SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
With a 58-40 vote, Democrats fell short of the 60 needed. Reuters reports:
With the support of four Republicans, backers of the bill initially got 59 votes, one shy of the needed 60. [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid then switched his vote from yes to no, which under Senate rules allows him to bring the measure up again.
The vote was an attempt to fund an emergency benefits package that extends aid to the jobless during periods of high unemployment. The provision was passed in the wake of the 2008 economic crash, but lawmakers have failed to renew it after several attempts despite continued long-term unemployment numbers.
In addition to the two million recipients who lost benefits at the end of last year, each additional week another 73,000 Americans will lose those benefits -- "benefits that help them keep food on the table and a roof over their heads while they search for a job," as Sen. Reid noted.
"All 42 Republicans need to answer for this vote," writes Bill Scher at Campaign for America's Future. "Why did they decide now was the time to cut off aid to the long-term unemployed, when we could help them at no cost to the taxpayers, at a time when there are three unemployed workers for every one job opening and those out of work for more than six months have the hardest time getting job interviews?"
Scher continues, "The Republican Party is now standing squarely against help for the unemployed, at any cost. And unless they shift before November, they will have to take that message to the voters."
______________________
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
With a 58-40 vote, Democrats fell short of the 60 needed. Reuters reports:
With the support of four Republicans, backers of the bill initially got 59 votes, one shy of the needed 60. [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid then switched his vote from yes to no, which under Senate rules allows him to bring the measure up again.
The vote was an attempt to fund an emergency benefits package that extends aid to the jobless during periods of high unemployment. The provision was passed in the wake of the 2008 economic crash, but lawmakers have failed to renew it after several attempts despite continued long-term unemployment numbers.
In addition to the two million recipients who lost benefits at the end of last year, each additional week another 73,000 Americans will lose those benefits -- "benefits that help them keep food on the table and a roof over their heads while they search for a job," as Sen. Reid noted.
"All 42 Republicans need to answer for this vote," writes Bill Scher at Campaign for America's Future. "Why did they decide now was the time to cut off aid to the long-term unemployed, when we could help them at no cost to the taxpayers, at a time when there are three unemployed workers for every one job opening and those out of work for more than six months have the hardest time getting job interviews?"
Scher continues, "The Republican Party is now standing squarely against help for the unemployed, at any cost. And unless they shift before November, they will have to take that message to the voters."
______________________
With a 58-40 vote, Democrats fell short of the 60 needed. Reuters reports:
With the support of four Republicans, backers of the bill initially got 59 votes, one shy of the needed 60. [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid then switched his vote from yes to no, which under Senate rules allows him to bring the measure up again.
The vote was an attempt to fund an emergency benefits package that extends aid to the jobless during periods of high unemployment. The provision was passed in the wake of the 2008 economic crash, but lawmakers have failed to renew it after several attempts despite continued long-term unemployment numbers.
In addition to the two million recipients who lost benefits at the end of last year, each additional week another 73,000 Americans will lose those benefits -- "benefits that help them keep food on the table and a roof over their heads while they search for a job," as Sen. Reid noted.
"All 42 Republicans need to answer for this vote," writes Bill Scher at Campaign for America's Future. "Why did they decide now was the time to cut off aid to the long-term unemployed, when we could help them at no cost to the taxpayers, at a time when there are three unemployed workers for every one job opening and those out of work for more than six months have the hardest time getting job interviews?"
Scher continues, "The Republican Party is now standing squarely against help for the unemployed, at any cost. And unless they shift before November, they will have to take that message to the voters."
______________________