Coronavirus aid should include stimulus checks targeted to those who need them most
They say politics makes strange bedfellows, but there’s rarely been a less likely pair than democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and ultraconservative Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo. The two are campaigning for inclusion of another round of direct government payments to households in the $908 billion bipartisan economic support package being negotiated on Capitol Hill. Now President Donald Trump has echoed them in his own discussions with Senate Republicans, according to a report in The Washington Post by Jeff Stein and Mike DeBonis.
To make things even odder, perhaps, The Post’s editorial board finds itself in the same bed: Given the economy’s weakness due to a coronavirus surge, and given the real suffering of families as a result, there’s a strong case to be made for a second injection of spendable cash like the $292 billion dose authorized in the March 27 Cares Act. In our view, any such aid should be focused on people further down the income distribution ladder than the previous payments, which went out, at a rate of $1,200 per adult and $500 per child, to individuals earning up to $75,000 per year and households making $150,000. As data compiled by Opportunity Insights show, the recession is essentially over for workers earning $60,000 or more, with job losses now concentrated in the lowest-wage sectors of the economy.
So far, the main obstacle to including such payments has been Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who did embrace the idea as recently as late July but has since cooled on it, partly in deference to fiscal hawks in his caucus and perhaps partly to preserve bargaining leverage. With Trump now tipping his hand in favor of payments — reportedly $600 each, though details of his preferences remain to be clarified — the politics have shifted in favor of at least a modest new round of direct payments.
The country’s needs are such that omission of direct payments should not be allowed to stand in the way of passing a substantial package that contains aid for state and local governments and small business and extended unemployment benefits, plus nutrition assistance and money for health, all of which are included in the bipartisan proposal under discussion. The worst outcome would be the passage of no bill at all, and Hawley and Sanders have been wrong to suggest otherwise, with the former urging a presidential veto and the latter calling on Senate colleagues to vote no if direct payments aren’t part of the deal. As Presidentelect Joe Biden, who also supports payments, put it: “If you insist on everything, you’re likely to get nothing on both sides.” However, in the days remaining before the current Congress ends, it’s worth encouraging the novel political coalition apparently forming in favor of direct payments.