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
Watchdog Urges FEC to Investigate Trump Campaign Over Scheme for Legal Fees
"By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much."
Apr 24, 2024
A campaign finance watchdog on Wednesday filed a Federal Election Commission complaint accusing former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign, affiliated political groups, and an accounting firm of violating U.S. law in a scheme "seemingly designed to obscure the true recipients of a noteworthy portion of Trump's legal bills."
The Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center (CLC) said that "evidence appears to show an illegal arrangement between several Trump-affiliated committees and a compliance firm named Red Curve Solutions that is designed to obscure the identities of those providing legal services and how much they are being paid."
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money."
CLC alleges that the Trump campaign, Trump's political action committee (PAC) Save America, and three affiliated organizations "violated federal reporting requirements based on a scheme in which the committees reportedly paid over $7.2 million—described as 'reimbursement for legal' costs or expenses"—to Red Curve.
The watchdog also said that Red Curve appears to be "making or facilitating illegal contributions that violate either federal contribution limits or the prohibition on corporate contributions."
According to CLC:
Red Curve is a domestic limited liability company that offers compliance and FEC reporting services but does not appear to offer any legal services. It is managed by Bradley Crate, who also serves as the treasurer for each of the five Trump-affiliated committees concerned in this complaint, as well as over 200 other federal committees.
According to filings with the FEC, Red Curve appears to have been fronting legal costs for Trump since at least December 2022, with Trump-affiliated committees repaying the company later. This arrangement appears to violate FEC rules that require campaigns to disclose not only the entity being reimbursed (here, Red Curve) but also the underlying vendor. By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much they are being paid—through this arrangement.
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money," CLC senior director of campaign finance Erin Chlopak said in a statement. "When campaigns and committees obscure that information from the public, not only do they make it difficult to determine if the law has been violated, but they deny voters the ability to make an informed choice when casting a ballot."
"The steps taken by the Trump campaign, its affiliated committees, and Red Curve Solutions concealed information about how campaign funds were used to pay former President Trump's legal expenditures, including the amounts and ultimate recipients of these expenditures—and the FEC must investigate immediately," Chlopak added.
Trump—who is the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee—faces 91 federal and state felony charges related to his role in the January 6 insurrection and his organization's business practices. He is currently on trial in New York for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The twice-impeached former president has been open about his use of campaign donations to pay his legal costs.
The new CLC filing comes a day after the watchdog filed separate FEC complaints urging investigations into a pair of Trump-affiliated "scam PACs," which "pretend to fundraise for major candidates or issues while secretly diverting almost all of their donors' money back into fundraising or the fraudsters' own pockets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'One Step Closer': Arizona House Votes to Repeal 1864 Abortion Ban
"With a total ban still set to take effect June 8, the Arizona Abortion Access Act is needed now more than ever," one state campaigner said of a November ballot measure.
Apr 24, 2024
Three Republicans in the Arizona House of Representatives on Wednesday joined with Democrats to advance legislation that would repeal an 1864 ban on abortion—a development rights advocates welcomed while stressing that the fight is far from over.
The 32-28 vote on House Bill 2677—with GOP Reps. Tim Dunn (25), Matt Gress (4), and Justin Wilmeth (2) voting in favor—was the third attempt in as many weeks to pass repeal legislation since the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the ban.
"The state Senate could vote on the repeal as early as next Wednesday, after the bill comes on the floor for a 'third reading,' as is required under chamber rules," according toNBC News. Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs on Wednesday toldThe Washington Post that "I am hopeful the Senate does the right thing and sends it to my desk so I can sign it."
Applauding the House passage of H.B. 2677, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona president and CEO Angela Florez said that "today, Arizona is one step closer to repealing the state's Civil War-era total abortion ban. While the repeal still must pass the Senate, this is a major win for reproductive freedom."
"We must celebrate today's vote in support of abortion rights and harness our enthusiasm to spread the word and urge lawmakers in the Senate to support this necessary repeal bill," she continued. "Despite this step forward, Arizonans cannot stop fighting."
Florez noted that "even with the repeal of the Civil War-era ban, the state will still have a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy that denies people access to critical care. And lawmakers continue to attack Arizonans' ability to access reproductive healthcare. Our right to control our bodies and lives is hanging on by a thread."
"Thankfully, voters will have the opportunity to take back control if the Arizona Abortion Access Act is on the ballot this November," she added. "Abortion bans are out-of-step with the will of Arizonans and will force pregnant people to leave their communities for essential healthcare. Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona will continue fighting to ensure everyone has the right to make decisions about their health and futures."
The Arizona Abortion Access Act is a proposed state constitutional amendment that would prevent many limits on abortions before fetal viability and safeguard access to care after viability to protect the life or physical or mental health of the patient.
The coalition supporting the amendment, Arizona for Abortion Access, highlighted on social media that the House-approved bill "did not include the emergency clause required to stop the 1864 ban from taking effect on June 8," meaning H.B. 2677 wouldn't apply until 90 days after the end of the legislative session.
Coalition campaign manager Cheryl Bruce said that "with a total ban still set to take effect June 8, the Arizona Abortion Access Act is needed now more than ever. We remain committed to taking these decisions out of the hands of extremist politicians."
Arizona is one of multiple states where rights advocates are promoting abortion rights ballot measures this cycle. Reproductive freedom is also dominating political races at all levels, including the presidential contest. Democratic President Joe Biden is set to face former Republican President Donald Trump in November.
"Donald Trump is responsible for Arizona's abortion ban. Women in the state are still living under a ban with no exceptions for rape or incest and have been stripped of the freedom to make their own healthcare decisions," said Julie Chávez Rodriguez, Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris' reelection campaign manager.
While the presumptive GOP nominee has tried to distance himself from the Arizona Supreme Court's reinstatement of a 160-year-old abortion ban, he has also campaigned on his three appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court who helped reverse Roe v. Wade.
"Trump brags that he is 'proudly' the person responsible for these bans and if he retakes power, the chaos and cruelty he has created will only get worse in all 50 states," Chávez Rodriguez said. "President Biden and Vice President Harris are the only candidates who will stop him."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Dodges Growing Calls for Probe of Mass Graves at Gaza Hospitals
"Somehow I don't think the U.S. State Department would defer to Russia as a credible source to investigate itself if a mass grave were discovered in Ukrainian territory it had occupied," said one legal expert.
Apr 24, 2024
While continuing to give Israel billions of dollars in support to wage war on the Gaza Strip, the Biden administration this week has declined to join the growing global demands for an international probe into mass graves discovered at hospitals in the besieged Palestinian enclave.
Two journalists on Tuesday questioned Vedant Patel, a spokesperson for the U.S. State Department, about the administration's response to the hundreds of bodies found at Gaza City's al-Shifa Hospital and Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis as well as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk's call for an independent investigation.
"Would you support such an independent investigation?" Said Arikat asked during a press briefing. Patel responded, "Right now, Said, we are asking for more information... That is squarely where we are leaving the conversation."
Patel added that "I don't have any details to match, confirm, or offer as it relates to that. We're aware of those reports, and we have asked the government of Israel for additional clarity and information. And that's where I'm at."
When Said asked a follow-up about potential U.S. support for a probe, Patel reiterated that the administration is awaiting information from the Israeli government.
Later, Niall Stanage asked Patel to explain U.S. "resistance" to supporting a probe, the spokesperson insisted that "it's not about resistance to this particular situation, it is me not wanting to speak in detail about something which Said posed as a hypothetical question when, from the United States' perspective, I don't have any additional information on this aside from the public reporting."
After Patel again stressed that the administration has asked Israel for more information, Stanage inquired, "And do you believe the government of Israel is a credible source in enlightening you?"
The spokesperson interrupted Stanage to say, "We do."
While supporting the six-month Israeli assault on Gaza that the International Court of Justice has found to be plausibly genocidal, the Biden administration is also arming Ukrainians' resistance to a Russian invasion. Brian Finucane, a senior adviser for the Crisis Group's U.S. program and a former legal adviser at the State Department, pointed to the latter.
"Somehow I don't think the U.S. State Department would defer to Russia as a credible source to investigate itself if a mass grave were discovered in Ukrainian territory it had occupied," Finucane said on social media in response to Stanage's questioning.
Meanwhile, European Union spokesperson Peter Stano made clear Tuesday that the E.U. supports an independent probe.
"This is something that forces us to call for an independent investigation of all the suspicions and all the circumstances, because indeed it creates the impression that there might have been violations of international human rights committed," Stano said. "That's why it's important to have independent investigation and to ensure accountability."
Human rights groups around the world joined the call for an independent investigation on Wednesday, as the official death toll in Gaza hit 34,262 with 77,229 people injured and thousands more missing and presumed dead beneath the rubble.
In an Arabic statement translated by Al Jazeera, the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor said that the number of bodies found in the mass graves is "alarming, and requires urgent international action, including the formation of an independent international investigation committee."
The group added that some of those killed were subjected to "premeditated murder as well as arbitrary and extrajudicial executions while they were detained and handcuffed."
Amnesty International senior director of research, advocacy, policy, and campaigns Erika Guevara Rosas said in a statement that "the harrowing discovery of these mass graves underscores the urgency of ensuring immediate access for human rights investigators, including forensic experts, to the occupied Gaza Strip to ensure that evidence is preserved and to carry out independent and transparent investigations with the aim of guaranteeing accountability for any violations of international law."
"Lack of access for human rights investigators to Gaza has hampered effective investigations into the full scale of the human rights violations and crimes under international law committed over the past six months, allowing for the documentation of just a tiny fraction of these abuses," she noted. "Without proper investigations to determine how these deaths took place or what violations may have been committed, we may never find out the truth of the horrors behind these mass graves."
Guevara Rosas continued:
Mass grave sites are potential crime scenes offering vital and time-sensitive forensic evidence; they must be protected until professional forensic experts with the necessary skills and resources can safely carry out adequate exhumations and accurate identification of remains.
The absence of forensic experts and the decimation of Gaza's medical sector as a result of the war and Israel's cruel blockade, along with the lack of availability of the necessary resources for the identification of bodies such as DNA testing, are huge obstacles to the identifications of remains. This denies those killed the opportunity to have a dignified burial and deprives families with relatives missing or forcibly disappeared the right to know and to justice—leaving them in a limbo of uncertainty and anguish.
Noting that the International Court of Justice directed Israel to preserve evidence in its initial genocide case order, Guevara Rosas said that "amid a total vacuum of accountability and mounting evidence of war crimes in Gaza, Israeli authorities must ensure they comply with the ICJ ruling by granting immediate access to independent human rights investigators and ensuring that all evidence of violations is preserved."
"Third states must pressure Israel to comply with the ICJ orders by allowing the immediate entry into the Gaza Strip of independent human rights investigators and forensic experts, including the U.N.-appointed Commission of Inquiry and investigators of the International Criminal Court," she added. "There can be no truth and justice without proper, transparent independent investigations into these deaths."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular