Sen Tom Cotton Calls Democrats’ Fight To Hold Coronavirus Bill Hostage Over Climate Change, Other Liberal Dreams A ‘Disgrace’

From The Daily Caller


Sen Tom Cotton Calls Democrats’ Fight To Hold Coronavirus Bill Hostage Over Climate Change, Other Liberal Dreams A ‘Disgrace’

Daily Caller News Foundation logo

Chris White Tech Reporter

March 23, 2020 3:08 PM ET

Republican Sen. Tom Cotton said Monday that his Democratic colleagues are holding up the Senate’s coronavirus bill so they can push green energy policies, among a slew of other “radical” measures.

The Arkansas senator railed against his colleagues, telling his Twitter followers that they were putting Americans’ lives at risk over global warming. His criticism came after Senate Democrats failed to pass a procedural cloture vote on a phase-three coronavirus stimulus bill.

“This report is correct. Pelosi & Schumer are willing to risk your life, your job, your retirement savings for a radical, left-wing wish list that has nothing to do with this virus. Disgraceful,” Cotton told his Twitter followers Monday after senators failed to hash out an agreement.

Democrats on the House select committee were among the first to ask leadership to consider climate change before jumping into the legislation. (RELATED: Senate Fails To Pass Cloture Vote On Coronavirus Stimulus Bill)

“In responding to this crisis, we must be careful not to exacerbate the ongoing climate crisis,” Democratic Reps. Kathy Castor of Florida, Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, and Jared Huffman of California wrote in a March 20 letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

They want any such bill helping the aviation industry to include “adoption of low-carbon fuels, support for greenhouse gas efficiency standards, and/or electrification of ground support equipment at airports.”

“We must strongly oppose misguided or surreptitious attempts to boost polluters at the expense of the public health. Instead, we should look for solutions that can also move us toward a clean energy economy and to a healthier, stronger and more just America,” they wrote. “We have a few ideas.”

Phase-three of the Senate bill would give $1,200 checks to every American, with married couples receiving $2,400. That check will go to Americans making less than $75,000 per year. Income earners who make above $99,000 would not receive any money.

Some activists argued for using the country’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve as leverage.

“The Republican COVID Stimulus 3 bill does include funds to purchase oil for the SPR. That’s the leverage to get ITC with direct pay/cash grant included,”Jigar Shah, co-founder and president of Generate Capital, said in a tweet Monday.

“I think there is an outside chance we could get the ITC with direct pay on COVID Stimulus 3. As long as the SPR money is in play, we have a chance,” he added, referring to the bill, which contains the $3 billion in the Department of Energy requested Friday to restock the SPR with low-priced oil.

The DOE’s move came after crude prices fell into the $30s as the Saudis push for a cut in output to prop up prices before Russia insisted flooding the market with hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil. Moscow is worried the United States will use shale oil to take advantage if Saudi Arabia ease off production. Oil prices have hovered around $30 per barrel ever since.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Terry Bixler
March 23, 2020 2:10 pm

So maybe the democrats know that the virus panic will soon not be such a “crisis” and wish to make sure they have in place the next “crisis” to solve.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Terry Bixler
March 23, 2020 2:48 pm

It’s not a next crisis, it’s a continuation of their ongoing non-crisis.

Bryan A
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 23, 2020 9:36 pm

Just emailed the Honourable Ms Pelosi

James Beaver
Reply to  Bryan A
March 24, 2020 5:46 am

Pelosi’s staff will just toss that in the rubbish along with the many empty bottles that used to hold expensive single malt Scotch whiskey.

Bryan A
Reply to  James Beaver
March 24, 2020 6:58 am

that would be the thirty year old stuff…
The Queen has been in office longer than that…
I guess not everything improves with age

Reply to  James Beaver
March 24, 2020 9:49 am

James, if it’s Scotch, it’s ‘whisky’.

Bryan A
Reply to  James Beaver
March 25, 2020 12:25 pm

James Beaver

March 24, 2020 at 5:46 am

Pelosi’s staff will just toss that in the rubbish along with the many empty bottles that used to hold expensive single malt Scotch whiskey.

While that was likely true, AND I never did hear back from her, just 2 days after hitting {send} they reached an agreement

Cynical Seamus
Reply to  Terry Bixler
March 23, 2020 3:19 pm

Hopefully you are right, but Boris Johnson has just put the UK into a three week lockdown. Coming soon to a state near you?

Bryan A
Reply to  Cynical Seamus
March 23, 2020 9:50 pm

They will definitely create a crisis by taking away peoples paychecks for a month or more especially for the working class that lives paycheck to paycheck or the small business that depends on their monthly gross to maintain their business leases

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Cynical Seamus
March 28, 2020 10:30 am

Washington State was supposedly put into a lockdown, but it’s not enforced in any way. There’s more traffic on the roads now in my area of northwest Washington than there was two days before the lockdown.

I’m one of the people on the road, I’m doing food delivery.

Terry Bixler
Reply to  Terry Bixler
March 23, 2020 3:58 pm

OOps I missed to properly fund the next “crisis”

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Terry Bixler
March 23, 2020 4:30 pm

A can’t have a pandemic without a dem in a panic…

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
March 23, 2020 5:25 pm

I bet you are good at crossword puzzles. 😉

What we really need is a world class leader. Where is Greta when we need her?

Reply to  Terry Bixler
March 23, 2020 5:56 pm

There is no need to shut down the economy. Quarantine the high risk group and let the low risk group keep working normally.

Very quickly the low risk group will become immune and the virus will die out. The high risk group can then come out of quarantine.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  ferdberple
March 23, 2020 7:09 pm

That was my first thought when they decided to shut down the economy in Oz.

Apparently the minister in charge of managing the benefits system didn’t anticipate a million people losing their jobs and applying for benefits. I did. How does a minister paid hundreds of thousands not understand what is as plain as day to me?

I despair!

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
March 23, 2020 11:04 pm

Australia has 8 deaths.

Our borders are closed.

Assuming we keep our borders closed for the near future then no outside sources are going to enter the country. We have also been in ‘social isolation’ for nearly 2 weeks. How long does it take for all existing cases to expose themselves to the extent where we can say that any new cases are effectively statistical noise?

Remember people that pragmatically we are attempting to prevent the collapse of society. Our scenarios for this happening are the following:
– virus kills SIGNIFCANT percentage of population
– economy collapses

Credit for trying to prevent both but remember the end game – Prevent Collapse of Society. No real point in keep 99.99% of us alive if we are all forced to go full Mad Max by Friday next.

Steven Lohr
Reply to  ferdberple
March 23, 2020 8:56 pm

Precisely. Protect those who need it, boost your ability to fight the disease and get on with it. Now we’ve shot our foot.

Ian Hawthorn
Reply to  ferdberple
March 24, 2020 12:02 am

They tried that in the UK for a while. Then they did the calculation of how many in the “low risk” group might need simultaneous hospitalisation and freaked out. Low risk does not mean low risk and a small percentage of most of your population is an awful lot of people. A lot of young people would have died needlessly for lack of necessary care. Now they are in lockdown like everyone else.

Ian Hawthorn
Reply to  Ian Hawthorn
March 24, 2020 12:43 am

Oops – low risk does not mean NO risk. Duh!

Reply to  Ian Hawthorn
March 24, 2020 6:09 am

I do not think they, the politicos in UK, learned much or anything from Brexit, and the crisis
that they created, not yet… nooo.

The British voted for the man not the Party… better these politicos be aware of such.


Reply to  whiten
March 24, 2020 12:12 pm

Just a further expanding of the point in my above comment.
As I look at and perceive history and therefor the historical fact there from my point of view.
Very open to criticism and correction if found wrong.

History of Britain and the British 20th century.

At some point under the leadership of a man, an iron heart one, British decided to go all in,
and fight fascist Germany then, to the end, for as long as they could… against any odds.

They did that in name of freedom, not safety.
They entered a mortal combat for the preserving of freedom, not safety.
They could have being far safer if they took another path, and risk they freedom,
but they did not take that safer path.
Odds did not matter then…
And they won against any expectation… regardless of the odds.

Yes true, wealth and money can buy safety, exchanging freedom for safety is true too.
But there is no way you buy freedom… or buyback the freedom.

Maybe this happens to be a misunderstanding in my part of history and historical facts there….

But still I see this unfolding and trying a figure out what happened to the British spirit…!!!
Have they gone so down and at last succumbed to following the path of appeasement?!


March 23, 2020 2:10 pm

Am I going to get upset that the pork goes more to friends of Democrats than to friends of Republicans? Nope.

Reply to  Adam
March 23, 2020 2:47 pm

That ugly green pork will be more deadly to our economy than Covid-19, which in the end will only be a short term blip. Why makes you think destroying our economy a good thing? Aren’t you paying attention to what’s happening now?

Curious George
Reply to  Adam
March 23, 2020 3:04 pm

Isn’t removing Trump more important than anything else?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Curious George
March 23, 2020 8:31 pm

It is to the Democrats.

Reply to  Adam
March 24, 2020 7:57 am

If it were only pork, I’d agree with you. They are trying to pass laws that will hamstring the economy for decades to come.

March 23, 2020 2:12 pm

The Democrats want something in return for an economic aid package that will potentially prevent the economic collapse they so dearly want in order to have a chance at stealing the election from Trump in November.

There’s no doubt that the Democrats feel that it’s in their best interest to let the economy collapse.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
March 23, 2020 2:40 pm

60% of all solar panels are made in China. How stupid could these people be to literally hand out hard American currency to China? Who knows how much of wind turbines are made in China.

Reply to  Luke
March 23, 2020 2:42 pm

If Republicans fold on this, it’s all over with either way. It’s best that this bill not pass if it’s this trash. Reopening the country soon is what really needs to happen anyway.

Reply to  Luke
March 23, 2020 3:29 pm

On the other hand, if the bill fails, the disease seems to be concentrated in far left strongholds like NYC, LA and SF. Their obstruction could come back to bite them in the ass.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
March 23, 2020 5:28 pm

A bit of Darwinian selection would be perfect karma.

March 23, 2020 2:14 pm

Disgusting. Demrats want a new Depression so Joey Biden can cry out that he will save us.

Steve Case
Reply to  T. C. Clark
March 23, 2020 2:30 pm

T. C. Clark March 23, 2020 at 2:14 pm
Demrats want a new Depression so Joey Biden can cry out that he will save us.


Reply to  T. C. Clark
March 23, 2020 4:51 pm

A Depression and A [Green] New Deal

March 23, 2020 2:24 pm

… Slimocrats doing what they seemingly do best.

March 23, 2020 2:35 pm

Democrats, don’t forget the high speed train to Hawaii!

March 23, 2020 2:40 pm

Wait for the backlash on this in November from an electorate that has already been beaten about the head and shoulders for years now with the blunt instrument of climate change. This may be straw that breaks the camel’s back and stimulates opening up more areas in the U.S. to oil and gas drilling on public lands. Pass the popcorn and enjoy the Leftist meltdown.

Reply to  stinkerp
March 23, 2020 3:55 pm

These people are at a higher pay grade than you and I. On the other hand, real smart people often do real dumb things.

Will folks stay teed off until November? Can the Republicans shift all the blame for whatever happens onto the Democrats? Pass the popcorn.

Janice Moore
March 23, 2020 2:54 pm

Republican Response:

Provide data proving with 90% confidence your assertion that there is a “climate crisis,” or your demand is denied.

You have until 7PM, EDT, today to serve your Answer.

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 23, 2020 5:15 pm

They will tell you they have proved it. Of course they’re wrong, but they fervently believe it’s been proved- data be damned.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Eustace Cranch
March 23, 2020 7:25 pm

Hi, Eustace.

Oh, yes, of course. When one declares, “The debate is over,” it is over.


Science truth, even bogged down by lukewarmism as it is on this site, will triumph over the CO2 sc@mmers, for

TRUMP is going to win in 2020!

Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaa!


Bryan A
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 23, 2020 10:13 pm

If Pelosi et al continue to hold up a stimulus package if it isn’t tied to GND riders, then the Democrats might lose far more than the their bid to the Presidency
They could lose House Seats and Congress Seats as well

March 23, 2020 2:54 pm

“never let a crises go to waste” not sure if its original to him but believe Rahm Emmanuel said this in 2008. The US is facing an unprecedented moment in an era that has already witnessed 9/11 and the 2008 crash. While many like me will find the inclusion of Green New Deal policies in any bail out bills offensive we shouldn’t ignore what else is going on. The President and Congressional Republicans will pile on massive amounts of debt to secure their positions in the up coming elections. You can stuff a lot of very bad policy pork into omnibus spending bills totaling trillions of dollars.

Having a History degree (a subject of some derision lately) may mean that you have noticed how past societies often made the choices that brought them down when confronted with dire situations. All options appeared bad but hey the house was on fire so we used the Van Gogh to beat it out. Politically we will use the Green New Deal and any thing that reeks of it a cudgel to paint our opponents as ideological fiends. Wotked in the UK.

Reply to  troe
March 23, 2020 4:41 pm

I don’t have a History degree but it’s one of my hobbies.

I was a global warming believer until Dr. Mann tried the erase the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age with his fraudulent hockey stick.

Reply to  troe
March 23, 2020 6:41 pm

The quote is from the white trash from the weather underground, Saul Alinsky. Rules for Radicals

Reply to  Philo
March 24, 2020 6:04 pm

Rahm is trying to use this current crisis to make hisself look better.

He now seys that we need to use this crisis, to learn from it, so we can protect ourselves in the future & next time.

(and he assumes that there will be defenders dumb enough to grab onto this, and say that is what he originally meant … the skeezy dirtbag still thinks his reputation can be redeemed.)

March 23, 2020 2:55 pm

“In responding to this crisis, we must be careful not to exacerbate the ongoing climate crisis,” Democratic Reps. Kathy Castor of Florida, Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, and Jared Huffman of California wrote in a March 20 letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.”
Has anyone asked one of these folks to define this “ongoing climate crisis”?

Reply to  DMA
March 24, 2020 8:26 am

In the current political climate, they aren’t able to take total control. And that’s a crisis.

Joel Snider
March 23, 2020 3:01 pm

And they slither a little lower…

March 23, 2020 3:12 pm

I’ve never been so discouraged with modern US politics as today, particularly with the democratic controlled House. Can’t believe I was so naive as to think a life threatening and economically crippling event like what we’re witnessing would bring about the better angels in our government representatives.

I’m not a reactionary; and I’m wary of pure political ideologies on both sides, but this is pure evil.

Reply to  ThunderChicken
March 23, 2020 3:47 pm

It’s the consequnces of TDS which as a brain disease is potentially more deadly to the economy than covid-19.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  ThunderChicken
March 23, 2020 4:35 pm

Very true.

In Oz, the opposition Labor party have responded like adults to the government stimulus bill. They don’t like all of it, they want some changes, but they have promised not to block it because they do understand that it is essential. They just want to be listened to. Like adults.

The US Democrat party appears to be behaving like children who will hold their breath until they get what that want. Expose them for the children they are!

March 23, 2020 3:26 pm

I recall a UK Prime Minister way back saying, “”Never let a crises go to waste””

A political parties odology is a long time forming, so we should not be suprised that the opposition in the USA, the Democrat Party is still pushing its GREEN hobby horse.


March 23, 2020 3:47 pm

Apparently the economic, transportation & services collapse the developed world is currently undergoing is insufficiently obvious indicative of how things would be under “Green Deal” policies. I guess the next pandemic’s medical equipment & hospital energy can be provided by wishful thinking.

March 23, 2020 4:03 pm

Can some American please explain to me why you don’t have line item veto in your country? I remember Ross Perot wanting that in the early 90’s. You still don’t have it? Really?

Reply to  TRM
March 23, 2020 4:35 pm

The people that a line-item veto would hurt the most also control the power to enable it. Would do you think will happen?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  TRM
March 23, 2020 8:42 pm

I think the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Line Item Veto was unConstitutional.

I don’t happen to agree with that decision. Giving the president the Line Item Veto does not take power away from the Congress, as the decision implies. Congress can still override any Line Item Veto item the president vetoes by overriding the president, if the Congress has the votes.

The Line Item Veto is about the only way to really get a handle on wasteful government spending because the waste is always buried deep down in the bills they pass and noone knows what’s going on. A Line Item Veto power shines the light of day on the pork and makes Congress justify this spending before it is authorized.

I think the Line Item Veto for the President of the United States should be revisted. It is needed. Many State governors currenly have Line Item Veto authority.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 24, 2020 8:29 am

Be careful about how it’s worded, one state had one lose enough that the courts ruled that the governor could use it to strike single words from bills. One governor had fun deleting some “not”s from a bill.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
March 24, 2020 10:33 am

I agree changing the wording would be very problematic. They should stick to vetoing a particular provision of a bill in full.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  TRM
March 23, 2020 8:46 pm

If President Trump had the Line Item Veto today, then the Democrats could pack all the pork they wanted into this Wuhan virus relief bill and the president could veto every item he didn’t like and allow the rest of the bill to pass into law.

The Line Item Veto would eliminate the Democrat’s ability to blackmail the nation with their legislative tricks.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 24, 2020 9:48 am

Sure, but it could potentially cause all sorts of other havok. Bills that only work if both PartA and PartB are in effect, you get PartA veto’d, but PartB becomes law even though it was not the intent.

Does congress get the chance to back out of the bill at that point once they’ve already passed it? I understand why the Surpreme Court didn’t really want to go down that road. It gets into really dirty gamesmanship.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  kcrucible
March 24, 2020 10:37 am

“Does congress get the chance to back out of the bill at that point once they’ve already passed it?”

Congress can pass any bill they have the votes to pass, as long as it is constitutional. That would include redoing any bill they might have screwed up in the past.

John Endicott
Reply to  kcrucible
March 25, 2020 8:39 am

Does congress get the chance to back out of the bill at that point once they’ve already passed it?

They can pass a new bill revoking the previous bill or they could probably even override each line-item veto they disagree with in the same way they can override any other type of veto. Though I image most line-items would be hard to get a supermajority needed for override as they’d mainly be pork items that are only backed by a small handful of congress critters or controversial items (like planned parenthood funding, for example) that are split along ideological lines.

Stephen Skinner
March 23, 2020 4:11 pm

This should be in a new ‘Team America’ film. You cannot make this stuff up.

Mike Dubrasich
March 23, 2020 4:18 pm

Hydroxychloroquine is a proven cure now in use in every hospital in the US and other countries as well. It’s not an “anecdote”; it’s an antidote.

Conversely, the so-called Climate Crisis is entirely anecdotal, with a rising sea of erroneous anecdotes that defy rationality. Shall we exterminate all the cattle to prevent forest fires? Shall we ban fossil fuels to prevent hurricanes? That’s what the warmistas say, and now they that they have their hands on the tiller the shoals of world economic destruction loom straight ahead.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
March 23, 2020 5:50 pm

“Hydroxychloroquine is a proven cure now in use in every hospital in the US and other countries as well. It’s not an “anecdote”; it’s an antidote.”

Do you have any links to back that up?

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 23, 2020 7:12 pm

That’s why search engines were invented. So you could search for things on the vast web.

He’s using the word “antidote” loosely, because he’s make wordplay with anecdote. But it is effective in reducing the severity of the virus.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
March 28, 2020 10:16 am

I expect the person making the claim to back it up. I don’t have time to scour through countless links. I’d like to know what convinced them.

He said “proven cure”, which is highly unlikely.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 23, 2020 7:27 pm

It’s not a cure, there were some links posted on this site recently, it appears to prevent the worst of the respiratorial issues the virus causes
Doesn’t prevent infection, isn’t a vaccine, can’t fix damage done but if it’s cheap and functions as an antiviral and seemed to work for the Koreans why not try it?

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
March 23, 2020 9:26 pm

I hesitate to respond because I may do more harm than good. But here goes. HCQ is in short supply right now in part because doctors are self-prescribing as a prophylactic. They think HCQ can prevent infection as wells as cure it. These are the front line folks. They are intubating CoVID patients in extreme distress every day. Some MDs, RNs, and other ICU workers have inadequate masks or shields. They are understandably concerned. HCQ is the med they have turned to.

The pros are using HCQ for their patients as well. Small scale clinical trials show remarkable success. Larger trials in China and S. Korea have also demonstrated success. Trials are under way in at least 5 US major hospitals/med schools. Front line hospitals in NY and Wash are using HCQ on both extreme and early symptom cases right now. Retrospective studies (not randomized tests with placebo groups) are showing positive results.

Naysayers are not front line folks. Free speech is fine, though. Downplaying HCQ may actually forestall widespread prophylactic use and leave more for those who need it most. RA and lupus sufferers already using HCQ are having a hard time getting refills from their pharmacies. In fact, that may be why some CDC people have called HCQ efficacy “anecdotal” even while CDC treatment guidelines call for HCQ.

Hopefully Trump’s program to ramp up HCQ production will move quickly. The country needs it now.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
March 23, 2020 10:32 pm

Dentists, orthodontists, ophthalmologists, and others who can are prescribing HCQ for themselves and their families, which is also contributing to the shortage. That’s prophylaxis. It’s difficult to fault those medical professionals for it, but pharmacists are very concerned nonetheless.

So deny away, or at least be sceptical. You’re helping, unintentionally or not.

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
March 24, 2020 8:08 am

Don’t focus only on hydroyxchloroquine. In various centers around the world, chloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc supplements are also being used in various combinations and apparently with some success. And there are other agents that have shown some efficacy for coronaviruses in the past (eg, google “nitazoxanide”) that will undergo trials.

There are possible toxicities, so home made brews and combos are a bad idea. Within another week or two, more will be clear, as various sites publicise their informal results. Formal research will take longer.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
March 25, 2020 6:00 am

“RA and lupus sufferers already using HCQ are having a hard time getting refills from their pharmacies.”

I didn’t know that.

It was said the other day that at least two manufacturers are ramping up production of the drugs, and I think Israel just donated 30 million doses to the United States.

We definitely need enough of this drug to supply the entire U.S. population, just in case they prove to be the solution to the Wuhan virus mess in which we find ourselves

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
March 25, 2020 6:07 am

“Don’t focus only on hydroyxchloroquine”

Yes, there is a lot going on in the medical field right now with regard to the Wuhan virus:.

“In addition, another study, currently in press, researchers said they have investigated 26 of COVID-19’s 29 genes and identified 332 “high confidence” human protein-protein interactions in the virus, as well as 66 “drug-gable” human proteins or host factors targeted by 69 existing FDA-approved drugs, drugs in clinical trials or pre-clinical compounds.

The potential drugs include antibiotics, as well as chloroquine.”

end except

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
March 28, 2020 10:17 am

“I hesitate to respond because I may do more harm than good. ”

Still no links.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 23, 2020 8:26 pm

Here is link saying Boston medical clinic is using it on confirmed and suspected cases

It is not a proven cure, but I think many doctors are going to it really because there isn’t any other alternative. I think it is good decision to do it for higher risk cases. Hopefully we get more data.

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
March 23, 2020 6:30 pm

The were some articles regarding apparent good results in several cases, but where are the results from a bigger more comprehensive trial?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Scissor
March 23, 2020 8:54 pm

Well, I think Governor Cuomo of New York is going to receive several hundred thousand doses of hydroxychloroquine Tuesday morning and he is going to start giving the medicine to New Yorkers. I’m not sure how many New Yorkers he is going to give it to, but we ought to be seeing results from these treatments within the next week or two.

March 23, 2020 4:22 pm

Phase-three of the Senate bill would give $1,200 checks to every American, with married couples receiving $2,400. That check will go to Americans making less than $75,000 per year. Income earners who make above $99,000 would not receive any money.

It appears to be a choice between a tiny expanded tax return for Main Street,

or a massive bail out for Big Green, Worthless Wind, and the Global Carbon Tax.

What to do.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  PaulinaUS
March 24, 2020 9:44 am

Notice that there is no mention of current employment status? That means a couple making $74,999 a year could receive $2400 even if they are still working, whereas a couple making $100,000 a year would receive nothing even if both are out of work (like a couple that works for one of the airlines). How does that make any sense? Your AGI from last year has f-all to do with your need NOW.

John Endicott
Reply to  PaulinaUS
March 24, 2020 11:08 am

1) people who are out of work due to the coronavirus get to collect/are already collecting unemployment. regardless of whether or not they also get the stimulus check.
2) the $75k threshold is for an individual, a couple who made $100k last year would still be eligible (the limit is $150,000 for a couple).

The purpose of the income limit is to weed out giving checks to the well-off. Is it an exact science? no, but it’s close enough for government work. If you are were making 6 figures a year, chances are you are not “in need” now (you have access to resources that the poorer members of society don’t have – savings, equity in your own home, etc. worse case you have a lot of stuff that your 6-figure salary enabled you to buy that you could sell off if needed), certainly not any where near the extent someone who was making minimum wage would be.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  John Endicott
March 24, 2020 12:32 pm

Self-employed people don’t get unemployment, and that’s just one example of a big chunk of people that will be eliminated by using a figure like $100K, which is not that much these days. A family of 4 in this country, especially if they are living on either coast, are by no means wealthy at $100K/year total family income. In fact, the are probably living paycheck to paycheck like most of the rest. Have you seen what house prices are on the coasts man? Frankly I don’t know how people get by on only $100K there. They have no savings and little to no equity in their homes (if they even own one).

John Endicott
Reply to  Paul Penrose
March 25, 2020 3:39 am

1) self-employed people file taxes, they’ll get the check. (and frankly if they’re making 100K+ AGI while being self-employed, they’re not poor and destitute, they’re quite well off, many self-employed people make no where near that much).
2) The limit for a family of four is higher than 100k. You keep confusing the individual number with couples and families.
3) the main purpose of the checks are to stimulate the economy, by getting money to those who are most likely to spend them – ie those who make less money. people making 100K+ are less likely to do so (see Tom’s post about his not needing the check).
4) You make a good case for not living in expensive coastal cities. The government did not force those people to choose to live there, they chose that all on their own.

Drill bit
March 23, 2020 4:28 pm

Can you believe they want to give billions of dollars by extending tax credits to the wind and solar companies with what this country is going through financially right now? I need to take an extra blood pressure pill and wash it down with some alcohol quickly.

Reply to  Drill bit
March 24, 2020 8:36 am

This bill is supposed to be to help companies that are being hurt by the shutdowns. How have wind and solar companies been hurt? Have people stopped using electricity due to C-19?

March 23, 2020 4:33 pm

What is really needed is, not a bailout, but a return to normalcy. H1N1 killed more people than COVID-19 before the government acted. There is no denying it is a bad virus. But the hype surrounding is nothing like I have ever seen. More people die every day from the regular flu, tuberculous, and rabies. And more people will probably die from those diseases individually daily even at COVID-19’s peak. We are not freaking out about those diseases.

As the saying goes that a lie can spread halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on. Social media lets fear and misinformation spread like wildfire. The media, in their absolute love of bad news, adds fuel to the fire. And on and on it goes. My local news has a segment “Facts not fear about coronavirus” and it is filled with half-truths and not facts. I also adroitly noticed this same media conveniently did not report of the democrats blocking the bailout bill.

What is also disturbing is that some people think we shouldn’t even try that anti-malaria drug. They say it might not work and it isn’t perfect, therefore nobody should use it. They say people might self-medicate, therefore nobody should use it. What? “Sorry you are dying. But we won’t let you try an experimental treatment so you will just have to die.”

I have a positive view. I know diseases come and go. I know this will pass as summer advances. I know that a vaccine will be ready before the next wave can hit hard because there will be a lot of money to the companies that make it. And I also know that strong emotions like hysteria cannot last but so long. I think positive. The media has people thinking it is a kiss of death. But I am literally more worried about the moon crashing into the earth than this virus, which is to say I am not worried at all. If I get it, I will do what I always do when I get sick: sleep and go to the doctor if I am really bad.

J Mac
March 23, 2020 4:41 pm

America Held Hostage – Day 2.
The chinese virus recovery Senate bill was aborted by Schumer, Pelosi, and the socialist democrats because it didn’t include special new privileges for Big Labor Unions, unwarranted new subsidies for unreliable Big Solar and Big Wind energy, and completely unrelated forced support for Planned Parenthood.

Yes – It’s the same old ‘Green New Deal’ porker, getting lip sticked, dressed up and ready to party in the latest socialist ‘crisis’ colors. As a result, desperately needed critical medical and economic support are denied while the socialist democrats attempt another strong armed robbery of the America people.

The criminal irresponsibility of the socialist democrats has become a large contributing factor to the increasing human and economic disaster now crippling our country and imperiling our families and neighbors. Remember their vicious uncaring partisan actions when the November elections arrive!

March 23, 2020 4:48 pm

Democrats are holding baby… granny hostage.

March 23, 2020 5:04 pm

This is”Bizaroland”!:
“…we must be careful not to exacerbate the ongoing climate crisis,” Democratic Reps. Kathy Castor of Florida, Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, and Jared Huffman of California wrote in a March 20 letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.”
What the (fill in your own word) has the “climate crisis” got to due with, never minding, “exacerbating”, the epidemic!
The Dems have gone crazy!

March 23, 2020 5:19 pm

The Democrats put ballot harvesting in their house bill. This means nationwide they want the ability to have a political operative show up at your house, convince you to vote a certain way, then fill out the ballot in your home and then they go drop it off.

Curious George
Reply to  Stevek
March 23, 2020 5:47 pm

Nancy Pelosi knows that ballot harvesting helped Democrats in the last elections. Therefore it might help them even in the coronavirus pandemic. Several million people might die if they legislate ballot harvesting instead of medical or economic measures, but surely we must care for Democrats foremost?

Reply to  Curious George
March 23, 2020 6:14 pm

If ballot harvesting goes nationwide the Democrats will control house, senate and Presidency for decades.

J Mac
March 23, 2020 6:52 pm

“We will all work together in our national hour of need!” said no socialist democrat ever.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  J Mac
March 23, 2020 8:58 pm

A National Hour of Need is just another opportunity for Democrats to try to find fault with Trump. That is their sole focus. Their tunnel vision is harming the United States.

Tom Abbott
March 23, 2020 8:28 pm

From the article: “Phase-three of the Senate bill would give $1,200 checks to every American, with married couples receiving $2,400. That check will go to Americans making less than $75,000 per year. Income earners who make above $99,000 would not receive any money.”

I sure hope they don’t mean *every* American. The only people who should be getting money are those who have suffered losses because of the Wuhan virus crisis.

They don’t need to send me any money because I haven’t lost any money and won’t lose any money. Unless they want to reimburse me for some stock market declines, but that’s not necessary either since you only lose money in the stock market when you sell, and I haven’t sold. I’m expecting an upturn soon. 🙂

Anyway, don’t pay every American. That’s not necessary.

I liked Mark Cuban’s idea about the Federal Government allowing businesses to overdraw their bank accounts to cover their current expenses and the federal government would cover all these extra costs. This would eliminate any big bureaucracies that would normally be needed to administer such a program and would make money immediately available.

Another good idea is giving money to small businesses and if they use that money to pay their current expenses and use it to keep their current employees employed, then the business is not required to repay that money to the government.

Big businesses will get loans which will require repayment in the future.

The Democrats look terrible doing what they are doing by trying to hold this relief bill hostage to their laundry list of leftwing desires.

Trump’s approval rating for handling the Wuhan virus crisis is 55 percent favorable according to a new ABC poll, and 60 percent in another poll. That’s despite the Democrats doing everything they can do to undermine Trump in a time of crisis, including this instance of blackmail.

The Democrats are going to pay at the polls. They are making a perfect case for why they should no longer wield power.

America held hostage: Day 1.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 24, 2020 4:09 am

I sure hope they don’t mean *every* American. The only people who should be getting money are those who have suffered losses because of the Wuhan virus crisis.

And how exactly do they efficiently and quickly determine that in the middle of an ongoing crisis where not all the people who will suffer losses have done so yet? In short, there is not way to accurately do so. So giving the checks out to everyone (under a certain income level) is the quickest, easiest, and most efficient way to get money to those who have been *and* those who will be hurt by this crisis when all is said and done. Yes, some who will get the checks won’t need it, but that leads to point two:

They don’t need to send me any money because I haven’t lost any money and won’t lose any money.

Great, then you can write them a check back for the amount they give you, or donate it to a worthy charity that is in need of the money for their work helping people during this crisis, or use it to buy groceries for your elderly family, friends, and neighbors, or any other selfless acts of kindness (and thus contribute to the stimulating of the economy that is the purpose of the checks). No one says you have to keep the money.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  John Endicott
March 24, 2020 9:54 am

What does my AGI from last year have to do with my need TODAY? For example, say I was an Airline pilot that made >$100K last year, but am laid off now. Should I be excluded from getting a check? I still have mortgage to pay, children to feed, etc. This idea that “wealthy” folks, like this hypothetical pilot, have stacks of cash laying around is beyond stupid. Not that sending checks to everyone is much smarter unless you are trying to empty the treasury in record time and crash the economy. I like Tom’s ideas much better. Sure they are not perfect plans, but they are much more targeted and should result in less waste/misappropriation.

John Endicott
Reply to  Paul Penrose
March 24, 2020 10:56 am

It’s not an exact science, but there really isn’t a better way to quickly determine who does or does not need the money and there is precedent for it. Checks have been sent this way before, so we know, despite whatever qualms you have about it, that 1) it’s doable and 2) that it does work at getting the money to as many who need it as possible in a relatively short timeframe. Is it perfect? no. no one said it was. But frankly there haven’t been any better ideas that also accomplish 1 & 2.

Tom’s (Mark Cubans’ actually) has never been tried before and doesn’t currently have any existing method of implementation. so we don’t know how doable it is (are you going to nationalize the banks in order to force them to do what you’re asking?) or how quickly it can be put in motion.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Endicott
March 24, 2020 4:12 pm

I don’t know a lot of details about Cuban’s plan but I think he was just wanting the government to guarantee these overdrawn business accounts so the banks would not lose money on the deal. I don’t think it would require forcing the banks to do anything. They would be making money on the deal with the U.S. government guaranteeing any loses they would incur by extending credit to the small businesses..

This way, if the law passed, any small business owner who had bills and employees to pay could just write a check on the business account to cover these costs. That’s about as simple as it can get from the standpoint of the small business person. He’s up and running by just writing a check.

The government would probably want to limit this to already established business bank accounts because any program like this is very susceptible to fraud.

John Endicott
Reply to  John Endicott
March 25, 2020 3:48 am

Banks would be forced to change how they deal with overdrawn accounts. So yes, they’d be forced to do something and they handle overdrawn accounts the way they do for very valid reasons you know. You do know what overdrawing an account means, don’t you? it’s spending more money than you have in that account. Which means the banks have to have a hell of a lot more cash on hand to handle the billions their business accounts would now be overdrawing. If the government is going to cover that, there needs to be a system set up and put into place to do so. there currently isn’t one. In other words it’s something that is easier to say than to do. (and that’s before you even get into how do you determine if it’s a valid coronavirus related overdraw verses any other kind of overdraw that wouldn’t be covered – as you say lots of room for fraud is not thought through and handled properly – and do you really thing something that is rushed into place – as this idea would have to be in order to get it up and running in time to be useful – will be thought through and handled properly? seriously?)

March 24, 2020 1:26 am

Currently the US appears to have a President working tirelessly to help ordinary people through a crisis, whilst those in the left/green movement are showing their true character and utter disdain for these people. I sincerely hope our American friends and allies remember this come November.

Tom Abbott
March 24, 2020 10:49 am

That *is* the way Trump appears, and I think the American people are going to remember how the Democrats acted so badly and would not cooperate with Trump taking action, while the nation is in a crisis. A day of reckoning is coming in November.

John Robertson
March 24, 2020 10:57 am

Sarcastically speaking;
When this idiotic behaviour blows up in the Democrats/Demon Rats faces,alienating even the last diehard Democrat and leading to extinction at the polls,our progressive comrades will invoke conspiracy theory 1001,that being Trump did this to them.
For it is never their fault.
When their naked avarice,lust for power, casual evil are exposed and rejected by the voters,it is because the voters are racist,stupid and unfit to choose.
When they are caught by their own lies,they insist black is white and those exposing them are evil..

Why do they still exist as a political force?

Reply to  John Robertson
March 24, 2020 4:18 pm

You are assuming that the average man/woman in the street ever hears the reason why the Democrats are doing this.
In this morning’s news, the hold up was described as Democrats holding out for more worker protections. And who can be against protecting workers?

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
March 25, 2020 4:00 am

Indeed. they certainly won’t hear it from the MSM. It’s up to alternative media, individuals like you and I when talking with our acquaintances and Republican candidates for office to point it out. Unfortunately there will still be many who only get their “facts” about what happened from the fake-news MSM.

Reply to  John Robertson
March 26, 2020 12:07 am

I wonder exactly the same with Labour in the UK. They covered up mass gang rape, which was given the far less serious sounding ‘grooming gang’ by the media, to push their diversity mantra- even going so far as to claim that young girls, often pre-teen, were basically asking for it. Anyone who disagreed or dissented was inevitably tagged as a racist bigot, Islamophobe, etc. When voters eventually turned against them they were utterly bemused and simply doubled down on the ‘stupid, white racists who don’t know what’s good for them’ theme. They really do live in a bubble and think that ANY price is worth paying to achieve their socialist utopia.

Paul R Johnson
March 24, 2020 1:22 pm

In any other context, demanding a higher price in a crisis would be called gouging.

For Nancy Pelosi, it’s business as usual.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Paul R Johnson
March 24, 2020 4:19 pm

The price gouging is getting serious around here. My local convenience store usually (before the virus) sells a 2-liter bottle of Dr. Pepper for $2. I went in there the other day and the price was $3.50. I won’t turn them into the authorities even though they are officially breaking the law, and even though price gouging on Dr. Pepper is a very, very serious offense. When President Trump declared a national emergency that automatically put in effect a law in my State against price gouging.

Instead of turning the owner in, I’ll just go down the street and buy my Dr. Pepper at the supermarket where the price is $1.08 per bottle. No price gouging down there.

Mike Dubrasich
March 24, 2020 3:01 pm

Two trillion is 2 x 10^12. Assuming that twenty thousand (2 x 10^5) people die of the virus, that works out to 1 x 10^7 or $10 million per death.

I am old and infirm with many ailments, so I am among those most likely to die. I would like my $10 million now, please, before it’s too late.

I know how to spend it. Believe me I do. The trickle down multiplier effect means everybody would get a piece of it. This is the best solution bar none. I prefer a bank deposit, but I’ll take the cash.

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
March 24, 2020 4:20 pm

Where did you get the notion that the money is only for those who have died of this disease?

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  MarkW
March 24, 2020 5:24 pm

From the 911 Twin Towers aftermath relief fund. The victims and/or their families got paid handsomely. Why is this situation any different? War is war. Why ask? Do you expect a cut?

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
March 24, 2020 6:34 pm

Correction: the MSM is just now stating the “stimulus” will be $6 trillion. So my cut should be $30 mil.

Unless you believe everybody should get some. Six trillion divided by 330 million citizens is $18,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. Do you think they plan on sending everybody a check for $18 grrr?

Think again. They plan on sending everybody a BILL for $18 grrr. Who else is going to pay for it? Your grandchildren? The as-yet-unborn? With interest?

It’s an ugly sight: the Greedheads are running amok in the Capitol. The professional grafter jackal pack howls with glee.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
March 24, 2020 7:03 pm

Or maybe the $6 trillion should go just to temporarily furloughed “workers” (you got to love the Marxist lingo). How many of those are there? Shoot me a number.

From my web search I found “Reports estimate 2.25 million Americans will claim unemployment next week, a 700% increase from this week.” Let’s round that up to 3 million for ease of calculation. Six trillion divided by 3 million is 2 million. So every furloughed “worker” is going to get a check for $2 million smackers from the gummit?

Really? I mean really? Absolute madness.

John Endicott
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
March 25, 2020 7:59 am

Where in the fake-news MSM did you hear $6 trillion. The bill just past last night/this morning and sits at $2 trillion.

John Endicott
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
March 25, 2020 8:16 am

The 2 trillion isn’t all going to individuals, it’s being divided among the following:
1) Big business – $500 billion in loan backing
2) small businesses – $350 billion in aid
3) Hospitals – $150 billion for equipment and supplies
4) Individuals ($1200 checks for those with incomes up to 75k)
5) Unemployed – unemployment extension and $600 addition unemployment cash per week
3) aid to state and local government

Only items 4 & 5 are money going directly to individuals.

John Endicott
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
March 25, 2020 8:21 am

No, I mean really no, Mike.

First, as already pointed out, the number is 2 trillion not 6 trillion, so get that fake news number out of your head, you’re just showing how uninformed you are every time you bang on about it.
Second the whole 2 trillion is not going out as checks to individuals. Checks only account for a portion of the money. The majority of the money is going to businesses, hospitals, and state/local governments.

John Endicott
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
March 25, 2020 8:28 am

you do realize the Twin Towers Fund is a charity (IE individual citizens donated most of the money the fund paid out). Feel free to either set up a Wuhan Virus aftermath relief fund or lobby others to do so on your behalf if you wish to make valid comparisons with the Twin Towers Fund

John Endicott
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
March 25, 2020 3:54 am

Mike you are starting from a false assumption.
The money isn’t for the dead or even for the ill. It’s to offset the impact of shutting down the economy. From workers who lost wages to businesses that lost business due to the mandated closing of the economy.

Tim Gorman
March 24, 2020 4:30 pm

“Democrats on the House select committee were among the first to ask leadership to consider climate change before jumping into the legislation.”

WHY???? If they can’t get the legislation passed on its own then FORGET IT being put in this stimulus bill!

Why didn’t the House pass this climate change legislation in the period of Sept – January? If’its so damn important they should have passed it then! The answer is that they know they have to attack it to a must-pass bill in order to get it through. Unethical political extortion at its finest!

David Hoopman
March 25, 2020 3:00 pm

No doubt people are tired of me saying this. The crises come and the crises go, but the “solutions” are always the same.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights