As he outlines, state budgets will be under pressure from this pandemic due to: (1) direct virus costs for needed public health spending; (2) lower state revenue from taxes and fees; (3) higher state social spending due to higher unemployment.
The CARES Act already dealt a lot with item (1), by providing $150 billion for states/locals that can only be used for added public health $. But this did nothing to help out with item (2) (lower revenue) or probably item (3).
So, I think there are some advantages in making the assistance more general, and explicitly including local governments in the program. But I agree w/ @MattAFiedler that the need for large-scale fed aid to state/local sector overrides wonky details of exact best way.
For ex, as he says, if the best we can do is get Congress to adopt a fixed aid package, that is better than nothing. A fixed $ amount has disadvantage that if recession is worse than predicted, there will then have to be a political struggle down the road to expand aid again.
But the key issue: we should not drag the U.S. economy down by failing to provide timely and generous federal aid to state/locals. Failing to provide such aid almost guarantees a more serious recession, & a more protracted recovery.
You can follow @TimBartik.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: