neighborhood news
The Numbers
Reconsider the Federal “Safety Net” by Doni Crawford and Eliana Golding
T
he C O VID-19 pandemic is devastating families and businesses in the District. In just six weeks, over 72,000 people have filed for unemployment insurance and many businesses have been forced to close their doors. This economic downturn is unprecedented and different from prior recessions because the government is intentionally shutting down parts of the economy to keep us alive. The result is that the nation has lost more jobs in March than during the entire Great Recession. Federal policymakers have been more willing to quickly work together to enact immediate (yet, inadequate and almost entirely temporary) economic relief because this pandemic affects us all—though not equally. Due to racism, inequitable social determinants of health, and medical bias, Black residents disproportionately make up over 75 percent of virus-related deaths and the majority of positive coronavirus cases in the District. In the wake of this crisis, we have a moral obligation to reexamine the structures by which people in America access essential programs. The devastating fallout of COVID-19 has exposed gaping holes in our social “safety net” that, by design, allows millions to fall through. Perhaps the largest flaw in the “safety net” is that it is considered a “safety net” at all. We have come to believe that the federal government’s role is to intervene only in times of crisis, whether that crisis is personal (like the sudden loss of a job) or widespread (like the nationwide economic shutdown). This choice has led to a dangerously inadequate system that leaves many behind. But it did not have to be this way. Federal officials’ rapid response shows us that government has always had the 24
E a s t o f t h e R i v er D C N e w s . c o m
tools to protect us from economic hardship. What was made to seem impossible—direct, unqualified cash payments with no arduous application processes, mandatory paid sick leave, higher unemployment benefits, etc.—is now reality. What was lacking was not the ability to create real economic security programs, but the political will. The lesson from this pandemic should be that Congress must thoroughly invest in infrastructure and programs to promote wellbeing and economic vitality in all communities.
disinvestment has had a devastating impact on states and residents as they attempt to grapple with the economic fallout of COVID-19. As states face a looming recession, they are left struggling to pick up the tab, a task made even more daunting because they cannot run deficits like the federal government. States’ revenues are plummeting, so they must look to the federal government for assistance, which to date has been substantial, but remains insufficient. In DC, our unique position as a non-state has made this reality even more challenging. The last approved federal emergency package significantly shortchanges DC by giving us less than half of the fiscal aid it provides to other states to address massive, immediate budget problems due to COVID-19. DC is receiving $495 million from the Coronavirus Relief Fund for calendar year 2020, while each of the 50 states is receiving at least $1.25 billion. This is deeply misguided as DC is typically treated as a state in federal programs. Our District—like other states, territories, and tribal nations— is incurring huge new costs as we seek to contain and treat COVID-19. Less federal aid means that DC will have to rely more heavily on our reserves to stay afloat in the near future.
The Burden is on State Governments
Opportunities to Make it Right
The system has failed an enormous share of our workforce and it is by design. For decades, the federal government has abandoned its responsibility to provide for the well-being of its constituents by steadily eroding an already flimsy “safety net” with stringent eligibility criteria and insufficient benefits. Inadequate financial support in the form of block grants has made it nearly impossible to massively expand programs in times of crisis. This
What would this pandemic look like if we had robust social programs that did not just meet the need in times of crisis, but were structured to reduce the number of people who are especially vulnerable to crises? And going forward, what responsibility does the federal government have to alleviate the pressure on states to provide equitable access to these programs without the flawed focus on personal responsibility and productivity?
