Congress is set to pass a $900 billion spending bill that some describe as a relief package and others call a stimulus. Given the paltry amount of aid to individuals in the bill, it is hard to see how either appellation fits.

The legislation, which still needs to be signed by outgoing President Trump, is better than nothing. When you have little, any help will do — or, at least that’s the argument. “Beggar’s can’t be choosers” is the line, which is just so much horse shit, a capitalist excuse for doing as little as we can away with doing.

Let’s not pretend, however, that this “relief bill” this is anything more than inadequate. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls it a down payment, operating on the assumption that incoming President Joe Biden and the Democratic House can work with what they hope will be a Democratic Senate to pass more expansive measures.

Recent history tells us that will be difficult, at best. Democrats first have to win both Georgia Senate races, which would create a 50-50 tie in the upper house. In theory, that gives Vice President-elect Kamala Harris the deciding vote. In reality, it puts West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin in the driver’s seat. Manchin is the most conservative member of the Democratic caucus, a deficit hawk, but he also has been supportive of relief in the past, so it is hard to know what direction he will take once Biden is sworn in.

That said, it is important to look at what this bill actually does, and not get caught up in the hype over this sudden bout of bipartisanship. There are reasons the left is critical, and it’s not because of truculence or ideological purity. The bill is basically inadequate to the task, though probably the best available, and progressives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, not only have a right but a responsibility to point that out.

These are what I think are the pertinent portions of the bill, which come from the Huffington Post. The brief analyses are mine, and they are just rough, back-of-the-envelop assumptions and not meant to be seen as anything more than that. I welcome anyone who can offer a better and deeper understanding of these issues.

The bill includes:

• Direct payments of $600 to people earning under $75,000 ($1,200 for households earning under $150,000). A total of $166 billion has been set aside, which means there is enough money for about 2.2 million individuals, if the maximum amount is doled out to each recipient. There are about 64 million households earning $68,000 or less in the United States, according to the Census Bureau.

• An extension of the federal eviction moratorium until Jan. 31 — or two months. On Jan. 31, millions will then be faced with the prospect of not only paying February’s rent, but back rent that for many could run into the tens of thousands.

• Rental aid totaling $25 billion, which sounds like a lot, but ultimates comes to $625 per endangered renter — there are 40 million renters facing potential eviction, .

• $300 per week in extra unemployment benefits, which also will cover so-called gig workers, though not all states consider gig workers and freelancers to be eligible. 

• $30 billion in funding for vaccine distribution — about $90 per person.

There is more in this bill, some of it absolutely necessary and some seemingly less so. I am not an expert, but I do think we have spent the last 45 years focused on the wrong things — on the deficit and debt, rather than on making people whole, on providing help, on building better infrastructure — and this has left us ill-prepared medically, economically, and politically to deal with the threat the coronavirus posed and the damage it has in fact done.

Passing this bill is important, but we should not take any victory laps or injure ourselves trying to pat ourselves on the backs. Passing this bill may be necessary at this moment, but it is the least, and I mean the very least, we can do, and nothing more.