Joe Biden has proposed extra COVID-19 stimulus funding in the billions of dollars. The president-message elect’s featured racist epithets.
“The cost will be huge,” Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged in a speech on Friday. There will be a great deal of money on the line… However, if we do nothing, the situation will deteriorate.
Following That, Biden Stated That Racism and Racial Fairness Were the Governing Principles of His Assistance Operations
“Our goal will be to promote small businesses owned by people of colour, women-owned businesses, small businesses owned by people of colour, and enterprises owned by people of colour,” the president-elect stated. “Ensure that all small business relief efforts, especially those led by Black and Brown people, are coordinated,” he stated in a statement posted on his campaign website.
Biden and other proponents of this strategy think it is capable of addressing the root causes of racial inequality. Businesses owned by people of colour have been hit particularly hard by the COVID-19 controversy and subsequent government lockdowns. Proponents argue that the only way to solve existing injustices is through policies that clearly target specific racial populations.
“Our priority will be Black, Latino, Asian, and Native American owned small businesses, women-owned businesses, and finally having equal access to resources needed to reopen and rebuild.” — President-elect Biden pic.twitter.com/pIyDuhf5pH
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) January 10, 2021
The federal government has thus far spent $3.5 trillion in taxpayer dollars on COVID-19 stimulus programmes. This is done contextually. Numerous these programmes have been both fraudulent and ineffectual. Biden, on the other hand, appears to believe that the same activities should be customised to people of colour.
What this will look like and the policy implications are uncertain. If Biden plans to use racially biassed COVID-19 aid programmes in the name of “social justice,” he will confront the same moral and legal difficulties that all such misguided endeavours encounter.
Consider Oregon, which is a progressive haven. Oregon legislators reserved $62 million of the state’s COVID-19 relief funds exclusively for black citizens and businesses.
According to the New York Times, “in notifying the Oregon Cares Fund, legislators took the unusual step of expressly stating that Black folks had been subjected to special discrimination, putting them at a disadvantage throughout the pandemic.”
The Remaining Funds Have Been Halted Due to Ongoing Lawsuits. For the Time Being, It Has Been Placed on Hold!
The Oregon Cares Fund is a rare present-day example of a government entity creating a policy that explicitly benefits a racial group. But after several non-Black business owners sued, arguing that the policy was discriminatory, some money is in limbo. https://t.co/QQG370p10N
— NYT National News (@NYTNational) January 8, 2021
Walter Leja, a Hispanic business owner and plaintiff in the lawsuit, stated, “It’s discriminatory.” “It prevents a huge quantity of money from being used by anybody other than Black-owned businesses, despite the fact that many other businesses require access to that money.” “It affects everyone,” says no one, neither whites nor blacks.
The purpose of Oregon’s racial aid programme was to help marginalised groups. In the end, it did little but increase divides and violence.
Remember this, Vice President-elect Biden and his supporters. All of these consequences, no matter how well-intentioned, are unavoidable when a society’s fundamental assumption is violated: equal treatment under the law.
According to well-known economist Steve Horwitz, political leaders have always had “near infinite flexibility” in how to distribute rewards and liabilities among their voters. “Subjecting persons in positions of political power to norms was one of the liberal movement’s most important achievements.”
“The government must treat all of its citizens equally, and nothing paid for with public funds may entail invidious prejudice,” Horwitz writes.
The only way to end long-term injustice is to ensure that everyone has equal access to the legal system. Attempts to undermine this ideal in the name of “social justice” focus on short-term remedies rather than long-term solutions. They normalise racial disparities in treatment and contribute to deepen societal inequalities.
The Nobel Prize-winning economist and philosopher Friedrich Hayek characterised this type of “social justice” as “a demand that the state treat persons differently in order to put them in the same condition.”
As a result, “making equality an objective of public policy would compel the government to treat people very unequally indeed,” he claimed.
Is Joe Biden about to make the same error by committing to target certain races in future COVID-19 stimulus efforts? Despite being a Democrat, the president-ideas elect’s have nothing to do with “development.”