March, 20 2020, 12:00am EDT

The No-One-in-the-GOP CARES Act Bails Out Airlines, Does Little for Public Health or Workers' Jobs
WASHINGTON
Experts from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) critiqued the proposed CARE Act introduced last night to mitigate the economic and human impact of the pandemic. The full text of the critique is below. The authors will be available for comment.
"The (no-one-in-the-GOP) CARES Act introduced last night by Senate Republicans is a stunning indictment of the Republican Party. Its failure to propose measures to protect the health of Americans and prevent the historic wave of joblessness that will soon crest if nothing is done to hold it back demonstrates a willful ignorance of how the economy works and the steps needed to protect workers and businesses.
"Again, the CARES Act demonstrates the Republican party's complete disdain for the health or economic well-being of American workers. It provides no additional money beyond what is in the recently passed Families First Act to enable Medicaid to deal with an explosion of poor people who fall ill with COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. While insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid will cover the full costs of diagnostic testing for covered individuals, the government will not cover out-of-pocket costs of care for insured and uninsured individuals who have contracted the disease. This is a huge public health threat as many cases will go undiagnosed, and many who are sick will forego treatment.
"No provisions in the Senate bill fix the huge holes in emergency paid leave benefits in the Families First Act. That bill provided 10 days of paid sick leave for a worker made ill by the coronavirus or to care for someone who was quarantined or sickened by it. There is no paid family medical leave for workers who contract COVID-19 or to care for a family member who is quarantined or contracts the disease. Only parents who have to stay home because their children's school has closed are eligible for 12 weeks of leave, two weeks unpaid and 10 weeks at two-thirds pay up to a maximum of $200 a day. Employers with 500 or more employees are excluded from both measures, and those with less than 50 employees can request a hardship waiver from the Department of Labor. Workers at Walmart, Target, Amazon, Whole Foods, McDonald's, Dunkin Donuts, and many other large employers are left out of emergency paid sick days and paid leave, while workers at small retail and restaurant establishments may work for employers who get a waiver.
"No funds are allocated in the CARES Act to increase hospital beds, allow the federal government to order and pay for ventilators, or otherwise improve health care infrastructure apart from an expansion of telehealth. There is no provision for a public option for the Internet that would let kids in poor neighborhoods and rural areas access educational instruction from home. So much more needs to be done to protect the health and well-being of families.
"Beyond its cavalier approach to public health, the CARES Act does not address the fallout from COVID-19 on the economy. First and foremost, Congress must adopt measures to keep workers attached to their jobs. The highest priority is for the federal government to subsidize employers' payroll costs so large and small businesses don't have to lay off workers. Denmark is paying 75 percent of payroll to employers that retain workers, the United Kingdom is paying 80 percent of wages to keep people working, and Canada is providing a wage subsidy to employers to keep workers on their payrolls. The US, where delay by the Trump administration in fighting the novel coronavirus has led to expectations of massive dislocations, should do no less. In work sharing arrangements, workers face reduced hours rather than layoff and the state unemployment insurance systems pay unemployment benefits for the lost hours. This helps keep workers attached to their jobs. Maintaining employment through the health emergency will pave the way for a rapid recovery once the crisis is past, as firms will be spared the time and expense of recruiting and training workers and can quickly ramp up production.
"Instead, Senate Republicans offer measures for businesses and workers that are little more than a bad joke. Checks to Americans -- at best, a stopgap measure to see the most vulnerable workers and families through until meaningful legislation can be passed -- turn out to exclude those who need financial assistance the most. People who were jobless in 2018 or earned less than $2,500 won't get a check. Those with earnings of $2,500 or more get a check for what they paid in income taxes in 2018, with no one getting less than $600 or more than $1,200 ($2,400 for a two-adult household). These folks will also get $500 for each child. Households with the lowest incomes get little to nothing from the Republican proposal.
"State unemployment insurance (UI) funds are short-changed in the CARES Act and receive no help from the federal government beyond the $1 billion already included in the Families First Act to help meet the rise in jobless claims due to the coronavirus. This is clearly inadequate. It provides no funds to increase the UI benefit to meet minimum family needs or to extend the length of payments if steps to preserve jobs are not undertaken, and unemployment remains stubbornly high for a protracted period.
"Sales tax and other revenue sources that states and municipalities rely on are drying up as people shelter at home and spend little on hotels, restaurants, or retail establishments. Without a massive infusion of funds from the federal government, reduced revenues mean states and municipalities will have to cut needed services and lay off workers to balance their budgets at a time when the need for these services is rising sharply. It is essential to get large-scale assistance to state and local governments immediately to stave off austerity measures that will worsen the economic contraction. The federal government should provide funds at a minimum equal to 10 percent of the budgets of these jurisdictions to enable them to maintain services. A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests they will need an immediate infusion of about $250 billion.
"The CARES Act provides no funding for state and local governments beyond what is in the Families First Act. That legislation provides $1 billion to meet increased UI claims due to the coronavirus, and $1 billion in food support for kids who rely on school lunches, nursing mothers through the women, infant and child program, and expanded demand for SNAP (food stamps). The 6.2 percent increase in payments to state Medicaid programs to cover free diagnostic testing for the Medicaid-eligible population is much more substantial and may be as high as $65 billion. This leaves a substantial gap in state and municipal budgets of $183 billion that must be filled. This can initially take the form of no-interest loans from the Federal Reserve Board. But the federal government will ultimately have to make up the shortfall in state tax revenue for the duration of the crisis.
"As for relief for small employers, the CARES Act makes businesses with fewer than 500 employees eligible for loans that can be used for payroll and health insurance benefits as well as for mortgages/rent, utilities and debt obligations. With little certainty about where the economy will be when these loans need to be repaid, take-up is likely to be problematic. Moreover, business owners who do take loans may prioritize capital -- mortgages/rent, utilities, and debt repayment -- over workers when thinking about how to protect their investments in their businesses. The proposed legislation fails to preserve jobs at small and medium-sized enterprises.
"The bill also proposes a $50 billion bailout for passenger airlines and $9 billion for cargo airlines, along with $150 billion for other still-to-be-determined hard-hit industries. That's $209 billion to bailout big business. While protecting the wages and benefits of workers in these industries is a high priority, there is no public interest in protecting shareholders or overpaid CEOs. If these businesses are unable to survive through this crisis, the remedy is prepackaged bankruptcies, along the lines of the auto industry bailout in 2009. The shareholders will lose their stake, creditors will take a haircut, and workers will be largely protected.
"Under no circumstances should Congress give the Trump administration control of any discretionary bailout fund. Trump has explicitly shown that he can and will use any powers at his disposal to advance his political campaign and family business interests. It would be incredibly irresponsible to allow Trump to have more public funds to abuse in this way.
"The GOP proposed CARE Act fails to protect the health or jobs of working families. Americans deserve speedy enactment of meaningful legislation that rises to meet the extraordinary crisis we face."
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. In order for citizens to effectively exercise their voices in a democracy, they should be informed about the problems and choices that they face. CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options.
(202) 293-5380LATEST NEWS
As Flood Deaths Rise, Texas Officials Blast Faulty Forecast by DOGE-Gutted National Weather Service
"Experts warned for months that drastic and sudden cuts at the National Weather Service by Trump could impair their forecasting ability and endanger lives during the storm season," said one critic.
Jul 05, 2025
As catastrophic flooding left scores of people dead and missing in Texas Hill Country and President Donald Trump celebrated signing legislation that will eviscerate every aspect of federal efforts to address the climate emergency, officials in the Lone Star State blasted the National Weather Service—one of many agencies gutted by the Department of Government Efficiency—for issuing faulty forecasts that some observers blamed for the flood's high death toll.
The Associated Press reported Saturday that flooding caused by a powerful storm killed at least 27 people, with dozens more—including as many as 25 girls from a summer camp along the Guadalupe River in Kerr County—missing after fast-moving floodwaters rose 26 feet (8 meters) in less than an hour before dawn on Friday, sweeping away people and pets along with homes, vehicles, farm and wild animals, and property.
"Everybody got the forecast from the National Weather Service... It did not predict the amount of rain that we saw."
"The camp was completely destroyed," Elinor Lester, 13, one of hundreds of campers at Camp Mystic, told the AP. "A helicopter landed and started taking people away. It was really scary."
Kerr County Sheriff Larry Leitha said during a press conference in Kerrville late Friday that 24 people were confirmed dead, including children. Other officials said that 240 people had been rescued.
Although the National Weather Service on Thursday issued a broad flood watch for the area, Texas Division of Emergency Management Chief Nim Kidd—noting that the NWS predicted 3-6 inches of rain for the Concho Valley and 4-8 inches for the Hill Country—told reporters during a press conference earlier Friday that "the amount of rain that fell in this specific location was never in any of those forecasts."
After media reports & experts warned for months that drastic & sudden cuts at the Nat Weather Service by Trump could impair their forecasting ability & endanger lives during the storm season, TX officials blame an inaccurate forecast by NWS for the deadly results of the flood.
[image or embed]
— Ron Filipkowski (@ronfilipkowski.bsky.social) July 5, 2025 at 3:19 AM
"Listen, everybody got the forecast from the National Weather Service," Kidd reiterated. "You all got it; you're all in media. You got that forecast. It did not predict the amount of rain that we saw."
Kerrville City Manager Dalton Rice also said during the press conference that the storm "dumped more rain than what was forecasted" into two forks of the Guadalupe River.
Kerr County judge Rob Kelly told CBS News: "We had no reason to believe that this was gonna be anything like what's happened here. None whatsoever."
Since January, the NWS—a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—has reduced its workforce by nearly 600 people as a direct result of staffing cuts ordered by the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, as part of Trump's mission to eviscerate numerous federal agencies.
This policy is in line with Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led blueprint for a far-right overhaul of the federal government that calls for "dismantling" NOAA. Trump has also called for the elimination of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, arguing that states should shoulder most of the burden of extreme weather preparation and response. Shutting down FEMA would require an act of Congress.
Many of the fired NWS staffers were specialized climate scientists and weather forecasters. At the time of the firings, Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, was among those who warned of the cuts' deadly consequences.
"People nationwide depend on NOAA for free, accurate forecasts, severe weather alerts, and emergency information," Huffman said. "Purging the government of scientists, experts, and career civil servants and slashing fundamental programs will cost lives."
Writing for the Texas Observer, Henry D. Jacoby—co-director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change—warned that "crucial data gathering systems are at risk."
"Federal ability to warn the public is being degraded," he added, "and it is a public service no state can replace."
On Friday, Trump put presidential pen to congressional Republicans' so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a $4 trillion tax and spending package that effectively erases the landmark climate and clean energy provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act signed by then-President Joe Biden in 2022.
As Inside Climate News noted of the new law:
It stomps out incentives for purchasing electric vehicles and efficient appliances. It phases out tax credits for wind and solar energy. It opens up federal land and water for oil and gas drilling and increases its profitability, while creating new federal support for coal. It ends the historic investment in poor and minority communities that bear a disproportionate pollution burden—money that the Trump administration was already refusing to spend. It wipes out any spending on greening the federal government.
Furthermore, as MeidasNews editor-in-chief Ron Filipkowski noted Saturday, "rural areas hit hardest by catastrophic storms are the same areas now in danger of losing their hospitals after Trump's Medicaid cuts just passed" as part of the budget reconciliation package.
At least one congressional Republican is ready to take action in the face of increasing extreme weather events. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)—who once attributed California wildfires to Jewish-controlled space lasers—announced Saturday that she is "introducing a bill that prohibits the injection, release, or dispersion of chemicals or substances into the atmosphere for the express purpose of altering weather, temperature, climate, or sunlight intensity."
"It will be a felony offense," she explained. "We must end the dangerous and deadly practice of weather modification and geoengineering."
Keep ReadingShow Less
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular