Read time: 2 minutes

Barney Frank: Unemployments Benefits Aren't A 'Concession'

Now that I understand this was just the standard UI extension renewal, I'm mad as hell that Obama's trying to give away the store for this. If this was the extraordinary step of adding an additional year of benefits, I could see it. But it wasn't,

Now that I understand this was just the standard UI extension renewal, I'm mad as hell that Obama's trying to give away the store for this. If this was the extraordinary step of adding an additional year of benefits, I could see it. But it wasn't, and Barney Frank is right -- they didn't need to extend those tax cuts:

WASHINGTON -- A senior House Democrat suggested Thursday that Congress could have reauthorized extended unemployment benefits even if President Obama hadn't cut a deal with Republicans to attach 13 months of jobless aid to two years of tax cuts for the rich.

"It's totally unbalanced. I think unemployment shouldn't be considered a concession they give to us," Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told HuffPost after Democrats symbolically rejected the tax deal. "I think we should have kept fighting them on it."

Senate Democrats fell seven votes short on Saturday of the 60 needed to break a filibuster and reauthorize jobless aid along with middle-class tax cuts. The Saturday vote set the stage for the White House to strike its deal with Republicans on Monday. Without such a deal, the thinking went, there was no way to get around Republicans and conservative Democrats who would filibuster unemployment if its $60 billion cost wasn't offset with spending cuts.

Frank reminded HuffPost of how it was when Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) blocked a renewal of jobless aid in February. The media treated it as an outrage, and members of his own party begged Bunning to stop. Gradually, though, his insistence on "paying for" federally-funded benefits became a mainstream GOP position. Frank said Democrats should have made an effort to have that fight again.

"I don't know what the end would have been but I don't think we tried hard enough to make it clear that they were the ones obstructing," he said. "I think we should have had that debate for a couple weeks."

Can you help us out?

For 16 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit. We work 7 days a week, 16 hours a day for our labor of love, but with rising hosting and associated costs, we need your help! Could you donate $20 for 2020? Please consider a one time or recurring donation of whatever amount you can spare, or consider subscribing for an ad-free experience. It will be greatly appreciated and help us continue our mission of exposing the real FAKE NEWS!

More C&L Coverage

Discussion

New Commenting System

Our comments are now powered by Insticator. In order to comment you will need to create an Insticator account. The process is quick and simple. Please note that the ability to comment with a C&L site account is no longer available.

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service (revised 3/17/2016) for information on our posting policy.

Please Do Not Use the Login Link at the Top of the Site.

In order to comment you must use an Insticator account. To register an account, enter your comment and click the post button. A dialog will then appear allowing you create your account.

We will be retiring our Crooks and Liars user account system in January, 2021.

Thank you.
C&L Team