| Get Jonathan Bernstein's newsletter every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. I'm fascinated by the move several Republican governors have made to cut off their states' participation in supplemental unemployment benefits. I can't think of anything similar. Yes, many states turned down federal money to expand Medicaid when it was offered by the 2010 Affordable Care Act, just as many states delayed joining the original Medicaid program in the 1960s. But that's a little different; in both of those cases, the states were choosing not to add a benefit. Indeed, the striking thing about Medicaid expansion is that once it's accepted, it stays put, even when new Republican politicians are elected. But in the case of the unemployment benefit, they'll be cutting something off. That's a lot more noticeable to voters who are affected by it. So why aren't Republican governors terrified that voters will punish them? I can think of several possibilities. Perhaps they are convinced that partisanship is so strong right now that no matter how clear it is that Democrats enabled a benefit and Republicans took it away, Republican voters won't believe it — and will instead somehow believe that President Joe Biden and the Democrats were responsible for cutting off $300 a week. Perhaps. But that's a big risk for a politician to take. I don't think they're that brave. A second possibility is particularly nasty: They're deliberately attempting to destroy the economy, based on the assumption that even if the unemployed blame their governors right now, in the long run — that is, by November 2022 — a good economy will be good for Democrats and a bad economy will be bad for Democrats, whatever people thought of any specific action along the way. The problem with that one? Republicans in Congress followed the same policy last summer, when Donald Trump was in the White House and he was the one who stood to gain if the economy was strong. That suggests that Republicans may sincerely believe that they are helping their states — that they believe unemployment remains high and the economic recovery inhibited because these payments are discouraging workers from taking jobs that businesses are making available. For what it's worth, that's what they say. If true, that's certainly better than if they are attempting to harm the nation and their states because they believe it will pay off next November. But again: This is a highly unusual move for multiple governors to be taking, and it would certainly be interesting to have a bit more information about why they are so convinced this will be good for their states that they are willing to risk anger from those who are losing benefits. Especially since this is one economic intervention that may produce visible results, in the form of jobs and growth comparisons between states where the supplemental payments were made and those where they were cut off. 1. Dan Drezner on what's going on with the U.S. military. 2. Josephine Wolff at the Monkey Cage on ransomware attacks. 3. Neil Irwin on inflation. 4. Annie Lowrey on millennials and the economy. 5. Dean Baker makes the case for another term for Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. 6. And Bradford Fitch on increasing death threats and abuse aimed at members of Congress. Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. Also subscribe to Bloomberg All Access and get much, much more. You'll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close. | 
Post a Comment