Focus a second stimulus where it is most needed

The federal government continues to bat around proposals for a second stimulus package aimed at countering the economic impact of the coronavirus.

Never mind that people’s livelihoods and lives are at stake, given looming deadlines on unemployment benefits and relief aid in many areas. Any chance to play politics must be seized upon with gusto, of course. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

Talks seemed to be moving toward bipartisan agreement on most areas aside from two of the most contentious issues: a liability shield for businesses, hospitals and schools, and funding for state and local governments. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky had floated the idea of tabling these topics in favor of passing a package and picking them back up in the new year.

Then the White House lobbed a grenade.

Treasure Secretary Steve Mnuchin sent a proposal that would cut the $300-per-week unemployment enhancement in favor of sending $600 direct payments — half the amount of the first stimulus package — to Americans under a certain income threshold.

This is asinine. Democrats were right to reject the proposal outright.

While the original $1,200 stimulus payments undoubtedly helped huge numbers of Americans, many simply deposited or banked the funding. It was overly broad, a fast, slapdash measure intended to inject some capital into the stuttering economy and assist those who needed immediate assistance in paying rent or bills.

(Then again, the Internal Revenue Service is still working to process payments for some citizens. “Immediate” isn’t really in the vocabulary of our bureaucracy.)

Why is another round of direct payments on the table? Politics, of course. They are popular with the public. The president has signaled that he favors such payments and continues to push for their inclusion in relief packages. A cash infusion for those who don’t desperately need it could encourage more spending and catalyze faster recovery.

But none of these reasons trump common sense.

Lawmakers should target payments to those in need. A $300-perweek unemployment enhancement would help those who have already demonstrated they need it most.

That figure had bipartisan support in the Senate.

Mr. McConnell has said Congress must reach an agreement before it adjourns, and he’s right. As coronavirus cases and hospitalizations spike, state leaders around the country are considering further restrictions that would decimate an already tepid recovery, casting thousands of people back onto the unemployment line and into food insecurity.

Lawmakers must keep their eye on the bipartisan ball, so to speak, and not be distracted by the White House proposal. Simultaneously, the president must sign a relief bill if it moves through the Senate.