First of all, it's pretty slick of the Biden administration to hold off on announcing the new CDC guidelines saying that fully vaccinated folks can congregate without masks or social distancing.
Even some of the parts of the $1.9 trillion COVID relief package that actually pertain to effects of the pandemic might have garnered calls for further consideration.
Ah, but those parts were a necessary excuse for the many parts that don't in any way, shape or form qualify as immediately necessary to ameliorate the virus's impact. Take for example the $86 billion for failing pension funds:
Using taxpayer dollars to bail out pension plans is almost unheard-of. Previous proposals to rescue the dying multiemployer plans called for the Treasury to make them 30-year loans, not send them no-strings-attached cash. Other efforts have called for the plans to cut some people’s benefits to conserve their dwindling money — such as widow’s pensions, early retirement subsidies and pensions promised by companies that subsequently left their pools.
That's just part of the grab bag of unrelated goodies:
One analysis by the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget found that more than 15% of the proposed package — about $300 billion — will go toward long-standing policy priorities that are "not directly related to the current crisis." Roughly 1% of the spending will go toward accelerating vaccine distribution, and just 5% is focused on public health needs, according to the nonpartisan group.
“The goal of COVID relief is to end the pandemic, protect incomes, and support the economic recovery," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "The House bill not only spends far more than is needed to achieve these goals, but also puts too many of these plentiful dollars in the wrong places."
Some of the most expensive aspects of the bill include $422 billion for the latest round of cash payments and $350 billion for state and local governments — which MacGuineas described as "poorly targeted.”
"Nearly half of the package will be spent on poorly targeted rebate checks and state and local government aid, including to households and governments that have experienced little or no financial loss during this crisis," she said.
New research published by Opportunity Insights, a nonpartisan policy institute based at Harvard University, laid out evidence that the money would be most effective at boosting the U.S. economy if it targeted lower-income Americans.
Then there is the For The People Act, also known as HR1, which is an egregious expansion of federal power over a realm of activity the Framers envisioned as chiefly the purview of the states.
Jay Caruso of the Washington Examiner, discussing it on Twitter, points up some its most insidious aspects:
Replying to
For example, it would establish at the federal level, redistricting commissions for all states with required reporting on the "diversity" of those commissions. It allows minors to register to vote. It sets federal standards for manual and paper ballot requirements and 2/
Replying to
paper ballot printing requirements. It wipes out any voter identification laws, mandating that a sworn statement is sufficient. It mandates curbside voting. It sets conditions for cleaning up voter registration rolls. It also includes the ridiculous DISCLOSE Act requirements. 3/
National Review minces no words in its editorial about it:
It would be an understatement to describe H.R. 1 as a radical assault on American democracy, federalism, and free speech. It is actually several radical left-wing wish lists stuffed into a single 791-page sausage casing. It would override hundreds of state laws governing the orderly conduct of elections, federalize control of voting and elections to a degree without precedent in American history, end two centuries of state power to draw congressional districts, turn the Federal Elections Commission into a partisan weapon, and massively burden political speech against the government while offering government handouts to congressional campaigns and campus activists. Merely to describe the bill is to damn it, and describing it is a Herculean task in itself.
That's sure a markedly different take than one finds in the piece by Justin Florence and Rachel Homer at The Bulwark:
. . . it’s neither a progressive nor partisan bill—it’s a pro-democracy bill that should appeal to Americans of all political backgrounds.
So before the next stage of the debate begins in earnest, let’s open the hood and take a look at what’s actually in the bill.
Broadly speaking, H.R. 1 covers three major areas: voting and elections, campaign finance, and ethics.
First, it would:
- reduce barriers that keep eligible citizens from registering to vote and then casting their vote;
- set minimum, uniform standards for elections; and
- provide funding to increase the security of our elections.
These reforms have a long record of bipartisan support and have already been implemented across many states.
Second, H.R. 1 would increase the transparency of spending on elections and campaign ads and strengthen protections against foreign interference in our campaigns.
Third is ethics: Requiring increased disclosure of lobbying activities, and putting into law ethical guidelines preventing conflicts of interest by staff, appointees, members of Congress, and even presidents.
So those are the broad strokes of what the bill aims to do.
Pretty benign in their telling of it. But consider that Florence's resume includes a stint working for Sheldon Whitehouse and Homer's includes some time on Al Franken's staff.
The Bulwark gets into some shaky territory sometimes. I've never understood why they run the work of Richard North Patterson, who is an overt fan of all manner of lefty policy. Then there was Bill Kristol's "What About Joe?" piece a couple of weeks ago. It often gets lumped in with The3 Dispatch, but it seems tp be proving to be a different kind of critter.
In any event, these two pieces of legislation make it clear that neither the Biden administration nor Congressional Democrats are interested in that unity stuff they spouted in the early days of their assuming office.
One thing The Bulwark has been right about - as has The Dispatch, Principles First and a handful of other outlets and organizations (two of which, I'd like to think, are Late in the Day and Precipice) - is that Trumpism and neo-Trumpsim are of no use in countering the Left's agenda.
Actual conservatives must stand up. This shouldn't be complicated.
No comments:
Post a Comment