Since the constitution grants congress the power to appropriate funds and oversee that the funds are spent properly, the executive action taken by the president attempting to provide additional federal economic relief on his own is questionable as to whether it is legal. The action uses Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds for the costs of unemployment benefits that the federal government would cover. Re-appropriating already appropriated funds, I think, is generally recognized as "robbing Peter to pay Paul." Can the federal unemployment benefit even be implemented being that its implementation is tied to states ponying up funds. It requires states to pay 1/4th of the federal benefit. Not only does the act, if legal, create a federal obligation, it also creates a state obligation. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Deferral of payroll taxes? Ever since eliminating or reducing payroll taxes has been mentioned recently, I've been wondering what and whose portion would be eliminated. With the President's action -- the answer: the employee portion. If legal, the employee portion would be "deferred" though 12/2020, four months. As it stands now, deferred payroll taxes would need to be repaid by the employee. There is, however, talk of making the "deferral" permanent. Now I have another question, does permanent mean forgive the 4 months deferred or eliminate the employee portion altogether? Either way we're talking about only 6.2% for Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare of employee wages under $137,700 for 2020. I guess I'll have to wait for that answer, too.
The President's action seems to have taken the spotlight off the actual negotiations, and while, at a minimum, frustrating one party, it has the potential of eliminating a sense of urgency for the other. I guess we'll see how soon negotiations resume. An executive action during congressional negotiations serves only to undermine the importance of the Congress and the job required of its members.