132s Why these four Republicans oppose the Senate’s coronavirus stimulus bill images and subtitles

-Our nation is built on the dignity of work.What this bill does, without fixing it,is it simply says you can earn more moneyby being on unemploymentthan you can while working.That is an incentive that is perverse.We cannot have intended to encourage peoplenot to work and make more moneythan to go back to work and receive your normal pay.-Under this bill, the $600 paymenton top of state benefitsactually allows people to have their income almost doubledin certain circumstances.And I want to help people.I want to make sure that, if you lose your job,that we cover your wages.But under this bill, you get $23.15 an hour,based on a 40-hour work week, not to work.-This is a debate about whether or notwe're gonna let a poorly drafted billknock this nation still harder in the coming monthsby unintentionally increasing unemployment.That's what this debate is about.So we want to do something really simple.We want to fix what's broken hereby saying that unemployment insurance benefitsshould be capped at 100%of the pay you had before you were unemployed.This isn't just about people who have already been made unemployed.This is about people who are going to be made unemployedin the coming weeks.All this amendment says that we're voting on in a few minutesis that we should cap the unemployment benefitsat 100% of the wages you were just receiving while working.-Under this bill, as it's written now,the government will pay many Americans moreto be on government assistancethan they would make if they were working at their regular jobs.I support expanding the unemployment insurance program.It's the best and quickest way to get moneyto people that need it most.But we should not create a systemwhere unemployment insurance benefitsare higher than a salary.We cannot pay people more to not work than to work.This is basic common sense.

Why these four Republicans oppose the Senate’s coronavirus stimulus bill

On March 25, Sens. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) warned that they would oppose fast-tracking the $2.2 trillion coronavirus bill over a proposed expansion in unemployment benefits, which they said would incentivize people not to return to work. Read more: wapo.st/2WHDAsn. Subscribe to The Washington Post on YouTube: wapo.st/2QOdcqK Follow us: Twitter: twitter.com/washingtonpost Instagram: www.instagram.com/washingtonpost/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/washingtonpost/
republicans, coronavirus stimulus bill, WaPo Video, t:Original, coronavirus bill, unemployment, s:Politics, rick scott, lindsey graham, The Washington Post, a:politics, coronavirus, ben sassee, gop, News, Washington Post YouTube, stimulus bill, coronavirus outbreakl, Washington Post Video, tim scott,
< ?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?><>

< start="0.1" dur="5.1">-Our nation is built on the dignity of work.>

< start="5.2" dur="3.768">What this bill does, without fixing it,>

< start="8.968" dur="4.366">is it simply says you can earn more money>

< start="13.334" dur="2.534">by being on unemployment>

< start="15.868" dur="3.033">than you can while working.>

< start="18.901" dur="4.433">That is an incentive that is perverse.>

< start="23.334" dur="5.367">We cannot have intended to encourage people>

< start="28.701" dur="3.432">not to work and make more money>

< start="32.133" dur="5.167">than to go back to work and receive your normal pay.>

< start="37.3" dur="2.534">-Under this bill, the $600 payment>

< start="39.834" dur="2.1">on top of state benefits>

< start="41.934" dur="3.4">actually allows people to have their income almost doubled>

< start="45.334" dur="1.733">in certain circumstances.>

< start="47.067" dur="1.2">And I want to help people.>

< start="48.267" dur="2.866">I want to make sure that, if you lose your job,>

< start="51.133" dur="2.334">that we cover your wages.>

< start="53.467" dur="4.9">But under this bill, you get $23.15 an hour,>

< start="58.367" dur="3.2">based on a 40-hour work week, not to work.>

< start="61.567" dur="2">-This is a debate about whether or not>

< start="63.567" dur="2.633">we're gonna let a poorly drafted bill>

< start="66.2" dur="3.467">knock this nation still harder in the coming months>

< start="69.667" dur="3.8">by unintentionally increasing unemployment.>

< start="73.467" dur="1.7">That's what this debate is about.>

< start="75.167" dur="1.866">So we want to do something really simple.>

< start="77.033" dur="2">We want to fix what's broken here>

< start="79.033" dur="2.634">by saying that unemployment insurance benefits>

< start="81.667" dur="2.4">should be capped at 100%>

< start="84.067" dur="2.5">of the pay you had before you were unemployed.>

< start="86.567" dur="3.267">This isn't just about people who have already been made unemployed.>

< start="89.834" dur="2.6">This is about people who are going to be made unemployed>

< start="92.434" dur="1.5">in the coming weeks.>

< start="93.934" dur="3.4">All this amendment says that we're voting on in a few minutes>

< start="97.334" dur="2.467">is that we should cap the unemployment benefits>

< start="99.801" dur="4.332">at 100% of the wages you were just receiving while working.>

< start="104.133" dur="1.867">-Under this bill, as it's written now,>

< start="106" dur="1.767">the government will pay many Americans more>

< start="107.767" dur="1.7">to be on government assistance>

< start="109.467" dur="2.434">than they would make if they were working at their regular jobs.>

< start="111.901" dur="3.7">I support expanding the unemployment insurance program.>

< start="115.601" dur="2.399">It's the best and quickest way to get money>

< start="118" dur="2.133">to people that need it most.>

< start="120.133" dur="1.801">But we should not create a system>

< start="121.934" dur="2.066">where unemployment insurance benefits>

< start="124" dur="2.334">are higher than a salary.>

< start="126.334" dur="3.133">We cannot pay people more to not work than to work.>

< start="129.467" dur="1.501">This is basic common sense.>