Why Congress’s Trillion-Dollar Coronavirus Bailouts Will Shackle The U.S. Economy

1in_god_we_trustHot on the heels of passing an $8.5 billion coronavirus emergency funding bill, the White House and congressional lawmakers have proposed yet more pork-laden coronavirus “rescue” packages with a running price tag of over $1.3 trillion.

The “Families First Coronavirus Response Act” (FFCRA) was passed with overwhelming support in the House of Representatives on Saturday. The Senate will likely vote to approve the legislation this afternoon.

With the help of Trump administration officials, House Democrats drafted and passed the FFCRA so quickly that the Congressional Budget Office was unable to estimate its total cost, meaning that taxpayers could be on the hook financially for an indeterminate amount.

Amazingly, the FFCRA will not be the last word of the federal government on the coronavirus crisis. News broke earlier this week that the Trump administration is requesting a $1 trillion stimulus and bailout package—significantly larger than the $831 billion stimulus package passed in 2009 under the Obama administration that provoked cries of “socialism!” from conservatives everywhere.


Where is the Money Going?

The emergency measures include a grab bag of long sought progressive policy priorities.

Perhaps worst of all are the two new federal paid leave mandates, lasting until the end of the year, for companies with fewer than 500 employees. The first requires up to two weeks of paid sick leave. The second provides employees with three months of paid family and medical leave if their children’s school or daycare closes or if a family member is quarantined.

Seeing that school closures around the country are becoming increasingly common, it is not inconceivable that nearly all parents fitting the requirements might take advantage of these two new entitlement programs, both of which will be profoundly costly to businesses and the federal budget.

Businesses will be compensated for these expensive benefit mandates with money from the US Treasury through a complex scheme of tax refunds administered by the IRS.

Yet there remain concerns that some cash-poor businesses cannot remain solvent long enough to survive until they receive their tax credits. Additionally, the government reimbursement for these programs fails to consider all the monetary and nonmonetary costs for businesses when employees do not show up for work.

Another component of the legislation is sure to irritate welfare state reformers: the FFCRA obliterates the Trump administration’s bid to restrict food stamp benefits for able-bodied adults without children. The long-planned reform, which had been slated to go into effect in April, would have strengthened the work and training requirement for some single adults collecting food stamps.

The FFCRA also expands unemployment insurance and federal Medicaid funding, and provides over $1 billion in additional funding for nutrition programs.

Although the details of the mammoth $1 trillion stimulus package are still in flux, a Treasury Department memo suggests the newly proposed coronavirus stimulus package would give a $50 billion bailout to the airline industry. The package also includes an additional $150 billion in loan guarantees to other affected industries and a payroll tax cut sure to expedite the coming insolvency of social security.

And during a Tuesday press conference, President Trump and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin announced their intention to distribute “big” direct cash payments to Americans, perhaps in denominations of $1,000 or more per person. The measure is estimated cost taxpayers $500 billion.


Bad Economic News

Here are five reasons why the “Family First Coronavirus Response Act” and other coming bailout and stimulus packages are economic ‘bad news’ for Americans:

1. Bad Precedent

Due to our human nature, we make quick studies in dependency when “free” things offered to us.

These new entitlements and bailouts, albeit temporary, may prove to be the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent.

Once the bad precedent is established, it is all too likely that the electorate will have a harder time resisting demands from leftist political candidates for greater government control of the economy. These “temporary” programs make permanent national sick leave and paid family leave more likely in the future.

2. National Debt

The debt owed by the federal government currently sits at $23.5 trillion. This means every American citizen born in 2020 enters the world owing $73,500 to our nation’s creditors.

Emergency spending for the coronavirus only adds to the unconscionable level of debt we already owe. The money this nation borrows will need to be repaid through inflation or higher taxes sometime in the future.

 3. Inflation

If taxes are not immediately raised to cover the emergency spending, the Federal Reserve will need to print new dollars—create money out of thin air—to finance these new programs.

This inflation in the money supply predictably leads to price inflation. One of the most basic economic principles is that a greater quantity of dollars chasing the same number of goods eventually results in rising prices.

4. Higher Taxes

Increased government spending and national debt will necessitate higher taxes for all Americans and businesses, whether sooner or later.

Lest we forget, every dollar taken from us in taxes is a dollar we cannot spend on the things we need and want. We will have to foot the bill for all this extra spending—and that comes at the price of future economic growth and a lower standard of living for everyday Americans.

5. Reduced Future Economic Growth

All these inflationary effects and higher taxes will inevitably hinder the growth of the economy in the future.

Higher taxes make it more difficult for businesses to save and reinvest their profits in expanding their operations, boosting employee pay and benefits, or engaging in research and development.

Similarly, higher taxes for individuals disincentivizes productivity and results in less household saving and investment. This means there will be less capital available for businesses to expand operations and boost productivity.

Rising productivity and profits, greater saving and investment, and more funding for research and development are all needed for robust economic growth. Economic recoveries tend to be lackluster without the necessary combination of these fundamentals.

Let us look back in economic history for a case study. During the economic troubles following the stock market crash of 1929, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” relief and recovery policies created greater government interventions into the economy, ultimately with the result of reducing profits and raising taxes on businesses.

These New Deal policies exacerbated and prolonged the downturn, turning it into a “great” depression that lasted fifteen years.

In fact, a study by UCLA economics professors calculated that the interventionist policies of the New Deal elongated the Great Depression by seven years, delaying the natural market corrections and recovery that would have occurred otherwise.

Like the New Deal, every additional billion dollars in stimulus and bailout spending will further delay the economic recovery we all want and need. Ironically, these government interventions always end up aggravating the recessions and depressions they are intended to alleviate, causing even greater economic complications in the long run.


How All This Affects President Trump’s Reelection Chances

In summary, the newly proposed bailout and stimulus packages smack of big government welfarism and crony capitalism. These are the sort of policies that will move the needle toward socialism, impoverishing us and stripping the productive engines of our economy.

If President Trump wants to win reelection on his economic record, he had better drop his support of this legislation, which is sure to cause lasting economic problems.

Likewise, if the president’s supporters in the Senate want a quick and sustainable economic recovery post-coronavirus, they had better gather their senses and stand firm against bailouts and stimulus packages like this economically disastrous legislation. Our financial wellbeing and the future of our liberties depend upon it.

This article was originally published by The Federalist.


Tabitha’s Story and “Simon’s Law” in Idaho

Tabitha 16 months
Tabitha Grace

I have good news for you: Simon’s Law (now House Bill 578) was passed by the Idaho House of Representatives last week with a 63 to 5 vote.

Idaho law currently allows doctors to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, including nutrition and hydration, from a minor child without notifying or obtaining consent from parents.

Simon’s Law would close this loophole, ensuring that parents’ rights are protected during these critical times. No parent should have to worry that decisions about their child’s healthcare could be taken out of their hands.

Through working on this legislation, I have gotten to know Sandi Enzminger of Eagle, Idaho. She has showed up to every committee hearing, bringing her delightful family in tow. Her youngest daughter, Tabitha Grace, is always the star of the show—and for good reason.

Little Tabitha was born October 28, 2018. Shortly thereafter, her parents received a postnatal Trisomy 18 diagnosis.

Tabitha in Senate Gallery
Tabitha and her brother sitting in the House Gallery watching debate on Simon’s Law

They were stunned to hear the doctor explain that Tabitha, despite being stable, wouldn’t live a month. The potential benefits of the heart surgery she needed weren’t worth the risks, the doctor said. Adam and Sandi were told to take Tabitha home on comfort care and allow the disability and its associated health difficulties take their course.

Thankfully, Adam and Sandi fought for their daughter. They were able to take her to a hospital in Omaha, Nebraska, for heart surgery she couldn’t live without. Now Tabitha is a healthy and developing sixteen-month-old.

Here is what Sandi says about the importance of Simon’s Law to her family:

Shortly after Tabitha was born, we were informed that she likely had Trisomy 18. We understood then that her disabilities would be so severe that it was advisable to “let her die” of “natural” causes. Then, when we pursued heart repair surgery, we were told it was futile and would have little to no effect on the length or quality of her life.

Today, her heart and lungs are functioning normally without assistance. Her hearing is enhanced by hearing-aids, and she has the energy to progress in developmental milestones.

Although this journey has not been easy, time with Tabitha has been worth it. We strongly support Simon’s Law because we felt coerced into making life-ending decisions. We believe that it is only a matter of time before medical discrimination leads to secret “DNRs” for minor children here in Idaho.

When I asked Sandi why she fought so hard for her daughter, she responded, “We value life, and we trusted God to be bigger than any diagnosis.” Needless to say, it has been a blessing to have Sandi, Tabitha, and their family join us for committee hearings in support of Simon’s Law.

Parents should hold the ultimate medical decision-making authority for their children. Before a doctor begins withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, parents should be notified and given the opportunity to transfer their child to another medical provider, just like Sandi Enzminger was able to do for Tabitha.

This post was originally written for Family Policy Alliance of Idaho.