I understand that today the US Senate will be voting on an emaciated COVID relief package compared to the more robust HEROES Act passed by the House in May to protect vulnerable senators facing tough re-election races. Most experts think that it is merely symbolic to provide cover as they do not have the 60 votes to beat a filibuster by the Democrats.
My question is: What’s the downside of Democrats voting for the bill? Just about everyone believes that additional relief is necessary for the most vulnerable amongst us to just survive. Democrats can state that they would like to have done more but felt that something was better than nothing while Republicans would have to defend the stinginess of their offered relief. I’d love to hear the thoughts of other Dopers.
I agree financial relief would be most welcome. I believe that the Democrats think that giving additional money so close to the election may give Trump a boost. That is quite possible, it’s kind of a catch-22.
In general, If there’s one party that wants to do more and one party that wants to do less and the party who wants to do more votes for the plan of the party that wants to do less because “something is better than nothing”, then the party that wants to do less will always get their preferred policies enacted into law.
So, at least sometimes, the political calculus should be that the party that wants to do more will refuse to vote for “something better than nothing” to force the party that wants to do less to compromise on a plan that does more than they’d like to.
Isn’t there a clause that provides funding private schools in this republican bill? That’s a non-starter for the democrats.
If the lesser bill is passed, the Republicans won’t pass another. “We already passed a second bill. What do you want, blood?”
I would have caved and voted for the Senate bill. Something is better than nothing, and McConnell is mean enough to not spend more money.
It probably also includes a liability shield for businesses, which is another thing that (depending on how broad it is) Democrats don’t want.
I agree that the school voucher stuff and the corporate liability protection were both pretty unsavory (which is likely why they were included in the bill in the first place). I’m just not sure they are worth providing cover for weak Republicans and making Dems look like obstructionists.
This from the leader of party that has run up more debt as much or more than any other. When will these guy stop pretending to be fiscally conservative? And when will people stop believing their lies?
The vote was 52-47 in favor with only Rand Paul breaking ranks. It’s all moot at this point.
This was a cloture vote. It needed 60 votes to pass.
And this one didn’t include the individual stimulus payments.
According to Votemaster, the real non-starter in the bill is that it immunizes employers who refuse or fail to provide
protective equipment for their employees from lawsuits.
Edited to supply missing word.
If they pass the shitty bill, the Republicans will say “well we passed a relief bill, so this issue is settled” and it’s unlikely there’s a path to a better bill coming after that. If the democrats force them to come up with a better bill before they pass it it’s more likely some sort of non-minimal bill will get passed.
The risk is - the republicans only giving a shit about their own power and not the American people - they might very well sit on having no bill, have people getting evicted and starving on the streets, and then run ads in October saying “we tried to pass a relief bill but the democrats stopped us!” and that will be a very effective tactic.
Well that fellates with great alacrity.