Read on Twitter
Thread 1/n: There is some pushback to automatic stabilizers and trigger-based proposals happening on left Twitter, so I thought I’d add my two cents though @Claudia_Sahm, @Brendan_Duke, @wsbgnl, and @Nathan_Tankus have all made similar arguments probably more eloquently.
2/n: We should first distinguish between recession response and a social safety net. Stabilizers (and to some extent, the trigger-based proposals we see now) are about responding to recessions.
3/n: That means helping households survive during downturns by creating additional benefits (SNAP, UI, direct payments were my faves from Recession Ready), and injecting money to stabilize and push the economy back towards growth and tighter labor markets.
4/n: Though related, we should distinguish this convo from what a permanent social safety net should look like. It should look a lot stronger than it does now, and we should definitely be improving SNAP, UI, etc. to actually serve the purpose of social safety.
5/n: To that end, now it’s worth understanding why we have the $600 supplement. It’s because it was the only way administratively to achieve 100% replacement rate across states.
6/n: Why? 100% replacement was partly a recognition that the current system was too weak for households to survive. BUT it was mostly about the fact that we wanted to keep people from going to work or looking for work amidst a pandemic. This was mid-March after all.
7/n: It worked incredibly well, and we've also seen how well it's worked to keep households afloat. It's great that we can now point to why a high UI replacement rate is a good idea.
8/n: We must extend the benefit. Tying it to the unemployment rate is really smart. We want to keep money flowing into the economy regardless of what Senate, WH or House look like past Nov. Call it "political risk insurance." Benefits continue regardless of politics. @ras_jorge
9/n: But if we are designing a proposal that will be in place for the next two years or more (depending on U-rate), we need to consider whether it makes sense to have $600 continue for that entire period. If you think that it should because wages were so low before, that’s fair.
10/n: I’m not sure policy-wise and politically that we should put that cost entirely on businesses during a recovery. Something like @LindsayOwens and @BharatRamamurti's proposal here probably makes more sense. https://rooseveltinstitute.org/fair-wage-guarantee-raise-wages-accelerate-our-economy-recovery
11/n: As @mioana, @ernietedeschi, @arindube have all shown, there is no evidence that the $600 is disincentivizing work right now. I’m generally skeptical of the work disincentive arg, but it’s fair to ask whether 135% replacement makes sense when folks start going back to work
12/n: That is partly why these plans are designed to have the benefit reasonably step down. The @RepDonBeyer @SenatorBennet @SenJackReed plan keeps $600 in place for the public health crisis, and then steps it down (with transition periods) as the unemployment rate falls.
13/n: Either way, the $600 was not intended to be a permanent feature of the UI system. It’s an imperfect solution that’s given us a TON of good info, aside from the fact that it’s prevented Great Depression levels of hardship, homelessness, food insecurity, etc.
14/n: We know that we can actually reduce poverty, as @IndivarD wrote https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/508764-numbers-are-in-government-can-actually-fix-poverty. We also have a lot of evidence to weaken the toxic, racist idea that higher benefits disincentivize work, https://twitter.com/mioana/status/1288935860809990144.
15/n: If you’re worried about people having to go to work before it’s safe, “good cause” quits, or being forced into “suitable work” that’s not really all that suitable, all worthwhile args but they might be better fixed by changing the underlying statutory definitions.
16/n: And I’d add that long-term, there’s a really strong plan to fix a lot of this. @SenatorBennet’s UI proposal sets a 75% replacement rate floor, includes dependents allowances, and has a whole host of other fixes to the program. https://www.bennet.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/3/bennet-unveils-sweeping-proposal-to-strengthen-unemployment-insurance-amidst-coronavirus-pandemic
17/n: It also improves UI as an automatic stabilizer, by using better triggers ( @Claudia_Sahm), by adding benefits during recessions, and by fully funding these enhanced benefits, rather than having states fund half, as the EB program does now.
18/n: Good convo on UI happening. People who think the benefit is working really well and should continue are right. People who think that we should think about what the benefit looks like as we move forward in a prolonged recession, are acting in good faith too.
19/19: I hope that we can all agree that tying the duration of these benefits to an trigger is politically, and policy-wise, one of the best things we could do to help people during this recession. Now back to family law.
Addendum: I wish I had been a bit more precise with my language here on the 14th tweet. The idea that high benefits can discincentivize work isn't itself toxic or racist, and should be considered emprically.
My goal was to point out that a lot of the political arguments for low benefit amounts has been driven by ugly, racist stereotypes about who utilizes these programs. And we have even more evidence to counter those points now.
