Balkinization   |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List                                                                E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Evaluating the Omnibus’s Anti-Poverty Measures
|
Monday, December 28, 2020
Evaluating the Omnibus’s Anti-Poverty Measures
David Super
Now that
the President has deigned to sign Congress’s massive
year-end opus, it seems appropriate to comment on how it responds
to the impoverishing
effects of the pandemic and recession.
At the outset, I should note that
one test commonly applied in popular media articles – stimulative effect – is largely
inappropriate. Job losses have been
heavily concentrated in sectors that are now unsafe, such as travel and
entertainment. Bringing those jobs back
is not primarily an economic challenge; it is a public health one. To be
sure, increasing aggregate demand by putting money into the hands of people
likely to spend it should prevent additional job losses not necessitated by the
public health crisis. That effect,
however, depends more on the size of the legislation than on its particular design. The economy will be slower than it
needs to be in coming months because the strong anti-spending faction in the Republican
Party insisted that the legislation stay well below the symbolic $1 trillion
mark and because the (heavily overlapping) pro-tax-cut faction diverted a large
share of the $900 billion to subsidies that are likely to stay on corporate
balance sheets or to be distributed to high-income shareholders here and abroad,
who will simply bank the gains. As relatively insignificant as the
legislation’s design is for macro-economic purposes, however, from a micro-economic
perspective its composition is quite important.
In particular, a large number of valuable assets are in imminent danger
of destruction, resulting in waste and long-term hardship for those losing
them. These include homes, with evictions
inevitably resulting in the loss of valuable
personal property and the disruption of personal networks providing everything
from job leads to spot child-care. The undervaluation
of these networks
is a persistent failure in the design and appraisal of anti-poverty
policy. The continuation of the eviction
moratorium, with language that will allow the Biden Administration to extend it
further, will stave off many of these losses.
The inclusion of substantial, although woefully inadequate, rental
assistance will allow many of these losses to be avoided altogether. Another threatened long-term loss
is education. The same underfunded, over-populated
schools that struggled most to serve their students in the best of times have
had the least ability to help them during the crisis. With the recession hammering state and local
revenues from sales and income taxes, many of these schools have faced
devastating additional cuts. The
legislation’s omission of significant state and local relief funding, beyond a
very modest education aid package, squandered the chance of preventing these
losses. The pandemic’s legacy thus will
include a further largely preventable widening of our education gap. A third area of preventable long-term
harm is from the coronavirus itself. The
expiration of enhanced unemployment benefits in late July, and the expiration
of expanded eligibility for unemployment aid over the weekend, likely have forced
many desperate low-income people to take jobs where they face a high risk of infection. Some will become ill themselves and will
bring the disease home to high-risk household members. Lost in the debates over Republican claims
that unemployment benefits discourage work – a claim with little empirical
support in ordinary times – is the fact that we should want to
discourage work in a pandemic where available jobs pose undue risks. Employers can and should be pressed to
compete for workers with safer working conditions. Although the benefits’ duration is
disturbingly short, and the halving of enhanced benefit levels from what the CARES
Act provided in the Spring may induce some low-wage workers to endanger themselves
and their families, rescuing these programs is a major accomplishment. So is the rejection of Senate Majority Leader
McConnell’s insistence that employers and others be immunized from litigation
over unsafe working conditions. On the
other hand, the failure to extend workers’ right to take paid sick leave likely
will force some workers exposed to the coronavirus to stay at work, endangering
others. Low-wage workers tend to work
with other low-wage workers; forcing them to work while they may be sick likely
will increase the disease’s spread within vulnerable communities. Beyond the macro- and
micro-economic effects of the package, how it distributed the dollars it made
available for low- and moderate-income people is important. More so than in many relief packages, this
legislation targeted aid on the most vulnerable. Having set a grossly inadequate cap on the overall
size of the package, Republicans tried to crowd out well-targeted unemployment
benefits with larger scatter-shot economic impact checks. This effort had only limited success, as
evidenced by President Trump’s last-minute tantrum demanding much larger checks. Despite their mass appeal, rebate
checks distribute a great deal of money on those in stable albeit not affluent
circumstances. This leaves much less for
those in dire need who face the risk of losing housing, utility service, or
food. Many of the poorest of the poor
were completely ineligible; many others had insufficient connection with the
tax system to receive checks without making additional filings. Herculean outreach efforts
by many non-profits and state and local governments only helped a modest number
of these people to make the necessary filings to receive checks. Moreover, because the tax system depends on
prior years’ data, it mismeasures current need:
income in pre-pandemic conditions is a deeply flawed indicator of
unemployment and need during the crisis.
The checks-versus-unemployment
benefits debate also exposed a latent tension within the movement against income
inequality. One set of inequality critics,
largely from the Left, focuses on the concentration of wealth at the top – the “one
percent”, “the billionaires” – and redirecting some of that wealth to improve
the lives of the middle class. Many in
this group are motivated by the corrosive political influence of such great
wealth. The other set focus on the
growth of severe need at the
bottom of the income spectrum, seeking to reduce the ranks of the poorest of
the poor. This group’s motivation is
primarily humanitarian rather than political, and it draws adherents from a
much wider range of the ideological spectrum.
Although these two views of
inequality are not irreconcilable in the abstract, in practice they represent competing
claims on limited financial and political resources. The acrimonious argument
between Senator Joe Manchin – the chamber’s most conservative Democrat – and Independent
Senator Bernie Sanders illustrated this split.
Sen. Manchin insisted that putting as large a share as possible of the
available funds into unemployment assistance was the best way to target
resources on those facing the greatest hardship; Sen. Sanders preferred giving
a broader segment of the middle-class another taste of redistribution. Like others,
I found myself in the unaccustomed position of rooting Sen. Manchin on. My sense is that many intellectual and political
leaders on the Left take for granted the support of low-income people and their
allies for the movement against income inequality and are puzzled when it is
not forthcoming. The movement’s future
depends on its ability to overcome that myopia. Nonetheless, the legislation is
striking for several initiatives to reach the poorest of the poor. Expanded eligibility for unemployment
benefits focuses on many of the most marginalized workers, including those
unable to find full-time work and those in the “gig economy.” The enhanced unemployment benefit levels are
most significant to the lowest-wage unemployed workers. The 15% increase in the maximum benefit in
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) reaches the poorest of the poor; by contrast, the Trump
Administration’s contorted and unlawful
interpretation
of the SNAP increase in the Families First Coronavirus Relief Act completely excluded
the poorest 37%
of recipients and gave very little to other extremely low-income households. The extension of the eviction moratorium and
the allocation of additional funds to rental assistance also benefits many of
the poorest of the poor. On the other
hand, Democrats failed to win an increase for the Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families (TANF) block grant to provide for emergency grants to those in greatest
distress whose needs other programs do not meet. Finally, the long battle over this
legislation reflected the growing realization that state and local government
finance is an important front in anti-poverty law. This is not to say that state and local
governments are reliably sympathetic to low-income people: far from it.
But the federal government’s difficulty administering programs for
low-income people, especially for the poorest of the poor, leave state and
local governments the only hope for many.
(In a concession to those limitations, the omnibus legislation prevents
earned income tax credits and child tax credits from dropping this year for
laid-off workers: workers can receive
credits based on their 2019 earnings instead of those in 2020.) State and local governments also fund non-profit
community groups to help those that government refuses
to aid directly. And when state and
local governments’ budgets deteriorate, the resulting cuts hit low-income
people disproportionately hard. Many
state and local employees – 1.3 million of whom have lost
their jobs since February – are themselves a few paychecks away from poverty. The failure to include substantial new state
and local aid in the omnibus legislation is a failure of anti-poverty law as
well as of fiscal federalism more generally.
The chaotic handling of expanded unemployment
assistance, the failure to help state and local governments avoid mass lay-offs,
and the Trump Administration’s forcing Congress to act a second time to get
increased food assistance to the poorest of the poor all highlight the
inadequacy of the ad hoc to economic crisis relief. Although recessions do differ from one another,
those differences are not so great that they require separate, individually
tailored legislation each time. A key argument
against enacting permanent structures to address the effects of recessions is
that Congress will inevitably come through when it is needed. This is at least the third recession in a row
when Congress’s inability to act caused great hardship for millions of
unemployed workers and fell far short of preventing disastrous state and local
government lay-offs. The reforms in the
major coronavirus relief laws should be enacted into permanent law with
triggers that bring them on line automatically during a serious economic
downturn. @DavidASuper1
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |