Connect with us

Politics

Unemployment Claims Rise Again as Lawmakers Debate Extending Benefits

Published

on

  • At least 1.4 million people filed for unemployment last week, marking the first time claims have increased since March. The move comes as the extra $600 in unemployment benefits are set to expire next week.
  • On Wednesday, Senate Republicans announced they had agreed to a tentative $1 trillion coronavirus stimulus deal with the White House, which, among other things, included an expansion of loans to small businesses, funding for COVID testing and vaccines, aid to schools, and more.
  • The bill was supposed to be rolled out Thursday morning, but again got held up by the ongoing negotiations that have been stalled for weeks because of divisions within the Republican party.

Unemployment Numbers Spike

The government reported Thursday that 1.4 million people filed for unemployment last week, marking the first time unemployment claims have increased since March.

Separately, another 980,000 new claims were filed by freelancers, part-time workers, and others who do not qualify for state unemployment benefits but can receive aid under the emergency federal program.

Notably, the government did report that the number of continuing claims— claims filed by people who are already receiving unemployment and filed again— did drop from 17.4 million for the week ending July 4 to 16.1 million for the week ending July 11.

However, that data is reported on a week lag, and thus does not account for any of the closures or restrictions that have been put in place over the last two weeks. It also does not represent the fact that the U.S. has now reported more coronavirus cases in the last two weeks alone than in all of June.

While this week’s numbers are still much lower than the numbers reported in March before they started steadily declining, the fact that this is the first uptick since then is significant because it shows a broader trend.

“What you’re seeing is that, as the economy slows, the pace of claims picks back up — which really puts at risk the monthly jobs report over the next few months,” Joseph Brusuelas the chief economist at RSM, a multi-national network of accounting firms told the Washington Post. “The July numbers are going to be tenuous, but it’s August that I’m worried about.”

The timing of the spike is also highly relevant because it comes as the additional $600 in federal unemployment benefits are set to expire in just over a week.

In addition to the 20 to 30 million people who will lose those benefits if and when they expire, many economists have also warned that it would have a very serious effect on the already faltering economy.

“There is one clear takeaway from this morning’s unemployment insurance report –not extending the weekly $600 benefit supplement would be unconscionable,” Andrew Stettner, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation told USA Today. “Families will be evicted from their homes, poverty will soar, children will go hungry, businesses will shutter and the economy will tank.”

Meanwhile, Back in Congress

As that deadline looms, Senate Republicans and the White House are still in the middle of hashing out the details of another coronavirus stimulus package.

For weeks now, that process has been stalled by internal divisions within the Republican Party. While some of the Republicans are divided on specific issues, including unemployment, others simply do not want another stimulus bill at all.

With those negotiations getting down to the wire, Senate GOP leaders announced Wednesday that they had reached a tentative $1 trillion deal with White House officials. According to a draft summary, which was obtained by The New York Times, there are several areas the Republicans have agreed.

Among other things, the summary included $26 billion for vaccine development and deployment, $25 billion for coronavirus testing, a total of $105 billion for education— $30 billion of which would be set aside for schools that reopen, and a second round of loans to small businesses with more loan forgiveness.

Notably, the document did say that there would be another round of stimulus checks, but it did not say how much they would be or who they would go to.

Also of note is what was not in the summary. The plan explicitly states Republicans will not give any money to state and local governments to help with budget holes and layoffs, though it does note that aid will likely be added back in during negotiations with the Democrats, who want hundreds of billions to go to states and cities. 

The summary also does not include a payroll tax cut— something that was pushed by President Donald Trump for both this stimulus package and last— and something that was rejected by Democrats and Republicans both times.

Divisions Linger 

It does appear to show there has been at least some compromising between the Senate GOP and the White House. In addition to the tax cuts not being included, the increased testing and the money to schools that are not reopening are also things the Trump administration had opposed.

However, despite all that, there are still things the party is struggling to hammer out. According to reports, Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was hoping to roll out that package Thursday morning, but was instead met with yet another round negotiations between Senate GOP leaders and the White House.

As in the earlier negotiations, one of the major sticking points reportedly still up for debate was unemployment benefits. While the Republicans agree that they want to cut the jobless payments from the current $600, they disagree on how much they should cut.

According to reports, Senate Republicans had previously floated the idea of decreasing the benefits to $200 per week. Then CNBC reported Wednesday that they were now considering extending the benefits through the end of the year at just $100 a week.

However, on Thursday morning, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said the extension will be based on 70% wage replacement, which means that the benefits would amount to about 70% of a typical worker’s income while they were employed.

According to Ernie Tedeschi, an economist in the Treasury Department under the Obama administration who spoke to the Post, a 70% wage replaced would put the extended benefits at about $175 per week.

“If they lowered it to $200 a week, 30 million workers would wake up with a pay cut from a third to a half overnight,” he said. “While $200 is marginally better than full expiration, the U.S. would still take a major economic hit from this summer and this fall as a result from it.”

While that would be on top of state unemployment, those benefits vary drastically and often fall short. According to CNN, state benefits on their own generally replace only 40% of wages.

Upcoming Battle With Democrats

As Republicans continue struggling to come to a consensus, the clock is ticking. 

With several key elements of the plan bound to a tight time table, Trump administration officials have emphasized the need to act by the end of next week.

“Let me just remind people: the time-sensitive issue we’re talking about is next Friday on unemployment and schools,” Mnuchin told reporters Thursday morning. “Some of this stuff, if it takes us a couple of weeks to work with the Democrats and agree on all the pieces we can.” 

However, according to reports, McConnell has said that that timeline as unrealistic because, right now, Republicans have not even agreed on a bill within their own party. Once they do, they still face a battle with the Democrats, who have pushed for extending the $600 through the end of the year— a provision that was included in the $3 trillion stimulus bill passed by the House in May.

Even beyond the unemployment debate, many Republicans are worried that they will not be able to get Democrats on board with their proposals at all. 

While speaking to reporters Wednesday, Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) said that even if Republicans do overcome their internal divisions, they would be unable to bridge the “pretty big gap” with Democrats, who support the $3 trillion bill, which prioritizes multiple things Republicans oppose.

In order to meet some of the pressing deadlines, both Senate Republicans and Trump administration officials have said that they intend to propose a series of bills, rather than just one comprehensive package. Democrats, however, have rejected that plan.

“This is a package. We cannot piecemeal this,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said in a press conference Thursday morning. “What we have seen so far falls very short of the challenge that we face in order to defeat the virus and to open our schools and to open our economy.” 

“We’re not going to take care of one portion of suffering people and leave everyone else hanging,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) added at the same briefing Thursday. “This is a comprehensive proposal that addresses the many problems of COVID, and we have to address it as a totality. ” 

“One of the reasons we’re up against this cliff is because Republicans have dithered,” Schumer added, saying that he and Pelosi had urged Republicans to come to the table three weeks ago, but they never responded.

“Now the Senate Republicans have finally woken up to the calamity in our country, they have been so divided, so disorganized and so unprepared that they have to struggle to draft even a partisan proposal within their own conference, they can’t come together. Even after all this time, it appears the Republican legislative response to COVID is ununified, unserious, and unsatisfactory.” 

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (Politico) (The Washington Post)

Politics

House Panel Approves Commission To Study Reparations

Published

on

  • In a 25 to 17 vote along party lines, the House Judiciary Committee approved legislation Wednesday that would establish a commission to study slavery reparations for Black Americans.
  • Republicans objected to the plan, arguing that it will cost too much money and that it is unfair to make all American taxpayers responsible for the consequences of slavery.
  • Democrats pushed back, claiming the modern oppression of Black people still holds roots in slavery, and noting that the bill just creates a commission to study reparations, not implement them.
  • While the proposal faces steep odds in the Senate, Wednesday’s historic vote will move the measure to the House floor for a full vote for the first time since it was introduced over three decades ago. 

Reparation Commission Achieves First Approval

The House Judiciary Committee voted for the first time on Wednesday to advance a bill that will create a commission to consider paying slavery reparations for Black Americans.

The legislation was first proposed over 30 years ago, and if signed into law, it would create a 13-member commission that would study the effects of slavery and racial discrimination in the U.S. and then give Congress a recommendation for “appropriate remedies” to best compensate Black Americans.

The measure passed the committee 25 to 17 along party lines, as expected, with objections from Republicans, who claimed reparations will cost too much and that they are unfair to Americans who have no history of enslavers in their families.

Democrats pushed back against those assertions, arguing that the federal government does have enough money to take some kind of action. They also noted that the commission will not actually implement any reparations, but rather just look into the options and then make a non-binding recommendation.

There are a lot of different ideas for what reparations could look like. While some support direct cash payments of various sizes, others have argued there are different proposals that might be more realistic to put into law, like no-interest loans for Black homeowners or free college tuition.

“I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, do not cancel us tonight. Do not ignore the pain, the history and the reasonableness of this commission,” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tx.), the lead sponsor of the bill, said Wednesday.

Others also condemned the argument that some Americans, particularly those whose ancestors did not directly benefit from owning slaves, should not bear responsibility. They said that this line of thinking ignores both generational wealth, which vastly benefits white Americans over all others, as well as how Black Americans are hurt by modern-day discrimination and oppression that has roots in slavery.

“Slavery was indeed ended 150 years ago but racism never took a day off and is alive and well in America,” Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) said in committee Wednesday. 

“You can ask the family members of Daunte Wright, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery or George Floyd. Black folks in this country cannot keep living and dying like this. But we’ll be forced to do so if White folks in America continue to refuse to look back at history.”

Uphill Battle

While many have described the legislation as a flexible first step, any further congressional action will almost certainly be an uphill battle. The committee vote is just the very first step: the proposal still has to go to a vote by the full House, where it is unclear if it will even garner enough support among the House Democrats’ slim majority. 

If it were to pass the lower chamber, the bill faces almost insurmountable odds in the 50-50 split Senate, where ten Republicans would have to join all Democrats to break the legislative filibuster.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has said that he will start considering when to schedule the vote, though it is unlikely to be considered soon. Hoyer also urged President Joe Biden to use his executive power to create the commission if the legislation fails.

The White House has said that Biden supports the commission, but administration officials have not confirmed whether he would act unilaterally on the subject.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (USA Today) (Vox)

Continue Reading

Politics

Biden To Pull All U.S. Troops From Afghanistan by Sept. 11

Published

on

  • President Biden declared Wednesday that he will pull all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan by Sept. 11, which also marks the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
  • The Afghanistan war is the longest war the U.S. has ever been in. It has resulted in the deaths of 2,400 American troops, injured and killed almost 100,000 civilians, and cost about $2 trillion.
  • Some praised the decision as a key step to address seemingly endless wars and promote diplomacy.
  • Many experts and defense officials, however, have warned the withdrawal could undermine American goals in the region and embolden the Taliban, which is currently the strongest it has been since the U.S. invasion removed the group from power in 2001.

Biden Announces Troop Removal Amid Growing Violence

President Joe Biden announced Wednesday that he will withdraw all American troops from Afghanistan by Sept. 11, the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks that drew the U.S. into its longest war in history.

“We went to Afghanistan because of a horrific attack that happened 20 years ago. That cannot explain why we should remain there in 2021,” Biden said in an afternoon speech. “It’s time to end America’s longest war. It’s time for America’s troops to come home.’’

The decision comes as Biden nears the May 1 deadline set under a February 2020 peace deal by the administration of former President Donald Trump to bring the troops home from the war, which has killed nearly 2,400 troops, injured and killed nearly 100,000 civilians, and cost about $2 trillion.

Biden had previously said that it would be hard to meet the date after taking office, but even with the extended timeline, many experts and defense officials have warned against the move.

The U.S. first entered the war to oust the Taliban government, which was harboring al-Qaeda militants involved in planning the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban was removed within months, but the group still had support in parts of the country and steadily regained territory and strength.

Now, almost two decades later, the group is the strongest it has been since the 2001 invasion, and according to reports, controls or has influence over half the country. The situation has also escalated in the months after Trump, during his last week in office, reduced the official number of troops in Afghanistan to 2,500, which is the lowest level since 2001.

As the U.S. has scaled down its operations, the Taliban has taken control of major highways and tried to cut off cities and towns in surges that have exhausted Afghan security forces. Violence has also ramped up in recent months.

According to a U.N. report released Wednesday, nearly 1,800 civilians were killed or wounded in the first three months of the year, a nearly 30% increase from the same period last year.

Notably, U.S. intelligence agencies have said that they do not believe Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations present an immediate threat to strike the U.S. from Afghanistan, an assessment that reportedly played a big role in Biden’s decision to withdraw U.S. forces.

However, many experts are more concerned about how the move will impact Afghanistan and its citizens. 

Concerns Over Withdrawal

The Pentagon has warned against removing American troops from the region until Afghan security forces can effectively fight back against the Taliban.

As a result, critics of the plan have argued that withdrawal will leave the forces  — which have limited capacities and until now have been funded and trained by the U.S. — entirely in the dust

Beyond that, many also worry that the move could undermine the entire goal of the 2001 invasion by empowering al-Qaeda operates that remains in the country and who could become emboldened once the U.S. troops left.

Some experts and Afghan politicians have said that withdrawing from the country without a solid peace deal in place could end in concentrating more power in the hands of the Taliban. After a long delay following the U.S. agreement in February of last year, peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban finally started up in September.

But those talks have since stalled, partly due to Biden’s win and the anticipation of a possible change in policy under the new administration.

While other countries have recently made moves to restart the talks, and there are a number of possible options on the table, nothing is set in stone. American commanders, who have long said a peace deal with the Taliban is the best security measure for the U.S., have argued that the U.S. will need to use the promise of withdrawing their forces as a condition for a good deal.

Now, the U.S. has taken a major bargaining chip off the table, causing concerns that if a deal is struck, the already weakened Afghan government will make key concessions to the Taliban. Many Afghan citizens who oppose the Taliban worry that if the group secures a role in a power-sharing agreement, it could eventually take over the government and re-impose the harsh rule it imposed before the U.S. removed it in 2001. The leadership was particularly tough on women, who were largely barred from public life.

Politicians Respond

Biden’s decision has sparked a divided front from both political parities, though Republicans have largely remained united against the move.

“It is insane to withdraw at this time given the conditions that exist on the ground in Afghanistan,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Tuesday. “A full withdrawal from Afghanistan is dumber than dirt and devilishly dangerous. President Biden will have, in essence, canceled an insurance policy against another 9/11.”

Many Democrats, however, have argued that U.S. presence in the region is not helping the U.S. achieve its foreign policy goals, and that if withdrawal is based on conditional approaches, the troops will never be able to leave. 

Others have also applauded the plan as a careful solution and will still emphasize diplomatic efforts in the region while simultaneously removing the U.S. from a highly unpopular and expensive war.

“The President doesn’t want endless wars. I don’t want endless wars. And neither do the American people. ” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday. “It’s refreshing to have a thought-out plan with a set timetable instead of the President waking up one morning getting out of bed, saying what just pops into his head and then having the generals having walked it back.”

In a series of tweets Wednesday, Afghanistan’s president, Ashraf Ghani, said had spoken to Biden, and emphasized that the two nations would continue to work together.

“’Afghanistan’s proud security and defense forces are fully capable of defending its people and country, which they have been doing all along,” he wrote.

The Taliban, for its part, has focused more on the fact that the initial timeline had been delayed.

“We are not agreeing with delay after May 1,” a spokesperson said on television Tuesday. “Any delay after May 1 is not acceptable for us.”

It is currently unclear how that stance might affect the situation, especially when it comes to peace deal negotiations.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (The Washington Post) (TIME)

Continue Reading

Politics

Matt Gaetz Reportedly Venmo’d Accused Sex Trafficker, Who Then Sent Money To Teen

Published

on

  • A report published by The Daily Beast Thursday alleges that Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fl.) sent $900 through Venmo to accused sex trafficker Joel Greenberg, who then used the funds to pay three young women, including one teenager.
  • Gaetz is currently under federal investigation as part of a broader inquiry into Greenberg, a former politician who has been charged with 33 counts, including sex trafficking an underage girl.
  • Investigators are reportedly looking into the involvement of politicians with women who were recruited online for sex and paid in cash, as well as whether Gaetz had sex with a 17-year-old girl and violated sex trafficking laws by paying for her to travel with him.
  • Greenberg’s lawyer did not comment on the new allegations but said Thursday his client would soon enter a plea deal and implied that Greenberg would testify as a witness against Gaetz. Meanwhile, Gaetz has accused The Daily Beast of spreading “rumors, gossip and self-serving misstatements.”

Gaetz’s Alleged Venmo Payments 

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fl.) allegedly sent money via Venmo to accused sex trafficker Joel Greenberg, who then used the money to pay three young women, including at least one teenage girl, according to a new report from The Daily Beast.

Greenberg, a former local Flordia politician and an associate of Gaetz, was indicted last summer on 33 counts, including sex trafficking a 17-year-old girl. He initially pleaded not guilty to the charges, but his lawyers said in court Thursday that he would plead guilty as part of a plea deal.

Legal experts say the move almost certainly indicates that Greenberg plans to cooperate as a witness against Gaetz, who is currently under investigation by the Justice Department as part of a broader probe into Greenberg.

According to The New York Times, among other things, the DOJ inquiry is looking into their involvement with multiple women who were recruited online for sex and paid cash, as well as whether Gaetz had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl and paid for her to travel with him in violation of sex trafficking laws.

Investigators reportedly believe that Greenberg met the women through a website for people willing to go on dates in exchange for gifts and money, and then arranged for them to meet with himself and associates including Gaetz, The Times reported.

The new report from The Daily Beast, published Thursday, appears to support this narrative. According to the outlet, which viewed the transactions before they were made private this week, Gaetz sent Greenberg two late-night Venmo payments totaling $900 in May 2018. 

In the text field of the first payment, Gaetz wrote “Test.” In the second, he asked Greenberg to “hit up” a teenager who he allegedly referred to by her nickname. The Daily Beast did not publish the name of the girl “because the teenager had only turned 18 less than six months before.”

The next morning, Greenberg transferred a total of $900 to three different young women using the same app.

One of the transfers was titled “Tuition,” and the other two were both listed as “School.” The Daily Beast also said it was able to obtain “partial records” of Greenbergs Venmo, which is not publicly available.

Those records, the outlet reported, show that the two men are connected through Venmo to at least one other woman who Greenberg paid with a government-funded credit card, and at least two other women who received payments from Greenberg.

Ongoing Investigation

Gaetz, for his part, has not directly addressed the latest allegations. A representative from the Logan Circle Group, an outside PR firm, provided The Daily Beast with a statement from the congressman.

“The rumors, gossip and self-serving misstatements of others will be addressed in due course by my legal team,” the statement said, with the firm also informing the outlet that their lawyers would be “closely monitoring your coverage.”

Greenberg’s defense attorney, Fritz Scheller, also declined requests to comment, but during a press conference Thursday, he implied that the plea deal his client is expected to accept spelled trouble for Gaetz.

“I’m sure Matt Gaetz is not feeling very comfortable today,” Scheller said.

The Daily Beast story also comes amid reports that that the FBI has widened its probe of Gaetz. According to The Times, sources familiar with the inquiry have said investigators are also looking into a trip he took to the Bahamas with other Florida Republicans and several women.

Sources said the trip took place shortly after Gaetz was elected to Congress in 2016, and that the FBI has already questioned witnesses about whether the women had sex with the men in exchange for money and free travel.

It is illegal to trade sex for something of value if prosecutors can provide the exchange involved force, fraud, or coercion.

The Times also reported that investigators are now additionally looking into Gaetz’s alleged involvement in discussions to run a third-party candidate in a State Senate race to make it easier for an associate of his who was running for the seat to win.

The act of recruiting so-called “ghost candidates” who run for office purely to divert votes from one candidate is not usually illegal. However, paying a ghost candidate is normally considered a violation of campaign finance laws.

See what others are saying: (The Daily Beast) (The New York Times) (The Hill)

Continue Reading