Publisher's note: The author of this post is Mitch Kokai for the John Locke Foundation.
Editors at National Review Online don't want
to see Congress' coronavirus aid package
- 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.)