Peace and love, John, Jamaal Bowman here.
There's recently been a lot of talk around "means testing" with the reconciliation bill. So, I wanted to reach out and share more about what that means, and why I don't support it.
Means tested benefits (like SNAP, for example) are income-based. That means if you make over a certain amount, or if you don't meet specific criteria, you won't receive benefits. But studies have shown that setting these boundaries can place a social stigma and bureaucratic requirements to qualify on the people who often need it the most.
Means testing is also bad policy, because it's nearly impossible to come up with a perfect set of criteria for who is in need of support — and means tested benefits end up less impactful than universal ones.
Here's a recent example:
A few days ago, Senator Joe Manchin stated that he wouldn't support the child tax credit — which is a part of the Build Back Better Act — unless there was a $60,000 household income limit and a work requirement.
But a household income of $60,000 in my district in New York, where the cost of living is higher than many other places, looks very different in practice than $60,000 elsewhere in our country.
John, I can guarantee that if Senator Manchin had his way with this requirement, many families in my district will be left behind.
We need to fight back against "what-ifs" or demands that we "negotiate" on cut backs for the Build Back Better Act. Because the Build Back Better Act means more jobs. It means health care, our climate, and taking care of our kids and seniors.
I'm fully aware that as lawmakers, it's not just our job to make sure that it passes in full. It's also our job to ensure that these investments benefit everyone. Means testing would get in the way of accomplishing what we are setting out to do. It's bad policy, and it's bad politics.
This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and I'm urging my colleagues in Congress to do the right thing and act.
— Jamaal
