After months of collapsed talks and fiery negotiations, Congress finally approved of a $900 billion stimulus package that will pour billions of dollars into the pinched economy and into the pockets of unemployed Americans.

But despite the congressional victory, Democrats have already called for additional coronavirus relief, arguing that the newly passed aid will not be enough to grapple with the economic hurdles imposed by the pandemic.

“I would hope that as we see the need for what we have done in this nearly $900 billion legislation that we’ll vote on today, that everyone understands it’s a first step,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said on the House floor on Monday. 

President-elect Joe Biden also asserted that this legislation is just the beginning and that more relief, particularly to state and local governments, will be in the next round of stimulus after inauguration day. 

“Immediately, starting in the new year, Congress will need to get to work on support for our COVID-19 plan, for support to struggling families, and investments in jobs and economic recovery,” Biden said in a statement on Sunday. “There will be no time to waste.” 

The most recent deal includes stimulus checks of $600, though Democrats wanted direct payments of $1,200, $300 weekly unemployment bonuses from Dec. 26 to March 14, though the party wanted an extension of the $600 supplemental boost established in the Cares Act, and an extension to the eviction moratorium until the end of next month, but it did not provide direct aid for state and local governments, a top Democratic priority.  

Democrats have already sparked talks of extending these provisions in the next spate of federal relief, particularly the unemployment insurance and eviction moratorium. 

“There’s no question unemployment benefits will need to be extended past March 14,” Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) told The Hill. “Service industries will not come back in full until there is mass vaccination, and even then, it will take time to climb out of this deep economic hole.”

Democrats noted that while the agreement didn’t spend as much as they had hoped, under the Biden administration, they’ll be able to carve out more federal aid for unemployed Americans, struggling businesses and drowning state and local governments. But, Democratic success remains up-in-the-air depending on the results of the two Georgia runoff elections that’ll take place in early January. 

“I am very optimistic that we can get a lot more done in a Senate, certainly if there’s a Democratic majority, but even if a Republican majority remains, with a new president who's going to focus the issue,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a news conference Sunday. 

House Democrats originally passed two multi-trillion-dollar packages in recent months, but both were rejected by top White House aides and Senate Republicans. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin shot back with a GOP counter-offer of a $1.8 trillion proposal over the summer that embraced some Democratic provisions, but that also got blocked, as Republicans refused to entertain any stimulus deal that’s priced above $1 trillion and Democrats thought the initiative wasn’t enough. 

But while Democrats circulate urgent talks of additional relief after the inauguration, most Republicans have chimed the wait-and-see approach, as they think it’s best to monitor the economic impact of the vaccine.

Mnuchin told CNBC on Monday he thinks “this will take us through the recovery,” and that stimulus checks would be sent out as early as next week. 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also championed the package, as it was “just smart targeted bipartisan policies. What Senate Republicans have been recommending since the summer,” though GOP lawmakers have advocated against another round of direct payments to keep the cost of the package below their $1 trillion price cap. 

Economists expressed support for the congressional effort but pointed to some flaws in its provisions.

“Yes, there is no question that the relief money is essential for any number of individuals and businesses that have been hit hard by the impacts on the virus on the economy,” Eric Leeper, economist and Paul Goodloe McIntire professor of economics at the University of Virginia, said via email. “But there are serious problems with the way Congress goes about legislating this kind of relief. We do not know how long relief will be needed. That point is emphatically illustrated by the simple realization that an additional relief package was called for. Just as in the previous legislation, the extent of this relief is given a calendar-date deadline. Uncertainty about how long relief is needed makes this a particularly silly—and ineffective—way to [formulate] the legislation,” referring to the eviction moratorium and unemployment insurance sections of the bill that have explicit deadlines. 

Stan Veuger, economist and resident scholar in economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, also mentioned that he “would have liked to see included is some general support for state and local governments, perhaps instead of the earmarked funds currently in there for lower levels of government or, even better, instead of the checks.” 

“The [unemployment insurance] and [paycheck protection program] components of the legislation will hopefully help us reach the end of the pandemic with the balance sheets of the most affected firms and households somewhat intact,” Veuger added. “The money dedicated to combating the public health crisis will surely deliver a tremendous return. Overall, it's a strong effort.” 

Rachel Bucchino is a reporter at the National Interest. Her work has appeared in The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report and The Hill. 

Image: Reuters