[2006alum]

Not encouraged by this development:

[tweet] https://twitter.com/DeItaOne/status/1242...55489?s=20[/tweet]

Who knows what else this bill unintentionally unleashes. This is why these demands to instantly pass the biggest bailout in American history in a matter of days are so unreasonable - this is not something that's easy to do, and getting it wrong will be impossibly hard to fix quickly once the Senate recesses for 3 weeks.

[2006alum]

Not encouraged by this development:

[tweet] https://twitter.com/DeItaOne/status/1242...55489?s=20[/tweet]

Who knows what else this bill unintentionally unleashes. This is why these demands to instantly pass the biggest bailout in American history in a matter of days are so unreasonable - this is not something that's easy to do, and getting it wrong will be impossibly hard to fix quickly once the Senate recesses for 3 weeks.

[burger]

Why is the senate going on a 3-week recess now?  The house is in session the next two weeks.  Even after the bailout passes, there is surely more work to do.  If they're worried about the virus, change the rules and let the senators vote from wherever.  

Mitch McConnell has some explaining to do.*

*(He will not actually do any explaining, I'm sure).

[burger]

Why is the senate going on a 3-week recess now?  The house is in session the next two weeks.  Even after the bailout passes, there is surely more work to do.  If they're worried about the virus, change the rules and let the senators vote from wherever.  

Mitch McConnell has some explaining to do.*

*(He will not actually do any explaining, I'm sure).

[OutsiderFan]

Well, this is the same gang that tried to overhaul the Healthcare system with a bill nobody saw before voting on it.

[OutsiderFan]

Well, this is the same gang that tried to overhaul the Healthcare system with a bill nobody saw before voting on it.

[2006alum]

Well, this is the same gang that tried to overhaul the Healthcare system with a bill nobody saw before voting on it.

This is a serious structural problem with all major legislation today. Any bill that is more than a few pages long is unlikely to be able to be read closely by those voting on it. (And if you want my candid view, many of them don't have the critical reading skills or training to glean all that much from it anyway.) That's where committees and legislative drafting staff are incredibly important, for they are the ones to distill what the bill does. Hoyer has promised House members 24 hours to review the Senate bill; given everything else going on in the world right now, what House member can read and digest 300+ pages in under a day. This is especially problematic given how much of our legislation in recent years, including this bill, has been passed in a rush, behind closed doors, with an unstable coalition that could crumble at any minute and that therefore requires bypassing ordinary committee proceedings. 

I am totally sympathetic to the aghast skepticism of "we need to pass it so you can see what's in it," but when you've seen how the sausage gets made you'd realize how much less feasible it is do always do that in the era of such extreme partisanship. Folks lament how polarized our country has become at the community level, but it also makes crafting quality legislation damned near untenable because of both parties' incentives to sink the other's handiwork at all costs.

[2006alum]

Well, this is the same gang that tried to overhaul the Healthcare system with a bill nobody saw before voting on it.

This is a serious structural problem with all major legislation today. Any bill that is more than a few pages long is unlikely to be able to be read closely by those voting on it. (And if you want my candid view, many of them don't have the critical reading skills or training to glean all that much from it anyway.) That's where committees and legislative drafting staff are incredibly important, for they are the ones to distill what the bill does. Hoyer has promised House members 24 hours to review the Senate bill; given everything else going on in the world right now, what House member can read and digest 300+ pages in under a day. This is especially problematic given how much of our legislation in recent years, including this bill, has been passed in a rush, behind closed doors, with an unstable coalition that could crumble at any minute and that therefore requires bypassing ordinary committee proceedings. 

I am totally sympathetic to the aghast skepticism of "we need to pass it so you can see what's in it," but when you've seen how the sausage gets made you'd realize how much less feasible it is do always do that in the era of such extreme partisanship. Folks lament how polarized our country has become at the community level, but it also makes crafting quality legislation damned near untenable because of both parties' incentives to sink the other's handiwork at all costs.

[burger]

Well, this is the same gang that tried to overhaul the Healthcare system with a bill nobody saw before voting on it.

Do you mean the ACA or the Republican attempts to repeal it?  Because the ACA was debated exhaustively beforehand. 

The ACA repeal bills from 2017 were rammed through more quickly.

---

I am totally sympathetic to the aghast skepticism of "we need to pass it so you can see what's in it,"

This quote is 100% taken out of context, and people need to stop using it: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi...-is-in-it/

Pelosi was referring to letting the people see what the bill can do for them personally, independent of all the chatter over it (much of which was made up bullshit).

[burger]

Well, this is the same gang that tried to overhaul the Healthcare system with a bill nobody saw before voting on it.

Do you mean the ACA or the Republican attempts to repeal it?  Because the ACA was debated exhaustively beforehand. 

The ACA repeal bills from 2017 were rammed through more quickly.

---

I am totally sympathetic to the aghast skepticism of "we need to pass it so you can see what's in it,"

This quote is 100% taken out of context, and people need to stop using it: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi...-is-in-it/

Pelosi was referring to letting the people see what the bill can do for them personally, independent of all the chatter over it (much of which was made up bullshit).

[BostonCard]

Bills to correct oversights and clarify ambiguities (technical fixes) are par for the course for most bills of this size and complexity.  Here's a story from 1987 about technical fixes to Reagan's 1986 tax reform bill.

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/08/busin...wanted=all

However, partisanship has made these technical correction bills more difficult to pass (Senate Republicans filibustered a technical correction to the ACA, and similar partisanship beset the tax cut and jobs act of a couple years ago).  However, for something like this, which was negotiated and passed in a bipartisan way, I expect the technical correction bill to also pass in a bipartisan way.

So, the long and short of it is "nothing to see here".

BC

[BostonCard]

Bills to correct oversights and clarify ambiguities (technical fixes) are par for the course for most bills of this size and complexity.  Here's a story from 1987 about technical fixes to Reagan's 1986 tax reform bill.

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/08/busin...wanted=all

However, partisanship has made these technical correction bills more difficult to pass (Senate Republicans filibustered a technical correction to the ACA, and similar partisanship beset the tax cut and jobs act of a couple years ago).  However, for something like this, which was negotiated and passed in a bipartisan way, I expect the technical correction bill to also pass in a bipartisan way.

So, the long and short of it is "nothing to see here".

BC

[2006alum]

So, the long and short of it is "nothing to see here".

Perhaps not:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/kasie/status/1242898706745212933?s=20[/tweet]

And yes, sometimes technical corrections can be made, especially to tax bills, which tend to be more technical and less "partisan." But even the 2017 tax reform hasn't been fully amended because the Dems now control the House and have no interest in "fixing" problems with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act they opposed. The same was true once the GOP took the House in 2010 with fixes to Obamacare, etc.

I am strongly of the view that it's better to "get it right" the first time, because you can't assume you'll have a next time.

[2006alum]

So, the long and short of it is "nothing to see here".

Perhaps not:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/kasie/status/1242898706745212933?s=20[/tweet]

And yes, sometimes technical corrections can be made, especially to tax bills, which tend to be more technical and less "partisan." But even the 2017 tax reform hasn't been fully amended because the Dems now control the House and have no interest in "fixing" problems with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act they opposed. The same was true once the GOP took the House in 2010 with fixes to Obamacare, etc.

I am strongly of the view that it's better to "get it right" the first time, because you can't assume you'll have a next time.

[82 Card]

However, for something like this, which was negotiated and passed in a bipartisan way, I expect the technical correction bill to also pass in a bipartisan way.

Perhaps, unless some of the glitches are intentional.

[82 Card]

However, for something like this, which was negotiated and passed in a bipartisan way, I expect the technical correction bill to also pass in a bipartisan way.

Perhaps, unless some of the glitches are intentional.

[burger]

Sanders isn't the problem here--his threat is designed to speed passage of the bill.  The problem is that Sasse et al. think that the unemployment benefits are too generous.  Arguments about disincentives to work due to welfare are specious in normal times.  Now, 30 million people may be about to lose their jobs, and they want the unemployed to be slightly poorer.

[burger]

Sanders isn't the problem here--his threat is designed to speed passage of the bill.  The problem is that Sasse et al. think that the unemployment benefits are too generous.  Arguments about disincentives to work due to welfare are specious in normal times.  Now, 30 million people may be about to lose their jobs, and they want the unemployed to be slightly poorer.

[cardcrimson]

There are always unintended consequences of legislation. While most argue the FMLA and the recent extension is a good thing, I spoke with a CEO of a large manufacturing company that may be forced to completely shutdown because of the it. Apparently, if a number of people utilize the Act, he won't have enough employees left to run his facility effectively, so temporarily laying off everyone may be the prudent action. FWIW, his business is considered "essential" and is green lighted to stay open.

[cardcrimson]

There are always unintended consequences of legislation. While most argue the FMLA and the recent extension is a good thing, I spoke with a CEO of a large manufacturing company that may be forced to completely shutdown because of the it. Apparently, if a number of people utilize the Act, he won't have enough employees left to run his facility effectively, so temporarily laying off everyone may be the prudent action. FWIW, his business is considered "essential" and is green lighted to stay open.

[chrisk]

Graham complains unemployed in South Carolina will get $24.07/hour. But I didn’t hear him give a proposed solution. It’s easier to complain that be constructive.

---

If the politicians had any guts, they would ask the rich to sacrifice too. Restrictions on small business aid and unemployment would go down better.

So far even the Democrats have not asked for anything from the rich, except for not getting the $1200 per person.

[chrisk]

Graham complains unemployed in South Carolina will get $24.07/hour. But I didn’t hear him give a proposed solution. It’s easier to complain that be constructive.

---

If the politicians had any guts, they would ask the rich to sacrifice too. Restrictions on small business aid and unemployment would go down better.

So far even the Democrats have not asked for anything from the rich, except for not getting the $1200 per person.

[burger]

There are always unintended consequences of legislation. While most argue the FMLA and the recent extension is a good thing, I spoke with a CEO of a large manufacturing company that may be forced to completely shutdown because of the it. Apparently, if a number of people utilize the Act, he won't have enough employees left to run his facility effectively, so temporarily laying off everyone may be the prudent action. FWIW, his business is considered "essential" and is green lighted to stay open.

That's ridiculous.  "IF" too many people take leave is a hypothetical that will almost certainly never occur. Millions of Americans have paid sick leave, and their companies somehow manage to stay open.   In the developed world outside the US, almost all workers have paid sick leave, and corporations survive.

If coronavirus ravages the workforce of this company, then they should close to avoid spreading the illness.  Otherwise, closing a company because of fears of employees' using sick leave is stupid.

[burger]

There are always unintended consequences of legislation. While most argue the FMLA and the recent extension is a good thing, I spoke with a CEO of a large manufacturing company that may be forced to completely shutdown because of the it. Apparently, if a number of people utilize the Act, he won't have enough employees left to run his facility effectively, so temporarily laying off everyone may be the prudent action. FWIW, his business is considered "essential" and is green lighted to stay open.

That's ridiculous.  "IF" too many people take leave is a hypothetical that will almost certainly never occur. Millions of Americans have paid sick leave, and their companies somehow manage to stay open.   In the developed world outside the US, almost all workers have paid sick leave, and corporations survive.

If coronavirus ravages the workforce of this company, then they should close to avoid spreading the illness.  Otherwise, closing a company because of fears of employees' using sick leave is stupid.

[cardcrimson]

There are always unintended consequences of legislation. While most argue the FMLA and the recent extension is a good thing, I spoke with a CEO of a large manufacturing company that may be forced to completely shutdown because of the it. Apparently, if a number of people utilize the Act, he won't have enough employees left to run his facility effectively, so temporarily laying off everyone may be the prudent action. FWIW, his business is considered "essential" and is green lighted to stay open.

That's ridiculous.  "IF" too many people take leave is a hypothetical that will almost certainly never occur. Millions of Americans have paid sick leave, and their companies somehow manage to stay open.   In the developed world outside the US, almost all workers have paid sick leave, and corporations survive.

If coronavirus ravages the workforce of this company, then they should close to avoid spreading the illness.  Otherwise, closing a company because of fears of employees' using sick leave is stupid.

Do you run a $150 million manufacturing company or have you had any experience running one? Gavin Newsom's own prediction is that half of the people in the state will be infected with the virus. If Newsom is correct, then at least half of his employees will be quarantined, right, and receiving full pay and benefits? How then, does one run a factory with less than half its employees while paying for all of them? The math doesn't work.

[cardcrimson]

There are always unintended consequences of legislation. While most argue the FMLA and the recent extension is a good thing, I spoke with a CEO of a large manufacturing company that may be forced to completely shutdown because of the it. Apparently, if a number of people utilize the Act, he won't have enough employees left to run his facility effectively, so temporarily laying off everyone may be the prudent action. FWIW, his business is considered "essential" and is green lighted to stay open.

That's ridiculous.  "IF" too many people take leave is a hypothetical that will almost certainly never occur. Millions of Americans have paid sick leave, and their companies somehow manage to stay open.   In the developed world outside the US, almost all workers have paid sick leave, and corporations survive.

If coronavirus ravages the workforce of this company, then they should close to avoid spreading the illness.  Otherwise, closing a company because of fears of employees' using sick leave is stupid.

Do you run a $150 million manufacturing company or have you had any experience running one? Gavin Newsom's own prediction is that half of the people in the state will be infected with the virus. If Newsom is correct, then at least half of his employees will be quarantined, right, and receiving full pay and benefits? How then, does one run a factory with less than half its employees while paying for all of them? The math doesn't work.

[OutsiderFan]

People can't quit and collect unemployment benefits. You must be laid off or be fired to collect.

What am I missing here? Do these Senators not know how unemployment benefits work?

[OutsiderFan]

People can't quit and collect unemployment benefits. You must be laid off or be fired to collect.

What am I missing here? Do these Senators not know how unemployment benefits work?

[Goose]

Gavin Newsom's own prediction is that half of the people in the state will be infected with the virus. If Newsom is correct, then at least half of his employees will be quarantined, right, and receiving full pay and benefits?

Probably they don't all get sick at the same time though. How big a hit it would put in his workforce depends a lot on who got sick when. The more likely and even worse problem would be that a few workers get sick in a given department and the State quarantines the entire department they work in. Plenty of workers on average, but essential functions missing. It is pretty clear that most businesses would would lay off employees and shut down. It just makes more sense. Start up again when you have a more reliable situation.

[Goose]

Gavin Newsom's own prediction is that half of the people in the state will be infected with the virus. If Newsom is correct, then at least half of his employees will be quarantined, right, and receiving full pay and benefits?

Probably they don't all get sick at the same time though. How big a hit it would put in his workforce depends a lot on who got sick when. The more likely and even worse problem would be that a few workers get sick in a given department and the State quarantines the entire department they work in. Plenty of workers on average, but essential functions missing. It is pretty clear that most businesses would would lay off employees and shut down. It just makes more sense. Start up again when you have a more reliable situation.

[cardcrimson]

Plenty of workers on average, but essential functions missing. It is pretty clear that most businesses would would lay off employees and shut down. It just makes more sense. Start up again when you have a more reliable situation.

Yup, that's the thought. While there is coronavirus legislation that would reimburse companies for virus related absences, apparently there unto a three month lag in the reimbursement. Still a lot to be worked through, even sat in on an employment law discussion this morning and the experts still haven't figured it all out, especially with the brobdingnagian unknown that's heading through congress now.

[cardcrimson]

Plenty of workers on average, but essential functions missing. It is pretty clear that most businesses would would lay off employees and shut down. It just makes more sense. Start up again when you have a more reliable situation.

Yup, that's the thought. While there is coronavirus legislation that would reimburse companies for virus related absences, apparently there unto a three month lag in the reimbursement. Still a lot to be worked through, even sat in on an employment law discussion this morning and the experts still haven't figured it all out, especially with the brobdingnagian unknown that's heading through congress now.

[terry]

Gavin Newsom's own prediction is that half of the people in the state will be infected with the virus. If Newsom is correct, then at least half of his employees will be quarantined

I think Newsom meant that half of the people would be infected in the absence of mitigation measures such as the "stay at home" order. I assume the adoption of the "stay at home" order should reduce the number of people expected to be infected.

[terry]

Gavin Newsom's own prediction is that half of the people in the state will be infected with the virus. If Newsom is correct, then at least half of his employees will be quarantined

I think Newsom meant that half of the people would be infected in the absence of mitigation measures such as the "stay at home" order. I assume the adoption of the "stay at home" order should reduce the number of people expected to be infected.

[2006alum]

This thread helpfully clarifies one of the poison pills at issue:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/crampell/status/1242879663971676168?s=20[/tweet]

[2006alum]

This thread helpfully clarifies one of the poison pills at issue:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/crampell/status/1242879663971676168?s=20[/tweet]

[cardcrimson]

Gavin Newsom's own prediction is that half of the people in the state will be infected with the virus. If Newsom is correct, then at least half of his employees will be quarantined

I think Newsom meant that half of the people would be infected in the absence of mitigation measures such as the "stay at home" order. I assume the adoption of the "stay at home" order should reduce the number of people expected to be infected.

True, but provisions in the Acts are if someone in your household is sick, you're quarantined. If you need to care for someone, you can take paid time off. Same if your kid is home from school and you have no one to watch them. The numbers add up pretty quickly. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Gavin Newsom's own prediction is that half of the people in the state will be infected with the virus. If Newsom is correct, then at least half of his employees will be quarantined

I think Newsom meant that half of the people would be infected in the absence of mitigation measures such as the "stay at home" order. I assume the adoption of the "stay at home" order should reduce the number of people expected to be infected.

True, but provisions in the Acts are if someone in your household is sick, you're quarantined. If you need to care for someone, you can take paid time off. Same if your kid is home from school and you have no one to watch them. The numbers add up pretty quickly. . . .