Democrats Are Pathologically Short-Changing America
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
© Brandon Bell/The New York Times/AP Images
At first, it was $2,000. That was the message throughout the Georgia runoffs, which Democrats carried in a shocking double victory on the back of a nationwide PR blitz, flooding airwaves with promises that a newly-blue Senate could end Mitch McConnell's half-decade of tyranny.
Then, the number shrunk: $2,000 was actually $1,400, because Trump had already given us $600. The messaging changed before our eyes: In one tweet, dated January 12th, Vice President-elect Kamala Harris called for "$2,000 stimulus checks." In another, dated January 14th, she quoted President-elect Joe Biden promising to "finish the job of getting a total of $2,000." This wasn't a broken promise at all, Biden press secretary Jen Psaki claimed, implying that it wasn't their fault if you were too stupid to work that one out.
Now, that number is shrinking even further. On Wednesday, Biden agreed to further narrow the eligibility for stimulus payments under the coronavirus relief bill that has been bouncing around the House and Senate bureaucracies since before he took office. This bill is meant to be the foundation of Biden's plan to "Build Back Better," whatever that means, but the messaging from the White House is clear: Some of you won't make the cut.
The new change is relatively simple: Biden wants to lower the income threshold that triggers diminishing returns on the stimulus payments. In the plan passed by the House last week, people who earn less than $75,000 a year, or couples who make less than $150,000 a year would get a full $1,400 stimulus payment. But people who make upwards of $100,000 a year, however, would only get partial payments on a sliding scale. Under Biden's new plan, according to the Washington Post, the sliding scale is out: if you make more than $80,000 a year (or $160,00 as a couple), you get nothing. Nada. Zilch.
There's a simple logic behind this: that richer members of society shouldn't get the same benefits as the poor. The process of deciding exactly how to define and administrate those boundaries even has a name, called "means-testing."
Democrats absolutely love this process, because it allows them to sit merrily on the fence between actual social welfare and the made-up, GOP-pandering notion of "fiscal responsibility." This is Joe Manchin's entire political career in a nutshell, and it's no surprise that he lobbied hard for these cuts. The end result, unfortunately, is that they pass bills and programs so laden with red-tape qualifications that thousands of people inevitably slip through the cracks. Aid makes its way to some people, but misses others. In this scenario alone — who's to say that someone whose salary was technically above $80,000 on their last federal tax return doesn't need the help?
And when you zoom out, the optics are equally terrible. Who actually wants this? Who actually cares if someone who makes a slightly better paycheck also gets a stimulus payment? In the worst possible future, it creates a situation where millions of American workers actually receive less under a Biden administration than they did under Trump.
At this point in the pandemic, these policies look completely deranged. We've known for months now what the fixes to this country's problems are: shut down the economy to stop the spread of the disease, and use the government's unchallenged authority to print money to pay people to stay home. Give them the money to offset the damage caused by circumstances out of their control.
Instead, this is what we get: an elaborate system of bureaucratic hoops, means-tested to scrimp and save every last penny the government can while keeping the pain and ruin caused by their parsimony on a manageable level, because the party in power has proven time and time again that it would rather lose human lives than political capital.
Tags
Who is online
441 visitors
Obviously this article criticizes the Democrats from the left. So be it. I agree with this article, I agree that it is silly to worry about the covid bill's effect on the national debt, and I agree that cutting the stimulus off completely above 80,000 income is a pointless pandering to "moderates". The sum saved is said to be 1/2 of 1% of the total cost of the bill.
This may be the best paragraph I've read about all this yet
True and unfortunate words.
Didn't a famous Democrat declare "Never let a good crisis go to waste"?
First of all, the current package isn't supposed to be economic stimulus. It's too soon for economic stimulus since the pandemic has not yet been brought under control. In fact, economic stimulus at this time could result in another surge of cases and prolong the pandemic. At this point doing too much, too fast could create bigger problems.
There is going to be a need for economic stimulus later this year. As the population is vaccinated and the pandemic recedes, attention will need to be focused on the economy. That's when the fallout from the past year of restrictions will reveal itself.
Keep in mind that a large portion of the current package includes 'bailouts' for large, blue cities. What that suggests is that the financial condition of these cities are worse than is being acknowledged. The financial condition of large, blue cities is being hidden just as New York hid COVID deaths in nursing homes.
The only remedy for dire financial shortfalls will be austerity measures. The priority will be revitalizing tax revenue as quickly as possible which will require more spending for economic development in the midst of budget shortfalls. History really does indicate that the burden of austerity measures will be disproportionately imposed on rural areas, outlying suburban areas, and impoverished communities. States will prioritize spending in areas that provide more tax revenue.
The 'bailouts' in the current relief package are stopgap measures that won't avoid the coming need for austerity. The profligate spending in these large, blue cities has been more than the Federal government can support. The 'bailouts' are included in COVID relief in hopes of keeping municipal bond yields low. Without austerity measures and increased tax revenue these large, blue cities will begin a spiral towards default in a manner similar to Detroit.