thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-24--Progressives Are Divided On What To Do About Coronavirus Bailouts For Big Business

Progressives active in corporate and economic policymaking have expressed everything from cautious optimism to outright hostility toward the bill .
The more optimistic camp is focusing its energy on ensuring that oversight of the bailout funds is as robust as possible , while the more pessimistic contingent wants members of Congress to try to strip out the corporate giveaways or , barring that , kill the entire bill .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
has published the draft text of legislation requiring corporations to use at least 95 % of the bailout money to meet payroll .
Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respond to an inquiry about whether she would push to be on any bailout oversight panel that emerges , given her past role as an overseer of the 2008 bailouts , or whether she plans to withhold a “ yes ” vote on a bill that does not meet key conditions .
Barofsky declined to weigh in on the merits of different versions of legislation under consideration , but he said that the success of an inspector general and an oversight panel depend heavily on personnel and the power they have .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inspector general and oversight panel with as much authority as possible and to appoint fierce watchdogs to serve on them .
“ That ’ s where it works best : where you have knowledgeable people who understand how to put in the right type of anti-fraud provisions to make these things safe and you have willing policymakers who are willing to listen and compromise and come up with the most effective programs possible ― all in the bright light of day , ” he said .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
As congressional Democrats hammer out a deal with the Trump administration over a bill that would allot $500 billion for the Treasury Department to bail out companies affected by the coronavirus pandemic, progressives are divided on the best strategy for shaping the final legislation.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said the package, which would also provide less-controversial aid to hospitals and direct cash payments to households, will include the appointment of an inspector general and a congressionally appointed five-person panel to monitor the distribution of the funds.
Advertisement
Progressives active in corporate and economic policymaking have expressed everything from cautious optimism to outright hostility toward the bill. The more optimistic camp is focusing its energy on ensuring that oversight of the bailout funds is as robust as possible, while the more pessimistic contingent wants members of Congress to try to strip out the corporate giveaways or, barring that, kill the entire bill.
Indivisible, a network of liberal activists that arose in response to Donald Trump’s election, said it was heartened by the prospect of formal oversight. The group is still demanding that companies that accept federal money adopt a $15-an-hour minimum wage and tough disclosure requirements on political giving, while also prohibiting executive bonuses, stock buybacks, dividends and other investor-targeted payouts until bailout money is repaid. And Indivisible wants strict provisions barring the distribution of bailout money to companies owned by Trump.
The bill “cannot be a no-strings-attached taxpayer-funded giveaway to Donald Trump and his friends,” said Meagan Hatcher-Mays, Indivisible’s director of democracy policy.
Progressives are unsure how to approach a bailout bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) are negotiating with Donald Trump. Caroline Brehman/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images
Advertisement
Alex Lawson, executive director of the progressive lobbying group Social Security Works, expressed a similar view, insisting that legislation creating any would-be panel should ensure it is not a “rubber-stamp operation” for Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. Lawson is calling for an organized labor official or another worker representative to be assured one of the five seats.
“The foreclosure king cannot be in charge of the response to this current economic crisis,” said Lawson, referencing Mnuchin’s previous stint as owner of a foreclosure-heavy mortgage bank.
In addition, progressives want to ensure that any panel has, at a bare minimum, the power to subpoena ― or compel ― testimony and the release of key documents, and the authority to call hearings to inform the public about their investigations.
An inspector general, they insist, must have the authority to pursue criminal prosecutions against people or entities that violate the terms of the bailout. Tougher whistleblower protections for government employees might ensure that Trump, Mnuchin or other political leaders are less able to silence those who would speak out about corruption, these advocates say.
But several progressive experts do not see a scenario where an oversight panel would have any ability to stop misconduct before it starts.
Advertisement
“This is a disaster,” said Matt Stoller, a former Capitol Hill financial policy aide who is now research director of the American Economic Liberties Project, a think tank promoting antitrust regulation. “It will hand the country to big business and not help the pandemic.”
That’s especially true under the Trump administration, which has routinely refused to comply with congressional subpoenas and used the courts to delay compliance, noted Jeff Hauser, who runs the Revolving Door Project, the Center for Economic and Policy Research’s executive branch accountability initiative.
“It’s an impossible task to write an oversight panel in 2020 that is capable of reining in Mnuchin and Trump’s worst instincts,” Hauser said. “It’s not an issue of draftsmanship. It’s an issue of mission.”
“Democrats are doing their best to give Trump a fighting chance in November,” he added.
“It’s an impossible task to write an oversight panel in 2020 that is capable of reining in Mnuchin and Trump’s worst instincts.” - Jeff Hauser, Revolving Door Project
The bailout bill could open the door to trillions of dollars in additional relief from the Federal Reserve, worries Amanda Fischer, policy director for the think tank Equitable Growth who previously served as chief of staff to Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.).
Advertisement
Under section 13.3 of the Federal Reserve Act, the central bank has authority to authorize emergency loans to corporations, provided that the companies meet a certain list of conditions, including that they are financially solvent. Funds that the Treasury distributes to those companies could shore up a company’s balance sheet and thus serve as a kind of down payment on much larger loans from the Fed with no conditions attached.
Stoller, Hauser and Fischer all argued that Congress should pass a bill that provides immediate aid to hospitals, families, small businesses and other essential entities — and strip out assistance for big business.
The Federal Reserve has already been using drastic measures to prop up markets without additional congressional action, so there is time to slow down and get a potential corporate bailout right, Fischer maintained. “The corporate bailout piece does not seem urgent,” she said.
It is unclear whether progressive members of Congress are more likely to try to improve the bill or are marshaling the votes to kill it, since they do not appear to have a coordinated message or strategy.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been speaking out against the corporate bailouts under consideration and promoting his own plan to provide $2,000 a month to all families for the length of the pandemic. A Sanders spokesperson said they’re waiting on the legislative text before saying how they’ll vote.
Advertisement
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has published the draft text of legislation requiring corporations to use at least 95% of the bailout money to meet payroll. Warren’s Senate staff did not immediately respond to an inquiry about whether she would push to be on any bailout oversight panel that emerges, given her past role as an overseer of the 2008 bailouts, or whether she plans to withhold a “yes” vote on a bill that does not meet key conditions.
And members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, led by Reps. Peter DeFazio of Oregon and Lloyd Doggett of Texas, sent a letter to Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Friday demanding, among other strict conditions on bailout money, that bailout recipients reserve a seat on corporate boards for workers. Asked whether the CPC was corralling votes to stop a bill that did not have those provisions, a spokesperson for the CPC did not immediately respond.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the influential freshman Democrat from New York, blasted the emerging terms of the corporate bailout on Twitter, where she has over 6.6 million followers.
“The developments of this Senate relief bill are concerning,” she wrote. “We are hearing lots of vague statements, but not a single member of Congress has seen actual bill text.”
A spokesperson for Ocasio-Cortez would not say whether she plans to vote down a corporate bailout bill in its present form, let alone whether she is whipping her colleagues to that effect.
Advertisement
The prospect of a massive corporate bailout bill that would grant unprecedented authority to the Treasury has inevitably elicited comparisons to the bank bailouts of 2008. At the time, the administration of Republican President George W. Bush requested and received from the Democratic-controlled House and Senate broad authority to create and distribute a $700-billion financial bailout fund known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.
The bill failed on the first vote in the House, eventually passing on the second attempt after the addition of provisions designed to assuage Democrats who wanted to ensure that distressed homeowners got their share of the relief.
Neil Barofsky and Elizabeth Warren testify at a House Financial Services Committee Hearing in July 2009. Their oversight of the 2008 bailout could be a model. Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images
As Congress considers creating an inspector general and congressional oversight panel to monitor the distribution of a new corporate bailout, it is looking for inspiration from similar bodies created to oversee the 2008 bailout.
Congress confirmed former federal prosecutor Neil Barofsky to serve as special inspector general for TARP, or SIGTARP, in September 2008. The following month, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) named Warren, at the time a bankruptcy law professor and financial policy expert, to serve as head of a five-member congressional oversight panel of TARP.
Advertisement
Warren and Barofsky became ferocious critics of both the Bush and Obama administrations’ management of the bailout funds. As Warren leveraged her perch to convene hearings to grill bank executives and administration officials, Barofsky used his investigative power to compile criminal cases against alleged financial malefactors.
Warren would go on to shepherd into existence the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and in 2012, launched a career in the Senate, where she became a fierce Wall Street foe. For his part, Barofsky published a scathing tell-all about his experience as SIGTARP, “Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street,” before embarking on a career as an attorney in the private sector.
In the end though, neither Warren nor Barofsky succeeded in ensuring that homeowners, many of whom had been sold predatory loans ― legally and illegally ― got their promised share of TARP funds.
The Obama administration declared that its $50-billion Home Affordable Mortgage Modification Program, or HAMP, would help 3 to 4 million families obtain mortgage modifications such as lower payments that would allow them to keep their homes. The program was so poorly designed that it wound up providing just 800,000 mortgage modifications. For comparison, Americans lost 10 million homes to foreclosure from 2006 to 2014.
In his book, Barofsky recalls warning then-Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner that HAMP would not provide relief to homeowners unless there were tougher rules and enforcement for the institutions that received the funds. Geithner replied that rather than prevent foreclosures, the program was designed to “foam the runway” for banks inundated with foreclosures so they would have adequate time to process them, Barofsky wrote.
Advertisement
“We got some reports saying [the bailout] was corrupt,” Stoller said.
But since they were unable to stop some of the worst abuses, he concluded, “Barofsky and Warren failed.”
“In a month, when the oversight mechanisms speak up and say it’s corrupt, Democrats are going to whine,” he added. “But this is the moment when it matters.”
“It’s got to be very clear upfront that [the watchdogs] are going to have unimpeded access.” - Neil Barofsky, former special inspector general for TARP
Warren and Barofsky were one-of-a-kind public servants who leveraged the sense of shame that the Bush and Obama administrations felt about perceived cases of unfairness, according to Hauser. He is not sure that the Trump administration ― or the Republican Senate ― would appoint people of similar integrity, or that this White House is capable of being shamed.
“If Trump’s superpower is shamelessness, the entire premise of oversight is undermined,” Hauser said.
Advertisement
In an interview, Barofsky emphasized that Congress should also write tough conditions on the aid into the text of the law, rather than rely solely on oversight bodies.
Barofsky declined to weigh in on the merits of different versions of legislation under consideration, but he said that the success of an inspector general and an oversight panel depend heavily on personnel and the power they have. He called on Congress to provide a special inspector general and oversight panel with as much authority as possible and to appoint fierce watchdogs to serve on them.
“It’s got to be very clear upfront that they are going to have unimpeded access,” he said.
And Barofsky cited the Federal Reserve as an example of an institution that heeded his agency’s warnings, unlike Geithner’s Treasury Department. When Barofsky’s office produced a report showing that the Fed’s planned Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility program lacked adequate anti-fraud provisions, the central bank postponed the program’s rollout and invited Barofsky and his team in to help improve it.
“That’s where it works best: where you have knowledgeable people who understand how to put in the right type of anti-fraud provisions to make these things safe and you have willing policymakers who are willing to listen and compromise and come up with the most effective programs possible ― all in the bright light of day,” he said.
Jen Bendery contributed reporting.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-24--Senate Close To Reaching Deal On Massive Coronavirus Relief Bill

WASHINGTON ― After nearly a week of negotiations that culminated in a tense shouting match on the Senate floor on Monday , lawmakers announced they were close to reaching a deal on massive trillion-dollar emergency legislation aimed at propping up the U.S. economy and giving relief to workers hit hard by the coronavirus pandemic .
“ Last night , I thought we were on the 5-yard line .
Right now , we ’ re on the 2 , ” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) said Tuesday of his negotiations with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin , borrowing some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t see any [ issues ] that can ’ t be overcome within the next few hours.
” The bill , which would cost approximately $ 2 trillion , includes hundreds of billions in loans for small businesses , many of which have been forced to close to fight the spread of the virus .
It also provides direct cash payments to the majority of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet or who have lost jobs during the crisis .
Democrats twice delayed passage of the measure to secure key priorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for hospitals and health care workers than Republicans proposed , as well as expanded unemployment benefits to cover individuals who are not currently covered by traditional unemployment assistance for four months .
Republicans initially proposed three months .
“ This is a great plan .
What it says is if you lose your job in this crisis you can be furloughed by your employer , ” Schumer said of the new expanded unemployment insurance provisions .
Democrats also succeeded in securing in some oversight over $ 400 billion in loans to distressed corporations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ slush fund.
” The massive pot of money would be controlled by President Donald Trump ’ s administration and could include bailouts to affected industries like hotels , casinos , cruise lines , and the oil and gas industry .
Under the terms of the deal , however , an independent inspector general and a congressional oversight board would be in charge of scrutinizing the lending decisions .
An outstanding issue not yet agreed upon is whether companies that accept aid from U.S. taxpayers can reward shareholders and their executives through stock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fighting to prohibit such moves .
“ This body can ’ t get its act together , and the only reason it can ’ t get its act together is right over here on the other side of the aisle , ” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) said on the floor .
“ Are you kidding me ?
” During another heated exchange on the floor , Sen. Sherrod Brown ( D-Ohio ) responded to a question from Sen. Tom Cotton ( R-Ark . )
by saying , “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s bidding.
” The legislation is the third and largest of the government ’ s responses to the coronavirus crisis .
Last week , Trump signed House Democrats ’ bill that makes coronavirus testing free , expands unemployment insurance benefits and provides paid leave to some displaced workers .
Much of the negotiations occurred behind closed doors on Sunday and Monday .
Mnuchin was spotted walking back and forth between the offices of McConnell and Schumer .
He also sat down for two hours with Brown , the top Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) unveiled her own massive rescue bill on Monday that would cost at least $ 2.5 trillion .
The move seemed aimed at giving Schumer leverage in his talks with the administration ― in fact , some aspects of the legislation were included in the Senate bill .
Pelosi expressed hope Tuesday about getting unanimous agreement in the House to approve the Senate bill by voice vote rather than calling the entire lower chamber back to Washington , a process that could substantially delay getting the bill to @ @ @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― After days of marathon negotiations and a tense shouting match on the Senate floor, lawmakers reached a deal with the Trump administration early Wednesday morning on massive trillion-dollar emergency legislation aimed at propping up the U.S. economy and giving relief to workers hit hard by the coronavirus pandemic.
A vote on the bill, which has yet to be fully written, is expected later Wednesday. It would likely be the largest federal bailout package in U.S. history.
Advertisement
“The Senate has reached a bipartisan agreement on a historic relief package for this pandemic,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the floor. “In effect, this is a wartime level of investment into our nation.”
The legislation, which would cost approximately $2 trillion, includes hundreds of billions in loans for small businesses, many of which have been forced to close to fight the spread of the virus. It also provides direct cash payments to the majority of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet or who have lost jobs during the crisis.
“This is a great plan. What it says is if you lose your job in this crisis you can be furloughed by your employer,” Schumer said Tuesday of the new provisions, calling it “unemployment insurance on steroids.”
Advertisement
Democrats also succeeded in securing in some oversight over $400 billion in loans to distressed corporations, which some critics were calling a “slush fund.” The massive pot of money would be controlled by President Donald Trump’s administration and could include bailouts to affected industries like hotels, casinos, cruise lines, and the oil and gas industry. Under the terms of the deal, however, an independent inspector general and a congressional oversight board would be in charge of scrutinizing the lending decisions.
The bill includes restrictions on companies that accept aid from U.S. taxpayers from rewarding shareholders and their executives through stock buybacks, another Democratic priority.
Republicans excoriated Democrats over the days-long delay of the bill, accusing them of putting Americans’ health and safety at risk while job losses and deaths mounted.
“This body can’t get its act together, and the only reason it can’t get its act together is right over here on the other side of the aisle,” McConnell said on the floor Monday. “Are you kidding me?”
Tensions flared as members of both parties traded shots over the bill.
“This is unbelievable,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) yelled at one point after Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) objected to her speaking on the floor.
Advertisement
During another heated exchange on the floor, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) responded to a question from Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) by saying, “I know you always want to do ... the president’s bidding.”
But the mood in the chamber turned significantly more upbeat on Tuesday as both sides expressed optimism about passing the bill early this week.
The legislation is the third and largest of the government’s responses to the coronavirus crisis. Last week, Trump signed House Democrats’ bill that makes coronavirus testing free, expands unemployment insurance benefits and provides paid leave to some displaced workers.
Much of the negotiations occurred behind closed doors on Sunday and Monday. Mnuchin was spotted walking back and forth between the offices of McConnell and Schumer. He also sat down for two hours with Brown, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) unveiled her own massive rescue bill on Monday that would cost at least $2.5 trillion. The move seemed aimed at giving Schumer leverage in his talks with the administration ― in fact, some aspects of the legislation were included in the Senate bill.
Advertisement
Pelosi expressed hope Tuesday about getting unanimous agreement in the House to approve the Senate bill by voice vote rather than calling the entire lower chamber back to Washington, a process that could substantially delay getting the bill to the president’s desk.
Senate Democrats “have done a great job,” Pelosi said Tuesday in an interview on CNBC. “Overarchingly we’re getting to a good place.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-24--Lawmakers Pushing Big Financial Break For Oil Got $4M In Industry Donations

They ’ re urging the reduction or elimination of royalties for offshore drilling operations ― payments that companies make to the federal government to extract oil and gas from public lands and waters .
Drillers pay a percentage of the resource ’ s value , with the money going to fund schools , roads , conservation projects and more .
Late Friday , 13 Republicans and one Democrat , most from Texas and Louisiana , sent a letter to Interior Secretary David Bernhardt urging him to “ examine the viability of a temporary reduction in royalties as domestic energy producers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Petroleum Exporting Countries ] -driven price war and an epidemic that is driving millions of people around the world into quarantines of one kind or another.
” Doing so , they added , “ will help mitigate a price war that is sinking prices and decreasing production.
” More than one-fifth of the total $ 4.14 million in campaign donations ― nearly $ 900,000 ― has come in the 2020 election cycle .
The data is from the Center for Responsive Politics , a nonprofit that compiles and tracks campaign donations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fossil fuel money that the 14 members of Congress who signed the letter received , plus Rep. Garret Graves ( R-La . )
, who last week told The Washington Examiner he also planned to ask the Interior Department to use its authorities to implement a short-term reduction in royalty rates for companies drilling on federal lands and waters .
More than half the total , nearly $ 2.4 million , came from fossil fuel industry political action committees , while the rest was from individuals , according to the Center for Responsive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choice to stand with Big Oil rather than the people suffering most from the COVID-19 outbreak is despicable , ” Collin Rees , a senior campaigner at the environmental group Oil Change USA , said in an email Tuesday .
He noted that the U.S. gives more than $ 20 billion in subsidies to oil , gas , and coal companies each year and that fossil fuel interests spend millions to get ally politicians elected .
“ This is yet another damning example of the dirty energy money cycle at play , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rejection of dirty money by our elected leaders , ” he said .
The largest chunk of the fossil fuel money went to Rep. Bill Flores ( R-Texas ) , the former CEO of oil and gas company Phoenix Exploration .
Over his five terms in Congress , Flores has raked in $ 1.17 million from the oil and gas sector , more than any other industry .
That includes approximately $ 66,000 from Chevron , $ 59,000 from Energy Future Holdings LLC and $ 56,000 from Koch Industries , his top-three all-time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national interest to sustain the oil and gas industry to fend off this economic warfare coming from nation-states and a decrease in demand globally because of coronavirus , ” Graves told the Washington Examiner last week .
“ There needs to be a national response .
We can ’ t just dump this all on the lap of industry.
” For the last three years , U.S. oil and gas producers have enjoyed an “ energy dominance ” -obsessed Trump administration that has propped up the industry at every turn by slashing environmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change and working to expand drilling on federal lands and in offshore waters .
Now facing collapsing energy prices that risk bankrupting small producers , the industry has turned to the administration for financial relief to stay afloat .
The Trump administration has barreled forward with oil and gas lease sales on federal lands and vowed to purchase tens of millions of barrels of crude oil from U.S. producers , enough to fill the nation ’ s emergency reserve to capacity .
“ We ’ re going to fill it right up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billions and billions of dollars , helping our oil industry and making us even further toward that wonderful goal , which we ’ ve achieved , which nobody thought was possible , of energy independence , ” Trump said during a March 13 press conference .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
More than 70 members of Congress pushing for the Trump administration to throw oil a lifeline during the coronavirus pandemic have received a collective $35.7 million from the fossil fuel industry over their careers.
They’re urging the reduction or elimination of royalties for drilling operations ― payments that oil and gas companies make to the federal government to extract oil and gas from public lands and waters. Drillers pay a percentage of the resource’s value, with the money going to fund schools, roads, conservation projects and more.
Advertisement
“These members’ choice to stand with Big Oil rather than the people suffering most from the COVID-19 outbreak is despicable,” Collin Rees, a senior campaigner at the environmental group Oil Change USA, said in an email to HuffPost. He noted that the U.S. gives more than $20 billion in subsidies to oil, gas and coal companies each year and that fossil fuel interests spend millions to get ally politicians elected.
“This is yet another damning example of the dirty energy money cycle at play, and the solution has to be a clear rejection of dirty money by our elected leaders,” Rees said.
Offshore drillers pay a 12.5% royalty rate for leases in water depths of less than 200 meters. The rate for all other offshore oil and gas leases is 18.75%, and onshore drillers pay 12.5% to extract from federal lands.
Both an overseas price battle between Saudi Arabia and Russia and a steep decline in global demand due to the coronavirus outbreak have pummeled U.S. producers, sending prices to an 18-year low last month.
Advertisement
Sixty-one House lawmakers — 60 Republicans and 1 Democrat — have signed on to at least one of three letters to date calling for the Trump administration to cut royalties on fossil fuel extraction.
“If this market does not stabilize soon, we risk rolling back the success of the U.S. energy industry over the past decade, which will have a disastrous effect on America’s economy and jeopardize our energy security,” reads one letter, sent to Trump on Thursday and signed by 42 members of the House.
Below are the signatories of the House letters and the amount each has fundraised from the fossil fuel industry over their careers:
Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) — $1,169,573
Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.) — $615,835
Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Texas) ― $455,152
Rep. Randy K. Weber (R-Texas) ― $326,650
Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) ― $278,350
Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) ― $218,592
Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) ― $210,755
Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) ― $194,900
Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) ― $171,700
Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas) ― $126,832
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) ― $109,784
Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) ― $95,850
Rep. Ralph Abraham (R-La.) ― $67,253
Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.) ― $64,125
Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) ― $36,750
Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah) — $54,900
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — $1,955,325
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) — $501,254
Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) — $398,125
Rep. Michael Conaway (R-Texas) — $1,507,142
Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) — $296,100
Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ariz.) — $115,572
Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) — $321,439
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) — $467,703
Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) — $1,217,801
Rep. Fred Keller (R-Penn.) — $18,550
Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) — $245,159
Rep. Paul Cook (R-Calif.) — $60,300
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) — $127,789
Rep. Rick W. Allen (R-Ga.) — $68,050
Rep. Jodey C. Arrington (R-Texas) — $246,578
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) — $1,571,434
Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) — $723,450
Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) — $963,050
Rep. Scott Perry (R-Penn.) — $131,950
Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.) — $211,009
Rep. David Rouzer (R-N.C.) — $144,816
Rep. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) — $73,007
Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.)— $58,000
Rep. W. Gregory Steube (R-Fla.) — $5,000
Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) — $63,000
Rep. David B. McKinley (R-W.Va.) — $399,325
Rep. Troy Balderson (R-Ohio) — $143,805
Rep. Ron Wright (R-Texas) — $27,859
Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) — $1,492,347
Rep. Robert E. Latta (R-Ohio) — $417,333
Rep. Alex X. Mooney (R-W.Va.) — $117,226
Rep. Ron Estes (R-Kan.) — $194,575
Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.) — $105,900
Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas) ― $949,302
Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-Penn.) ― $43,000
Rep. Paul A. Gosar (R-Ariz.) — $77,800
Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) — $47,900
Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) — $63,750
Rep. Greg Pence (R-Ind.) — $34,516
Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho) — $0
Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) — $74,209
Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) — $618,723
Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) — $745,425
Rep. Carol D. Miller (R-W. Va.) — $14,500
Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) — $371,909
Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas), right, was one of 14 House lawmakers who signed a letter March 20 calling on the Trump administration to temporarily slash federal oil and gas royalties for offshore drilling operators. Tom Williams via Getty Images
A dozen Republican senators sent their own letter to Interior Secretary David Bernhardt on Monday calling for the secretary to “reduce, delay or suspend” royalty payments for oil, gas and coal companies operating on public lands. “Without these measures,” the group wrote, “it is likely that many of these companies will cease production, which could cost thousands of jobs and threaten American energy security.”
Together, those senators have raked in more than $14 million from the fossil fuel industry over their careers, according to the Center for Responsive Politics data. Here is a breakdown:
Sen. John Cornyn of (R-Texas) — $4,067,906
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) — $2,139,220
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) — $1,554,805
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) — $1,174,330
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) — $1,145,191
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) — $893,247
Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) — $857,079
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) — $683,078
Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) — $658,524
Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) — $530,583
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — $357,295
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) — $111,818
The oil and gas sector is among the top five contributing industries to 52 of the 73 lawmakers listed above.
Advertisement
For the last three years, U.S. oil and gas producers have enjoyed an “energy dominance”-obsessed Trump administration that has propped up the industry at every turn by slashing environmental regulations, downplaying the threat of climate change and working to expand drilling on federal lands and in offshore waters. Now facing collapsing energy prices that risk bankrupting small producers, the industry has turned to the administration for financial relief to stay afloat.
The administration has barreled forward with oil and gas lease sales on federal lands during the pandemic. And during a coronavirus briefing Tuesday at the White House, Trump said he had “great” conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman about the oil price situation.
“We’re going to see what we can do because you don’t want to lose an industry,” Trump said, adding that “the two countries are discussing it, and I am joining at the appropriate time if need be.”
It is unclear if the Interior Department is considering lawmakers’ request to cut royalties. The agency did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s requests for comment.
Trump is slated to host executives of major oil and gas giants, including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corporation, at the White House on Friday to discuss ways to protect their industry.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-24--'I'd Rather Die': Glenn Beck Urges Older Americans To Work Despite Coronavirus

TV and radio personality Glenn Beck is urging older Americans to return to work to keep the economy going despite the coronavirus infection risks .
Younger people , he said , could stay home to protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 while older people ― who the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says are more prone to the most serious cases ― should keep working .
“ I would rather have my children stay home and all of us who are over 50 go in and keep this economy going and working , ” he said in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Even if we all get sick , I ’ d rather die than kill the country.
” Beck ’ s comments came after he said he was concerned that Democrats would “ jam down ” the Green New Deal in economic stimulus legislation while Americans are home “ panicked ” over COVID-19 .
Beck was among the numerous voices on the right opposed to the Affordable Care Act a decade ago , claiming it would lead to “ death panels ” that would ration care to determine who gets lifesaving treatment and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would rather have nature off grandma , you know ?
” he said in 2010 .
“ I ’ d rather , I ’ d rather have the free market off grandma because then nobody is controlling it.
” While the “ death panels ” never appeared , Beck now seems to be making a more direct appeal to both nature and markets to “ off grandma.
” His latest call echoed comments by Texas Lt. Gov .
Dan Patrick , who this week said he ’ s “ all in ” on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could die as a result of infection .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
TV and radio personality Glenn Beck is urging older Americans to return to work to keep the economy going despite the coronavirus infection risks.
Younger people, he said, could stay home to protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 while older people ― who the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says are more prone to the most serious cases ― should keep working.
Advertisement
“I would rather have my children stay home and all of us who are over 50 go in and keep this economy going and working,” he said in comments posted online by Media Matters. “Even if we all get sick, I’d rather die than kill the country.”
Beck’s comments came after he said he was concerned that Democrats would “jam down” the Green New Deal in economic stimulus legislation while Americans are home “panicked” over COVID-19.
Sending older people to work, he seemed to imply, would prevent that legislation.
“It’s not the economy that’s dying,” he said. “It’s the country.”
Glenn Beck says older Americans should return to work: “Even if we all get sick, I would rather die than kill the country”https://t.co/CQdDAMByXK pic.twitter.com/sgLZ32aJ8C — Jason Campbell (@JasonSCampbell) March 24, 2020
Beck was among the numerous voices on the right opposed to the Affordable Care Act a decade ago, claiming it would lead to “death panels” that would ration care to determine who gets lifesaving treatment and who doesn’t.
Advertisement
At the time, he argued nature or market forces should kill older people instead.
“I would rather have nature off grandma, you know?” he said in 2010. “I’d rather, I’d rather have the free market off grandma because then nobody is controlling it.”
While the “death panels” never appeared, Beck now seems to be making a more direct appeal to both nature and markets to “off grandma.”
His latest call echoed comments by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who this week said he’s “all in” on reopening businesses even if it means he could die as a result of infection.
Patrick claimed “lots of grandparents” agreed with him.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-24--America's Governors Reject Trump's Coronavirus Timeline

The dismissal of Trump ’ s mid-April timeframe for a national reopening came from Republicans and Democrats , from leaders struggling to manage hot spots of the outbreak and those still bracing for the worst .
Maryland Gov .
Larry Hogan , the head of the National Governors Association and a Republican , called the messaging confusing since most leaders are still focused on enforcing the restrictions , not easing them .
He accused the White House of running on a schedule made of some “ imaginary clock.
” The pushback suggests Trump ’ s talk of an early reboot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most cases , it ’ s state leaders — not the federal government — who are responsible for both imposing and lifting the stay-at-home orders and other restrictions intended to stop the contagion .
The president is eager to get the U.S. back to work as the crisis takes a political toll and the economy , which had been the cornerstone of his re-election bid , begins to wobble .
The economic damage could be worse than the death toll from the virus , he has said .
As soon as next week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at recommendations about business closures and self-isolation , and said Tuesday the country could reopen by Easter Sunday — less than a month away .
“ Our people want to return to work , ” he said .
But governors suggested that view had little connection to the reality they ’ re facing .
California Democratic Gov .
Gavin Newsom said he and Trump are “ clearly operating under a different set of assumptions.
” California , home to 40 million people and the world ’ s fifth-largest economy , reported hundreds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now has more than 2,200 , according to a tally by Johns Hopkins University .
“ If you ask the American people to choose between public health and the economy , then it ’ s no contest .
No American is going to say accelerate the economy at the cost of human life , ” Cuomo told reporters Tuesday .
“ Job one has to be save lives .
That has to be the priority.
” Even some of Trump ’ s usual allies are continuing to move ahead with tighter controls on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s words .
In Texas , Republican Gov .
Greg Abbott has endorsed stay-at-home orders that continued to spread through the biggest cities .
Arizona Gov .
Doug Ducey said public health needed to come first , and South Dakota Gov .
Krisiti Noem is stressing limiting business activity , not relaxing them .
“ This situation is not going to be over in a week , ” said Noem , whose state has more than two dozen cases .
“ We have another eight weeks until we see our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now more than a week into an unprecedented effort to encourage all Americans to drastically scale back their public activities .
The orders closing schools , restaurants and businesses have largely come from a patchwork of local and state governments — with areas hit hardest imposing the most restrictions , while other communities are still weighing tighter rules .
Michigan ’ s Gretchen Whitmer , a Democrat , told WWMT-TV/Sinclair Broadcast Group that Trump ’ s “ off-the-cuff statements are really going to undermine our ability to protect people.
” Illinois Gov .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking into account the true damage that this will do to our country if we see truly millions of people die.
” Among the few statehouse leaders to publicly endorse Trump ’ s view was Texas ’ lieutenant governor , Dan Patrick , 69 , who on Monday suggested that people his age and older can “ take care of ourselves ” as the nation gets back to work .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says people over 65 are at higher risk for the disease .
Friction between Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis .
The president said last week that states should be doing more to obtain their own critically needed supplies and while insisting that the federal government was not a shipping clerk .
States , meanwhile , have been pressing the government to help procure necessary protective and breathing equipment .
“ Some of the messaging coming out of the administration doesn ’ t match , ” Hogan , the Maryland governor , told CNN .
“ We don ’ t think that we ’ re going to be in any way ready @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or six days or so , or whenever this 15 days is up from the time that they started this imaginary clock.
” For most people , the coronavirus causes only mild or moderate symptoms , such as fever and cough .
For some , especially older adults and people with existing health problems , it can cause more severe illness , including pneumonia .
Worldwide , more than 375,000 cases have been reported , and while most people recover in weeks , more than 16,000 have died from the virus .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Governors across the nation on Tuesday rejected President Donald Trump’s new accelerated timeline for reopening the U.S. economy, as they continued to impose more restrictions on travel and public life in an attempt to curb the spread of the coronavirus.
The dismissal of Trump’s mid-April timeframe for a national reopening came from Republicans and Democrats, from leaders struggling to manage hot spots of the outbreak and those still bracing for the worst. Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, the head of the National Governors Association and a Republican, called the messaging confusing since most leaders are still focused on enforcing the restrictions, not easing them. He accused the White House of running on a schedule made of some “imaginary clock.”
Advertisement
The pushback suggests Trump’s talk of an early reboot is unlikely to gain traction. In most cases, it’s state leaders — not the federal government — who are responsible for both imposing and lifting the stay-at-home orders and other restrictions intended to stop the contagion.
But the governors’ reaction also revealed the striking disconnect and growing tensions between Trump and the state leaders closer to the front lines of a crisis that threatens to overwhelm U.S. hospitals and claim thousands of lives.
The president is eager to get the U.S. back to work as the crisis takes a political toll and the economy, which had been the cornerstone of his re-election bid, begins to wobble. The economic damage could be worse than the death toll from the virus, he has said. As soon as next week, Trump wants to take another look at recommendations about business closures and self-isolation, and said Tuesday the country could reopen by Easter Sunday — less than a month away. “Our people want to return to work,” he said.
But governors suggested that view had little connection to the reality they’re facing. California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said he and Trump are “clearly operating under a different set of assumptions.” California, home to 40 million people and the world’s fifth-largest economy, reported hundreds of new known cases of COVID 19 and now has more than 2,200, according to a tally by Johns Hopkins University.
Advertisement
In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday said the infection rate was doubling every three days and pleaded for more federal help as the number of cases in the state surpassed 20,000.
“If you ask the American people to choose between public health and the economy, then it’s no contest. No American is going to say accelerate the economy at the cost of human life,” Cuomo told reporters Tuesday. “Job one has to be save lives. That has to be the priority.”
Even some of Trump’s usual allies are continuing to move ahead with tighter controls on travel, commerce and mobility, despite the president’s words. In Texas, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has endorsed stay-at-home orders that continued to spread through the biggest cities. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey said public health needed to come first, and South Dakota Gov. Krisiti Noem is stressing limiting business activity, not relaxing them.
“This situation is not going to be over in a week,” said Noem, whose state has more than two dozen cases. “We have another eight weeks until we see our peak infection rate.”
The U.S. is now more than a week into an unprecedented effort to encourage all Americans to drastically scale back their public activities. The orders closing schools, restaurants and businesses have largely come from a patchwork of local and state governments — with areas hit hardest imposing the most restrictions, while other communities are still weighing tighter rules.
Advertisement
That means the White House is eyeing ways to ease the advisories while some areas are still ramping up their responses — a mixed message that some governors worried would lead Americans to ignore the orders of local officials.
Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, told WWMT-TV/Sinclair Broadcast Group that Trump’s “off-the-cuff statements are really going to undermine our ability to protect people.” Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker said Trump was “not taking into account the true damage that this will do to our country if we see truly millions of people die.”
Trump has defended his handling of outbreak and argued that his administration is doing all it can to help governors.
“They shouldn’t be hitting us,” he said on Fox News. “The fact is we’ve done a lot.”
Among the few statehouse leaders to publicly endorse Trump’s view was Texas’ lieutenant governor, Dan Patrick, 69, who on Monday suggested that people his age and older can “take care of ourselves ” as the nation gets back to work. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says people over 65 are at higher risk for the disease.
Friction between Trump and the governors has been steady throughout the crisis. The president said last week that states should be doing more to obtain their own critically needed supplies and while insisting that the federal government was not a shipping clerk. States, meanwhile, have been pressing the government to help procure necessary protective and breathing equipment.
Advertisement
On Tuesday, Trump suggested any shortage of ventilators was on the states.
“All they had to do was order them two years ago, but they decided not to do it. They can’t blame us for that,” he said on Fox News.
“Some of the messaging coming out of the administration doesn’t match,” Hogan, the Maryland governor, told CNN. “We don’t think that we’re going to be in any way ready to be out of this in five or six days or so, or whenever this 15 days is up from the time that they started this imaginary clock.”
For most people, the coronavirus causes only mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough. For some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia. Worldwide, more than 375,000 cases have been reported, and while most people recover in weeks, more than 16,000 have died from the virus.
___
Cooper reported from Phoenix. Associated Press writer Stephen Groves in Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Nancy Benac in Washington; John O’Connor in Springfield, Illinois; and David Eggert in Lansing, Michigan, contributed to this report.
___
Follow AP coverage of the virus outbreak at https://apnews.com/VirusOutbreak and https://apnews.com/UnderstandingtheO


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-24--Why Governors Want Trump To Take Charge Of Medical Supplies ― And Why He Hasn't

The federal government could intervene using its authority under the Defense Production Act , a 1950 law that gives the president legal power over industrial production like Franklin D. Roosevelt had in World War II and Harry Truman wanted during the Korean War .
But the decision to use that authority would have to come from President Donald Trump , and so far he has mostly resisted , saying the private sector is doing enough on its own .
What This 1950 Law Actually Does Why Trump Has Resisted Using The Law You ’ re basically putting these manufacturers instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deciding who gets what first .
Katrina Mulligan of the Center for American Progress What Is Actually Happening Now “ I will contract with a company for 1,000 masks , ” Cuomo said on Sunday .
“ They will call back 20 minutes later and say the price just went up because they had a better offer and I understand that .
Other states who are desperate for these goods literally offer more money than we were paying .
And it is just a race that is raising prices higher and higher .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospitals.
” Why This Is All Happening So Late

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker has been trying desperately to acquire ventilators for his state’s hospitals, even getting on the phone with manufacturers personally.
But in one recent conversation, Pritzker said, a CEO told him that Illinois might have to wait for the life-saving breathing machines ― not because the company wasn’t producing them, but because the company might sell the newly assembled units to a foreign customer first.
Advertisement
As the governor tells the story, the CEO advised Pritzker to place a big order so Illinois would be “higher on the list of priority.”
“I’m competing with countries outside the United States to get things that we need,” Pritzker said at a press conference on Monday.
Pritzker, a Democrat, might have left out some context to the conversation and, even if he didn’t, he’s just one governor. But there’s plenty of reason to think his tale is emblematic of what’s going on all over the country, as state officials and health system administrators struggle to provide hospitals with the equipment they need to treat COVID-19 patients.
Ventilators, portable X-ray devices, COVID-19 test reagents, masks and gowns ― all are in short supply in at least some parts of the U.S.
Advertisement
“We need the product now,” Andrew Cuomo, New York’s Democratic governor, said on Sunday. “We have cries from hospitals around the state. I’ve spoken to governors around the country, and they’re in the same situation.”
The federal government could intervene using its authority under the Defense Production Act, a 1950 law that gives the president legal power over industrial production like Franklin D. Roosevelt had in World War II and Harry Truman wanted during the Korean War. But the decision to use that authority would have to come from President Donald Trump, and so far he has mostly resisted, saying the private sector is doing enough on its own.
An increasingly loud chorus of officials and public health experts disagree. They say the federal government needs to take more control over the production and supply of medical equipment ― and some wonder why Trump didn’t take this action weeks ago when it could have had a much bigger impact.
What This 1950 Law Actually Does
Through a series of reauthorizations and executive actions, the Defense Production Act has evolved so that presidents can now use it for all kinds of crises, including natural disasters. In 2001, for example, President George W. Bush used some of its powers to make sure material for power generation and transmission got to California during a wave of blackouts.
In popular lore, the Defense Production Act lets the federal government commandeer factories so that they start churning out equipment for war or some other kind of emergency. But that’s not quite how it works.
Advertisement
Instead, the law gives the president a set of narrow but powerful tools for organizing and increasing the production of goods necessary to address a national crisis.
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker said he has been competing against foreign customers and his fellow governors in his quest to get ventilators for his state's hospitals. ASSOCIATED PRESS
These tools include emergency authority for the federal government to make purchases, or offer loan guarantees for purchasers, in order to create a demand for goods that manufacturers might not otherwise produce. This is precisely the sort of financial commitment that many experts have said would give industry incentive to ramp up production of the medical equipment in such short supply right now.
Under another part of the Defense Production Act, the president can issue a declaration that certain goods are essential, which gives federal contracts priority over other orders. This is precisely what Pritzker couldn’t do when he was on the phone with that ventilator manufacturer.
The same provision also protects against price gouging, by allowing the federal government to insist that manufacturers sell goods at no more than the production cost plus a modest markup.
Advertisement
In extreme cases, the law allows the federal government to place equipment inside factories in order to produce goods that vendors would not produce on their own. That comes a lot closer to commandeering, but it doesn’t seem to be what public officials are proposing for the COVID-19 pandemic.
Even so, the prospect of giving the federal government more control over production spooks the corporate community and its allies. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups have lobbied the Trump administration not to use the Defense Production Act, according to reports in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.
Why Trump Has Resisted Using The Law
Last week Trump announced that he was invoking the law, in apparent defiance of the lobbying from business. But “invoking the law” means nothing if the president doesn’t actually use the authority or direct federal agencies to do so.
For the most part, Trump hasn’t taken these steps. As of Tuesday, the administration had announced only two moves: one authorizing the Justice Department to crack down on hoarding of supplies to jack up prices, and another to obtain 60,000 COVID-19 tests.
“The Defense Production Act is not self-executing,” explained Katrina Mulligan, managing director for national security and international policy at the Center for American Progress. “Invoking it doesn’t on its own accomplish anything. You have to have another set of orders.”
Advertisement
Trump on Monday said he was reluctant to use the act to obtain medical supplies because “we’re a country not based on nationalizing our business. Call a person over in Venezuela. Ask them how did nationalization of their businesses work out. Not too well. The concept of nationalizing our business is not a good concept.”
“You’re basically putting these manufacturers instead of the government in the position of deciding who gets what first.” - Katrina Mulligan of the Center for American Progress
Trump has also said that using the authority is not necessary because the private sector is acting on its own and the mere threat of the Defense Production Act is enough to give him leverage in negotiations. To back up these claims, federal officials have cited examples of individual corporations coming forward to increase production of medical equipment and supplies.
“Whether it be ventilators and equipment that our hospital personnel need … every time we’ve asked American industry to step forward, they’ve said yes,” Vice President Mike Pence said at a Fox News virtual town hall on Tuesday.
Companies really are volunteering to help. General Motors and Ford, for example, are working with existing device manufacturers, and Ford, in particular, said it’s partnering with General Electric, which already makes ventilators, to build units in idling automobile plants.
Advertisement
These efforts could have an impact, especially if the auto companies can help existing ventilator manufacturers get their hands on essential, hard-to-find components. But it will take time for Ford’s factories to retool and the CEO said on Monday that he thought the earliest machines could roll off their production lines was June.
What Is Actually Happening Now
Meanwhile, governors are not only competing against foreign countries. They’re also competing against each other.
“I will contract with a company for 1,000 masks,” Cuomo said on Sunday. “They will call back 20 minutes later and say the price just went up because they had a better offer and I understand that. Other states who are desperate for these goods literally offer more money than we were paying. And it is just a race that is raising prices higher and higher. We even have hospitals competing against other hospitals.”
“You’re basically putting these manufacturers instead of the government in the position of deciding who gets what first,” said Mulligan, who was director for preparedness and response in the Justice Department’s National Security Division from 2017 to 2018.
President Donald Trump suggested that using his authority under the Defense Production Act would be akin to a Venezuela-like takeover of industry. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI via Getty Images
Advertisement
“Trump ... turned the 50 states against each other,” Juliette Kayyem, who served as assistant secretary for intergovernmental affairs at the Department of Homeland Security during the Obama administration, told HuffPost. “That’s not a great unity-of-effort plan.”
A group of governors, including Cuomo and Pritzker, has called on Trump to fix this by using the Defense Production Act, rather than just invoking it. And they have allies on Capitol Hill.
A new Senate bill from Democratic Sens. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Jeff Merkley of Oregon would instruct the president to make purchases of protective equipment under the law. A House counterpart calls on Trump to “make urgent use” of the law.
The House bill is bipartisan and one of its Republican co-sponsors, Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan, told the Detroit News that he rejects the idea that using the law amounts to nationalizing industry. It would merely “allow the government to direct businesses to make certain supplies that are desperately needed in our fight against the coronavirus,” Upton said. “The companies would remain private.”
Why This Is All Happening So Late
The ultimate impact of using the Defense Production Act would depend on several unknown variables, including the magnitude of existing supply shortfalls and industry’s ability to make up for them. That is why the first step in a crisis like this is typically to make a formal assessment of existing supplies, possible needs and industry capacity.
Advertisement
That may be happening now. In just the last week, during the daily White House briefings on the pandemic response, Pence has mentioned several times that the federal government is overseeing a nationwide inventory of ventilators. At Tuesday’s briefing, he even had some specific statistics on shipments of goods to cities and states.
But this has all happened at a time when patient surges are already pushing hospitals in Detroit, New Orleans, New York and Seattle to the brink.
“Trump ... turned the 50 states against each other.” - Juliette Kayyem, a former Department of Homeland Security official
It didn’t have to take this long. Intelligence agencies were warning the White House about a pandemic crisis as early as January, The Washington Post has reported. By early February, members of Congress like Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, were calling out Trump publicly, on Twitter, for not taking the danger seriously and making advance plans.
If the administration had approached the auto industry back then, for example, Ford could be retooling its factories already and rolling ventilators off the assembly line in the next few weeks.
Advertisement
And it wasn’t just early warnings that the administration downplayed or refused to heed. Trump initially resisted declaring a national emergency because, according to a report in Politico, he feared the optics would rattle Wall Street and undermine his claims that the pandemic was under control in the U.S.
That declaration, which Trump finally issued on March 13, empowered the Federal Emergency Management Agency to direct crisis response, which may have been what finally prompted the federal government to take more aggressive action on equipment and supplies. But even now, Trump seems reluctant to take charge.
When asked about the struggles to get supplies in the states, Trump has said governors should keep hunting for equipment on their own. At one point, he insisted that it’s not his job or the federal government’s to be a “shipping clerk.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-25--Kentucky 'Coronavirus Party' Leads To Infection And The Governor Is Livid

A group of young adults recently held a “ coronavirus party ” in defiance of rules against large gatherings in Kentucky , and now at least one of them is infected with COVID-19 , Gov .
Andy Beshear said .
Given that the state announced its single biggest jump in coronavirus infections on Tuesday ― with 39 new cases and 163 cases overall ― Beshear is pretty ticked off about it .
“ This is one that makes me mad and it should make you mad , ” he said .
Beshear also urged people to end these kinds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where I , the person to tell everybody to be calm , have to remain calm myself , ” he said .
“ Because anyone who goes to something like this may think that they are indestructible , but it ’ s someone else ’ s loved one that they are going to hurt.
” Beshear called the battle against the infection a fight to save parents and grandparents .
“ Don ’ t be so callous as to intentionally go to something and expose yourself to something that could kill other people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ought to be much better than that .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A group of young adults recently held a “coronavirus party” in defiance of rules against large gatherings in Kentucky, and now at least one of them is infected with COVID-19, Gov. Andy Beshear said.
Given that the state announced its single biggest jump in coronavirus infections on Tuesday ― with 39 new cases and 163 cases overall ― Beshear is pretty ticked off about it.
Advertisement
“This is one that makes me mad and it should make you mad,” he said.
Beshear also urged people to end these kinds of events.
“This is the part where I, the person to tell everybody to be calm, have to remain calm myself,” he said. “Because anyone who goes to something like this may think that they are indestructible, but it’s someone else’s loved one that they are going to hurt.”
Beshear called the battle against the infection a fight to save parents and grandparents.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-24--House Lawmakers Unveil Resolution Blaming China For The Coronavirus

WASHINGTON ― A bipartisan pair of House lawmakers on Tuesday unveiled a resolution that blames China for causing a global pandemic and calls on the Chinese government to publicly declare that COVID-19 began there , a move that would almost certainly fuel President Donald Trump ’ s racist “ Chinese virus ” rhetoric and the recent uptick in attacks on Asian Americans .
Reps. Jim Banks ( R-Ind . )
and Seth Moulton ( D-Mass . )
are leading the resolution , which would be nonbinding but reflect a sense of the House .
Their measure condemns China for making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its response to the new coronavirus , including the government downplaying the risks of the virus , censoring medical professionals and expelling journalists .
It also specifically calls on the Chinese government to “ publicly state that there ’ s no evidence that COVID–19 originated anywhere else but China.
” The problem with their measure is that it does precisely what public health leaders say not to do : It associates an infectious disease with a geographic region .
The World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can lead to a stigma , discrimination and violence directed at groups of people .
Asian Americans are already reporting an increase in xenophobic and racist attacks .
Some have been spit on , yelled at and assaulted .
Trump ’ s repeated references to COVID-19 as the “ Chinese virus ” have only made things worse .
One group , Chinese for Affirmative Action , is part of a coalition that began tracking attacks against Asian Americans related to the coronavirus last week .
Within 24 hours , there were more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American lives in danger , ” Rep. Judy Chu ( D-Calif. ) , chairwoman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus , told House Democrats in a private caucus call Tuesday afternoon , according to one Democrat on the call .
“ I would like to say to my Democratic colleagues , ‘ Please do not sign on to this resolution.
’ ” In an interview later Tuesday , Chu , who is Chinese American , gave examples of the kinds of attacks on Asian Americans in recent weeks related to the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese American woman wearing a face mask was assaulted in a subway station by a man who shouted “ diseased bitch.
” In Texas , a man at a Sam ’ s Club stabbed three Asian Americans , two of whom were children .
In California , an Asian American man at a Target store in Daly City was verbally attacked for coughing .
“ I told him in very clear terms that introducing this resolution now , as emotions are so high and fear and anxiety are spiking at the highest rates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are on the rise , would be extremely harmful , ” she said .
“ He insisted he had to speak out against China in this moment.
” Moulton is the only Democrat supporting the resolution in a group of nearly 40 Republicans .
His office did not respond to a request for comment .
He did , however , tweet about it .
“ As the Chinese Communist Party pushes propaganda and lies to try and blame the United States for coronavirus , we need to make the case to the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outbreak , ” Banks said .
“ They tried to cover up news of the virus , jailed doctors warning of a possible pandemic , and prevented the CDC from coming to study the disease .
In all , they cost the globe two months in time to prepare for this virus .
I hope this begins a conversation about how China can be held accountable for their negligent coronavirus response.
” Asked if Banks is worried at all about his resolution fueling attacks against Asian Americans , and why it matters to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ originated there , his spokesman Mitchell Hailstone said “ because the Chinese officials are publishing conspiracy theories and saying the virus was brought to China by the U.S. Army .
I hope you can parse the difference between the Chinese Communist government and Chinese Americans.
” The reality , though , is that bigots in American can ’ t even parse the difference between Chinese Americans and other Asian Americans , never mind the Chinese government and Chinese people .
Americans with families from Korea , Vietnam , the Philippines , Myanmar and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of COVID-19 , too .
Chu said that during Tuesday ’ s caucus call , Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) said China has “ all kinds of personal protective equipment ” it is willing to send to the United States and that there are philanthropists who have offered to get planes to bring it over .
But because of the anti-China sentiment coming out of the U.S. , they ’ re having trouble doing it .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
UPDATE: 10:10 p.m. ET Thursday ― Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) announced Thursday on Twitter that he is withdrawing his support for the resolution, saying it has been “used to create division, as the president’s xenophobia stokes racism across the country.”
Previously:
WASHINGTON ― A bipartisan pair of House lawmakers on Tuesday unveiled a resolution that blames China for causing a global pandemic and calls on the Chinese government to publicly declare that COVID-19 began there, a move that would almost certainly fuel President Donald Trump’s racist “Chinese virus” rhetoric and the recent uptick in attacks on Asian Americans.
Advertisement
Reps. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) and Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) are leading the resolution, which would be nonbinding but reflect a sense of the House. Their measure condemns China for making “multiple, serious mistakes” in its response to the new coronavirus, including the government downplaying the risks of the virus, censoring medical professionals and expelling journalists. It also specifically calls on the Chinese government to “publicly state that there’s no evidence that COVID–19 originated anywhere else but China.”
Here’s a copy of the resolution, obtained by HuffPost:
The problem with their measure is that it does precisely what public health leaders say not to do: It associates an infectious disease with a geographic region. The World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have both warned specifically against doing this because it can lead to a stigma, discrimination and violence directed at groups of people.
Asian Americans are already reporting an increase in xenophobic and racist attacks. Some have been spit on, yelled at and assaulted. Trump’s repeated references to COVID-19 as the “Chinese virus” have only made things worse. One group, Chinese for Affirmative Action, is part of a coalition that began tracking attacks against Asian Americans related to the coronavirus last week. Within 24 hours, there were more than 40 reports.
Advertisement
“This resolution puts American lives in danger,” Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, told House Democrats in a private caucus call Tuesday afternoon, according to one Democrat on the call. “I would like to say to my Democratic colleagues, ‘Please do not sign on to this resolution.’”
In an interview later Tuesday, Chu, who is Chinese American, gave examples of the kinds of attacks on Asian Americans in recent weeks related to the coronavirus pandemic. In New York, a Chinese American woman wearing a face mask was assaulted in a subway station by a man who shouted “diseased bitch.” In Texas, a man at a Sam’s Club stabbed three Asian Americans, two of whom were children. In California, an Asian American man at a Target store in Daly City was verbally attacked for coughing.
“People are afraid and angry,” she said. “Directing that anger toward China puts Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders at risk.”
Chu said she personally asked Moulton not to introduce the resolution. He was not receptive.
“I told him in very clear terms that introducing this resolution now, as emotions are so high and fear and anxiety are spiking at the highest rates, and as anti-Asian American hate crimes are on the rise, would be extremely harmful,” she said. “He insisted he had to speak out against China in this moment.”
Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) says House lawmakers hoping to pass a resolution blaming China for the coronavirus are "putting lives in danger," namely Asian Americans facing a rise in hate crimes. SOPA Images via Getty Images
Advertisement
Moulton is the only Democrat supporting the resolution in a group of nearly 40 Republicans. His spokesman Tim Biba said Moulton is co-sponsoring it as a way to hold Trump accountable for his own authoritarian behavior. He noted that Moulton also previously criticized Trump’s xenophobia around the coronavirus.
“Seth signed onto this bill because we need to make clear what China’s government is doing so that we can point out how President Trump is using their playbook,” Biba said. “While his test kits were failing, the President and his son were peddling lies about the virus’ origins on Fox News in the same way China’s government was saying the U.S. Defense Department caused the pandemic to their domestic audience. China’s government made a lot of mistakes, and the president did too, and real leadership is calling those things out for what they are and demanding accountability.”
Moulton also tweeted about his reasoning for backing the resolution.
“The American people should hold our leaders accountable, and their representatives in Congress should hold China accountable for its part in this pandemic,” Moulton said in a lengthy statement.
In a statement provided by his office, Banks said his resolution is important because China is ultimately to blame for the outbreak.
“As the Chinese Communist Party pushes propaganda and lies to try and blame the United States for coronavirus, we need to make the case to the world that China is ultimately responsible for this outbreak,” Banks said. “They tried to cover up news of the virus, jailed doctors warning of a possible pandemic, and prevented the CDC from coming to study the disease. In all, they cost the globe two months in time to prepare for this virus. I hope this begins a conversation about how China can be held accountable for their negligent coronavirus response.”
Advertisement
Asked if Banks is worried at all about his resolution fueling attacks against Asian Americans, and why it matters to him that China publicly declare that COVID-19 originated there, his spokesman Mitchell Hailstone said “because the Chinese officials are publishing conspiracy theories and saying the virus was brought to China by the U.S. Army. I hope you can parse the difference between the Chinese Communist government and Chinese Americans.”
The reality, though, is that bigots in American can’t even parse the difference between Chinese Americans and other Asian Americans, never mind the Chinese government and Chinese people. Americans with families from Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, Myanmar and other places have been facing threats because of COVID-19, too.
Chu said that during Tuesday’s caucus call, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said China has “all kinds of personal protective equipment” it is willing to send to the United States and that there are philanthropists who have offered to get planes to bring it over. But because of the anti-China sentiment coming out of the U.S., they’re having trouble doing it.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-24--New Coronavirus Bill Has 'Unemployment Insurance On Steroids'

The newest draft of a bill to reduce the economic damage caused by the coronavirus pandemic includes the most dramatic expansion of unemployment insurance in U.S. history .
“ This is a great plan .
What it says is if you lose your job in this crisis , you can be furloughed by your employer , ” Schumer said on the floor on Tuesday .
Normally , workers can only qualify for benefits if they ’ re laid off through no fault of their own from a traditional payroll job , and the benefits would only replace a portion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with benefits averaging $ 364 per week .
The new bill will add $ 600 per week to whatever a worker would normally receive if they ’ re laid off due to the coronavirus fallout , according to a Democratic aid familiar with the negotiations , which for many workers would amount to full wage replacement .
Workers will be eligible even if they ’ re not in traditional jobs , if they work only part-time , or if they are self-employed .
Gig workers , independent contractors , and freelancers will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relief bill included modest provisions encouraging states to relax work search requirements , which are a standard part of the unemployment system but don ’ t make sense in a pandemic , when the government actually wants people to stay home .
That earlier bill also wanted states to eliminate waiting weeks that delay benefits to people who ’ ve just filed claims .
The new bill will add an extra 13 weeks of federally funded benefits for people who run out of the standard 26 weeks of state benefits .
( Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less . )
The new unemployment insurance provisions are the result of negotiations between Schumer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin over a multi-trillion emergency bill Congress is racing to pass this week aimed at propping up the U.S. economy and giving relief to workers hit hard by the epidemic .
The deal still needs a sign-off from congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump .
The unemployment provisions were not one of the major sticking points of the legislation .
Democrats complained loudly about a provision giving what they considered excessive discretion to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harmed by the outbreak .
Schumer said Democrats had fought for more oversight of the funds ; Republicans repeatedly complained that Democrats shouldn ’ t have complained so much , given the more generous unemployment benefits .
Unemployment claims rose modestly last week , but only to about 281,000 .
New claims are expected to surge above 1 million as a result of businesses closing due to the outbreak .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The newest draft of a bill to reduce the economic damage caused by the coronavirus pandemic includes the most dramatic expansion of unemployment insurance in U.S. history.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) described it as “unemployment insurance on steroids.”
“This is a great plan. What it says is if you lose your job in this crisis, you can be furloughed by your employer,” Schumer said on the floor on Tuesday.
Advertisement
Lawmakers announced the overall deal had been finalized early Wednesday morning.
Normally, workers can only qualify for benefits if they’re laid off through no fault of their own from a traditional payroll job, and the benefits would only replace a portion of their lost wages — typically about half, with benefits averaging $364 per week.
The new bill will add $600 per week to whatever a worker would normally receive if they’re laid off due to the coronavirus fallout, according to a Democratic aid familiar with the negotiations, which for many workers would amount to full wage replacement. The extra cash would last for four months. Workers will be eligible even if they’re not in traditional jobs, if they work only part-time, or if they are self-employed. Gig workers, independent contractors, and freelancers will also be eligible.
“Freelancers, gig workers, and independent contractors have been excluded from unemployment insurance,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a statement. “A key part of this expansion is filing those gaps so that those who are self-employed, as well as those who are sick or quarantined will be covered for the first time.”
A previous coronavirus relief bill included modest provisions encouraging states to relax work search requirements, which are a standard part of the unemployment system but don’t make sense in a pandemic, when the government actually wants people to stay home. That earlier bill also wanted states to eliminate waiting weeks that delay benefits to people who’ve just filed claims.
Advertisement
The new bill will eliminate waiting weeks and add an extra 13 weeks of federally funded benefits for people who run out of the standard 26 weeks of state benefits. (Some states, such as Florida, offer less.)
The new unemployment insurance provisions are the result of negotiations between Schumer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin over a multi-trillion emergency bill Congress is racing to pass this week aimed at propping up the U.S. economy and giving relief to workers hit hard by the epidemic. The deal still needs a sign-off from congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump.
The unemployment provisions were not one of the major sticking points of the legislation. Democrats complained loudly about a provision giving what they considered excessive discretion to the Trump administration to funnel billions toward industries harmed by the outbreak. Schumer said Democrats had fought for more oversight of the funds; Republicans repeatedly complained that Democrats shouldn’t have complained so much, given the more generous unemployment benefits.
Unemployment claims rose modestly last week, but only to about 281,000. New claims are expected to surge above 1 million as a result of businesses closing due to the outbreak.
“With more than 2 million Americans losing their jobs overnight, with millions more to follow, states face an unprecedented challenge in administering their unemployment insurance programs,” Wyden said, noting that the earlier bill provided extra funding for state unemployment offices to deal with a surge of claims.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-25--Republican Party's Boast About The Stock Market Gets An Immediate Fact-Check

The Republican National Committee picked an odd time to boast about the stock market .
While the Dow Jones Industrial Average has steeply dropped over the past month , it rallied on Tuesday to post its biggest one-day percentage gain since 1933 , when the nation was in the midst of the Great Depression .
The jump came amid reports lawmakers were nearing a deal on a plan to boost an economy that ’ s nearly come to a standstill due to the coronavirus pandemic .
The RNC shared a clip of President Donald Trump bragging about the market , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own : But as the RNC ’ s critics on Twitter were quick to point out , the gain didn ’ t come close to erasing the massive losses that have seen the market lose about a third of its value and erase virtually all of the gains made since Trump took office in 2017 : So this is referring to March 15 , 1933 .
Franklin Roosevelt was inaugurated March 4 , 1933 and this is right when he was laying out the agenda your party fought tooth and nail and called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Siskind ) ) ) ( @ gsiskind ) March 25 , 2020 This is called directionless volatility , and it 's an indicator that the economy is broken .
— Schrödinger 's Trump : $ 775 per person per night ( @ SchrodngrsTrump ) March 24 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The Republican National Committee picked an odd time to boast about the stock market.
While the Dow Jones Industrial Average has steeply dropped over the past month, it rallied on Tuesday to post its biggest one-day percentage gain since 1933, when the nation was in the midst of the Great Depression. The jump came amid reports lawmakers were nearing a deal on a plan to boost an economy that’s nearly come to a standstill due to the coronavirus pandemic.
The RNC shared a clip of President Donald Trump bragging about the market, then fired off a boast of its own:
Advertisement
🚨 Dow posts BIGGEST percent gain since 1933 🚨https://t.co/ofzjcTu6lp — GOP (@GOP) March 24, 2020
But as the RNC’s critics on Twitter were quick to point out, the gain didn’t come close to erasing the massive losses that have seen the market lose about a third of its value and erase virtually all of the gains made since Trump took office in 2017:
Me: gains 500 lbs
Me: loses 30 lbs
Me: “wow pretty tremendous weight loss, I’m in good shape!” — Brendel (@Brendelbored) March 24, 2020
Great sign! 1933 was indeed the beginning of a glorious economic boom! — Elizabeth Picciuto 🌱 (@epicciuto) March 25, 2020
Advertisement
Lmao — Molly Knight (@molly_knight) March 25, 2020
This is a record too... pic.twitter.com/nqalSL5y2U — Winston Smith 🆘💔💔💔 (@gaslightingus2) March 25, 2020
That’s nice. Shame about all the death tho. — Michael Marshall Smith (@ememess) March 24, 2020
awwwwwwwwww yeah time for some more of those Roaring Thirties — Max Kennerly (@MaxKennerly) March 24, 2020
Cool now do the month. — Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) March 24, 2020
Advertisement
MORE BLOOD TO MAKE LINE GO UP — The Guillotine Shouter (@guillotineshout) March 24, 2020
So this is referring to March 15, 1933. Franklin Roosevelt was inaugurated March 4, 1933 and this is right when he was laying out the agenda your party fought tooth and nail and called socialism. — (((Greg Siskind))) (@gsiskind) March 25, 2020
This is called directionless volatility, and it's an indicator that the economy is broken. — Schrödinger's Trump: $775 per person per night (@SchrodngrsTrump) March 24, 2020
THIS IS NOTHING TO BRAG OUT DUDES pic.twitter.com/9mSe9vjopD — Benny the snitch (@Bennythesnitch) March 24, 2020
Advertisement
Called a “dead cat bounce”. — Gee.Frank🏳🌈❄🌊 (@Frank_N_Meems) March 25, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-24--Virginia Mayor Calls Liberty University 'Reckless' For Letting Students Back To Campus

“ We are in the midst of a public health crisis , ” Tweedy said Tuesday .
“ I am concerned for the students , faculty and employees at Liberty University , and I am also very concerned for the residents of the Lynchburg community.
” While neighboring universities have had most students move out of residence halls , Falwell has been adamant about keeping the campus open for students who want to come back and take online courses from their dorms .
Falwell initially pledged to keep the campus open and operating as usual for its 15,000 residential students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was forced to move most classes online because of Democratic Virginia Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s ban on gatherings of more than 100 people .
( That policy was updated on Monday to ban gatherings of more than 10 people . )
The school has taken several steps to curb large gatherings , limit class sizes , restrict international travel , and make sure students aren ’ t congregating in places like dining halls .
It has also been ramping up cleaning and set up a building to quarantine students who show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the new coronavirus .
The Virginia Department of Health visited the campus and did not observe any violations of the state ’ s restrictions on certain businesses and organizations , ABC-affiliate WSET reported on Tuesday .
Still , Liberty University is essentially open to any students who want to come back and take classes from their dorms .
Faculty and staff have been ordered to “ report to work as normal.
” Those who are concerned about COVID-19 have to use their earned vacation or sick days to take time off .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be back .
I was joking about how they pretty much had the whole place to themselves and told all of them to enjoy it , ” he told ABC-13 .
Liberty University professor Marybeth Davis Baggett criticized Falwell on Sunday for flouting the dangers of the virus and endangering the Lynchburg community .
She said she ’ s been in touch with university employees who are distressed about the school ’ s approach to the virus but are afraid that speaking up would put their careers at risk .
“ Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conditions that would make COVID-19 difficult to fight .
And of course , Liberty is not a bubble where the virus would be contained .
Instead , its population comes into regular contact with those in the Lynchburg community , putting their health and lives at risk as well , ” Baggett wrote in an op-ed for Religion News Service .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Hundreds of students have traveled back to Liberty University, which refused to shut down for the coronavirus pandemic, sparking public health concerns among local officials in Virginia.
Lynchburg Mayor Treney Tweedy denounced the evangelical Christian university’s decision to allow students back on campus after spring break, calling it “reckless.”
Advertisement
“We are in the midst of a public health crisis,” Tweedy said Tuesday. “I am concerned for the students, faculty and employees at Liberty University, and I am also very concerned for the residents of the Lynchburg community.”
Jerry Falwell Jr. is the president of Liberty University, an evangelical Christian university in Lynchburg, Virginia. Ethan Miller via Getty Images
Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of Liberty University and a close evangelical Christian ally of President Donald Trump, has been downplaying the seriousness of the coronavirus outbreak and spreading conspiracy theories about its origins.
Neighboring universities have had most students move out of residence halls, but Falwell has been adamant about keeping the campus open for students who want to come back and take online courses from their dorms.
Advertisement
My then 20 year old son almost lost his life to the Swine Flu in 2009 because of the poor response of @BarackObama . Thank God @realDonaldTrump is managing this Corona Flu like you would expect from a successful CEO v a career politician! — Jerry Falwell (@JerryFalwellJr) March 21, 2020
Falwell initially pledged to keep the campus open and operating as usual for its 15,000 residential students. Last week, he said he was forced to move most classes online because of Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s ban on gatherings of more than 100 people. (That policy was updated on Monday to ban gatherings of more than 10 people.)
Classes resumed this week. As of Tuesday, Liberty University had about 1,900 students back on campus, a university spokesperson told Lynchburg’s News and Advance.
The school has taken several steps to curb large gatherings, limit class sizes, restrict international travel, and make sure students aren’t congregating in places like dining halls. It has also been ramping up cleaning and set up a building to quarantine students who show symptoms of COVID-19, the illness resulting from the new coronavirus.
University administration works tirelessly to accommodate students and comply with new COVID-19 laws. https://t.co/D8IVAbcS7a — Liberty University (@LibertyU) March 24, 2020
Advertisement
The Virginia Department of Health visited the campus and did not observe any violations of the state’s restrictions on certain businesses and organizations, ABC-affiliate WSET reported on Tuesday.
Still, Liberty University is essentially open to any students who want to come back and take classes from their dorms. Faculty and staff have been ordered to “report to work as normal.” Those who are concerned about COVID-19 have to use their earned vacation or sick days to take time off.
Falwell himself has apparently been walking through campus to speak to students.
“They were talking about being glad to be back. I was joking about how they pretty much had the whole place to themselves and told all of them to enjoy it,” he told ABC-13.
Some Liberty University students reported that social distancing measures the school has tried to enact aren’t being strictly followed on campus.
#LibertyUniversity senior @RealCalumBest describes how social distancing is going at his school. According to him, it's...not. pic.twitter.com/JxaCZCzIrO — Santiago Melli-Huber (@SantiagoReports) March 24, 2020
Advertisement
Liberty University professor Marybeth Davis Baggett criticized Falwell on Sunday for flouting the dangers of the virus and endangering the Lynchburg community. She said she’s been in touch with university employees who are distressed about the school’s approach to the virus but are afraid that speaking up would put their careers at risk.
“Many students, faculty and staff have health conditions that would make COVID-19 difficult to fight. And of course, Liberty is not a bubble where the virus would be contained. Instead, its population comes into regular contact with those in the Lynchburg community, putting their health and lives at risk as well,” Baggett wrote in an op-ed for Religion News Service.
Lynchburg doesn’t have any confirmed cases of COVID-19, The Associated Press reports. There are nearly 300 confirmed cases in Virginia and there have been seven deaths, according to the state health department.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-25--New York Daily News Calls Donald Trump A ‘Basket Case’ Over Easter Coronavirus Plan

President Donald Trump ’ s hope for the U.S. to ease restrictions put in place to combat the spread of coronavirus by Easter in a bid to boost the economy got the treatment from the New York Daily News .
The tabloid newspaper used its Wednesday cover to call out Trump ’ s “ hare-brained ” plan , depicting the president wearing bunny ears next to the headline “ Easter Basket Case.
” Easter basket case Trump wants U.S. up and running by Easter or thousands could commit suicide — https : //t.co/anf7nY67DV Noah Syndergaard needs Tommy John surgery — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Daily News ( @ NYDailyNews ) March 25 , 2020 “ I would love to have the country opened up and just raring to go by Easter , ” Trump said Tuesday during a Fox News virtual town hall .
Trump ’ s comments were in stark contrast , however , to the advice of health experts , politicians and even a group of former Trump advisers who argue that limiting social interaction and enforcing social distancing measures are crucial to stopping infections from soaring .
The virus has so far sickened more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There have been 54,000 confirmed cases in the U.S. , with 784 deaths .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump’s hope for the U.S. to ease restrictions combatting the spread of coronavirus by Easter in a bid to boost the economy got the treatment from the New York Daily News.
The tabloid newspaper used its Wednesday cover to call out Trump’s “hare-brained” plan, illustrating the president with bunny ears next to the headline “Easter Basket Case.”
Advertisement
Easter basket case
Trump wants U.S. up and running by Easter or thousands could commit suicide — https://t.co/anf7nY67DV
Noah Syndergaard needs Tommy John surgery — https://t.co/xnTE1k69bm pic.twitter.com/ey6gWxzk3O — New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) March 25, 2020
“I would love to have the country opened up and just raring to go by Easter,” Trump said Tuesday during a Fox News virtual town hall.
Trump’s comments starkly contradict the advice of health experts, politicians and even a group of former Trump advisers, who argue that limiting social interaction and enforcing social distancing measures are crucial to slowing the spread of COVID-19 infections.
The virus has so far sickened more than 420,000 worldwide and killed almost 19,000. There have been 54,000 confirmed cases in the U.S., with 784 deaths.