• Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.

$1,400 stimulus checks in COVID relief bill would phase out at $80,000 instead of $100,000, according to deal between Biden and Democrats

Nicholas Wu, USA TODAY
·3 min read
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.

WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats reached a deal with President Joe Biden to limit the eligibility for $1,400 stimulus checks in his $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill, phasing the payments out for Americans earning over $80,000, according to two sources familiar with the deliberations not authorized to speak on the record.

The tweak is a key goal of moderates who did not want the checks to go to wealthier Americans

The stimulus checks would start to phase out at $75,000 and phase out entirely at $80,000 of income for individuals, as opposed to about $100,000 in the version of the legislation passed by the House last week. Joint filers would have their checks phase out starting at $150,000 and entirely at $160,000.

The change could mean many Americans who could have received at least some payment will now receive none.

The deal also kept a federal boost to unemployment benefits at $400 a week through August, the sources said, rather than September as some progressives like Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., had advocated.

The compromise clears the way for the Senate to push forward on the bill. They could take a procedural vote to begin debate on the bill as soon as Wednesday evening, meaning the bill could pass the full Senate by the end of the week. Democrats aim to pass the bill through the Senate and back again through the House by mid-March, when the current federal boost to unemployment benefits expires.

White House Press Secretary said Biden is "pleased with the progress" in talks over his COVID-19 relief plan but said that he's firm on the thresholds at which Americans should receive the $1,400 stimulus checks. Pressed on whether Biden agreed to more limited eligibility on the relief checks, Psaki added: "He is comfortable with where the negotiations stand."

Some Senate Democrats signaled they would support the compromise.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., a member of Senate Democratic leadership, told reporters it would be a “reasonable compromise” to phase out the checks faster.

But Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., told reporters, “I think the package as it was originally crafted is good to go.”

Progressive Democrats in the House signaled their displeasure with the change but did not indicate they would block passage of the bill when it comes back to the House next week over the change.

Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wisc., said it was a "silly and stupid" move meant to appease "the one or two people who can hold things up."

And Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., who chairs the Progressive Caucus, told reporters, "I don't like that this is being narrowed. I feel like the survival checks are the easiest, simplest, most popular....proposal," but said she wanted to look more closely.

More: Poll: Americans are more interested in getting stimulus than in seeing bipartisanship support for bill

Moderate Senate Democrats like Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., had pushed Biden to tighten the eligibility for the checks and had huddled with the president earlier in the week. Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., described their conversation as a discussion on better “targeting” the spending in the bill.

Manchin had originally pushed for the checks to phase out after $50,000 of income, though the House ultimately drafted a $75,000 threshold.

More: Biden's COVID-19 relief plan includes a child tax credit boost popular with Democrats but a 'nightmare' to Republicans

More: Live stimulus updates: Senate braces for marathon debate on Joe Biden's COVID relief plan

Contributing: Courtney Subramanian

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: COVID stimulus checks to phase out at $80K income, according to deal

Recommended Stories

  • So, When Is That Third Stimulus Check Going To Actually Come?

    The next COVID relief bill is currently being negotiated in the Senate after passing the House late last Friday. It contains $1,400 stimulus checks to individuals making over $75,000 per year ($112,500 for heads of households and $150,000 for couples), though the amount phases out completely for individuals making over $100,000 per year ($150,000 for heads of households $200,000 for couples) — but even that qualifying income level might get further diminished. After talks with some top Senate Democrats, it seems that President Biden has just agreed to lower the point at which the checks disappear to $80,000 for single filers and $160,000 for couples: Biden agrees to phase out checks faster, per Dem source: pic.twitter.com/00WTBgcSPJ— Erica Werner (@ericawerner) March 3, 2021 Centrist Democrats are also asking for just a $300/week federal unemployment boost, instead of the $400/week that’s currently in the bill. These significant modifications are particularly of note because of the way in which time is of the essence: The relief bill must pass before March 14 to avoid unemployment benefits from expiring, and the Senate may be voting on the bill later today. This story was originally published on February 26, 2021. According to a Twitter account called @WaitingOnBiden, today is the 38th day that President Biden has not sent $2,000 stimulus payments to Americans, something he promised he would usher out immediately after he assumed office. The last relief bill passed in December, while Trump was still president. The relief bill before that was passed in late March 2020, and now we’re just a few days away from March 2021. The good news is that the House is finally voting on the Biden administration’s $1.9 trillion COVID relief plan today, which includes a $1,400 stimulus payment to those who fall within the income limits. It will pass in the Democrat-controlled House, and it is likely to pass in the Senate through a process called budget reconciliation, which essentially allows lawmakers to pass fiscal bills more quickly because it only requires a simple majority to pass, instead of 60 votes. Beyond the stimulus payments, the relief bill also contains a $400 per week federal unemployment boost. The current set of federal unemployment provisions are set to expire by March 14, essentially giving Congress a hard deadline by which to pass the relief bill. While $1.9 trillion might sound like a lot, economists generally agree that the government should spend as much as it needs to help its citizens — that is its mandate, after all — without handwringing over what-ifs such as inflation or “overheating” the economy. The bad news, though, is that a key part of the relief bill — a $15 federal minimum wage hike — will likely not be included. Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled yesterday that the inclusion of a minimum wage raise broke the rules of what can and can’t be included in a reconciliation bill. But what is a Parliamentarian, you ask? Turns out, it is not someone who only smokes Parliaments. The Parliamentarian is a non-partisan advisor who interprets rules and precedents within the Senate. It is an appointment and not an elected position. The Senate also doesn’t have to listen to the Parliamentarian’s rulings; the “presiding officer” of the Senate — in other words, the Vice President — can ignore the Parliamentarian. There’s precedent for that. According to Washington Post reporter Jeff Stein, however, Vice President Harris will not be overruling MacDonough. That means that the minimum wage provision will be removed from the bill in the Senate and return to the House for another vote. It also means that any attempt to raise the federal minimum wage — which has not been raised since 2009 and remains at $7.25 — will need to be introduced in a standalone bill that won’t be able to pass via budget reconciliation, needing to clear the bar of 60 votes. Top Democrats have already announced an alternate plan that would impose a 5% tax on big corporations if they don’t raise their wages and even tax credits for small businesses that do raise wages. But some economists are concerned that a tax disincentive, or tax credits, would not do enough to actually raise wages for a broad swath of workers. While many conservatives have bristled at the idea of a $15 federal minimum wage, American wages have generally remained at a standstill for decades. If the minimum wage had kept pace with workers’ productivity and inflation, it would be around $20 per hour right now. We also need to acknowledge the huge impact a minimum wage hike would have on the people who have been most harmed by the pandemic. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) recently released an analysis of wages in the past year and found that average, inflation-adjusted wages in the U.S. had actually gone up in 2020. Great news, right? Wrong. The EPI found that average wages had increased because the makeup of the American workforce had changed so drastically — a huge proportion of those who lost their jobs during the pandemic were those making low wages, or around $14 per hour or less. In contrast, people making $25 per hour and above actually saw job gains overall in 2020. With so many low-wage jobs having disappeared, we get the illusion that there’s been progress instead of a downslide. A $15 minimum wage would be life-changing to so many Americans, and its exclusion from the next stimulus bill is an enormous disappointment. Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?New Stimulus Checks Will Go Out To Fewer PeopleWhat To Know About Biden's COVID-19 Relief PlanBiden Is Making Sweeping Changes To Minimum Wage

  • Biden approves cutting the number of people eligible for a 3rd stimulus check

    Wealthier people may not get a $1,400 check under the $1.9 trillion stimulus bill. Biden indicated he'd lower the income cap for eligibility.

  • Stimulus checks: White House agrees to tighten eligibility rules for $1,400 direct payments: sources

    Yahoo Finance’s Akiko Fujita, Zack Guzman, and Jessica Smith discuss what to expect from the Senate today.

  • Covid: Biden promises vaccines for all US adults by end of May

    The US president also insists the "fight is not over", as some states move to relax Covid rules.

  • Here's how much tax Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg would pay under Warren's proposed wealth tax

    The US's roughly 650 billionaires would have paid about $114 billion for 2020 under Warren's proposed "ultra-millionaire" tax, research suggests.

  • $1,400 Stimulus Checks Are Still Coming – But Who’s Eligible to Get One?

    In early February, President Biden reiterated his support for the $1,400 stimulus payment checks as part of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, saying "I'm not cutting the size of the checks....

  • Stimulus checks: White House agrees to tighten eligibility rules for $1,400 direct payments

    President Joe Biden has agreed to more narrow eligibility rules for the $1,400 stimulus checks.

  • Trevor Bauer's agent says pitcher wanted to sign with Mets over Dodgers after merchandise screwup

    More bizarre details about Trevor Bauer’s free agency have turned up thanks to his agent, Rachel Luba, who said the pitcher wanted the Mets over the Dodgers after a merchandise snafu.

  • Are You Eligible for a Third Stimulus Check – and If So, When Will You Get Yours?

    As far as the next stimulus, as of late February, the $1,400 amount seems to be settled, so the next question is, who is eligible to receive it? In addition to income levels, the plan's architects can...

  • Stimulus Check Update: What Comes Next for $1400 Direct Payments, Extra Unemployment Benefits

    Wondering when the $1,400 direct stimulus payments will hit your bank account? It could be sooner than you think -- but only if the package passes this one last hurdle.

  • Why Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 vaccine is probably the best shot

    Some people might prefer Johnson & Johnson's shot because it was tested on variants, has milder side effects, and is easier to get.

  • Blinken vows US will avoid 'costly military interventions,' take new approach on trade

    Secretary of State Antony Blinken promised the Biden administration would avoid "costly military interventions" and chart a new course on global trade in his first major foreign policy speech on Wednesday.

  • D.C. National Guard Chief: Trump Pentagon Screwed Up Riot Response

    Greg Nash/ReutersBureaucratic restrictions and public-relations concerns from the Army and top Trump administration Pentagon appointees unreasonably restrained the D.C. National Guard from responding to the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, its commander testified to the Senate in a dramatic Wednesday session.The Guard commander, Major General William Walker, described receiving a “frantic” phone call from the then-head of the Capitol Police, Steven Sund, shortly before 2 p.m., as the breach was underway.Yet because of the restrictions from Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller, Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy, and the “best military advice” of senior Army officers, Walker and his 155 Guardsmen could not respond to the scene of the insurrection for another three hours and 19 minutes— restrictions Walker pointedly noted were not placed upon him during the summer’s Black Lives Matter protests in Washington, D.C.Had Walker been able to deploy to the Capitol “immediately,” as he testified he wanted, around 2 p.m.—a process he said took less than 20 minutes—“that number could have made a difference,” Walker said. “We could have helped extend the perimeter and pushed back the crowd.”FBI Director Shoots Back, Insisting Bureau Shared Intel Ahead of Capitol InsurrectionIt was perhaps the most intense moment thus far in a series of Senate hearings on Jan. 6 that have prompted dueling claims of irresponsibility, recriminations that have focused overwhelmingly on security and intelligence failures, rather than the politicians who spread the inciting lie that the Democrats stole the presidential election and hailed the violent protest called for by President Donald Trump.Army and Pentagon officials have heard this critique from Walker in the press and pushed back on it. Yet it was clear at the hearing that even senior Republican senators considered the Pentagon’s inhibitions on the D.C. National Guard unacceptable.Walker described pre-insurrection letters from McCarthy, relaying instructions from Miller—whom Trump installed atop the Pentagon shortly after losing the election—that withheld from Walker the issuance of “weapons, ammunition, batons, ballistic protection equipment, to include body armor.” He did not have preapproval to mobilize a quick-reaction force of 40 Guardsmen, and found it “unusual” to be denied a typical commanders’ authority to protect his own forces.As well, Walker described an instruction that afternoon from McCarthy to provide a “concept of operations” for the Guard before getting approval to shift from backing up the D.C. police and relieving beleaguered Capitol Police officers. “In 19 years, I never had that before happen,” Walker told senators. In several instances that day, Walker acted on his own initiative to muster the quick-reaction force at the D.C. Armory and get his Guardsmen protective gear, ahead of the belated approval to deploy to the Capitol.Neither Miller nor McCarthy testified. Instead, a senior Pentagon civilian, Robert Salesses, was left to effectively testify that Walker was wrong.Walker testified that two Army three-star generals, Charles Flynn and Walter Piatt, told him on Jan. 6 afternoon phone calls that they advised against sending the Guard to the Capitol because it was a poor “optics” and “could incite the crowd.” Salesses stoically said that Piatt, who is not in the chain of command, told him he never “used the word ‘optics,’” which represents the second revision in Piatt’s story, as the Army general recently acknowledged he may have indeed used that word.Walker shot back: “There were people in the room with me on that call that heard what they heard.”But Salesses’ broader point was that the restrictions Miller placed on Walker were political. “There was a lot of things that happened in the spring the department was criticized for,” Salesses said, referring to the Pentagon’s use of the National Guard to suppress the Black Lives Matter protests in Washington.Yet Salesses, questioned by Republican senators, could not explain all the Pentagon restrictions on the National Guard.The National Guard was on the streets of D.C. on Jan. 6 to support the D.C. police, in an unarmed and unarmored fashion, at 30 city traffic-control points and six Metro stations. Walker said he had to seek approval from the Pentagon to accompany the police in moving a traffic point over by a single block. The quick-reaction force, stationed initially at Joint Base Andrews just outside the district, was “not [designed] to respond to the events of the capitol,” Salesses pleaded. “I don’t know if that’s true,” Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) replied, quickly prompting Walker’s agreement.Salesses also had to concede that over a half hour passed between his account of Miller finally authorizing the Guard deployment, at 4:32 p.m., and notifying Walker of that decision at 5:08 p.m. Asked what accounted for that delay by an incredulous Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Salesses said only, “Senator, it’s an issue.”“That’s a significant problem for the future,” Blunt said.Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

  • Shrinking ice threatens Canada's seal pups

    These seals are running out of space to give birthLocation: Magdalen Islands, CanadaClimate change is shrinking ice coverleaving fewer safe places for harp seals to perchTourism tours to see newborn pups have been canceledpartly due to the thinning ice

  • ‘Psychopath’: Keith Olbermann faces backlash after saying vaccines shouldn’t be ‘wasted’ on Texas

    The former sportscaster asked why the country is “wasting” vaccines on a state whose governor is lifting all virus precautions. Twitter’s reaction was swift.

  • Rockets hit Iraqi base with US troops less than a week after Biden officials said Syria strikes would 'de-escalate' tensions in the region

    Biden has faced bipartisan criticism for not seeking congressional approval prior to giving the order for the Syria airstrikes on February 25.

  • Trump Served With Civil Rights Suit After Capitol Riot

    Michael Reaves/GettyAttorneys for Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and the NAACP have served former President Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago club with a lawsuit filed against him in February. Thompson and the NAACP filed suit against Trump alleging that his incendiary rhetoric and false claims of a “stolen” election amounted to a conspiracy to interfere with civil rights by inciting the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.The suit names Trump alongside his attorney Rudy Giuliani and the right wing extremist groups, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, as co-defendants and builds off the 1871 “Ku Klux Klan Act,” which was “intended to protect against conspiracies, through violence and intimidation, that sought to prevent Members of Congress from discharging their official duties,” according to a complaint.If Jan. 6 Was ‘Domestic Terror,’ Who Was the Terrorist in Chief?“The Defendants conspired to prevent, by force, intimidation and threats, the Plaintiff, as a Member of Congress, from discharging his official duties to approve the count of votes cast by members of the Electoral College following the presidential election,” the lawsuit alleges.It accuses the defendants of acting “in concert to incite and then carry out a riot at the Capitol” that “created grave danger of harm” to Thompson and other lawmakers. Similar to the case laid out by Democrats in Trump’s impeachment trial last month, the suit lays out a timeline of Trump’s “concerted campaign” to retain power at any cost, from his refusal to commit to a peaceful transition before the election, through to his explicit endorsement of efforts to overturn the election result, to his fiery rally speech on January 6.Trump “solicited the support of, and endorsed the belligerent and violent actions of, organizations such as the Proud Boys that expressed support of his reelection,” the suit alleges.Trump advisers did not immediately provide comment on who, if anyone, at this point is representing the former president for this lawsuit. When Trump was served, it was merely signed for by a “Ricky,” according to the court document.Several Trump attorneys who The Daily Beast asked about this said they had no involvement. As of Tuesday, Alan Dershowitz, a member of the Trump legal defense for the ex-president’s first Senate impeachment trial, said “nobody [on the Trump team] has reached out to me yet” regarding this suit, but added that he personally believes Trump’s rhetoric on Jan. 6 is “protected by the First Amendment” and that “I would hope that the ACLU would take on a case like this.”The suit adds to a growing list of legal troubles now facing former President Trump, his family, and his associates, since leaving office.After a victory at the Supreme Court in February, Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance obtained copies of Trump’s tax returns. The paperwork is reportedly part of a city fraud investigation looking into whether the former president lied about the value of his assets in order to gain financial advantages.It’s unclear who will represent Trump, the Proud Boys, and the Oath Keepers in the latest suit but court records show that Austin, Texas-based attorney Joseph D. Sibley IV accepted service of the suit on behalf of Giuliani. Sibley, a graduate of Harvard Law school, is a former U.S. Army Ranger.“I am representing Mayor Giuliani in the Thompson lawsuit, and I will also be representing him in the Smartmatic and Dominion cases,” Sibley told The Daily Beast on Wednesday afternoon.Orange Is the New Orange: Trump Just Might Go to JailSibley handles breach of contract, intellectual property, and other commercial law cases but has also represented clients in defamation cases and provided expert commentary for The Washington Post on defamation suits.He represented far-right blogger Charles Johnson in a 2020 libel lawsuit that was originally filed against Verizon, The Huffington Post, and reporter Andy Campbell for a 2019 article which labeled Johnson a “Holocaust-Denying White Nationalist”—a description Johnson strongly denies. Johnson dismissed the suits against Campbell and Verizon but has appealed a federal judge’s dismissal of his suit against The Huffington Post.Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

  • Meghan Markle’s Oprah interview outfit sends strong message, tributes Princess Diana

    Days ahead of Oprah‘s landmark interview with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, people are already spotting significance in the fashion choices made in the clips released. Meghan Markle‘s Oprah interview outfit reportedly sends a strong message, including a touching tribute to the late Princess Diana. Markle and Prince Harry have spent a year away from the spotlight, adjusting to life after stepping back as “senior members” of the royal family.

  • David Crosby on dinner with Joni, Phoebe Bridgers and the 50th anniversary of his haunted solo debut

    David Crosby was grieving his girlfriend's death when he and friends made 'If I Could Only Remember My Name.' Panned in 1971, it's now a classic.

  • Collins to back Haaland for Interior, sealing her approval

    Maine Sen. Susan Collins said Wednesday she will support New Mexico Rep. Deb Haaland to be Interior secretary, the first Republican senator to publicly back a nominee set to become the first Native American to lead a Cabinet agency. The announcement makes Haaland's confirmation by the Senate nearly certain and follows Haaland's endorsement last week by Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Manchin, a moderate from West Virginia, had been publicly undecided through two days of hearings on Haaland’s nomination by President Joe Biden.