SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) speaks during a news conference following the weekly meeting with the Senate Republican caucus at the U.S. Capitol on December 15, 2020 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Rod Lamkey-Pool/Getty Images)
'Gratuitously Cruel': Outrage as GOP Tries to Prevent People on Unemployment From Also Receiving Stimulus Check
"Funny enough, they never take issue with doubling down on corporate bailouts and tax cuts for the wealthy."
Dec 16, 2020
Republican negotiators in Congress are reportedly trying to prevent Americans currently receiving federal unemployment insurance from also getting a direct payment under a soon-to-be-finalized relief package, apparently outraged by the notion that millions of people struggling to afford healthcare, food, and rent could obtain aid on top of their inadequate weekly jobless benefits.
"Imagine thinking someone who's trying to pay the rent and buy food with $100, $200, or $300 per week is going to live high on the hog because they get an extra one-time $600."
--Ashley Schapitl, spokesperson for Senate Finance Committee Democrats
As congressional leaders on Wednesday made significant progress toward a deal that would include one-time direct payments of around $600 per person, Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters that "there could be language in the deal aimed at addressing concerns that people who receive both enhanced unemployment benefits and stimulus checks would be getting a 'double benefit,'" The Hill reported.
The proposed restriction immediately provoked backlash, and Democratic negotiators are reportedly confident they will be able to keep the language out of the final $900 billion package.
"Imagine thinking someone who's trying to pay the rent and buy food with $100, $200, or $300 per week is going to live high on the hog because they get an extra one-time $600," said Ashley Schapitl, a spokesperson for Senate Finance Committee Democrats.
Economist Robert Reich added that, "funny enough, [Republicans] never take issue with doubling down on corporate bailouts and tax cuts for the wealthy," a point echoed by others.
The Republican effort to prevent desperate Americans from receiving a so-called "double benefit" came after the GOP already reportedly succeeded in paring back the duration of unemployment benefits in exchange for the inclusion of direct payments.
Citing unnamed people familiar with the negotiations, the Washington Post reported Wednesday that "congressional leaders have told other lawmakers that they are planning on reducing the length of unemployment benefits by one month from the bipartisan plan," which proposed a four-month extension of emergency unemployment programs set to expire on December 26. (Update: As of Thursday morning, negotiators have rolled back the duration of the unemployment benefit extension even further, to just 10 weeks.)
"This is a cruel last-ditch effort by Senate Republicans to scale back real aid for families."
--Sen. Ron Wyden
"That could mean that the extended benefits would expire at the end of March," the Post noted. "Such a timeline could force the incoming Biden administration to move more quickly in its effort to pass a massive stimulus bill early next year."
The relief agreement is expected to include a $300-per-week federal boost to unemployment benefits--just half of the supplement that congressional Republicans allowed to expire at the end of July.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, was among those who condemned the rollback, saying in a statement, "There's no reason whatsoever to pay for relief checks by cutting the incomes of jobless workers."
"We obviously wouldn't set an arbitrary date to cut off access to the vaccine while Covid is still raging," said Wyden, "so why does Mitch McConnell get to sabotage the economic recovery by cutting support for working people and setting arbitrary expirations?"
As congressional leaders from both parties voiced confidence that they are on the brink of an agreement after months of stagnation, progressives in the House and Senate welcomed the inclusion of direct payments--which they demanded as a necessary component of any deal--but criticized the emerging package as inadequate to address the public health and economic crises ravaging the nation and pushing millions into poverty.
In a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)--who has called for direct payments of $1,200 per adult and $500 per child--said that "there is simply not enough money in the proposal to deal with the unprecedented crises that we now face."
"It is no secret to anybody that right now at this moment in America, we face the worst set of crises that this country has seen in perhaps 100 years," said the Vermont senator. "This bill has a lot in it that is good, but given the enormity of the crises that we face, it simply does not go anywhere [near] far enough... We're gonna fight for more."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. 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. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Republican negotiators in Congress are reportedly trying to prevent Americans currently receiving federal unemployment insurance from also getting a direct payment under a soon-to-be-finalized relief package, apparently outraged by the notion that millions of people struggling to afford healthcare, food, and rent could obtain aid on top of their inadequate weekly jobless benefits.
"Imagine thinking someone who's trying to pay the rent and buy food with $100, $200, or $300 per week is going to live high on the hog because they get an extra one-time $600."
--Ashley Schapitl, spokesperson for Senate Finance Committee Democrats
As congressional leaders on Wednesday made significant progress toward a deal that would include one-time direct payments of around $600 per person, Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters that "there could be language in the deal aimed at addressing concerns that people who receive both enhanced unemployment benefits and stimulus checks would be getting a 'double benefit,'" The Hill reported.
The proposed restriction immediately provoked backlash, and Democratic negotiators are reportedly confident they will be able to keep the language out of the final $900 billion package.
"Imagine thinking someone who's trying to pay the rent and buy food with $100, $200, or $300 per week is going to live high on the hog because they get an extra one-time $600," said Ashley Schapitl, a spokesperson for Senate Finance Committee Democrats.
Economist Robert Reich added that, "funny enough, [Republicans] never take issue with doubling down on corporate bailouts and tax cuts for the wealthy," a point echoed by others.
The Republican effort to prevent desperate Americans from receiving a so-called "double benefit" came after the GOP already reportedly succeeded in paring back the duration of unemployment benefits in exchange for the inclusion of direct payments.
Citing unnamed people familiar with the negotiations, the Washington Post reported Wednesday that "congressional leaders have told other lawmakers that they are planning on reducing the length of unemployment benefits by one month from the bipartisan plan," which proposed a four-month extension of emergency unemployment programs set to expire on December 26. (Update: As of Thursday morning, negotiators have rolled back the duration of the unemployment benefit extension even further, to just 10 weeks.)
"This is a cruel last-ditch effort by Senate Republicans to scale back real aid for families."
--Sen. Ron Wyden
"That could mean that the extended benefits would expire at the end of March," the Post noted. "Such a timeline could force the incoming Biden administration to move more quickly in its effort to pass a massive stimulus bill early next year."
The relief agreement is expected to include a $300-per-week federal boost to unemployment benefits--just half of the supplement that congressional Republicans allowed to expire at the end of July.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, was among those who condemned the rollback, saying in a statement, "There's no reason whatsoever to pay for relief checks by cutting the incomes of jobless workers."
"We obviously wouldn't set an arbitrary date to cut off access to the vaccine while Covid is still raging," said Wyden, "so why does Mitch McConnell get to sabotage the economic recovery by cutting support for working people and setting arbitrary expirations?"
As congressional leaders from both parties voiced confidence that they are on the brink of an agreement after months of stagnation, progressives in the House and Senate welcomed the inclusion of direct payments--which they demanded as a necessary component of any deal--but criticized the emerging package as inadequate to address the public health and economic crises ravaging the nation and pushing millions into poverty.
In a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)--who has called for direct payments of $1,200 per adult and $500 per child--said that "there is simply not enough money in the proposal to deal with the unprecedented crises that we now face."
"It is no secret to anybody that right now at this moment in America, we face the worst set of crises that this country has seen in perhaps 100 years," said the Vermont senator. "This bill has a lot in it that is good, but given the enormity of the crises that we face, it simply does not go anywhere [near] far enough... We're gonna fight for more."
Republican negotiators in Congress are reportedly trying to prevent Americans currently receiving federal unemployment insurance from also getting a direct payment under a soon-to-be-finalized relief package, apparently outraged by the notion that millions of people struggling to afford healthcare, food, and rent could obtain aid on top of their inadequate weekly jobless benefits.
"Imagine thinking someone who's trying to pay the rent and buy food with $100, $200, or $300 per week is going to live high on the hog because they get an extra one-time $600."
--Ashley Schapitl, spokesperson for Senate Finance Committee Democrats
As congressional leaders on Wednesday made significant progress toward a deal that would include one-time direct payments of around $600 per person, Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters that "there could be language in the deal aimed at addressing concerns that people who receive both enhanced unemployment benefits and stimulus checks would be getting a 'double benefit,'" The Hill reported.
The proposed restriction immediately provoked backlash, and Democratic negotiators are reportedly confident they will be able to keep the language out of the final $900 billion package.
"Imagine thinking someone who's trying to pay the rent and buy food with $100, $200, or $300 per week is going to live high on the hog because they get an extra one-time $600," said Ashley Schapitl, a spokesperson for Senate Finance Committee Democrats.
Economist Robert Reich added that, "funny enough, [Republicans] never take issue with doubling down on corporate bailouts and tax cuts for the wealthy," a point echoed by others.
The Republican effort to prevent desperate Americans from receiving a so-called "double benefit" came after the GOP already reportedly succeeded in paring back the duration of unemployment benefits in exchange for the inclusion of direct payments.
Citing unnamed people familiar with the negotiations, the Washington Post reported Wednesday that "congressional leaders have told other lawmakers that they are planning on reducing the length of unemployment benefits by one month from the bipartisan plan," which proposed a four-month extension of emergency unemployment programs set to expire on December 26. (Update: As of Thursday morning, negotiators have rolled back the duration of the unemployment benefit extension even further, to just 10 weeks.)
"This is a cruel last-ditch effort by Senate Republicans to scale back real aid for families."
--Sen. Ron Wyden
"That could mean that the extended benefits would expire at the end of March," the Post noted. "Such a timeline could force the incoming Biden administration to move more quickly in its effort to pass a massive stimulus bill early next year."
The relief agreement is expected to include a $300-per-week federal boost to unemployment benefits--just half of the supplement that congressional Republicans allowed to expire at the end of July.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, was among those who condemned the rollback, saying in a statement, "There's no reason whatsoever to pay for relief checks by cutting the incomes of jobless workers."
"We obviously wouldn't set an arbitrary date to cut off access to the vaccine while Covid is still raging," said Wyden, "so why does Mitch McConnell get to sabotage the economic recovery by cutting support for working people and setting arbitrary expirations?"
As congressional leaders from both parties voiced confidence that they are on the brink of an agreement after months of stagnation, progressives in the House and Senate welcomed the inclusion of direct payments--which they demanded as a necessary component of any deal--but criticized the emerging package as inadequate to address the public health and economic crises ravaging the nation and pushing millions into poverty.
In a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)--who has called for direct payments of $1,200 per adult and $500 per child--said that "there is simply not enough money in the proposal to deal with the unprecedented crises that we now face."
"It is no secret to anybody that right now at this moment in America, we face the worst set of crises that this country has seen in perhaps 100 years," said the Vermont senator. "This bill has a lot in it that is good, but given the enormity of the crises that we face, it simply does not go anywhere [near] far enough... We're gonna fight for more."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.