The editors of the Washington Post are optimistic about a proposal for an $908 relief bill proposed by a bipartisan group of senators and representatives:
The ray of hope came Tuesday in the form of a $908 billion proposal from a bipartisan group of nine senators and representatives, including Virginia’s Sen. Mark R. Warner (D). The package would address crucial areas, including a four-month extension of $300-per-week unemployment benefits (total cost: $180 billion); another round of aid to small businesses ($288 billion); funds for state, local and tribal governments ($160 billion); schools ($82 billion); health care and vaccines ($51 billion combined). One can quibble about the total amount of the bill, which seems calculated to placate Republicans averse to exceeding the $1 trillion mark, even if a higher figure would probably do more good, as Democrats have maintained.
The ray of hope came Tuesday in the form of a $908 billion proposal from a bipartisan group of nine senators and representatives, including Virginia’s Sen. Mark R. Warner (D). The package would address crucial areas, including a four-month extension of $300-per-week unemployment benefits (total cost: $180 billion); another round of aid to small businesses ($288 billion); funds for state, local and tribal governments ($160 billion); schools ($82 billion); health care and vaccines ($51 billion combined). One can quibble about the total amount of the bill, which seems calculated to placate Republicans averse to exceeding the $1 trillion mark, even if a higher figure would probably do more good, as Democrats have maintained.
Probably the most controversial aspect of the proposal is its omission of another round of direct payments to households, though this is defensible given its inclusion of $26 billion in additional nutritional aid for low-income families. The main point is for Congress to be generous with what aid it does give and to target it where it’s most needed. Imperfect as it is, the bipartisan proposal merits support both in substantive terms and political ones. Substantively, it is better — much better — than nothing, which is what the 10 million who remain jobless, and the 26 million facing food insecurity, are getting now. Politically, it shows the way to yes for the negotiators, Mr. Mnuchin and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and puts pressure on them to get there.
The proposal is greater than the $500 billion that Mitch McConnell has supported but less than the $2.2 trillion that Nancy Pelosi is holding out for. I have reservations about the portion of the bill intended to prop up state and local governments for a simple reason: money is fungible. If our experience here in Illinois is any gauge there will be at least some state legislatures which, rather than augmenting what they’re spending for pandemic support, will substitute federal money for the money they’ve already appropriated and devote their own money to other priorities having little or nothing to do with pandemic support.
But, as the editors say, it’s better than nothing.
One of the odd things about the coverage of this story is how squirrelly the reports are about who, precisely, is this group of nine senators and representatives. By reading multiple articles I have gleaned that Mark Warner, Mitt Romney, Joe Manchin, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Angus King are all part of it along with three House members. Something that should be clear from that list is that the lack of moderates in the Congress is a serious impediment to forging compromises. The next step will be whether either Majority Leader McConnell or Speaker Pelosi quashes this effort.
I read this morning that McConnell has already come out against it. I haven’t heard yet about Pelosi.