The editors of the Washington Post call on President Biden to compromise with Republicans on a new COVID-19 relief package:
SEEKING A bipartisan deal on a big covid-19 aid bill, President Biden met Monday with a group of 10 Republican senators led by Maine Sen. Susan Collins. Many in his party are skeptical. The 10 Republicans had offered a counterproposal to Mr. Biden’s $1.9 trillion plan that is less than a third the size, leading progressive commentators to accuse them of bad faith. Coronavirus aid is too important for the president to get caught in a holding pattern the way President Barack Obama did as he tried to negotiate a bipartisan health-care-reform bill in his first term.
SEEKING A bipartisan deal on a big covid-19 aid bill, President Biden met Monday with a group of 10 Republican senators led by Maine Sen. Susan Collins. Many in his party are skeptical. The 10 Republicans had offered a counterproposal to Mr. Biden’s $1.9 trillion plan that is less than a third the size, leading progressive commentators to accuse them of bad faith. Coronavirus aid is too important for the president to get caught in a holding pattern the way President Barack Obama did as he tried to negotiate a bipartisan health-care-reform bill in his first term.
Based on my experience with the state of Illinois I disagree with the editors on the vital necessity of providing aid to state and local governments. The problem? Money is fungible. Additional aid provided to state and local governments will enable them to spend more on other things that have nothing to do with COVID-19, e.g. public employee wages, benefits, and pensions. Giving the states breathing room to avoid the consequences of bad decisions they’ve been making over the period of decades would allow them to sidestep the decisions they have been refusing to make during the COVID-19 pandemic.
I agree with the editors that extending direct payments to income earners in the top 3% of earners is frivolous and wasteful.
Opportunities for improving the bill that go unmentioned by the editors include eliminating the provision for a $15/hour minimum wage and other aspects that have nothing to do with COVID-19. The preponderance of the evidence, e.g. from the CBO and the NBER, suggests that a $15/hour minimum wage would actually hurt more people than it would help.
I’m not a Republican so I can’t tell you what Republicans might do or will do. I do think they should be willing to compromise with the president but for the life of me I can’t tell you what the shape of the compromise might be.
The minimum wage can go. Doesnt need to be in this bill. The top 3% can do without the check. The states? Remember how the PPP money also went to a lot of people who didnt need it. I thought getting the money out was more important than worrying about someone incorrectly receiving the money. I still think that. It is pretty clear some states really have spent a lot of money on Covid and could use the help. I am not as interested in making this a political football are are you.
Steve
? The best way not to make it a political football is to remove the aid to state and local governments. That’s an inherently political move.
Compromise to Schumer would only mean aid to state and local governments being reduced through negotiations.
McConnell, of course sees that for what it is. A precedent for nationalizing state government deficits. More needs will be forthcoming.
What the hell do they expect him to do? Cave?
They’ll do reconciliation within a month.
“The best way not to make it a political football is to remove the aid to state and local governments.”
So rather than provide aid to the states which need it we should deny it to everyone for fear a few might abuse it. Thats not political?
Steve
The way decisions are made of how to allocate money among states is inevitably political. Additionally, the states with the most political clout and, consequently, most likely to get substantial shares of funds distributed are also among those who’ve made the worst decisions.
It would be nice if things worked in the efficient, technocratic way you suggest they do but they don’t.
No, I am actually suggesting that they do not work efficiently but efficiency is not the goal at the moment. Lets say the vaccine works well and the pandemic is essentially over by July. Economy goes mostly back to normal. At that point, or sometime close to it, I think we worry more about states receiving aid that might be spent on other expenses than Covid related ones.
Steve