House COVID relief spending bill needs work

Five months in the making, House leaders on Monday finally detailed a $3.65 billion spending package that would pour state surplus and federal COVID-19 relief money into virtually every aspect of the state’s economy, while also reserving about $2.75 billion for future allocation.

The state received roughly $5.2 billion in federal discretionary funds back in May. That $3.65 billion still falls far short of the spending wish list submitted to the Legislature.

With debate in the House ongoing and Senate consideration still weeks away, most of the bill’s details remain ripe for negotiation.

However, both branches appear to be in agreement on two key pieces of the legislation — totaling $1 billion.

They’re a pair of $500 million investments in the unemployment insurance system and bonus pay for lowincome workers who remained on the job during the pandemic.

Employees who worked in-person during the state of emergency and earn no more than 300% of the federal poverty level — $79,900 for a family of four — would qualify for a one-time bonus of $500 to $2,000, according to House Ways and Means Chairman Aaron Michlewitz.

The vast majority of that funding — $460 million — would go to those in private industry, with the remaining $40 million reserved for state workers.

That’s the least the state can do for those lower-paid employees, who stocked supermarket aisles and worked the checkout counters while others took their jobs home.

With the other $500 million, the bill helps business owners facing repayment of a $7 billion loan to cover the historic number of unemployment benefit claims paid out during the pandemic, which pushed their trust fund into insolvency.

The bill’s vast number of funding targets can’t all be analyzed here, but a few merit attention.

This House bill includes many of the same spending priorities Gov. Charlie Baker previously proposed, but at significantly lower levels.

Baker, for example, suggested $1 billion should go toward the unemployment insurance debt. On Monday, he reiterated his support for a larger investment — a sentiment shared by the Retailers Association of Massachusetts.

Retailers Association President Jon Hurst said the small businesses he represents will be looking for additional money, as well as system reforms to address unemployment insurance abuse and “eligibility loopholes,” early next year.

We agree. Small businesses took a disproportionately harder hit during this pandemic, and a $1 billion contribution would certainly help lighten their debt burden.

One economic-development initiative would direct $20 million to help resettle Afghans who have started arriving in Massachusetts. That would help with housing costs, given these evacuees’ non-refugee status.

That should be more than enough to satisfy state Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, and state Rep. Vanna Howard, D-Lowell, who called on the Senate and House Ways and Means committees to include $12 million in funding for the resettlement of these Afghan allies. Over the next year, Massachusetts expects to absorb at least 1,000 of these evacuees.

The bill would also allocate $100 million for water and sewer infrastructure. That amount doesn’t begin to meet the water-treatment needs of cities along the Merrimack River and communities served by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.

And in a watchdog measure advocated by this newspaper, the House proposed giving Inspector General Glenn Cunha $5 million to create a public website and database to hopefully identify pork, as well as ensure that funds reach hard-hit communities.

Now we’ll see how the Senate’s bill differs from the House version.