As we head into year two of the coronavirus pandemic, one of the more baffling parts of the experience has been how we still don’t seem to quite get it.

I mean if you walk around downtown, or in your local store or wherever, it’s remarkable how many citizens go to the trouble of doing their civic duty to wear a mask — yet haven’t accepted that the mask probably ought to cover at least some of the holes in the face.

Goal for the pandemic, year two: That we finally grasp this disease isn’t spread through the chin.

More seriously, take Congress, which found its way to passing another COVID aid bill this week. Financial relief is desperately needed in some sectors, so I guess we should say our thanks and move on.

But coming nine months after the initial aid bills, some of this one is still so askew from what’s needed that it’s the legislative equivalent of wearing a mask on your chin.

Start with the most publicized part, the $600 stimulus checks. Everyone from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump was exclaiming how these cash rebates could be just what the pandemic doctor ordered.

Advertising

It’s odd, because we already tried sending flat-rate checks back in the spring, ones that were twice as big. And we already know they didn’t really do much.

Why? Because the pandemic turned out to be the great unequalizer. Surprisingly, the vast majority of people kept working and being paid just fine. The economic crisis isn’t everywhere. It’s more of an acute problem, with the bottom falling out for a group who desperately need help now paying for food and the rent.

As the spring stimulus checks were sent out, the savings rate soared. It has dropped but remains almost double what it was before the pandemic hit. This means there were tons of people, like me, who got the check but didn’t really need it. And now I’ll be getting another stimulus that I don’t need.

This is no minor flaw. More than 33 million people who are well enough off to be in the top 20% earning bracket will get stimulus checks anyway, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy in D.C. Meanwhile for those who really need them, $600 ain’t much.

“A better targeted bill could have distributed bigger payments to fewer households at the same cost,” another tax analyst noted — something that should have been obvious by this time to Congress.

The same scattershot approach plagues the business relief. The devastated restaurant industry is getting direct aid, which is great, and unemployment payments got a boost, which is right on target. These are among the businesses and people most in need.

Advertising

But some of the rest of what Congress did makes you wonder if they were wearing the masks over their eyes.

By now you’ve heard about the biggest outrage: the so-called “three martini lunch” deduction, in which the nation’s corporate executives were gifted a 100% tax deduction for business meals. That’s right — 320,000 Americans are dead and 11 million out of work due to a pandemic in which bars and restaurants are being closed by order of the government, and Congress chose this moment to set aside $6.3 billion in taxpayer money to reward CEOs for … going out to lunch.

“The GOP loves corporate socialism,” quipped Bernie Sanders, who, you’ve got to admit, would know some socialism when he sees it.

A section of the bill crafted by both parties though is titled “The Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020,” and it contains dozens of such special interest tax breaks — for NASCAR racetracks, the owners of Thoroughbred horses, even the makers of electric motorcycles.

“Many of these are classic special interest tax breaks that do not benefit the overall economy in any way,” one tax analyst told The Washington Post.

One industry that got a break, alcohol, is also one of the pandemic’s winners.

Advertising

“The pandemic has been a boon to retail alcohol sales of all kinds,” The New York Times reported the other day. “Beer sales are up, as are those of wine and vodka. Even the lowly vermouth … has seen a spike in business as consumers substitute drinking at home for visits to local bars or restaurants.”

Even the lowly vermouth! Yet Congress, as part of a $110 billion disaster tax breakapalooza, extended $9 billion worth of breaks for the wine, beer and spirits industry.

I don’t know, with the way America is drinking through the pandemic, it seems a stronger case could be made to raise taxes on booze, not cut them. Instead in the new year the only thing we’ll be raising are fully-deductible martinis.

Back when this started, there was a lot of talk about how the coronavirus had so clearly exposed the inequities in society that we couldn’t, wouldn’t, go back to the same old way of doing business.

The same old way is having a thing to say about that.