View this email in your browser

Unsanitized: The COVID-19 Report for Dec. 23, 2020

Miracle on Pennsylvania Avenue

Trump asks for $2,000 checks, and Democratic leaders call his bluff

 

Behind these doors, Donald Trump completely destroyed Mitch McConnell's
painstaking plans and possibly his future as Senate Majority Leader,
with one video. (Andrew Harnik/AP Photo)

First Response

I've never been a fan of the joke about what "the writers" are
serving up in this season of the Trump years. It's just too cloying
for me. But last night was definitely a very special Christmas episode,
with a plot twist.

The story so far: Congress, after nine months of dithering, passed a
COVID relief bill
,
attached to a year-end omnibus that funds the government until next
September. As practically the only thing Congress has passed all year
(seriously, it was bill #29 that has made it through both houses of
Congress), lawmakers attached all sorts of other legislation,
noncontroversial and otherwise, making it a 5,593-page "what I did in
the legislature this year" package. We know this story: it's good
relief, a lifeline for struggling people, but not enough to bridge to a
time when mass immunization lifts the crisis and returns the country to
normalcy.

Into all this walks Donald Trump, who'd been... well, focused on other
things, like overturning the election. Trump dropped a four-minute video
last night which combined McCain-style whining about pork barrel
spending, a stroke of populism, and classic vindictiveness.

**Read all of our Unsanitized reports here**

Click to Support The American Prospect

Trump started by decrying "wasteful" spending in the relief bill,
tallying up a bunch of funny-sounding programs (amberjack fish, haha!
Asian carp! Poultry production technology!). I believe all these
programs are in the omnibus section of the bill, not the COVID relief
section. First, it's a stupid gimmick to define programs in a couple
words that are actually pretty vital. (Poultry production technology
would add efficiencies and perhaps save lives in the production process,
to use one example. Here's an entire conference

about it.) Second, the spending, while not wasteful, also doesn't add
up to much. The fourteen programs explicitly identified total $3.849
billion, in a bill of $2.2 trillion (between the $1.3 trillion
discretionary spending and the $892 billion in COVID relief.

Trump went on to say that the $600 direct payments in the bill were
"ridiculously low," and that he wanted $2,000, gesturing toward
cutting the "wasteful" spending and using the proceeds. Trump
didn't quite say he would veto the whole package, just that he would
"ask Congress to amend" it.

For the record, it would cost about $380 billion to increase the value
of the payments by $1,400, and Trump identified $3.8 billion. I did the
math, his calculations would add $13.91 to everyone's check. But the
numbers sound big in nominal terms, so he gets away with relying on the
innumeracy of the public. But who cares about the cost when people are
suffering? We have skyrocketing poverty
and
falling personal income
.
Checks for $2,000 are obviously better than $600.

We Depend on Your Donations

Aides intimated

that Trump was just venting, but he spoke a Bulworth-style truth: the
checks are ridiculously low. My thinking has shifted on this. A flotilla
of economists and wonks took to Twitter yesterday to explain that
actually, there's a lot more than just $600 for people in this bill,
and that's only one-fifth of the total spending. That's all correct;
if you've been on unemployment for the duration of the pandemic,
between the CARES Act and this bill you're getting something close to
$30,000 from the government. (Less taxes
,
of course, including the tax on your time
.)

But that universe of people, while in need, is about 2-3 percent of the
total workforce. By contrast something like 80 percent of the public,
everyone making $100,000 or less, is getting the check. From a messaging
standpoint of "what's in it for me," that's just going to take
precedence. Moreover, you can see the two payments, from CARES and this
bill, as a leveler of decades of soaring inequality, and really the
least you can do for a population that has had the rules of capitalism
rigged against them. Even if they weren't means tested, giving
everyone thousands of dollars means more to those at the lower end.

The politics, then, argue for higher payments. It was Mitch McConnell
and Senate Republicans who kept them artificially low. Now here comes
Trump asking for them to be nearly tripled. It's amazing that he
waited until after losing the election to flash the old-time populism
and wedge both parties, but here we are. And then came the moment where
Mitch McConnell's head blew up like in Scanners.

We Can't Do This Without You

Democrats Practicing Politics in the Wild!

As soon as Trump posted that video, I suggested that the House pass a
one-page bill ,
increasing the checks from $600 to $2,000. Much to my delight in seeing
that political instincts in the Democratic Party aren't totally dead,
about 10 minutes later, Nancy Pelosi suggested the same thing
, saying
she would offer unanimous consent to amend the bill. Reps. Rashida Tlaib
(D-MI) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) even wrote the amendment
. (I gave
it a name: the $2,000 Does Offer Long-Lasting Available Relief or $2,000
DOLLAR, Act.) Eventually, Chuck Schumer got on board
as well. Joe
Biden hasn't said anything, but he was on the record for seeking more
money

when he became president. So the Democratic leadership beat him to it,
and called Trump's bluff.

Now, a word on "unanimous consent": it would be better to just pass
a bill in
the House, and demand its takeup in the Senate. Unanimous consent needs
to be, well, unanimous; one Republican House member can derail it. If
you move a bill, every House Republican has to go on the record of
whether they stand with Trump for spending $380 billion in a direct
transfer to low- and middle-income people. Every one of those that
doesn't gets a campaign ad in 2022 about how "you needed that extra
money, and Congressman X voted to not give it to you." So yes,
#ForceTheVote
.

This puts McConnell in a terrible spot. There's an election in Georgia
in two weeks that will determine his Senate majority. The only reason
McConnell passed this bill is to save Kelly Loeffler and David
Perdue's careers
and preserve his control of the Senate. He put an artificial $900
billion cap on it, which Donald Trump and Democrats now are united in
regarding as puny. If McConnell resists the change, he's all alone in
denying money to the American people. These checks poll extremely well,
and both Democrats in Georgia are already running

on the $2,000 level
. If McConnell
resists, losing the Senate is a much likelier scenario. If he doesn't,
people get $2,000.

Give Now in Our End of Year Fundraising Drive

There are so many amazing subplots here. Trump can't stand McConnell
for abandoning his overthrow-the-election gambit, so he sticks in the
final knife. The threat, by the way, is real: there are only 10 days
left in this Congress, and Trump doesn't have the bill yet (which is
being "enrolled," essentially double-checked for errors). He could
"pocket veto" the bill and just not sign it, and in 10 days the
clock would run out
, and there
would be no bill for anyone. The new Congress would have to start all
over.

This would be a disastrous scenario-unemployment programs would
expire, the eviction moratorium would lift, and more. Already this snafu
is delaying the flow of relief. And the only man holding it up is Mitch
McConnell. This upends the entire shift of the multi-racial working
class

away from the Democratic Party, and re-focuses the spotlight brightly on
McConnell. Trump handed the Democrats a total gift here, and if they
play it right, the payoff for people-literally-will be incredible.

Days Without a Bailout Oversight Chair

271
.

Support Independent, Fact-Checked Journalism

Today I Learned

* Good Dean Baker piece

on maxing out on vaccines. (CEPR)

* Biden shouldn't be thinking about using the Defense Production Act

to make more vaccines, he should read some Dean Baker and do it. (CNBC)

* There does appear to be a deal for Pfizer to supply more doses
. (New
York Times)

* If the wealthy want to jump the line for a vaccine, make them pay
through the nose for it
,
and use that money for more vaccines. (Stat News)

* It's just very likely that more infectious strain of COVID is
already in the U.S., and we wouldn't know if it was

anyway because we don't test for it. (New Republic)

* And still the U.S. isn't testing everyone

on incoming flights from the UK. (CNBC)

* The U.S. death rate compares decently

to death rates in Europe. The virus is what it is. (Mother Jones)

* The college basketball player who collapsed on the court has
myocarditis
,
the disease sports medicine experts thought correlates with COVID.
(Gator Sports)

* As the pandemic triggers loneliness, it's the deadliest year for
drug use

in U.S. history. (New York Magazine)

**Click the social links below to share this newsletter**

 

[link removed]

 

[link removed]

 

[link removed]

 

[link removed]

 

[link removed]

 

[link removed]

YOUR TAX DEDUCTIBLE DONATION SUPPORTS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM

Copyright (C) 2020 The American Prospect. All rights reserved.
_________________

Sent to [email protected]

Unsubscribe:
[link removed]

The American Prospect, Inc., 1225 I Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC xxxxxx, United States