Democrats Reject $916 Billion White House Stimulus Proposal That Trades Weekly Unemployment Benefits for One-Time Checks
- Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin submitted a $916 billion White House COVID-19 relief proposal Tuesday that trades $300 in weekly unemployment benefits for a one-time $600 payout to Americans.
- Top Democrats swiftly rejected the proposal as “unacceptable.” Meanwhile, top Republicans have suggested a willingness to accept the deal.
- Without Democratic support, the White House proposal is likely dead on arrival.
- That means the last hope for Americans to receive some form of stimulus relief before the end of the year rests with a $908 billion bipartisan proposal, which has not yet been finalized.
- The lack of a deal comes as eviction moratoriums are set to expire on Jan. 1, potentially resulting in millions of Americans losing their homes amid the pandemic and during winter.
One Time Payment VS. Additional Unemployment Benefits
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin proposed a $916 billion COVID-19 relief package on Tuesday that would swap $300 weekly unemployment benefits for a one-time $600 payout to Americans.
The deal would also give Americans $600 per child, but by largely not incorporating weekly unemployment benefits, it chops unemployment spending to $40 billion as opposed to the $180 billion that has been proposed in a bipartisan relief bill totaling $908 billion.
Top Democrats quickly denounced the White House-backed package. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (Ca.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) described it as “unacceptable” in a joint statement.
“The president’s proposal must not be allowed to obstruct the bipartisan congressional talks that are underway,” they said.
Top Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Ca.) have reportedly been much more receptive to Mnuchin’s proposal.
“It’s a very good offer,” McCarthy told reporters. “It focuses on the things that need to be there.”
While the final details of the bipartisan $908 billion plan have still yet to be published, it does include a provision that guarantees an additional $300 a week in expanded unemployment benefits. It also currently includes provisions for $288 billion in loans to small businesses through the Paycheck Protection Program and other similar programs, $25 billion in housing assistance, $160 billion for state and local governments, and short-term federal protections for businesses from coronavirus-related lawsuits.
What’s not included? The one-time, direct payments.
In March, the government sent Americans $1,200 through the CARES Act.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have criticized the $908 billion bipartisan bill for not including the direct payments. In fact, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said he would vote against any relief bill that doesn’t include a direct payment.
Meanwhile, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said Tuesday that he doesn’t understand why other lawmakers are “pretty dug in on the idea of not including checks.”
“I see them saying things like, ‘This is an emergency relief bill,’” he added. “I don’t know what’s more of an emergency than working people and families who are having to get into food lines… I don’t understand that logic at all.”
Where Does McConnell Stand?
While Pelosi and Schumer have both agreed to that bipartisan $908 billion package as a basis for negotiations, McConnell has refused to embrace it.
In fact, Tuesday was the first time that McConnell has offered any real concessions in months. That happened when McConnell offered to drop two controversial provisions that have left Democrats and Republicans at odds and stalled a final package.
The first involves passing liability protections for businesses that reopen during the pandemic. Republicans have argued that such a provision is necessary to protect small businesses from lawsuits; however, Democrats have rejected that idea, arguing that protections would potentially allow employers to endanger their employees.
The second involves Democrats’ demand that the federal government allocate funding for state and local governments. Some Republicans have labeled this provision a “blue-state bailout,” arguing that the federal government shouldn’t swoop in to save states with bad budgeting.
McCarthy said Tuesday that a final bill should include either both of these provisions or neither. Mnuchin’s proposal, as well as the $908 billion bipartisan plan, includes both provisions.
“We know the new administration is going to be asking for another package,” McConnell said Tuesday before Mnuchin’s proposal went public. “What I recommend is we set aside liability, and set aside state and local, and pass those things that we agree on, knowing full well we’ll be back at this after the first of the year.”
Democrats have largely written off that concession. In fact, Schumer argued the state and local government funding proposal has had much more bipartisan support than the business liability provision.
With Democrats also refusing to budge by giving up the provision to provide additional unemployment benefits, it seems like this White House proposal is likely dead on arrival.
That means the last hope for government relief before the end of the rests on the bipartisan $908 billion stimulus bill, but the problem is that it still hasn’t been finalized.
It was originally thought that the bill might be published Monday. When that didn’t come, many believed it would come Tuesday, but as of now, it’s still being negotiated.
The delay comes as the House voted Wednesday to stave off a scheduled government shutdown from this Friday to next week. Amid COVID-19 relief, Congress is also trying to negotiate a massive funding bill for the new fiscal year.
Eviction Moratoriums Up On Jan. 1
Time is running out, and it is unclear how McConnell will respond to the bipartisan bill once it’s finalized.
Tens of millions of people are still out of work. Eviction moratoriums are scheduled to expire at the end of this month. According to Moody’s Analytics, on average, about 12 million Americans are nearly $6,000 behind on payments. Some estimates even report that as many as 20 million tenets are at risk of eviction.
While President-elect Joe Biden has promised to sign executive orders extending eviction moratoriums and even advocated for rent forgiveness on the campaign trail, he doesn’t take office until Jan. 20.
Some states like California have moratoriums past Jan. 1 and have now introduced proposals to extend their moratoriums even further. Along with some other states, it has also instituted grace periods for tenets to pay back rent.
Even if that 20 million number ends up being much more conservative in reality, it could still mean millions of people facing eviction filings at the beginning of next month.
“The economic damage created by this pandemic will be many times more severe if we lose faith that the government has our back,” Moody Chief Economist, Mark Zandi, told The Washington Post. “The reality on the ground is going to be very dark, with people losing homes in the dead of winter during a pandemic.”
According to an August analysis by the centrist think tank Urban Institute, another round of stimulus checks could keep up to 6.3 million people out of poverty.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (Business Insider) (CNN)
Texas State Senate Sets Date for AG Ken Paxton’s Impeachment Trial
The House impeached Paxton on 20 articles, including bribery, abuse of public trust, and dereliction of duty.
The Texas State Senate on Monday adopted a resolution outlining how the impeachment trial of Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) will play out in the upper chamber.
The proceedings, which will be over seen by the Lieutenant Governor, will start no later than Aug. 28. The move comes after the House voted to impeach Paxton on Saturday 121 to 23, with a majority of Republicans voting in favor. The historic vote marks just the third time a public official has been impeached in Texas’ nearly 200-year history. The most recent impeachment was nearly five decades ago.
The decision follows a tumultuous week for Texas Republicans and further highlights the growing rifts within the party.
The divisions first came to a head last Tuesday when Paxton called for Speaker of the House Dade Phelan (R) to step down after he presided over the floor while seemingly intoxicated. Mere hours later, the Republican-led General Investigating Committee announced that it had been investigating Paxton for months.
On Thursday, the committee unanimously recommended that Paxton be impeached and removed from office, prompting a full floor vote over the weekend.
Articles of Impeachment
In total, 20 articles of impeachment were brought against Paxton, including bribery, abuse of public trust, dereliction of duty, and more.
While there is a wide range of allegations, many first surfaced in Oct. 2020, when seven of Paxton’s top aides published a letter they had sent to the Attorney General’s director of human resources.
The letter accused Paxton of committing several crimes and asked the FBI to launch an investigation, which it did.
The staffers claimed that Paxton had abused his office to benefit Nate Paul, an Austin real estate developer and friend of Paxton’s who donated $25,000 to his 2018 campaign. Many of the impeachment articles concern Paxton’s alleged efforts to try and protect Paul from an FBI investigation he was facing in 2020.
Specifically, Paxton is accused of attempting to interfere in foreclosure lawsuits and issuing legal opinions that benefitted Paul, improperly obtaining undisclosed information to give him, and violating agency policies by appointing an outside attorney to investigate baseless claims and issue subpoenas to help the developer and his businesses.
In exchange, Paul allegedly helped Paxton by hiring a woman the Attorney General was having an affair with and paying for expensive renovations to Paxton’s home. According to the articles, that swap amounted to bribery.
Beyond Paxton’s relationship with Paul, many impeachment articles also concern how the top lawyer handled the 2020 letter.
In particular, Paxton is accused of violating Texas’ whistleblower law by firing four of the staffers who reported him in retaliation, misusing public funds to launch a sham investigation into the whistleblowers, and making false official statements in his response to the allegations.
The Attorney General also allegedly tried to conceal his wrongdoing by entering into a $3.3 million settlement with the fired staffers. The settlement is especially notable as House leaders have explicitly said they launched their probe into Paxton because he had asked the state legislature to approve taxpayer money to pay for that settlement.
Additionally, the impeachment articles outline several charges relating to a securities fraud case that Paxton was indicted for in 2015 but has not been charged in. The charges there include lying to state investigators and obstructing justice.
Paxton, for his part, has denied the allegations. On Saturday, the Attorney General issued a statement seeking to politicize the matter, claiming his impeachment was “illegal” and a “politically motivated scam.”
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The Associated Press) (The New York Times)
Trump Lawyer Notes Indicate Former President May Have Obstructed Justice in Mar-a-Lago Documents Probe
The notes add to a series of recent reports that seem to paint a picture of possible obstruction.
Corcoran’s Notes on Mar-a-Lago
Prosecutors have 50 pages of notes from Donald Trump’s lawyer Evan Corcoran that show the former president was explicitly told he could not keep any more classified documents after he was subpoenaed for their return, according to a new report by The Guardian.
The notes, which were disclosed by three people familiar with the matter, present new evidence that indicates Trump obstructed justice in the investigation into classified documents he improperly kept at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
In June, Corcoran found around 40 classified documents in a storage room at Mar-a-Lago while complying with the initial subpoena. The attorney told the Justice Department that no additional documents were on the property.
In August, however, the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago and discovered about 100 more.
The Guardian’s report is significant because it adds a piece to the puzzle prosecutors are trying to put together: whether Trump obstructed justice when he failed to comply with the subpoena by refusing to return all the documents he had or even trying to hide them intentionally.
As the outlet noted, prosecutors have been “fixated” on Trump’s valet, Walt Nauta, since he told them that the former president directed him to move boxes out of the storage room before and after the subpoena. His actions were also captured on surveillance footage.
The sources familiar with Corcoran’s notes said the pages revealed that both Trump and the Nauta “had unusually detailed knowledge of the botched subpoena response, including where Corcoran intended to search and not search for classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, as well as when Corcoran was actually doing his search.”
At one point, Corcoran allegedly noted how he had told the Nauta about the subpoena prior to his search for the documents because the lawyer needed him to unlock the storage room, showing how closely involved the valet was from the get-go.
Corcoran further stated that Nauta had even offered to help go through the boxes, but the attorney declined. Beyond that, the report also asserted that the notes “suggested to prosecutors that there were times when the storage room might have been left unattended while the search for classified documents was ongoing.”
Adding to the Evidence
If real, Corcoran’s notes are very damning, especially considering other recent reports concerning Trump’s possible efforts to obstruct the documents probe.
A few weeks ago, The New York Times reported that Corcoran had testified before a grand jury that multiple Trump employees told him the Mar-a-Lago storage room was the only place the documents were kept.
“Although Mr. Corcoran testified that Mr. Trump did not personally convey that false information, his testimony hardly absolved the former president,” the outlet reported, referencing people with knowledge of the matter.
“Mr. Corcoran also recounted to the grand jury how Mr. Trump did not tell his lawyers of any other locations where the documents were stored, which may have effectively misled the legal team.”
Additionally, the only reason that Corcoran handed over these notes was that he was under court order to do so. Corcoran had refused to turn the materials over, citing attorney-client privilege.
A federal judge rejected that claim on the grounds that there was reason to believe a lawyer’s advice or services were used to further a crime — meaning prosecutors believed they had enough evidence to prove Trump may have acted criminally.
See what others are saying: (The Guardian) (The New York Times) (Vanity Fair)
Homeless Men Promised Money to Pose as Veterans in Anti-Immigrant Scheme, Sources Allege
New York State Attorney General Letitia James said she is reviewing whether to launch a formal investigation into the ruse.
A story that was spread by right-wing media about homeless veterans getting evicted from their hotel rooms to make way for asylum seekers has turned out to be false, according to numerous sources.
Early this month, New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced a plan to bus some migrants to hotels in neighboring counties, where they would stay for several months.
Orange County and Rockland County filed lawsuits to block the move, and the state supreme court granted both temporary restraining orders, but many migrants had already arrived. To make room for the incoming migrants, one hotel in Orange County forced at least 15 homeless veterans to leave, media reported at the time.
But several homeless men told local outlets they had allegedly been offered payment if they posed as military veterans staying at the hotel.
Sharon Toney-Finch, head of Yerik Israel Toney Foundation (YIT), a nonprofit that houses the homeless, allegedly masterminded the scheme.
Her associates allegedly rounded up 15 homeless men at a shelter and promised them as much as $200 each if they spoke with a local politician about homelessness. But they told reporters that when they met Toney-Finch at a diner, she presented her real plan. They would speak to a local chamber of commerce instead, the men recalled, and if they weren’t comfortable with telling the lie, Toney-Finch instructed them to say they had PTSD and couldn’t speak.
After fulfilling their end of the bargain, however, they said she never paid them the cash they were promised.
Several of them described the ordeal to media outlets, and reporters soon poked more holes in the story.
The Times Union published a copy of a credit card receipt that purportedly showed a payment of more than $37,000 for rooms at the Crossroads Hotel for the unhoused veterans alongside a copy of what appears to be Toney-Finch’s credit card.
But a graphics expert who examined the documents said the receipt appeared to have been “altered with smudges behind the darker type and [had] different fonts,” according to Mid Hudson News.
A hotel manager also told the outlet he could not find any record of the transaction, and there were no veterans at the hotel and nobody was kicked out.
Local Republican state assembly member Brian Maher, who previously reacted to the fake story with outrage, told The Times Union he felt “devastated and disheartened” when he learned that he was duped.
“She alluded to the fact that, ‘Maybe it’s not exactly how I said it was,’” Maher recalled, describing a conversation with Toney-Finch. “This is something I believe hurt a lot of people.”
New York State Attorney General Leticia James is reportedly reviewing the incident to determine if a formal investigation is warranted.