COVID "Relief" 6.0, Explained

The Latest COVID Relief/Stimulus Bill is a Boondoggle on Steroids, But There Are Other Things at Stake. How This Plays Out.

Well, there you have it. Some 70% of Americans support President Biden’s and the Democrats’ $1.9 trillion COVID 6.0 relief/stimulus package. That’s right, the 6th Coronavirus related bill considered by Congress since the pandemic took hold nearly a year ago (you remember - 15 days to slow the spread, 340 days later). Over $4 trillion in assistance and aid has been adopted by Congress over the past 11 months - all 5 previous bills passed the Senate with over 90 votes. Our national debt is now approaching $28 trillion.

Keep in mind that the poll is by Quinnipiac University. The same polling outfit that had Hillary Clinton defeating Donald Trump by 7 points in their last poll in 2016. So there’s that. When are we going to stop paying attention to polls, especially from colleges and universities, as a respected measure of true public opinion?

So, what is going on here? Do we really need another stimulus/relief bill, with Congress borrowing more money to give us “free money?” And is that what this bill really does? What’s the path forward, and where does it end?

All good questions. Let’s get started. First, where are we?

First, the Senate, in almost record time, and on a very partisan basis (Vice President Kamala Harris cast a tie-breaking vote), adopted a budget resolution on February 5th. In 1974, Congress adopted something called the Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which outlined the procedure by which the federal government budgeted expenditures and revenue. It was passed in response to then-President Richard Nixon “impounding” dollars appropriated by Congress, at which they bristled.

Budgets do not require the signature of the President and cannot be filibustered. Debate is limited, amendments have to be germane (relevant to the bill), and most amendments require a simple majority of 51 votes to pass (it takes 60 votes, supposedly, to “overturn” a budget rule, but more about that later).

What follows next is something called “reconciliation.” That’s a process, also under that Budget and Impoundment Control Act, that reconciles revenues and expenditures. It also is adopted by a simple majority, with time limits, but there are certain rules that must be followed, including the so-called “Byrd rule,” so named after the late former Majority Leader, Robert C. Byrd (D-WV). Since reconciliation bills spend real money and raise or reduce real taxes, they do require the President’s signature.

That’s what’s being worked out right now, with the House poised to act first.

The Byrd rule places guard rails around what the Senate (not the House) can consider under reconciliation. The legislation must deal only with spending and taxes. Nothing to revise Social Security. And no “extraneous” matters that have only an “incidental” impact on federal spending and revenues.

You know, like Sen. Sanders’ $15 per hour minimum wage proposal. And that’s the big battle going on right now between Senate Democrats and a little-known Senate staff member, the Parliamentarian of the Senate. Her name is Elizabeth McDonough, a long-time Senate employee who began her service in the mid-1990’s as a Senate library staff member. She is an excellent professional.

Senate Democrats are doing their best to persuade Elizabeth that the $15 minimum wage proposal is consistent with the Byrd Rule. Their cockamamie theory is that forcing employers to give people more money will mean they will pay more taxes, and voila, massive new federal revenues. Um, no serious reading of the Byrd Rules, or the impact of such a dramatic increase in the minimum wage, supports such a wild-ass theory. After all, some 1 percent of Americans earn the minimum wage. Some 900,000 are likely to see their wages increase, but at the expense of 1.4 million jobs being lost, according to the Congressional Budget Office. So much for the “massive new federal revenues.”

But there is oh so much more to the Biden/Pelosi/Schumer $1.9 trillion “relief” package.

As outlined by the House Republican Study Committee, about $825 billion actually deals with COVID related matters. And that’s generous. That includes $400 per week in extra unemployment benefits - on top of $1,400 in cash to eligible Americans (those making under $75,000, or $150,000 for a couple). Those extra unemployment benefits will, in many cases, exceed what they made in their last job, creating a disincentive to return to work. As Senator Mitt Romney outlined in his Wall Street Journal op-ed this morning, many employers are struggling to attract workers.

But it is worse than that. The bill is a obviously a payoff to favored Democratic constituencies, including teacher unions, government worker unions (funding their generous state pension programs), Planned Parenthood, and others, including illegal immigrants, Amtrak, and so much more, outlined here:

First, real sanity in Congress would focus on these straightforward policy objectives: what 1) puts people back to work, 2) provides aid to people and families until they can go back to work, 3) reopens schools, per CDC guidelines and “the science,” and 4), perhaps most importantly, gets more vaccines to more people so we reach “herd immunity” ASAP?

Can we agree on those policy objectives? Apparently not. Democrats seem determined to reward, or perhaps, rescue, Democratic governors from horrific “lockdown” and other failed COVID management and many years of other failed policies.

We can quibble over some of the details. The RSC is clearly partisan. the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is not. Their proposal would bring a COVID relief bill to around $1.1 trillion. Still too expensive in my book, but in the world of legislative compromise while real people are still suffering from the consequences of actions due to no fault of their own, a good starting place. We need to act smartly and quickly.

So what happens next? The Senate Parliamentarian likely will - and should - reject the $15 minimum wage increase as not consistent with the Byrd Rule, and thus not in order. But will any Democrat in the Senate stand up to other wasteful spending proposals? I doubt it. Everyone likes to believe that Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), is a centrist, but remember, if there’s anything West Virginia politicians like, it’s pork. After all, he holds the seat once held by “The King of Pork,” the late Senator Robert C. Byrd.

My real fear is that Democrats, insistent on a minimum wage increase and perhaps other items, will utilize the “nuclear option” to eliminate a 60 vote requirement to waive any “points of order” against provisions that violate budget rules. I doubt that will happen, but stay tuned. How does that work? Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer - if he has 51 votes - will ask the chair whether a vote to waive budget rules requires 60 votes. The chair will rule that it does. He will then move to “overturn the ruling of the chair,” which only requires a simple 51 vote majority. That’s how former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster executive nominations, and later, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell expanding it to include Supreme Court nominations.

Another wild option: The Senate Parliamentarian’s rulings are “advice” to the chair. The chair, technically, can ignore such advice and rule how he or she wants. That would be extraordinary. It has never happened. But there’s always a first time. Just like a second impeachment of a president, and an impeachment trial of a former president.

These are perilous times. And we haven’t even discussed the economic effects of dousing our economy with some $6 trillion in cash (including past COVID relief bills) over 11 months. Some of us actually remember 21% inflation rates and 15% mortgage rates from the late 1970’s. And those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.