I found a short, but interesting opinion piece in the New York Post questioning a provision in the stimulus bill that precludes Trump’s family business from receiving assistance:
It’s being reported that part of the $2 trillion deal to bail out the economy, signed by the Senate and the White House, is that Trump family businesses cannot receive taxpayer assistance.
Why is this fair?
As I’ve written before, I don’t think elected officials should benefit from their office. But they shouldn’t be penalized either.
Once we go down that road, why would anyone who has been successful in their lives run for public office or hold an appointed position? Only unsuccessful people with nothing to lose will take these jobs.
Let’s take this a step further. What if the Secretary of the Treasury has money in a bank that goes bankrupt? Should his money be ineligible for Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC) guarantees?
Of course not.
I know a lot of people are out to get President Trump, but play the game fairly.
My first reaction to hearing about the provision was that it was fair, as it keeps any conflict of interest at bay. But the author makes a good point, essentially asking why Trump’s family business should be penalized just because he’s an elected official. After all, don’t they employ people who might be adversely affected by this crisis? Shouldn’t they be allowed to take out a loan to help ‘pay the bills’ just like every other big business in the US?
And just to be clear, it’s not just Trump’s business we’re talking about. According to Schumer, “the bill will prohibit businesses controlled by the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, and heads of Executive Departments from receiving loans or investments from Treasury programs.” Obviously the White House agreed to all of this, so it’s fine either way. But what do you think? Should businesses owned by Trump and members of Congress also be penalized?
If you want to read more about what’s in the stimulus package, here’s another article from the New York Post…