have passed faster than my last colonoscopy prep.

[peoli]

57. Suddenly Joe Manchin rules the party

[BumRushDaShow]

64. In this case, it's no longer just him

but I saw Jeanne Shaheen joined the fray (per the OP article).

[bucolic_frolic]

60. I think this is a luxury that presented itself and they are wise to take it

It gives Dems a modicum of fig leaf for deficit concerns, and the rebounding economy can absorb a tad less stimulus. I'm actually surprised it was such a little tweak.

[BradAllison]

61. Unfuckingreal

"Moderate Democrats" want to make Trump look better than Joe!

[Marthe48]

65. Just get it passed

Stop the foot dragging, stop the excuses

Do I need the stimulus? Not life and death for me. I just paid half year property tax and my car is in the shop for an unexpected repair, so it'll be nice to get a boost. But other people need it to get to next week, to keep food on the table, a roof over their heads, and their families intact.

I wish r's would stop preaching lies about family values and actually support families.

[BumRushDaShow]

66. Not enough votes unless changes are made

As we are told - "elections have consequences".

I wish we could have picked up the NC seat and the ME seat and that could have reduced or eliminated the delicate dancing that is going on here.

[SunSeeker]

69. Sucks that some workers who got money under Trump won't get it under Biden.

[SKKY]

74. I won't get a stimulus check, yet again.

And to be honest, I'm fine with it. Would it be nice? Sure. Who can't use and extra $1,400.00??? But, are there people that need it way more than we do? For sure. So, while I'm not upper middle-class by any stretch of the imagination, I'm not hungry, my kids aren't hungry, and we have a roof over our heads. Those are luxuries many, many don't have. So, I'm good. And I wish we were all better. Perhaps this will help push us in that direction.

[Joinfortmill]

76. Ok, now let's pass this thing and give people the help they need.

[radical noodle]

78. It makes such a difference to some

but others in that higher range really don't need it. As someone who was doing okay and already retired, it's been like a windfall but nothing I needed. My spending habits haven't changed because of it, although some of it did go to a local agency that helps those who are struggling.

[inwiththenew]

79. At the end of the day people who got money under Trump won't get it under Biden

How many? I don't know. I hope not a lot but my guess would be it would probably skewed towards people living in the higher income blue states like California or New York where $80k isn't like $80k in Alabama or Mississippi.

[obamanut2012]

81. 12 million adults and five million children

Received money under Trump and will not get one dime under Biden and Dem-controlled Congress.

[Kaleva]

92. And many who didn't get it under Trump will get it under Biden

Because adults who are dependents and dependent children in college will be eligible.

And at the end of hte day, there isn't going to be much sympathy for those who made close to 6 figures not getting any of the $1400.

[DanieRains]

80. If We Worked Harder To Get Dems Elected To Senate We Wouldn't Have To Help Manchin Impress Folks

Manchin has a hard job. Convincing people who think they are conservative to vote for him, even though he is a Democrat. I wouldn't want that job.

If Dems had 61 Senators it wouldn't matter.

Get busy.

[Martin68]

82. I think this is a good idea. Get the money to people who really need it. Not everyone is in dire

straights right now.