Republican Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw criticized House Democrats’ latest coronavirus stimulus proposal Wednesday, arguing that it encourages Americans not to work.
The $3 trillion proposal laid out by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Tuesday significantly expands unemployment benefits, but Crenshaw is instead proposing a six week extension of the $600 a week emergency unemployment payments, which he argues will stimulate the economy and get Americans back to work faster. (RELATED: Here’s What The Coronavirus Stimulus Actually Does)
“There’s no way politically that we are going to be able to remove that benefit at this point,” Crenshaw told Fox Business host Stuart Varney. “Democrats want to extend that benefit through the end of the year, by the way. If you want to make sure that Americans don’t work, and remain dependent on the government, well, that’s a great way to do it. With my bill, it’s a great way to actually keep stimulating the economy but encourage people to get back to work. And actually get our country back on track.”
Crenshaw also criticized Democratic politicians throughout the country for imposing long-term lockdowns, including Los Angeles, which announced Tuesday that they would likely extend their stay at home order for several more months. (RELATED: FLASHBACK: Jan.21: Fauci Says Coronavirus ‘Not A Major Threat’ To U.S.)
“Americans understand how to keep themselves safe,” Crenshaw said. “They understand the notion of personal responsibility. We can trust them with that. It does not take government enforcement to keep people healthy and safe. It never has, it’s never been a tenet of the American spirit and it shouldn’t be now.”
Crenshaw’s home state of Texas was one of the first to lift their stay at home order earlier this month.
“Texas is leading the way. We can do this as a country. There is no data, no science, no common sense to support what say California is doing in L.A. County that just announced three months of extra lockdown,” Crenshaw said. “That is not how you treat the American people. They are breaking the contract with the consent of the governed.”