Bipartisan Voices Sound Off on Democrats’ So-Called Relief Plan
Washington, D.C. – While the Biden Administration falsely touts that its almost $2 trillion package has bipartisan support, new polling found the exact opposite: a clear majority of voters prefer targeted relief focused on vaccine distribution and reopening schools, not the wish list of liberal priorities the administration is putting forward.
Here’s what bipartisan voices are saying about the Biden-Harris Administration’s liberal wish list:
Washington Post Editorial Board: “The United States needs more federal funding to cope with the ongoing damage done by the covid-19 pandemic, and Congress and President Biden should provide it on the widest bipartisan basis possible — and swiftly. That means setting aside legislative items not directly related to covid, despite lawmakers’ inevitable temptation to take advantage of a crisis to advance other priorities. Yet the bill now moving through the House shows signs of losing focus in just that way.”
Wall Street Journal Editorial Board:“It’s a progressive blowout for the ages that does little for the economy but will finance Democratic interest groups for years. Please don’t call it Covid relief.”
Obama Administration Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Jason Furman: “… said in an interview that some of the state aid funding could be better spent elsewhere or more precisely structured. ‘The state fiscal relief total [in the bill] exceeds the amount states immediately need … It should either be better defined by focusing on what it should be spent on … or the total should be reduced.”
Washington Examiner Editorial Board: “Biden’s proposal, in other words, is not what one would propose if one were actually trying to pass an emergency bill to deal with an immediate problem. Rather, it is using an emergency as an excuse to advance the liberal agenda and reward special interests such as teachers unions and pension funds that were desperate for a bailout even before the first coronavirus case in China.”
Former CEO of CKE Restaurants Andy Puzder: “The labor market will improve in the coming months if the government does nothing. But massive spending will hurt more than it helps.”
Wall Street Journal Editorial Board: “Democrats in Congress are planning to ladle out another $350 billion to state and local governments, though many haven’t finished spending their Cares Act checks and some are running budget surpluses. This is income redistribution for public unions.”
New York Post Editorial Board: “President Biden claims his $1.9 trillion COVID-19 “relief” package is a matter of life and death. In reality, most of it isn’t remotely urgent, or even worthwhile. It’s just Democrats exploiting Americans’ real needs to forward their own wish list.”
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell: “Unfortunately, the Democrats’ partisan proposal would not just be wasteful, but in certain areas, actively counterproductive. It would have Washington go out of our way to discourage hiring, discourage a return to work, and actually keep things shut down longer.”
NRSC Chairman Rick Scott: “Let’s help people who have lost their jobs, let’s help the businesses that are struggling. But less than 1 percent of this is about the vaccine … It’s about a bridge for Chuck Schumer, a tunnel for Nancy Pelosi. This is about paying back liberal politicians; it’s not about getting our country back to normal again. Let’s focus on the vaccine. Let’s focus on testing. Let’s focus on helping people who have lost their job. Let’s focus on getting our businesses going again. That’s not what this bill does.”
Senator Mitt Romney: “…the $1.9 trillion bill is a clunker. It would waste hundreds of billions of dollars, do nothing meaningful to get kids back to school, and enact policies that work against job creation.”
Senator Tom Cotton: “They want to use the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to fulfill a lot of long-standing liberal priorities.”
House Minority Whip Steve Scalise and Americans for Prosperity President Tim Phillips: “It fails to accomplish the key goals of defeating the virus and recovering stronger. It would pile up debt and impose counterproductive policies that would hurt the people who need help. We shouldn’t confuse big spending with smart or effective policy.”
###