Pandemics Are a Terrible Time for a Frivolous Spending Spree

Just because we're borrowing to get through a crisis doesn't mean we can afford things like the Green New Deal.

By
29

“I think you and any viewer knows exactly where I’m going with this,” MSNBC host Ari Melber said halfway into a stemwinder of a question for Sen. Cory Booker.

“What are we to make of the fact that for years on end, Washington, the town you work in, seems to speak with one voice that there are certain things that can’t be done, that are off the table, that are too expensive, then when we have a crisis like this … no one is saying don`t pass a big, expensive bill … we suddenly have trillions of dollars to deal with things on an emergency basis. What does that make you think of, and do you see any silver lining or hopeful sign that it means that actually things that we were told are impossible are suddenly possible and fundable?”

Then, Melber said the scariest thing someone can say to a senator: “And I’ll give you as much time as you need to give us your thoughts.”

To his credit, Booker’s answer was shorter than Melber’s question, but still too long to quote in full.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
29
By
Comments (29)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    The problem here is something Jonah highlighted in his previous article: this isn't a "stimulus" package, it's life-support while the patient is put in an induce coma. Basically we need millions of Americans to stop everything they are doing for (6 weeks?) and that will cost trillions of dollars so the Federal government will make those people whole.

    That's it. Nothing else. If you think of the spending that way you get that it's *not* at al exciting or creative. Just pay the bills while everybody isn't working.

    If we had actual presidential leadership, that would be clear to everybody. Instead we have this free-for-all.

    Collapse
  2. ROBERT

    Jonah, could you do all of us a favor? Please stop mentioning AOC in your articles.
    The lady has not done one thing nor proposed any serious ideas that merit a mention in anything written by writers of your stature. Do you include her name simply to drive readership or garner reactions from people like me? If so, that is not what I'm looking from The Dispatch.
    You are correct. Politicians do use a crisis to go after things they already wanted. That's a legitimate problem that merits discussion. But I would prefer to do so by reference to those politicians that have demonstrated some minimum level of seriousness.
    Perhaps there are no serious politicians left in congress other than Justin Amash. So who else can you mention?

    Collapse
  3. david rae

    My recommendation is something of a twist on the term limits idea.

    How long have we been hearing that our entitlement programs will soon run out of money? 20-30 years? Our representatives won't tell us we can't continue to spend like this because (1) they'd never be re-elected; and (2) they apparently can without consequence. $23-25 trillion in debt later...

    Just suppose members of Congress weren't allowed to run for re-election unless the budget was either balanced or the deficit reduced by X percent every term. Would the two sides start talking and compromising for their mutual self-preservation? I'd like to think they'd suddenly find wasteful spending and we would see better oversight of our funds, since their careers now depended on it.

    If they can keep the budget balanced or continue reducing the deficit until it's back to balanced, they can run again. If not, they can always run for office again; just not re-election.

    We have no report card system on our representatives. We as voters are to blame for reelecting those members who continue to make it sound like it's an accomplishment to bring federal dollars back to our state. And why do they need to do that? Because of fiscal mismanagement at the local/state levels.

    Even during national crises, there should be some mechanism inserted into the bill that addresses how we'll make up these additional deficits.

    There are probably 535 people in the US who wouldn't like this idea of accountability. Maybe we could stop electing them until we found 535 who would.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    karmol

    "Frivolous spending" is obviously a good headline, but it can derail serious long term policy. I thought the WaPo Editorial Board had a nice piece on Climate Change and COVID-19:

    The article points the the precipitous drop in emissions as factories and travel have shut down, but rightly point that they will be back with a gusto when the pandemic dissipates. (The figures that are quoted in this article are worth a look - I've rarely seen the stakes of climate change so well summarized.)

    "As governments move from crisis to recovery, hardship will leave them less inclined than ever to grapple with climate change. But they should take recovery as an opportunity to emphasize sustainability. Covid-19 is the disaster of now. Climate change will be the disaster that defines younger generations’ lives. It will unfold over the coming decades, it will be pervasive, and it will be deadly, too."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/greenhouse-emissions-are-down-but-its-no-silver-lining/2020/03/26/4878217e-647c-11ea-845d-e35b0234b136_story.html

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Sonofasailor35

    Liberals are playing the part of the teenager in this scenario:
    But Daaaaadd, you told me you couldn’t afford to buy me that nice car I wanted, and then you go and spend 15k after a storm blows our roof off! Not faaaaiirrr!

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    MrJoMo

    I think the point about Health Care For All is that unlike you and I, many people don't have and couldn't borrow the $40K to get to the life-saving treatment or, more importantly, pay for it. But like many a politician and pundit have said, Don't let a good crisis go to waste.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Earl King

    I argued to my wife during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that instead of doubling the US debt we should have a war tax...1 penny per $100 of taxes...Something, anything. Instead we just spent. Then we had the housing meltdown...I argued to my wife that a Trillion dollars on bike paths and Turtle crossings was wasteful. I guess not if you are a turtle. Then Obama doubled our national debt again. Trump is on a pathway to do so as well. Quite a feat..Because George went from $5 Trillion to almost $10 Trillion. Then Barak did the same thing. So for Trump to double our debt to $38 Trillion he needs to deficit spend another $15 Trillion. Well now its only $13 Trillion. Our political parties are incapable of rational thinking. We cannot cut taxes for every working American. We cannot meet our deficits simply by confiscatory taxes on the wealthy. Everybody needs some skin in the game. Not every tax is bad. If we could get AOC and Ted Cruz to agree to two things. 1) The only way to lower our deficits is to have an economy that grows with pro growth policies. 2) There is some combination of taxes and spending levels that must happen. Sadly, neither will happen...and we will continue down this path of destruction.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Donny from Queens

    The stimulus is structured to further the growing class divide. Those with wealth cushions will get by and be able to navigate the perils of deferred interest loans. Everyone else will get $1200 and be wiped out.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Logical

    The problem is tribal. How a tribe analyzes the situation/issue depends on its approach to strengthening the tribe. Analysis depends on the analyzer's tribal affiliation.

    "If you want to convince normal Americans to take a crisis seriously, you have a moral obligation to act as if you take it seriously too. " Who are the normal Americans? Whose moral obligations?

    "The House version of the bill was full of gratuitous nonessentials such as regulations for forced diversity hiring. (The bill included 32 instance of the word “diversity.”) The final version has $25 million in funding for the Kennedy Center." JG is building a strawman from a strawman Pelosi built to keep the Senate bill in check.

    Everything is tribal. My tribe is better than yours.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    DougCLE

    I gotta tell you, Jonah - I’m not super sold on this “stimulus” bill in the first place. Much as I love getting my money up, I have a hard time seeing how I’m going to stimulate any new business with it when I can’t leave the house.

    We are throwing 1/10 of our entire 2019 GDP on our credit card, and for what, exactly? A cash payout that doesn’t make a huge difference to my annual finances, at least while I’m still employed. I know a bunch of people are going to say, “Well, you can give it away, then, if you hate it so much.” But to whom, exactly, and how do I get it to them? Giving it to charity isn’t going to help the local diner keep its lights on. Wasn’t this supposed to be a stimulus bill?

    I would much rather we’d done something very narrowly targeted - like Collins’ plan for loans to keep small businesses afloat during the shutdown - rather than just give everybody an equal bag of money. That strikes me more as political glad-handing than a responsible attempt at a solution.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Paul Reichardt

      But it will immediately stimulate major indices of the stock markets, upon which electoral fortunes and internet political media narratives are often pinned.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Dusty

      Given that the current recession that we're dealing with is deliberate, the stimulus is meant to encourage spending when restrictions are eased. The loans in the program are means by which businesses - both large and small - are to survive the crisis. The direct payments to consumers are then the means by which commerce returns to those businesses post-crisis.

      Obviously, the money is going to mean a lot more to people who lost their jobs. However, let's think of a family of four where the husband and/or wife is still employed. Maybe they had a trip to Disney World scheduled and the virus cancelled it. Now, they can afford to reschedule it. Or, maybe they didn't have a trip planned. But now they just received $3400 that they didn't originally have in their annual budget and now are planning a trip to Disney World, flights included. Or maybe one has been holding off on going to Lowe's to get everything needed to start a home garden because it was just too expensive. Now they got the money to do so.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        C C Writer

        I'm not so sure we're talking about encouraging spending that wasn't already planned prior to the pausing of the economy. But going ahead with previously planned or intended spending, once the all clear sounds, will mean a lot to people who have jobs providing those goods and services and need a job to go back to.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Dusty

          True. I think it has the ability to encourage both depending on individual circumstances.

          Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      FYI the bill includes the loan program, among any other things. And the $1200 is means tested.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougCLE

        I know, and I know. But they should have done just the loan program, plus some extra thrown at unemployment programs, and should have kept it to the absolute minimum necessary. I can always use that money, but there are people who will NEED that money, and this isn't going to get it to them.

        Again, what good is a stimulus package going to do for companies that have been ordered by the state to close their doors?

        Collapse
Load More