Pondering the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news media and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.

Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Pondering the Pundits”.

Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt

Paul Waldman: Yes, the covid rescue bill is a ‘liberal wish list.’ What’s wrong with that?

The party in power using legislation to enact its agenda? Imagine!

There is one objection that we’ve heard more than any other to the $1.9 trillion covid rescue bill that just passed the House: that it’s a “liberal wish list.” In saying this, Republicans are suggesting that the package is not precisely targeted only at the immediate and direct effects of the pandemic using tools and methods anyone of any party can support. [..]

You know what? They’re right. It is a liberal wish list. So what’s wrong with that?

Another word for “wish list” is “agenda.” And yes, Democrats have used the American Rescue Plan to advance a good deal of their agenda. That’s what happens when a party gets power: It passes legislation, and that legislation reflects the preferences of its members and their constituents. That Republicans are treating that as somehow unusual or inappropriate is positively bizarre.

It’s easy to forget in a system so weighed down with veto points and minority control, but the way representative democracy is supposed to work is that the voting public elects a party, that party enacts as much of its agenda as it can, and then voters judge the results. Only in a system where inaction is the norm is there something untoward about the party in power putting a wish list into legislation.

Jennifer Rubin: Thanks to the GOP, Biden doesn’t need to sign the stimulus checks

There will be little confusion about who gets the credit.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki responded to a question at Tuesday’s briefing as to why President Biden would not be affixing his signature to the $1,400 stimulus checks. (The degree to which his disgraced predecessor convinced national media that his conduct was acceptable, let alone normal, never fails to surprise.) “He didn’t think that was a priority or a necessary step,” Psaki said. “His focus was on getting them out as quickly as possible.” She might have answered: Because he is not a raging narcissist.

She also might have pointed out that the country is very aware of whom they should thank for the check plus other benefits, including larger subsidies for insurance costs under the Affordable Care Act, an expansion of child tax credits, more food and rental assistance, extended paid sick leave, expanded broadband (popular in rural areas), aid for small businesses, and more funds for coronavirus testing and vaccinations. [..]

Even more striking is that the GOP’s farcical claim to represent the interests of working-class voters is belied by the support the package gets from lower-income Republicans. As Pew has found: “A 63% majority of lower-income Republicans and Republican leaners (who make up 25% of all Republicans and Republican leaners) say they favor the proposed economic package.” Maybe opposing a poverty-slashing, overwhelmingly popular measure their own voters like was not the sharpest political move.

Amanda Marcotte: A year of coronavirus: Trump is gone. It’s time to let go of the partisan responses to the pandemic

Partisan rancor over pandemic restrictions poisoned our ability to fight the virus. Is it too late for sensibility?

After delaying long enough to cause serious anxiety among prominent public health experts, on Monday the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) finally released their recommendations for people who have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. The delay was worrisome, especially in light of reports that there was a debate in the White House over how lenient the guidelines should be with regards to what vaccinated people can do. In the end, however, what was settled on was a little more freedom than earlier reports suggested. Not only do the guidelines say vaccinated people can socialize together, as was anticipated, they also indicate that vaccinated people can visit with unvaccinated people – so long as they are all low-risk and from the same house. Mostly described as the “you can hug your grandkids” rule in the press, the guideline also includes increased freedom for things like a vaccinated couple hosting an unvaccinated couple for dinner.

Many prominent public health experts celebrated the loosening of restrictions on vaccinated people because, as Harvard-based epidemiologist Julia Marcus explained on Twitter, “Vaccines provide a true reduction of risk, not a false sense of security.” Others, such as Dr. Leana Wen, visiting professor at George Washington University’s Milken Institute School of Public Health, remain critical, not because they believe the new guidelines are too generous — but because they are still too strict.  [..]

Dr. Wen is speaking sense. It is sense that’s drawn from hard-earned lessons from previous disasters like the AIDS crisis, which taught public health experts that abstinence-only approaches that don’t take into account basic human needs for pleasure and connection are bound to fail, especially in the long run. Unfortunately, these lessons have largely been ignored during the coronavirus pandemic. Instead, Americans have been sucked into an all-or-nothing approach, with your choice of “all” or “nothing” depending largely on your partisan identity.

Blame Donald Trump.

Robert Reich: Biden’s no LBJ but he must protect voting rights. What else is the presidency for?

Republicans want to go back to Jim Crow. Democrats want to protect Black and brown voters. The filibuster simply has to go

In 1963, when the newly sworn in Lyndon Baines Johnson was advised against using his limited political capital on the controversial issue of civil and voting rights for Black Americans, he responded: “Well, what the hell’s the presidency for?”

The US is again approaching a crucial decision point on the most fundamental right of all in a democracy: the right to vote. The result will either be the biggest advance since LBJ’s landmark civil rights and voting rights acts of 1964 and 1965, or the biggest setback since the end of Reconstruction and start of Jim Crow in the 1870s.

The decisive factor will be President Joe Biden.

On one side are Republicans, who control most state legislatures and are using false claims of election fraud to enact an avalanche of voting restrictions on everything from early voting and voting by mail to voter IDs. They also plan to gerrymander their way back to a US House of Representatives majority. [..]

On the other side are congressional Democrats, advancing the most significant democracy reform legislation since LBJ – a sprawling 791-page For the People Act, establishing national standards for federal elections.

The proposed law mandates automatic registration of new voters, voting by mail and at least 15 days of early voting. It bans restrictive voter ID laws and purges of voter rolls, changes studies suggest would increase voter participation, especially by racial minorities. It also requires that congressional redistricting be done by independent commissions and creates a system of public financing for congressional campaigns.

Gene Marks: Lifting mask mandates in Texas has caused conflicts for small businesses

Owners want to create a safe environment, instead they encounter animosity and clashes with customers who don’t comply

I spent a few weeks in Florida this past January, right in the middle of the pandemic. Florida has no mask mandate. Although there are city and county-level requirements, the state’s governor suspended all fines and penalties associated with non-compliance back in September. So people are free to do what they want.

I’m not going to argue whether this is good policy or not. I wear a mask, but no one is ever going to fully agree on whether governments should require their citizens to wear one. One thing is for certain: not having a state mask mandate makes it tougher for small businesses in that state. [..]

The lifting of the mask mandate in Texas has caused additional headaches for small business owners, many of them who are already struggling to navigate their way out of this pandemic recession. It’s created conflict. It’s created sometimes dangerous situations where employees must now be enforcers, a job responsibility no one signed up for. And without a state mandate to fall back on, these owners have no legal ground to fight those that refuse to comply. Do they want to fight their customers? Of course not. These small business owners just want to create a safer environment. But instead they find themselves creating animosity and clashes with the very people who want to spend money in their establishments.

People say they want to help small businesses, particularly the restaurant and retail store owners who have been devastated by shutdowns. So please, if you want to help, just wear a mask when they ask, whether you’re in Texas, Florida or some other state where masks aren’t mandated.

It’s not that big a deal. But it’s certainly a big deal for the business owners who rely on you for their livelihoods.

Pondering the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news media and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.

Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Pondering the Pundits”.

Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt

Paul Krugman: Will Stagnation Follow the Biden Boom?

The relief bill is done; infrastructure may be harder.

It’s morning in America! People are getting vaccinated at the rate of two million a day and rising, suggesting that the pandemic may be largely behind us in a few months (unless premature reopening or variants mostly immune to the current vaccines set off another wave). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has already declared that vaccinated adults can safely mingle with one another, their children and their grandchildren.

On the economic front, the Senate has passed a relief bill that should help Americans get through the remaining difficult months, leaving them ready to work and spend again, and the bill will almost surely become law in a few days.

Economists have noticed the good news. Forecasters surveyed by Bloomberg predict 5.5 percent growth this year, the highest rate since the 1990s. I think they’re being conservative; so does Goldman Sachs, which expects 7.7 percent growth, something we haven’t seen since 1984.

But then what? I’m very optimistic about economic prospects for the next year or two. Beyond that, however, we’re going to need another big policy initiative to keep the good times rolling.

Michele Cottle: Don’t Let QAnon Bully Congress

Allowing the U.S. government to be held hostage by political extremists is unacceptable.

While this won’t surprise most people, it likely came as a shock to many QAnon followers. According to that movement’s expediently evolving lore, March 4 — the date on which U.S. presidents were inaugurated until the mid-1930s — was when Mr. Trump was to reclaim the presidency and resume his epic battle against Satan-worshiping, baby-eating Democrats and deep-state monsters.

This drivel is absurd. It is also alarming. Violent extremists, obsessed with the symbolism of March 4, were for weeks nattering about a possible attack on Congress, according to law enforcement officials. [..]

Although March 4 came and went without a bloody coup attempt — that is, without another bloody coup attempt — damage was still done. Lawmakers abandoned their workplace out of fear of politically motivated violence. This not only disrupted the people’s business. It also sent a dangerous signal that Congress can be intimidated — that the state of American government is fragile.

Of course the safety of lawmakers and other Capitol Hill workers must be a priority. But allowing the government to be held hostage by political extremists is unacceptable.

Eugene Robinson: Democrats shouldn’t wait for Republicans to come to their senses

Right now, good policy also appears to be good politics. Democrats shouldn’t hesitate.

Here is the lesson Democrats should learn from the passage of President Biden’s massive covid-19 relief bill in the Senate: Don’t hold your breath waiting for Republicans to come to their senses. Just do the right thing.

That not a single Republican in the House or Senate was willing to vote for the $1.9 trillion pandemic aid package is astonishing, given the overwhelming popularity of the legislation and the magnitude of the crisis it seeks to address. Yes, that’s an awful lot of money. But the GOP has long since forfeited any claim to stand for fiscal restraint, simply preferring to add to the national debt through tax cuts for the rich rather than through spending for the poor.

All the howling and moaning about how Biden supposedly went back on his pledge of bipartisanship is nothing but cynical blather. The president made a good-faith attempt to engage with Republicans, and the best they could come up with was an unserious offer worth barely a third of what the administration believes is needed. Even with GOP state and local officials, such as West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice, imploring Congress to “go big,” Republican senators refused to budge.

Pual Waldman: Hidden provisions in Biden’s rescue bill make this a bigger deal than you thought

Those $1,400 checks are just the beginning.

Sometime in the next few days, President Biden will sign the American Rescue Plan, the first major legislation of his presidency. It has gotten a large amount of press coverage, especially the $1,400 checks that will be going to most Americans.

But if anything, we’ve underplayed how significant this bill is.

Yes, those subsidy checks are important; in fact, they may represent the largest broadly shared direct payment to Americans in history. A family of four with a household income under $150,000 will get $5,600, even before other measures, such as the boosted child tax credit, are accounted for. That’s a huge amount of money, and it will provide a tremendous boost of economic activity that will accelerate the recovery; the American economy is now projected to grow this year at a pace we haven’t seen in decades.

But while you’ve probably heard plenty about the subsidy checks and the extension of unemployment benefits, the bill is full of provisions that could have significant or even transformative effects on the country, many of which have gotten little or no attention:

Jennifer Rubin: The GOP displays its antagonism toward the rule of law, yet again

In questioning Justice Department nominees Vanita Gupta and Lisa Monaco, Republicans show little interest in justice.

Consideration of nominees for the second- and third-highest positions at the Justice Department is serious stuff. The department was corrupted, politicized and demoralized under the prior administration. Violent white nationalism escalated with little or no response, culminating in the violent insurrection incited by the disgraced former president. Yet Republicans unsurprisingly have shown little interest in such matters, as we saw during Tuesday’s confirmation hearings for Vanita Gupta to be associate attorney general and Lisa Monaco to be deputy attorney general.

The lion’s share of their questioning for Gupta, a woman of color, attempted to paint her as a radical, dangerous threat to the United States. [..]

The Republicans’ utter frustration is understandable. These nominees are inarguably qualified, have long records of working across party lines and are determined to undo the damage inflicted on the department. Both remained unflappable and polite throughout, draining the hearing of the conflict Republicans desperately sought. And despite their efforts to paint Gupta as anti-police, she has received backing from scores of law enforcement groups.

More telling than what Republicans said during their questioning and speechifying was how little time they spent on the integrity and operation of the Justice Department and the rising threat of white-supremacist violence. How did the government fail to address the rise of white supremacist violence? How will the Justice Department take on this threat? What reforms are needed to correct the hyperpoliticization of the agency? These are apparently of little interest to Republicans.

Pondering the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news media and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.

Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Pondering the Pundits”.

Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt

Amanda Marcotte: Biden’s stimulus bill gives progressives a big win. Now they must celebrate it

Losing the fight to up the minimum wage upset progressives, but the big picture view should leave Democrats hopeful

During the Senate debate over the coronavirus relief bill and in the hours after it finally passed, I was angry.

I was angry at Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., for reducing the size of unemployment checks from $400 to $300 and moving up their expiration date for no other apparent reason than his egotistical need to flex his power. I was angry at the eight Senate Democrats who voted down a $15 minimum wage, and especially angry at Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., for doing a jaunty little hip dip while she did it. I engaged in text chains and Gchats with friends, expressing our anguish and outrage about all of this. The anger from progressives may seem outsized, as it certainly drew a lot of accusations on social media that the left reflexively hates everything the Democrats do, no matter what. And no doubt, there are a large number of grifters in the media — and their gullible followers — who brand themselves “leftists” but mostly just exist to undermine Democrats at every turn. But most people who were upset by these setbacks on unemployment and the minimum wage aren’t kneejerk Democrat-haters. They are deeply worried about the future of the party, correctly believing that a failure to pass important bills on voting rights, worker’s rights, and other big-ticket issues will open the door up to big Republican wins in 2022 and 2024 — and that Republicans will use those wins to rig elections to ensure permanent minority rule.

The fight over the coronavirus bill, and the immense power demonstrated by a small number of conservative Democrats, leaves progressives worried that Democrats aren’t going to be able to get it together in order to do what needs to be done to save their own party. But, as someone who shares those worries, I can safely say that, for the first time in a long time, there’s also good reason for progressives to feel hope about not just the progressive agenda but about the future of the Democratic party.

Charles M. Blow: The Allies’ Betrayal of George Floyd

Did the summer’s protests reflect a racial reckoning or seasonal solidarity?

Something happened this summer in the wake of the killing of George Floyd, and maybe only history will be able to fully explain what it was.

Millions of Americans — many of them white — poured into the streets to demand justice and assert that Black Lives Matter. It’s clear now that the summer protests, which took place during a pandemic during which congregation was discouraged, were for some participants less a sincere demand for justice than they were a social outlet.

As some semblance of normal life began to inch back, enthusiasm for the cause among whites quickly grew soft, like a rotting spot on a piece of fruit.

As FiveThirtyEight has noted, support for Black Lives Matter “skyrocketed” after Floyd was killed, but much of that support ended sometime before Jacob Blake was shot in Kenosha, Wis., three months later. [..]

The real mystery is why some people will go to any end to rationalize state violence against Black bodies. In fact, that is a misstatement. It’s not a mystery. This kind of rationalization is a feature of our society. We have made blackness synonymous with aggression and the police synonymous with protection. Anything that challenges that precept must be put down.

In this equation, to far too many Americans, Floyd is just collateral damage, an unfortunate accident, while a noble defender of peace and order attempts to do his duty. In this equation, Floyd is dehumanized. In it, he is betrayed. What is revealed is the bottomless American capacity to countenance cruelty.

Donna F. Edwards: The $15 minimum wage is not dead

Democrats need to find a way to keep their promise to raise the minimum wage

The stage is set for a defining battle among Democrats over increasing the minimum wage.

On Feb. 27, House Democrats passed their version of the American Rescue Plan, including an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Last week, eight Democratic senators voted to support the Senate parliamentarian’s ruling requiring the removal of the wage increase from the measure. This is a setback, but the debate over the minimum wage is far from over.

That’s because Democrats cannot afford to let the fight for $15 die. Raising the minimum wage is not some gift or reward to anyone. It is a moral commitment to make sure hard-working people are paid enough in America to take care of themselves and their children. [..]

The American Rescue Plan may have been the first fight, but it will not be the last. A second reconciliation bill is expected this year, and it’s time for Senate Democrats to find a way to get this done. Whatever the strategy, there are options: Bring recalcitrant Democrats in line. Use the upcoming infrastructure bill to incentivize them. Or, bring it on, overrule the parliamentarian or end the filibuster.

House Democrats balanced the equities and made the choice in favor of reducing poverty and valuing the lives of low-wage workers. Senate Democrats must do the same — and soon.

Jennifer Rubin: What happens when the government attacks inequality

Democrats have long talked about rising inequality. Now they are doing something about it.

Raise economic inequality with Republicans and they will likely bristle, insisting you are engaging in “class warfare” or want to “soak the rich.” President Biden’s covid-19 rescue plan is the first challenge to that mischaracterization and a test as to whether a shift in economic policy can narrow income inequality. [..]

In short, policy matters. Growing income is vital to reducing poverty and providing upward mobility, but if we continue using income tax cuts to “generate growth” (which the 2020 tax cuts, in the long run, did not do), the vast majority of the savings will benefit the top end, and income inequality will increase.

If we want to boost the lower- and middle-income earners, we will need to look to the spending side — e.g., expansion of the earned-income tax credit, child tax credits, education, job training, broadband expansion. Republicans’ hypocritical concern about the cost of spending but not the cost of tax cuts conveys a willingness to increase federal debt for the sake of those already well off. Democrats will need to consider just how much debt we can incur, but their preference for doing so on behalf of those who need assistance the most is morally sound and politically smart.

Ruth Marcus: ‘I didn’t realize’ may be Cuomo’s best defense, but it’s a weak and offensive one

The governor wasn’t being obtuse; he thought he was being clever.

Andrew Cuomo didn’t get it, but now he does. Or so the embattled, endangered New York governor insists.

“I now understand that I acted in a way that made people feel uncomfortable,” Cuomo said at a news conference Wednesday. “I never knew at the time that I was making anyone feel uncomfortable.”

Pathetic — no, make that enraging. Cuomo, a Democrat, likes to talk about his daughters, so let’s just ask: Governor, if one of your daughters — daughters who, as it happens, are the age of Charlotte Bennett — came to you and told you that her boss had behaved toward her as you did toward Bennett, what would you say?

That maybe this boss didn’t realize he was making you feel uncomfortable? That he was just joking? Or that he is an abusive jerk who was coming on to you and deserves a punch in the nose?

“I didn’t realize” may be Cuomo’s best defense, but it’s a weak and offensive one. [..]

Cuomo’s cascading responses — ever more contrite yet still entirely inadequate — speak to the political peril in which he has placed himself. Saturday’s non-apology was to deny that he “made advances” toward her. Sunday’s version was to acknowledge that “some of the things I have said have been misinterpreted as an unwanted flirtation.” Wednesday’s slightly improved version was for Cuomo to put the onus on himself — “I now understand” — rather than his victim.

Bennett’s not buying it. Neither should anyone else.