Santa Fe New Mexican

McConnell: ‘No realistic path’ for vote on $2K aid checks

Senate majority leader links effort to increase stimulus with two issues that are nonstarter­s for Democrats

- By Catie Edmondson

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the majority leader, effectivel­y killed off any chance that Congress would increase stimulus checks to $2,000 before President Donald Trump leaves office, saying there was “no realistic path” for the Senate to pass such a bill on its own.

McConnell insisted Wednesday that lawmakers would consider only a bill that wrapped the $2,000 checks in with two other issues that Trump has demanded Congress address: investigat­ing the integrity of the 2020 election and revoking legal protection­s for social media platforms. Both of those are nonstarter­s for Democrats, dooming any chance that such a bill could pass.

In his opening remarks, McConnell defiantly blamed Democrats for trying

to hustle more money out the door. “The Senate is not going to be bullied into rushing out more borrowed money into the hands of Democrats’ rich friends who don’t need the help,” he said.

That seemed to ignore the fact that Trump has been the one demanding lawmakers increase stimulus checks to $2,000 from $600 and criticizin­g his own party for not moving quickly to provide more money.

“Unless Republican­s have a death wish, and it is also the right thing to do, they must approve the $2000 payments ASAP. $600 IS NOT ENOUGH!” the president wrote on Twitter on Tuesday.

With four days left in the legislativ­e session, the hard-line stance effectivel­y guarantees that Trump will not get any of his last-minute demands, despite growing calls from Republican lawmakers to put more money into Americans’ hands.

For days, Trump held a bipartisan, $900 billion stimulus bill hostage, saying it did not provide big enough checks and refusing to sign it. He finally relented Sunday and said he had secured a commitment from lawmakers to increase the payments and address two other issues that have drawn his ire: his loss in the 2020 election and legal protection­s for big technology companies like Facebook and Twitter that are provided by Section 230 of the Communicat­ions Decency Act.

“The Senate will start the process for a vote that increases checks to $2,000, repeals Section 230 and starts an investigat­ion into voter fraud,” Trump said in a statement Sunday, repeating his unfounded claim of fraud in the 2020 election.

McConnell insisted the president wanted those demands considered simultaneo­usly and accused Democrats of “trying to pull a fast one on the president.”

“The Senate is not going to split apart the three issues that President Trump linked together just because Democrats are afraid to address two of them,” McConnell said.

“They’re hoping everyone just forgets about election integrity and big tech,” he said. “They’re desperate to ignore those two parts of President Trump’s request.”

Trump, however, continued to push for quick action on increasing checks.

“$2000 ASAP!” he wrote on Twitter on Wednesday.

While millions of Americans remain out of work, many economists say increasing the checks to $2,000 from $600 would most likely have a negligible impact on stimulatin­g the economy since a significan­t chunk of those receiving payments are likely to save, not spend, the funds. The stimulus payments are based on income levels, not job status. Democrats had pushed for an extra $600 per week in jobless benefits, since that money would go directly to those out of work, but Republican­s rejected that request, saying it would discourage people from seeking employment.

On Monday, the House approved a bill increasing the checks to $2,000, and Democrats in the Senate have been urging McConnell to allow a similar vote. After McConnell concluded his remarks Wednesday, Sen.

Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the minority leader, again tried to hold an immediate vote on the House bill, arguing that with just days left in the legislativ­e session and the House out of session, “there is no other game in town.”

“At the very least, the Senate deserves the opportunit­y for an up-or-down vote,” Schumer said, calling Trump “our unlikely ally.” McConnell again blocked his request, as he did Tuesday.

Schumer and other Democrats warned they would not support any effort to combine Trump’s three demands into one piece of legislatio­n.

The bill McConnell assembled would create a bipartisan commission to study election practices that “strengthen­ed” and “undermined the integrity of the election,” like the use of mail-in ballots and vote-by-mail procedures, which Trump has baselessly complained encouraged voter fraud. It would also repeal Section 230, a legal shield that prevents social media companies from being sued for much of the content users post to their platforms.

Trump has attacked Section 230 for months, arguing without evidence that the law enables websites to censor conservati­ve views.

McConnell’s decision to prevent a vote on bigger checks is likely to inflame the issue in a pair of tight runoff races in Georgia, which will determine control of the Senate.

Both Republican­s trying to retain their seats — Sens. Kelly Loe±er and David Perdue — endorsed the bigger checks Tuesday, matching the demands of their Democratic challenger­s, who have called the $600 paltry, and framing the decision as an effort to support the president. Within minutes of McConnell’s remarks, Senate Democrats’ campaign arm attacked Loe±er and Perdue and called their endorsemen­ts of the bill “empty gestures.”

Other Republican­s — including Marco Rubio of Florida and Josh Hawley of Missouri — have rallied around bigger checks, bucking their party’s concerns about adding to the federal budget deficit.

“I am concerned about the debt, but working families have been hurt badly by the pandemic,” Rubio said in a tweet. “This is why I supported $600 direct payments to working families & if given the chance will vote to increase the amount.”

Still, the vast majority of Republican­s have shown little interest in delivering larger stimulus checks despite Trump’s request, arguing that any further direct payments should be narrowly aimed at those who need the money most.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States