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: Ending the End of Welfare as We Knew It

The Democrats’ new child benefit is a very big deal.

The era of “the era of big government is over” is over.

The relief bill President Biden just signed is breathtaking in its scope. Yet conservative opposition was remarkably limp. While not a single Republican voted for the legislation, the rhetorical onslaught from right-wing politicians and media was notably low energy, perhaps because the Biden plan is incredibly popular. Even as Democrats moved to disburse $1.9 trillion in government aid, their opponents mainly seemed to be talking about Dr. Seuss and Mr. Potato Head.

What makes this lack of energy especially striking is that the American Rescue Plan doesn’t just spend a lot of money. It also embodies some big changes in the philosophy of public policy, a turn away from the conservative ideology that has dominated U.S. politics for four decades.

In particular, there is a sense — a strictly limited sense, as I’ll explain, but real nonetheless — in which the legislation, in addition to reviving the notion of government as the solution, not the problem, also ends the “end of welfare as we know it.”

Eugene Robinson: Going big on the border will neutralize Republicans’ line of attack

The children in detention need to get out as soon as possible, no matter what it takes.

Both for humanitarian and political reasons, the Biden administration needs to get ahead of the developing situation at the southern border. The surge of would-be migrants is predictable, and the solution is clear: Just do the right things, and get children out of detention as soon as possible. And do it right now.

It should surprise no one that asylum seekers and others clamoring for entry into the United States would think they have a better chance of success now that racism, xenophobia and deliberate cruelty are no longer official U.S. policy. It is only logical that increased numbers would present themselves at the border or try to make their way into the country without permission.

It also should surprise no one that Republicans would react not with understanding but with political calculation. They know that immigration is an issue that riles up the GOP base and that also gets the attention of many independents — it was, after all, the most consistent theme of former president Donald Trump’s winning 2016 campaign. Republicans have already begun trying to paint the significant but hardly overwhelming border surge as a full-blown “crisis” that they hope will help them win House and Senate seats in 2022.

President Biden and his team need to neutralize this political ploy before it gains traction. That means the administration must act swiftly and decisively to get these children to people who love them — while remaining true to its stated values of compassion and respect for all who seek to come to the United States in search of safety and opportunity.

Catherine Rampell: The oldest president ever just handed a landmark triumph to the youngest Americans

The $1.9 trillion relief package is expected to cut child poverty by more than half.

Sure, President Biden may be the oldest president in U.S. history. But in signing his $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan into law, he just delivered the biggest legislative victory for the young in generations.

For decades, the general trend in federal fiscal policy, with some limited exceptions, has been to transfer wealth away from the young and toward the old. The federal government spends about six times as much per capita on older Americans (primarily in the form of Social Security and Medicare) as it does on children, according to the Urban Institute’s annual “Kids’ Share” report; if you include state and local governments, which are responsible for most educational spending on kids, the per capita old vs. young ratio shrinks to “only” about double. [..]

It’s no surprise, then, that children have long had the highest poverty rates of any age group in the United States. They also have the dubious honor of notching one of the highest child-poverty rates in the developed world, largely because other rich countries invest considerably more in children than we do.

Thanks to Biden’s legislation, though, the United States will see a (partial) reversal of decades of de-prioritizing kids. The covid-19 package is expected to cut overall poverty by about one-third — and child poverty roughly in half, according to an analysis from the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University. Among the biggest beneficiaries of this law will be young children of color.

Greg Sargent: The real lesson of the feud between Susan Collins and Chuck Schumer

Our discourse around ‘bipartisanship’ is hopelessly confused.

Many senators are supposedly shocked, shocked by a feud that has erupted between their colleagues Charles E. Schumer and Susan Collins. According to a Politico report, the Democratic majority leader and the Republican from Maine are barely speaking amid his alleged failure to reach out to her during the stimulus debate.

Many GOP senators are treating this as a teachable moment: If Schumer (N.Y.) and Democrats want bipartisan support in the future, by golly, they’d best treat the most gettable Republican with a whole lot more respect!

This is a teachable moment, but in an entirely different way: It shows yet again how confused and obfuscatory our discourse is around “bipartisanship.” [..]

The real moral of the Collins-Schumer feud is that Republicans badly want to confuse you on this point. That’s why they attacked Schumer for alienating Collins personally, even though that’s not remotely relevant to what actually happened. They want to be able to argue that when no Republicans support future bills, this was a general failure of leadership on Democrats’ part, with little discussion of the truism that only the most enormous specific concessions (if those) could have ever won their support.

It’s a neat trick. But we don’t have to play along.

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.