AP: Biden unveiling $1.9T coronavirus action plan

schuylaar said:

i agree.

let's talk about why they're not on board with it.

why doesn't Manchin say he's a republican already?

the housing index might be different in WV, a cup 'o Starbucks isn't.

Click to expand...

schuylaar said:

i agree.

let's talk about why they're not on board with it.

why doesn't Manchin say he's a republican already?

while the housing index might be different in WV, a cup 'o Starbucks isn't.

perhaps those who live in states with no revenue shouldn't be calling the shots for those who do.

Click to expand...

hanimmal said:

My guess is that he knows a lot of farmers don't want to have to pay $15 an hour.

Click to expand...

HGCC said:

I think I am on board with the stimulus as is, I do wish there was a way to apply some sort of cost of living adjustment, but that would be awfully hard to implement.

Oddly im not on board with the 15 minimum wage. I dont think it actually addresses income inequality. It will end up harming the middle class that has worked hard to make 35k...your putting teachers starting out at minimum wage. Moving the bottom up doesn't change the rest of the pay scale. Do people think rents going to stay the same? The bottom level for housing is going to rise, pushing up the rest of the market above it...but those people living there (middle class renters) aren't getting a wage boost. I back something like UBI over raising minimum wage as it applies equally, the impact of that extra cash is greater the lower your base income, but it doesn't really harm people that aren't down there, its just less useful.

Click to expand...

HGCC said:

I think I am on board with the stimulus as is, I do wish there was a way to apply some sort of cost of living adjustment, but that would be awfully hard to implement.

Oddly im not on board with the 15 minimum wage. I dont think it actually addresses income inequality. It will end up harming the middle class that has worked hard to make 35k...your putting teachers starting out at minimum wage. Moving the bottom up doesn't change the rest of the pay scale. Do people think rents going to stay the same? The bottom level for housing is going to rise, pushing up the rest of the market above it...but those people living there (middle class renters) aren't getting a wage boost. I back something like UBI over raising minimum wage as it applies equally, the impact of that extra cash is greater the lower your base income, but it doesn't really harm people that aren't down there, its just less useful.

Click to expand...

Wattzzup said:

So you’re ok with people that work 40 hours per week and gross less than $600?

Click to expand...

HGCC said:

What I'm saying is that 600 bucks is relative to what it can buy. I think income inequality is one of the biggest problems in the nation, but raising the minimum wage doesn't fix that. The prices rise in accordance to what people can pay. Those at the top get to enjoy a consumer base that now has more money, they raise prices due to the increase in demand. They are also effectively getting their wages doubled. Guy thats been at whatever job for 20 years that makes 40k...well he just got screwed and his 40k isn't worth what it was.

Maybe inflation would push the rest of the wages higher...but man thats a hard argument to make and I dont think it would happen in parity with the rise in costs.

Click to expand...

BALTIMORE (AP) — Tucked inside President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief plan is a seemingly radical notion that children should not grow up in poverty.

Congressional Democrats are now sketching out that vision more fully by proposing to temporarily raise the child tax credit, now at a maximum of $2,000, to as much as $3,600 per child annually. Their plan would also make the credit fully available to the poorest families, instead of restricting it based on the parents’ tax liability.

“The Democratic plan would likely mark the most significant step in the fight against child poverty since LBJ’s Great Society,” said Daniel Hemel, a law professor at the University of Chicago, who noted that a family with two school-age children and no income would get $6,000 under the proposal.

This one-off benefit is intended to help relieve millions of families hurt by the fallout from the coronavirus pandemic. Parents have lost their access to child care, pushing them out of the labor force and hindering the economic recovery. Children have gone without the classroom time needed for social and academic progress.

When Lyndon Johnson became president in 1963, nearly 25% of children lived in poverty. The combination of Great Society programs that included nutrition aid and preschool funding helped slash the child poverty rate to 14% by 1969, according to the Census Bureau. The rate has since bounced up and down with the broader economy, but it has never fallen meaningfully below that 1969 level.

Biden has pitched his rescue plan as an immediate response to the pandemic, but the child tax credit expansion might end up seeding the kind of lasting change that tends to bring a political fight. Some conservatives say the plan would discourage parents from working and would not reduce poverty as a result. But liberals view it as an investment in children that needs to stay in place to ultimately improve people’s lives and the economy.

“This is a really bold idea,” said C. Nicole Mason, CEO of the liberal Institute for Women’s Policy Research. “Things that we wouldn’t have been talking about as possible a year before the pandemic are suddenly on the table — and this is one of those things.”

In a Friday speech about his full COVID-19 relief proposal, Biden said the spending would ultimately lead to durable economic gains. His plan includes funding for school reopenings, child care and other programs to help the youngest Americans.

“The simple truth is, if we make these investments now, with interest rates at historic lows, we’ll generate more growth, higher incomes, a stronger economy and our nation’s finances will be in a stronger position as well,” Biden said.

Past economic research has shown that each dollar spent on health insurance programs for children led to a $1.78 return for the government, according to a 2020 paper by Harvard University economists Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser. The argument from many economists is that financial relief for children would produce similar benefits for decades to come.

But conservatives say the increased child tax credits could discourage poor people from seeking jobs. Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said he believes the proposal would eventually undo the work requirements that were part of the 1996 overhaul of welfare, a reform that Biden voted for as a Delaware senator.

“They’re clearly using this COVID situation to try and permanently change the welfare state and permanently enlarge it,” said Rector, stressing that needy families already have access to extensive anti-poverty programs.

As outlined by the House Ways and Means Committee, the expanded child tax credit would likely help about 20 million lower-income people. Families would receive up to $3,600 annually for each child under age 6 and as much as $3,000 for those up to 17. The credit would start to phase out for individual parents earning more than $75,000 and couples making $150,000. Payments of the credit would be made monthly, even to families who owe no federal income taxes — a change from current policy.

The plan has shifted some of the politics around child poverty. Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah last week proposed his own plan to provide at least $3,000 per child to families, but the payments would be funded by cutting other government programs and tax credits for parents. It’s unlikely that Democrats would back Romney’s plan because it would cut other forms of aid to children, meaning it has not gained much political traction so far.

Researchers at Columbia University estimated that Biden’s entire $1.9 trillion relief plan would slash the child poverty rate to less than 7% this year.

Supporters of the package also see a return to grappling with big ideas about poverty that has not occurred for decades. The child tax credit is possibly the start of a larger transformation in how the government addresses child poverty.

“A one-year improvement is great, and it puts the architecture in place,” said Michelle Dallafior, senior vice president for the advocacy group First Focus on Children. “But we need to keep doing more and build something permanent. ... No child should live in poverty.”

Click to expand...

HGCC said:

What i am saying is that focusing on dollar amounts like that is misguided. What matters is how much stuff you can buy for your dollars. Thats what money is, a measure of however much stuff you can buy based on your labor. Just manipulating one aspect of that, raising minimum wage, doesn't address the fundamental issue of inequality and poverty.

Edit: the increase in child tax credits was what got me to think this stimulus was a good deal.

Click to expand...

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf

Click to expand...

hanimmal said:

My guess is that he knows a lot of farmers don't want to have to pay $15 an hour.

Click to expand...

HGCC said:

That report says 27 million would have a boost and 1.3m would lose employment. I fully agree and think the argument that raising wages leads to job cuts is bogus.

That isn't what I am arguing though. The fundamental problem is people don't earn enough to pay for food/shelter/clothing/etc. Simply raising the minimum wage is just a bandaid unless the actual wealth gap gets tackled. The bottom moves up with a pay raise, which will be followed shortly by the top moving up an equal amount, money flows upwards (ownership of where the poor spend their cash, rising stocks, etc.). The middle, they are the ones that will be squeezed. Their pay is not going to increase at the same rate as those at the top and bottom. Its why I think some sort of UBI option makes sense, it can raise the bottom up out of poverty, but doesn't do it by bringing the middle class lower. That ubi money is just less important to you as your base income levels go up.

This still doesn't fully tackle the issue, I think the ubi should be funded through higher taxes on the extremely wealthy to help narrow that gap.

Click to expand...

Fogdog said:

Because Manchin and others (it's not yet clear who) are unwilling to open up the rulebook for using the resolution process, then they are just Republicans? As if one can't have a difference of opinion on what is right thing to do? The resolution process specifies that only federal spending may be used. The minimum wage is not a federal expense. It doesn't fit.

Referring to your statement about Manchin being a Republican, how many real Republicans will vote for the relief bill once the minimum wage is stripped out of it? I don't think any are.

Click to expand...

schuylaar said:

incorrect. we have two minimum wages, state and federal. the higher gets recognized and paid. fed is always supreme over state.

Click to expand...

Fogdog said:

The reconciliation process is explicitly used to enable spending (or revenue) measures to proceed through the senate without a filibuster and pass with a simple majority.

What Is 'Reconciliation'? Democrats Face Hurdles To Use It For COVID Relief

Has to be about government spending

There are a few things that lawmakers have to keep in mind. Reconciliation only applies to policies that change spending — the money the federal government pays out — or revenue — the money the federal government takes in.

Some things, like the Social Security program, can't be altered.

Those initial guard rails are important because if the lawmakers writing the reconciliation bill get them wrong, the whole process can fall apart.
source


The minimum wage doesn't fit this criteria. Trying to shoe-horn a minimum-wage mandate for businesses into the reconciliation process is reasonably objected to by Manchin and other Senators.

Click to expand...

Fogdog said:

The reconciliation process is explicitly used to enable spending (or revenue) measures to proceed through the senate without a filibuster and pass with a simple majority.

What Is 'Reconciliation'? Democrats Face Hurdles To Use It For COVID Relief

Has to be about government spending

There are a few things that lawmakers have to keep in mind. Reconciliation only applies to policies that change spending — the money the federal government pays out — or revenue — the money the federal government takes in.

Some things, like the Social Security program, can't be altered.

Those initial guard rails are important because if the lawmakers writing the reconciliation bill get them wrong, the whole process can fall apart.
source


The minimum wage doesn't fit this criteria. Trying to shoe-horn a minimum-wage mandate for businesses into the reconciliation process is reasonably objected to by Manchin and other Senators.

Click to expand...

hanimmal said:

I can't remember where I heard it, but some talking head made a joke (so not sure if it is serious) about how McConnell would have just fired the person judging if it would fit into reconciliation until they found someone that judged it to be a legit program to add. The way they said it made it sound like they did that to get the tax break for the rich in 2017's reconciliation.

Click to expand...