Why Biden's $1.9 trillion stimulus proposal isn't just a stimulus
Theres been a lot written over the past few weeks about whether President Bidens $1.9 trillion economic rescue package is too small or too big. But an equally important question and one that underpins the size debate is what the package should do: Should it be targeted as efficiently as possible to stimulate an economic recovery, or provide quick relief to as many people as possible?
Economists on the stimulus side argue the package should focus on filling the giant hole Covid-19 has left in the US economy. Under this view, a boost in federal spending should maximally and efficiently make up for decreases in other spending as jobs, incomes, and tax revenues fall.
Those on the relief side say the package should be seen more as a relief bill what economist Noah Smith described as retroactive social insurance. Consider the difference between how the government typically responds to a recession versus a hurricane: While the goal with a recession is typically to target spending as efficiently as possible to maximize the recovery, the goal with a hurricane is to make people whole again even if the spending involved isnt maximizing, say, economic multipliers. Smith and others argue the package should be more like a hurricane response.
Both sides have good arguments. Covid-19 has obviously battered the economy, with 10 million fewer jobs compared to the year before, shrinking GDP last year, and downward trends in various other metrics. But theres a good chance much of this will bounce back once the pandemic ends so whats needed isnt so much getting the economy back to normal (only the end of Covid-19 can fully do that), but broad economic relief to Americans who are suffering now.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/why-bidens-dollar19-trillion-stimulus-proposal-isnt-just-a-stimulus/ar-BB1dDqUB?li=BBnb7Kz