Uphill: Senate Democrats Race to Pass Aid Package

Plus, Biden's strikes in Syria renew congressional interest in addressing war powers.

By
20

Good morning. It’s set to be another busy week on Capitol Hill, as Democrats seek to finalize their massive coronavirus aid package. 

The Senate will also continue voting on President Joe Biden’s nominees this week. Last night, the chamber approved Miguel Cardona to be education secretary with a vote of 64-33. Senators will soon consider Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo to lead the Commerce Department and Dr. Cecilia Rouse to chair the Council of Economic Advisers.

The House, meanwhile, is poised to approve for a second time a police reform bill named after George Floyd. It would ban chokeholds and make it easier for the government to prosecute police misconduct cases. The House is also scheduled to vote on a mostly symbolic, sweeping election overhaul bill. Neither measure has enough support to pass the Senate as written. 

Democrats Enter Stimulus Sprint

House Democrats approved their version of President Joe Biden’s nearly $2 trillion coronavirus aid package over the weekend. Only two Democrats, Reps. Jared Golden and Kurt Schrader, joined Republicans in opposing the measure. The ball is now in the Senate’s court, with Democratic leaders racing to beat a critical March 14 federal unemployment insurance deadline. 

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
20
By
Comments (20)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. James B. Ronan II

    Ms. Wilt, whatever happened to the War Powers Act? It seems to me the President had fairly circumscribed latitude under the act. Is it still in force?

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Paul Britton

    Haley, any idea why Ben Sasse voted against the Garland nomination, aligning himself with senators he wouldn’t, ordinarily?

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Kentucky78

    Haley, In Commentary Magazine's Friday podcast there was mention of $6,500 a month payments to federal employees with children in public schools that are not in session. These payments would be from now until until mid September. It is $45,500 for each eligible federal employee. They were accusing the Biden administration of bribing federal employees to support public school teachers in the DC area where schools have not been opened. They said it didn't apply to parents with kids in private or parochial schools. Is this truly in the bill?

    Collapse
    1. Stephen Nielson

      From reading the bill and news articles about it, its 15 weeks of paid federal leave for parents to be at home with their kids if their kids are doing virtual learning. Since its a paid leave, it only replaces their wages with the max payment being $1,400 a week (which would be someone making $72.8K a year). If someone is only making $40K a year (seems doubtful in Washington D.C. unless you work for TSA or something) that comes out to just $769.23 a week.

      I think the argument people are making is that it creates a perverse incentive for workers to keep schools closed if they can sit at home until this September doing nothing.

      I don't really agree with that argument as I find that a lot of parents who intentionally don't choose to homeschool, really, really, don't like their kids being home all day with them. However, I don't have data to back that up.

      One thing to also note is that the federal government if it wants to provide paid parental leave to deal with COVID has to use taxpayer money to do so, there's no other pot of money that the government (taken from a business perspective) can access to provide parental leave.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kentucky78

        Finally found it in the bill on page 306. It is certainly something that is not happening in the private sector. This is leave, they could be home with their children without having to work. I think many parents would welcome this even if it meant a cut in pay. It is no where near as generous as represented on the Commentary podcast it. It would take some of the pressure off the teacher unions in the DC area given how many government employees there are.

        I have a niece that was in a very bad situation because both she and her husband had to work. With the schools closed one of them had to either try to work from home, almost impossible with 3 young children, or find a child care facility that was open. Both of them really needed to be at work in person. It was extremely stressful.

        Just think of the single working women in the private sector and how virtual school is impacting them. Grandma or Grandpa is risking getting covid to help teach virtual school to their grandchildren uncompensated most likely.

        Bottom line greatly exaggerated by Commentary but still an issue. Of course this could get struck from the bill or the compensation get reduced.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Kentucky78

          Another thing they said that was not true was employees were not eligible if your kid was going to private school. I don't see that in the bill. Of course it is unlikely the private school would be virtual if the public school was in person.

          Collapse
  4. Ricardo

    It's difficult to find out what is really in the stimulus bill…IMO this article from USA Today has one of the most objective presentations. So you have to decide if "stimulus" can also mean "pork". And then determine if that is good or bad.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2021/02/25/covid-relief-bill-stimulus-check-critics-bidens-stimulus-goes-too-far/6804219002/

    Collapse
    1. Stephen Nielson

      I always find it helpful to read the commentaries and then go and read the actual bill. Its 528 pages, which is a bit of a read, but its sectioned pretty clearly so you can look at the parts you find interesting.

      Collapse
  5. Mads Lindstrøm

    Regarding the NYT story "F.B.I. said to have singled out potential assailant in Capitol officer’s death" linked to under "Of note", then what can I say nicely, ..., I agree fully that it is "Of note".

    First NYT published the fabrication that the officer was attacked by a fire extinguisher, and long, long after that is debunked, the NYT stealth edit the story away. And then we has this story, with yet more anonymous sources, trying to link a bear spray attacks to the officers death. The article all but say he was killed by bear spray, though the offenders will not be charged with murder but assault - hmmm, what to conclude? Then the article again tries to link the two suicide with the riot, without any evidence other than the suicides happened relatively shortly after the riot. I am sorry, this NYT article is not journalism.

    Collapse
    1. Marc Whipple

      The fire extinguisher story was not a "fabrication." A fire extinguisher as the cause of Officer Sicknick's death was the initial focus of the investigation, but changed when it became clear blunt trauma was not involved in his death. Not every change in a story line is evidence of lying or fabricating in the initial story. The NYT absolutely practiced quality investigative journalism in staying hot on the story, and updating it as new or different facts are uncovered. What other publications have done a better job than the NYT in investigative journalism with respect to the January 6th riot?

      Collapse
      1. Mads Lindstrøm

        From the initial NYT story:

        "On Wednesday, pro-Trump supporters attacked that citadel of democracy [i.e., the Capitol], overpowered Mr. Sicknick, 42, and struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials. With a bloody gash in his head, Mr. Sicknick was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support. He died on Thursday evening." (https://news.yahoo.com/times-corrects-record-officer-sicknick-204024018.html)

        They assert, as fact, that Officer Sicknick was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher. Not investigated for, but asserted. So the story was fabricated by somebody (maybe the NYT, maybe the NYT source, somebody). And secondly your are not going to mistake somebody being hit in the head fire extinguisher for having a stroke. So no, it was not good journalism.

        Collapse
        1. Marc Whipple

          Seems much more likely to me that the fire extinguisher explanation for Sicknick's death was a fog of war inaccuracy rather than a fabrication. There was at least one rioter throwing fire extinguishers at police. I don't see any incentive to lie about the fire extinguisher, versus a stroke caused by bear spray.

          It does seem like it took a long time for the FBI to publicly discount the fire extinguisher explanation for Sicknick's death, but they did have an extraordinary amount of video to review. But how is that poor journalism by the NYT? I will ask you again what publications do you think did a better job than the NYT in covering the January 6th riot?

          Collapse
          1. Mads Lindstrøm

            The first story claiming that the officer was hit on the head with a fire extinguisher, is poor journalism because it was wrong. When a paper claim something using anonymous sources, then the paper is responsible if they get it wrong.

            The current story linked to by The Dispatch is poor journalism, as it implies a lot of connections without actually providing evidence of said connections. It implies that the officer was killed by a rioter, without actually providing evidence. It implies that the two suicides was due to the riot, without actually providing evidence.

            Collapse
          2. Mads Lindstrøm

            Regarding:

            "It does seem like it took a long time for the FBI to publicly discount the fire extinguisher explanation for Sicknick's death..."

            If the FBI has not officially claimed he we hit by a fire extinguisher, then it is not the job of the FBI to officially discount the story.

            Collapse
          3. Mads Lindstrøm

            I did not and do not comment on which publication has the best January 6th riot coverage, as I have no opinion on the matter. I do not read the NYT and thus cannot judge the quality of its coverage. I am commenting on the concrete article linked to by The Dispatch.

            The incentive to lie about the explanation is very clear, if somebody wants to make the riot seem as bad as possible. And being hit by a bear spray (a mild version of a regular self defense peberspray) versus being hit be a fire extinguisher. While both are despicable, only the latter can reasonably be described as 2nd (or maybe 1st) degree murder.

            I am a little surprised you cannot see an incentive. It is quite normal, that some people will try to paint a given riot as being worse than it really were, and others will try to downplay the events.

            Collapse
    2. P Satter

      Officer Sicknick apparently had a blood clot go to his brain, causing a stroke, after fighting with the mob and being sprayed with pepper spray and collapsed when he returned inside the building. He was taken to the hospital and died there the next day---at age 42. Spraying someone with bear spray is an assault, but it is still under investigation as to what role that specific person played in his death.
      Because there were other officers attacked with fire extinguishers, there was an early assumption this is what happened to Officer Sicknick. I am not clear it was a deliberate fabrication since that was the early report they were given, as much as law enforcement being unclear initially what happened to individual officers when attacked by the mob.
      https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brian-sicknick-fire-extinguisher/

      Collapse
  6. Anonymous

    Collapse
    1. Peter

      What do you mean made public? From what I can tell, and someone can correct me, executive branch always inform Congress on military strikes or campaigns overseas. Biden did the same for the strikes against Iranian-backed militias in Syria. Here's the letter: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/02/27/a-letter-to-the-speaker-of-the-house-and-president-pro-tempore-of-the-senate-consistent-with-the-war-powers-resolution/?id=1564

      But, trust me, you and a lot smart folks are confused or in disagreement on the executive's role on military affairs, and how the legislative branch works in conjunction to address overseas concerns of military nature.

      Collapse