<p>
"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."<br/>
—Rep. Pramila Jayapal
</p><p>
But as <em>Roll Call</em> <a href="https://rollcall.com/2021/03/01/pension-funding-cobra-coverage-survive-aid-bills-byrd-bath/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">reported</a> 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 <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/25/gop-senate-trio-threaten-delay-stimulus-bill-because-unemployment-benefits-amid" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Republicans have deployed</a> in their efforts to slash UI benefits.
</p><p>
"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.
</p><p>
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/03/01/biden-stimulus-covid-relief-minimum-wage/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">According to</a> the <em>Washington Post</em>, 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.
</p><p>
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.
</p><p>
Despite <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/02/04/politically-its-suicidal-frustration-grows-biden-entertains-narrower-eligibility" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">warnings</a> that doing so would be politically "suicidal," Biden has previously said he would be open to lowering the income cutoff for the direct payments.
</p><p>
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 <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/02/25/im-sorry-says-ro-khanna-unelected-parliamentarian-does-not-get-deprive-32-million" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">parliamentarian's advisory ruling</a> 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."
</p><p>
House Democrats, who did not have to contend with the Senate's so-called <a href="https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/introduction-to-budget-reconciliation" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Byrd Rule</a>, <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/02/27/15-wage-included-house-dems-fulfill-election-promise-passage-sweeping-19-trillion" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">included</a> a provision to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025 in their relief bill.
</p><div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" style="display: flex; max-width: 550px; width: 100%; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><iframe allowfullscreen="true" allowtransparency="true" class="" data-tweet-id="1366547532743065602" frameborder="0" id="twitter-widget-0" scrolling="no" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1366547532743065602&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawstory.com%2Fr%2Fentryeditor%2F2650858082%23&theme=light&widgetsVersion=889aa01%3A1612811843556&width=550px" style="position: static; visibility: visible; width: 551px; height: 451px; display: block; flex-grow: 1;" title="Twitter Tweet"></iframe></div><p>Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, <a href="https://twitter.com/RepJayapal/status/1366587817137037313" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">warned</a> late Monday that "further 'targeting' or 'tightening' eligibility means taking survival checks away from millions of families who got them last time."</p><p>"That's bad policy and bad politics too," Jayapal tweeted.</p> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
CONTINUE READING
Show less