Mediaboss Marketing

Contents

The Democratic Party is one of the two major political parties in the United States, and the nations oldest existing political party. After the Civil War, the party dominated in the South due to its opposition to civil and political rights for African Americans. After a major shift in the 20th century, todays Democrats are known for their association with a strong federal government and support for minority, womens and labor rights, environmental protection and progressive reforms.

Though the U.S. Constitution doesnt mention political parties, factions soon developed among the new nations founding fathers.

The Federalists, including George Washington, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, favored a strong central government and a national banking system, masterminded by Hamilton.

But in 1792, supporters of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who favored decentralized, limited government, formed an opposition faction that would become known as the Democratic-Republicans.

Despite Washingtons warning against the danger of political parties in his famous farewell address, the power struggle between Federalists and the Democratic-Republican Party dominated the early government, with Jefferson and his supporters emerging largely triumphant after 1800.

The Federalists steadily lost ground in the early 19th century, and dissolved completely after the War of 1812.

In the highly controversial presidential election of 1824, four Democratic-Republican candidates ran against each other. Though Andrew Jackson won the popular vote and 99 electoral votes, the lack of an electoral majority threw the election to the House of Representatives, which ended up giving the victory to John Quincy Adams.

In response, New York Senator Martin van Buren helped build a new political organization, the Democratic Party, to back Jackson, who defeated Adams easily in 1828.

After Jackson vetoed a bill renewing the charter of the Bank of the United States in 1832, his opponents founded the Whig Party, led by Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky. By the 1840s, Democrats and Whigs were both national parties, with supporters from various regions of the country, and dominated the U.S. political system; Democrats would win all but two presidential elections from 1828 to 1856.

In the 1850s, the debate over whether slavery should be extended into new Western territories split these political coalitions. Southern Democrats favored slavery in all territories, while their Northern counterparts thought each territory should decide for itself via popular referendum.

At the partys national convention in 1860, Southern Democrats nominated John C. Breckinridge, while Northern Democrats backed Stephen Douglas. The split helped Abraham Lincoln, candidate of the newly formed Republican Party, to victory in the 1860 election, though he won only 40 percent of the popular vote.

The Union victory in the Civil War left Republicans in control of Congress, where they would dominate for the rest of the 19th century. During the Reconstruction era, the Democratic Party solidified its hold on the South, as most white Southerners opposed the Republican measures protecting civil and voting rights for African Americans.

By the mid-1870s, Southern state legislatures had succeeded in rolling back many of the Republican reforms, and Jim Crow laws enforcing segregation and suppressing Black voting rights would remain in place for the better part of a century.

As the 19th century drew to a close, the Republicans had been firmly established as the party of big business during the Gilded Age, while the Democratic Party strongly identified with rural agrarianism and conservative values.

But during the Progressive Era, which spanned the turn of the century, the Democrats saw a split between its conservative and more progressive members. As the Democratic nominee for president in 1896, William Jennings Bryan advocated for an expanded role of government in ensuring social justice. Though he lost, Bryans advocacy of bigger government would influence the Democratic ideology going forward.

Republicans again dominated national politics during the prosperous 1920s, but faltered after the stock market crash of 1929 and the onset of the Great Depression. In 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt became the first Democrat to win the White House since Woodrow Wilson.

In his first 100 days, Roosevelt launched an ambitious slate of federal relief programs known as the New Deal, beginning an era of Democratic dominance that would last, with few exceptions, for nearly 60 years.

Roosevelts reforms raised hackles across the South, which generally didnt favor the expansion of labor unions or federal power, and many Southern Democrats gradually joined Republicans in opposing further government expansion.

Then in 1948, after President Harry Truman (himself a Southern Democrat) introduced a pro-civil rights platform, a group of Southerners walked out of the partys national convention. These so-called Dixiecrats ran their own candidate for president (Strom Thurmond, governor of South Carolina) on a segregationist States Rights ticket that year; he got more than 1 million votes.

Most Dixiecrats returned to the Democratic fold, but the incident marked the beginning of a seismic shift in the partys demographics. At the same time, many Black voters who had remained loyal to the Republican Party since the Civil War began voting Democratic during the Depression, and would continue to do so in greater numbers with the dawn of the civil rights movement.

Although Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed civil rights legislation (and sent federal troops to integrate a Little Rock high school in 1954), it was Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat from Texas, who would eventually sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law.

Upon signing the former bill, Johnson reportedly told his aide Bill Moyers that I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.

Over the course of the late 1960s and 1970s, more and more white Southerners voted Republican, driven not only by the issue of race, but also by white evangelical Christians opposition to abortion and other culture war issues.

After losing five out of six presidential elections from 1968 to 1988, Democrats captured the White House in 1992 with Arkansas Governor Bill Clintons defeat of the incumbent, George H.W. Bush, as well as third-party candidate Ross Perot.

Clintons eight years in office saw the country through a period of economic prosperity but ended in a scandal involving the presidents relationship with a young intern, Monica Lewinsky. Clintons conduct in the affair eventually led to his impeachmentby the House in 1998; the Senate acquitted him the following year.

Al Gore, Clintons vice president, narrowly captured the popular vote in the general election in 2000, but lost to George W. Bush in the electoral college, after the U.S. Supreme Court called a halt to a manual recount of disputed Florida ballots.

Midway through Bushs second term, Democrats capitalized on popular opposition to the ongoing Iraq War and regained control of the House and Senate.

In 2008, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois rode a wave of popular discontent and economic concerns during the Great Recession to become the first African-American U.S. president.

Opposition to Obama and his policies, particularly health care reform, fueled the growth of the conservative, populist Tea Party movement, helping Republicans make huge gains in Congress during his two terms in office.

And in 2016, after a tough primary battle with Vermontsenator Bernie Sanders, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton captured the Democratic nomination, becoming the first female presidential nominee of any major party in U.S. history.

But against most expectations, Clinton lost in the general election that November to reality TV star Donald Trump, while Republican gains in congressional elections left Democrats in the minority in both the House and Senate.

The slate of candidates running for president from the Democratic Party in the 2020 election was historically large and diverse. Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Beto ORourke, Corey Booker, Andrew Yang, Amy Klobuchar, Tulsi Gabbard and Tom Steyer were among the major candidates aiming to take on President Trump.

After a slow start to his campaign, former Vice President Joe Biden won his party's nomination.Biden chose California senatorKamala Harris as his vice presidential running mate, making Harris the first Black and Asian American woman to be named on a major party's ticket.Biden ran as a moderate, and pledged to unify the country after a divisive four years under President Trump. On November 7, Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 presidential election; he took office as the 46th U.S. president on January 20, 2021, alongside a fully Democratic Congress.

Political Parties in Congress, The Oxford Guide to the United States Government.Eric Rauchway, When and (to an extent) why did the parties switch places? Chronicle Blog Network (May 20, 2010).

See the article here:
Democratic Party - HISTORY

The first year of the coronavirus outbreak in the United States was characterized by sharp partisan differences in public attitudes on a wide range of pandemic issues. But in views of some aspects of COVID-19, there is little, or only modest, partisan difference. Heres what Pew Research Center surveys have found about partisan views of pandemic issues.

As the coronavirus pandemic enters its second year, public opinion on the outbreak and its handling continues to be marked by wide partisan divisions. We chose to highlight some of the areas where Democrats and Republicans views are closer together. All findings are based on surveys conducted by Pew Research Center between September 2020 and February 2021.

Most of the findings here are based on a survey of 10,121 U.S. adults conducted from Feb. 16 to 21, 2021. Everyone who took part in the survey is a member of Pew Research Centers American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way, nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATPs methodology.

Here arethe questions askedin the February survey, along with responses, andits methodology.

Note: Most of these findings are from a February survey; here arethe questions askedfor that survey, along with responses, andits methodology.

View original post here:
Where Democrats and Republicans align and differ on COVID-19 issues - Pew Research Center

Democratic candidates are already starting to pop up for a 2022 run for U.S. Senate, all aiming for a seat held now by Republican Ron Johnson, who has not said if hell seek a third term.

And it doesnt look like the race will be a friendly one.

Johnson was already a top target of Democrats before he said the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol wasnt an armed insurrection ( a claim we rated Pants on Fire) and before he forced a full-reading of the $1.9 trillion COVID relief plan advanced by Democrats and President Joe Biden (we rated his stance on full readings a Full Flop).

One of the Democratic candidates, Outagamie County Executive Tom Nelson, has been taking shots at Johnson, but also took aim recently toward Milwaukee Bucks executive Aex Lasry, who has also announced his Democratic campaign.

During a March 7, 2021 interview on WISN TVs UPFRONT, Nelson said he had asked Lasry to not self-fund his campaign.

"I think whats really important here is you listen to what the people want, I think the last thing people want is for someone to come in and self-fund," Nelson said. "Right now, two-thirds of the U.S. Senate is composed of millionaires. We need someone who is in touch with the people."

For this fact-check, we are focusing on the part of Nelsons claim that two-thirds those in the Senate are millionaires.

Is he right?

Most senators worth millions

When asked for backup for the claim, the Nelson campaign pointed to an August 2020 fact-check of U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., who claimed, in part, the Senate was "dominated by millionaires." PolitiFact National rated that claim True.

That fact-check relied on an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, which examined net-worth data for senators from 2018 -- still the most recent data available.

The data comes from financial disclosure forms, which lawmakers are required to fill out. Because the forms dont require exact values, only a range, the center calculated net worth for lawmakers by adding their assets, subtracting their liabilities and calculating the midpoint of the resulting range.

In all, 61 of the 100 senators had a net worth of at least $1 million -- with some having a net worth many times that amount.

For example, Republican Kelly Loeffler of Georgia had a net worth of more than $500 million and Republican Rick Scott of Floridas net worth was nearly $260 million. Also among the top: Democrat Mark Warner of Virginia (more than $214 million) and Republican Mitt Romney of Utah (about $174 million).

Both Wisconsin senators met the threshold: Johnson was listed at $39 million, while Democrat Tammy Baldwin was listed at $1.1 million.

Of course, since the Centers report last year, 10 seats changed. Of the 10 senators who were replaced, eight were millionaires. We could not locate recent net worth estimates for all of their replacements.

That said, many of the new members are also millionaires.

Democrat Mark Kelly of Arizona is worth between $10.8 million and $28 million, according to a January 2021 Newsweek report, while Democrat John Hickenlooper of Colorado is worth between $9 million and $27 million. Several others are also listed as worth more than $1 million.

According to a December 2020 report from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Georgia Democrats John Ossof and Raphael Warnock each have net worths well over $1 million as well. They replaced Republicans Loeffler and David Perdue, worth nearly $26 million.

Experts have noted in recent years that the cost of running for office -- in Wisconsin and across the nation -- has become increasingly difficult for candidates who cannot bring their own money to the table.

Robert Yablon, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School, said campaigns have become more expensive to run. Having money to start off a campaign can lead to better political consultants working on a campaign and likely even having wealthy friends willing to contribute large amounts, he said.

The 2020 election is a good example of the escalating price, with seven campaigns bringing in $100 million or more in contributions -- more than ever before.

Yablon also noted that the Senate tends to attract people who have seen success in their life, whether in business or celebrity, which was likely lucrative.

"There is a long history of very wealthy people in the Senate," he said. "The phenomenon is not new."

Our ruling

Nelson, a Democrat running for US. Senate, said that two-thirds of those in the Senate were millionaires.

Based on data from 2018, last year of financial disclosures available, 61 Senators had an average net worth of more than $1 million, according to one estimate. So, that is nearly two-thirds.

Many of the 10 newly elected senators also have high net worths, but an updated tally is not yet available.

Nevertheless, political experts say the Senate is likely to attract campaigns from wealthier people, contributing to the high number of millionaires who currently hold seats.

We rate this claim Mostly True.

Go here to see the original:
Democrat Tom Nelson right on claim that two thirds of US senators are millionaires - PolitiFact

A majority of Americans, about 55 percent, approve of President Bidens job performance so far, whereas about 39 percent disapprove. Those are pretty good numbers for a president in this polarized era. And for Democrats to keep control of the U.S. House and Senate next November, Biden will probably need to keep his approval ratings in this vicinity. Thats unlikely, but possible, because of some broader shifts happening in American politics.

Why should we focus on presidential approval ratings when we are thinking about next years midterms? For two reasons. First of all, we dont yet have a lot of other data to rely on. In most House and Senate races, its not even clear who the (non-incumbent) candidates will be. Most pollsters arent yet asking respondents the so-called generic ballot question If the next election were being held today, would you vote for the Democratic or the Republican candidate? And while generic ballot polling has historically provided a reliably rough preview of eventual midterm results, rough is the key word here. FiveThirtyEights average of pre-2020 generic ballot polls suggested that Democrats would have a sizable advantage in last years House races (a popular vote margin of around +7 percentage points, about 50 to 43), but the final results were more narrow (about +3 points, 51 to 48).

Second and more importantly, presidential approval ratings in recent years have been a decent indicator of what will happen in the midterms. In the last four (2006, 2010, 2014, 2018), the incumbent presidents disapproval rating was higher than his approval, and in all four cases, the presidents party lost a sizable bloc of House seats. (The Senate results arent quite as tied to presidential approval.) The last time the presidents party gained House seats in a midterm election was in 2002, when George W. Bush had sky-high ratings in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. So, when we talk about the pattern that the presidents party nearly always loses congressional seats in the midterms, part of what seems to be happening is that the American electorate becomes somewhat disillusioned with a president after electing or reelecting him (or wants to check his power) and then backs the opposite partys congressional candidates.

Relationship between presidential approval ratings and results for the presidents party in House midterm elections

Presidential approval and disapproval ratings come from FiveThirtyEights approval ratings tracker for the day before the midterm election for each year cited.

Sources: Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives; The American Presidency Project

And presidential approval ratings are becoming even more predictive as American politics are increasingly partisan and president-centered. The Obama and Trump presidencies suggest that the overwhelming majority of voters lean toward either the Democrats or the Republicans and approve of presidents from their own party and disapprove of presidents from the opposite party.

And those mostly partisan approval numbers translate to mostly partisan voting: More and more, voters cast ballots for candidates from the same party in both presidential and congressional elections. So, in November 2018, then-President Trump had a 42 percent approval rating, compared with a 53 percent disapproval rating. Democrats won about 53 percent of the national U.S. House vote, overwhelmingly from people who disapproved of Trump. Republicans slightly outpaced Trumps approval and won 45 percent of the House vote, mostly from people who approved of the president.

On Election Day in 2020, 45 percent of Americans approved of Trump, compared with 53 percent who disapproved. Biden won about 51 percent of the popular vote, as did House Democrats (so just slightly below Trumps disapproval). Trump won nearly 47 percent, similar to House Republicans (48 percent) and again just slightly above his approval rating. So, in both 2018 and 2020, presidential approval/disapproval tracked closely with the House popular vote. And because congressional and presidential voting are now both so tied to partisanship, we have a record-low number of House districts 16 where the member isnt from the same party that the district backed for president.

Of course, theres no guarantee that the close link between presidential approval ratings and House results will continue. Perhaps Trump made American politics particularly centered around him, so some voters in next years elections will approve of Bidens job performance but still back GOP congressional candidates. One big danger for Democrats in the 2022 midterms is the potential of differential turnout Republicans voting at higher levels than Democrats, with conservative voters more motivated to vote against congressional Democrats aligned with Biden than liberals are to essentially maintain the status quo. This happened in 2018, when people who had voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 voted at slightly higher rates than those who had backed Trump in 2016. So its possible that Bidens approval rating is 55 percent among American adults on election day 2022 but is several percentage points lower among people who actually vote.

And even if presidential approval ratings remain closely linked to the overall House vote and Biden maintains a rating in the mid-50s, that doesnt guarantee Democrats will win the House. Weve had a few elections in a row now where polls, on balance, slightly overstated support for Democratic candidates and politicians and understated support for GOP ones. That doesnt mean the same thing will happen again in the midterms, but its easy to imagine the eventual electorate in 2022 will be a little more Republican-leaning than Bidens approval rating suggests. And Democrats have very little margin for error. Republicans have a built-in head start in House races right now not only because of GOP gerrymandering but because Democratic-leaning voters disproportionately live in urban areas while Republicans are more spread out into exurban, suburban and rural districts. So a 50-50 popular vote margin would almost certainly give the GOP control of the House.

Moreover, Republicans have much more control over the redistricting process than Democrats, so they could draw lines even more favorable to them before next years elections. Republicans in many states are also trying to limit the ability of liberal-leaning Americans to vote or have their votes counted. So its possible that even, say, a 52 percent to 47 percent Democratic advantage in the aggregate popular vote in House races would translate to a Republican-controlled House.

Put simply: If Biden could maintain an approval rating in the mid-50s, it would be a huge help to Democrats in particular, House candidates in swing districts and Democratic Senate candidates in competitive states such as Arizona, Georgia, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And if Biden could push his approval rating into the high 50s, its hard to imagine Democrats losing the House or the Senate.

How likely is it for Biden to maintain or improve his current approval?

Its hard to say. History would suggest that Biden is likely to be less popular in November 2022 than he is today, but were not sure how much of that history applies.

The pre-Trump pattern in presidential approval had typically been that a new president entered office with relatively high ratings (at or above 55 percent) and then those numbers gradually declined during his first two years. But that pattern may be over. Trump never had much of a honeymoon: He began at around 46 percent approval, and his ratings remained fairly stable throughout his presidency. Biden started off at around 53 percent higher than his immediate predecessor but not as high as other recent presidents. (Another interesting point: Bidens approval rating is nearly the inverse of his predecessors: Trumps approval was mostly in the low 40s, and his disapproval was mostly in the mid-50s; Bidens approval is in the mid-50s, and his disapproval in the high 30s.)

Its plausible that no matter what Biden does, his approval ratings will dip in the run-up to the midterms, as pre-Trump presidents did, because voters tend to sour some on the incumbent. Alternatively, its plausible that we are in a new normal of American politics, with a large GOP bloc, a slightly larger Democratic bloc that includes the majority of Americans and voters who are really locked into their party, so nothing really shifts those fundamental dynamics. That would explain why Bidens approval rating is basically the same as Trumps disapproval rating was, and why Bidens disapproval is so close to Trumps approval.

And finally, its plausible that what actually happens in Bidens presidency day-to-day matters. The president and his team are trying to implement a strategy that they think will keep his popularity up: improve the economy and deal with COVID-19 effectively, sell those successes to American voters and tone down the partisan divide in Washington. Republicans have a strategy too: keep up partisan tensions in Washington; attack Biden on policy matters like immigration, where he is unlikely to have clear successes; and highlight issues that are likely to divide voters based on competing racial and cultural attitudes, such as the controversy over the discontinuation of some Dr. Seuss books because of racist imagery.

Of course real-life events will affect Bidens approval ratings, you might say. Sure, but thats been true only marginally of late. Economic conditions are less correlated to presidential approval than in the past. And, as I noted earlier, none of the incredible things that happened in Trumps presidency (the Mueller report, Trumps 2019 impeachment, the COVID-19 outbreak) shifted his approval ratings much until the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, which did cause a notable dip.

So watch Bidens approval rating closely. Its likely to be an indication of how well Democrats will do in next years elections. But its also likely to be an indication of how American politics today work more broadly. Is America locked in an intractable partisan uncivil war, where Team Blue represents a slight but clear majority and every election is super-close? Or maybe neither Team Blue nor Team Red has a majority and instead both are at about 45 percent, with a fairly large and meaningful bloc of people who either swing between the parties (often against the presidents party) or dont vote at all during midterm elections (mostly from the presidents party)? Or can the president and his actions meaningfully shift the political dynamics and create a 55-45 or 57-43 electorate if he is viewed as effective, or alternatively, a 43-57 electorate if he is viewed as particularly ineffective? We shall see over the next 19-plus months.

Read more here:
Why Democrats In Congress Need Bidens Approval Rating To Stay Where It Is - FiveThirtyEight

The beefed-up child tax credit from President Joe Biden's stimulus law has been touted by Democrats as a key measure designed to slash child poverty in half. They aim to make it permanent, a step that would represent a major expansion of the American social safety net.

The one-year measure authorized in mid-March is set to provide a $3,600-per-child benefit to parents with children aged 5 and under, issued through "periodic payments." It will be $3,000 for each child between 6 and 17. Democrats want to enable the option of a monthly check and they've been touting that, too.

Biden said on Wednesday at the White House that a family with two children under the age of 6 would "get $500 a month mailed to you by the federal government. That's life-changing."

That last part could be a hurdle, as the Internal Revenue Service simply may not be able to meet a monthly schedule of payments.

Congress is giving the IRS three-and-a-half months to stand up the sweeping new initiative, set to start July 1. But this comes in the middle of one of the most daunting tax seasons in its history, as the agency grapples with a large backlog of at least 12 million tax returns. It's such a big task that the IRS recently extended the tax-filing deadline by a month from April 15 to May 17 for individuals.

IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig cited thissignificant strain at a recent House committee hearing when he warned of potential delays in distributing the child tax credit benefit by July. The readiness of the IRS to carry this out poses a major challenge to Democrats' goal of getting payments out the door to 66 million American kids every month.

"I would not be surprised to see payments start in July, but I would also not be surprised see this turn into a quarterly benefit where the first payments came in October and the second payment in December," Elaine Maag, a tax expert at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, told Insider.

Maag said carrying it out this year is "lightning-fast" and the IRS is well known to use old computer systems and databases.

Other experts also noted the brief time-frame the IRS was given to devise a program from the ground up, another burden on a historically underfunded organization already facing several sets of problems this tax season.

"Setting up a program in three months is not something that's typically done and any agency would have had challenges," Samantha Jacoby, a senior tax analyst at the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said in an interview.

The original law underpinning the benefit, known as the American Family Act, gave Treasury and the IRS a year to set up a monthly benefit system. Some Democrats worry about any comparisons to the mismanaged rollout of another signature expansion of the safety net: the Affordable Care Act, specifically the healthcare.gov website.

H&R Block CEO Jeffrey Jones, speaking to Insider earlier in March at the beginning of tax season, said the IRS hadn't made any decisions yet on how to actually execute the changes involved with the child tax credit. Calling it "one of the most underappreciated civil servants in the country," he said the agency's underfunding problems are well documented and even in a normal year, "their system gets taxed," or overwhelmed.

The IRS faces a hectic spring. Maag said on top of distributing stimulus payments, it is also implementing tax forgiveness for unemployed workers and attempting to issue refunds for people who filed early.

"The child tax credit is not first in line right now and the IRS has limited staff that they can devote to any problem," she said. "It is problematic that they have a lot of things to do and limited resources to do it with."

Rettig also told House Ways and Means lawmakers the decision to prolong tax season by a month would cut into the ability of its employees to develop a new online portal. That's supposed to be the space for Americans to share up-to-date information about their income and number of children.

"We're focused on trying to get these payments out to people in a meaningful manner, in a meaningful time frame," he said.

Democrats provided the IRS with nearly $2 billion in extra funding to bring on more personnel and upgrade aging systems, after a decade of Republican-led budget cuts.

Still, Democrats involved with the measure say they'll work with the IRS in the months ahead. Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut said she was confident the IRS would be successful. She cited the additional money for the organization and "the will to get these payments out monthly."

"We will work through issues as they arise and ensure the IRS has the tools they need to make these payments to everyone who has qualifying children," the senior Democratsaid in a statement to Insider.

Rep. Suzan DelBene of Washington, another architect of the child benefit, echoed DeLauro.

"I'll still continue to work with them as they implement this program because those resources are so important to families right now and we want to make sure that it is done well from the get-go," she said in an interview.

Experts say the success of the program hinges on the capacity of the federal government to issue payments to people who don't typically pay taxes because they don't earn enough income to be required to file.

"The IRS' outreach efforts are going to be really important trying to get new populations of people into the tax system," Jacoby said.

Lawmakers are eager to avoid problems that could overshadow the early rollout of a highly-touted Democratic program. They want to dodge comparisons to the bungled unveiling of healthcare.gov, a website created under President Barack Obama to allow people to buy health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. Many struggled to obtain coverage for weeks.

"Everyone wants to avoid any potential healthcare.gov 2.0.," a House Democratic aide familiar with ongoing discussions told Insider. "Looking at the healthcare.gov example is a great justification for making sure we get this right and making sure the IRS is thoughtful that they really kick the tires on this and they are thoughtful in implementing so it's easy to use and families aren't confused."

Regardless, people are likely to receive a substantial sum of money this year, though it may not be through monthly installments as Democrats originally envisioned.

"This was always going to be hard," Jacoby said. "Whether it's monthly or quarterly or something else, People are still going to get a lot of money they need in 2021 even if there's administrative hiccups along the way."

The White House did not immediately respond to Insider's requests for comment.

More:
Democrats are touting monthly checks for parents in the stimulus, but they may not be monthly after all - Business Insider