The editors of the Washington Post urge the Congress to pass an additional COVID-19 subsidy bill as quickly as possible:
When negotiations between Ms. Pelosi and the Trump administration broke off before the Nov. 3 election, the latter had upped its offer to $1.9 trillion, but the speaker objected that the proposal lacked details such as a plan for containing the virus, and in any case was smaller than a $2.2 trillion plan the House passed in early October. Meanwhile, President Trump was sending mixed signals, while Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was refusing to accept anything more than $500 billion.
If Ms. Pelosi’s strategy was to hold out until a Democratic sweep increased her leverage, it didn’t quite work out. Though Joe Biden is president-elect, Democrats retained the House by a narrow majority and control of the Senate awaits two Georgia runoffs. The precise distribution of clout in Washington is anyone’s guess — but the nation’s needs, especially those of the working poor and the unemployed, are beyond question. Priorities for a new package include extending eviction limits and special unemployment benefits for gig workers, another round of forgivable no-interest loans to small businesses, and aid to state and local governments, which are facing a likely $240 billion revenue shortfall for the current fiscal year, according to new estimates by economists Jeffrey Clemens and Stan Veuger. Possibly at least some elements may be attached to a spending bill that Congress must pass by Dec. 11 to avoid a partial government shutdown.
I would assume that there would be some figure between $500 million and $2.2 trillion on which the two houses of Congress compromise during the lame duck session and I would urge the House Democrats to enter into reconciliation with the Senate to achieve that objective. They should be willing to come up with a “clean bill” that eliminates appropriations unrelated to the present crisis and limits bailouts to state and local governments. It should also include substantial oversight. At least hereabouts the state has done rather little to curb its profligate spending ways, instead relying on the promise of a bailout from the federal government or additional revenue from a graduated state income tax that will now not be forthcoming.
I should also mention that I object to using the term “stimulus” to describe the proposed spending. While you’re locking down businesses and restricting trade and people aren’t paying their rents (or taxes), you’re stimulating very little other than saving but there are people who genuinely need money if they are not to starve. We should focus our attention on them.
Whatever happened to conference committees?
That was a thing before 2004(ish)? They used to be common but I have not heard of one in a long long time.
The number of conference reports has declined from around 70 by the 104th Congress 25 years ago to fewer than ten by each of the Congresses since the 111th (2009-2010). It’s part and parcel of the highly partisan environment that has prevailed in Washington. Who needs conference committees when you have power politics?
Sigh.
Whether a relief bill will be passed in the lame duck session depends on a couple of calculations going inside Pelosi and McConnell.
a). Is budget deadline on Dec 11 enough of a forcing function to get something done?
b). Would passing a bill or using it as a campaign issue be better for winning the GA senate runoffs and control of the Senate?
B pre-dominates over A.
“Relief bill” is a good way to describe it. Certainly better than “stimulus bill”. To my detriment I tend to fall back on economic terms of art.
Well, I confess to confusion. The Post article rather offhandedly mentions a $240 billion revenue shortfall among the states. Yesterday, the WSJ suggested, with a bit more detail, that the states were in fact doing just fine https://www.wsj.com/articles/state-tax-revenue-rebound-11605568517.
Where the truth lies is anyone’s guess at this point but these aren’t secret numbers. The states do make public their financial condition including revenues. A modest amount of effort would seem to be all that’s required to put a hard figure on just what impact the virus has had on the states’ financial conditions. Until that’s undertaken it might be a good idea to go slow on aid to the them and focus any relief/stimulus on those who have been more obviously affected.
$240 billion would amount to about a 12% shortfall, much of it in a handful of states—New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania. I could dive into each state but PA’s is about 9% while New Jersey’s about 10%. Illinois probably around 15%.
There are also local revenue shortfalls which I suspect are heavily concentrated in the same states. I would have more sympathy if, for example, Illinois were trying to tighten its belt but it isn’t.