The pandemic-induced economic crisis created political room for major policy action, but in some ways the fact that the economy is in free fall makes automating the response harder politically. “How elegant to have something that turns on when you need it and turns off when you don’t need it.”īut in terms of political prospects of these policies, there is a Catch-22. “Let’s not have a partisan fight to turn on and turn off help to people when the economy goes south,” Mr. Those benefits would have eventually gone away as the jobless rate fell. Beyer wrote with two Democratic senators, Jack Reed and Michael Bennet, would have maintained expanded unemployment insurance benefits for workers in states based on a tapered system in which benefits would have been more generous in states where the unemployment rate remained high.
It doesn’t have the risk of hanging around for too long.” “And importantly, the spending would automatically disappear when it’s no longer needed. “Automatic stabilizers for programs like unemployment insurance, food stamps and fiscal relief for states through Medicaid would make us more resilient, and that would make it easier to recover from severe economic shocks,” Mr. Putting those programs on autopilot would have helped, he said. Lew, who was a Treasury secretary in the Obama administration. “The lesson from the Great Recession is that when crisis strikes, even the quickest legislative response tends to be too slow and that needs tend to linger, while the environment for putting together policy solutions gets more challenging,” said Jacob J. Many Republicans oppose anything that resembles open-ended government backing for social welfare benefits. That bill functions as the Democrats’ starting point for negotiations with Senate Republicans, meaning even if automatic stabilizers had been included, they might have faced long odds. The draft House bill focuses more heavily on aid to state and local governments, and includes more money for unemployment insurance but without triggers tied to the jobless rate. “There were a lot of important priorities, and this wasn’t at the top of the list, unfortunately,” said Don Beyer, a Democratic congressman from Virginia and co-author of an automatic stabilizer bill. Extending benefits for a few months is cheaper than doing so for the next two years, or at least appears so in the accounting that Congress uses to calculate the cost of legislation. In the negotiations that led to an agreement that the Democratic caucus could support, automatic triggers dropped out, reflecting the high cost involved. The bad news: In a $3 trillion package of pandemic response that the House intends to pass Friday, the approach was not adopted.
0 kommentar(er)
