Politicizing crises sometimes backfires

Choices have consequences both foreseen and unforeseen, as well as intended and unintended. Last spring after the pandemic hit, I led my students through an exercise in critical thinking: “Why do we have to complete the semester via online meetings?” Of course they all agreed we had to meet online because of the virus. Really?

Then I asked them how the virus had limited their traveling and partying during spring break. Hmmm. After the wheels began rolling again I asked why we were having to complete the semester online instead of face-to-face. A few of them said we were meeting online because the university mandated that we would complete the semester online with a few exceptions.

The pandemic hasn’t forced anyone to do anything, but it has been the impetus that has led all of us to choose. We’ve witnessed choices from WHO and national authorities, state officials, local officials, local organizations and businesses, families and individuals. All of these choices have come with consequences.

Unfortunately, way too many choices by government officials from the national level to local level have been based more on political ideologies than on health-based considerations. Granted we still don’t know enough about the virus to make reasoned choices even today.

From those early days the media and politicians have politicized this health crisis. Like the old saying about politics, all health crises are local, and we’ve seen some very poor choices by governors and local officials trying to handle the contagion, with only a few examples that worked out well.

Then, there’s Washington, D.C., the seat of our federal government, the epitome of political choices. Amazingly, congress passed and President Trump signed a $2-Trillion stimulus package in March, providing cash and assistance to those suffering financial losses related to the pandemic. Most in Washington agreed this was a good and helpful thing for the people and the nation.

On the heels of that success, lawmakers began pushing for another stimulus package even larger than the first. Let’s just say, negotiations on the latest stimulus package have not been so amazing.

Most benefits from the first stimulus ended July 31. Congress is deadlocked, and no one expects negotiations to continue much less succeed. Meanwhile, those who benefitted from the first package have lost that aid.

Last Saturday President Trump signed four executive actions to restore some of the

benefits for those in need. For example, unemployed workers received an additional $600 per week under stimulus one. The executive action restores $400 per week to unemployed workers, and will last until December 6 or until the Disaster Relief Fund balance falls below $25 billion.

The other three executive actions address the expired temporary eviction moratorium on renters, defers the payroll tax from September 1 to December 31, 2020, for employees making $100,000 or less, and extends student loan relief to the end of the year.

After maliciously attacking President Trump 24/7 for the past four years, media and Democrats are apoplectic and find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. If they sued the president to cancel his actions, they would be cutting off funds from voters who need the money. They surely can’t credit President Trump for trying to help those in need! Will they choose to pass stimulus 2? Politicizing crises sometimes backfires.