Feinstein: States Without Mask Mandate Shouldn’t Receive Direct Federal Funds

Press Release

13

Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) released the following statement on her intent to ensure states that refuse to implement mask requirements don’t receive federal assistance payments:

“In the last two weeks, 41 states saw an increase in coronavirus cases, with a total of 3.5 million infected nationwide. California, Florida and New York each topped 300,000 cases, and Texas will soon follow. We’ve seen 60,000 new cases in five of the last six days. We’re failing to control this virus and it’s time for serious action.

“Research shows that masks reduce transmission of the coronavirus. CDC Director Redfield said this surge in COVID-19 cases could end within two months if we adopt ‘universal masking.’ Businesses like Walmart, Kohl’s and Kroger now require masks. And countries that are successfully controlling this virus require masks. So why doesn’t the United States have a national mask mandate?

“Wearing masks in public should be mandatory. Period. Leader McConnell said the Senate will take up the next coronavirus economic relief bill later this month. At that time, I intend to offer an amendment to prohibit sending funds to states that haven’t adopted a statewide mask requirement.

“The situation is getting worse daily. Several states including California, Alabama and Montana already require masks in public. This should be universal. My hope has been that other governors would show the leadership to institute their own mask mandates, but so far that hasn’t happened. It’s time for Congress to step in. This is a matter of life or death, and partisan politics shouldn’t play a role.”

Editores Note: Currently, 28 states plus the District of Columbia have mask mandates as of July 18, 2020

13 COMMENTS

  1. Wait… California requires masks… why then, is there such a large spike in cases?!

    This corona stuff is tricky

  2. Fix your towns public deification, public assisted drug use, crime and hypocritical ways before grandstanding about masks.

  3. Hahaha how the tables have turned. When Trump’s ideas don’t go his way, he always turns to- “No federal funding”. I applaud the senator for using Trumps tactic. How do you like that now Trump?!?!?

  4. So, let me get this correct. When the president threatened to cut funds to California for being a sanctuary state, the Dems cried fowl, whined, and stated that the plan was “unconstitutional”. Now the Dems are doing the exact same thing. Hmmmm.

    Don’t get me wrong, I agree that people should be wearing masks based on the science, but it cracks me up the way the Dems operate.

    • Your point is valid, but such behavior is hardly confined to “the Dems.” When the Republicans are in opposition, they cry crocodile tears over budget deficits, but then when in power preside over the biggest expansion of debt in history (the so-called “tax reform” of two years ago). The hypocrisy is universal.

      • Robert C – spare us your Fake Manufactured Facts

        As Nazi Pelosi would say, “We reject your facts”

        Friendly advice:
        Leave the basement every once in a while, you might actually prefer REALITY

        Do Better

        • Dear fake,

          Those who lack the intellect to sustain a rational and civil conversation about political issues resort to denial and name calling. Your posting illustrates this perfectly. Have a nice day.

      • Robert C., I would say that “the biggest expansion of debt in history” is mostly due to the COVID-19 outbreak and the money that is being spent on keeping our citizens afloat until we are able to go back to work/school/open our businesses. I would be willing to bet that no matter which party was in office at the time of this pandemic, we would be seeing “the biggest expansion of debt in history”. My guess is that the dems have more to do with this debt.

        • My comment had nothing to do with Covid-19 response. Obviously, the tax legislation predated the pandemic by two years. and those “tax cuts” were financed entirely by future debt – which eventually means higher interest rates and taxes. Again, there is hypocrisy on both sides of the political aisle.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here