House Passes Covid Relief Package on 219-212 Vote

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has been the Managing Editor of Ordinary Times since 2018, is a widely published opinion writer, and appears in media, radio, and occasionally as a talking head on TV. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter@four4thefire. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast. Subscribe to Andrew'sHeard Tell Substack for free here:

Related Post Roulette

27 Responses

  1. North says:

    First step of a very necessary thing for Biden and his Party.Report

  2. Kazzy says:

    ““This isn’t a relief bill,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said Friday. “It takes care of Democrats’ political allies while it fails to deliver for American families.””

    It is certainly possible that the bill is too expensive and sends money to the wrong places but… he’s going to have to show his work to convince me of that. Has he even tried to?Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

      He had to say “this isn’t a good thing, it’s a bad thing!” and he was 10 minutes away from saying “We can’t afford to send $2000 checks to everybody! We should only send checks to people who need checks!” and so couldn’t argue “Biden isn’t keeping his promise!”

      So he’s stuck with that.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

        Why did he have to say that?

        Why couldn’t he argue that?Report

        • InMD in reply to Kazzy says:

          Because the GOP is only allowed to play populist enough to win elections, not enough to actually piss off the blue bloods.Report

          • Kazzy in reply to InMD says:

            Okay, I’m lost.

            Typically, when we look at who is supporting what bill, the disagreement doesn’t lie in the text of the actual bill; it is about whether we should be trying to do what the bill is trying to do.

            This is called a relief bill… its title is “American Rescue Plan.” Per this quote, McCarthy is arguing this isn’t actually a relief bill… it is something else. Specifically, it is something that “takes care of Democrats’ political allies while failing to deliver for American families.” And it certainly may well be! But if so, it would be a pretty easy case to make. “Hey everyone, look on page 32. Right there, in black-and-white, look at how all this money goes towards Democrats’ political allies. And look here… page 47… the part about relief to families… look what it ACTUALLY says!”

            So, my point is this seems to be a rare moment where support for a particular piece of legislation could be swayed by actual facts from the bill itself. If that is the case, McCarthy should offer that up.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

              Part of the problem is that he didn’t read the bill.

              Nobody did.

              A handful of lobbyists have read the parts of the bill that they, themselves, wrote… but the Congresscritters?Report

            • InMD in reply to Kazzy says:

              I’m saying I don’t believe there is a coronavirus package capable of getting more than 8-10 GOP votes in the House. Even that might be overestimating.

              McCarthy is saying what he has to say to appear that maybe there could be such a thing but without giving specifics that would alienate his benefactors. I suppose you could point to the alternative proposed by some GOP Senators but I can see why the administration wasn’t willing to play that game. Too little time and not likely to buy anything in the future.Report

            • Michael Cain in reply to Kazzy says:

              My understanding is that the Republicans in Congress are getting an earful from the Republican state/local officials back home saying “We’re dying here. We need a bunch of money for state and local government spending.” And the polling is saying that a lot of Republican voters are in favor of the $1400 added checks, much longer term emergency UI funds, and the child tax credits. Which puts leadership in a tough position: at CPAC they have to oppose the Democrats; but they can’t throw their local officials under the bus. Vague platitudes rule the day.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Michael Cain says:

                MC and InMD,

                That all makes sense. I guess what stands out here is that he could easily be “fact checked” by even his own people.

                This isn’t, “Of course we voted against that evil bill… it was evil!”
                This was, “We had to vote against that flawed bill because it didn’t achieve it’s stated goal, which we support.”

                Unchallenged, it’s a good statement. But if challenged and if the challenge is successful… wooo buddy.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                Given that the bill passed and is now in the Senate, I’m not sure how much energy they’ll be able to dig up for “more Republicans should have voted for this”.

                Maybe, like Obamacare, the Democrats will be able to run on how good the bill is and how, since only Democrats voted for it, it represents the values of the Modern Democratic Party.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

                I saw it from the other angle. If McCarthy is correct, he’d have my full support in opposing the bill. All he has to do is show me the relevant sections.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                I haven’t read the bill either.

                If I had to guess, I’d say that the package does stuff like the following:

                1. Non-covid relief thing
                2. Non-covid relief thing
                3. Non-covid relief thing
                4. Non-covid pork barrel thing
                5. Non-covid relief thing
                6. Statement supporting Law Enforcement
                7. Non-covid relief thing
                .
                .
                .
                186. Non-covid relief thing
                187. SEND OUT $1400 CHECKS!!!
                188. Extend unemployment where appropriate
                189. Extend eviction moratorium
                190. Marijuana taxation amendments to another law

                But I say this as someone who has *NOT* read the bill.

                The problem is that we are in a K shaped recovery where the people at the top of the K do not need checks at all and the people at the bottom of the K could probably do with 2 of them and the people in the middle of the K could use other, smaller, checks.

                And if I were to come up with the *PERFECT* legislation, it would give the people at the bottom of the K a couple of checks that didn’t have to be paid back, give people at the top of the K a letter thanking them for keep on keeping on in these unprecedented times, and the people in the middle of the K somewhere around something in the middle (that has a clawback for the people at the top of the middle that grades out as it goes down).

                But I understand that that ain’t possible for a host of reasons (how do we tell who is doing well in March 2021? Who is in the bad part of the K? We can’t use 2020 as a guide, necessarily…) and so we’re given the current bill.

                Which ain’t perfect, but it’s better than nothing, and it’s better than nothing to the point where the opposition is stuck saying the shit that McCarthy said.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird says:

                If I had to guess

                Nobody said you had to. Or asked.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci says:

                There’s a weird fixation with authoritarians, I’ve seen.

                It’s like they get upset when someone does something without having been told to do it or asked to do it.

                It’s nuts. I don’t understand it.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird says:

                Take it up with an actual authoritarian, if you can find one.Or someone who is actually upset, if you can find one. As for me, if the occasion arises, I’ll vigorously defend your right to waste everyone’s time with long, substance-free snarky comments admittedly based on nothing. Can we count on you to defend the right of everyone else to point and laugh, or is that cancel culture?Report

              • North in reply to CJColucci says:

                For my part I like Jaybirds’ comments even if they sometimes drive me crazy.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

                This guy is *NOT* an unbiased observer.

                That said, this comports with my guess.

                Report

    • Philip H in reply to Kazzy says:

      A huge part pf McCarthy’s problem (now shared by his Senate colleagues) is that while its a huge bill it no more or less takes of patronage duties then the two bills the Republicans passed. The first relief bill had $500Billion that the Treasury Secretary could hand out as he saw fit with little congressional oversight. Then there’s the other issue of how many companies in red states got PPP loans vs. blue states (Texas was in the top 3) and all the other pork larded into those bills.

      And that was less than a year ago. Which means its still floating around in the collective and media memory. McCarthy knows this, just as surely as he knows @Michael Cain’s excellent point below that red state counties and municipalities are getting pretty desperate. So he’s trying to thread a particularly tight needle to essentially say the wrong people got the pork, and had the right people gottne the pork Republicans would have supported the bill. Which is a lie . . .Report

  3. InMD says:

    All I can say is this had to happen but hopefully it’s the last time for a very long while.Report

  4. Jaybird says:

    From Twitter:

    Report

  5. North says:

    And now it’s passed the Senate. It’s a major accomplishment and a remarkably fast bit of legislative work for the Democrats. They’re far from out of the woods but this will give the Dems the tools to at least attempt to make a play for 2022.Report