On the recordOctober 21, 2020
I would simply point out that the bill that we voted on and the Democrats all voted against earlier today did include a formula not unlike what the Senator from Oregon is suggesting, and that is a flat payment on top of the standard unemployment benefit. It was a $300 payment as opposed to a $600 payment. That would not be complicated to implement. The amendment that was offered when the CARES Act passed was a full wage replacement. There were concerns about whether that could be implemented by the Department of Labor, to be fair. But honestly, if you think about it, I am not sure what would be terribly complicated about having somebody come in and asking ``What do you make? Show me what you make'' and then saying ``OK. That is what you are going to get for a benefit--100 percent wage replacement.'' To me, that makes sense. Again, I would come back to the idea that if you pay somebody more not to work than to work--people naturally--I think we all do--respond to incentives. It seems pretty crazy to suggest that you could offer people 150 percent--or more in my State of South Dakota--of what they were making while working, in the form of a benefit, and not have them say ``Gee, I can make 150-some percent more not working than working'' and decide to take that benefit. I think that is what we run into. That is the economic disruption created by what the Senator from Oregon is suggesting. To his point about jobs coming back, that is exactly the point I made earlier.…





