Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked a vote on a proposal for $2,000 stimulus checks, but it’s not dead yet.
Photographer: Bloomberg
Let’s get down to brass tacks: Sending $2,000 in direct payments to Americans is a politically effective but economically inefficient way to provide needed relief to workers and families.
When Congress recently approved a new stimulus package, it included $600 cash payments to Americans. But that struck many people as a measly gesture compared to the $1,200 checks issued in the previous stimulus, and considering the economic damage done by the pandemic over the nine months since the Cares Act. So when President Donald Trump called for $2,000 checks, Democrats immediately jumped on board and some Republicans followed.
The new $2,000 amount was approved in the House on Monday, though a vote in the Senate today was blocked by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The proposal is still very much alive, garnering support from both GOP Senate incumbents David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, who face a runoff election on Jan. 5 in Georgia. Given the controversy, it’s worth asking how much the larger amount will actually help the economy.
I’ll start with the positives. Most of the unemployment benefits passed in the Cares Act expired at the end of July, and because of archaic unemployment systems in states, many eligible workers never got them. These individuals have gone months wondering if or when more fiscal relief would come, and when we’ll get the kind of economic reopening that will bring back millions of jobs in industries like travel and dining. The fiscal relief package just passed by Congress will reinstate those unemployment benefits for a while, but at a reduced level. For everyone that falls into these buckets, an additional $1,400 payment is an efficient way to provide additional relief without relying on state unemployment systems to process claims on time, and to make up for Congress letting relief lapse over the summer.
And checks are broadly popular with the public. According to Data for Progress, 78% of Americans support the $2,000 payments. There’s something to be said for giving the people what they want in a high-profile way. It makes them feel like the system is working for them and builds trust for the future. Arguably, it was the success of the $1,200 checks in the Cares Act that bought the political will for another round of fiscal relief this month.
Those positives dwarf the negatives associated with the checks. From a macroeconomic or distributional standpoint it would be better to tailor relief more to where it’s most needed — unemployed workers, or certain hard-hit state and local governments that continue to have big revenue shortfalls. But those options lack the political momentum that the $2,000 checks have. And a larger cash payment will still benefit these groups — for instance, money spent by individuals will be taxable, indirectly benefiting state and local budgets.
The bigger checks might be wasted on some recipients who don’t need the money — but not entirely. Any two-person households making $150,000 that receive the additional payments might just stick it into savings. Or maybe they’ll spend it on a Playstation 5 or a new set of AirPods Max.
Individuals with an impulse for gambling might use the money to buy speculative stocks or bitcoin. That could add some froth to the financial markets, but that’s not particularly harmful to the economy, either. With inflation and interest rates as low as they are, a little excess consumption of trendy gadgets or risky stock bets isn’t going to lead to any kind of economic overheating.
The bottom line is that checks are popular with the public, easy to deliver, will help the fortunes of those who are struggling, and don’t pose a near-term inflationary risk to the economy. Congress should go ahead and send ’em.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
OTTAWA – The parliamentary budget officer says the federal government likely failed to keep its deficit below its promised $40 billion cap in the last fiscal year.
However the PBO also projects in its latest economic and fiscal outlook today that weak economic growth this year will begin to rebound in 2025.
The budget watchdog estimates in its report that the federal government posted a $46.8 billion deficit for the 2023-24 fiscal year.
Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland pledged a year ago to keep the deficit capped at $40 billion and in her spring budget said the deficit for 2023-24 stayed in line with that promise.
The final tally of the last year’s deficit will be confirmed when the government publishes its annual public accounts report this fall.
The PBO says economic growth will remain tepid this year but will rebound in 2025 as the Bank of Canada’s interest rate cuts stimulate spending and business investment.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 17, 2024.
OTTAWA – Statistics Canada says the level of food insecurity increased in 2022 as inflation hit peak levels.
In a report using data from the Canadian community health survey, the agency says 15.6 per cent of households experienced some level of food insecurity in 2022 after being relatively stable from 2017 to 2021.
The reading was up from 9.6 per cent in 2017 and 11.6 per cent in 2018.
Statistics Canada says the prevalence of household food insecurity was slightly lower and stable during the pandemic years as it fell to 8.5 per cent in the fall of 2020 and 9.1 per cent in 2021.
In addition to an increase in the prevalence of food insecurity in 2022, the agency says there was an increase in the severity as more households reported moderate or severe food insecurity.
It also noted an increase in the number of Canadians living in moderately or severely food insecure households was also seen in the Canadian income survey data collected in the first half of 2023.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct 16, 2024.
OTTAWA – Statistics Canada says manufacturing sales in August fell to their lowest level since January 2022 as sales in the primary metal and petroleum and coal product subsectors fell.
The agency says manufacturing sales fell 1.3 per cent to $69.4 billion in August, after rising 1.1 per cent in July.
The drop came as sales in the primary metal subsector dropped 6.4 per cent to $5.3 billion in August, on lower prices and lower volumes.
Sales in the petroleum and coal product subsector fell 3.7 per cent to $7.8 billion in August on lower prices.
Meanwhile, sales of aerospace products and parts rose 7.3 per cent to $2.7 billion in August and wood product sales increased 3.8 per cent to $3.1 billion.
Overall manufacturing sales in constant dollars fell 0.8 per cent in August.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 16, 2024.
