Opposing relief bill was hypocritical

The latest stimulus bill that passed Congress was done without any Republican support. This bill provides financial help to individuals, businesses, states and local governments. It addresses issues of the pandemic including vaccines, access to health care and attempts to get the economy back on its feet. Yet current Republicans including those in our own legislature argue that it is too expensive, it is not targeted, and, now, that it takes away local control. This last point is particularly ironic for Iowa's current Legislature.

The part that allocates money to state and local governments indicates that this money cannot be used to enable state and local governments to reduce taxes. I think this is called targeting, because if you need this money to support your government, how does it make sense that you would take the federal money and then cut taxes?

If state coffers and projected revenues enable the reduction in taxes, that state does not need money from the federal government. So states that want to cut taxes, go ahead, just don't take any of this stimulus money because you obviously don't need it. And by the way, not taking the money reduces the total amount of federal money that is actually spent and you have reduced the federal deficit that you are now so worried about.

So, is your position a little hypocritical, just opposition to something that was done by a Democratic administration, or is there a logical theory in there I am just missing?

Karin Franklin

Iowa City