How paid leave, a tax cut for the rich and more could get axed from Biden’s social policy bill

WASHINGTON – Congress Democrats cheered on the floor of the US House of Representatives after approving President Joe Biden’s massive social spending and climate bill.

But next month there is a big fight ahead in the US Senate, in which Democrats cannot lose votes within their party if they want to send the so-called Build Back Better measure to Biden’s desk.

This gives every single Democratic senator a virtual right of veto over the bill – and some are already explaining what they will not accept.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill would spend about $ 1.7 trillion over 10 years. Household analysts predict an additional $ 500 billion in tax breaks, bringing the total cost to about $ 2.2 trillion over a decade, higher than previous White House estimates.

The measure has already been the subject of months of negotiations aimed at forging peace between moderates who are skeptical of the price of the legislation and progressives who are frustrated that it is getting stuck in solving longstanding problems with childcare, health care, immigration and others Guidelines.

Any changes made in the Senate mean the bill must be sent back to the House of Representatives for further voting before it can go into effect – and its costs will go up or down, too. And time is running out, because the number of meeting days is getting shorter the closer the year gets closer.

Here’s more on the House Bill’s proposals that will most likely go away once the Senate begins its work:

Paid vacation

Biden’s initial proposal was 12 weeks of paid leave for parents and other caregivers who need to take time off from work to care for a new baby or other family member, or to recover from an illness.

This new benefit was reduced to four weeks and then completely removed from the bill – before four weeks of paid vacation were reintroduced into the final House version.

But the paid vacation popular with Americans has met significant opposition from Senator Joe Manchin III, DW.Va., who has said for weeks that he does not support the inclusion of a new national paid vacation program in the bill.

Manchin said he did not believe that such a program should be created through the reconciliation process that the equally divided Senate will use to pass the law by simple majority.

He also said he prefers a paid vacation program funded by contributions from employers and employees, and Manchin has raised concerns about the solvency of a new benefit program.

“Expanding social programs when you have trust funds that are insolvent, insolvent – I can’t explain, it doesn’t make sense to me,” Manchin said, according to The Washington Post.

Under the law passed by the House of Representatives, the paid vacation program would begin in 2024 and would be available to most employees or the self-employed.

The money would be paid out either through a new federal benefit or through existing state or employer-based vacation plans, and those non-state vacation programs would be partially reimbursed by the federal government.

The United States is one of the few countries in the world – and the only wealthy country – that doesn’t have a national paid family vacation program.

The four-week benefit in the House-passed law is also much shorter than what most nations offer, and less than the 12 weeks of unpaid job protection offered to some workers under the Family and Sick Leave Act.

Upper limit for SALT deductions

Senate Democrats across the ideological spectrum oppose a provision in the House of Representatives bill that they see as a tax break for wealthy residents of high-tax countries. The measure would remove a cap on the federal deduction for state and local taxes, commonly known as the SALT deduction.

The provision was the primary driver behind the vote of Maine Moderate Democratic MP Jared Golden against the bill in the House of Representatives, but it also had to win the votes of members like New Jersey MP Josh Gottheimer.

Senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic Socialist from Vermont who sits down with the Democrats, has railed against the “hypocrisy” of the Democrats in giving tax breaks to the rich.

Not only Sanders’ wing of the Democratic Group is against the measure. Senator Michael Bennet, D-Colo., Stated in a tweet last week that 70% of SALT benefits would go to the richest 5% of the population.

“The American people didn’t send us to Washington to cut taxes on rich people,” he tweeted.

But with the Senate Democrats, led by New Yorker Chuck Schumer – who has many voters who would benefit from the tax break – the provision may not be abolished entirely, even if members from Sanders to Montana moderate Senator Jon Tester oppose it. Instead, a compromise could be reached, say those involved in the trial in the Senate.

Sanders and Senator Robert Menendez, DN.J., are working on a language that would restrict the new deduction cap to those who earn more than $ 400,000 a year.

immigration

An immigration proposal that the House Democrats included in the bill is more at risk from the bipartisan Senate MPs than from the opposition of the Democratic Senators.

The move would allow people in the United States who violate immigration laws to retain their work permits and be safe from deportation for five years.

Immigration activists had sought more permanent relief in an earlier bill that MP Elizabeth MacDonough rejected in September.

Since the Democrats move the entire package through reconciliation, they must adhere to a rule for this process that forbids provisions that have little effect on the federal budget.

Methane charge

Manchin have reportedly objected to the part of the bill that would impose a new fee on methane emissions from fossil fuel production.

The proposal would increase fees from $ 900 per tonne in 2023 to $ 1,500 per tonne in 2025.

Methane is one of the most powerful greenhouse gases that lead to climate change. Biden and other world leaders pledged at the United Nations Climate Change Conference earlier this month to cut methane emissions by 30% by the end of the decade.

Manchin, whose family has ties to the West Virginia coal industry, often disagrees with Democrats on energy issues.

Under pressure from Manchin, the White House dropped another major climate proposal in an earlier version of the bill. This measure would have created a program to reward utility companies for achieving clean energy goals and punish those who fail to do so.

A Manchin spokeswoman declined to comment.

Already out there: gold digger license fee

Before the bill reached the Senate, the House of Representatives removed a section that added a federal license set for miners of gold and other hard rock minerals. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., Endorsed the removal of the measure that would primarily affect gold producers in her state.

Hard rock miners work on the state under an 1872 law protecting them from paying the kind of license fees charged by the oil, gas, and coal industries.

The House of Representatives proposal, authored by the Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., Would have imposed an 8% royalty rate on new mines and a 4% rate on existing operations, representing approximately US $ 5 billion to US $ 7 billion. Dollars a year concerns.

Environmentalists and fiscal hawks have long called for a license fee to mine hard rock, but Cortez Masto opposed the disproportionate impact this would have on Nevada.

A spokeswoman for her office called the original proposal “a non-runner” for Nevada’s senior senator, adding, “Cortez Masto made sure the original House of Representatives provision was not incorporated into the law that was being passed by the House of Representatives.”

How paid leave, a tax cut for the rich and more could get axed from Biden’s social policy bill