USA TODAY International Edition
Our view: Passing stimulus should not be that hard
The congressional debate over the next stimulus measure should be fought along normal lines. It is almost reassuring that Democrats want more spending, Republicans less. Despite COVID- 19, at least some things stay the same. But President Donald Trump’s populist excesses ruin the picture of normalcy.
Democrats, who control the House, have already passed a $ 3 trillion bill. That is the size of the previous stimulus, plus an emergency measure to refill a depleted fund for small businesses.
Republicans, who control the Senate, want something around $ 1 trillion.
In normal times the two parties would work out some kind of a deal that includes the top priorities of both sides and makes no one totally happy.
But Trump is never content with normal. He wants to cut out funding for COVID- 19 testing and contact tracing while making in- person classes a requirement for receiving school aid. These proposals would yield more sickness, death and economic pain.
Trump also is pushing for a payroll tax cut. Unlike his other ideas, this one is not horrible, merely bad. If Republicans want to cut taxes, they should cut the income tax and leave Social Security alone. Social Security is not a cash drawer to raid every time Congress needs money. If its funding source is cut, it will reach insolvency sooner.
Congress can and should ignore Trump’s destructive ideas and draft a reasonable plan, one that helps make a bad public heath and economic situation somewhat better and reflects the political balance of power.
The measure’s price tag should be somewhere in the $ 2 trillion range, halfway between the two parties’ starting points. It should include a continuation of the $ 600 supplemental unemployment payments that were part of the first stimulus measure, and are set to run out this weekend.
Republicans have refused to consider the idea so far, which seems a bit hard- headed given the bleak economy. But they are right that the payments could be a disincentive for people to return to work. Rather than continuing the payments in full through the end of the year, as Democrats would, the payments could be gradually reduced over time, or pegged to the unemployment rate so that they drop automatically if and when the economy picks up steam.
Money for states and localities, including for schools and for holding safe and fair elections during a pandemic, should be part of the package. Payola to special interest lobbies ( including those preaching the virtue of limited government) who glommed onto funding in the first round, should not be part of the package. We should not be reading in coming days that Citizens Against Government Waste took advantage of a sweetheart deal.
And granting businesses immunity from lawsuits should people get sick on their premises is a worthwhile tradeoff Democrats should accept. Put the package together and the legislation kind of writes itself. But only if Congress ignores counterproductive ideas coming from the White House.