Senate negotiators are back at the drawing board in trying to renew emergency unemployment-insurance benefits for more than 2 million Americans who have been out of work for at least six months.
Democratic Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Republican Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada have resumed negotiations to create new legislation that would extend the benefits.
The Senate passed a bill in April that would have extended the benefits through May and provided retroactive checks to those who had stopped receiving payments since the program expired on Dec. 28. But that legislation expired on May 31 with no action in the House, putting the onus on senators who favor the program to try again.
Reed and Heller have been working together on a new solution for at least two weeks and hope to extend the program through at least the end of this year. While the national unemployment rate is dropping, Reed said, the long-term unemployment rate is not. “We’re finding a lot of people who are mid-career, have worked for 20 or 30 years, and are just finding it very, very hard to get back in. And these benefits are vital for them,” he said.
But the two senators face a number of constraints that are hampering their negotiations. Because the benefits disappeared more than five months ago and they’ll have to find some way to pay for every penny of the new bill, they warn that granting retroactive benefits to millions may not be possible this time around.
“That’s hard to do at this point. It will probably be prospective,” Heller said. “I’m guessing that we just go forward at this point. Five months of [retroactive] UI at this point, is a big, big bite of the apple. So that’s not guaranteed, but I’m telling you that we realize that we are in a bind right now trying to make it retroactive.”
Another concern is continued opposition from House Speaker John Boehner, who has said over and over since mid-December that the chamber will not take up an unemployment-insurance bill unless it includes a separate provision that addresses job creation.
Reed said they are not discussing that as an option in the Senate, and he called Boehner hypocritical after the House passed a tax-extenders bill last month that wasn’t paid for at all. “[I] found it ironic that the House could pass an unfunded tax-extenders bill, and yet demand that our bill — you know, wasn’t sufficient even though it was paid for and bipartisan,” Reed said.
But Heller said that he agreed with Boehner and that the bill should include a jobs provision. The only problem is, it’s not politically possible for him to include one in the Senate package. “If I could, I would,” Heller said.
Instead, Heller is urging Boehner and other House Republicans to take up the new Senate bill (assuming it gets through the upper chamber first) and add their own jobs provision on the back end. Then the two chambers can go to conference and work out their differences, he said.
For the time being, Heller and Reed appear to be working on their own. Just over a week ago, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who was one of the six Republicans to help push the original unemployment-insurance extension package through the Senate in April, told National Journal that she was not involved in the new discussions.
Murkowski expressed concerns that the Senate was in a position of “starting over” on the legislation and that too much time may have passed to come up with a solution. “Without having a direct conversation with the two guys who are trying to breathe life into it, I can’t say that it’s completely dead. “¦ It’s not looking good right now — I guess that’s the best way to sum it up,” she said.
Neither Reed nor Heller could speculate on a time frame for when they might introduce a new Senate package.
“We’re working on it,” Reed said. “It’s not something we’re ignoring. “¦ We have to look for a legislative path. We have to find the right sort of formula, literally and figuratively. And then we have to make sure that we have the necessary bipartisan support here.”
- 1 Hillary Clinton Will Win the Nomination, But Then What?
- 2 Bernie Sanders Is a Loud, Stubborn Socialist. Republicans Like Him Anyway.
- 3 Why Gun Control Can’t Eliminate Gun Violence
- 4 As First Women Graduate Army Ranger School, Women Veterans in Congress Celebrate
- 5 The House Just Voted to Ban Internet Taxes — Forever
What We're Following See More »
Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:
- Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
- Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
- They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
- One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”
At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”