National Review Online
Wednesday, March 25, 2020
What is before Congress is not a stimulus bill. We have
often opposed stimulus bills in the past, considering it a mistake for the
federal government to borrow money to expand a depressed economy. At the
moment, though, the government is not trying to expand the economy or even
arrest its contraction. It is principally trying to enable the temporary
shutdown of much of the economy with the least humanitarian damage.
The legislation should be judged on whether it aids
efforts to slow the spread of coronavirus, aids the treatment of the infected,
relieves the plight of those adversely affected by it and the fight against it,
and supports the overall economy. These purposes, as we noted at the outset of
this debate, sometimes overlap and sometimes conflict. They also call for
placing speed ahead of efficiency, and both ahead of mere partisan objectives.
Congressional Democrats have not risen to this occasion.
They saw an opportunity to advance goals on the environment, racial diversity,
and Planned Parenthood funding that, whatever their other merits, do not belong
in this bill. And they have been willing to slow down the process toward these
ends.
Some Republicans are also losing perspective, albeit less
crassly. They fear that the expansion of unemployment insurance in the bill is
too generous and will incentivize quitting or refusing to take work. Under
normal circumstances, we would share this concern. But at the moment we should
be more focused on helping the unemployed — especially since the rules of
unemployment insurance discourage the gaming of the system, however
imperfectly, and this expansion is temporary. (Congress has let temporary
expansions expire before.)
The bill’s rebates — $1,200 for singles and $2,400 for
married couples up to an income limit — are not especially well-designed. The
income limits are based on previous years’ income, which means that some people
who need help won’t get it. It would have been better to give the rebates to
everyone, and count them as income for the taxes collected next year. But they
will mitigate some near-term hardship.
The provisions to support businesses, small and large,
are especially valuable. Businesses cannot be expected to have saved enough
money to weather a once-in-a-lifetime pathogen. The public has an interest in
their being able to pay ongoing expenses during this crisis and to resume as
viable enterprises once it ends. The legislation stipulates that businesses
receiving loans cannot pay dividends or engage in stock buybacks for several
years. This is faddish thinking, and there are better ways to protect taxpayer
interests and keep existing shareholders from making windfall gains.
The legislation is far from perfect. The enormous
spending involved would be easier to stomach if legislators and presidents had
shown greater restraint before this crisis hit or showed any interest in
getting the national debt on a sustainable trajectory. But we will take our own
advice. The support for business, the relief for individuals, and the expansion
of medical capacity are all urgent matters. They justify a bill that, in a
happier time, nobody would consider, and we ourselves would vehemently reject.
No comments:
Post a Comment