The House is expected to vote on Monday to replace the $ 600 stimulus payments in the pandemic relief law recently enacted by the $ 2,000 that President Trump demanded – a Democratic-led effort that is politically tense for Republicans in Congress unlikely to become law.
The bill would need two-thirds support to clear the House under the procedure being used for voting, and it is still unclear whether enough Republicans would file their opposition to higher payments – partly driven by deficit concerns. – to support Trump’s request.
If the attempt fails in the House on Monday, Democrats can bring it up again later this week for a simple majority vote. Even if the bill passes the House, it is unlikely to pass the Senate.
The focus on the issue, however, can be problematic for Republicans, as a vote against increased payments puts them at odds with their party leader and also against a politically popular idea. Republicans are trying to stay united ahead of two decisive Georgia elections next week that will determine Senate control.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing the draft stimulus checks to a vote after Trump demanded the change in a surprise turnaround last week, in which he denounced the $ 600 payment as “ridiculously low” despite the the fact that Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin is involved in the negotiations.
House Democrats tried to approve the bill by unanimous consent on December 24, but Republican leaders objected. Democrats then blocked an effort by the Republican Party to cut foreign aid in the package – another of Trump’s demands.
After days of threats to pandemic relief and the government spending package that needed his signature to become law, Trump capitulated on Sunday night and signed the bill. In a statement, he said the Senate had agreed to initiate the voting process for the $ 2,000 checks along with a measure to end social media liability protections and an investigation into alleged voter fraud.
It is not yet clear whether this means that Senate leaders will package these provisions. If they do, such a project is likely to attract enough opposition from both sides to fail in plenary.
Senate minority leader Charles E. Schumer is asking Republicans to come up with a clean bill, like the House measure, to increase payments to $ 2,000.
On Sunday, Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey, a Republican, said he would vote against checks for $ 2,000. During months of COVID-19 relief negotiations, Republicans fought any direct payments and insisted that $ 600 was the maximum they could support in this round of economic aid.
In Georgia, Senate Democratic candidates Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock used the $ 2,000 payment proposal to attack Republican Party candidates David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler. Loeffler said he would consider the increase if it was offset by spending cuts elsewhere, while Perdue did not express support.
GOP divisions
The Republican Party leadership is leaving it to its members to decide how to vote Pelosi’s bill, and the Republican divisions over stimulus checks were on display vividly on Monday.
Alabama Republican MP Mo Brooks, a close ally of Trump, made it clear on Monday morning on Fox News that he does not support Trump’s idea for $ 2,000 checks.
“I don’t think people understand what happens when a central government goes bankrupt, but it’s not pretty,” he said. “It’s dangerous.”
New York MP Tom Reed, a moderate Republican who co-chairs the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, spoke out in favor of the bill and said he could bring the 25 Republican Party members from his group.
“The American people are suffering. Economic stagnation and blockages have left many in difficult financial situations, ”said Reed in a statement. “It is only right that we act decisively now to provide the comprehensive help that people desperately need.
Other Republicans, like New York MP Elise Stefanik, said they were still thinking about support.
“I’m open to checks for $ 2,000,” she told Fox News on Monday. “I want to see what’s really in the bill by Mayor Pelosi. She always tends to use party language. “
The increase in payments could cost about $ 435 billion, according to the Committee’s preliminary projections for a Responsible Federal Budget. This is in addition to the $ 164 billion that the Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan accountant in Congress, estimates the $ 600 in payments.
Additional provisions
The bill that goes to the House plenary vote at around 5 pm EST on Monday has some additional provisions, in addition to adding $ 1,400 to direct payments.
The House bill would increase the eligibility of family members who can receive the money, allowing adult dependents as well as child dependents to receive payments. Currently, only children of adults below income limits qualify for payments.
Raising payments to $ 2,000 would also expand the universe of families who will be eligible for the money, according to the phasing out formula set out in the stimulus law. Higher amounts mean that payments end at higher income levels.
Married couples with a combined adjusted gross income of $ 150,000 or less and individuals who earn $ 75,000 or less annually would be eligible for a total amount of $ 2,000 per person. Payments are lower for higher rents, based on family size. For example, a single adult earning less than $ 115,000, a couple earning up to $ 230,000, and a family of four with up to $ 310,000 in annual income would receive part of the $ 2,000 per person.
The Internal Revenue Service referred questions about the timing and processing of payments made into law on Sunday to the Treasury Department. The Treasury Department did not respond to a request for comment on when it would start sending payments. Mnuchin said earlier this month that transfers would begin this week, but that was before Trump’s delay in signing the legislation.
The Internal Revenue Service was able to start processing $ 1,200 payments in about two weeks after the Cares Act was passed in March. The agency said it will be able to move forward more quickly in this round because much of the preparation work has already been done.
– With the help of Jennifer Jacobs.