Apparently, Mitt Romney has been hanging out with Andrew Yang.
At least, that’s what you’d surmise from the Utah Republican’s surprise economic stimulus proposal unveiled in response to the coronavirus crisis. The senator wants the government to give every citizen a one-time cash payment of $1,000. This is intended to boost consumer spending and provide economic stability for those hardest hit by the virus’s ample negative economic impacts, as well as help avoid the general slowdown it has caused from spiraling into an all-out recession.
Every American adult should immediately receive a one-time check for $1,000 to help ensure families and workers can meet their short-term obligations and increase spending in the economy.
— Senator Mitt Romney (@SenatorRomney) March 16, 2020
But this is, frankly, a foolish idea. Welfare for the rich and other workers who remain relatively unaffected won’t help us avoid a recession.
Any policy response that is overly broad will needlessly waste taxpayer resources, and fail to actually keep the economy from going under. And in terms of a broad $1,000 handout for everyone, it sure would force taxpayers to “help” a lot of people who don’t really need it, who are capable of working remotely and supporting themselves financially during this period of “social distancing.” It goes without saying that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet don’t need this handout — but even I don’t need it.
And it’s not as if giving us an extra $1,000 would even do much to affect our consumer spending, its stated goal. The reason we aren’t going to restaurants and patronizing public businesses isn’t that we can’t afford to, it’s for public health reasons.
As for those service-sector workers truly harmed by the coronavirus’s economic fallout, $1,000 just isn’t enough. For a breadwinner with a family who is out of work entirely for three months because the restaurant he or she works at shut down? It might help a little bit, but a more targeted response would allow us to do more for those truly in need.
If we do decide that civil society and charity are unable to step up and fill in this void, a narrowly tailored government response specifically helping only those most harmed by the coronavirus is what’s needed.
For example, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan signed an executive order temporarily expanding government unemployment benefits to those unable to work due to the coronavirus or its fallout. This will provide them with far more than $1,000 in support, and it will concentrate resources on supporting those who actually need it. Moreover, unemployment insurance arguably exists for this very purpose. What she’s doing is smart, and it isn’t radical.
Other plans circulating in Congress would means-test the checks being cut and only send them to those under a certain income threshold. This, while still questionable, is at least better than Romney’s idea.
