thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-08--Low-Income Americans Could Get Cash Aid Under New Senate Plan

“ These work requirements right now that are in TANF right now just defy common sense because people are supposed to be home and not facing the prospect of infection.
” Wyden said in an interview with HuffPost .
“ These vulnerable low-income families and individuals need cash immediately .
They need cash now so they don ’ t have to go , ‘ Gee , are we going to sit in the dark or are we going to eat ?
’ ” The legislation , co-sponsored by Sens .
Brian Schatz ( D-Hawaii ) , Sherrod Brown ( D-Ohio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , would be the first major effort to target cash assistance directly toward the most vulnerable .
Wyden said while he has yet to bring the program up with the Trump administration , he has discussed the program with Senate Finance Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley ( R-Iowa ) and sensed some openness .
Through the grant program , states , tribes , the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico would be eligible for a lump sum of funding that they could distribute to individuals in families at or below 200 % of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direct cash payments ; relief for basic family needs , like rent or utility bills ; or subsidized employment that can either be done remotely , or is deemed essential and has access to personal protective equipment .
“ We must get immediate relief for these individuals and families , so they don ’ t have to choose between paying a light bill or buying groceries , ” Brown said in a statement to HuffPost .
“ One of the best ways we can do that is to ensure relief funds for low-income @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relief package , and remove burdensome requirements that prevent vulnerable families from getting the help they need.
” Experts are projecting the economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic will likely pull more individuals into poverty in the United States than the country has seen in more than 50 years .
Researchers at Columbia University found that if the unemployment rate reaches 30 % , the annual poverty rate in the United States could increase up to 18.9 % , bringing more than 21 million Americans into poverty .
The impact would disproportionately hit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stands , the United States ’ existing safety net for those individuals , TANF , is not equipped to handle an increased caseload .
TANF was originally designed in the 1990s to pull families out of poverty and into work by giving states a lump sum of money to create their own basic assistance programs .
When TANF began , as part of the 1996 welfare reform push , for every 100 families in poverty , 68 received benefits .
But when the economy faltered in the 2000s , so did the program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — requiring 30 hours of “ work activity ” a week — proved too restrictive in an economic downturn .
The block grants were never adjusted for population changes or for inflation , meaning they ’ ve decreased in value every year since the program started .
In 2018 , only 22 families out of 100 in poverty were getting aid .
“ There ’ s this notion that we let these programs wither when the economy is good even though there are so many people who are still struggling to find employment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major crisis and we have to start from scratch , ” Elizabeth Lower-Basch , with the anti-poverty advocacy group Center for Law and Social Policy , said .
“ There ’ s a real argument for having these programs running all the time.
” But for years , states have diverted the money to other programs , shrinking how much they spend on actual cash assistance for low-income Americans .
On average , states only spend 20 cents of every TANF dollar on basic assistance .
And across the nation , you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scholarships , “ crisis pregnancy centers , ” prekindergarten and Head Start programs , and even dating and marriage workshops .
An audit of Mississippi ’ s TANF program released Monday found the state ’ s funds went toward sponsoring college basketball tournaments and paying former NFL star Brett Favre for speeches that never happened .
“ TANF has been used to plug budget holes and that is wrong , but it is also impossible to address when the budget holes just got 10 times bigger , which is why federal aid would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gordon , Michigan ’ s Department of Health and Human Services Director .
Michigan , which only uses about 10 % of its block grant for cash assistance , temporarily lifted work requirements for the program .
Notably , Wyden ’ s proposal for an emergency basic assistance grant isn ’ t explicitly through TANF , an acknowledgement that the program might be too broken to fix — especially during a crisis .
The last time TANF saw a boost in funding was during the Great Recession , when Congress allocated $ 5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program .
Poverty experts praised that effort in 2009 as a net positive .
But it was still messy and complicated ; states have varying income eligibility levels for TANF and it didn ’ t reach everyone it needed to .
“ The last time around , the 2009 recession , I think it wasn ’ t clear how states were going to use the funds until after the crisis was over , ” Wyden said .
“ There wasn ’ t much real-time accountability .
What I am advocating here ensures that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to use the funds .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
As the coronavirus pandemic threatens to pull tens of millions of Americans into poverty, Senate Democrats are scrambling to find a way to shore up one of the nation’s most broken welfare systems: a program for low-income Americans with children known as Temporary Assistance For Needy Families.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat who was behind the unemployment insurance expansion, will unveil a plan Friday, shared exclusively with HuffPost, to temporarily lift eligibility restrictions, like work requirements and time limits, on TANF, as well as propose a new separate $10 billion grant program for states to give their poorest residents cash assistance, and in-kind benefits, like help with utilities and rent.
Advertisement
“These work requirements right now that are in TANF right now just defy common sense because people are supposed to be home and not facing the prospect of infection.” Wyden said in an interview with HuffPost. “These vulnerable low-income families and individuals need cash immediately. They need cash now so they don’t have to go, ‘Gee, are we going to sit in the dark or are we going to eat?’”
The legislation, co-sponsored by Sens. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.), would be the first major effort to target cash assistance directly toward the most vulnerable. Wyden said while he has yet to bring the program up with the Trump administration, he has discussed the program with Senate Finance Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and sensed some openness.
“We didn’t get laughed out of the room,” Wyden said. Grassley’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
Through the grant program, states, tribes, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico would be eligible for a lump sum of funding that they could distribute to individuals in families at or below 200% of the federal poverty line for three purposes: direct cash payments; relief for basic family needs, like rent or utility bills; or subsidized employment that can either be done remotely, or is deemed essential and has access to personal protective equipment.
Advertisement
Each state’s funding would be based on the number of individuals in families below the federal poverty line in the state divided by the number of individuals in families below the federal poverty line in all states.
“We must get immediate relief for these individuals and families, so they don’t have to choose between paying a light bill or buying groceries,” Brown said in a statement to HuffPost. “One of the best ways we can do that is to ensure relief funds for low-income families are included in the next coronavirus relief package, and remove burdensome requirements that prevent vulnerable families from getting the help they need.”
Experts are projecting the economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic will likely pull more individuals into poverty in the United States than the country has seen in more than 50 years. Researchers at Columbia University found that if the unemployment rate reaches 30%, the annual poverty rate in the United States could increase up to 18.9%, bringing more than 21 million Americans into poverty. The impact would disproportionately hit children and working-age adults.
“These work requirements right now that are in TANF right now just defy common sense because people are supposed to be home and not facing the prospect of infection.” - Sen. Ron Wyden
As it stands, the United States’ existing safety net for those individuals, TANF, is not equipped to handle an increased caseload. TANF was originally designed in the 1990s to pull families out of poverty and into work by giving states a lump sum of money to create their own basic assistance programs. When TANF began, as part of the 1996 welfare reform push, for every 100 families in poverty, 68 received benefits. But when the economy faltered in the 2000s, so did the program. The program’s work requirements — requiring 30 hours of “work activity” a week — proved too restrictive in an economic downturn. The block grants were never adjusted for population changes or for inflation, meaning they’ve decreased in value every year since the program started. In 2018, only 22 families out of 100 in poverty were getting aid.
Advertisement
“There’s this notion that we let these programs wither when the economy is good even though there are so many people who are still struggling to find employment, and then there’s a major crisis and we have to start from scratch,” Elizabeth Lower-Basch, with the anti-poverty advocacy group Center for Law and Social Policy, said. “There’s a real argument for having these programs running all the time.”
But for years, states have diverted the money to other programs, shrinking how much they spend on actual cash assistance for low-income Americans. On average, states only spend 20 cents of every TANF dollar on basic assistance. And across the nation, you can find TANF funding tied to private college scholarships, “crisis pregnancy centers,” prekindergarten and Head Start programs, and even dating and marriage workshops. An audit of Mississippi’s TANF program released Monday found the state’s funds went toward sponsoring college basketball tournaments and paying former NFL star Brett Favre for speeches that never happened.
Getting that money back into the hands of low-income Americans through TANF is proving near impossible for states — and now they’re running out of money to help the growing numbers of people who need cash.
“TANF has been used to plug budget holes and that is wrong, but it is also impossible to address when the budget holes just got 10 times bigger, which is why federal aid would be hugely valuable,” said Robert Gordon, Michigan’s Department of Health and Human Services Director. Michigan, which only uses about 10% of its block grant for cash assistance, temporarily lifted work requirements for the program.
Advertisement
Notably, Wyden’s proposal for an emergency basic assistance grant isn’t explicitly through TANF, an acknowledgement that the program might be too broken to fix — especially during a crisis. The last time TANF saw a boost in funding was during the Great Recession, when Congress allocated $5 billion toward an emergency fund through the program. Poverty experts praised that effort in 2009 as a net positive. But it was still messy and complicated; states have varying income eligibility levels for TANF and it didn’t reach everyone it needed to.
People wait in line for food assistance due to the coronavirus pandemic in Paterson, New Jersey, April 29. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig) ASSOCIATED PRESS
This new grant program would require states to submit a letter of intent to HHS before getting the funding, and states have to submit quarterly reports.
“The last time around, the 2009 recession, I think it wasn’t clear how states were going to use the funds until after the crisis was over,” Wyden said. “There wasn’t much real-time accountability. What I am advocating here ensures that the states publicly explain how they are going to use the funds.”
There’s already been some bipartisan appetite for cash assistance. Wyden’s plan costs a fraction of the $293 billion from the $2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Stability Act Congress put toward direct stimulus payments in late March. The stimulus checks weren’t targeted for the very needy, and initially proved difficult for zero-income individuals, or those without bank accounts in place, to access.
Advertisement
“One of the lessons we have certainly learned over the last two months is starting new programs isn’t just a matter of putting into federal law,” Lower-Basch said.
The proposal allows states to use existing resources and infrastructure to put the grant program into place. So a state could use their existing TANF network to get aid out to people if they so choose, but they wouldn’t be restricted by TANF’s rules.
House Democrats are also looking to prioritize increasing funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, more commonly known as food stamps, as well as find ways to improve access to broadband internet and pay utilities. Democrats attempted to lift work requirements on the program in an earlier relief bill, but the provision was stripped during negotiations with the White House.
“There’s a lot of evidence that this type of response would make a great deal of difference for some of our most vulnerable families,” Luke Schaefer, a poverty and social welfare expert at University of Michigan, said. “Food continues to be a primary unmet need ... But also utilities. There’s a lot of suspension so rerages are building up. Rent is a big one ... Things like toilet paper, basic necessities, paper towels, cleaning sprays.”
“Money can help with all of those,” he said.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-08--Moms, Here's What All Your Pandemic Invisible Labor Is Actually Worth

During the hours formerly known as my workday , I have a new job : home school teacher .
This requires at least an hour a day of figuring out which of five places I ’ m supposed to look for the activities my oldest son is supposed to complete .
Plus troubleshooting technology and determining the concepts he ’ s actually supposed to be learning , and then uploading proof to show his second grade teacher he actually did it .
At least once a week , I spend another hour trying to figure out whether there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year he ’ ll have to pass to get promoted to third grade , and then give up .
I hunt down internal documents at oil companies for a living , and I can not for the life of me figure out where my kid ’ s elementary school keeps basic information about its “ innovative distance learning program.
” This is all , of course , old news by now .
If you know a working parent , and you probably do , you ’ ve heard them stress about fitting everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At the risk of inviting a legion of Twitter gents to swarm my mentions with “ dads too !
” comments , it ’ s entirely unsurprising that the pandemic is hitting working moms harder than working dads .
Sorry , guys , but it ’ s gon na take more than a pandemic to kill the gender gap .
Now that gap appears to be widening .
In a recent study from the Kaiser Family Foundation , more women than men reported being concerned about coronavirus exposure because they couldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A larger number of women also reported being part-time workers , a chronic issue for working mothers as it typically means lower pay and less stability that is only made worse in times of economic downturn .
The study reports that women are slightly less likely to work in telecommuting-friendly jobs , too , which puts them at a higher risk for layoffs .
And because working fathers still outearn their spouses in 69 % of heterosexual married couples , in a time of economic uncertainty the natural tendency is to prioritize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ― but even then , gender still often trumps money .
For those with the privilege to have hired it out in the past , any support in the form of babysitters , housecleaners and lawn maintenance is now gone , too .
For women who don ’ t have the “ luxury ” of working from home right now ― well , you ’ re just screwed .
It ’ s not all bad news , though : In some families , parents who travel a lot or work long hours are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caregiving looks like and all of the tasks required to keep a household running .
Working people everywhere are getting used to their colleagues ’ kids interrupting meetings or calls , irrespective of gender .
That in and of itself is huge , given the tendency in the American workplace to pretend people ’ s kids don ’ t exist during work hours .
And that Northwestern study pointed to a few potential silver linings here on the gender equality front .
Women hold 78 % of jobs in hospitals , 70 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stores , for example , forcing many male partners into becoming the primary caregiver during the pandemic .
The researchers even posit it could be a reverse Rosie the Riveter moment — Danny the Daddy ?
—wherein some men opt to stay in the caregiver role post-pandemic , just as some women stayed in the workforce after World War II .
One way to balance out caregiving is , of course , to place value on it in the first place .
In a society that only really values labor that is paid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and political speeches aside , it ’ s been difficult to convince fathers to volunteer for unpaid and invisible work , even if it ’ s necessary and valuable .
In 1909 President Theodore Roosevelt held the White House Conference on the Care of Dependent Children , at which reformers agreed that some sort of funding was needed to enable working mothers to keep their children with them , rather than giving them up to various institutions .
At the time , orphanages included more children with living parents who just couldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ orphans .
These programs were actually launched and fully operational in some states — first in Illinois and then in 41 other states — for a decade ( from 1910 to 1920 ) .
Of course , this being America , the programs were never really funded appropriately and were often discriminatory — many women of color were not eligible , and some states argued that because Black women could support themselves , they didn ’ t need a pension .

I’m writing this during my new work hours, which are between 10 p.m. and 4 a.m. on Mondays and Tuesdays, or 3:30 a.m. and 12 p.m. on Thursdays and Fridays.
Wednesdays ― well, who the hell knows what happens on Wednesdays?
During the hours formerly known as my workday, I have a new job: home school teacher. This requires at least an hour a day of figuring out which of five places I’m supposed to look for the activities my oldest son is supposed to complete. Plus troubleshooting technology and determining the concepts he’s actually supposed to be learning, and then uploading proof to show his second grade teacher he actually did it.
Advertisement
At least once a week, I spend another hour trying to figure out whether there’s some test at the end of the year he’ll have to pass to get promoted to third grade, and then give up. I hunt down internal documents at oil companies for a living, and I cannot for the life of me figure out where my kid’s elementary school keeps basic information about its “innovative distance learning program.”
This is all, of course, old news by now. If you know a working parent, and you probably do, you’ve heard them stress about fitting everything in and keeping it all together. At the risk of inviting a legion of Twitter gents to swarm my mentions with “dads too!” comments, it’s entirely unsurprising that the pandemic is hitting working moms harder than working dads. Sorry, guys, but it’s gonna take more than a pandemic to kill the gender gap.
For several years now, studies of heterosexual couples in academia have shown that when both parents get parental leave upon the birth of a child, the father’s productivity soars while the mother’s tanks.
A similar imbalance is emerging amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Elizabeth Hannon, deputy editor of the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, tweeted recently that she’d received barely any submissions from women since March. David Samuels, co-editor at Comparative Political Studies, said he’d seen an uptick in submissions … all from men.
Advertisement
It’s not just academics, of course. Married American mothers were spending almost twice as much time on child care and household chores as married American fathers before the pandemic ― even if they were the primary breadwinners.
Now that gap appears to be widening. In a recent study from the Kaiser Family Foundation, more women than men reported being concerned about coronavirus exposure because they couldn’t afford to stay home and miss work. A larger number of women also reported being part-time workers, a chronic issue for working mothers as it typically means lower pay and less stability that is only made worse in times of economic downturn.
Another study, out of Northwestern University, noted that while in previous recessions men have experienced higher job losses, the pandemic is operating differently. Slightly more women than men work in the sectors hardest hit: retail, restaurant work, hotels and hospitality.
The study reports that women are slightly less likely to work in telecommuting-friendly jobs, too, which puts them at a higher risk for layoffs. And because working fathers still outearn their spouses in 69% of heterosexual married couples, in a time of economic uncertainty the natural tendency is to prioritize the job bringing in the most income ― but even then, gender still often trumps money.
Working dads are also definitely losing jobs or income and struggling to work around kids and parent around work, but all data points to moms struggling more. In part that’s because working moms are often taking on other roles, too: caring for elders, managing the household, and shouldering the bulk of the family’s emotional labor.
Advertisement
Then add to it pandemic-specific duties: procurer of food and cleaning supplies, toilet-paper hunter, barber, translator of CDC directives, mask-maker, Zoom-meeting coordinator, appointment rescheduler, physical education instructor, lunch lady, psychologist, customer service agent and hotel concierge to guests who are never happy but can never check out.
For those with the privilege to have hired it out in the past, any support in the form of babysitters, housecleaners and lawn maintenance is now gone, too. For women who don’t have the “luxury” of working from home right now ― well, you’re just screwed.
Women run 80% of single-parent households, which means taking on all of the above and more solo.
For Mother’s Day last year, I created this calculator to tally up the financial worth of women’s unpaid labor. Now I’ve updated it to reflect the additional work mothers have absorbed during the pandemic. Share your number on social media using #MoneyNotFlowers or tell us what the calculator is missing via scoops@huffpost.com.
(The calculator is embedded below, but if you can’t see it, you can go to the site here.)
It’s not all bad news, though: In some families, parents who travel a lot or work long hours are getting their first look at what 24/7 caregiving looks like and all of the tasks required to keep a household running. Working people everywhere are getting used to their colleagues’ kids interrupting meetings or calls, irrespective of gender. That in and of itself is huge, given the tendency in the American workplace to pretend people’s kids don’t exist during work hours.
Advertisement
And that Northwestern study pointed to a few potential silver linings here on the gender equality front. Women hold 78% of jobs in hospitals, 70% in pharmacies and 51% in grocery stores, for example, forcing many male partners into becoming the primary caregiver during the pandemic. The researchers even posit it could be a reverse Rosie the Riveter moment — Danny the Daddy? —wherein some men opt to stay in the caregiver role post-pandemic, just as some women stayed in the workforce after World War II.
One way to balance out caregiving is, of course, to place value on it in the first place. In a society that only really values labor that is paid for, Mother’s Day cards and political speeches aside, it’s been difficult to convince fathers to volunteer for unpaid and invisible work, even if it’s necessary and valuable.
With tens of millions of Americans out of work, though, it might be time to put an actual value on parenting and revive another idea from history: parent pensions.
In 1909 President Theodore Roosevelt held the White House Conference on the Care of Dependent Children, at which reformers agreed that some sort of funding was needed to enable working mothers to keep their children with them, rather than giving them up to various institutions. At the time, orphanages included more children with living parents who just couldn’t afford to keep them than actual orphans.
Shortly after the national conference, several states began passing legislation that appropriated funds for “mothers’ pensions.” The idea was to provide a modest income to poor mothers without a breadwinning husband in order to enable them to stay at home with their children.
Advertisement
These programs were actually launched and fully operational in some states — first in Illinois and then in 41 other states — for a decade (from 1910 to 1920). Of course, this being America, the programs were never really funded appropriately and were often discriminatory — many women of color were not eligible, and some states argued that because Black women could support themselves, they didn’t need a pension.
Eventually the pension programs morphed into a consolidated federal Aid to Dependent Children program as part of the Social Security Act of 1935. Renamed Aid to Families with Dependent Children, or AFDC, it was replaced by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which may as well have been called the “Welfare Queens Reform Act.”
Whereas mothers’ pensions started as a way to enable mothers to spend time caregiving without falling into desperate poverty, the welfare system that grew out of it has forgotten all about the idea that caregiving has value, that it is productive labor that benefits society.
If we were to take the idea back to its roots, as a less-gendered parents’ pension, perhaps as part of a stimulus response to the pandemic, it could serve much of the same function as a universal basic income policy, providing a social safety net as the economy transitions away from some industries and toward new ones, and we emerge from an unprecedented public health catastrophe.
Pensions or no, putting an actual dollar value to all the work women have typically absorbed helps to highlight just how valuable it is.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-08--All California Voters Will Receive Mail-In Ballots For General Election

Gov .
Gavin Newsom ( D ) signed an executive order Friday requiring California to mail a ballot to every voter in the state ahead of the general election on Nov. 3 .
“ Elections and the right to vote are foundational to our democracy , ” Newsom said in a statement .
“ No Californian should be forced to risk their health in order to exercise their right to vote.
” Several states , including Colorado and Oregon , already mail ballots to all their voters , but California is the first to do so in response to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in person ( i.e.
, unhoused individuals or disabled people who require assistance to vote ) will still be able to do so at designated polling sites .
“ We are meeting our obligation to provide an accessible , secure , and safe election this November , ” said California Secretary of State Alex Padilla , who will oversee the process .
“ Sending every registered voter a ballot by mail is smart policy and absolutely the right thing to do during this COVID-19 pandemic.
” California , the most populous state in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters .
Fourteen counties in the state already mail ballots to every voter .
Coronavirus has infected more than 1.2 million Americans and killed more than 76,000 people just in the U.S. , and concerns over the safety of holding an in-person election in November have grown .
An unprecedented number of voters are expected to vote by mail rather than risk exposure at polling sites , making it increasingly likely that the presidential election results will trickle in over the course of days or weeks .
Vote-by-mail ballots are more time-consuming to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notes , and there are frequently delays in states reporting those results .
“ Mail ballots ― they cheat .
OK ?
People cheat , ” Trump said in April , when Wisconsin voters were forced to go to the polls in order to vote in the state ’ s primary election , despite concerns over coronavirus .
“ Mail ballots are a very dangerous thing for this country , because they ’ re cheaters .
They go and collect them .
They ’ re fraudulent in many cases.
” Trump , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes by mail , has offered no evidence for those claims .
Many studies have shown voter fraud is extremely rare .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed an executive order Friday requiring California to mail a ballot to every voter in the state ahead of the general election on Nov. 3.
Newsom said the move was prompted by public health concerns over in-person voting due to the coronavirus.
Advertisement
“Elections and the right to vote are foundational to our democracy,” Newsom said in a statement. “No Californian should be forced to risk their health in order to exercise their right to vote.”
Several states, including Colorado and Oregon, already mail ballots to all their voters, but California is the first to do so in response to the pandemic.
Californians who need to vote in person (i.e., unhoused individuals or disabled people who require assistance to vote) will still be able to do so at designated polling sites.
“We are meeting our obligation to provide an accessible, secure, and safe election this November,” said California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, who will oversee the process. “Sending every registered voter a ballot by mail is smart policy and absolutely the right thing to do during this COVID-19 pandemic.”
Advertisement
California, the most populous state in the country, has 20.6 million registered voters. Fourteen counties in the state already mail ballots to every voter.
Coronavirus has infected more than 1.2 million Americans and killed more than 76,000 people just in the U.S., and concerns over the safety of holding an in-person election in November have grown.
An unprecedented number of voters are expected to vote by mail rather than risk exposure at polling sites, making it increasingly likely that the presidential election results will trickle in over the course of days or weeks. Vote-by-mail ballots are more time-consuming to count, HuffPost’s Paul Blumenthal notes, and there are frequently delays in states reporting those results.
President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has pushed conspiracy theories about voting by mail, falsely claiming absentee ballots are ripe for widespread voter fraud.
“Mail ballots ― they cheat. OK? People cheat,” Trump said in April, when Wisconsin voters were forced to go to the polls in order to vote in the state’s primary election, despite concerns over coronavirus. “Mail ballots are a very dangerous thing for this country, because they’re cheaters. They go and collect them. They’re fraudulent in many cases.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-08--Fox News’ Pete Hegseth Encourages Healthy People To Show ‘Courage,’ Leave Their Homes

Fox News ’ Pete Hegseth faced backlash on Thursday after he appeared to call on healthy people to “ have some courage ” to get “ out there ” and contract the coronavirus in a bid to achieve “ herd immunity , ” a strategy that has been condemned by leading epidemiologists .
Hegseth , appearing on the “ Outnumbered ” panel show from what appeared to be his home , said he didn ’ t like the way in which President Donald Trump had described Americans as “ warriors ” amid the pandemic .
That term was more suited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that risk their life voluntarily to go to the most dangerous places in the world , ” he said .
But Hegseth suggested the U.S. would now need that “ kind of ethos and that spirit to put freedom before fear ” during the public health crisis that has now killed more than 76,000 people nationwide .
“ The ‘ experts ’ have been telling us that hundreds of thousands of people are going to die .
Now that we are learning more , herd immunity is our friend , ” he argued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they are going to have to have some courage .
And we ’ ve seen courage … in Texas , where people are defying ridiculous orders.
” “ That spirit , the American spirit , frankly , is in full supply and ready to go if some of our experts and some of our leaders will get out of their way , ” Hegseth added .
“ They are drunk on power .
It ’ s time to open up , that ’ s my sense.
” Fox News ' Pete Hegseth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get infected by coronavirus : `` Now that we are learning more , herd immunity is our friend .
Healthy people getting out there -- they are going to have to have some courage . ''
pic.twitter.com/PCSHm9yUAW — Justin Baragona ( @ justinbaragona ) May 7 , 2020 Epidemiologists from Johns Hopkins University , however , have previously cautioned against seeking early herd immunity by allowing vast swaths of the population to become infected , describing it as a “ dangerous misconception.
” “ Without a vaccine , over 200 million Americans would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this threshold , ” they warned .
“ Put another way , even if the current pace of the COVID-19 pandemic continues in the United States – with over 25,000 confirmed cases a day – it will be well into 2021 before we reach herd immunity .
If current daily death rates continue , over half a million Americans would be dead from COVID-19 by that time.
” Hegseth said in March that the more he learned about COVID-19 , the disease caused the virus , “ the less there is to worry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on “ Fox & Friends ” that “ germs are not a real thing ” because he can ’ t see them and that he hasn ’ t washed his hands for a decade .
He later said he was joking .
Fox News has faced considerable blowback over its coverage of the pandemic , with prime-time personalities including Sean Hannity downplaying the threat of the virus for weeks in lockstep with Trump .
MSNBC ’ s Chris Hayes last month slammed the network ’ s “ concerted effort ” to “ peddle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ coronavirus trutherism.
” Critics of Hegseth ’ s latest comments accused him of hypocrisy , given how he and the majority of Fox News ’ employees in New York City are currently working remotely .
They also called him “ irresponsible ” for appearing to encourage people to break stay-at-home orders aimed at slowing the spread of the virus .
Recognize : @ PeteHegseth is home .
If I was irresponsible , I 'd call on Pete to have some courage and go out in public like he is telling Fox News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I 'm actually glad he 's home .
Because we all should be .
But , take solace that Pete calling himself a coward .
https : //t.co/5SA4UBGg5X — Angelo Carusone ( @ GoAngelo ) May 7 , 2020 Hey @ PeteHegseth - you first .
`` Fox News ' Pete Hegseth calls for people to go out and get infected by coronavirus : `` Now that we are learning more , herd immunity is our friend .
Healthy people getting out there -- they are going to have to have some courage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ txvoodoo ) May 8 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Fox News’ Pete Hegseth faced backlash on Thursday after he appeared to call on healthy people to “have some courage” to get “out there” and contract the coronavirus in a bid to achieve “herd immunity,” a strategy that has been condemned by leading epidemiologists.
Hegseth, appearing on the “Outnumbered” panel show from what appeared to be his home, said he didn’t like the way in which President Donald Trump had described Americans as “warriors” amid the pandemic. That term was more suited to describe the “guys and gals that risk their life voluntarily to go to the most dangerous places in the world,” he said.
Advertisement
But Hegseth suggested the U.S. would now need that “kind of ethos and that spirit to put freedom before fear” during the public health crisis that has now killed more than 76,000 people nationwide.
“The ‘experts’ have been telling us that hundreds of thousands of people are going to die. Now that we are learning more, herd immunity is our friend,” he argued. “Healthy people getting out there, they are going to have to have some courage. And we’ve seen courage … in Texas, where people are defying ridiculous orders.”
“That spirit, the American spirit, frankly, is in full supply and ready to go if some of our experts and some of our leaders will get out of their way,” Hegseth added. “They are drunk on power. It’s time to open up, that’s my sense.”
Check out the segment here:
Fox News' Pete Hegseth calls for people to go out and get infected by coronavirus: "Now that we are learning more, herd immunity is our friend. Healthy people getting out there -- they are going to have to have some courage." pic.twitter.com/PCSHm9yUAW — Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) May 7, 2020
Advertisement
Epidemiologists from Johns Hopkins University, however, have previously cautioned against seeking early herd immunity by allowing vast swaths of the population to become infected, describing it as a “dangerous misconception.”
“Without a vaccine, over 200 million Americans would have to get infected before we reach this threshold,” they warned. “Put another way, even if the current pace of the COVID-19 pandemic continues in the United States – with over 25,000 confirmed cases a day – it will be well into 2021 before we reach herd immunity. If current daily death rates continue, over half a million Americans would be dead from COVID-19 by that time.”
Hegseth said in March that the more he learned about COVID-19, the disease caused the virus, “the less there is to worry about.” In 2019, he declared on “Fox & Friends” that “germs are not a real thing” because he can’t see them and that he hasn’t washed his hands for a decade. He later said he was joking.
Fox News has faced considerable blowback over its coverage of the pandemic, with prime-time personalities including Sean Hannity downplaying the threat of the virus for weeks in lockstep with Trump. MSNBC’s Chris Hayes last month slammed the network’s “concerted effort” to “peddle dangerous misinformation,” describing it as “coronavirus trutherism.”
Critics of Hegseth’s latest comments accused him of hypocrisy, given how he and the majority of Fox News’ employees in New York City are currently working remotely. They also called him “irresponsible” for appearing to encourage people to break stay-at-home orders aimed at slowing the spread of the virus.
Advertisement
More like "herd stupidity" for those who follow @PeteHegseth's advice. But you do you. https://t.co/F1OTeMOzsT — Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) May 7, 2020
Recognize: @PeteHegseth is home.
If I was irresponsible, I'd call on Pete to have some courage and go out in public like he is telling Fox News viewers to do. But see, I'm actually glad he's home. Because we all should be.
But, take solace that Pete calling himself a coward. https://t.co/5SA4UBGg5X — Angelo Carusone (@GoAngelo) May 7, 2020
Hey @PeteHegseth - you first.
"Fox News' Pete Hegseth calls for people to go out and get infected by coronavirus: "Now that we are learning more, herd immunity is our friend. Healthy people getting out there -- they are going to have to have some courage."" — Lisa Rowe (@txvoodoo) May 8, 2020
Pete Hegseth is paid a lot of money by fox to tell people to have the "courage" to break the law and help spread a deadly disease https://t.co/QFJxl3u7UK — Eliza Relman (@eliza_relman) May 7, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-08--COVID-19 Is Fast Becoming A Women’s Economic Crisis

Women make up 49 % of the U.S. workforce but held 55 % of the jobs lost in April as businesses shuttered to prevent the spread of COVID-19 , according to an analysis of the Bureau of Labor Statistics data released by the National Women ’ s Law Center on Friday .
The unemployment rate for women stands at an unprecedented rate — 15.5 % — the first time ever that U.S. women have faced a double-digit unemployment rate .
For Black and Hispanic women , it ’ s worse : 16.4 % and 20.2 % , respectively .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses hit hardest by coronavirus-related shutdowns are in industries dominated by women : hotels and restaurants and nail salons and hair salons that let millions of employees around the country go as they shuttered to prevent the spread of the virus .
But it ’ s not just layoffs and firings .
With schools and child care centers closed , it ’ s been mainly women who have taken on that extra work at home .
Some women , who could be out in the labor force , are not right now because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for their kids .
The job losses are even worse than some had seen coming .
Even in industries where women already make up the majority or close to the majority of workers , they ’ re overrepresented in the job losses .
For example , women comprise 52 % of the workforce in the leisure and hospitality industry .
But in April , women suffered 54 % of the job losses in that sector , according to the law center ’ s analysis .
Women lost nearly 1.3 million retail jobs ― @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that sector .
Yet , women make up slightly less than half of that workforce at 48 % .
Women were overrepresented in the low-paid , more contingent , less stable jobs in these sectors of the economy in the first place .
They were the ones standing on the edge of the cliff , and it isn ’ t shocking that they are the first ones to lose their footing .
This is a gender gap issue .
In sectors where women hold the majority or close to the majority of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percentage of the lowest-paying roles that were the first to hit the chopping block .
“ Women were overrepresented in the low-paid , more contingent , less stable jobs in these sectors of the economy in the first place , ” said Emily Martin , vice president for education and workplace justice at the National Women ’ s Law Center .
“ They were the ones standing on the edge of the cliff , and it isn ’ t shocking that they are the first ones to lose their footing.
” Yet so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on to the uniquely feminine nature of the coronavirus downturn .
An effort to offer robust paid leave for workers who are shouldering increased caregiving responsibilities because of school shutdowns — primarily women — largely sputtered out in Congress in March .
The paid sick and family leave policies that were passed as part of the stimulus package could leave out up to 83 % of the workforce , according to a new analysis from the National Partnership for Women and Families .
Women have never seen unemployment numbers like this .
During @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they fared better than men .
Their unemployment rate reached a peak of 8.4 % during the Great Recession , while male unemployment went up to 10.4 % .
Men also topped double digits in the 1980s when their unemployment rate reached 10.1 % .
The economic devastation for women could continue well after the pandemic .
Without significant government aid , at least half of child care centers around the country are in danger of shuttering permanently because of the virus .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The U.S. government reported horrifying unemployment numbers on Friday, with the jobless rate hitting 14.7% in April, a level not seen since the Great Depression.
The numbers were even worse for women.
Women make up 49% of the U.S. workforce but held 55% of the jobs lost in April as businesses shuttered to prevent the spread of COVID-19, according to an analysis of the Bureau of Labor Statistics data released by the National Women’s Law Center on Friday.
Advertisement
The unemployment rate for women stands at an unprecedented rate — 15.5% — the first time ever that U.S. women have faced a double-digit unemployment rate. For Black and Hispanic women, it’s worse: 16.4% and 20.2%, respectively.
The unemployment rate for men is 13%; for white men, it is 12.4%
We knew this devastation was coming. The businesses hit hardest by coronavirus-related shutdowns are in industries dominated by women: hotels and restaurants and nail salons and hair salons that let millions of employees around the country go as they shuttered to prevent the spread of the virus.
But it’s not just layoffs and firings. With schools and child care centers closed, it’s been mainly women who have taken on that extra work at home. Some women, who could be out in the labor force, are not right now because there’s no child care available for their kids.
Meanwhile, incredibly, women also make up the majority of front-line essential workers, according to an analysis in The New York Times.
Advertisement
The job losses are even worse than some had seen coming. Even in industries where women already make up the majority or close to the majority of workers, they’re overrepresented in the job losses.
For example, women comprise 52% of the workforce in the leisure and hospitality industry. But in April, women suffered 54% of the job losses in that sector, according to the law center’s analysis. Women lost nearly 1.3 million retail jobs ― 61% of the jobs lost in that sector. Yet, women make up slightly less than half of that workforce at 48%.
“Women were overrepresented in the low-paid, more contingent, less stable jobs in these sectors of the economy in the first place. They were the ones standing on the edge of the cliff, and it isn’t shocking that they are the first ones to lose their footing.” - Emily Martin, National Women’s Law Center
This is a gender gap issue. In sectors where women hold the majority or close to the majority of the jobs, they hold an even larger percentage of the lowest-paying roles that were the first to hit the chopping block.
“Women were overrepresented in the low-paid, more contingent, less stable jobs in these sectors of the economy in the first place,” said Emily Martin, vice president for education and workplace justice at the National Women’s Law Center. “They were the ones standing on the edge of the cliff, and it isn’t shocking that they are the first ones to lose their footing.”
Advertisement
Yet so far, policymakers haven’t cottoned on to the uniquely feminine nature of the coronavirus downturn. An effort to offer robust paid leave for workers who are shouldering increased caregiving responsibilities because of school shutdowns — primarily women — largely sputtered out in Congress in March.
The paid sick and family leave policies that were passed as part of the stimulus package could leave out up to 83% of the workforce, according to a new analysis from the National Partnership for Women and Families.
Women have never seen unemployment numbers like this. During the Great Recession a decade ago, they fared better than men. Their unemployment rate reached a peak of 8.4% during the Great Recession, while male unemployment went up to 10.4%. Men also topped double digits in the 1980s when their unemployment rate reached 10.1%.
The economic devastation for women could continue well after the pandemic. Without significant government aid, at least half of child care centers around the country are in danger of shuttering permanently because of the virus.
“If there’s no child care infrastructure left once other sectors of the economy reopen, then women won’t be able to go back to work,” Martin said.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-08--Dennis Prager Gets Roasted For Lamenting He Can't Say 'Negro' Or 'Colored'

Twitter users criticized conservative pundit Dennis Prager for seeming really disappointed that he can ’ t use archaic words to describe Black people .
Media Matters for America reporter Jason Campbell posted a video Thursday on Twitter in which Prager lamented that he can no longer use terms like “ negro ” or “ colored.
” Then Prager suggested that some ethnic groups should just pick a name and stick to it .
“ I ’ m going to start a movement to change the name Native Americans — not to mock Native Americans but mock people who change names @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ How many names have Blacks gone through in my lifetime ?
Colored ?
Negro ?
African American ?
Black ?
Four different titles for the same human being.
” For some reason , Prager , a radio talk show host and writer , appeared convinced he was making a serious statement about race relations .
“ You know , the NAACP is still the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People , ” Prager said .
“ And then African American — that changed , too .
Does that have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t remember what was connoted by having a hyphen or not.
” Dennis Prager : `` How many names have Blacks gone through in my lifetime ?
... What was wrong with Negro ?
What was wrong with colored ?
None of them , there 's no problem with any of them '' pic.twitter.com/4qdrxKhTrc — Jason Campbell ( @ JasonSCampbell ) May 8 , 2020 Twitter users quickly roasted Prager ’ s prejudiced prattle .
Some wondered if there was another word he still wished to use .
Other people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so miffed about not being able to do use racist terms for people of color .
Never understood the impulse to want to go to the mat to call someone , or call a group of people , something they 've asked you not to call them .
https : //t.co/K6YAhv3Z8s — David B. Larter ( @ DavidLarter ) May 8 , 2020 In all my years in doing this work I have yet to understand this obsession a certain generation of conservatives have https : //t.co/W6lQml3pco — Jared Holt ( @ jaredlholt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that # ASMRacist here is missing is that most of the labels he 's complaining about were created and used by white people .
https : //t.co/bC6gT84MH3 — 😷 STAY HOME 🧼🚰👏🏽 ( @ kwanzer ) May 8 , 2020 Of course , some people took Prager ’ s idea to its logical conclusion .
When we can start calling him “ fat bastard ” or “ Guppy neck ” or my personal favorite , “ Lard ” .
There ’ s nothing wrong with any of these names .
He should pick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) May 8 , 2020 Why do we have to call him Prager ?
What was wrong with shitbag ?
What was wrong with `` a cancer with glasses ? ''
https : //t.co/RZjWbVIQSX — J. Elvis Weinstein ( @ JElvisWeinstein ) May 8 , 2020 Mediaite notes that this isn ’ t the first time Prager griped about not being able to say the “ N-word.
” “ It is idiotic that you can not say the N-word .
Idiotic , ” he griped in February .
“ Of course , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s despicable .
But to say the word ?
You can not even say that the word is despicable .
You have to say ‘ the N-word .
’ ”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Twitter users criticized conservative pundit Dennis Prager for seeming really disappointed that he can’t use archaic words to describe Black people.
Media Matters for America reporter Jason Campbell posted a video Thursday on Twitter in which Prager lamented that he can no longer use terms like “negro” or “colored.”
Advertisement
Then Prager suggested that some ethnic groups should just pick a name and stick to it.
“I’m going to start a movement to change the name Native Americans — not to mock Native Americans but mock people who change names all the time,” Prager said. “How many names have Blacks gone through in my lifetime? Colored? Negro? African American? Black? Four different titles for the same human being.”
For some reason, Prager, a radio talk show host and writer, appeared convinced he was making a serious statement about race relations.
Spoiler alert: He wasn’t.
“You know, the NAACP is still the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,” Prager said. “And then African American — that changed, too. Does that have a dash, hyphen or not? I don’t remember what was connoted by having a hyphen or not.”
Here’s the clip:
Dennis Prager: "How many names have Blacks gone through in my lifetime?...What was wrong with Negro? What was wrong with colored? None of them, there's no problem with any of them" pic.twitter.com/4qdrxKhTrc — Jason Campbell (@JasonSCampbell) May 8, 2020
Advertisement
Twitter users quickly roasted Prager’s prejudiced prattle. Some wondered if there was another word he still wished to use.
You know what he really wants to say... https://t.co/NKuCeOCoRz — Jamal Yaseem Igle (@JAMALIGLE) May 8, 2020
Recall that “Negro” isn’t the n-word Prager wants leave to use, ahem, liberally. https://t.co/gGr0iFXMy4 — Robert A George (@RobGeorge) May 8, 2020
Other people didn’t understand why Prager was so miffed about not being able to do use racist terms for people of color.
Never understood the impulse to want to go to the mat to call someone, or call a group of people, something they've asked you not to call them. https://t.co/K6YAhv3Z8s — David B. Larter (@DavidLarter) May 8, 2020
Advertisement
In all my years in doing this work I have yet to understand this obsession a certain generation of conservatives have https://t.co/W6lQml3pco — Jared Holt (@jaredlholt) May 8, 2020
The point that #ASMRacist here is missing is that most of the labels he's complaining about were created and used by white people. https://t.co/bC6gT84MH3 — 😷 STAY HOME 🧼🚰👏🏽 (@kwanzer) May 8, 2020
Others imagined what pressing topics about race relations Prager might tackle next.
Dennis Prager out here asking the real questions. What's the big deal with using different fountains, too? Real questions. 🙄 https://t.co/TWUJAkiKOR — Shoshana Weissmann, Sloth Committee Chair 🦥 (@senatorshoshana) May 8, 2020
Of course, some people took Prager’s idea to its logical conclusion.
why does Dennis Prager insist on "Dennis Prager" when there's nothing wrong with the name I gave him, "Dipshit Jizzspittle McGee" https://t.co/rPslfCMLsp — Jason Linkins (@dceiver) May 8, 2020
When we can start calling him “fat bastard” or “Guppy neck” or my personal favorite, “Lard”. There’s nothing wrong with any of these names. He should pick one. — L-Rod (@LRod_is_ok) May 8, 2020
Advertisement
Why do we have to call him Prager? What was wrong with shitbag? What was wrong with "a cancer with glasses?" https://t.co/RZjWbVIQSX — J. Elvis Weinstein (@JElvisWeinstein) May 8, 2020
Mediaite notes that this isn’t the first time Prager griped about not being able to say the “N-word.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-08--Trump Said He Could Kill Someone On 5th Ave. But How About 50,000 Across America?

By Friday afternoon , 76,706 Americans had died from COVID-19 , the disease caused by the coronavirus .
That works out of a rate of 234 deaths for every million Americans .
In contrast , South Korea and Germany , two countries whose responses have been praised by experts , have rates of 5 per million and 89 per million , respectively .
She and other crisis management and public health experts say that if Trump had quickly scaled up production of coronavirus tests by late January and instituted contact tracing to isolate those infected — as South Korea and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have kept its death total at a fraction of what it is today .
Jeremy Konyndyk , who worked on the widely praised 2014 Ebola response under Obama , said South Korea clearly had an advantage in combatting this virus after it improved its infectious disease response following the MERS outbreak in 2015 .
“ A South Korea-like performance was probably beyond us in the initial phase , because they had public health capacities in place that we didn ’ t , ” he said .
“ But we could have had as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had adopted South Korea ’ s attitude : assuming it was here already or soon would be , and vigorously preparing for that eventuality.
” Pressed for details of that response , however , Trump invariably falls back on the travel restrictions he imposed on Jan. 31 on foreigners who had been in China in the previous two weeks .
“ We banned people from China coming in , ” he repeated at Friday ’ s meeting .
“ It had never been done before .
Nothing like that had ever been done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mentions that his “ ban ” came only after U.S. airlines had already stopped flights from China and dozens of other countries had already imposed similar restrictions .
What ’ s more , Trump ’ s order allowed another 40,000 travelers , primarily U.S. citizens and legal residents , to return from China — for the most part , without being tested or quarantined .
Even more important , experts said , was Trump ’ s failure to mass produce functioning tests and to come up with a comprehensive plan to isolate those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Had that approach been taken and properly executed , the proportionate number of cases and deaths could have been held to what has been accomplished by South Korea and Germany .
At a Feb. 26 press briefing , the first of what became a near-daily event for almost two months , Trump was still claiming that no deaths would take place .
“ When you have 15 people , and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero .
That ’ s a pretty good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said .
It took another week for Trump to finally acknowledge that the number of deaths would be significantly higher from the coronavirus than from the seasonal flu .
“ And so if we could hold that down , as we ’ re saying , to 100,000 — it ’ s a horrible number , maybe even less — but to 100,000 , ” he said at the March 15 briefing .
“ So we have between 100 and 200,000 , and we altogether have done a very good job.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a line he has used previously about what will constitute success in his mind : the upper bound of the estimate of how many people would have died had no action been taken at all .
“ Because if I didn ’ t , we would have lost two million , two and a half million , maybe more than that , ” he said .

President Donald Trump speaks during a Fox News virtual town hall at the Lincoln Memorial on May 3. ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON ― Donald Trump once bragged he could get away with murdering someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, but can he get away with letting tens of thousands die of the coronavirus on Main Streets across America?
The answer to that question — the actual consequences of a president’s inaction, as opposed to the boast of a candidate — could determine whether he gets another four years in office.
Advertisement
With the U.S. death toll likely to cross 100,000 before June, the cost in human lives of Trump’s failure to pay attention to his intelligence reports and take aggressive actions to curb the disease is already becoming clear.
By May 15, 86,744 Americans had died of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. That works out to a rate of 264 deaths for every million Americans. In contrast, South Korea and Germany, two countries whose responses have been praised by experts, have rates of 5 per million and 94 per million, respectively.
“This is malfeasance,” said Juliette Kayyem, who teaches emergency management at Harvard’s Kennedy School and worked in former President Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security. “This lays squarely with the White House.”
She and other crisis management and public health experts say that if Trump had quickly scaled up production of coronavirus tests by late January and instituted contact tracing to isolate those infected — as South Korea and Germany did ― the United States might have kept its death total at a fraction of what it is today.
Advertisement
“This is malfeasance.” - Juliette Kayyem, former Department of Homeland Security official
The German death rate extrapolated across the United States’ larger population would have meant 30,965 COVID-19 fatalities to date. The even lower South Korean rate would have meant just 1,663 deaths.
Jeremy Konyndyk, who worked on the widely praised 2014 Ebola response under Obama, said South Korea clearly had an advantage in combatting this virus after it improved its infectious disease response following the MERS outbreak in 2015. “A South Korea-like performance was probably beyond us in the initial phase, because they had public health capacities in place that we didn’t,” he said. “But we could have had as good or better than Germany if we had adopted South Korea’s attitude: assuming it was here already or soon would be, and vigorously preparing for that eventuality.”
Kayyem said the U.S. number could have been lower still — likely below 20,000 at this point ― if elder care facilities had been immediately safeguarded and New York City been locked down much earlier.
“January, February, March were the squandered months,” she said, adding that consequential decisions were left to governors and mayors who did not have access to the intelligence warnings that Trump began receiving in early January. “You cannot run a national response with an Articles of Confederation mindset.”
Advertisement
Trump, nevertheless, has repeatedly claimed that his response has been outstanding. “What we’ve done is incredible,” he said last week at a White House meeting with Republican lawmakers. “They’re saying great things about me and the job we’re doing.”
At a Rose Garden news conference Friday, he said: “I’m doing a great job.”
Pressed for details of that response, however, Trump invariably falls back on the travel restrictions he imposed on Jan. 31 on foreigners who had been in China in the previous two weeks. “We banned people from China coming in,” he told the GOP lawmakers. “It had never been done before. Nothing like that had ever been done before.”
Trump, however, never mentions that his “ban” came only after U.S. airlines had already stopped flights from China and dozens of other countries had already imposed similar restrictions. What’s more, Trump’s order allowed another 40,000 travelers, primarily U.S. citizens and legal residents, to return from China — for the most part, without being tested or quarantined.
Even more important, experts said, was Trump’s failure to mass produce functioning tests and to come up with a comprehensive plan to isolate those who tested positive for the virus. Had that approach been taken and properly executed, the proportionate number of cases and deaths could have been held to what has been accomplished by South Korea and Germany.
“We could have detected transmission chains on the West Coast and in New York City much earlier and greatly limited their growth,” Konyndyk said. “That in turn would have meant much lower spread to the rest of the country.”
Advertisement
Trump instead spent seven full weeks downplaying the danger of the virus, describing it as milder than the seasonal flu, claiming it would go away on its own come April, and even calling concerns about it “a hoax” designed to hurt his reelection prospects.
Over that period, he continually redefined success to allow for ever higher numbers of fatalities.
In his first public statement on the pandemic threat on Jan. 22, Trump claimed he was not worried about the coronavirus because it had infected just “one person” who had come in from China.
At a Feb. 26 press briefing, the first of what became a near-daily event for almost two months, Trump was still claiming that no deaths would take place. “When you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero. That’s a pretty good job we’ve done,” he said.
In a March 9 tweet, Trump wrote: “So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!”
It took another week for Trump to finally acknowledge that the number of deaths would be significantly higher from the coronavirus than from the seasonal flu. “And so if we could hold that down, as we’re saying, to 100,000 — it’s a horrible number, maybe even less — but to 100,000,” he said at the March 15 briefing. “So we have between 100 and 200,000, and we altogether have done a very good job.”
Advertisement
But on April 20, Trump was claiming the total would be far lower. “We’re going toward 50 or 60,000 people. ... We could end up at 50 to 60.”
“'Better than complete inaction’ is quite the victory lap.” - Jeremy Konyndyk, a disaster response official in the Obama administration
As that figure was exceeded, Trump raised his estimate. During a May 3 Fox News town hall shot at the Lincoln Memorial, Trump said, “I used to say 65,000. Now I’m saying 80 or 90, and it goes up and it goes up rapidly.”
And by the morning of May 8, he had upped his estimate even further. “We’ll be at 100,000, 110,000, higher,” he said during a phone interview with one of his favorite television shows, “Fox & Friends.”
But even in that interview, Trump repeated a line he has used previously about what will constitute success in his mind: the upper bound of the estimate of how many people would have died had no action been taken at all. “Because if I didn’t, we would have lost two million, two and a half million, maybe more than that,” he said.
Advertisement
“‘Better than complete inaction’ is quite the victory lap,” Konyndyk said.
Victory, though, is exactly what Trump will claim, regardless of the actual facts, said Mac Stipanovich, a longtime Republican political consultant from Florida.
“He did shoot thousands of people in the street,” Stipanovich said, recalling Trump’s boast from the 2016 campaign. “Will he get away with it? I don’t know. He could. It’s going to be a ‘he said, she said’ thing.”
And what Trump has already been saying is that he has saved “millions” with his leadership.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-08--Gallup, New Mexico, Under Extreme Lockdown Due To Massive COVID-19 Outbreak

GALLUP , N.M. ( AP ) — Like clockwork , payday arrives and tens of thousands of people from the Navajo reservation and other rural stretches along the New Mexico-Arizona border flood into Gallup , a freewheeling desert oasis of just 22,000 that can quickly quadruple in size with all the visitors .
As the modern-day trading post reels under a coronavirus outbreak that has infected more than 1,400 and killed 31 in the city and surrounding rural county — overrunning a patchwork health care system — Gallup has gone into extreme lockdown .
Barricades are manned by state police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who doesn ’ t live there or face an emergency .
That has sent thousands of people scrambling for options other than the city ’ s coin operated bulk water station and monthly shopping runs to Walmart and Tractor Supply Co. Up to one-third of homes on remote stretches of the Navajo Nation lack full plumbing , and local grocery stores are mostly tiny and limited .
The roads into Gallup may open up Friday evening , but the rules allowing only essential shopping will remain , and the reservation has its own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evenings and weekends .
Navajo police patrol for people breaking the rules .
The effectiveness of the lockdown , enacted by the governor and endorsed by Gallup ’ s fledgling mayor , is up for debate .
Infections are still mounting unabated inside town , with about 240 infections within one zip code and more than 2,650 on the Navajo Nation that extends into portions of Arizona and Utah .
If the Navajo Nation were its own state , it ’ d have the second highest per-capita rate of positive coronavirus cases in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ They targeted the people around here .
They ’ re going to be coming to Gallup to shop , so they put a stop to that , ” said Johnnie Henry , who said two of his relatives on the Navajo Nation were apparently infected with COVID-19 while working at a hospital in Gallup .
“ We kind of look at each other and say , are we the ones bringing it ?
No , it ’ s all over .
At Gallup ’ s main hospital , Rehoboth McKinley Christian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken a toll on staff , with 32 infections among employees .
The hospital ’ s sole pulmonologist left Wednesday without a replacement , and patients with serious respiratory conditions are being flown to Albuquerque , said Chief Medical Officer Val Wangler .
Infections raced through a detox center in early April .
Now , free room and board are being offered at four local motels — including the famous El Rancho hotel visited by legendary actor John Wayne and President Ronald Reagan — to about 140 homeless patients who are quarantined .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a certification card that can let them back into shelters .
“ I ’ m so confused .
What is going to really work , if this doesn ’ t ?
” said state Sen. George Munoz of Gallup of the community lockdown .
He has taken to buying giant pallets of bottled water for indigenous communities with campaign funds .
“ I don ’ t know the answer.
” South of Gallup at Zuni Pueblo , a tribal community of 800 residents set amid red rock mesas , Lt. Gov .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Gallup lockdown further , noting that it keeps more pueblo members safely at home .
He said the tribe has stockpiled food staples and water to help support tribal members who have to quarantine after coming into contact with the virus .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
GALLUP, N.M. (AP) — Like clockwork, payday arrives and tens of thousands of people from the Navajo reservation and other rural stretches along the New Mexico-Arizona border flood into Gallup, a freewheeling desert oasis of just 22,000 that can quickly quadruple in size with all the visitors.
Not now.
As the modern-day trading post reels under a coronavirus outbreak that has infected more than 1,400 and killed 31 in the city and surrounding rural county — overrunning a patchwork health care system — Gallup has gone into extreme lockdown. Barricades are manned by state police and the National Guard keeping out anyone who doesn’t live there or face an emergency.
Advertisement
That has sent thousands of people scrambling for options other than the city’s coin operated bulk water station and monthly shopping runs to Walmart and Tractor Supply Co. Up to one-third of homes on remote stretches of the Navajo Nation lack full plumbing, and local grocery stores are mostly tiny and limited.
The roads into Gallup may open up Friday evening, but the rules allowing only essential shopping will remain, and the reservation has its own lockdown that prevents people from leaving on evenings and weekends. Navajo police patrol for people breaking the rules.
On Thursday, hundreds of cars idled at a roadblock in hopes of entering town, just before the lockdown was extended for three more days under provisions of the state Riot Control Act.
The effectiveness of the lockdown, enacted by the governor and endorsed by Gallup’s fledgling mayor, is up for debate. Infections are still mounting unabated inside town, with about 240 infections within one zip code and more than 2,650 on the Navajo Nation that extends into portions of Arizona and Utah. If the Navajo Nation were its own state, it’d have the second highest per-capita rate of positive coronavirus cases in the country, behind only New York.
Advertisement
The dividing line traced by roadblocks also is tugging on sensitivities about birthrights and inequities, as Native American visitors worry about the social stigma of being locked out because of the contagion.
The outbreak on the huge Navajo reservation, the nation’s largest with 175,000 people, have made people in Gallup nervous. Many see hints of the long-running racism that has divided people in the town for centuries.
“They targeted the people around here. They’re going to be coming to Gallup to shop, so they put a stop to that,” said Johnnie Henry, who said two of his relatives on the Navajo Nation were apparently infected with COVID-19 while working at a hospital in Gallup. “We kind of look at each other and say, are we the ones bringing it? No, it’s all over.
“There’s a lot of people who want to go back into Gallup, but they’re afraid that they’re going to call us names ... say that we are the carriers.”
Inside Gallup, the streets are empty, with downtown thoroughfares largely free of cars. The lockdown idled pawn shops, halted informal jewelry sales by walking vendors, and thinned out crowds to a trickle at grocery stores and Walmart.
Advertisement
“The lockdown has been awesome, you don’t have to worry about any crowds,” said Andrew Sandoval, a delivery worker for Home Depot, as he ducked into a grocery store to buy his wife a cup of coffee.
At Gallup’s main hospital, Rehoboth McKinley Christian, the battle against the virus has taken a toll on staff, with 32 infections among employees. The hospital’s sole pulmonologist left Wednesday without a replacement, and patients with serious respiratory conditions are being flown to Albuquerque, said Chief Medical Officer Val Wangler.
Meanwhile, the trajectory of the pandemic could hinge on Gallup’s homeless population — many of them castaways from the Navajo Nation who are afflicted by alcoholism.
Infections raced through a detox center in early April. Now, free room and board are being offered at four local motels — including the famous El Rancho hotel visited by legendary actor John Wayne and President Ronald Reagan — to about 140 homeless patients who are quarantined. They are tested repeatedly before being cleared with a certification card that can let them back into shelters.
Beyond Gallup, New Mexico’s statewide stay-at-home order and restrictions on nonessential businesses expire May 15 with uncertainty about what comes next.
Advertisement
“I’m so confused. What is going to really work, if this doesn’t?” said state Sen. George Munoz of Gallup of the community lockdown. He has taken to buying giant pallets of bottled water for indigenous communities with campaign funds. “I don’t know the answer.”
Physician Caleb Lauber opens a conversation with one coronavirus-positive motel border in the Navajo language before administering a nasal swab test to see if the infection persists.
“There’s more than one benefit from doing this,” he said. “It allows us the opportunity to ensure that the community is protected.”
The program also is financially unsustainable, he said.
“The ideology is good and it makes sense, we just don’t have the funds.”
South of Gallup at Zuni Pueblo, a tribal community of 800 residents set amid red rock mesas, Lt. Gov. Carleton Bowekaty voiced enthusiastic support for extending the Gallup lockdown further, noting that it keeps more pueblo members safely at home. He said the tribe has stockpiled food staples and water to help support tribal members who have to quarantine after coming into contact with the virus.
He said a COVID-19 outbreak at the pueblo is far from contained, with about 55 infections and 2 deaths amid intensive testing, evening curfews and a daytime roadblock aimed at discouraging nonessential travel to and from the pueblo.
Advertisement
An end to the lockdown in Gallup would likely mean stricter restrictions at Zuni, where Bowekaty says tribal members are struggling to come to terms with the need for social distancing in ceremonial life, including burials.
Thoughts have turned to preserving oral traditions that might be lost with more casualties to the coronavirus.
“How do we capture their knowledge if they pass on?” he asked.
___


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-08--Congressional Democrats Tell DOJ To Do More To Address COVID-19 Hate Crimes

Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill are demanding the Department of Justice develop specific plans to address the surge in racism , xenophobia and anti-Semitism related to the coronavirus pandemic .
A group of House Democrats , led by Rep. Grace Meng ( D-N.Y. ) , introduced legislation Thursday that would force the DOJ to designate an official to swiftly review federal , state and local reports of COVID-19 hate crimes and to provide monthly updates to Congress on what the department has done to investigate the cases .
Separately , 16 Democratic senators — led by Sens .
Mazie Hirono @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jersey — signed a letter last week imploring the DOJ ’ s Civil Rights Division to specify a plan by May 15 to combat the surge in racism against Asian American and Pacific Islander communities related to COVID-19 .
“ There are more than 20 million Americans of Asian descent , and 2 million AAPI individuals are working on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic , as health care workers , law enforcement agents , first responders , and other essential service providers , ” the senators wrote .
“ It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans are protected during this pandemic.
” The letter criticized “ the currently inadequate federal response to address these racist and xenophobic attacks , a sharp break from the efforts of past administrations , Republican and Democratic alike.
” The letter refers to recent reporting from the Center for Public Integrity that found that the DOJ ’ s Civil Rights Division devoted concerted efforts to address the surge in racism and Islamophobia against South Asians and American Muslims after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Disease Control and Prevention also had a detailed plan to combat anti-Asian harassment and discrimination in response to the SARS outbreak .
Throughout recent months , AAPI communities across the country have reported skyrocketing incidents of racist attacks , stoked by racist rhetoric , including from President Donald Trump , such as describing COVID-19 as the “ Chinese virus.
” Over a four-week period beginning March 19 , a group of AAPI advocacy organizations and scholars collected nearly 1,500 reports of racist incidents against AAPI individuals .
The incidents , submitted by respondents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ranged from being spat on , called racial slurs , refused service and physically assaulted .
In New York City , the city ’ s Commission on Human Rights said last month that it has received 105 reports of anti-Asian harassment and discrimination since February , compared to just five during the same period in 2019 .
Activists have said they fear such attacks will continue to rise , as states begin to lift their stay-at-home orders and more people start going out in public again .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill are demanding the Department of Justice develop specific plans to address the surge in racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism related to the coronavirus pandemic.
A group of House Democrats, led by Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), introduced legislation Thursday that would force the DOJ to designate an official to swiftly review federal, state and local reports of COVID-19 hate crimes and to provide monthly updates to Congress on what the department has done to investigate the cases.
Advertisement
Separately, 16 Democratic senators — led by Sens. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and Cory Booker of New Jersey — signed a letter last week imploring the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division to specify a plan by May 15 to combat the surge in racism against Asian American and Pacific Islander communities related to COVID-19.
“There are more than 20 million Americans of Asian descent, and 2 million AAPI individuals are working on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic, as health care workers, law enforcement agents, first responders, and other essential service providers,” the senators wrote. “It is critical that the Civil Rights Division ensure that the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans are protected during this pandemic.”
The letter criticized “the currently inadequate federal response to address these racist and xenophobic attacks, a sharp break from the efforts of past administrations, Republican and Democratic alike.”
The letter refers to recent reporting from the Center for Public Integrity that found that the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division devoted concerted efforts to address the surge in racism and Islamophobia against South Asians and American Muslims after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001. In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also had a detailed plan to combat anti-Asian harassment and discrimination in response to the SARS outbreak.
Advertisement
Beginning in March, federal officials warned of a potential surge in hate crimes and extremism tied to the pandemic.
Throughout recent months, AAPI communities across the country have reported skyrocketing incidents of racist attacks, stoked by racist rhetoric, including from President Donald Trump, such as describing COVID-19 as the “Chinese virus.”
Over a four-week period beginning March 19, a group of AAPI advocacy organizations and scholars collected nearly 1,500 reports of racist incidents against AAPI individuals. The incidents, submitted by respondents in 45 states and Washington, D.C., ranged from being spat on, called racial slurs, refused service and physically assaulted.
As of Monday, the groups have received 1,716 reports.
In New York City, the city’s Commission on Human Rights said last month that it has received 105 reports of anti-Asian harassment and discrimination since February, compared to just five during the same period in 2019.
Activists have said they fear such attacks will continue to rise, as states begin to lift their stay-at-home orders and more people start going out in public again.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-08--Wall Street-Friendly Lawmakers Sought Bailout For Shady Lenders

“ It ’ s bad on the substance to have the Federal Reserve be lending to subprime consumer and small business lenders , ” Graham Steele , a former Democratic counsel on the Senate Banking Committee , who now runs Stanford School of Business ’ Corporations and Society Initiative .
“ It doesn ’ t look good when the members asking for that kind of bailout for these companies are also funded by those predatory lenders.
” Writing to Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell , the lawmakers encouraged the Fed to expand eligibility for loans from its Term Asset-Backed Securities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ non-bank lenders and fintech platforms.
” “ Non-bank lenders ” issue loans that are less regulated than loans made by traditional banks , but they are also willing to take greater risks .
And “ fintech platforms ” are a kind of non-bank lender that operate online and through mobile apps .
In late March , the Fed reinitiated TALF , a program it created to shore up consumer lenders after the 2008 financial crisis , to address the economic fallout from the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is eligible for the emergency loans , but it will not bail out some riskier forms of credit .
The trouble with their claim is that the Fed announced it was restarting TALF on March 23 ― days after Yellen and Bernanke ’ s op-ed , and several days before the House members ’ letter .
The House members ’ letter addressed the scope of the program , not whether it would get off the ground at all .
Nat Hoopes , the executive director of the Marketplace Lending Association , a trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HuffPost unprompted when he learned about the story from a congressional office .
He cited data showing that two-thirds of the “ investment-grade ” assets that the letter is asking for loan help for are from his group ’ s member companies .
Marketplace Lending Association members “ typically ” issue loans with interest rates of 11-17 % , according to Hoopes .
The federal government has alleged , however , that loans issued by at least one fintech platform contained hidden fees not reflected in the upfront interest rate .
Consumer advocates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insist on a 36 % cap on interest rates , but they did not end up including it in the letter , according to a congressional aide familiar with the matter .
“ The 36 % rate cap should have been applied , ” the aide said .
“ We want to avoid a situation where payday lenders ― and other predatory lenders ― are empowered to take advantage of this very severe recession that we ’ re now in.
” The prospect that Democrats like Gottheimer , who received more money from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House member this cycle , would lobby the Fed for loans not only for unsavory lenders , but for fly-by-night lenders owned by private equity firms , is particularly galling to advocates of financial reform .
“ The Fed and the Small Business Administration should do everything they can to stop private equity from getting access to taxpayer funding , as private equity funds will use that funding to lay people off and buy themselves more private jets , ” said Matt Stoller , a former House Financial Services Committee staffer , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American Economic Liberties Project .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A bipartisan group of House Financial Services Committee members asked the Federal Reserve in an April letter to extend an emergency loan program to a host of controversial financial firms that offer high-interest loans to low-income Americans.
In other words, firms that offer Americans high-interest loans want a low-cost loan from the government.
Advertisement
All 14 signatories of the April letter are recipients of campaign contributions this election cycle from the political action committee of the American Financial Services Association, or AFSA, which represents subprime lenders’ interests in Washington.
“It’s bad on the substance to have the Federal Reserve be lending to subprime consumer and small business lenders,” Graham Steele, a former Democratic counsel on the Senate Banking Committee, who now runs Stanford School of Business’ Corporations and Society Initiative. “It doesn’t look good when the members asking for that kind of bailout for these companies are also funded by those predatory lenders.”
Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) is one of 14 members of the House Financial Services Committee who sought extra help for lenders that operate outside normal banking rules. Michael Brochstein/Barcroft Media/Getty Images
Writing to Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, the lawmakers encouraged the Fed to expand eligibility for loans from its Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, or TALF, for “non-bank lenders and fintech platforms.” “Non-bank lenders” issue loans that are less regulated than loans made by traditional banks, but they are also willing to take greater risks. And “fintech platforms” are a kind of non-bank lender that operate online and through mobile apps.
Advertisement
The House members ― seven Democrats and seven Republicans ― were responding to a letter that the AFSA sent to Congress appealing for its members to become eligible for the program.
In late March, the Fed reinitiated TALF, a program it created to shore up consumer lenders after the 2008 financial crisis, to address the economic fallout from the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Fed has said that every financial institution is eligible for the emergency loans, but it will not bail out some riskier forms of credit.
In the letter, the House members make clear that they specifically want TALF to include loans issued by “installment” lending firms that the program currently excludes. Those firms offer high-interest loans for low-income borrowers to pay off in installments.
“The market for consumer and small business credit, including consumer installment loans, play a much more vital role in the economy than they did twelve years ago,” the letter states. “In light of this development, we hope you agree that any expanded TALF program should include investment-grade securities backed by unsecured consumer loans as eligible collateral.”
Financial reform advocates consider installment loans only slightly less exploitative than the notorious payday loans that exploit low-income workers’ desperation for quick cash by saddling them with debts they can never pay off.
Advertisement
Steele called installment lending “payday lending by another name.”
“It has slightly more favorable terms,” he said. “There are a whole bunch of ways in which they are not as predatory, but still predatory.”
HuffPost reached out to the offices of all 14 members of Congress for their response to the criticism.
Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) said in a statement that his support for expanding TALF springs from his agreement with a March 18 op-ed by former Federal Reserve chairs Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen calling for the Fed to restart TALF to ensure households and businesses have access to credit.
He said he “took guidance from the community banks and small businesses in my District, who are also advocating to restart TALF.
“That’s who I listened to on this, because if credit markets freeze up, small businesses can’t stay in business and pay their employees right now,” he continued. “That would put even more of our local jobs at risk.”
Advertisement
A spokesperson for Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas) pointed to the same column as inspiration for the letter.
The trouble with their claim is that the Fed announced it was restarting TALF on March 23 ― days after Yellen and Bernanke’s op-ed, and several days before the House members’ letter. The House members’ letter addressed the scope of the program, not whether it would get off the ground at all.
The only other lawmaker to respond was Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), who disputed that the lenders the letter was seeking help for were unsavory. Perlmutter said in a statement that the letter “does not encourage the Federal Reserve to support high interest, predatory loans, instead specifically requesting ‘investment-grade securities’ to be included in any expanded TALF program.”
“The purpose of the letter is to assist small businesses and consumers who rely on personal loans and will benefit from additional credit availability during the COVID-19 crisis,” he added.
A loan that is “investment grade” is considered at lower risk of default. It does not preclude a loan from having a high interest rate or otherwise being predatory.
Advertisement
Nat Hoopes, the executive director of the Marketplace Lending Association, a trade group that represents fintech platforms, contacted HuffPost unprompted when he learned about the story from a congressional office. He cited data showing that two-thirds of the “investment-grade” assets that the letter is asking for loan help for are from his group’s member companies. Marketplace Lending Association members “typically” issue loans with interest rates of 11-17%, according to Hoopes.
“The TALF program could be a really a critical program for low interest rate consumer credit to help people be able to borrow,” Hoopes said. “And if the Fed will respond to what Congress has asked of them, it doesn’t touch the payday lenders.”
The federal government has alleged, however, that loans issued by at least one fintech platform contained hidden fees not reflected in the upfront interest rate. Consumer advocates asked the letter’s signatories to insist on a 36% cap on interest rates, but they did not end up including it in the letter, according to a congressional aide familiar with the matter. “The 36% rate cap should have been applied,” the aide said. “We want to avoid a situation where payday lenders ― and other predatory lenders ― are empowered to take advantage of this very severe recession that we’re now in.”
“There are better ways to do it that don’t leave people indebted afterwards or involve the central bank.” - Graham Steelee, former Democratic counsel, Senate Banking Committee
The signatories of the letter to the Fed are right about one thing: In the wake of the 2008 financial crash, a growing number of workers became desperate for short-term cash and had fewer traditional credit options to get it. Filling the void, installment lending became a growth industry.
Advertisement
In recent years, the loans have spawned horror stories in prominent news outlets. ProPublica chronicled the story of one Walmart employee who ended up paying a 182% interest rate on a loan. A former employee of an installment lending firm told The Washington Post that the business was “basically a way of monetizing poor people.”
If the lawmakers’ intention was to help low-income Americans stuck in the less-than-ideal situation of relying on these fly-by-night lenders for cash, they might instead prioritize getting needy people more financial aid through existing safety net programs.
“There are better ways to do it that don’t leave people indebted afterwards or involve the central bank,” Steele said.
The AFSA PAC has contributed to the campaigns of the 14 House Financial Services Committee members who wrote a letter calling for aid that would benefit the trade group’s members.
In the 2020 election cycle alone, the AFSA PAC contributed $30,000 to the seven Democrats on the letter: $3,500 to Gottheimer; $7,000 to Perlmutter; $4,500 to Gonzalez; $5,000 to Rep. Denny Heck (Wash.); $4,500 to Rep. Bill Foster (Ill.); $4,500 to Rep. Jennifer Wexton (Va.); and $1,000 to Rep. Jim Himes (Conn.).
Advertisement
The PAC gave $41,500 to the seven Republicans on the letter: $9,000 to Rep. Lee Zeldin (N.Y.); $7,000 to Rep. Barry Loudermilk (Ga.); $7,000 to Rep. Scott Tipton (Colo.); $6,500 to Rep. William Timmons (S.C.); $5,000 to Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (Mo.); $4,000 to Rep. Denver Riggleman (Va.); and $3,000 to Rep. Warren Davidson (Ohio).
Some of the signatories have still deeper relationships with installment lending firms.
Luetkemeyer, ranking member on the Financial Services Committee’s subcommittee for consumer protection, has received a total of $8,000 since 2015 from the World Acceptance Corporation PAC. The World Acceptance Corporation is the corporate name for World Finance, the installment lender ProPublica investigated.
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (Mo.), the top Republican on the House's consumer protection subcommittee, is a favorite target of donations from "installment" lending firms. Bill Clark/Getty Images
Gottheimer, a co-chair of the bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus, has received $24,700 since 2016 from Marc Rowan, billionaire co-founder of the private equity giant Apollo Global Management, and Rowan’s wife, Carolyn. As The American Prospect first reported on Friday, employees of the private equity firm have given Gottheimer $97,600 over the course of his career.
Apollo currently owns the nation’s largest installment lender, OneMain Financial. OneMain styles itself as a more ethical installment lender, claiming it caps interest rates at 36%. But it’s also proven adept at lobbying for looser regulations of subprime lending at the state level.
Advertisement
The New York Times shined a light on Gottheimer’s ties to Apollo in a Wednesday report exposing the controversial private equity industry’s efforts to secure its share of federal coronavirus aid money. Shortly before Gottheimer joined the letter to Powell, Rowan used similar arguments to pitch the Problem Solvers Caucus on allowing businesses owned by private equity firms to become eligible for the TALF program, according to the Times. (Among the signatories of the April 1 letter, Gonzalez is also a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus.)
What’s more, OneMain is one of several non-bank lenders that have explicitly called for greater access to TALF.
The prospect that Democrats like Gottheimer, who received more money from the private equity industry than any other House member this cycle, would lobby the Fed for loans not only for unsavory lenders, but for fly-by-night lenders owned by private equity firms, is particularly galling to advocates of financial reform.
“The Fed and the Small Business Administration should do everything they can to stop private equity from getting access to taxpayer funding, as private equity funds will use that funding to lay people off and buy themselves more private jets,” said Matt Stoller, a former House Financial Services Committee staffer, who is now director of research at the American Economic Liberties Project.