Today, Explained - Stimu-less

Episode Date: February 23, 2021

What’s taking so long? What’s happening with those $1,400 checks? Are the Democrats betraying the people who voted for them? Vox’s Li Zhou and Andrew Prokop explain. Transcript at vox.com/todayexplained. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

BetMGM, authorized gaming partner of the NBA, has your back all season long. From tip-off to the final buzzer, you're always taken care of with a sportsbook born in Vegas. That's a feeling you can only get with BetMGM. And no matter your team, your favorite player, or your style, there's something every NBA fan will love about BetMGM. Download the app today and discover why BetMGM is your basketball home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with BetMGM, a sportsbook worth a slam dunk and authorized gaming partner of the NBA.

BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have any questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Lizo, you cover Congress for Vox. The last time we spoke to you, it was like a Friday.

The Senate just had this all-night voter-rama, and a big part of that voter-rama was stimulus spending and getting some votes on the record about stimulus spending. What has been happening to the COVID-19 relief bill since then? The House has actually gone ahead and written the bill itself, and they're expected to pass it this week. And then it heads over to the Senate where things get a little more complicated. I bet they do. What's in the House package? It has a lot of what we've talked about this whole time. They basically worked out the details

of specific stimulus measures. So there are $1,400 stimulus checks for people who make $75,000 a year or less. There's an additional $400 per week in unemployment insurance that's expected to go through the end of August. And there's additional money to help rescue restaurants and to help reopen schools. The $15 minimum wage thus far has made it in the bill as well. And that's one of the areas that's poised to be more debatable in the Senate. Okay, now help me understand something, Lee. $1,400 stimulus checks is like $600 less than what Biden was promising on the campaign trail, right? The big number was $2,000 stimulus checks. I didn't remember that wrong. By electing John and the reverend, you can make an immediate difference in your own lives.

The lives of the people all across this country, because their election will put an end to the block in Washington. That two thousand dollar stimulus check, that money that will go out the door immediately. Tell people who are in real trouble. Yes, there's been a lot of confusion about that and a lot of concern, particularly from progressives, that Democrats basically reneged on the promise that they made people. The logic behind this is a little bit of a technicality, but what Democrats have said is they already gave folks a six hundred600 stimulus check in the previous package. Keep the commitment of $2,000.

$600 has already gone out. $1,400 checks to people who need it. But obviously, that's quite confusing if you were saying just $2,000 point blank before. Lee, that sounds like some bullshit. It definitely seems like a way to kind of work around how they've approached this issue. It sounds like when your parents are like, hey, if you clean your room, we'll give you $20 to go out with your friends to the mall this weekend. But then you clean your room and they're like, oh, here's five because the $15 is going to come out of that chandelier you broke six years ago. It's like, what?

Yeah, it's exactly like that. Are they catching any heat for bullshitting? A lot of it has come from progressive members who've called them out on it, but it seems like they are sticking by this $1,400 number at the moment. Is that going to be a bad look for them that they're like already in the very first thing they do, potentially breaking promises? It's definitely not a good look, but I do think their openness to pushing forward a more generous relief package overall does help assuage a little bit of that blowback. And how is this one more generous? It's more expansive in that it's just

covering a ton of areas that have been missed before. So we've talked about state and local aid, and we've just talked about the length of how long these programs will go for. So the extension of unemployment insurance for several more months, as well as the addition of a child tax credit, are all areas that are seen as more open and expansive than what's been proposed in the past. And what's the most contentious since they're doing things that haven't been done before? The stimulus checks have been contentious in a different way in that there's been a bit of debate over who should get one. Joe Manchin, for example, had wanted to reduce the income threshold so only people making $50,000 or less would be eligible versus the 75K mark that they've settled on. What happened? They had it 75 and 150 before,

but we didn't know because of other factors involved. There were people making 250 and $300,000 receiving checks. And Democrats and Republicans start saying that was not our intent at all. So they're trying to make sure it's targeted to the people that really need it. So that's where it'll happen. There's been a lot of pressure against that push because Bernie Sanders has said, for example, that that cuts out a lot of folks in the middle class. You could be making a family, making $125,000 with a bunch of kids. You are struggling today. So what we have got to do is understand this crisis impacts the middle class.

It impacts the working class. it impacts lower income people. We are in this together. So right now they've settled on a very similar threshold that they had before. The other issue that's really been coming up again and again is the $15 minimum wage. And there's dissent within the Democratic Party about that too. Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema being the most vocal people who said they don't think it belongs in the reconciliation package. And this is another thing that Bernie's

really fighting for, yeah? It is, yeah. It's something that he's really the leader on and that he's been pushing hard for a long time. It seems to me that in the richest country in the history of the world, it is not too much to demand that if you work 40 hours a week, you

don't live in poverty. Fifteen bucks an hour is not going to make anybody rich. But I have seen workers and talked to workers all over this country trying to raise their kids on $10, $12 an hour, and you can't do it. Is there a chance that this $15 federal minimum wage, another huge promise from President Biden, makes it into the Senate version of this COVID relief bill. A lot of that depends on a process that's playing out this week that actually has a great name, much like Voterama. It's called a birdbath. A birdbath? Yes. Yeah, it's named after a former senator named Robert Byrd.

And it's basically a process where members of both parties argue what's relevant enough to include in the budget bill. So for something to be part of reconciliation, you have to show that it's budget related. And there was a concern that the minimum wage is not. And so that's a key reason it could get pulled out of the bill just for procedural reasons. So it depends on how this birdbath goes. And then once that happens, Democrats are going to have to sort through the disagreement within their caucus to figure out where to go next. Who decides on the birdbath? This Senate parliamentarian who is an in-house expert on Senate rules, she advises on how to interpret policies and she's going to be

the one making that decision. Democrats ultimately have the option of ignoring her, but that is not a common practice and it's not something that we anticipate the party to do. Who is this Senate parliamentarian? She's a woman who was hired for the role under Senator Harry Reid and her job is basically just to interpret how the Senate, you know, decides to follow through on policy. So previously, for example, in 2017 on the tax cuts that Republicans wanted to push through, she also had a key role in figuring out, you know, what they could include in that bill and what didn't pass muster at the time. It's not a political office. It's not it's not a sort of Democrat or Republican who's making the call. It's sort of an appointed bureaucrat. Is that fair? Yes. Yeah, that's very fair. But she will hold the deciding vote in this upcoming birdbath.

Yes. It's kind of wild that she, a lot of, you know, what could become huge policy changes hinges on what she says. So if this $15 minimum wage thing gets past the parliamentarian in the Senate, there's still the issue of the Democrats not having a unified front on this particular policy. Yeah, that's a huge problem that Democrats are going to have to sort out among themselves in the Senate, which is why the bill is expected to be a bit more tricky there than it has been in the House. Next steps would be figuring out what

can pass all 50 members. So, for example, Joe Manchin has said he would be down for an $11 minimum wage versus a $15 one, which is the current proposal. And so the question becomes, do they lower this potential option to get him on board, or do they offer something different, like tax cuts for small businesses that might help balance out the financial pressure they face from this other policy change. And just for people who don't know, like, I don't know, me, what's the federal minimum wage right now? It's $7.25 right now. Do these ideas have any Republican support or does this all come down to the Democrats? We're expecting it to be the 50 member Democratic caucus that is going to be passing this bill, making these decisions. There has been some indication from Republicans that they want to work on the minimum wage. It's unclear how much in good faith those are. Mitt Romney and Tom Kine have a bill, for example.

What we're doing is proposing a $10 an hour minimum wage phased in over time after the pandemic ends, and a mandatory E-Verify program that ensures employers are only hiring legally authorized workers. Those two things go hand in hand. So some kind of measure that would bar businesses from hiring undocumented employees. And Democrats are not going to go for something like that. OK, so I'm sure we'll be following along with you. But when can people expect this to pass if it passes ever? When is it going to happen? March 14th is the big deadline everyone is looking at because that's when the current enhanced unemployment insurance expires. And Democrats are racing to get things done before then. And honestly, depending on how

weighed down they get with their internal disagreements, it's very possible that they could make it by then. Okay, well, we'll have you back to talk about it when it happens, Leigh. Thanks so much. Thanks, guys. I'm like a bird, I don't know where my soul is. After the break, what the Democrats do after their COVID-19 relief bill. I don't know where my soul is I don't know where my home is And baby, all I need for you to know is

I don't know where my soul is I don't know. by Wirecutter. AuraFrames make it easy to share unlimited photos and videos directly from your phone to the frame. When you give an AuraFrame as a gift, you can personalize it, you can preload it with a thoughtful message, maybe your favorite photos. Our colleague Andrew tried an AuraFrame for himself. So setup was super simple. In my case, we were celebrating my grandmother's birthday

and she's very fortunate. She's got 10 grandkids. And so we wanted to surprise her with the AuraFrame. And because she's a little bit older, it was just easier for us to source all the images together and have them uploaded to the frame itself. And because we're all connected over text message, it was just so easy to send a link to everybody. You can save on the perfect gift by visiting AuraFrames.com to get $35 off Aura's best-selling Carvermat frames with promo code EXPLAINED at checkout. That's A-U-R-A-Frames.com, promo code EXPLAINED. This deal is exclusive to listeners and available just in time for the holidays.

Terms and conditions do apply. Andrew Prokop, you're a senior correspondent at Vox, specializing in Donald Trump, but we're going to talk to you about Joe Biden? It's a weird time. And we're going to talk to you about policy? It's tough. Yeah, yeah. Getting back in the saddle. Non-Trump issues. There's more to life than Donald Trump. It's a strange concept, but a good one. All right, let's do it. So once Democrats pass this large COVID-19 relief bill that has so consumed conversations about President Biden's first few weeks. What is next on the agenda?

Because he has a very ambitious agenda. The current discussions are that after this current budget reconciliation bill, what they will move on to is another budget reconciliation bill. Senate procedural rules and details are always a little murky, but they feel that they're on pretty firm ground that they can do at least two this year. And that has to do with which fiscal year the budget resolution is for. So the question is then what will be in the next budget reconciliation bill? And there's a lot of talk about infrastructure. There's a lot of talk about doing something about climate change. But the problem is that under Senate rules, only certain things are allowed to be in a budget reconciliation bill, only certain

types of policies. They have to affect the budget as a way to sort of oversimplify it, which means that a lot of stuff that a lot of people in the party think is very important, like changes to voting rights or even adding new states, making may not be able to be included. And this has caused some disagreement within the party because some are saying, well, let's just stick with the current rules, focus on what we can do through budget reconciliation. And others are saying, no, there's much more we have to do and we need to talk about changing those rules. I mean, we know stimulus is a very popular idea with people. What do people want most from this party right now?

Is it action on climate change? Is it something about immigration? They proposed this big immigration bill last week or is it something else? Well, the stimulus bill is extraordinarily popular, for one. And that points towards some thinking that some have within the party that what voters across the country most want now is for action on the economy and action to stop the pandemic. And those are voters' main priorities. And everything else pales before the importance of accomplishing both of those. And that's importance both substantively and also electorally for the Democrats who do have their eyes on the next

election, who know that their margins in both the House and Senate are quite small. They could easily lose one or both chambers in the 2022 midterms. And they are looking back towards the past at what has happened recently during presidents' first terms. And one thing that happens a lot is a backlash conventional wisdom holds the party of a sitting president loses seats in the midterm election president Trump had one this is a very significant defeat for mr. Trump a historic accomplishment for the Democrats President Obama had one now I'm not recommending for every future president that they take a shellacking like I did last night. I'm sure there are easier ways to learn these lessons.

President Bill Clinton had one. We were held accountable yesterday, and I accept my share of the responsibility in the result of the elections. George W. Bush, it was a bit of a weird situation because 9-11 happened near the end of his first year and that caused him to become quite popular as the country rallied around him. So there was less of a backlash

that year. But basically, backlash is extremely common. And the moderates in the party think that, hey, the best way to avoid a backlash is to keep the agenda

not small. You can go big on the economy, on the pandemic, but really keep the focus on those two topics rather than branching out and trying to do a lot of other things that seem less strongly connected to voters' main priorities right now. And of course, progressives in the party are not so convinced by this. They say that these other voters' priorities that are kind of getting the shaft, action on immigration, voting rights, are extremely important. And they shouldn't just be put aside for political reasons. Is there a risk of backlash either way, though? Isn't one of the takeaways from Obama's eight years in office that there's going to be obstructionism when you don't have the majority, so do as much as you can while you do? So that's clearly true when you don't have the majority. And the debate is really about how best can Democrats try and keep their majority. And most of them, they lost Senate seats, too.

Democrats only have, if they lose five House seats on net in 2022, and if they lose one Senate seat, they lose both chambers. So it's very easy for them to lose control of Congress. And some people do argue that this is a very rare moment, so Democrats must do as much as they can to get their major policy priorities signed into law. And others argue that, well, maybe it's by doing that that you will cause an even bigger backlash and even bigger congressional losses that could be very difficult to come back from for years to come. Because remember, it's not just that Democrats have small majorities in both houses. There's also gerrymandering at work in the House, and there's going to be another round

of gerrymandering at the end of this year or next year. As Republicans still control most state legislatures, they'll redraw the boundaries and make the maps even more favorable to them. Then in the Senate, Republicans, their current coalition also gives them a built-in advantage because even though Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, he won 30 states and Hillary Clinton won 20. Even though Joe Biden won the popular vote in 2020 by about four percentage points, he and Trump each won the same number of states, 25 to 25. So basically, the Senate map, just the way populations are doled out among the states with a lot of non-college educated white voters spread out among many states, gives Republicans a built-in advantage there as well. So there's a lot of fear among political minded Democrats that if they lose

either chamber in 2022, and particularly if they lose them by a lot, it may take a very long time before they have control again. Not a rosy picture for the left. How does it influence the moves they can make? Well, I spoke to a political scientist from Brown, Eric Potashnik, about what sort of policies are most likely to produce voter backlash. And he had a few examples. He said that policies that impose near-term visible costs on voters, such as tax increases, that likely gets you a backlash. Policies that threaten the social identities of groups, such as challenges to the status of groups like police officers, say. Policies that generate resentment about the provision of benefits to supposedly

undeserving groups, like conservative backlash to welfare or benefits for unauthorized immigrants, and also just policies that aren't tailored to the priorities and views of the average voters right now. And he was careful to add that, you know, none of this means that Democrats shouldn't pursue these policies. But what it does mean is that they should be clear-eyed about the consequences of potential backlash if they do pursue them, and they need to carefully weigh whether the benefit that they think would get out of them, the substantive benefit, how much good they would do, is worth the political price that they very well might pay. It feels like the very obvious analog to the situation Joe Biden finds himself in right now

is the one his broski Barack Obama found himself in early on in his presidency when he decided to go ahead and pursue a huge, ambitious structural change to the way America works in the Affordable Care Act. Oh, yeah. If you ask Democrats today, would they regret having prioritized the passage of Obamacare in 2009 and 2010? I think you'd get a bunch of different responses. Some people would say that was a once in a decade or more historic moment, and we took advantage of it and we accomplished something good. And they point to the fact that even though there was a backlash in 2010, by the time Trump got around to trying to repeal Obamacare, it turned out that voters didn't want it

repealed. And it was Republicans in Congress who paid a price for trying to repeal Obamacare, it turned out that voters didn't want it repealed. And it was Republicans in Congress who paid a price for trying to repeal it. And I think that's basically because Obamacare became the status quo. It wasn't this new scary change anymore. It was normal. And it was Trump who is proposing the new scary change. But then you have another camp of the party who might say that there were very real costs to choosing to do Obamacare versus, say, something else that could have also helped a lot of people but might have been more popular and less likely to cause the Democrats to lose 63 House seats in 2010 and put them in a very deep hole that it would take eight years for them to climb out of. And there's no right answer here necessarily, I don't think. There are just different viewpoints on whether you think it was worth it. Okay. So, so in summation, we have a very, very narrow majority with which Democrats can only really get budget related things done through budget reconciliation.

If they, they act boldly, they may be punished for it in the midterms and then not have any majority in either chamber and be stuck with even more status quo if they if they don't act boldly they could still get punished so should they just act boldly i i think the synthesis here is boldly and smartly. Charging ahead and doing, you know, everything that sounds good to the most liberal members of their party would likely be running headlong into political consequences. But I mean, it's all about weighing costs versus benefits. Like, can they pass something that would really make a difference in a lot of people's lives that would really matter? And if they can do that, would it be worth the political cost that would deprive them of the ability to do that in future Congresses? It's easy to just say, you know, damn the political consequences, full speed ahead,

just do the right thing. But I think Democrats would think of themselves as having done that in 2009 and 2010. And what happened is that they lost the House of Representatives and they didn't get it back for another eight years. And eight years is a long time where Congress essentially could not pass any liberal priorities unless Republicans agreed to it and extracted some cost to it. So, you know, there are very real trade-offs to trying to do everything you want to do. Andrew Prokop, senior correspondent at Vox, who writes about former and present presidents. You can read more from him and Lee Zou at Vox.com.

I'm Sean Ramos for him. This is Today Explained. Thank you. Bye.