647 replies to this topic

[Traveler]

Thanks, and I can add Authors to the non-reflation list. In all fairness, Zandi was mainly targeting the checks to folks making over 160k. Which is what Biden agrees to as well. That saves ~$200B. And cutting state aid to the states that don't need it. Another potential for overheating. Together that is about $400B. I want all of that in the infrastructure bill, which will have the deficit hawks scolding, so the more we can put there, the better IMO.

[LFC]

Traveler, on 03 March 2021 - 12:01 PM, said:

And cutting state aid to the states that don't need it.

Politically that's going to be a tough one. "So you mean we did everything right and came out of this by scraping and scratching but there are other states that didn't so they get free money?" I look at the distribution of that money as a political minefield. Not that I disagree that it should be very much needs based, just that it's likely to be a shit show.

[golden_valley]

LFC, on 03 March 2021 - 01:00 PM, said:

Politically that's going to be a tough one. "So you mean we did everything right and came out of this by scraping and scratching but there are other states that didn't so they get free money?" I look at the distribution of that money as a political minefield. Not that I disagree that it should be very much needs based, just that it's likely to be a shit show.

I understand the anger about it, but the people living in the states are going to suffer. While you can blame them for electing contemptible people I don't think that punishing them is going to change a thing in terms of who they vote for next time. And maybe, just maybe we need to get away from the Calvinist thoughts about who is "deserving" and who isn't, particularly when the "undeserving" always seem to be people of color.

[Traveler]

Most of those states are red. Texass in particular is the worst off. Down 12%, because they live of hefty depletion allowance taxes. But also NY got a hurt with NYC closing down.

[Bact PhD]

LFC, on 03 March 2021 - 10:47 AM, said:

I don't see a massive pent up demand for goods though I could see a spike in services like restaurants, clubs, concert halls, etc. Of course big shots in the arms of those businesses would be pretty helpful. They have a lot of ground to make up.

The thing is, those restaurants, etc. that are still shuttered in lots of places[1] soak up food, supplies, adult beverages,...

Concur re the housing-related stuff, up to a point. Real estate seems to be flying, and so does the stuff associated with home maintenance. Roofers seem to be in high demand such that we can't get the outfit that did ours a few years ago to take a look at something -- they're too busy with re-roofs or new construction. We had our walks & patio pressure-washed about 2 months ago, and that took some doing to get scheduled. I'm not so sure about what I would call the "interior frou-frou" -- things like re-decorating, re-upholstering couches, carpeting, that involves workmen entering dwellings for lengthy stretches.

[1]Not so much here in Flori-DUH...BUT the theme parks here (Disney, eg) aren't operating anywhere near their usual seasonal levels, meaning the ancillary hotels, restaurants, shops, and entertainment venues, limo services, ad infinitum, are operating at well below their usual levels, too.

[LFC]

Manchin is fighting over the income limits for people who get COVID relief checks but the question in my mind is, why? In a $1.9T bill he's squabbling over roughly $12B. I would understand if he was trying to save a significant amount of money by going after some provision but this seems to provide a small savings in exchange for delay and no political gain on a popular provision of the bill. It feels a bit like performance art more than real fiscal responsibility.

Quote

The Biden administration made a deal with moderate Democrats Wednesday on the $1,400 direct checks in the COVID-19 stimulus package which has many observers baffled by the political calculus.

Moderates like Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) have been insistent on “targeting” the checks more, to make sure the aid goes primarily to low-income people that need it badly.

“We’re just looking for a targeted bill, want it to be very targeted, helping the people that need help the most,” he told reporters earlier this week when asked if anything in the COVID-19 relief package needed to be changed to clinch his vote.

There are no senators to spare in a 50-50 Senate, and the Biden administration has to cater to Democrats like Manchin to get the bill passed. But the compromise means that some people who got checks from the Trump administration now seemingly won’t get them from the Biden administration.

Now, as in the original version of the bill, single people who earn up to $75,000 will receive the full $1,400. Those who earn between $75,000 and $80,000 will receive a partial amount of that money. But those earning more than $80,000 will get nothing. Previously, people earning between $75,000 and $100,000 would get some partial amount.

For couples who file taxes jointly, those who make up to $150,000 will still receive the full amount. Couples earning between $150,000 and $160,000 will get a partial amount. But those earning more than $160,000 will get nothing. In the original bill, couples earning between $150,000 and $200,000 would get a partial check.

Those new exclusions mean that about 12 million fewer adults and 5 million fewer kids will get the direct aid checks, according to the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Some of those people got checks under the Trump administration and will be boxed out this time.

To many observers, the politics of the change are incomprehensible. It risks angering or alienating people who got checks last time, and for what? The cuts save about $12 billion, one Democratic aide told the Washington Post — out of a $1.9 trillion bill. That’s 0.6 percent of the whole package. Democratic aides told Slate that the maneuver may also help keep the Senate Finance Committee’s part of the bill under the budget cap allowed by the reconciliation process.

But progressive Democrats and political observers questioned whether these seemingly minor trade-offs were worth it.

“I don’t like that this is being narrowed,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) told reporters. “I feel like the survival checks are the easiest, simplest, most popular, populist, proposal.”

[golden_valley]

LFC, on 04 March 2021 - 11:48 AM, said:

Manchin is fighting over the income limits for people who get COVID relief checks but the question in my mind is, why? In a $1.9T bill he's squabbling over roughly $12B. I would understand if he was trying to save a significant amount of money by going after some provision but this seems to provide a small savings in exchange for delay and no political gain on a popular provision of the bill. It feels a bit like performance art more than real fiscal responsibility.

It is a performance of independence. I suspect most bills need to have room in their provisions for such performances because otherwise the whole bill could fail. Bills are the results of negotiations both before they are introduced and in the hearing and voting process.

[LFC]

In a 51-50 vote the COVID relief bill moved forward in the Senate. Republicans will now throw as much sand and mud in the gears as possible but it doesn't sound like it will amount to anything other than a few days of delay.

Quote

With Vice President Kamala Harris casting the deciding vote, the Senate took a procedural step Thursday toward passing the Democrats’ sweeping $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill. Now begins the several hours — and possibly several days — of Republican parliamentary maneuverings that will delay the final Senate vote on the legislation.

First up is a reading of the freshly released 628-page Senate version of the bill. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) requested the reading of the bill, and he has predicted that the stunt will drag things out for additional 10 hours. (The clerks who are actually in charge of doing the reading think that they will be able to get through it much more quickly.) Once the reading is done, there will come another 20 hours of floor debate.

Then the Senate will move on to what’s known as “vote-a-rama.” During vote-a-rama, lawmakers can put up as many proposed amendments to the bill for a vote that they want. Republicans are talking a big game for how many amendments they have planned and are promising that this vote-a-rama will last longer than the last one, which clocked in at about 15 hours.

After the vote-a-rama, the Senate will get to take the vote to formally pass the legislation. Then the bill will have to go back the House for a vote, because of the tweaks the Senate has made to it, before heading President Joe Biden’s desk.