United States Politics and Government

More stories

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Biden $1.8 Trillion Plan: Child Care, Student Aid and More

    by

    The proposed American Families Plan would expand access to education and child care. It would be financed partly through higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans.WASHINGTON — The Biden administration on Wednesday detailed a $1.8 trillion collection of spending increases and tax cuts that seeks to expand access to education, reduce the cost of child care and support women in the work force, financed by additional taxes on high earners.The American Families Plan, as the White House calls it, follows the $2.3 trillion infrastructure package President Biden introduced last month, bringing his two-part package of economic proposals to just over $4 trillion. He will present the details to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday evening.The proposal includes $1 trillion in new spending and $800 billion in tax credits, much of which is aimed at expanding access to education and child care. The package includes financing for universal prekindergarten, a federal paid leave program, efforts to make child care more affordable, free community college for all, aid for students at colleges that historically serve nonwhite communities, expanded subsidies under the Affordable Care Act and an extension of new federal efforts to fight poverty.Administration officials cast the plan as investing in an inclusive economy that would help millions of Americans gain the skills and the work flexibility they need to build middle-class lifestyles. They cited research on the benefits of government spending to help young children learn. In a 15-page briefing document, they said the package would help close racial and gender opportunity gaps across the economy.Many of the provisions, like tax credits to help families afford child care and a landmark expansion of a tax credit meant to fight child poverty, build on measures in the $1.9 trillion economic rescue plan Mr. Biden signed into law last month. The package would make many of those temporary measures permanent.But the plan also includes a maze of complicated formulas for who would benefit from certain provisions — and how much of the tab state governments would need to pick up.The package could face even more challenges than the American Jobs Plan, Mr. Biden’s physical infrastructure proposal, did in Congress. The president has said repeatedly that he hopes to move his agenda with bipartisan support. But his administration remains far from reaching a consensus with Republican negotiators in the Senate.Republicans have expressed much less interest in additional spending for education, child care and paid leave than they have for building roads and bridges. They have also chafed at the tax increases Mr. Biden has proposed, including the ones that will help pay for his latest package.The president is proposing an increase in the marginal income tax rate for the top 1 percent of American income earners, to 39.6 percent from 37 percent. He would increase capital gains and dividend tax rates for those who earn more than $1 million a year. And he would eliminate a provision in the tax code that reduces capital gains on some inherited assets, like vacation homes, that largely benefits the wealthy.Mr. Biden would also invest $80 billion in personnel and technology enhancements for the I.R.S., in hopes of netting $700 billion in additional revenues from high earners, wealthy individuals and corporations that evade taxes.Republicans and conservative activists have criticized all those measures. Administration officials told reporters that the president would be open to financing the spending and tax credits in his plan through alternative means, essentially challenging Republicans to name their own offsets, as Mr. Biden did with his physical infrastructure proposal.Still, many of the details in his new proposal poll well with voters across the political spectrum. Much of the package could win the support of the full Democratic caucus in Congress, which would need to band together to pass all or part of the plan through the fast-track process known as budget reconciliation, which bypasses a Senate filibuster.Expanded access to government-subsidized preschool and community college may have broad appeal. Workers with only high school degrees are often stuck in low-wage jobs, and two-thirds of mothers with young children are employed, and thus need reliable child care. The high cost of quality day care and pre-K puts these services out of reach for many families, who may rely on informal networks of relatives and neighbors who are untrained in early education.Expanding access to pre-K has been particularly popular over the past decade in states and cities, including some with Republican governors. A large body of research shows that achievement gaps between poor and middle-class children emerge in the earliest years of childhood and are present on the first day of kindergarten. Administration officials contend that free, quality early childhood education can both help cash-strapped parents and build students’ skills in ways that will help them become more productive workers.Still, there are major disagreements about how generous any expansion of pre-K should be. President Barack Obama’s administration generally favored a centrist approach in which new seats were geared toward lower-income families.Mr. Biden’s plan differs in that it calls for universal preschool for all 3- and 4-year-olds, including those from affluent families. That is the same approach pioneered in recent years by city programs in New York and Washington, which expanded quickly to serve a diverse swath of families, but not without some evidence that they replicated the segregation and inequities of the broader K-12 education system.Bruce Fuller, a professor of education at the University of California, Berkeley, has been a critic of the universal approach, instead favoring more targeted programs. He questioned whether states would do their part to fund the expansion and said the goal of paying all early childhood workers $15 per hour was too modest to broadly improve the quality and stability of the work force.“How governors weigh these competing priorities, ethically and politically, remains an open question,” he said.The proposed investment from Washington comes at a precarious time. Preschool enrollment declined by nearly 25 percent over the past year, largely because of the coronavirus pandemic. As of December, about half of 4-year-olds and 40 percent of 3-year-olds attended pre-K, including in remote programs. And only 13 percent of children in poverty were receiving an in-person preschool education in December, according to the National Institute for Early Education Research.Unlike the preschool proposal, the child care plan is not universal. It would offer subsidies to families earning up to 1.5 times their state’s median income, which could be in the low six figures in some locations. It would also continue tax credits approved in the pandemic relief bill this year that offer benefits to people earning up to $400,000 a year.As with Mr. Biden’s previous policy proposals, the American Families Plan offers something to many traditional Democratic Party constituencies. The administration is closely tied to teachers’ unions, and while many early childhood educators are not unionized, the proposal also calls for investments in K-12 teacher education, training and pay, which are all union priorities. One goal is to bring more teachers of color into a public education system where a majority of students are nonwhite.The expansion of free community college would apply to all students, regardless of income. It would require states to contribute to meet the goal of universal access, senior administration officials said on Tuesday. Mr. Biden would also expand Pell grants for low-income students and subsidize two years of tuition at historically Black colleges and universities, as well as at institutions that serve members of Native American tribes and other minority groups.Mr. Fuller said he expected the community college proposal to effectively target spending to the neediest students. About one-third of all undergraduates attend public two-year colleges, which serve a disproportionate number of students from low-income families.The paid leave program will phase in over time. The administration’s fact sheet says it will guarantee 12 weeks of paid “parental, family and personal illness/safe leave” by its 10th year in existence. Workers on leave will earn up to $4,000 a month, with as little as two-thirds or as much as 80 percent of their incomes replaced, depending on how much they earn.Other provisions include late concessions to key Democratic constituencies. Administration officials had removed the health care credits last week but added them back under pressure from Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and others. They bucked pressure from House and Senate Democrats to make permanent an expanded child tax credit created by the pandemic relief bill, extending it through 2025. But the plan would make permanent one aspect of the expanded credit, which allows parents with little or no income to reap its benefits regardless of how much they earn. More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Biden to Order a $15 Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors

    by

    President Biden plans to sign an executive order on Tuesday raising the minimum wage paid by federal contractors to $15 an hour, the latest in a set of ambitious pro-labor moves at the outset of his administration.The new minimum is expected to take effect next year and is likely to affect hundreds of thousands of workers, according to a White House document. The current minimum is $10.95 under an order that President Barack Obama signed in 2014. Like that order, the new one will require that the new minimum wage rise with inflation.White House economists believed the increase would not lead to significant job losses, a finding in line with recent research on the minimum wage, and that it was unlikely to cost taxpayers more money, two administration officials said in a call with reporters. They argued that the higher wage would lead to greater productivity and lower turnover.The White House also contends that although the number of workers directly affected by the increase is relatively small as a share of the economy, the executive order will indirectly raise wages beyond federal contractors by forcing other employers to bid up pay as they compete for workers.Several cities have a minimum wage of at least $15 an hour, and several states have laws that will raise their minimum wage to at least that level in the coming years. There is so far little evidence on how a $15 minimum wage affects employment in lower-cost areas of such states.Two years ago, the House of Representatives passed a bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, but the legislation has faced long odds in the Senate. Mr. Biden sought to incorporate such a measure in his $1.9 trillion pandemic relief package so that it could pass on a simple majority vote, but the Senate parliamentarian ruled that it could not be included.Mr. Biden’s executive order will also eliminate the so-called tipped minimum wage for federal contractors, which currently allows employers to pay tipped workers $7.65 an hour as long as their tips put them over the regular minimum wage. Under the new minimum, all workers must be paid at least $15 an hour.The order will technically begin a rule-making process that is expected to conclude by early next year. The wage will be incorporated into new contracts and existing contracts as they are extended. More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Automatic Aid for the People? How Jobless Benefits Can Fit the Economy.

    by

    The pandemic showed the flaws in the American approach to help the unemployed. Alternatives exist.The line outside an unemployment office in Fayetteville, Ark., last April.September Dawn Bottoms for The New York TimesFor years, people who study unemployment benefits have warned that the American system of jobless insurance was too antiquated and clunky to meet the needs of workers in a time of economic crisis.To understand what they were worried about, consider this bizarre timeline since the start of the pandemic:Last spring, when the economic shutdown caused millions to lose their jobs, many state systems were so clogged that people were unable to receive jobless benefits for weeks, sometimes longer.Congress concluded that it would be technologically impossible to calibrate extra benefits to replace every jobless person’s full income, so it took a blunter approach: Lawmakers tacked an extra $600 per week onto unemployment checks. The result, by one estimate, was that 76 percent of recipients made more than they earned when they were working.At the end of July, that $600 supplement expired, falling to zero. But the economy remained in dire condition with jobs nowhere to be found — leaving millions of jobless people in the lurch.Then, early this year, $300 per week was tacked on. It is set to stay there until September, even as Americans are vaccinated on a mass scale and as the economy starts to roar ahead.So while unemployment insurance has fulfilled a vital role of keeping families afloat financially — and preventing overall demand for goods and services from collapsing — the stop-and-start cash sequence has been reflective of neither individual recipients’ lost income nor the state of the labor market.This has been partly the result of U.S. policymakers’ rejection of ideas that many labor market experts support, and that some advanced nations have adopted to varying degrees. These economists have called for investing more in the technological and customer service infrastructure of state unemployment systems, and presetting benefits based on economic conditions. Benefits would adjust automatically to the level of need, thus helping people who are struggling and stabilizing the overall economy without Congress having to do much of anything.“There are a lot of flaws and gaps in the unemployment insurance system that were revealed in Covid but have always been there,” said Chloe East, an economist at the University of Colorado Denver who has studied the system.Such proposals have typically come from left-of-center policy experts. But now, as the economy starts to recover, there’s a twist. In the potential boom-time summer to come, these automatic triggers would probably fulfill conservative policy goals — ensuring that benefits are reduced as the economy recovers, thus increasing incentives to return to work.In some areas, employers are struggling to attract workers.  A roadside banner beckons potential employees outside Channel Control Merchants in Hattiesburg, Miss.Rogelio V. Solis/Associated PressBusinesses around the country are complaining of difficulty finding people to hire. Many employers blame generous unemployment insurance payments that may give some would-be workers incentive to stay home.Some recipients still earn more on unemployment than they do when they’re working, thanks to the $300 supplement. And under current law, those benefits will remain in place until Sept. 6 no matter how much the economy might boom or how abundant jobs turn out to be.In a proposed sweeping overhaul of the system published this month by Arindrajit Dube of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, the duration of jobless benefits would vary based on the unemployment rate. States with a jobless rate under 5 percent would extend benefits for 26 weeks, and those with 10 percent unemployment for 98 weeks. He would also raise benefits by $100 a week when the jobless rate was above 6 percent, and by $200 when it was above 8 percent.Some lawmakers are thinking similarly. Two Democrats, Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon and Michael Bennet of Colorado, proposed legislation this month that would, among many other things, extend benefits when the unemployment rate is at or above 5.5 percent.Similar proposals have failed to advance for a range of reasons. For one, the plans appear expensive in the conventions of budget math. The current practice is to extend benefits in a bill, or a series of them, if the need arises. That appears less expensive than building in money in advance for jobless benefits and automatic triggers based on the economy.Now consider the partisanship that can come into play in limiting the size of recession aid packages. If lawmakers agree to spend only $900 billion on economic help, for example, it’s a disadvantage if some of that is devoted to a theoretical estimate of what jobless benefits might be years in the future.Moreover, lawmakers may like the appearance that they are leaping to citizens’ aid in a crisis or recession — which would be less visible if the aid were increased automatically.In times of economic crisis, like last year, Democrats and Republicans have been able to agree on these policies. But if they were to try to devise a system from scratch, they might turn out to be quite far apart on how generous jobless benefits should be.“I think everyone can agree the optimal system would be calibrated to the economy, but the devil is so much in the details,” said Marc Goldwein, policy director of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “I suspect the parties are much farther apart on what a permanent trigger should look like than what we should do in the next six months.”Still, the current moment shows there could be harmony between at least some fiscal conservatives and pro-business interests and those on the left who would like to see more expansive benefits.“Even people who would like to see pandemic unemployment insurance gone by now would have wanted people last May and June to be getting checks when millions of people weren’t getting them because the systems couldn’t function,” said Jay Shambaugh, an economist at George Washington University. “One way or another, the system we have now didn’t provide money along the optimal path.”The flip side of a system that can get money out quickly is that it can also be fine-tuned to make sure benefits go away when circumstances justify it. More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Federal Aid to Renters Moves Slowly, Leaving Many at Risk

    by

    Congress allocated $25 billion in December and another $21 billion in March to help people who fell behind on rent during the pandemic. Little has reached landlords or tenants.WASHINGTON — Four months after Congress approved tens of billions of dollars in emergency rental aid, only a small portion has reached landlords and tenants, and in many places it is impossible even to file an application.The program requires hundreds of state and local governments to devise and carry out their own plans, and some have been slow to begin. But the pace is hindered mostly by the sheer complexity of the task: starting a huge pop-up program that reaches millions of tenants, verifies their debts and wins over landlords whose interests are not always the same as their renters’.The money at stake is vast. Congress approved $25 billion in December and added more than $20 billion in March. The sum the federal government now has for emergency rental aid, $46.5 billion, rivals the annual budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.Experts say careful preparation may improve results; it takes time to find the neediest tenants and ensure payment accuracy. But with 1 in 7 renters reporting that they are behind on payments, the longer it takes to distribute the money, the more landlords suffer destabilizing losses, and tenants risk eviction.Millions of tenants are protected from eviction only by a tenuous federal moratorium that faces multiple court challenges, omits many households and is scheduled to expire in June.“I’m impressed with the amount of work that unsung public servants are doing to set up these programs, but it is problematic that more money isn’t getting out the door,” said Ingrid Gould Ellen, a professor at New York University who is studying the effort. “There are downstream effects if small landlords can’t keep up their buildings, and you want to reach families when they first hit a crisis so their problems don’t compound.”Estimates of unpaid rents vary greatly, from $8 billion to $53 billion, with the sums that Congress has approved at the high end of the range.The situation illustrates the patchwork nature of the American safety net. Food, cash, health care and other types of aid flow through separate programs. Each has its own mix of federal, state and local control, leading to great geographic variation.While some pandemic aid has flowed through established programs, the rental help is both decentralized and new, making the variation especially pronounced.While Charleston has started a local rent assistance program, South Carolina has $272 million to spend and has not begun taking applications.Cameron Pollack for The New York TimesAmong those seeking help is Saundra Broughton, 48, a logistics worker outside Charleston, S.C., who considered herself safely middle class in the fall, when she rented an apartment with a fitness center and saltwater pool. To her shock, she was soon laid off; after her jobless benefits were delayed, she received an eviction notice.“I’ve always worked and taken care of myself,” she said. “I’ve never been on public assistance.”A judge gave Ms. Broughton 10 days to leave her apartment. Only a last-minute call to legal aid brought word of the federal moratorium, which requires tenants to apply. She rushed to the library to print the form with 24 hours to spare. “But I still owe the money,” she said, about $4,600 and counting.If Ms. Broughton lived in nearby Berkeley County, she could have sought help as early as March 29. In Charleston County, a few miles away, she could have applied on April 12. But as a resident of Dorchester County, she must apply through the state, which has $272 million in federal money but is not yet taking applications.“Why are they holding the money?” she said. “I have thousands of dollars of debt and could be kicked out at any moment. It’s a very frightening feeling.”The huge aid measures passed during the early stages of the pandemic did not include specific provisions to help renters, though they did give most households cash. But hundreds of state and local governments started programs with discretionary money from the CARES Act, passed in March 2020. These efforts disbursed $4.5 billion in what amounted to a practice run for the effort now underway with 10 times the money.Lessons cited include the need to reach out to the poorest tenants to let them know aid is available. Technology often posed barriers: Renters had to apply online, and many lacked computers or internet access.The demand for documentation also thwarted aid, as many people without proof of leases or lost income could not finish applications. Some landlords declined to participate, perhaps preferring to seek new tenants.Despite rising need, programs in Florida and New York, financed by the CARES Act, returned tens of millions of unspent dollars to the states. By the time Congress passed the new program in December, nearly 1 renter household in 5 reported being behind on payments.The national effort, the Emergency Rental Assistance Program, is run by the Treasury Department. It allocates money to states and also to cities and counties with populations of at least 200,000 that want to run their own programs. About 110 cities and 227 counties have chosen to do so.The program offers up to 12 months of rent and utilities to low-income tenants economically harmed by the pandemic, with priority on households with less than half the area’s median income — typically about $34,000 a year. Federal law does not deny the aid to undocumented immigrants, though a few states and counties do.Modern assistance seems to demand a mix of Jacob Riis and Bill Gates — outreach to the marginalized and help with software. Progress slowed for a month when the Biden administration canceled guidance issued under President Donald J. Trump and developed rules that require less documentation.Other reasons for slow starts vary. Progressive state legislators in New York spent months debating the best way to protect the neediest tenants. Conservatives legislators in South Carolina were less focused on the issue. But the result was largely the same: Neither legislature passed its program until April, and neither state is yet accepting applications.“I just don’t know why there hasn’t been more of a sense of urgency,” said Sue Berkowitz, the director of the South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center. “We’ve been hearing nonstop from people worried about eviction.”There is no complete data on how many tenants have been helped. But of the $17.6 billion awarded to state governments, 20 percent is going to states not yet taking applications, though some local programs in those states are. Florida (which has $871 million), Illinois ($566 million) and North Carolina ($547 million) are among those that have yet to start.“The pace is slow,” said Greg Brown of the National Apartment Association, who emphasized that landlords have mortgages, taxes and maintenance to pay.In a recent talk at the Brookings Institution, Erika Poethig, a housing expert on the White House Domestic Policy Council, praised the “unprecedented amount of rental assistance” and said “the federal government only has so much ability” to encourage faster action.Accepting applications is only the beginning. With $1.5 billion to spend, California has attracted 150,000 requests for help. But of the $355 million requested, only $20 million has been approved and $1 million paid.Texas, with $1.3 billion to spend, started quickly, but the company it hired to run the program had software failures and staffing shortages. A committee in the state House of Representatives found that after 45 days, the program had paid just 250 households.By contrast, a program jointly run by the city of Houston and Harris County had spent about a quarter of its money and assisted nearly 10,000 households.Not everyone is troubled by the pace. “Getting the money out fast isn’t necessarily the goal here, especially when we focus on making sure the money reaches the most vulnerable people,” said Diane Yentel, the director of the National Low Income Housing Coalition.Given the challenge, she said, “I think it’s going OK.”She points toward a program in Santa Clara County, Calif., that won praise for its outreach last year. Many of the people it served spoke little English or lacked formal leases to submit. Now, with $36 million to spend under the new program, it opted for weeks of additional planning to train 50 nonprofit groups to find the poorest households“Giving away money is actually quite hard,” said Jen Loving, who runs Destination: Home, a housing group leading the campaign. “All the money in the world isn’t going matter if it doesn’t get to the people who need it.”In Charleston, S.C., housing became a subject of concern after a 2018 study found the area had the country’s highest eviction rate. Charleston County ran three rounds of rental relief with CARES Act money, and the state ran two.The second state program, started with $25 million in February, drew so many applications that it closed in six days. But South Carolina is still processing those requests as it decides how to distribute the new federal funds.Antonette Worke is among the applicants awaiting an answer. She moved to Charleston from Denver last year, drawn by cheaper rents, warmer weather and a job offer. But the job fell through, and her landlord filed for eviction.Ms. Worke, who has kidney and liver disease, is temporarily protected by the federal eviction moratorium. But it does not cover tenants whose leases expire, as hers will at the end of next month. Her landlord said he would force her to move, even if the state paid the $5,000 in overdue rent.Ms. Worke is temporarily protected by a federal moratorium on evictions, but her lease is set to expire at the end of the month.Nora Williams for The New York TimesStill, she said the help was important: A clean slate would make it easier to rent a new apartment and relieve her of an impossible debt. “I’m stressing over it to the point where I’ve made myself sicker,” she said.Moving faster than the state, Charleston County started its $12 million program two weeks ago, and workers have taken computers to farmers’ markets, community centers and a mall parking lot. Christine DuRant, a deputy county administrator, said the aid was needed to prevent foreclosures that could reduce the housing stock. But critics would pounce if the program sent payments to people who do not qualify, she said: “We will be audited,” possibly three times.Latoya Green is caught where the desire for speed and accounting collide. A clerk who lost hours in the pandemic, she owes $3,700 in rent and utilities and is protected by the eviction moratorium only until her lease expires next month.She applied for help on the day the county program started but has not completed the application. She said she is unsettled by the emails requesting her lease, which she lacks, and proof of lost income.Still, Ms. Green does not criticize Charleston County officials. “I think they’re trying their best,” she said. “A lot of people run scams.”With time running short, she added: “I just hope and pray to God they’ll be able to assist me.” More

  • 100 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Biden's Spending Plans Could Start to Tackle Inequality

    by

    The Biden administration is relying on Congress instead of just the Fed to fix the economy. That mix could lead to a less wealth-unequal future.The coronavirus pandemic has threatened to rapidly expand yawning gaps between the rich and the poor, throwing lower-earning service workers out of jobs, costing them income, and limiting their ability to build wealth. But by betting on big government spending to pull the economy back from the brink, United States policymakers could limit that fallout.The $1.9 trillion economic aid package President Biden signed into law last month includes a wide range of programs with the potential to help poor and middle-class Americans to supplement lost income and save money. That includes monthly payments to parents, relief for renters and help with student loans.Now, the administration is rolling out additional plans that would go even further, including a $2.3 trillion infrastructure package and about $1.5 trillion in spending and tax credits to support the labor force by investing in child care, paid leave, universal prekindergarten and free community college. The measures are explicitly meant to help left-behind workers and communities of color who have faced systemic racism and entrenched disadvantages — and they would be funded, in part, by taxes on the rich.Forecasters predict that the government spending — even just what has been passed so far — will fuel what could be the fastest annual economic growth in a generation this year and next, as the country recovers and the economy reopens from the coronavirus pandemic. By jump-starting the economy from the bottom and middle, the response could make sure the pandemic rebound is more equitable than it would be without a proactive government response, analysts said.That is a big change from the wake of the 2007 to 2009 recession. Then, Congress and the White House passed an $800 billion stimulus bill, which many researchers have concluded did not do enough to fill the hole the recession left in economic activity. Lawmakers instead relied on the Federal Reserve’s cheap-money policies to coax the United States’ economy back from the brink. What ensued was a halting recovery marked by climbing wealth inequality as workers struggled to find jobs while the stock market soared.“Monetary policy is a very aggregated policy tool — it’s a very important economic policy tool, but it’s at a very aggregated level — whereas fiscal policy can be more targeted,” said Cecilia Rouse, who oversees the White House Council of Economic Advisers. In the pandemic crisis, which disproportionately hurt women of all races and men of color, she said, “If we tailor the relief to those who are most affected, we are going to be addressing racial and ethnic gaps.”From its first days, the pandemic set the stage for a K-shaped economy, one in which the rich worked from home without much income disruption as poorer people struggled. Workers in low-paying service jobs were far more likely to lose jobs, and among racial groups, Black people have experienced a much slower labor market rebound than their white counterparts. Globally, the downturn probably put 50 million people who otherwise would have qualified as middle class into lower income levels, based on one recent Pew Research analysis.But data suggest the U.S. policy response — including relief legislation that passed last year under the Trump administration — has helped mitigate the pain.“The CARES Act to the American Rescue Plan have helped to support more households than I would have imagined,” Charles Evans, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, told reporters this month during a call, referring to the pandemic relief packages passed in early 2020 and early 2021.Wealth has recovered nearly across the board after slumping early last year, foreclosures have remained low, and household consumption has been shored up by repeated stimulus checks.While the era has been fraught with uncertainty and people have slipped through the cracks, this downturn looks very different for poorer Americans than the post-financial crisis period. That recession ended in 2009, and America’s wealthiest households recovered precrisis wealth levels by 2012, while it took until 2017 for the poorest to do the same.At a food bank in Phoenix last month. The $1.9 trillion economic aid package signed into law includes a wide range of programs with the potential to help poor and middle-class Americans.Juan Arredondo for The New York TimesThe government’s policy response is driving the difference. In the 2010s, Republicans cited deficit worries and curtailed spending early, at a time when the economy remained far from healed after the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Interest rates were already near zero and not offering much of an economic lift, so the Fed engaged in several rounds of large-scale bond purchases to try to bolster the economy.The Fed policies did help. But low rates and huge bond-buying bolstered the economy slowly, and by first increasing prices on financial assets, which rich households are much more likely to own. As companies gain access to cheap capital to expand and hire, the workers who secure those new jobs have more money to spend, and a happy cycle unfolds.By 2019, that prosperous loop had kicked into gear and unemployment had dropped to half-century lows. Black and Hispanic as well as less-educated workers were working in greater numbers, and wages at the bottom of the income distribution had begun to steadily climb.Poverty fell, and there were reasons to hope that if that had continued, income inequality — the gap between how much the poor and the rich earn each year — might soon decline. Lower income inequality could, in theory, lead to lower wealth inequality over time, as households have the wherewithal to save more evenly.But getting there took nearly a decade and when the pandemic hit in 2020, it almost certainly disrupted the trend. The data are released on a lag.As those divergent trends between labor and capital played out, the rich rebuilt their savings — which are heavily invested in stocks and businesses — much faster. Poorer households eventually reaped benefits as the years wore on and people landed jobs. The bottom half of America’s wealth holders ended up better off than they had been before the crisis, but farther behind the rich.At the start of 2007, the bottom half of the wealth distribution held 2.1 percent of the nation’s riches, compared to 29.7 percent for the top 1 percent. By the start of 2020, the bottom half had 1.8 percent, while the top 1 percent held 31 percent.Researchers debate whether monetary policy actually worsens wealth divides in the long run — especially since there’s the hairy question of what would have happened had the Fed not acted — but monetary policymakers generally agree that their policies can’t stop a pre-existing trend toward ever-worse wealth inequality.By offering a more targeted boost from the very start of the recovery, fiscal policy can. Or, at a minimum, it can prevent wealth gaps from deepening so much.Monetary policy “is naturally trickle-down,” said Joseph Stiglitz, an economist at Columbia and Nobel laureate. “Fiscal policy can work from the bottom and middle up.”That’s what the Biden administration is gambling on. Paired with packages from December and last April, Congress’s recent package will bring the amount of economic relief that Congress has approved during the pandemic to more than $5 trillion. That dwarfs the amount spent in the last recovery.The legislation is a mosaic of tax credits, stimulus checks and small-business support that could leave families at the lower end of the income and savings distribution with more money in the bank and, if its provisions work as advertised, with a better chance of returning to work early in the recovery.There is no guarantee Mr. Biden’s broader economic proposals, totaling about $4 trillion, will clear a narrowly divided Congress. Republicans have balked at his plans and this week offered a counterproposal on infrastructure that is only a fraction the size of what Mr. Biden wants to spend. A bipartisan group of House moderates is pushing the president to finance infrastructure spending through an increased gas tax or something similar, which hits the poor harder than the rich.Still, the president’s new proposals could have long-term effects, working to retool workers’ skills and lift communities of color in hopes of putting the economy on more equal footing. The president is set to outline his so-called American Family Plan, which is focused on the work force, before his first address to a joint session of Congress next week.While details have yet to be finished, programs like universal prekindergarten, expanded subsidies for child care and a national paid leave program would be paid for partly by raising taxes on investors and rich Americans. That could also affect the wealth distribution, shuffling savings from the rich to the poor.The plan, which must win support in a Congress where Democrats have just a narrow margin, would raise the top marginal income tax rate to 39.6 percent from 37 percent, and raise taxes on capital gains — the proceeds of selling an asset, like a stock — for people making more than $1 million to 39.6 percent from 20 percent. Counting in an Obamacare-related tax, the taxes they pay on profits would rise above 43 percent.If the Biden package helps a wide swath of people to get back to earning and saving money faster this time, there’s hope that it might set the economy on a different trajectory.Jim Wilson/The New York TimesThe new policies will not necessarily cut wealth inequality, which has been on an inexorable upward march for decades, but they could keep poorer households from falling behind by as much as they would have otherwise.Betting big on fiscal policy to return the economy to strength is a gamble. If the economy overheats, as some prominent economists have warned it could, the Fed might have to rapidly lift interest rates to cool things down. Rapid adjustments have historically caused recessions, which consistently throw vulnerable groups out of jobs first.But administration officials have repeatedly said the bigger risk is underdoing it, leaving millions on the labor market’s sidelines to struggle through another tepid recovery. And they say the spending provisions in both the rescue package and the infrastructure could help to fix longstanding divides along racial and gender lines.“We think of investment in racial equity, and equity in general, as good policy, period, and integral to all the work we do,” Catherine Lhamon, a deputy director of the Domestic Policy Council, said in an interview. More