SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_2_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}#sSHARED_-_Social_Desktop_0_0_11_0_0_1.row-wrapper{margin:40px auto;}#sBoost_post_0_0_0_0_0_0_1_0{background-color:#000;color:#fff;}.boost-post{--article-direction:column;--min-height:none;--height:auto;--padding:24px;--titles-width:calc(100% - 84px);--image-fit:cover;--image-pos:right;--photo-caption-size:12px;--photo-caption-space:20px;--headline-size:23px;--headline-space:18px;--subheadline-size:13px;--text-size:12px;--oswald-font:"Oswald", Impact, "Franklin Gothic Bold", sans-serif;--cta-position:center;overflow:hidden;margin-bottom:0;--lora-font:"Lora", sans-serif !important;}.boost-post:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){min-height:var(--min-height);}.boost-post *{box-sizing:border-box;float:none;}.boost-post .posts-custom .posts-wrapper:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article:before, .boost-post article:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article .row:before, .boost-post article .row:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article .row .col:before, .boost-post article .row .col:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .widget__body:before, .boost-post .widget__body:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .photo-caption:after{content:"";width:100%;height:1px;background-color:#fff;}.boost-post .body:before, .boost-post .body:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .body :before, .boost-post .body :after{display:none !important;}.boost-post__bottom{--article-direction:row;--titles-width:350px;--min-height:346px;--height:315px;--padding:24px 86px 24px 24px;--image-fit:contain;--image-pos:right;--headline-size:36px;--subheadline-size:15px;--text-size:12px;--cta-position:left;}.boost-post__sidebar:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:10px;}.boost-post__in-content:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:40px;}.boost-post__bottom:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:20px;}@media (min-width: 1024px){#sSHARED_-_Social_Desktop_0_0_11_0_0_1_1{padding-left:40px;}}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_14_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_14_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 1024px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 1024px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 1024px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}#sElement_Post_Layout_Press_Release__0_0_1_0_0_11{margin:100px 0;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}.black_newsletter{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}.black_newsletter .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper{background:none;}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Federal lawmakers have recently announced at least five proposals to significantly expand existing tax credits or create new ones to benefit low- and moderate-income people. While these proposals vary a great deal and take different approaches, all would primarily benefit taxpayers in income groups who received only a small share of benefits from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Economic inequality, stagnating wages for working people and child poverty are recognized as some of the defining challenges for America today.[1] One possible response to these challenges is to use the tax code to supplement incomes of low- and moderate-income people. This report examines five proposals to create or expand tax credits to accomplish this goal, explains how they differ from each other and provides estimates of their impacts using the ITEP microsimulation model.[2]
This report focuses on the big picture to help policymakers and the public understand and distinguish between the five proposals. ITEP has generated supplemental data providing more detail for each proposal, which you can find at the following links.
As illustrated in Figure 1, the proposals vary a great deal in their approach. The Cost-of-Living Refund Act would expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) while the American Family Act would expand the Child Tax Credit. The Working Families Tax Relief Act makes less dramatic changes to both credits and combines them in one bill.
The LIFT the Middle Class Act and the Rise Credit would create new tax credits. The Rise Credit initially seems more generous because it is larger than the credit provided by the LIFT Act; however, the Rise Credit would replace the current EITC while the LIFT Act would coexist alongside the EITC.
Each proposal takes a different approach to using tax credits to boost incomes of low- and moderate-income families, makes distinct choices about where to target the benefits, and varies in the size of the investment. For example, the Working Families Tax Relief Act is most targeted to low-income taxpayers and has the lowest cost ($99.2 billion in 2020, as shown on Figure 1). The American Family Act has a similar cost but targets resources toward children, which is motivated by research showing that expanded child tax benefits would have a significant impact on reducing child poverty.[3] The Cost-of-Living Refund Act provides the largest expansion to the EITC and, therefore, arguably provides the greatest increase in work incentives for its cost.
The costliest of the proposals are the LIFT the Middle Class Act (estimated to cost $270.9 billion in 2020) and the Rise Credit (estimated to cost $250.5 billion in 2020). As a result, these two proposals provide the most generous benefits to most households, but this is not true across the board, as this report will explain.
This analysis is inevitably incomplete because these tax credit proposals would certainly, if enacted, be paired with other tax provisions that raise revenue to offset the costs and possibly other provisions that benefit households in certain situations. The goal of this report is not to evaluate one proposal as being more favorable than others but to understand how they differ from each other and from current law based on what we know about them so far.[4]
One thing is true about all these proposals--they are far more targeted toward low- and middle-income people than the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA).[5]
Figure 2 compares the cost and distribution of benefits of each of the five proposals in 2020 to the cost and distribution of benefits from TCJA.
ITEP uses its microsimulation model to estimate the benefits for tax units in each income group. A tax unit includes all the people who are listed on a personal income tax return, not counting returns filed by dependents. A tax unit includes an adult or two married adults and also includes the adults' dependents (usually children).[6]
As illustrated in Figure 2, TCJA provided the vast majority of its benefits to the richest fifth of tax units, which will have incomes greater than $119,000 in 2020. It also provided significant benefits to foreign investors, who gain from TCJA's cuts in the corporate income tax. By contrast, all five tax credit proposals examined in this report focus the vast majority of their benefits on the bottom three-fifths of tax units, which will have incomes of less than $69,800 in 2020.
Figure 3 provides the estimated average tax cut for each income group under each proposal and under TCJA. As already mentioned, these estimates are incomplete. If lawmakers enacted one of the tax credit proposals, it would likely be paired with other tax provisions to raise or cut taxes, so the total effect of such a package of tax changes is impossible to know right now. For example, one of the tax credit proposals could be enacted along with repeal of part or all the TCJA, as well as other provisions, to raise revenue.[7]
Figure 3 illustrates the effects of each tax credit proposal on its own and compares that to TCJA. For example, it demonstrates that the tax break received by the typical family in the bottom two-fifths of tax units under any of the tax credit proposals would be larger than the tax breaks they received under TCJA.
On the other hand, the tax credit proposals would provide almost nothing to well-off families and in some cases would raise their taxes.
The details of the five tax credit proposals make clear how they benefit low- and moderate-income Americans rather than the well-off.
The EITC is a tax credit equal to a certain percentage of earnings up to a maximum amount. The EITC in its current form is most helpful to working people with children. For example, those with one child in 2020 will be allowed an EITC equal to 34 percent of their earnings, up to a likely maximum of $10,580 in earnings, resulting in a maximum credit of $3,597.[8] The credit will begin to phase out if the family's income exceeds $19,410 (or $25,310 in the case of a married couple). The credit rate and the earnings amount to which it applies is higher for families with two children and still higher for families with three or more children.
As Figure 4 illustrates, families with children would see their maximum EITC nearly doubled under the Cost-of-Living Refund Act and increased by smaller amounts under the Working Families Tax Relief Act.
For families with children, neither proposal would directly change the phaseout rules, but because the maximum credit would be larger, it would phase out at higher income levels, meaning more people would benefit from the EITC.
The most significant changes under both proposals would be for individuals or married couples with no children living with them. Under current law, the maximum EITC for this group will be roughly just $540 in 2020. Under the Cost-of-Living Refund Act, the maximum EITC for this group would be nearly six times that amount; and under the Working Families Tax Relief Act it would be nearly four times that amount, as illustrated in Figure 4. Both proposals would allow more people without children to benefit from the EITC by phasing it out at higher income levels compared to current law and by loosening age restrictions, as illustrated in Figure 4.
The Cost-of-Living Refund Act also provides an EITC of $1,200 to certain students and those with children under age seven even if their earnings fall below what would otherwise qualify them for that amount.
More details on the proposed changes to the EITC are provided in the appendix.
Under current law, taxpayers are allowed a Child Tax Credit (CTC) of up to $2,000 per child.[9] Limits on the refundable portion of the CTC prevent about a third of low- and moderate- income children and families from receiving the full credit.[10] A smaller number of children and families do not receive the full credit because their incomes are too high. The CTC starts to phase out for married couples with incomes over $400,000 and other families with incomes over $200,000.
Both the American Family Act and the Working Families Tax Relief Act would increase the credit, remove the limits on refundability that prevent low- and moderate-income families from benefiting and lower the income limits that prevent well-off people from receiving the full credit.
As illustrated in Figure 5, the American Family Act would increase the CTC to $3,000 in 2020 and provide an additional $600 for each child under 6 years old. The Working Families Tax Relief Act would maintain the $2,000 credit and provide an additional $1,000 for children under 6. (The figures shown in Figure 5 include inflation adjustments for 2020 where they apply.)
In many cases, tax credits benefit low-income people only to the extent that they are refundable. Both of these proposals would remove the two limits on the refundable part of the CTC that prevent low-income families from accessing the full credit under current law.
First, under current law the credit is limited to a percentage of earnings, not counting the first $2,500.[11] This means that families with very low earnings will not receive the credit or receive only a partial credit. Superficially this resembles the way the EITC is calculated as a percentage of earnings, but the CTC's earnings-based limit is more difficult to justify. While the EITC is thought of as tax break designed to encourage work, the CTC is a per-child credit, designed mainly to help families with the costs of raising children. The earnings-based limit is inconsistent with this overall design because it restricts the value of the credit for each child in a low-income household. Also, the CTC is allowed for families at very high income levels compared to the EITC, meaning it is not designed to be a work incentive for the vast majority of households who benefit from it.
Second, under current law, the refundable part of the CTC is also subject to a dollar cap that will likely be $1,400 in 2020.[12] This provision has no apparent rationale other than to restrain the overall cost of TCJA, which provided the vast majority of its benefits to the well-off, as already explained.
Both the American Family Act and the Working Families Tax Relief Act would eliminate these limits on the refundable part of the CTC.
In addition, both proposals would lower income levels at which the CTC begins to phase out. The American Family Act would reduce those thresholds from $400,000 to $180,000 for married couples and from $200,000 to $130,000 for other families. The Working Families Tax Relief Act would lower those thresholds from $400,000 to $200,000 for married couples and from $200,000 to $150,000 for other families.
The changes to income limits in the CTC are the reason Figure 3 shows that these two proposals would increase taxes on some high-income Americans (but not among the richest 1 percent, who are already generally ineligible for the CTC under current law).
More details on the proposed changes to the CTC are explained in the appendix.
The LIFT the Middle Class Act and the Rise Credit both create new refundable credits. The LIFT Act would provide a maximum credit of $3,000 for unmarried people and $6,000 for married couples. The Rise Credit would be a maximum of $4,000 for unmarried people and $8,000 for married couples. (The amounts shown in Figure 6 include inflation adjustments for 2020.)
The Rise Credit is larger and therefore seems like the more generous of the two, but this is not always true because the Rise Credit is designed as a replacement for the EITC, whereas the credit provided by the LIFT Act would supplement the EITC.
Similar to existing tax credits, both proposals can be thought of as having two types of limits: a low earnings-based limit and a high-income limit.
Under the LIFT Act and the Rise Credit, the low earnings-based limit bars most people from receiving a credit exceeding their earnings. For example, the maximum credit allowed under the LIFT Act in 2020 is likely to be $3,050 for unmarried people. The maximum credit would effectively be $3,050 or the unmarried person's earnings, whichever is less. The same type of rule applies under the Rise Credit. This is similar to how the EITC is phased in based on earnings, except that the credit rate in the case of the LIFT Act and Rise Credit is 100 percent.
The LIFT Act provides an exception to the earnings-based limit by allowing students to count their Pell Grants as earnings for the purposes of calculating their credit. (Figures in this report do not include the impact on such students.)
The Rise Credit provides two exceptions to the earnings-based limit. It allows caregivers of certain dependents (elderly or disabled dependents and children under 6 years old) and certain students to receive the full credit regardless of their earnings. (Figures in this report do not include the impact on such students.)
The other limit on both credits is the high-income limit. In 2020, the LIFT Act's credit would start to phase out, generally, for single, childless people as their income exceeds $30,550 and for other families as their income exceeds $61,150. The Rise Credit would begin to phase out for married couples as their income exceeds $50,950 and for other families as their income exceeds $30,550 in 2020.
The Rise Credit has an additional feature. Its basic credit ($4,000/$8,000, adjusted for inflation) does not take children into account. Because it would replace the EITC (which does take the number of children a family has into account) the basic credit would provide little or no benefit to single parents with two or more children. For this reason, the Rise Credit includes an additional component that effectively is like a small EITC for these families.[13]
More details about these proposed credits are provided in the appendix.
Given the details of the tax credit proposals, it is clear that they are intentionally designed to target benefits to low- and moderate-income people rather than the well-off. Figure 7 provides the share of benefits going to each income group under each proposal and TCJA.
These estimates demonstrate that the proposals are intended to benefit those in the bottom three-fifths of tax units.
These proposals are also designed to help families with working age adults. To be eligible for tax credits under any of these proposals, one must either have earnings or have dependents. While many seniors have earnings and some seniors have dependents (for example, those with custody of grandchildren), most retirees do not benefit from these tax credit proposals.[14]
To get a better sense of how the intended beneficiaries of these proposals are affected, Figure 8 focuses on tax units that meet two conditions. One, they are among the bottom three-fifths of tax units overall. Two, they are tax units with working age adults.
Figure 8 shows the average tax change under each proposal in 2020 for those tax units among the bottom three-fifths with working age adults.[15] In other words, this graph shows the average tax change among those whom the proposals are designed to help.
The largest average tax breaks are provided by the LIFT Act and Rise Credit, which is not surprising because these two proposals are, by far, the most expensive, as illustrated in Figure 1 in the beginning of this report.
Figure 8 also illustrates the average tax change for the same group--those among the bottom three-fifths and including working age adults--but separated into different family structures.
Again, this analysis is incomplete because we do not know what other tax provisions would be enacted along with these proposals. Nonetheless, this analysis demonstrates that the impacts of the tax credit proposals alone would vary greatly by family structure.
For example, it shows that those without children (married couples with no children and unmarried people with no children) would receive the largest average tax break from the Rise Credit. This is not surprising given that the basic Rise Credit is $4,000 for unmarried people and $8,000 for married couples, with only a small adjustment based on the number of children in the family.
The situation is different for people with children. Married couples with children would receive the largest average tax break under the LIFT Act, partly because the LIFT Act is one of the most generous proposals across the board. Single parents with children would receive the largest average tax break under the Cost-of-Living Refund Act, which expands the EITC and continues the policy of providing a larger EITC to larger families.
As explained earlier, the proposals vary in how they reach a similar goal of targeting tax cuts to low- and middle-income taxpayers. For example, some proposals are more generous than others, but come with higher costs. While the American Family Act does not provide the largest benefits across taxpayers, it is less costly than most of the other proposals, and it directs resources entirely to families with children especially very low-income families.
Research shows that tax policy can exacerbate racial and ethnic gaps in income, wealth, and opportunity, which reflect the legacy of a variety of injustices and continued discrimination.[16]
The TCJA, for example, showered 79 percent of its benefit on white tax taxpayers (see Figure 9) and rewarded their existing wealth by concentrating the greatest share of its cuts on corporations and the highest-income households, exempting even more of the nation's richest families from the estate tax, and leaving in place provisions that tax investment income at lower rates.[17]
The five tax credit proposals examined in this report would, to some degree, help to mitigate existing racial disparities in income and the tax code. All five of the tax credit proposals are designed to target benefits to and boost the incomes of the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers, and Black and Latinx make up a disproportionate share of these income groups due to historic and continuing systemic injustices.
Figure 10 illustrates the share of each racial and ethnic group that is among the bottom 60 percent of tax units. For example, 74 percent of Black tax units and 72 percent of Latinx tax units have incomes that place them in the bottom 60 percent of tax units, meaning both groups include a greater share of taxpayers that the tax credit proposals are designed to help. However, only 55 percent of all white non-Hispanic taxpayers have incomes that place them in this group.
Policymakers have several tools to address economic inequality, stagnating wages and child poverty. One of those tools is the tax code. As this report makes clear, the five major tax credit proposals that have been offered so far would all do this to different degrees and in different ways. The proposals meet different goals and have different costs, but all of them target the vast majority of their benefits to the bottom 60 percent of Americans, who only receive a small share of the benefits from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Whereas TCJA disproportionately benefited the richest fifth of Americans, the benefits of these proposals would be distributed more equitably.
[1] For information on rising wage inequality and wage trends, see Elise Gould, "State of Working America Wages 2018: Wage inequality marches on-- and is even threatening data reliability," Economic Policy Institute, February 20, 2019. For an overview of the disparate frequencies of child poverty by race and ethnicity, see Valerie Wilson and Jessica Schieder, "The rise in child poverty reveals racial inequality, more than a failed War on poverty," Economic Policy Institute, June 8, 2018.
[2] The ITEP microsimulation model estimates the impacts of tax policies on a representative sample of taxpayer records. For more information, see the ITEP Microsimulation Tax Model Overview, https://itep.org/itep-tax-model-simple/.
[3] See National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. 2019. A Roadmap to Reducing Child Poverty. Washington, DC
[4] When possible, this analysis is based on the legislative text for each proposal. One of the proposals, the Rise Credit, is not fleshed out in legislative text but was announced by Sen. Cory Booker's presidential campaign. However, it is based on a proposal from the Economic Security Project, which has provided sufficient detail for this analysis.
[5] It is worth keeping in mind that the TCJA follows a longer trend whereby recent tax cuts have disproportionately benefited the highest-income Americans. Since 2000, tax cuts have reduced federal revenue by $5.1 trillion, and 65 percent of the value of those breaks has gone to the top 20 percent of tax payers. See Steve Wamhoff and Matthew Gardner, "Federal Tax Cuts in the Bush, Obama, and Trump Years," Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, July 11, 2018.
[6] A tax unit is often the same thing as a household, but not always. For example, three unmarried, unrelated adults might live in a house together and be considered a household, but they would likely each file separate tax returns and therefore be considered three different tax units.
[7] For a description of several policy options to raise significant revenue, see Steve Wamhoff and Mathew Gardner, "Progressive Revenue-Raising Options," Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, February 5, 2019. https://itep.org/progressive-revenue-raising-options/
[8] Because this report analyzes the effects of proposals in 2020, many dollar amounts given are projections of what the inflation-adjusted amounts will likely be.
[9] The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased the CTC from $1,000 to $2,000 and made other changes. Like many other provisions in TCJA, the CTC changes will expire at the end of 2025 if Congress does not extend them.
[10] Aidan Davis, Meg Wiehe, Sophie Collyer, David Harris, Christopher Wimer, "The Case for Extending State-Level Child Tax Credits to Those Left Out: A 50-State Analysis," April 17, 2019. https://itep.org/the-case-for-extending-state-level-child-tax-credits-to-those-left-out-a-50-state-analysis/
[11] Under current law, the refundable portion of the CTC is limited to 15 percent of earnings in excess of $2,500.
[12] This cap is inflation-adjusted annually but does not change in some years because the inflation-adjusted amount is rounded.
[13] The basic Rise Credit for single people (with or without children) is $4,050 in 2020, while the current EITC for single people with children can be larger than that. To prevent such families from losing benefits, the Rise Credit, which replaces the EITC, would include an additional component specifically for single parents with two or more children. It would be structured like a small EITC. For a single parent with two children, the additional component would equal 12.5 percent of earnings, up to $14,860 in earnings, for a maximum of $1,858 in 2020. For a single parent of three or more children, it would equal 18.75 percent of earnings, up to the same $14,860 of earnings, for a maximum of $2,786. This would be allowed in addition to the basic Rise Credit of $4,050 for single people and would be phased out similarly to the current EITC but over a longer income range. Under the Rise Credit, the Child Tax Credit would also continue to exist unchanged.
[14] Seniors with earnings could benefit from the provision in the Working Families Tax Relief Act that would raise the maximum age for the childless EITC from 64 to 67. Seniors with earnings could also benefit from the LIFT Act and Rise Credit. Seniors with dependent children could benefit from the expansion of the Child Tax Credit in the American Family Act and the Working Families Tax Relief Act.
[15] Working age here is defined as a tax unit in which neither the filer nor the spouse of the filer is age 65 years or older.
[16] See Misha Hill, Alan Essig, Meg Wiehe, Jenice Robinson, Steve Wamhoff and Carl Davis, "The Illusion of Race-Neutral Tax Policy," February 14, 2019. https://itep.org/the-illusion-of-race-neutral-tax-policy/
[17] Meg Wiehe, Emanuel Nieves, Jeremie Greer, David Newville, "Race, Wealth and Taxes: How the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Supercharges the Racial Wealth Divide," October 11, 2018. https://itep.org/race-wealth-and-taxes-how-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-supercharges-the-racial-wealth-divide/
Founded in 1980, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization, based in Washington, DC, that focuses on federal and state tax policy. ITEP's mission is to inform policymakers and the public of the effects of current and proposed tax policies on tax fairness, government budgets, and sound economic policy. ITEP's full body of research is available at www.itepnet.org.
"More of this energy from every Democrat please," said one progressive commentator as the New Jersey lawmaker continued to hold the floor of the U.S. Senate with a speech that has lasted more than 20 hours—and counting.
This is a developing news story... Please check back for possible updates.
Answering the voting public's growing call for the Democratic Party to actually stand up to Republicans' sweeping assault on the federal government, led by U.S. President Donald Trump and his billionaire adviser Elon Musk, Sen. Cory Booker took to the Senate floor at 7:00 pm Eastern Time on Monday and was still speaking as of Tuesday afternoon.
Early in his remarks, Booker (D-N.J.) cited the example of late Congressman John Lewis (D-Ga.), a civil rights icon who famously declared in 2020, "Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and help redeem the soul of America."
Booker, who ran for president in 2020, explained Monday that he asked himself, "If he's my hero, how am I living up to his words?"
"What's happened in the past 71 days in a patent demonstration of a time where John Lewis' call to everyone has, I think, become more urgent and more pressing," Booker said. "So, tonight, I rise tonight with the intention of getting in some good trouble. I rise with the intention of disrupting the normal business of the United States Senate for as long as I am physically able."
"I rise tonight because I believe sincerely that our country is in crisis—and I believe that not in a partisan sense, because so many of the people that have been reaching out to my office in pain, in fear, having their lives upended, so many of them identify themselves as Republicans," the senator continued.
Booker stressed that "bedrock commitments are being broken, unnecessary hardships are being borne by Americans of all backgrounds, and institutions which are special in America, which are precious, which are unique in our country, are being recklessly and I would say even unconstitutionally affected, attacked, and even shattered."
"In just 71 days, the president of the United States has inflicted so much harm on Americans' safety, financial stability, the core foundations of our democracy, and even our aspirations as a people for, from our highest offices, a sense of common decency. These are not normal times in America, and they should not be treated as such," he argued. "I can't allow this body to continue without doing something different, speaking out. The threats to American people and American democracy are grave and urgent, and we all must do more—we all must do more against them."
Booker accused the president of "betraying" America and causing "chaos, instability, and harm" by working to gut a wide range of programs—an effort spearheaded by Trump's Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency—while seeking tax cuts for wealthy people and corporations, which Republicans are trying to push through Congress.
Over several hours, the senator addressed topics such as GOP attacks on healthcare, including efforts to cut Medicaid; attempts to dismantle the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Department of Education; a mass deportation agenda that has swept up immigrants like Kilmar Abrego Garcia; and the administration's "national security policies that are leaving our allies abandoned, our adversaries emboldened, and Americans less safe."
Throughout Booker's many hours standing at the podium—he reportedly had the chair removed to avoid the temptation to sit down—he sporadically yielded for a question from a Democratic colleague while retaining the floor, which gave him opportunities to rest his voice and transition from topic to topic.
As The Associated Pressreported: "Democratic aides watched from the chamber's gallery, and Sen. Chris Murphy accompanied Booker throughout his speech. Murphy was returning the comradeship that Booker had given to him in 2016 when the Connecticut Democrat held the floor for almost 15 hours to argue for gun control legislation."
Other Democrats who asked questions of Booker included Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and Sens. Angela Alsobrooks (Md.), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Chris Coons (Del.), Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Ben Ray Luján (N.M.), Ed Markey (Mass.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Alex Padilla (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Adam Schiff (Calif.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Chris Van Hollen (Md.), Raphael Warnock (Ga.), Mark Warner (Va.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Peter Welch (Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), and Ron Wyden (Ore.). Independent Sen. Angus King (Maine), who caucuses with Democrats, also joined in.
Many of them praised Booker's stunt—as did Trump critics across social media, including Democrats in the lower chamber such as former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (Minn.), who declared that "this is the kind of relentless resistance our democracy demands."
As of press time, Booker had been speaking for over 20 hours. Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said: "Proud of Cory Booker! It would be poetic justice if he beats Strom Thurmond's record of speaking 24 hours and 18 minutes to block the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Yes, the longest filibuster in our nation's history was to block civil rights."
Booker's move came amid calls for Schumer to step down as minority leader after caving to Republicans during the latest government shutdown crisis, and as polling shows that a large majority of registered Democrats and Independent voters who lean Democratic are frustrated with the party for not effectively fighting Trump and supporting working poeple.
Sharing the livestream on social media Tuesday, the American Federation of Teachers said: "Sen. Booker has been standing on the Senate floor since last night, speaking powerfully on behalf of families and our nation. Thank you for your unwavering leadership, Sen. Booker."
Matt Royer of Young Democrats of America asserted that what Booker "is doing is heroic and courageous and exactly what we're looking for from Washington during this time. If you are not following along with this and why he is doing it, you absolutely should."
Podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen similarly pleaded, "More of this energy from every Democrat please."
"There is no way this makes Americans healthier."
HIV prevention. Anti-tobacco advocacy. The safety of mining workers.
All are among the health priorities that evidently have no place in U.S. President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy's vision to "Make America Healthy Again," following the mass firing of 10,000 people at the nation's top health agencies on Tuesday.
The layoffs hit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with some staffers informed of their dismissal after they arrived at work—only to be told to return home.
Kayla Tausche at CNN reported that laid off employees at the HHS building in Rockville, Maryland were forced to do a "walk of shame" past dozens of their former colleagues who were lined up outside the building, waiting to learn their own fate.
The employees who were laid off Monday evening into Tuesday are the latest of more than 100,000 federal workers who have lost their jobs since Trump took office and placed billionaire tech mogul and megadonor Elon Musk at the help of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. Last week, Kennedy said the federal health agency workforce would be reduced from about 82,000 to 62,000 people, with the restructuring making room for what he called "the Administration for a Healthy America" at HHS.
"We're going to do more with less," said the secretary, who has expressed skepticism about the scientifically proven benefits of vaccinations and claimed without evidence that the rate of chronic disease rose over the four years that former President Joe Biden was in the White House.
Kennedy said last week that communications for the health agencies would be brought under his control in the "restructuring," and many of the layoffs impacted people responsible for relaying information to the public.
Twenty people who handle public communications for one National Institutes of Health (NIH) program analyzing the genes of volunteers for health research were among those placed on administrative leave Tuesday—a precursor to being laid off, one official toldUSA Today.
The FDA's Office of Media Affairs was also disbanded, as well as most of the 50-person communications team for the agency's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, which manages information on drug approvals, shortages, and potential risks.
"The general public likely won't feel the results of these HHS layoffs immediately," said Larry Levitt, executive vice president of KFF. "But eventually, these layoffs will affect the health information available to people, access to care and prevention, and oversight of health and social services."
Other impacted employees include those in internal agencies focused on the health of senior citizens, people with disabilities, and minority communities, and workers studying asthma, lead poisoning, radiation damage, and the health effects of extreme heat and wildfires.
The administration appeared to see HIV prevention as a key target, placing the director of the National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention on administrative leave and dismantling teams that do HIV research and surveillance.
Despite his claims last week about wanting to fight chronic disease, Kennedy did not outline plans to better equip the federal government to fight heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions. At the CDC, The New York Times reported Tuesday, "entire departments studying chronic diseases and environmental problems were cut."
In a post on LinkedIn on Tuesday, former FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, who served under Biden and former President Barack Obama, said the agency "as we've known it is finished" and warned the federal government was losing critical institutional knowledge by firing thousands of people.
"I believe that history will see this [as] a huge mistake," said Califf. "I will be glad if I'm proven wrong, but even then there is no good reason to treat people this way. It will be interesting to hear from the new leadership how they plan to put 'Humpty Dumpty' back together again."
Journalist Sam Stein of The Bulwarkcalled the mass firings "an absolute bloodbath" with a "generation of scientists, healthcare officials being wiped out."
Brown University professor Dr. Craig Spencer said the country "will regret this."
"These are the people who make sure the medications you and your children take are safe. These are the people who perform and oversee research on cancer, infant health, and so, so, so much more. These are the people who make sure new devices that physicians and patients use are effective," said Spencer. "And now, thousands of them are gone. There is no way this makes Americans healthier."
"Instead of focusing on delivering benefits to seniors and people with disabilities, President Trump and unelected billionaire Elon Musk are systematically dismantling SSA."
As the Republican-controlled Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday prepared to advance Frank Bisignano, U.S. President Donald Trump's nominee for Social Security Administration commissioner, a report from the office of Sen. Bernie Sanders warned that the number of people who will die waiting for benefits could more than double under a plan by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency to slash SSA staffing by up to 50%.
"Social Security is the most successful government program in our nation's history. For more than 86 years, through good times and bad, Social Security has paid out every benefit owed to every eligible American on time and without delay," states the report from Sanders (I-Vt.), the ranking member on the Senate Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy.
"Social Security is the most successful government program in our nation's history."
Noting that "Social Security lifts roughly 27 million Americans out of poverty each and every year," the publication asserts that "at a time of massive wealth inequality, our job must be to expand and strengthen Social Security. Yet, instead of focusing on delivering benefits to seniors and people with disabilities, President Trump and unelected billionaire Elon Musk are systematically dismantling SSA."
"Roughly 3,000 employees have already been terminated or accepted voluntary separations from SSA. [Trump and Musk] have made unsubstantiated claims that there is massive fraud in the program and are proposing reckless cuts to SSA's workforce upward of 7,000 workers," the report continues. "In March 2025, former Commissioner of Social Security Martin O'Malley stated that due to the efforts of Elon Musk and DOGE, Americans could 'see the system collapse and an interruption of benefits' in "the next 30 to 90 days."
According to Sanders' report, "average wait times for Social Security disability benefits will double, and—more startlingly—the number of people who will die waiting for benefits will double to roughly 67,000 Americans" under DOGE-proposed cuts to SSA's workforce.
Musk has zeroed in on both Social Security benefits and staffing under the guise of reducing "waste and fraud" in "entitlement spending" on social safety net programs. In addition to proposing the elimination of up to 50% of SSA's workforce, the world's richest person has said that up to $700 billion could be cut from programs including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
"If SSA cuts 50% of employees making disability determinations, this will result in a 412-day wait for an initial decision" on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) claims, the Sanders report states.
The publication cites the case of Sheryl, a disabled California woman:
Right now I'm waiting for approval from SSDI and getting feedback from my private long-term disability insurance company that they want to try to send me back to work, while I have 13 doctors overseeing my care. If I succeed in convincing these heartless vultures that I'm disabled enough to rest, I will continue to worry that my fixed income will go less and less toward being able to live. If I don't, I will be put in a position to ignore my health and go back to work long enough to kill myself and leave my kids with no one. Welcome to America! One thing that would relieve a lot of stress is getting an approval... so that I know what my income will be and not have to worry that I'll end up in an economic landslide into the abyss.
Musk recently referred to Social Security as "the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time," echoing Trump's claim that the vital lifeline is a "scam" and adding to a long list of lies about social safety net programs.
"President Trump and Elon Musk have suggested that 'millions and millions' of dead people receive Social Security checks. That is an outrageous lie designed to undermine Americans' faith in Social Security," Sanders said on Tuesday. "Here's the truth: 30,000 people die a year waiting for an understaffed Social Security to approve disability benefits. The Trump-Musk plan to cut Social Security's staff by up to 50% will make this tragic reality even worse, and Frank Bisignano is there to see it through. We cannot let that happen."
Critics say Trump's nomination of Bisignano, a financial services executive with a private sector reputation as an aggressive cost-cutter, belies the president's claim that he is "not touching" Social Security. Senate Democrats have urged Trump to rescind Bisignano's nomination, pointing to his alleged lies under oath regarding improper contact with SSA and DOGE officials and fears over the administration's suspected privatization agenda.
"Putting Bisignano as head of Social Security is hiring an arsonist to run the fire station, plain and simple," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said ahead of Tuesday's vote.
"I knew [Frank Bisignano] when he was a businessman in New York. Businesses would bring him on board if they wanted to cut, cut, cut. Putting Bisignano as head of Social Security is hiring an arsonist to run the fire station, plain and simple." - @schumer.senate.gov
[image or embed]
— Social Security Works (@socialsecurityworks.org) April 1, 2025 at 8:40 AM
The Sanders report says that "the bottom line is this: Social Security belongs to the people who worked hard all their lives to earn their benefit. This is a program based on a promise—if you pay in, then you earn the right to guaranteed benefits. We cannot allow this promise to be broken."
In order to keep that promise, the report recommends actions including:
"Instead of slashing Social Security's staff, closing down Social Security field offices, we should be making it easier, not harder, for seniors and people with disabilities to receive the Social Security benefits that they have earned and deserve," Sanders said Tuesday.
In a bid to "fight back" against the Trump administration's attacks, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), and Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) on Tuesday launched a "Social Security War Room."
Warren's office said the initiative will "focus on coordinating messaging across the Senate Democratic Caucus and external stakeholders; encouraging grassroots engagement by providing opportunities for Americans to share what Social Security means to them; and educating Senate staff, the American public, and stakeholders about Republicans' agenda, and their continued cuts to service and benefits."
"Senate Democrats are united in saying: Trump and Elon, get your hands off our Social Security," Warren said in a statement ahead of a Tuesday press conference. "We're fighting back on behalf of every single senior, every single parent of a kid with a disability supported by Social Security, every single person currently paying into the program for later down the line, and every American who cares that seniors can retire with dignity."