The world has had to grapple with a host of unprecedented events since the novel Covid-19,
known as Coronavirus, became a thing.
One could even say the Coronavirus made the world stop spinning.
The harshness of the lockdown protocols that attended the coronavirus pandemic
on the global economy has been particularly brutal in the United States of America.
Most states in the Union have had to shut down economic activities for a long spell. And one
can only imagine the devastation small businesses, especially in the hospitality industry, have been
experiencing since the pandemic started.
Against this backdrop, some argue that the measures deployed to protect citizens from
the pandemic have proven to be more disastrous than the pandemic itself.
Some believe the lockdown was the absolute preventive measure against the virus.
And it bought the medical workers enough time to tackle the situation in a better way.
On the other hand, some national stakeholders view the harm from a constitutional angle.
They argue that the lockdowns only represent an indirect move by 'Big Government'
to create a generation of dependent citizens, using unconstitutional policies as a vehicle.
What you make of these arguments notwithstanding,
no one can reasonably dispute the fact that restrictions on movement, to control the virus,
has contributed to the number of people who expect the government to come through
with some relief money. That's where the “Covid-19 Relief Bill” came into being.
It all started with the CARES ACT, the first round of COVID-19 Relief spending.
The arguments for and against lockdowns and other pandemic induced restrictions
is particularly lively, as one will expect, among the lawmakers in the both Houses of Congress.
This channel does not represent the left or the right… or even the middle… or anywhere in the
spectrum. We will look at things from different perspectives to make the most out of them.
Let’s start on the right side.
Some lawmakers, Republicans mostly, believe the government, with all its noble intentions,
is not in a position to deliver the assistance the citizens desperately need.
They believe only the citizens, acting in their enlightened self-interest,
can pursue and achieve their happiness. And the US Constitution appears to revolve around that
awareness, the awareness that nothing trumps individual responsibility in a free society.
They add that the present lockdowns and pandemic relief spendings
are not effective ways of restarting the economy. In their opinion, the only way
out of the economic challenge bedeviling the nation is by reopening the economy.
They believe, the handouts being doled out by the government,
without regard for the national deficit, won't do much for the
citizens and the greater evil is the erosion of the independent spirit of the American people.
A school of thought that also finds the current state of affairs counterintuitive
among the political class are those who believe there's nothing scientific about the lockdowns.
They argue that despite the mainstream media's promotion of public hysteria,
the facts don't support the kind of restrictions mostly deployed in Democrat Strongholds.
A sizable number of Democrat politicians were caught flouting their COVID-19 regulations.
This school of thought argues that the government has unwittingly created
a perverse incentive for bureaucrats to inflate the number of covid-19 related deaths
because by so doing, they can count on the government sending more money their way.
They say that according to some medical experts the way hospitals test for covid-19
is prone to error but that argument is outside the scope of this.
Now let’s switch to the Left!
The other side of the debate are politicians, Democrats mostly, who believe that the pandemic
induced restrictions and stimulus spending represent a necessary aberration of the norm
as the country is in the middle of a fight against a deadly pandemic.
This group believes that every life counts and the fact that people infected with the
coronavirus have more than 90% chances of recovery should not be brought into this debate.
These politicians believe the pandemic has created a situation where the government
has to take measures to protect the people and
incentivize them to respect government restrictions, hence the stimulus checks.
They contend that most of those who argue that the government is making a mountain out of a
molehill in a manner that increases its powers are just interested in promoting their preferred
political rhetoric without much as a single thought for the wellbeing of the citizens.
They also add that those who claim there is nothing as permanent as a temporary government
measure are only interested in whipping up primordial sentiments. They conclude that
it is nothing but a mix of scare tactics and cynicism, presented as gospel truths.
This battle of views has found adequate expression among lawmakers in the two Houses of Congress.
This reality explains why the recently enacted
omnibus legislation on government spending was a controversial ordeal.
Lots of Republican Lawmakers could not stand an initial bill
overwhelmingly supported by Democrat Lawmakers.
Republican lawmakers argued that the initial bill contained more wasteful
handouts for Democrat supported pet projects and other special interest priorities with
little provision for citizens in actual need of stimulus checks.
For that and many other reasons, the initial bill was held hostage
as no party was interested in giving an inch before the 2020 General Election.
It is to be noted that the bill which passed on December 21 is constantly dubbed as the
COVID Relief Bill, but it is not. It is part of an omnibus spending bill – a large package of smaller
spending bills – called the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to HR 133 and called the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021.
The COVID-19 relief legislation – worth about $900bn –
is part of it. The other pieces are worth $1.4 trillion that makes a total of $2.3 trillion.
After the General Election, in light of the pandemic-induced restrictions on businesses
and individuals, there was a renewed interest among the lawmakers to pass covid-relief
legislation.
A $900 billion economic relief bill was brought before Congress and Rand Paul,
a Republican Senator, made deeply criticizing remarks about the bill. For what it's worth,
the remark went viral in the country and some pundits believe it's because a considerable
number of people identified with the concerns the Senator spotlighted in his remarks.
The highlight of Senator Rand Paul's remark was the criticism he made of his fellow
Republican senators' interest in voting for a piece of legislation he characterized as
a "bunch of socialist spending".
The Senator registered his disappointment on how no one, most Republican lawmakers inclusive, seems
to care about the nation's ballooning deficit.
He accused his Republican colleagues of acting as though money grew on trees.
He lamented the fact that the nation was taking on debts unborn generations will have to negotiate
within their lifetime.
He argued that the way out of the economic conundrum was to simply open up the economy safely
not throwing inadequate amounts at the citizens.
After all, was said and done, Senator Rand Paul and Five other Republican Senators were the only
Republicans who voted against the measure; a confirmation that the political theater is
largely becoming a place where a lot is said but little logical results are accomplished.
One other telling controversy that
popped up before Congress voted on the Covid-19 Relief Bill revolved around the voluminous nature
of the bill and the little time lawmakers had to study its content before voting on it.
In what appears
to be a first, Senator Ted Cruz found himself agreeing with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
In a tweet, Senator Cruz signified
that he identifies with the view espoused by Rep. Alexandria on the absurdity of asking lawmakers to
vote on a more than 5000-page bill with only a few hours made available for studying the provisions
of the bill.
The Senator added the hashtag #CongressIsBroken to his tweet on the issue in what appears to
be a statement of his disillusionment with the prevailing culture in Congress.
After the Bill was passed with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, President Trump remarked that
the bill was, in his words, a disgrace.
He threatened not to sign the bill because it allocated more money to special interest blocks
and comparatively a very small amount of $600 in direct payment to citizens.
The President requested that
Congress increase direct payment to $2000 and get rid of what he characterized as wasteful spending.
Political analysts noted that the President's
refusal to sign the 5,593-page bipartisan legislation could result in a partial government
shutdown. They also noted that the refusal could have negatively impacted the recipient of
unemployment benefits and other related benefits.
However, on the 27th of December, 2020, President Trump unexpectedly signed into
law the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, providing $1.4 Trillion for the fiscal year ending
on September 30, 2021.
Initially, the White House did not explain the President's change of heart and while the
White House remained silent, some pundits argued that the President folded to avert a government
shutdown.
Later on, the White House released a statement where the President announced the issues that
informed the change of his initial stance.
He noted that he signed the bill to protect unemployment benefits, stop evictions,
help airline workers get back to work, finance vaccine distribution, among other crucial reasons.
While the $900 billion relief package provided for a round of $600 direct payments to adults
and children, the President added that he will send a 'red-lined version' of the bill
back to Congress, demanding the deletion of what he considers wasteful spending.
He also noted that
his demands will be accompanied by the formal rescission request to Congress insisting that
certain funds be removed.
The president noted that the bill contains $85.5m for assistance to Cambodia, $134m to Burma, $1.3bn
for Egypt and the Egyptian military, $25m for democracy and gender programs in Pakistan,
$505m to Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama. There
are also funds including 25 million for Asian carp, 3 million for poultry production technology,
566 million for construction projects at the FBI, 40 million for Kennedy Center, a performing arts
complex in Washington DC, more than $1bn for museums and galleries in the capital.
What do you think about Congress finding plenty of money for foreign countries, lobbyists,
and special interests, while providing the bare minimum to the American people who need it? Share
your opinion by writing in the comment section below. We would love to hear your perspective.