Breakingviews - Data centres will become green activists’ target



By Robyn Mak



RJ45 cables are pictured inside the data centre operated by French telecoms operator Iliad in Paris, France, March 4, 2019.

HONG KONG (Reuters Breakingviews) - Technology firms are due a green shake-up. Data centres and networks each use around 1% of the world’s electricity, according to the International Energy Agency – more, for now, than electric vehicles. That could hit double-digits by 2030, making related emissions a problem.

The infrastructure behind video conferencing and binge-watching “The Crown” on Netflix comprises mainly two parts: buildings that house tens of thousands of servers and the networks that connect servers to smartphones, PCs and other devices. Both require huge amounts of electricity. Data centres use roughly 200 terawatt-hours a year, according to a 2018 study led by Eric Masanet, an engineer at Northwestern University in the United States. That’s in the same ballpark as Australia’s annual consumption.

The good news is that figure has barely increased over the past decade. Even as data volumes have multiplied, networks and server farms, particularly so-called hyperscale centres operated by Amazon.com, Microsoft, and Alphabet-owned Google, have become extremely energy efficient.

But that trajectory looks unsustainable. Even without the isolation of the pandemic, widespread adoption of next-generation 5G wireless technology, autonomous driving and the internet of things will dramatically boost internet traffic. Moreover, chips that power servers are reaching technological limits, making efficiency gains harder to come by.

Estimates for how much energy consumption will rise vary. But for some countries, data may suck up a double-digit percentage. Ireland’s power operator, for instance, in 2018 estimated the country’s data centres may account for nearly 30% of electricity demand by 2028. The Irish Academy of Engineering reckons that will add at least 1.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions, 13% of the electricity sector’s current total.

Giant technology companies are among the world’s largest buyers of renewable energy. But that won’t be enough to spare them the attention of environmental, social and governance-oriented investors. At the top of the agenda will be pushing for better disclosure about energy use and emissions, perhaps even attributing them to specific bulk customers like Netflix and Zoom Video Communications

In January 2020, Microsoft unveiled a tool to help enterprise clients analyse their cloud service-related emissions. That’s a step in the right direction, but ESG investors may demand much more in 2021.

This is a Breakingviews prediction for 2021. To see more of our predictions, click here.

Beaver found in Plymouth among first to be reintroduced to wild in Britain for 400 years


Max Stephens Fri, December 25, 2020,

Police officers shared a photo of the runaway beaver in Plymouth on Twitter - SWNS

A beaver rescued by police this week was among the first of its kind to be reintroduced to the wild in Britain for nearly 400 years

The 20kg creature had escaped from a specially designed re-wilding enclosure near Poole Farm in Plymouth.

Local officers say they were confronted with the “unusual sight” of the beaver at large on Monday and posted a photograph on social media of the runaway creature in the city.


They tweeted yesterday: “An unusual sight for one of our crews on Monday night shift: Plymouth's resident beaver spotted out and about!

“He has apparently been caught since and is back home for Christmas.”

The male had been released into the wild at Forder Valley in November – the first in the city for 400 years.

The Eurasian Beaver was originally caught in late September in the wild from the Tay Catchment in Scotland and was released as part of a nationwide trend to reintroduce beavers in the wild.

The beaver’s behaviour and actions will now be monitored in the hope that its actions will reduce flooding further downstream and create habitats for wildlife in the Bircham Valley.

This comes after a 25kg young male beaver was spotted in Italy for the first time in nearly 500 years, after it walked over the border from Austria or Slovenia into the Dolomites.

The first clues that the rodent might be back on Italian soil were noticed by a hunting guide who spends his days roaming the mountains and forests.

Forester Reinhard Pipperger had noticed at the time young trees had been felled along a stretch of the Sesto river in Northern Italy.

The beaver was later photographed by a camera set up along the river by wildlife rangers.

Two faces of George Blake: infamous spy and affable party host

By Mark Trevelyan

(Reuters) - When I met George Blake in Moscow in September 1991, two weeks after an abortive coup against Kremlin leader Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union was in the process of falling apart and the Communist party had been banned for its role in the putsch.

It must have been a worrying time for the man whose Communist convictions had led him decades earlier to betray his country - Britain - and abandon his family.

Yet Blake, who died in Russia on Saturday aged 98, was in genial mood over supper in his apartment as he reflected on his career as a double agent, his life in exile, and the uncertain future of his adopted country.

“The coup d’etat has brought about a shock that may make it possible to make changes that should have been carried out a long time ago,” said Blake.

“Now, the tooth has been pulled out,” he said, imagining a future when the 15 Soviet republics might evolve along the lines of the European Community, forerunner of the European Union, under a form of “caring capitalism”.

It was not to be: Blake and his dinner guests had no inkling that night that the Soviet Union would cease to exist within months and Gorbachev, fatally undermined by the coup, would find himself out of a job.

FILE PHOTO: Soviet secret agent George Blake gestures as he speaks at a presentation of a book of letters written by other spies from a British prison, in Moscow June 28, 2001. Blake -- a notorious traitor in Britain and legendary hero in Russia -- escaped from a British jail in 1966 while serving a 42 year sentence for passing secrets to Moscow./File Photo



THE OUTSIDER

Blake was the last in a notorious line of British spies who were secretly working for the Soviet Union, and whose betrayals rocked and humiliated the intelligence establishment at the height of the Cold War.

Unmasked in 1961, he was sentenced to 42 years in London’s Wormwood Scrubs prison. But he escaped in 1966 with the help of two British peace activists, was smuggled across the Iron Curtain and began a new life in Moscow, leaving behind his wife and children.

What struck me most about him was a kind of rootlessness. Born in the Netherlands, he was totally fluent in English and Russian, but spoke both languages with a marked accent.

Sporting a tweed jacket and bow tie, he resembled an affable professor with balding head and peppery beard, shuffling around an apartment where Dutch paintings and Russian icons adorned the walls and volumes of Balzac and Lenin lined the bookshelves.

In Moscow he had made himself a new life, marrying a Soviet wife, Ida, and raising their son Misha together while working at a foreign affairs institute.

At first, he recalled, he was a true believer in the promise of Communism: it made a deep impression on him that anyone could just walk into an ordinary ‘Gastronom’, or grocery store, and buy a glass of champagne at the counter.

“I thought: we are on the eve of Communism,” he said. “That’s how naive I was. Gradually I realised that wasn’t so... I thought Soviet man was a new man - and he wasn’t.”

INTO THE UNKNOWN

Despite his disenchantment with the system, Blake retained his respect for the KGB security service to which he had switched his allegiance.

“The KGB was an instrument of the party which was there to enforce and punish if people didn’t toe the party line... The KGB was there to see that if policies were not carried out, people were pulled up short,” he said.

“It was one of the few Soviet institutions which was not corrupt. The KGB was to the Communist Party what the Jesuit order was to the Catholic church.”

Far from disbanding and opening up its archives, as some were urging at that time, the organisation would survive under a new name, he predicted.

How Crisco toppled lard – and made Americans believers in industrial food


Helen Zoe Veit, Associate Professor of History, Michigan State University
Fri, December 25, 2020

It's all about having faith in the purity of the process.

melissamn/Shutterstock.com

Perhaps you’ll unearth a can of Crisco for the holiday baking season. If so, you’ll be one of millions of Americans who have, for generations, used it to make cookies, cakes, pie crusts and more.

But for all Crisco’s popularity, what exactly is that thick, white substance in the can?

If you’re not sure, you’re not alone.

For decades, Crisco had only one ingredient, cottonseed oil. But most consumers never knew that. That ignorance was no accident.

A century ago, Crisco’s marketers pioneered revolutionary advertising techniques that encouraged consumers not to worry about ingredients and instead to put their trust in reliable brands. It was a successful strategy that other companies would eventually copy.
Lard gets some competition

For most of the 19th century, cotton seeds were a nuisance. When cotton gins combed the South’s ballooning cotton harvests to produce clean fiber, they left mountains of seeds behind. Early attempts to mill those seeds resulted in oil that was unappealingly dark and smelly. Many farmers just let their piles of cottonseed rot.

It was only after a chemist named David Wesson pioneered industrial bleaching and deodorizing techniques in the late 19th century that cottonseed oil became clear, tasteless and neutral-smelling enough to appeal to consumers. Soon, companies were selling cottonseed oil by itself as a liquid or mixing it with animal fats to make cheap, solid shortenings, sold in pails to resemble lard.

Shortening’s main rival was lard. Earlier generations of Americans had produced lard at home after autumn pig slaughters, but by the late 19th century meat processing companies were making lard on an industrial scale. Lard had a noticeable pork taste, but there’s not much evidence that 19th-century Americans objected to it, even in cakes and pies. Instead, its issue was cost. While lard prices stayed relatively high through the early 20th century, cottonseed oil was abundant and cheap.

Americans, at the time, overwhelmingly associated cotton with dresses, shirts and napkins, not food.

Nonetheless, early cottonseed oil and shortening companies went out of their way to highlight their connection to cotton. They touted the transformation of cottonseed from pesky leftover to useful consumer product as a mark of ingenuity and progress. Brands like Cottolene and Cotosuet drew attention to cotton with their names and by incorporating images of cotton in their advertising.

King Crisco

When Crisco launched in 1911, it did things differently.

Like other brands, it was made from cottonseed. But it was also a new kind of fat – the world’s first solid shortening made entirely from a once-liquid plant oil. Instead of solidifying cottonseed oil by mixing it with animal fat like the other brands, Crisco used a brand-new process called hydrogenation, which Procter & Gamble, the creator of Crisco, had perfected after years of research and development.

From the beginning, the company’s marketers talked a lot about the marvels of hydrogenation – what they called “the Crisco process” – but avoided any mention of cottonseed. There was no law at the time mandating that food companies list ingredients, although virtually all food packages provided at least enough information to answer that most fundamental of all questions: What is it?

In contrast, Crisco marketers offered only evasion and euphemism. Crisco was made from “100% shortening,” its marketing materials asserted, and “Crisco is Crisco, and nothing else.” Sometimes they gestured towards the plant kingdom: Crisco was “strictly vegetable,” “purely vegetable” or “absolutely all vegetable.” At their most specific, advertisements said it was made from “vegetable oil,” a relatively new phrase that Crisco helped to popularize.

But why go to all this trouble to avoid mentioning cottonseed oil if consumers were already knowingly buying it from other companies?

The truth was that cottonseed had a mixed reputation, and it was only getting worse by the time Crisco launched. A handful of unscrupulous companies were secretly using cheap cottonseed oil to cut costly olive oil, so some consumers thought of it as an adulterant. Others associated cottonseed oil with soap or with its emerging industrial uses in dyes, roofing tar and explosives. Still others read alarming headlines about how cottonseed meal contained a toxic compound, even though cottonseed oil itself contained none of it.

Instead of dwelling on its problematic sole ingredient, then, Crisco’s marketers kept consumer focus trained on brand reliability and the purity of modern factory food processing.

Crisco flew off the shelves. Unlike lard, Crisco had a neutral taste. Unlike butter, Crisco could last for years on the shelf. Unlike olive oil, it had a high smoking temperature for frying. At the same time, since Crisco was the only solid shortening made entirely from plants, it was prized by Jewish consumers who followed dietary restrictions forbidding the mixing of meat and dairy in a single meal.

In just five years, Americans were annually buying more than 60 million cans of Crisco, the equivalent of three cans for every family in the country. Within a generation, lard went from being a major part of American diets to an old-fashioned ingredient.

Trust the brand, not the ingredients

Today, Crisco has replaced cottonseed oil with palm, soy and canola oils. But cottonseed oil is still one of the most widely consumed edible oils in the country. It’s a routine ingredient in processed foods, and it’s commonplace in restaurant fryers.

Crisco would have never become a juggernaut without its aggressive advertising campaigns that stressed the purity and modernity of factory production and the reliability of the Crisco name. In the wake of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act – which made it illegal to adulterate or mislabel food products and boosted consumer confidence – Crisco helped convince Americans that they didn’t need to understand the ingredients in processed foods, as long as those foods came from a trusted brand.

In the decades that followed Crisco’s launch, other companies followed its lead, introducing products like Spam, Cheetos and Froot Loops with little or no reference to their ingredients.

Early packaging for Cheetos simply advertised the snack as ‘cheese flavored puffs.’ 

Wikimedia Commons

Once ingredient labeling was mandated in the U.S. in the late 1960s, the multisyllabic ingredients in many highly processed foods may have mystified consumers. But for the most part, they kept on eating.

So if you don’t find it strange to eat foods whose ingredients you don’t know or understand, you have Crisco partly to thank.

[ You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors. You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter. ]

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.

Read more:

A backlash against ‘mixed’ foods led to the demise of a classic American dish

How Spam became one of the most iconic American brands of all time

The Prohibition-era origins of the modern craft cocktail movement

Helen Zoe Veit does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

CRISCO HAS ANOTHER USE IN THE KINK COMMUNITY ; PUGNUS FUTUO

THIRD WORLD USA
Millions of Americans lose jobless benefits as $900B relief bill sits on President Trump's desk

Denitsa Tsekova
·Reporter
Sat, December 26, 2020

Unemployment benefit programs covering millions of Americans are ending as the stimulus deal passed by Congress, which would extend the programs, sits on the president’s desk.

“A complete unforced error,” Andrew Stettner, an unemployment insurance expert and senior fellow at the Century Foundation, told Yahoo Money. “At this point, [jobless Americans are] really at the edge, and they don't have any more further to cut. It's going to throw them into disarray.”

Around 14 million Americans currently rely on Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) and Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC), both of which are expiring on Saturday. While some unemployed Americans could move to another program, around 10 million will be ineligible. Nearly 5 million people are expected to fall into poverty in January as a result of relief provisions expiring.

“That’s the last week of compensable unemployment,” Stettner said. “Most people will probably get their final deposit into their bank account early next week, but they won't be able to claim any more benefits.” 

U.S. President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump exit from Air Force One at the Palm Beach International Airport on December 23, 2020 in West Palm Beach, Florida. President Trump is scheduled to enjoy a 10-day holiday visit at his Mar-a-Lago resort during the last Christmas of his precedency. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)More

And even if the bill was signed now there would still be a lapse in benefits for the unemployed and reprogramming the benefit payments will take a few weeks.

“If the bill is signed then people are continuously eligible,” Stettner said. “Every day delayed adds to the complexity of getting the benefits back up and running.”

On December 21, Congress overwhelmingly passed a $900 billion stimulus deal that would extend both programs until March 14. But without the president signing the bill into law, the lapse is the earliest cutoff in extended benefits in any recession since 1985. Trump threatened he won’t sign it unless the current $600 stimulus check is increased to $2,000 creating uncertainty over the bill’s future.

The president didn’t say whether he’ll veto the bill but hasn’t signed it as of Saturday. In a tweet on Friday evening, Trump doubled down on his demand for bigger stimulus checks in any stimulus legislation.

A two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress would be required to override a presidential veto. Complicating matters is that the bill is attached to another piece of legislation to keep the government funded. If Trump doesn’t sign the conjoined pair, the government faces a shutdown on Dec. 28.

Both the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) and the Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC) programs are set to expire on December 26 unless Congress reaches a stimulus deal

‘It's really a disaster’

As of Saturday, jobless Americans are facing their third benefit cliff in the pandemic. The extra $600 in weekly unemployment benefits under the CARES Act expired in July and the extra $300 under the Lost Wages Assistance (LWA) program expired in September.

“These people are going to fall into poverty, they are going to lose their homes, people are going to sell their cars,” Stettner said. “It's really a disaster.”

It’s not just unemployment programs expiring: The federal eviction moratorium, paid sick leave provisions, aid to state and local governments, and other relief expires at the end of December.

Community members wait in line to receive holiday-themed takeout meals and backpacks with toiletries from the Midnight Mission in Skid Row on Christmas day amid the COVID-19 pandemic on December 25, 2020 in Los Angeles, California.

 (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Around 3 million workers on PEUC may be able to move to Extended Benefits (EB) a federal program that provides additional 13 weeks but that program is also expiring in many states as their unemployment rates decrease. Only 18 states are projected to have the program in place by the end of December.

For jobless Americans, the $900 billion stimulus deal would have meant an extra $300 a week added to their benefits as well as PEUC and PUA programs extended so that people could receive benefits for another 11 weeks. Along with that, some overpayments would be waived, and some workers may even get an extra $100 on top of the $300 a week.
‘The pandemic has really exacerbated it’

As a result of the expiring relief, the number of people in poverty would increase by 4.8 million in January, according to an analysis by Columbia’s Center on Poverty and Social Policy.

“It's really keeping both the workers and their whole families, afloat,” Megan Curran, a postdoctoral research scientist, and co-author of the report told Yahoo Money. “But it also means that the workers and their whole families are at risk of losing out.”

YAHOO POVERTY CHART: poverty (uri.sh)

The potential January jump in poverty would come after millions have already fallen into poverty since the summer. A total of 7.8 million Americans have entered poverty since June, according to a University of Chicago and Notre Dame study found. A similar study by Columbia’s Center on Poverty and Social Policy found that 5.5 million have fallen into poverty from May to October.

Black Americans are falling into poverty in the greatest numbers during the pandemic and will be disproportionally affected by the current benefit cliff with 1.4 million expected to enter poverty in January.

“This disparity was a problem before the pandemic but the pandemic has really exacerbated it,” Curran said. “Job loss has hit them disproportionately and poverty, therefore, has also hit them disproportionately.”

• GOP blocks $2,000 checks as Trump leaves virus aid in chaos

  President Trump's demand for $2,000 checks for most Americans was rejected by House Republicans as his disorganized actions have thrown the COVID-19 relief and government funding bill into chaos.

Trump, Lindsey Graham play golf, discuss stimulus checks on Christmas

 Trump  complained about the ‘pork’ contained in the latest Covid stimulus bill

 

Graeme Massie

Fri, December 25, 2020, 11:49 AM MST

Trump plays Christmas Day round of golf with Lindsay Graham while complaining about stimulus bill's 'pork'

(SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)

Donald Trump golfed on Christmas Day with Lindsey Graham as he complained about the ‘pork’ contained in the latest Covid stimulus bill.

The outgoing president went to his golf club in West Palm Beach with the South Carolina senator as he continued to push back on the $900bn bill he has so far refused to sign.

The actual bill has now been flown to Palm Beach, where he staying at Mar-a-Lago, so it is available to sign.

Lawmakers reportedly have no idea if Mr Trump will sign the bill, veto it, or do nothing, which would see the federal government shut down at midnight on Monday, reports Politico.

But Republicans told Axios that they expect Mr Trump to sign the bill “in the nick of time.”

Mr Trump caused chaos earlier this week when he decided he would not sign the bill, which would give every American $600.

Despite his administration helping broker the deal, Mr Trump released a video calling for checks of $2,000 to be issued.

That idea was applauded by Democrats but quickly rejected by House Republicans on Thursday.

Around 14 million Americans are also set to lose their unemployment benefits on Saturday.

The president vowed he would “work tirelessly” over his Christmas break but he was also seen golfing on Christmas Eve.

It is the 31st golf vacation of Mr Trump’s presidency and takes the taxpayer cost of nearly 300 days of golfing to $151.5 million, according to HuffPost.

Read More

Read More

Trump addresses Covid in Christmas video before Twitter election rant

GOP blocks $2,000 checks as Trump leaves COVID aid in chaos

Trump golfs in Florida as COVID relief hangs in the balance

Republicans defy Trump over stimulus checks

What is the current poverty rate in the United States?Current estimates on poverty in the U.S.

The official poverty rate is 10.5 percent, based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2019 estimates. That year, an estimated 34.0 million Americans lived in poverty according to the official measure, 4.2 million fewer people than in 2018. According to supplemental poverty measure, the poverty rate was 11.7 percent.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the response rate for the CPS basic household survey was 73% in March 2020, about 10 percentage points lower than in preceding months and the same period in 2019, which were regularly above 80%.

The official poverty measure was developed in the 1960s in conjunction with President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. Each September the U.S. Census Bureau releases an update of the national poverty rate for the prior year.

The official measure today is based on data from the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement. The survey is sent to U.S. households, so the poverty estimates do not include those who are homeless. The sample also excludes military personnel who do not live with at least one civilian adult as well as incarcerated adults.

While poverty rates according to the official and supplemental measures fluctuate from year to year, so do incomes relative to the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). According to the Census Bureau, 17.3 million people reported deep poverty in 2018, which means a household income below 50 percent of the 2018 poverty threshold. These individuals represented an estimated 5.3 percent of all Americans and 45.4 percent of those in poverty.

How high has the poverty rate in the U.S. been historically?

Historically, the official poverty rate in the United States had ranged from a high of 22.4 percent when it was first estimated for 1959 to a low of 11.1 percent in 1973. Since its initial rapid decline after 1964 with the launch of major War on Poverty programs, the poverty rate has fluctuated between around 11 and 15 percent.

Individuals also transition into and out of poverty over time, though many of those who are poor at any given time will spend multiple spells in poverty. Research shows that transitions into or out of poverty often happens after major life events such as marriage, divorce, or sudden changes in income. These transitions also can be associated with larger shifts in unemployment or wages. 

What is the difference between the official and supplemental poverty measures?

The official poverty measure triples the inflation-adjusted cost of a minimum food diet and creates thresholds based on family size, composition and the age of the householder. Anyone living in a household with an income below their relative poverty threshold is considered to be in poverty. 

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services develops their Federal Poverty Guideline income thresholds based on the official poverty measure estimates. These income thresholds are used to determine eligibility for federal safety net programs, such as Medicaid or WIC.

Since the 1960s, new poverty measures, including the U.S. Census Bureau’s supplemental measure, provide a more complex understanding of poverty in the United States. The supplemental measure includes basic costs of living that can vary across states. It also includes transfers from safety net programs and in-kind benefits.

Updated 9/15/2020

For more information:

Semega, J; Kollar, MA; Shrider, EA; Creamer, J. Income and Poverty in the United States: 2019. Census Bureau, September 2020

The Rise of Extreme Poverty thein UnitEd StatES

The number of adults on welfare has dropped dramatically since its reform in 1996. As of 2011, a little over 1 million adults remained on the welfare rolls in a typical month, down from about 4.6 million at the program’s peak in the early 1990s. As these numbers plummeted, the number of single mothers joining the workforce or returning to it grew at rates that were largely unexpected.

For these reasons, welfare reform has been touted as a success.

At the same time, in the years since 1996, a new group of American poor has emerged: families with children who are living on virtually no income—$2 or less per person per day in a given month. These are America’s “extreme poor.” The U.S. official poverty line for a family of three would equate to roughly $17 per person per day. What scholars call “deep poverty”—income at less than half the poverty line—is about $8.50 per person per day, over four times higher than our cutoff. This new group of American poor, the extreme poor, are likely experiencing a level of destitution not captured in prior poverty measures, one thatfew of us knew even existed in such a rich country.

The purpose of this article is to expose the rise of extreme poverty and to examine how the safety net is—or is not—addressing it. We cannot fully address why extreme poverty is on the rise, but it may well be related to the landmark 1996 welfare reform. After 1996, it became far more difficult to get any cash assistance from the government if you didn’t have a job, even if you were raising young children and had no other sources of income.

THIRD WORLD USA

Trump refuses to budge over aid bill, imperiling jobless benefits for millions
  

Washington residents protest to cancel rent during coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic

Steve Holland and Raphael Satter
Fri, December 25, 2020, 10:07 PM MST

PALM BEACH, Fla/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Millions of Americans are about to see their jobless benefits expire on Saturday as President Donald Trump has so far refused to sign into law a $2.3 trillion pandemic aid and spending package, insisting that it did not do enough to help everyday people.

Trump stunned Republicans and Democrats alike when he said this week he was unhappy with the massive bill, which provides $892 billion in badly needed coronavirus relief, including extending emergency unemployment benefits that expire at the close of Dec. 26, and $1.4 trillion for normal government spending.


Without Trump's signature, about 14 million people could lose those extra benefits, according to Labor Department data. A partial government shutdown will begin on Tuesday, putting millions of government workers' incomes at risk, unless Congress can agree a stop-gap government funding bill before then.

After months of wrangling, Republicans and Democrats agreed to the package last weekend, with the support of the White House. Trump, who hands over power to Democratic President-elect Joe Biden on Jan. 20, did not object to the terms of the deal before Congress voted it through on Monday night.

But since then he has complained that the bill gives too much money to special interests, cultural projects and foreign aid, while the provision of $600 stimulus checks to millions of struggling Americans was too small. He has demanded that be raised to $2,000.

"I simply want to get our great people $2000, rather than the measly $600 that is now in the bill," the president tweeted on Saturday.

His refusal to sign prompted a sharp rebuke from Biden, who called on the outgoing Republican president to act immediately.

"This abdication of responsibility has devastating consequences. ... This bill is critical. It needs to be signed into law now," Biden, who is spending the holiday in his home state of Delaware, said in a statement. The president-elect was scheduled to meet with his transition advisers on Sunday.

Americans are living through an unprecedented holiday season amid a pandemic that has killed nearly 330,000 people in the United States, with a daily death toll now repeatedly well over 3,000 people, the highest since the pandemic began.

Many economists agree the bill's aid is too low but say the immediate support is still urgently needed.

'EXTRAORDINARILY HARD'

A source familiar with the situation said Trump's objection to the bill caught many White House officials by surprise. His criticism of the bill in tweets dashed hopes that he would sign the bill over the weekend.

Trump spent much of Thursday and Christmas Day golfing at his club in West Palm Beach, Florida. The bill has been sent to Mar-a-Lago, his Florida residence, where Trump spent Saturday with members of his family, including senior advisers Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, and daughter Ivanka Trump.

According to his daily schedule, Trump was involved in "many meetings and calls," although the White House did not provide details. He had no events scheduled for Sunday

The president also found time to reiterate in several tweets his baseless claims of election fraud and accuse his fellow Republicans of abandoning him in his bid to overturn the election result, already shot down multiple times by U.S. courts. He has yet to acknowledge Biden's Nov. 3 victory.

"Time for Republican Senators to step up and fight for the Presidency," he tweeted on Saturday evening.

Trump appeared to be in an isolated position on the aid bill as well, with few Republican lawmakers voicing support for his position. The White House had no updates as to whether Trump would sign the bill by Monday, an official said.

Representative French Hill of Arkansas, a Republican who sits on the House Financial Services Committee, told Fox on Saturday he hoped Trump would sign the bill at once because it would provide immediate relief to Americans.

"I wish he had made that pitch for $2,000 as vociferously over the last three weeks as after the bill was passed. It might have given us more leverage to get a slightly higher payment," Hill said. At this point, he added, "It's going to be extraordinarily hard to get that payment through the Senate and the House."

The U.S. Congress, which normally is adjourned the last week of December, is preparing to return to work. The Democratic-controlled House plans to vote on legislation providing one-time $2,000 checks to individuals.

Trump last week vetoed a $740 billion bill authorizing the nation's defense programs. On Monday, the House is scheduled to vote on overriding Trump's veto. If the House vote succeeds, the Senate could hold its vote as early as Tuesday. Both chambers passed the defense spending bill with margins well over the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.

(Reporting by Steve Holland in Palm Beach, Florida, and Raphael Satter in Washington; Additional reporting by Julia Harte in Washington and Simon Lewis in Wilmington, Delaware; Writing by Michelle Price and Humeyra Pamuk; Editing by Mary Milliken )

While in Florida Golfing, Trump Allows Jobless Benefits to Expire for Millions

Peter Wade
Sat, December 26, 2020,


While President Donald Trump spends the holidays at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, millions of Americans will lose their jobless benefits.

Trump’s refusal to sign the $2.3 trillion Covid-19 relief and government funding bill, which his own administration negotiated, means approximately 14 million Americans will see their unemployment benefits expire on Saturday.

With at least a partial government shutdown looming if not signed by Tuesday, the bill has been sent to Florida where it awaits the president’s signature or veto.

Trump’s attempt to upend the bipartisan compromise by leadership in the House and Senate, insisting on $2,000 stimulus checks instead of the current $600 in the bill, is as fraudulent as his rigged election claims. It’s important to remember that although Trump is now saying, “Give our people the money!” his administration was involved in the negotiations, and it’s his party that is insisting on keeping payments to Americans low.

According to the New York Times, since November an additional 398,000 people filed for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, one of two programs that will expire on Saturday night. And even if Trump signed the bill today, it could still take four to six weeks for people to receive their new benefits, and they will need to submit proof that they are eligible.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to hold a unanimous consent vote Monday on legislation for stimulus checks that would meet Trump’s supposed desire for $2,000 direct payments, although that is unlikely to pass or get past the Senate. But the vote will put Republicans in Congress on the spot since they’ve balked at going above $600, following their rediscovered concerns about the deficit.

More from Rolling Stone

Ho, Ho, Ho, You're Not Getting $2,000


Trump Tries to Ruin the Environment as Much as Possible Before Leaving


Trump Hanging Out With 'Crackpots or Conspiracy Theorists' Has Officials Alarmed




Trump will cost jobless workers a week of $300 federal unemployment benefits if he doesn't sign the relief bill by the end of Saturday

Joseph Zeballos-Roig
Sat, December 26, 2020

AP Photo/Patrick Semansky


The president could cost jobless workers a week of $300 federal unemployment benefits if the relief legislation is not signed by midnight Saturday.


State agencies can only distribute benefits for weeks the legislation is enacted, experts say.


Nearly 14 millions Americans are threatened with the loss of all their unemployment aid this weekend.


President Donald Trump has suggested he may reject the $900 billion coronavirus relief package that Congress approved earlier this week unless lawmakers include $2,000 stimulus payments. He still hasn't signed it into law and has given few indications of which direction he'll swing.

The continued delay endangers a broad range of federal assistance programs in the legislation as well. It could prove costly for millions of Americans receiving unemployment benefits since they were supposed to restart December 26.

If Trump doesn't sign the federal rescue package by the end of Saturday, it would effectively cut a week of $300 federal unemployment benefits for jobless people, according to Michele Evermore, a policy expert at the National Employment Law Project.


However, she cautioned it's hard to project without federal guidance how the holdup would affect other unemployment programs.

"I'm not entirely sure how this will be interpreted - at the very least, we lose a week of the $300," Evermore told Insider. "No matter what, if he doesn't sign, next week it goes down to 10 weeks of an extra $300."

Experts like Evermore say a two-to-three week gap in unemployment benefits is inevitable since states need time to recalibrate their computer systems to send the payments.

States can't provide benefits for weeks before the relief legislation is actually approved. Depending when it's signed, that could put labor agencies on track to restart the payouts during the first week of January. The $300 federal supplement would still end on March 14, setting up only a 10-week extension instead of 11.

Trump's move also threatens to financially devastate millions of Americans heading into next year. Saturday is the last day that two federal unemployment programs distribute their payments. They are the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance for gig workers and freelancers and Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation for people who exhausted state benefits.

That pair of programs set up under the CARES Act in March cover 14 million people and expire this month. The president's calendar has no public events listed for the weekend. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

The president maintained his position in a tweet on Saturday morning, saying he wanted to increase stimulus payments and remove unrelated provisions from the large tax-and-spending package.


"I simply want to get out great people $2000, rather than the measly $600 that is now in the bill," Trump tweeted. "Also, stop the billions of dollars in 'pork'."

Democrats fiercely criticized Trump on Saturday. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, said the president was "throwing a tantrum" and urged him to sign the legislation.

"If Donald Trump doesn't sign the COVID relief bill today, many workers won't receive their income for the week of December 27- not even retroactively," he said in a statement. "The ability of millions of Americans to keep a roof over their heads and buy groceries hangs in the balance."

On Tuesday evening, Trump threatened in a video posted on Twitter to derail the $900 billion coronavirus relief package alongside the government spending bill it was paired with to accelerate their passage. He blasted provisions in the funding legislation such as money for the Kennedy Center, though his budget request had allocated funds for it.

The development stunned lawmakers on Capitol Hill, who had expected the president to sign the legislation given the White House's public statements on it. Trump had largely delegated relief negotiations to Congressional leaders for months.

The coronavirus relief legislation contained $600 direct payments, $300 weekly federal unemployment benefits, funding for food stamps and rental assistance, and small business aid among other measures. It passed Congress with a strong bipartisan majority on Monday evening, which could potentially pave the way for a veto override.

In a bit of political jockeying, House Democrats on Thursday swiftly attempted to advance a measure to approve $2,000 stimulus checks. But House Republicans immediately blocked it. Speaker Nancy Pelosi assailed the GOP move and vowed to bring up the legislation for another vote on Monday.

Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham, a top Trump ally in Congress, suggested the president was holding firm on his position on Saturday afternoon.

"After spending some time with President @realDonaldTrump today, I am convinced he is more determined than ever to increase stimulus payments to $2000 per person and challenge Section 230 big tech liability protection," Graham tweeted.

Read the original article on Business Insider



Trump’s refusal to sign coronavirus relief bill endangers jobless aid for 14 million Americans


Alex Woodward
Sat, December 26, 2020

(Getty Images)

Joe Biden has demanded Donald Trump immediately sign a broad government funding bill as unemployment benefits lapse for millions of out-of-work Americans, calling the president’s refusal an “abdication of responsibility” with “devastating consequences.”

Extended unemployment relief that has served as a critical lifeline for millions of Americans during the public health crisis expired on Saturday, following the president’s last-minute rejection of a spending package that includes $900bn in coronavirus aid.

“It is the day after Christmas, and millions of families don’t know if they’ll be able to make ends meet because of president Donald Trump’s refusal to sign an economic relief bill approved by Congress with an overwhelming and bipartisan majority,” he said in a statement on Saturday.

If the president refuses to sign the bill or veto it all together, he threatens a broad range of Covid-19-related relief measures for roughly 14 million people, including weekly unemployment payments and a federal moratorium on evictions that is set to expire on New Year’s Eve.

After several weeks of negotiations before an eleventh-hour deadline on Monday, Congress agreed to a $900bn relief package that includes a $600 one-time direct payment to most Americans, along with an extension of $300 in federal weekly unemployment aid, in addition to state-level benefits, for 11 weeks.

But on Wednesday, before he left the White House to spend Christmas at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, the president released a video message calling the legislation a “disgrace” and demanded Congress “immediately get rid of the wasteful and unnecessary items” from the bill.

On Saturday, he announced: “I simply want to get our great people $2,000, rather than the measly $600 that is now in the bill.”

The president has conflated the omnibus spending bill, which includes budget items the White House sought months ago and that his Republican allies have approved, with the relief package, arguing that it does not contain enough one-time direct payments to most Americans and includes too much in foreign aid.

Those budget items were among those negotiated between Congress and the White House. On Monday, 128 of 195 House Republicans voted to support the budget.

If Mr Trump does sign the bill on Saturday, there is still likely to be a temporary lapse in benefits, as states scramble to adjust to the new timeline, potentially cutting off aid for out-of-work Americans for at least a week, effectively cutting funding down from 11 weeks to just 10, according to Michele Evermore with the National Employment Law Project.

The bill signs off on $600 cheques for most Americans, but Mr Trump has pushed for $2,000 checks – Democrats have pushed for larger checks for months, following a one-time payment in April of $1,200, but were repeatedly rejected by congressional Republicans.

Mr Biden has repeatedly referred to the funding measure as a “down payment” ahead of his inauguration on 20 January, after which he has pledged more support to Americans during the emergency.

During debate over the latest relief package, Democrats sought another round of similarly sized payments, but those efforts were blocked by lawmakers in the GOP-controlled Senate, arguing that higher payments would negatively impact the federal deficit, despite their overwhelming support for corporate tax deductions in the bill, along with the president’s $1.75 trillion tax cuts and the recent passage of a $741bn defence budget.

Democrats have sought to leverage the president’s demands for $2,000 payments, but Republicans rebuffed the president’s demands on Christmas Eve.

“Why would politicians not want to give people $2,000, rather than only $600?" the president said on Twitter on Christmas, which he spent playing on golf. “Give our people the money!”

More than 20 million Americans are relying on some form of unemployment aid.

Roughly 869,000 people filed new claims for state jobless benefits within the last week ending on 19 December, which has fallen from the previous week but is significantly higher than jobless claims from a month earlier, before a new spike in Covid-19 infections and deaths across the US.

Nearly 400,000 people filed for aid through the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance programme, one of two federal programmes that will expire without the president’s signature.

A partial government shutdown will also begin on Tuesday unless Congress can agree to a temporary stop-gap measure to fund the government until it can reach an agreement on the larger funding bill.