Newly-elected President Joe Biden announced on January 4 that if the Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress, “$2,000 checks will go out the door.” However, about three weeks after his inauguration and victories for both Senator Jon Ossoff and Reverend Raphael Warnock in the Georgia Senate races, the prospects of a third stimulus remain uncertain. Right now there are discussions of $1,400 checks, but even this reduced amount cannot be agreed upon because it is unclear which Americans should be eligible.
House Democrats are pushing for a similar threshold to the previous stimulus checks, guaranteeing the full amount to individuals making less than $75,000 and households making less than $150,000 with a gradual decrease until a cutoff at $100,000 per year for individuals and $200,000 for couples. Republicans, on the other hand, believe these thresholds are too high, sending money to people who don’t actually need it. They have proposed the full amount go to individuals making less than $40,000 and households making $80,000, while individuals making more than $50,000 per year and households making $100,000 per year would be excluded.
At this point, it is necessary to explain that this column is trying a new format. Instead of writing two separate columns on similar topics, the Campus Conservative and Campus Liberal columnists are working together on this piece. The part above is a more objective introduction, written by both writers. Below, Peter White, the campus liberal, will explain his point of view, followed by Jackson Hudgins, the campus conservative. Finally, they will come together to write the conclusion and try to find common ground.
Campus Liberal
According to the Penn Wharton Budget Model, these differing views translate to very real differences in implementation. This model predicts that the Democrats’ plan would go out to about 95% of American families and that the Republican plan would benefit 78% of all families. This difference comes out to 29 million households whose potential stimulus is being debated. Frankly, it is abhorrent for the U.S. government to now debate who deserves this stimulus check after they have failed to offer any real support for practically the entire year of the pandemic. I do believe that it is likely the top 5% of families do not need stimulus checks; however, I have no problem with them being included for the simplification of distribution. I guess I would side with the Democrats, but I must admit that I am very disappointed in this new administration.
Although I had my reservations about Biden, I think his team has done a great job of pushing more progressive policies than I thought they were capable of. As mentioned earlier, he promised $2,000 checks early in his time in office, which was really a turning point for me. It seemed that he was acknowledging the government’s woeful response to the financial burden caused by the pandemic (not to mention the fact that the U.S. has handled the actual virus awfully). Then, the Democrats won both the House and the Senate?! It seemed that they have the capabilities to really help the American people who have been neglected for years. But, even with the majority in both houses, Democrat tactics are falling apart yet again.
It will likely be weeks until any resolution is agreed upon, so despite my negative take above, I will remain positive. This administration has the potential to make a real difference in the everyday lives of the American people and I truly hope with every fiber of my being that they can do that. The first test is this stimulus check.
Campus Conservative
Despite what one might expect, the reality is that both Republicans and Democrats agree that relief is needed in the form of checks and other stimulus measures; many of the details regarding implementation are where the primary disagreement occurs. The Democrats in the House and Senate favor the current package, which includes $1,400 checks sent out to American families, a gradual increase of the federal minimum wage to $15/hr, and billions of dollars to state and local government and public schools. The main debate among Republicans relates to the wealth cap at which a person does not receive a check, the practicality of a minimum wage increase, and whether states and cities with financial issues preceding the pandemic deserve stimulus.
With regard to checks, Republicans agree that checks are needed, but they are contending that the current wealth cap proposed by Democrats is not focused on middle and lower-income Americans and would open the door to spending a large amount of taxpayer dollars (and thus increasing the federal deficit) on checks that would potentially benefit rich Americans who don’t currently need stimulus. In addition, the minimum wage increase is a “poison pill” for a lot of Republicans, especially given the current state of small business during the COVID pandemic. The Congressional Budget Office has reported that a minimum wage increase would lead to a loss of 1.3 million jobs, an increase in prices (the equivalent of a cut in wages) as labor costs are passed to the consumer, and a decrease in economic output across the nation.
Conclusion
The reality is that stimulus is needed for every American and every small business. But giving a large check to a broad group of Americans at the same time that the economy is beginning to slowly recover is needlessly untargeted to the people who need it. Raising the federal minimum wage may seem like a very compassionate and moral method of raising the standard of living of millions of workers, but the reality is that no policy is good or bad: it is only a set of trade-offs. And the trade-off of an increased minimum wage is guaranteed unemployment for some and higher prices for all.
The Conversation is an Opinion column written by two students of opposing political viewpoints, used to discuss current events from different perspectives.
Be First to Comment