washingtonmonthly--2020-03-27--Mitch McConnell Is a Menace But He’s Overrated

There have now been three pandemic-related spending bills passed by the U.S. Congress , and Mitch McConnell has had precious little influence over any of them .
This ought to be embarrassing for someone who prides himself on his mastery of Senate procedure .
In the first case , McConnell punted from the outset by telling House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to work out a deal with the administration .
The result was an $ 8.3 billion dollar package that passed without controversy .
This was followed by a second bill that was harder for Senate Republicans to stomach : McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negotiated a second , larger bill in mid-March .
Many Republican senators weren ’ t happy with that deal , which expanded paid sick leave for workers and pumped billions of dollars to states for food programs and unemployment benefits .
Senate Republicans had to be cajoled into passing that bill , with the promise that they would lead on the next effort .
McConnell would later complain that he ’ d passed the second bill with “ only marginal participation…because the country was desperate for results , ” and “ I literally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gag and vote for it.
’ ” In reality , McConnell had to do more than simply tell his colleagues to gag on the bill .
Senate Republicans had to be cajoled into passing that bill , with the promise that they would lead on the next effort .
So , last week , when Congress began drafting a third bill , McConnell took a decisive lead ; unveiling a $ 1-trillion proposal focused on key priorities supported by Republicans and the White House .
But this didn ’ t turn out any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McConnell tried to ram his bill down the Democrats ’ throats , but he lost two procedural votes and was thereafter cut out of the deal-making by the White House .
A Pelosi spokesperson openly mocked McConnell , stating that she would never make the mistake of bringing up a bill if she didn ’ t have the votes .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was even more brutal : Once again , McConnell was little more than a spectator , and it was his caucus that had to gag on a bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposing it .
It passed 96-0 .
Pelosi later crowed , “ we did jiu-jitsu on it , that it went from a corporate-first proposal that the Republicans put forth in the Senate to a Democratic workers-first legislation.
” And she was right .
The bill had only one proposed amendment , and it was an effort to limit payments to low-income Americans .
Almost every Republican voted for it but it still failed 48-48 when it needed 60 votes to pass .
The Republicans then sucked it up and unanimously supported the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at obstructing when he ’ s in the minority and he ’ s been very successful in remaking the federal judiciary into a group of mouth-breathing troglodytes , but he showed with his failed effort to repeal and replace Obamacare that he ’ s a crap legislator .
His completely ineffectual leadership has been exposed again , first with his decision to let Pelosi take the lead on the pandemic response , and then with his inability to take the reins away from her even after he ’ d promised his caucus that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ menace , but he ’ s still overrated .

There have now been three pandemic-related spending bills passed by the U.S. Congress, and Mitch McConnell has had precious little influence over any of them. This ought to be embarrassing for someone who prides himself on his mastery of Senate procedure.
In the first case, McConnell punted from the outset by telling House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to work out a deal with the administration. The result was an $8.3 billion dollar package that passed without controversy. This was followed by a second bill that was harder for Senate Republicans to stomach:
McConnell faced more problems when Pelosi and Mnuchin negotiated a second, larger bill in mid-March. Many Republican senators weren’t happy with that deal, which expanded paid sick leave for workers and pumped billions of dollars to states for food programs and unemployment benefits. Senate Republicans had to be cajoled into passing that bill, with the promise that they would lead on the next effort.
McConnell would later complain that he’d passed the second bill with “only marginal participation…because the country was desperate for results,” and “I literally told my own Republican colleagues to ‘gag and vote for it.’”
In reality, McConnell had to do more than simply tell his colleagues to gag on the bill.
Senate Republicans had to be cajoled into passing that bill, with the promise that they would lead on the next effort. So, last week, when Congress began drafting a third bill, McConnell took a decisive lead; unveiling a $1-trillion proposal focused on key priorities supported by Republicans and the White House.
But this didn’t turn out any differently than the first two bills. McConnell tried to ram his bill down the Democrats’ throats, but he lost two procedural votes and was thereafter cut out of the deal-making by the White House.
A Pelosi spokesperson openly mocked McConnell, stating that she would never make the mistake of bringing up a bill if she didn’t have the votes. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was even more brutal:
Schumer’s response was cutting: He would update McConnell and the Senate when he and [Treasury Secretary Steve] Mnuchin reached an agreement. “The negotiations continue no more than 30 feet away from the floor of the Senate in our offices where the real progress is taking place,” he said.
Once again, McConnell was little more than a spectator, and it was his caucus that had to gag on a bill out of fear of the repercussions of opposing it. It passed 96-0.
Pelosi later crowed, “we did jiu-jitsu on it, that it went from a corporate-first proposal that the Republicans put forth in the Senate to a Democratic workers-first legislation.” And she was right. The bill had only one proposed amendment, and it was an effort to limit payments to low-income Americans. Almost every Republican voted for it but it still failed 48-48 when it needed 60 votes to pass. The Republicans then sucked it up and unanimously supported the bill anyway.
McConnell is a genius at obstructing when he’s in the minority and he’s been very successful in remaking the federal judiciary into a group of mouth-breathing troglodytes, but he showed with his failed effort to repeal and replace Obamacare that he’s a crap legislator. His completely ineffectual leadership has been exposed again, first with his decision to let Pelosi take the lead on the pandemic response, and then with his inability to take the reins away from her even after he’d promised his caucus that he would.
The man is a menace, but he’s still overrated.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-27--Republicans Are Learning All the Wrong Lessons From the Coronavirus Crisis

As Congress nears completion on a $ 2.2 trillion stimulus plan to combat the economic effects of the coronavirus , I ’ m tempted to suggest that we ’ re all socialists now .
In the midst of an extreme crisis , we ’ ve all turned to the federal government as the one entity that is able to mitigate the damage .
Of course , admitting to all of that would be anathema to Republicans .
But one of the marks of a healthy individual or organization is the ability to learn from mistakes .
So it is at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response from those on the right would be to re-examine the foundational principles that have crippled their ability to deal with the kind of crisis we face today .
It is becoming clear that that is not going to happen .
Writing for The Federalist , Ben Weingarten lists “ the 5 paradigm shifts the Wuhan virus has revealed that Americans need ” ( and yes , he gives himself away with the reference to the “ Wuhan virus ” ) .
1 .
“ Communist China is a global menace ” – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China .
We ’ ve been hearing a lot about that one .
2 .
“ Coronavirus Starkly Illustrates Globalism ’ s Downsides ” – pretending that walls and borders can stop a virus , Weingarten writes : 3 .
“ We Must Establish Principles for Dealing with Crises ” – this relates to the current conversation on the right about doing a cost-benefit analysis on lives lost vs. damage to the economy .
Weingarten is merely saying that we should cost out how many lives we ’ re willing to put at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
4 .
“ The GOP Needs a Real Response for Democrats ’ Games ” – this one is basically an attempt to paint Republicans as victims who are being oppressed by those nasty Democrats .
Weingarten actually has a point .
For years now I ’ ve been saying that , other than xenophobia and tax cuts for the wealthy , the entire Republican agenda has been to simply obstruct what Democrats propose .
But notice that there is no attempt to suggest pragmatic options that might actually work .
Everything is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a “ counter-agenda.
” 5 .
“ We Need to Get Our Fiscal House in Order ” – the idea here is that , having just allocated trillions of dollars to deal with a pandemic , we need to do a better job of cutting federal spending .
For Republicans , “ getting our fiscal house in order ” never has anything to do with the revenue side of the equation .
So Weingarten didn ’ t bother to mention the tax cut giveaway that already had the federal government bleeding red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an analysis of our situation from conservatives .
It is an attempt to take the failed policies of the past and simply dig deeper into the hole they created .
That is discouraging , to say the least .
Until the Republican Party can shed the blinders that keep them chained to these failed policies , they are a party doomed to repeat their mistakes and then lie in order to avoid being held accountable .

As Congress nears completion on a $2.2 trillion stimulus plan to combat the economic effects of the coronavirus, I’m tempted to suggest that we’re all socialists now. In the midst of an extreme crisis, we’ve all turned to the federal government as the one entity that is able to mitigate the damage.
Of course, admitting to all of that would be anathema to Republicans. But one of the marks of a healthy individual or organization is the ability to learn from mistakes. So it is at a moment like this that a healthy response from those on the right would be to re-examine the foundational principles that have crippled their ability to deal with the kind of crisis we face today.
It is becoming clear that that is not going to happen. Writing for The Federalist, Ben Weingarten lists “the 5 paradigm shifts the Wuhan virus has revealed that Americans need” (and yes, he gives himself away with the reference to the “Wuhan virus”).
1. “Communist China is a global menace” – blah, blah, blah, blame China. We’ve been hearing a lot about that one.
2. “Coronavirus Starkly Illustrates Globalism’s Downsides” – pretending that walls and borders can stop a virus, Weingarten writes:
This series of events perfectly illustrates the downsides to the globalist agenda of open borders, global political institutions, and global economic integration at all costs. It perfectly illustrates the merits of an America First, nationalist agenda, including a focus on border control, national sovereignty, and eschewing of global institutions, as well as an economic independence combined with truly free, fair, and reciprocal trade.
3. “We Must Establish Principles for Dealing with Crises” – this relates to the current conversation on the right about doing a cost-benefit analysis on lives lost vs. damage to the economy. Weingarten is merely saying that we should cost out how many lives we’re willing to put at risk in a crisis ahead of time.
4. “The GOP Needs a Real Response for Democrats’ Games” – this one is basically an attempt to paint Republicans as victims who are being oppressed by those nasty Democrats.
Democrats will shamelessly use crises to cram their policies down our throats. Do Republicans have any answer to this?…Have Republicans formulated a counter-response not only for that possibility, but for their own policies that cut in the opposite direction? Where is the GOP counter-agenda?
Weingarten actually has a point. For years now I’ve been saying that, other than xenophobia and tax cuts for the wealthy, the entire Republican agenda has been to simply obstruct what Democrats propose. But notice that there is no attempt to suggest pragmatic options that might actually work. Everything is simply viewed through the lens of partisanship as a “counter-agenda.”
5. “We Need to Get Our Fiscal House in Order” – the idea here is that, having just allocated trillions of dollars to deal with a pandemic, we need to do a better job of cutting federal spending. For Republicans, “getting our fiscal house in order” never has anything to do with the revenue side of the equation. So Weingarten didn’t bother to mention the tax cut giveaway that already had the federal government bleeding red ink.
This is what passes for an analysis of our situation from conservatives. It is an attempt to take the failed policies of the past and simply dig deeper into the hole they created. That is discouraging, to say the least.
Until the Republican Party can shed the blinders that keep them chained to these failed policies, they are a party doomed to repeat their mistakes and then lie in order to avoid being held accountable.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-27--How Biden Would Change U.S.-Russia Relations

If Joe Biden wins the presidency , you can expect a 180-degree turn in U.S.-Russia relations .
The days of sucking up to Vladimir Putin will be over .
The United States will no longer leave itself open to brazen Russian election interference , nor will it be at the mercy of an erratic president ’ s off-the-books diplomacy and misguided stabs at eliminating sanctions on Moscow .
At the same time , doors will be open for constructive dialogue .
In other words , Putin may finally meet his comeuppance in an American leader steeped in statesmanship and steeled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Russians don ’ t want me to be the nominee , ” Biden told CBS recently .
“ They spent a lot of money on bots on Facebook , and they ’ ve been taken down , saying Biden is a bad guy .
They don ’ t want Biden running.
” For good reason .
In stark contrast with President Trump—who didn ’ t know the difference between the Baltic states and the Balkans , or that India bordered China—Biden brings depth and breadth in international relations .
He spent 36 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foreign Relations Committee , half that time as its chairman .
And he counts a host of world leaders and statesmen as good friends .
Half of his Senate tenure also coincided with the Cold War .
In those years , the Delaware senator attacked the Soviet Union ’ s human rights policies and expansionism while taking a leading role in promoting arms reduction negotiations .
In a 2018 essay in Foreign Affairs , co-written with Russia expert Michael Carpenter , Biden continues with this carrot-and-stick approach toward Moscow .
The U.S. must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he writes , to “ impose costs on Russia for its violations of international law and other countries ’ sovereignty , ” including maintaining sanctions .
He also calls for maintaining talks with the Kremlin and holds a hard line on Russian election interference .
Michael Haltzel , a former senior foreign policy adviser to Biden when he was a senator , told me that , as president , Biden would return to managing U.S.-Russia relations in close coordination with NATO allies .
That said , Biden “ wouldn ’ t tolerate Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s experience working with Biden , he said the former vice president ’ s priority issues would likely also include challenging Putin ’ s interference in Ukraine , the Balkans , Syria and elsewhere , as well as reviving talks on strategic arms limitations .
“ Biden understands we must be tough with Putin , ” Haltzel said .
Biden ’ s approach to Russia should be seen in the context of an evolving Democratic modest retreat from the post–Cold War neoliberal consensus favoring globalization , writes Brookings foreign policy scholar Thomas Wright @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly will not be revolutionary , but if the 2021 Democrats have their way , it may bring about a quiet reformation.
” Democrats are worried about rising authoritarianism , including in Russia .
Should Moscow try to meddle with American elections again , they would have no aversion to hitting back hard with “ tough , new sanctions , ” according to Wright .
In fact , they might just demand highly punitive measures .
Like many of us , Moscow was caught off guard during Biden ’ s comeback in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Super Tuesday primaries .
The Russians appear to be boosting Sanders ’ s campaign .
They view the self-declared democratic socialist as an easy foil to Trump .
But now , the Kremlin seems to have come to grips with the new reality .
The Russian propaganda outlet , RT , is framing Biden ’ s victory as one of “ party elites against rank-and-file voters.
” It paints Biden as weak .
“ It is all but guaranteed that it would be Obama—not Biden—calling the shots from the Oval Office , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kremlin siloviki ( someone who has entered politics from the security services , like Putin ) are having major heartburn contemplating a Trump defeat at the hands of a competent president-elect , who views Putin with anything but rose-colored glasses .
So far , Putin himself has remained mum on Biden .
He and his advisers must be calibrating .
Many Russian oligarchs have their own personal reasons to worry .
“ Their children and grandchildren live and study in the U.S .
The threat to block their accounts and send them back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entourage , ” U.S.-based dissident Russian journalist Kseniya Kirillova told me , highlighting a facet of the relationship too often overlooked by the West .
Institutionally , a Biden administration will undoubtedly resurrect traditional forms of diplomacy and policy process .
It would empower once again the agencies chiefly responsible for conducting and coordinating U.S. foreign and national security policy around the world , namely the State Department and National Security Council .
And it would pay close heed to the intelligence community .
In the past , Biden has usually favored soft @ @ @ @ @ @ @ task , therefore , should be to rebuild the institutions that suffered severe damage under Trump .
Crucially , that will mean placing respected experts in important roles and restoring deliberative policy formulation .
That should be simple enough .
While Trump has a resentment for expertise , Biden has a reverence for it .
As a consequence , the American people can expect to hear the truth and honest assessments coming out of the White House , which will have implications for Putin .
Gone will be the days of a U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds .
”

If Joe Biden wins the presidency, you can expect a 180-degree turn in U.S.-Russia relations. The days of sucking up to Vladimir Putin will be over. The United States will no longer leave itself open to brazen Russian election interference, nor will it be at the mercy of an erratic president’s off-the-books diplomacy and misguided stabs at eliminating sanctions on Moscow. At the same time, doors will be open for constructive dialogue.
In other words, Putin may finally meet his comeuppance in an American leader steeped in statesmanship and steeled by hard-ball Cold War diplomacy. “The Russians don’t want me to be the nominee,” Biden told CBS recently. “They spent a lot of money on bots on Facebook, and they’ve been taken down, saying Biden is a bad guy. They don’t want Biden running.”
For good reason. In stark contrast with President Trump—who didn’t know the difference between the Baltic states and the Balkans, or that India bordered China—Biden brings depth and breadth in international relations. He spent 36 years as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, half that time as its chairman. And he counts a host of world leaders and statesmen as good friends. Half of his Senate tenure also coincided with the Cold War. In those years, the Delaware senator attacked the Soviet Union’s human rights policies and expansionism while taking a leading role in promoting arms reduction negotiations.
In a 2018 essay in Foreign Affairs, co-written with Russia expert Michael Carpenter, Biden continues with this carrot-and-stick approach toward Moscow. The U.S. must take the lead with its allies, he writes, to “impose costs on Russia for its violations of international law and other countries’ sovereignty,” including maintaining sanctions. He also calls for maintaining talks with the Kremlin and holds a hard line on Russian election interference.
Michael Haltzel, a former senior foreign policy adviser to Biden when he was a senator, told me that, as president, Biden would return to managing U.S.-Russia relations in close coordination with NATO allies. That said, Biden “wouldn’t tolerate Russian election meddling.” Based on Haltzel’s experience working with Biden, he said the former vice president’s priority issues would likely also include challenging Putin’s interference in Ukraine, the Balkans, Syria and elsewhere, as well as reviving talks on strategic arms limitations. “Biden understands we must be tough with Putin,” Haltzel said.
Biden’s approach to Russia should be seen in the context of an evolving Democratic modest retreat from the post–Cold War neoliberal consensus favoring globalization, writes Brookings foreign policy scholar Thomas Wright: “Biden’s foreign policy certainly will not be revolutionary, but if the 2021 Democrats have their way, it may bring about a quiet reformation.” Democrats are worried about rising authoritarianism, including in Russia. Should Moscow try to meddle with American elections again, they would have no aversion to hitting back hard with “tough, new sanctions,” according to Wright. In fact, they might just demand highly punitive measures.
Like many of us, Moscow was caught off guard during Biden’s comeback in the presidential race after the South Carolina and Super Tuesday primaries. The Russians appear to be boosting Sanders’s campaign. They view the self-declared democratic socialist as an easy foil to Trump.
But now, the Kremlin seems to have come to grips with the new reality. The Russian propaganda outlet, RT, is framing Biden’s victory as one of “party elites against rank-and-file voters.” It paints Biden as weak. “It is all but guaranteed that it would be Obama—not Biden—calling the shots from the Oval Office,” RT wrote.
One can imagine that Kremlin siloviki (someone who has entered politics from the security services, like Putin) are having major heartburn contemplating a Trump defeat at the hands of a competent president-elect, who views Putin with anything but rose-colored glasses. So far, Putin himself has remained mum on Biden. He and his advisers must be calibrating.
Many Russian oligarchs have their own personal reasons to worry. “Their children and grandchildren live and study in the U.S. The threat to block their accounts and send them back home very much concerns Putin and his entourage,” U.S.-based dissident Russian journalist Kseniya Kirillova told me, highlighting a facet of the relationship too often overlooked by the West.
Institutionally, a Biden administration will undoubtedly resurrect traditional forms of diplomacy and policy process. It would empower once again the agencies chiefly responsible for conducting and coordinating U.S. foreign and national security policy around the world, namely the State Department and National Security Council. And it would pay close heed to the intelligence community.
In the past, Biden has usually favored soft power over military intervention. His first task, therefore, should be to rebuild the institutions that suffered severe damage under Trump. Crucially, that will mean placing respected experts in important roles and restoring deliberative policy formulation. That should be simple enough. While Trump has a resentment for expertise, Biden has a reverence for it.
As a consequence, the American people can expect to hear the truth and honest assessments coming out of the White House, which will have implications for Putin. Gone will be the days of a U.S. president blaming election interference on “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-26--Americans Can Thank Democrats For a Strong Stimulus Package

Release of the weekly unemployment claims on Thursday brought the news we ’ ve all been dreading .
The 3.28 million people who filed unemployment claims dwarfs the previous record of 695,000 in 1982 .
Obama Labor Department official Chris Lu tweeted that the actual situation is far worse because : That is why passage of a stimulus bill by Congress is so urgent .
Wednesday night , the Senate passed a bipartisan bill 96-0 and Speaker Pelosi has promised to take up the measure Friday , noting that it is not likely that she will be able to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are making these provisions for a voice vote .
“ In order to protect the safety of Members and staff and prevent further spread of COVID-19 through Members ’ travel , the Republican Leader and I expect that the House vote on final passage will be done by voice vote , ” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer , D-Md.
, announced Wednesday night .
“ Members who want to come to the House Floor to debate this bill will be able to do so .
In addition , we are working to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ return to Washington may express their views on this legislation remotely.
” There is a lot of inaccurate reporting on how we got here , so perhaps a quick timeline will help to illuminate .
Thursday , March 19 – Majority Leader McConnell released a bill he had crafted behind closed doors with no Democratic input .
Saturday , March 21 – Democratic Senators report that McConnell cut off negotiations over his bill .
Sunday , March 22 – McConnell brought his bill up for a procedural vote and it failed 47-47 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his bill up for a procedural vote again and it failed 49-46 .
Monday , March 23 – Pelosi released a bill for the House that included a wish-list of items for Democrats .
Monday , March 23 – Schumer continued to negotiate changes to McConnell ’ s bill with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin .
By late that night , they reported that they were nearing a deal .
Wednesday , March 25 – A deal is reached and , after several Republican Senators complained about the unemployment benefits , it passed unanimously .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the process of reaching an agreement .
I have suggested that Schumer and Pelosi played good cop-bad cop , with the Speaker basically telling Republicans to work with Schumer or they ’ d have to deal with her in the House .
That strategy was affirmed by the fact that Pelosi dropped any attempt to promote the Democratic wish-list once Schumer had negotiated a deal that included their priorities .
She ’ s taking some heat from right-wing news for “ failing , ” but I ’ m sure that ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for getting this important work done .
In the end , what were Schumer and Pelosi able to accomplish with this strategy ?
• Unemployment benefits – an extra $ 600 per week for up to four months , on top of state unemployment benefits .
• Loans to corporations , cities , and states – an inspector general and accountability committee to oversee how the money is spent .
Also included is a provision that bars Trump , Pence , members of Congress and heads of executive departments from getting access to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – the $ 1,200 per person and $ 500 per child was extended to include those who don ’ t file tax returns .
• Hospitals – $ 100 billion to treat those with coronavirus .
• Airline bailout – the $ 58 billion comes with strings : no stock buybacks , and limits on executive compensation .
Half the funds would go toward “ the continuation of payment of employee wages , salaries , and benefits.
” • State and local governments – $ 150 billion to compensate for lost tax revenue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion for food assistance , including nearly $ 16 billion for SNAP and nearly $ 9 billion for child nutrition .
• Schools – $ 30 billion in emergency education funding for colleges and universities , states and school districts .
Beyond recognizing how Schumer and Pelosi were able to accomplish all of that , it is important to keep in mind how different this outcome will be from what happened with the 2009 stimulus bill that was passed in response to the Great Recession .
Unlike McConnell , who sat on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obstruct a bill from passing , Democratic leaders worked tirelessly to negotiate provisions that put American workers first .

Release of the weekly unemployment claims on Thursday brought the news we’ve all been dreading.
The 3.28 million people who filed unemployment claims dwarfs the previous record of 695,000 in 1982. Obama Labor Department official Chris Lu tweeted that the actual situation is far worse because:
-Unemployed don’t always apply immediately for UI -Many shelter-in-place orders only started this week -Gig workers/independent contractors can’t apply for UI -Some state UI systems have crashed
That is why passage of a stimulus bill by Congress is so urgent. Wednesday night, the Senate passed a bipartisan bill 96-0 and Speaker Pelosi has promised to take up the measure Friday, noting that it is not likely that she will be able to do so via unanimous consent. Instead, they are making these provisions for a voice vote.
“In order to protect the safety of Members and staff and prevent further spread of COVID-19 through Members’ travel, the Republican Leader and I expect that the House vote on final passage will be done by voice vote,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., announced Wednesday night. “Members who want to come to the House Floor to debate this bill will be able to do so. In addition, we are working to ensure that those who are unable to return to Washington may express their views on this legislation remotely.”
There is a lot of inaccurate reporting on how we got here, so perhaps a quick timeline will help to illuminate.
Thursday, March 19 – Majority Leader McConnell released a bill he had crafted behind closed doors with no Democratic input.
Saturday, March 21 – Democratic Senators report that McConnell cut off negotiations over his bill.
Sunday, March 22 – McConnell brought his bill up for a procedural vote and it failed 47-47.
Monday, March 23 – McConnell brought his bill up for a procedural vote again and it failed 49-46.
Monday, March 23 – Pelosi released a bill for the House that included a wish-list of items for Democrats.
Monday, March 23 – Schumer continued to negotiate changes to McConnell’s bill with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin. By late that night, they reported that they were nearing a deal.
Wednesday, March 25 – A deal is reached and, after several Republican Senators complained about the unemployment benefits, it passed unanimously.
Obviously Monday was the crucial day in the process of reaching an agreement. I have suggested that Schumer and Pelosi played good cop-bad cop, with the Speaker basically telling Republicans to work with Schumer or they’d have to deal with her in the House. That strategy was affirmed by the fact that Pelosi dropped any attempt to promote the Democratic wish-list once Schumer had negotiated a deal that included their priorities. She’s taking some heat from right-wing news for “failing,” but I’m sure that’s a price she’s willing to pay for getting this important work done.
In the end, what were Schumer and Pelosi able to accomplish with this strategy?
Unemployment benefits – an extra $600 per week for up to four months, on top of state unemployment benefits. Loans to corporations, cities, and states – an inspector general and accountability committee to oversee how the money is spent. Also included is a provision that bars Trump, Pence, members of Congress and heads of executive departments from getting access to these funds. Cash to individuals – the $1,200 per person and $500 per child was extended to include those who don’t file tax returns. Hospitals – $100 billion to treat those with coronavirus. Airline bailout – the $58 billion comes with strings: no stock buybacks, and limits on executive compensation. Half the funds would go toward “the continuation of payment of employee wages, salaries, and benefits.” State and local governments – $150 billion to compensate for lost tax revenue. Food Stamps – $25 billion for food assistance, including nearly $16 billion for SNAP and nearly $9 billion for child nutrition. Schools – $30 billion in emergency education funding for colleges and universities, states and school districts.
Beyond recognizing how Schumer and Pelosi were able to accomplish all of that, it is important to keep in mind how different this outcome will be from what happened with the 2009 stimulus bill that was passed in response to the Great Recession. Unlike McConnell, who sat on his hands and did nothing but attempt to obstruct a bill from passing, Democratic leaders worked tirelessly to negotiate provisions that put American workers first.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-31--We Have No Idea How Many Coronavirus Cases There Are in the U.S.

I had been scheduled to have my annual physical exam today , but last week the clinic notified me that it had been cancelled .
When I called to re-schedule , the woman on the other end of the line told me that they were cancelling all non-essential appointments , not because they have been overwhelmed with coronavirus cases , but to stop people from congregating in their waiting rooms .
She went on to tell me that if someone calls because they are having symptoms associated with coronavirus , they can ’ t test .
So people are being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have trouble breathing .
My clinic is associated with the fourth largest healthcare provider in the state of Minnesota .
I went to their web site and it confirmed what I ’ d been told .
Testing availability is limited .
We are working with the Minnesota Department of Health and other health care providers in Minnesota and Wisconsin to adjust our coronavirus testing procedures so we can conserve resources for the most critically ill patients and for the safety of our staff .
This means that effective immediately , no outpatient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Allina Health clinics , Urgent Cares , Everyday Clinics and Emergency Departments .
Patients who require hospitalization may still be tested .
In addition to the most critically ill , our health care providers will continue to have access to testing , if needed .
A further review of the information available from the Minnesota Department of Health corroborated the situation .
People who do not have symptoms should not be tested for COVID-19 .
Due to national shortages of lab testing supplies , we do not have an unlimited capacity for testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for people who are hospitalized , health care workers , and people living or working in congregate living settings , such as nursing homes and others .
Kate Riga reports that “ the United States has performed more than 894,000 coronavirus tests to date.
” But that number pales in comparison to the promises that have been made by both Trump and Pence .
Pence , who leads the administration ’ s coronavirus task force , said on March 10 that “ over a million tests have been distributed , ” with another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week ’ s end .
Three days later , President Donald Trump promised from the Rose Garden that 1.4 million tests would be distributed early in the week of March 16 , and that a full 5 million tests will be available before the end of the month .
In other words , we ’ re still not testing in this country and no one in the administration has provided an answer to the question , “ why not ?
” On Monday , the number of coronavirus cases in the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us number one in the world .
But given the restrictions on testing , the truth is that we have no idea how many cases are actually out there .
If what is happening in Minnesota is going on around the country and people who are exhibiting symptoms are merely being told to self-quarantine , the number is significantly higher than what is being reported .
The good thing about Minnesota is that Governor Tim Walz has basically shut the state down – closing schools and restaurants over a week ago and all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than grocery stores , there ’ s nowhere to go , even if folks were willing to take the risk .
But I think of states like Florida , Georgia , and Texas , where Republican governors have refused to take charge of this situation .
With the lack of testing , it is very possible that coronavirus is continuing to spread like wildfire and their urban areas are on the pathway to becoming the next Seattle or New York .

I had been scheduled to have my annual physical exam today, but last week the clinic notified me that it had been cancelled. When I called to re-schedule, the woman on the other end of the line told me that they were cancelling all non-essential appointments, not because they have been overwhelmed with coronavirus cases, but to stop people from congregating in their waiting rooms. She went on to tell me that if someone calls because they are having symptoms associated with coronavirus, they can’t test. So people are being told to self-quarantine and call 911 if they have trouble breathing.
My clinic is associated with the fourth largest healthcare provider in the state of Minnesota. I went to their web site and it confirmed what I’d been told.
Testing availability is limited. We are working with the Minnesota Department of Health and other health care providers in Minnesota and Wisconsin to adjust our coronavirus testing procedures so we can conserve resources for the most critically ill patients and for the safety of our staff. This means that effective immediately, no outpatient testing for coronavirus will be performed in Allina Health clinics, Urgent Cares, Everyday Clinics and Emergency Departments. Patients who require hospitalization may still be tested. In addition to the most critically ill, our health care providers will continue to have access to testing, if needed.
A further review of the information available from the Minnesota Department of Health corroborated the situation.
People who do not have symptoms should not be tested for COVID-19. Due to national shortages of lab testing supplies, we do not have an unlimited capacity for testing. We are currently prioritizing most testing for people who are hospitalized, health care workers, and people living or working in congregate living settings, such as nursing homes and others.
Kate Riga reports that “the United States has performed more than 894,000 coronavirus tests to date.” But that number pales in comparison to the promises that have been made by both Trump and Pence.
Pence, who leads the administration’s coronavirus task force, said on March 10 that “over a million tests have been distributed,” with another 4 million to be distributed by that week’s end. Three days later, President Donald Trump promised from the Rose Garden that 1.4 million tests would be distributed early in the week of March 16, and that a full 5 million tests will be available before the end of the month.
In other words, we’re still not testing in this country and no one in the administration has provided an answer to the question, “why not?”
On Monday, the number of coronavirus cases in the United States was reported to be 152,631, making us number one in the world. But given the restrictions on testing, the truth is that we have no idea how many cases are actually out there. If what is happening in Minnesota is going on around the country and people who are exhibiting symptoms are merely being told to self-quarantine, the number is significantly higher than what is being reported.
The good thing about Minnesota is that Governor Tim Walz has basically shut the state down – closing schools and restaurants over a week ago and all non-essential businesses as of Saturday. Other than grocery stores, there’s nowhere to go, even if folks were willing to take the risk.
But I think of states like Florida, Georgia, and Texas, where Republican governors have refused to take charge of this situation. With the lack of testing, it is very possible that coronavirus is continuing to spread like wildfire and certain urban areas are on the pathway to becoming the next Seattle or New York.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-31--Welcome to the Fourth World

Welcome to the Fourth World

Americans have a better chance of keeping themselves and others safe by ignoring what President Trump says .
He has already contributed to the death of an Arizona man who , along with his wife , took chloroquine ( used to clean fish tanks ! )
the day after Trump misinformed the country about its anti-viral effectiveness .
Medical experts criticized the Food and Drug Administration ’ s emergency authorization for its use , because too much can kill you.In fact , its use against malaria is not necessarily applicable to COVID-19 without careful clinical trials to establish proper dosing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as in the wife ’ s case , send you into critical condition .
Even doctors who listened to Trump are writing prescriptions to hoard the drug for themselves , depleting supplies for those who really need it for lupus and other ailments .
This is what the United States has come to .
You can ’ t believe your president , the one who is getting a 55 percent approval rating for his handling—or mishandling—of the pandemic .
You shouldn ’ t have accepted his cavalier assessment that the supposed severity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ “ new hoax ” that would soon disappear .
You can ’ t trust his absurd assurances that sufficient tests and medical equipment are available , or that they ’ re not really needed in bulk .
You certainly shouldn ’ t act on his push to fill the churches on Easter and to go back to work—advice he ’ s now recanted by extending preventive guidelines until April 30 .
His contradictory and self-absorbed briefings have encouraged millions to take the disease less seriously than warranted , which could lead to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care , fire departments , infrastructure maintenance , and food supplies as those essential workers drop into sickness .
Trump is a national security risk .
Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn ’ t been paying attention .
He refuses to talk to governors who don ’ t fawn over him .
He claims to have inherited “ a broken system.
” Yet he has been in office for more than three very long years , during which he has watched TV compulsively , tweeted his grievances and insults , played lots of golf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning , and governed the way Boris Yeltsin did in Russia as it descended : by simply firing people , as if the federal government were his TV show , The Apprentice .
The cost is now apparent .
An excellent analysis by Jennifer Steinhauer and Zolan Kanno-Youngs in The New York Times documents the handicaps created by the widespread vacancies in key federal positions , the massive departures of top scientists and specialists in emergency management , and the colossal inexperience of political lackeys Trump has appointed .
It ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final years , as political orthodoxy mattered more than expertise .
There is a reminder of another kind .
Anyone who has been in a Third World country , whether in deep poverty or in wartime , knows the familiarity of harrowing accounts we are now receiving from American hospitals .
In Cambodia , too , patients waited for hours or days in hallways .
There , too , doctors and nurses were overwhelmed and often helpless in the face of insufficient methods of treatment .
People died when decent medical care could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a Fourth World— “ a new category of nations : those once mighty and noble that are falling into frailty and disrepute.
” Those words are from a piece I wrote the day before Trump was inaugurated .
It was entitled , “ America Enters a Fourth World.
” My apologies for quoting myself , which puts me off when writers do it .
But I ’ ll continue shamelessly , and you can read the whole essay here to see how obvious Trump ’ s defects were even before he took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reckless , and truthless president in modern American history.
” The Fourth World “ is a place of undoing .
It is a place where moral values of the common good are picked apart , strand by strand , until only the shreds of caring and justice remain .
It is where progress is dismantled : progress—albeit fitful and incomplete—in mobilizing the society through government to protect the impoverished from utter ruin , the innocent from false imprisonment , minorities from tyranny , children from hunger , families from dangerous foods and medicines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the earth from the end-stage of catastrophic global warming .
The term “ Third World , ” coined in 1952 by Alfred Sauvy , a French demographer , evolved into the optimistic label “ developing countries.
” In the meantime , it spawned the category “ First World ” to mean the industrialized capitalist countries , and the “ Second World , ” the industrialized communist countries .
Only “ Third World ” survived for a while as common shorthand .
Welcome now to the Fourth World .
“ In Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote the day before his inauguration .
“ He facilitates the erosion of shared reality in a polarized society more infatuated with opinion than fact—or , rather , that believes opinion is fact.
” Three years and two months later , he is still fooling millions of Americans .
His misleading , self-serving opinions interact with a credulous public to produce a toxin .
“ Don ’ t believe anything that the president says , ” advised the Arizona woman whose husband died .
In other words , we need to observe social @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Americans have a better chance of keeping themselves and others safe by ignoring what President Trump says. He has already contributed to the death of an Arizona man who, along with his wife, took chloroquine (used to clean fish tanks!) the day after Trump misinformed the country about its anti-viral effectiveness. Medical experts criticized the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency authorization for its use, because too much can kill you. In fact, its use against malaria is not necessarily applicable to COVID-19 without careful clinical trials to establish proper dosing. In the wife’s case, it sent her into critical condition. Even doctors who listened to Trump are writing prescriptions to hoard the drug for themselves, depleting supplies for those who really need it for lupus and other ailments.
This is what the United States has come to. You can’t believe your president, the one who is getting a 55 percent approval rating for his handling—or mishandling—of the pandemic. You shouldn’t have accepted his cavalier assessment that the supposed severity of the virus was just the Democrats’ “new hoax” that would soon disappear. You can’t trust his absurd assurances that sufficient tests and medical equipment are available, or that they’re not really needed in bulk.
You certainly shouldn’t act on his push to fill the churches on Easter and to go back to work—advice he’s now recanted by extending preventive guidelines until April 30. His contradictory and self-absorbed briefings have encouraged millions to take the disease less seriously than warranted, which could lead to the collapse of law enforcement, health care, fire departments, infrastructure maintenance, and food supplies as those essential workers drop into sickness.
Trump is a national security risk. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn’t been paying attention. He refuses to talk to governors who don’t fawn over him. He claims to have inherited “a broken system.” Yet he has been in office for more than three very long years, during which he has watched TV compulsively, tweeted his grievances and insults, played lots of golf, come to work late in the morning, and governed the way Boris Yeltsin did in Russia as it descended: by simply firing people, as if the federal government were his TV show, The Apprentice.
The cost is now apparent. An excellent analysis by Jennifer Steinhauer and Zolan Kanno-Youngs in The New York Times documents the handicaps created by the widespread vacancies in key federal positions, the massive departures of top scientists and specialists in emergency management, and the colossal inexperience of political lackeys Trump has appointed. It’s a reminder of the Soviet Union in its final years, as political orthodoxy mattered more than expertise.
There is a reminder of another kind. Anyone who has been in a Third World country, whether in deep poverty or in wartime, knows the familiarity of harrowing accounts we are now receiving from American hospitals. In Cambodia, too, patients waited for hours or days in hallways. There, too, doctors and nurses were overwhelmed and often helpless in the face of insufficient methods of treatment. People died when decent medical care could have saved them.
We are now in a Fourth World—“a new category of nations: those once mighty and noble that are falling into frailty and disrepute.” Those words are from a piece I wrote the day before Trump was inaugurated. It was entitled, “America Enters a Fourth World.” My apologies for quoting myself, which puts me off when writers do it. But I’ll continue shamelessly, and you can read the whole essay here to see how obvious Trump’s defects were even before he took office as “the most childish, reckless, and truthless president in modern American history.”
The Fourth World “is a place of undoing. It is a place where moral values of the common good are picked apart, strand by strand, until only the shreds of caring and justice remain. It is where progress is dismantled: progress—albeit fitful and incomplete—in mobilizing the society through government to protect the impoverished from utter ruin, the innocent from false imprisonment, minorities from tyranny, children from hunger, families from dangerous foods and medicines and polluted air and water, and the earth from the end-stage of catastrophic global warming.
There is nothing divinely ordained about America’s greatness. Once Trump and the radicals who will populate most of his cabinet finish their efforts to destroy what has been painstakingly constructed over decades, it will take a generation to recover. That is the actual time when it will be appropriate to plead, “Make America Great Again!”
The term “Third World,” coined in 1952 by Alfred Sauvy, a French demographer, evolved into the optimistic label “developing countries.” In the meantime, it spawned the category “First World” to mean the industrialized capitalist countries, and the “Second World,” the industrialized communist countries. Only “Third World” survived for a while as common shorthand.
Welcome now to the Fourth World. “In Trump’s vicinity, truth dies,” I wrote the day before his inauguration. “He facilitates the erosion of shared reality in a polarized society more infatuated with opinion than fact—or, rather, that believes opinion is fact.”
Three years and two months later, he is still fooling millions of Americans. His misleading, self-serving opinions interact with a credulous public to produce a toxin. “Don’t believe anything that the president says,” advised the Arizona woman whose husband died. In other words, we need to observe social distancing—from the president and his babbling.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-31--The Coronavirus Deniers and Their War on Expertise

Paul Krugman is right to suggest that we might experience a bit of déjà vu when we watch how the president and his enablers are responding to the coronavirus .
Just as there are climate science deniers , there are a whole range of coronavirus deniers out there as well .
They come in many different shapes and sizes , but the most common are those who simply deny the scope of the problem .
While they accept that the virus exists , they tend to believe that Democrats , the media , or the “ deep state ” ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the problem in order to make Trump look bad .
The more perverse of these folks started the Twitter hashtag , # FilmYourHospital .
They take videos of the outside of hospitals and claim that the lack of activity indicates that the hype is all a hoax .
One of the most prominent coronavirus deniers is radio talk show host Bill Mitchell .
His most recent schtick has been to rail against the “ stay at home ” orders being issued by governors .
But it was Mitchell who initiated the right wing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all started back on March 3rd .
Almost immediately Fauci was accused of being a Democratic plant .
The idea that he was a member of the so-called “ deep state ” took hold and eventually an email from Fauci surfaced among those that had been released by WikiLeaks .
In it , the doctor had praised Hillary Clinton for her testimony before the House Benghazi Committee .
Now the deniers were off to the races .
They were soon doing the same thing to Dr. Deborah Birx .
Isaac Stanley-Becker makes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emphasis mine ) .
[ T ] he disregard for expert guidance being pushed by some conservative and libertarian voices goes further — aimed not simply at proving Fauci wrong but at painting him as an agent of the “ deep state ” that Trump has vowed to dismantle .
The smear campaign taking root online , and laying the groundwork for Trump to cast aside the experts on his own coronavirus task force , relies centrally on the idea that there is no expertise that rises above partisanship , and that everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve seen over and over again from right wingers .
Whenever someone says something they don ’ t like—especially if it challenges “ dear leader ” —all they have to do is find a remote connection to a Democrat ( preferably Hillary Clinton ) , and the opposing opinion can be discarded as nothing more than partisanship .
That is how the right is attempting to kill the whole notion of expertise—be it on anything from climate change to coronavirus .
The mainstream media provides an assist to those efforts when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach to every issue instead of prioritizing the truth .
Over the course of the last three months , Donald Trump has dallied in many of the opinions espoused by these coronavirus deniers .
His decision to extend the guidelines calling for social distancing and other measures to mitigate the virus indicate that at this point , he ’ s still listening to the experts—even if it is merely for his own self-interest .
But we ’ re not out of the woods yet .
The deniers are waiting in the wings with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment he grows impatient with the experts .

Back in 2012, Donald Trump tweeted this.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en
Paul Krugman is right to suggest that we might experience a bit of déjà vu when we watch how the president and his enablers are responding to the coronavirus.
Let me summarize the Trump administration/right-wing media view on the coronavirus: It’s a hoax, or anyway no big deal. Besides, trying to do anything about it would destroy the economy. And it’s China’s fault, which is why we should call it the “Chinese virus.”
Just as there are climate science deniers, there are a whole range of coronavirus deniers out there as well. They come in many different shapes and sizes, but the most common are those who simply deny the scope of the problem. While they accept that the virus exists, they tend to believe that Democrats, the media, or the “deep state” (pick your villain) are simply exaggerating the problem in order to make Trump look bad.
The more perverse of these folks started the Twitter hashtag, #FilmYourHospital. They take videos of the outside of hospitals and claim that the lack of activity indicates that the hype is all a hoax.
https://twitter.com/DeAnna4Congress/status/1244342772783394822?s=20
One of the most prominent coronavirus deniers is radio talk show host Bill Mitchell. His most recent schtick has been to rail against the “stay at home” orders being issued by governors.
https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/1245007790155988992
But it was Mitchell who initiated the right wing attacks on Dr. Anthony Fauci. It all started back on March 3rd.
https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/1234916964952399875
Almost immediately Fauci was accused of being a Democratic plant. The idea that he was a member of the so-called “deep state” took hold and eventually an email from Fauci surfaced among those that had been released by WikiLeaks. In it, the doctor had praised Hillary Clinton for her testimony before the House Benghazi Committee. Now the deniers were off to the races. They were soon doing the same thing to Dr. Deborah Birx.
https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/1245030164607754247
Isaac Stanley-Becker makes the important point about all of this (emphasis mine).
[T]he disregard for expert guidance being pushed by some conservative and libertarian voices goes further — aimed not simply at proving Fauci wrong but at painting him as an agent of the “deep state” that Trump has vowed to dismantle. The smear campaign taking root online, and laying the groundwork for Trump to cast aside the experts on his own coronavirus task force, relies centrally on the idea that there is no expertise that rises above partisanship, and that everyone has an agenda.
This is something we’ve seen over and over again from right wingers. Whenever someone says something they don’t like—especially if it challenges “dear leader”—all they have to do is find a remote connection to a Democrat (preferably Hillary Clinton), and the opposing opinion can be discarded as nothing more than partisanship. That is how the right is attempting to kill the whole notion of expertise—be it on anything from climate change to coronavirus. The mainstream media provides an assist to those efforts when they assume a “both sides” approach to every issue instead of prioritizing the truth.
Over the course of the last three months, Donald Trump has dallied in many of the opinions espoused by these coronavirus deniers. His decision to extend the guidelines calling for social distancing and other measures to mitigate the virus indicate that at this point, he’s still listening to the experts—even if it is merely for his own self-interest. But we’re not out of the woods yet. The deniers are waiting in the wings with their conspiracy theory guns loaded for the moment he grows impatient with the experts.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-31--The GOP’s War Against Voting Rights

The GOP’s War Against Voting Rights

Included in the stimulus bill put together by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats was a provision that established “ a national requirement for both 15 days of early voting and no-excuse absentee vote-by-mail.
” That one apparently got under Trump ’ s skin .
Trump basically admitted that if more people voted , “ you ’ d never have a Republican elected in this country again.
” A lot of people assume that he said the quiet parts out loud when it comes to Republican efforts to suppress the vote .
But just as Trump represents the culmination of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the modern-day GOP was founded , the party has demonstrated over time that they aren ’ t particularly fond of democracy .
As Katherine Stewart documented in her book , The Power Worshippers , Paul Weyrich is often credited as the founder of the modern-day conservative movement .
Even though he was not a particularly religious man , he developed a coalition between Goldwater Republicans and the religious right , which became the base that has elected every Republican president from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump .
Here is something Weyrich said at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1980 .
Weyrich clearly stated that he didn ’ t want everyone to vote .
He went on to say that , for Republicans , “ our leverage in the elections , quite candidly , goes up as the voting populace goes down.
” That was basically an admission that the majority of Americans don ’ t support Republican principles .
As far back as 1980 , the whole idea of a so-called “ moral majority ” was a lie—and people like Weyrich knew it .
Rather than attempt to reflect the will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as Zachary Roth put it , “ being outnumbered doesn ’ t have to mean losing.
” Voter suppression was therefore embraced as a conservative principle .
More recently , Ari Berman documented the decades-long battle against the Voting Rights Act that was waged by our current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court—John Roberts .
The seeds of that battle were planted while Roberts served as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist , as well as his time in the Reagan Justice Department .
It culminated in the Shelby vs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elements of the Voting Rights Act , leading to a new wave of voter suppression efforts in the states .
Last year , when House Democrats passed a bill that included democratic reforms to campaign finance , ethics and voting rights , Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the quiet parts out loud when he called them a “ Democrat Politician Protection Act.
” Once again , the inference is that , if more people vote , Democrats will be elected .
Those are just a few examples from the last forty years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ men have tried to limit the franchise to themselves .
Here ’ s what Roth wrote about Alexander Hamilton ’ s only major speech at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia .
It is only through the blood , sweat , and tears of various movements that voting rights have been expanded in this country as a foundational principle of democracy .
Obviously , that battle still rages on .

Included in the stimulus bill put together by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats was a provision that established “a national requirement for both 15 days of early voting and no-excuse absentee vote-by-mail.” That one apparently got under Trump’s skin.
Trump basically admitted that if more people voted, “you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.” A lot of people assume that he said the quiet parts out loud when it comes to Republican efforts to suppress the vote. But just as Trump represents the culmination of many of the foundational principles on which the modern-day GOP was founded, the party has demonstrated over time that they aren’t particularly fond of democracy.
As Katherine Stewart documented in her book, The Power Worshippers, Paul Weyrich is often credited as the founder of the modern-day conservative movement. Even though he was not a particularly religious man, he developed a coalition between Goldwater Republicans and the religious right, which became the base that has elected every Republican president from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump.
Here is something Weyrich said at a gathering of religious leaders back in 1980.
Weyrich clearly stated that he didn’t want everyone to vote. He went on to say that, for Republicans, “our leverage in the elections, quite candidly, goes up as the voting populace goes down.” That was basically an admission that the majority of Americans don’t support Republican principles.
As far back as 1980, the whole idea of a so-called “moral majority” was a lie—and people like Weyrich knew it. Rather than attempt to reflect the will of voters, Republicans simply decided that, as Zachary Roth put it, “being outnumbered doesn’t have to mean losing.” Voter suppression was therefore embraced as a conservative principle.
More recently, Ari Berman documented the decades-long battle against the Voting Rights Act that was waged by our current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court—John Roberts. The seeds of that battle were planted while Roberts served as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, as well as his time in the Reagan Justice Department. It culminated in the Shelby vs Holder case when the Court overturned key elements of the Voting Rights Act, leading to a new wave of voter suppression efforts in the states.
Last year, when House Democrats passed a bill that included democratic reforms to campaign finance, ethics and voting rights, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the quiet parts out loud when he called them a “Democrat Politician Protection Act.” Once again, the inference is that, if more people vote, Democrats will be elected.
Those are just a few examples from the last forty years. But since our founding, rich white men have tried to limit the franchise to themselves. Here’s what Roth wrote about Alexander Hamilton’s only major speech at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.
Hamilton said the system should allow the “rich and the well born” to maintain their supremacy, since they would oppose radical change pushed by “the many.” The goal, he said, was to “check the imprudence of democracy.”
It is only through the blood, sweat, and tears of various movements that voting rights have been expanded in this country as a foundational principle of democracy. Obviously, that battle still rages on.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-01--Coronavirus Shows the Need for D.C. and Puerto Rico Statehood

The coronavirus pandemic has revealed many flaws in America—from a lack of medical equipment in the federal government ’ s national emergency stockpile to the fact that there is not a universal requirement for employers to offer paid sick leave .
But there is at least one glaring inequity that the crisis has exacerbated .
Because the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico lack statehood status , they were shortchanged in Congress ’ s emergency relief legislation .
On Friday , President Donald Trump signed into law a $ 2 trillion stimulus to rescue the economy from the shock of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans with direct cash infusions and will allocate billions of dollars in funding to states and municipalities to fight COVID-19 .
But some parts of the country are getting a lot less relief than others .
As the Washington Post reported , D.C was intentionally classified as a territory instead of a state , cutting the number of federal dollars the District will receive by more than half .
Whereas each state will get $ 1.25 billion , the bill appropriated $ 3 billion for D.C. and the five U.S. territories—Puerto Rico , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Northern Mariana Islands , and American Samoa—to be divided by population .
D.C. will ultimately get $ 500 million in relief , less than half of what it would if it were a state .
“ I was enraged by the fact that the District of Columbia was going to be shortchanged , ” Senator Chris Van Hollen told the Post , which reported that Democrats tried to classify D.C. as a state in the legislation but that Republicans shut it down as a deal-breaker .
This reveals yet another reason why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start pushing strenuously for D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood .
It ’ s not just for their own political advantage ; as Ben Paviour explained in a 2018 Monthly piece , the party stands to gain a lot by adding four more Democratic senators and several House members .
It ’ s a moral imperative .
Without this representation , these areas are grossly neglected , particularly in times of crisis .
D.C. and Puerto Rico don ’ t have the representatives to lobby for them when it matters .
This dynamic was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about disaster relief for Puerto Rico following its devastating hurricanes and earthquakes .
The House and Senate took months to come to a consensus about the amount of aid the territory would receive , leaving the disaster relief unresolved for a dangerous amount of time .
Now , with the stimulus ( the largest in American history ) , the District has also seen the financial consequences of being without statehood .
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton , who represents D.C. as a non-voting member of the House , told the Monthly that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ District had full representation in the House and Senate .
“ If we had had had two senators , this issue would not have come up , ” Norton said .
“ There would have been no notion that any states should have been shortchanged in this way .
It ’ s another indication of why we need D.C. statehood.
” As of Monday night , 495 D.C. residents have tested positive for COVID-19 , and nine residents have died from the virus .
These numbers rank the District higher than 16 states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In addition to the District proper , there are more than 1,000 confirmed cases in the D.C.-Maryland-Virginia area .
D.C. ’ s population of more 700,000 is greater than the population of two states—Vermont and Wyoming—and comparable to two others , Alaska and North Dakota .
The District ’ s status as an urban , densely-packed region means the inherent close-contact nature of a city makes residents much more susceptible to the virus : an effect New York City , the current epicenter of America ’ s coronavirus crisis , is now experiencing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city and we live in closer quarters than in neighboring states , I think that is why we have more cases than 18 states , ” Norton said .
“ So , our need is really very great compared to most states.
” Norton expects the deficit in funding to be fixed retroactively ; she said the District is likely to receive further funds in future relief bills .
Still , the problem of statehood remains at the core of why D.C. is behind the curve in the first place .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been historically left behind .
Despite having no Congressional voting power , D.C. residents are still required to pay federal taxes , and laws and budgets passed in the District must obtain Congressional approval to come into law , leading to unnecessary logjams for local legislation .
D.C. residents weren ’ t allowed to elect a mayor or City Council until 1966 , and a clause in the U.S. Constitution has allowed Congress more recently to prevent the District from enacting certain laws , such as local gun-safety laws and HIV/AIDS prevention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality helps explain why , in recent months , the fight for D.C. statehood has made marginal progress .
The House Oversight Committee sent a proposal to grant full statehood to the District to the full chamber in February , after Delegate Norton introduced the bill back in January 2019 .
More than 200 co-sponsors and broad support from D.C. residents notwithstanding ( a 2016 referendum saw nearly 80 percent of residents support statehood ) , the bill is unlikely to pass in the Republican-controlled Senate .
But this moment could be an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rahm Emanuel once famously said : Never waste a crisis .
“ This is a prime example because if the District is going to be treated unequally , even during an emergency and national catastrophe , ” Norton told me , “ I think that makes the best case for D.C. statehood.
” Puerto Rico has a population of more than three million , higher than 21 U.S. states .
Similar to residents of the District , citizens of Puerto Rico also have no voting power through their federal government representation .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unable to vote in presidential elections even though they are U.S. citizens .
Crucially , Puerto Ricans know the cost of not having statehood .
After the devastating impacts of hurricanes Irma and Maria , the small island received nowhere near enough federal support to rebuild and recover : While HUD is required to allocate $ 20 billion in aid for Hurricane Maria as the result of various bills , only about $ 1.5 billion of that aid had been released by the end of 2019 .
What ’ s more , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disaster recovery bill in early February—a month after the island was hit by a number of earthquakes halting reconstruction efforts—but the bill has stalled in the Senate .
Now , Puerto Rico needs more help .
As of this writing , the territory has 239 confirmed cases of coronavirus .
Eight Puerto Rico residents thus far have died from it .
Those numbers are surely going to increase .
It ’ s not merely a matter of semantics whether D.C. and Puerto Rico are classified as states and not territories .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People who live in those places will suffer , some will even die , because they lack the rightful political representation afforded to the rest of the country .
If that ’ s not a good enough reason for D.C. and Puerto Rico to become states , what else is ?

The coronavirus pandemic has revealed many flaws in America—from a lack of medical equipment in the federal government’s national emergency stockpile to the fact that there’s no universal requirement for employers to offer paid sick leave. It has also reinforced the need to address certain geographic inequities. Case in point: D.C. and Puerto Rico are less equipped to fight the virus than most of the rest of the nation simply because they are not states.
On Friday, President Donald Trump signed into law a $2 trillion stimulus to rescue the economy from the shock of coronavirus, which will provide millions of Americans with direct cash infusions and will allocate billions of dollars in funding to states and municipalities to fight COVID-19.
But some parts of the country are getting a lot less help than others. As the Washington Post reported, D.C was intentionally classified as a territory instead of a state, cutting the number of federal dollars the District will receive by more than half. Whereas each state will get $1.25 billion, the bill appropriated $3 billion for D.C. and the five U.S. territories—Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa—to be divided by population. D.C. will ultimately get $500 million in relief, less than half of what it would if it were a state.
“I was enraged by the fact that the District of Columbia was going to be shortchanged,” Senator Chris Van Hollen told the Post, which reported that Democrats tried to classify D.C. as a state in the legislation but that Republicans shut it down as a deal-breaker. This reveals yet another reason why it’s necessary for Democrats to start pushing strenuously for D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood.
It’s not just for their own political advantage; as Ben Paviour explained in a 2018 Monthly piece, the party stands to gain a lot by adding four more Democratic senators and several House members. It’s a moral imperative. Without this representation, these areas are grossly neglected, particularly in times of crisis.
D.C. and Puerto Rico don’t have the representatives to lobby for them when it matters. This dynamic was also on display when Congress made decisions about disaster relief for Puerto Rico following its devastating hurricanes and earthquakes. The House and Senate took months to come to a consensus about the amount of aid the territory would receive, leaving the disaster relief unresolved for a dangerous amount of time.
Now, with the stimulus (the largest in American history), the District has also seen the financial consequences of being without statehood. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents D.C. as a non-voting member of the House, told the Monthly that this issue never would have occurred if the District had full representation in the House and Senate. “If we had had two senators, this issue would not have come up,” Norton said. “There would have been no notion that any states should have been shortchanged in this way. It’s another indication of why we need D.C. statehood.”
As of Monday night, 495 D.C. residents have tested positive for COVID-19, and nine residents have died from the virus. These numbers rank the District higher than 16 states in the number of positive cases. In addition to the District proper, there are more than 1,000 confirmed cases in the D.C.-Maryland-Virginia area.
D.C.’s population of more 700,000 is greater than the population of two states—Vermont and Wyoming—and comparable to two others, Alaska and North Dakota. The District’s status as an urban, densely-packed region means the inherent close-contact nature of a city makes residents much more susceptible to the virus: an effect New York City, the current epicenter of America’s coronavirus crisis, is now experiencing.
“Because the District is a city and we live in closer quarters than in neighboring states, I think that is why we have more cases than 18 states,” Norton said. “So, our need is really very great compared to most states.”
Norton expects the deficit in funding to be fixed retroactively; she said the District is likely to receive further funds in future relief bills.
Still, the problem of statehood remains at the core of why D.C. is behind the curve in the first place. It’s also a reason why the District has been historically left behind. Despite having no Congressional voting power, D.C. residents are still required to pay federal taxes, and laws and budgets passed in the District must obtain Congressional approval to come into law, leading to unnecessary logjams for local legislation. D.C. residents weren’t allowed to elect a mayor or City Council until 1966, and a clause in the U.S. Constitution has allowed Congress more recently to prevent the District from enacting certain laws, such as local gun-safety laws and HIV/AIDS prevention measures.
A growing recognition of this reality helps explain why, in recent months, the fight for D.C. statehood has made marginal progress. The House Oversight Committee sent a proposal to grant full statehood to the District to the full chamber in February, after Delegate Norton introduced the bill back in January 2019. More than 200 co-sponsors and broad support from D.C. residents notwithstanding (a 2016 referendum saw nearly 80 percent of residents support statehood), the bill is unlikely to pass in the Republican-controlled Senate.
But this moment could be an opportunity to move public opinion. As Rahm Emanuel once famously said: Never waste a crisis. “This is a prime example because if the District is going to be treated unequally, even during an emergency and national catastrophe,” Norton told me. “I think that makes the best case for D.C. statehood.”
Puerto Rico has a population of more than three million, higher than 21 U.S. states. Similar to residents of the District, citizens of Puerto Rico also have no voting power through their federal government representation. But unlike D.C. residents, Puerto Ricans are unable to vote in presidential elections even though they are U.S. citizens.
Crucially, Puerto Ricans know the cost of not having statehood. After the devastating impacts of hurricanes Irma and Maria, the small island received nowhere near enough federal support to rebuild and recover: While HUD is required to allocate $20 billion in aid for Hurricane Maria as the result of various bills, only about $1.5 billion of that aid had been released by the end of 2019. What’s more, the House passed an additional $4.7 billion disaster recovery bill in early February—a month after the island was hit by a number of earthquakes halting reconstruction efforts—but the bill has stalled in the Senate.
Now, Puerto Rico needs more help. As of this writing, the territory has 239 confirmed cases of coronavirus. Eight Puerto Rico residents thus far have died from it. Those numbers are surely going to increase.
It’s not merely a matter of semantics whether D.C. and Puerto Rico are classified as states and not territories. It’s one of equality and justice. People who live in those places will suffer, some will even die, because they lack the rightful political representation afforded to the rest of the country. If that’s not a good enough reason for D.C. and Puerto Rico to become states, what else is?


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-01--How Internet Thermometers Are Helping During This Pandemic

Seemingly everything is a potential invasion of our privacy these days , which is precisely why I ’ d ordinarily be about the last person to buy an internet-connected thermometer .
But it turns out that it ’ s a very good thing that this product exists .
Made by a company called Kinsa Health , the thermometers allow us to pick up hot spots where an unusual number of people are running fevers .
Kinsa ’ s thermometers upload the user ’ s temperature readings to a centralized database ; the data enable the company to track fevers across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s thermometers can type other symptoms into a cellphone app after taking their temperature .
The app offers basic advice on whether they should seek medical attention .
Kinsa has more than one million thermometers in circulation and has been getting up to 162,000 daily temperature readings since Covid-19 began spreading in the country .
This serves as a better early warning device than anything the government possesses .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tries to pick up on flu outbreaks through a clunky reporting system that relies on doctors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t generally go to see a doctor on the first day that they ’ re running a fever .
The thermometer data come in quicker and are easy to sort .
The thermometers are now serving another valuable purpose .
Quarantines and self-isolation have been in place in enough places for enough time for Kinsa to measure their effectiveness .
The good news is that our disruptive safety precautions seem to be working .
To identify clusters of coronavirus infections , Kinsa recently adapted its software to detect spikes of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with historical flu patterns and are likely attributable to the coronavirus .
As of noon Wednesday , the company ’ s live map showed fevers holding steady or dropping almost universally across the country , with two prominent exceptions .
One was in a broad swath of New Mexico , where the governor had issued stay-at-home orders only the day before , and in adjacent counties in Southern Colorado .
By Friday morning , fevers in every county in the country were on a downward trend , depicted in four shades of blue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially rapidly in the West , from Utah to California and from Washington down to Arizona ; in many Western counties , the numbers of people reporting high fevers fell by almost 20 percent .
The numbers were also declining rapidly in Maine .
The parts of New Mexico and Colorado that had been slightly “ warm ” on Wednesday were in light blue , indicating that they were cooling .
So were the Louisiana counties .
One thing they ’ ve discovered is that “ simply declaring a state of emergency or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not affect the number of people reporting fevers , ” but “ closing restaurants and bars and asking people to stay in their homes produced dramatic results.
” For example , in Manhattan , reports of fevers steadily rose during early March , despite a declaration of emergency on March 7 and an order on March 12 that public gatherings be restricted to less than 500 people .
The turning point began on March 16 , the day schools were closed .
Bars and restaurants were closed the next day , and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
By March 23 , new fevers in Manhattan were below their March 1 levels .
Last Friday , New York State ’ s own data showed the same trend that Kinsa ’ s fever readings had spotted five days earlier .
We ’ re seeing a lot of really alarming news out of New York City about the spread of COVID-19 , so it ’ s encouraging to know that there is good reason to believe that they ’ re preventing new infections .
When this pandemic is over and we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we ’ re better prepared in the future , I think the early detection afforded by opt-in internet-thermometers will have to be a big part of the government ’ s solution .
It really should help save lives , and not only with novel viruses .
More visibility on more familiar flu outbreaks will help us hold done how many people die from influenza each year , and so will many of other things we ’ ve learned during this crisis , like how to avoid spreading our sickness to others .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of those thermometers would be a public service rather than just another way to have my life tracked .
I ’ m also comforted to know that there ’ s a point to being locked in my house .

Seemingly everything is a potential invasion of our privacy these days, which is precisely why I’d ordinarily be about the last person to buy an internet-connected thermometer. But it turns out that it’s a very good thing that this product exists. Made by a company called Kinsa Health, the thermometers allow us to pick up hot spots where an unusual number of people are running fevers.
Kinsa’s thermometers upload the user’s temperature readings to a centralized database; the data enable the company to track fevers across the United States. Owners of Kinsa’s thermometers can type other symptoms into a cellphone app after taking their temperature. The app offers basic advice on whether they should seek medical attention. Kinsa has more than one million thermometers in circulation and has been getting up to 162,000 daily temperature readings since Covid-19 began spreading in the country.
This serves as a better early warning device than anything the government possesses. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tries to pick up on flu outbreaks through a clunky reporting system that relies on doctors’ offices and hospitals, but people don’t generally go to see a doctor on the first day that they’re running a fever. The thermometer data come in quicker and are easy to sort.
The thermometers are now serving another valuable purpose. Quarantines and self-isolation have been in place in enough places for enough time for Kinsa to measure their effectiveness. The good news is that our disruptive safety precautions seem to be working.
To identify clusters of coronavirus infections, Kinsa recently adapted its software to detect spikes of “atypical fever” that do not correlate with historical flu patterns and are likely attributable to the coronavirus. As of noon Wednesday, the company’s live map showed fevers holding steady or dropping almost universally across the country, with two prominent exceptions. One was in a broad swath of New Mexico, where the governor had issued stay-at-home orders only the day before, and in adjacent counties in Southern Colorado. By Friday morning, fevers in every county in the country were on a downward trend, depicted in four shades of blue on the map. Fevers were dropping especially rapidly in the West, from Utah to California and from Washington down to Arizona; in many Western counties, the numbers of people reporting high fevers fell by almost 20 percent. The numbers were also declining rapidly in Maine. The parts of New Mexico and Colorado that had been slightly “warm” on Wednesday were in light blue, indicating that they were cooling. So were the Louisiana counties.
One thing they’ve discovered is that “simply declaring a state of emergency or limiting the size of public gatherings did not affect the number of people reporting fevers,” but “closing restaurants and bars and asking people to stay in their homes produced dramatic results.”
For example, in Manhattan, reports of fevers steadily rose during early March, despite a declaration of emergency on March 7 and an order on March 12 that public gatherings be restricted to less than 500 people. The turning point began on March 16, the day schools were closed. Bars and restaurants were closed the next day, and a stay-at-home order took effect on March 20. By March 23, new fevers in Manhattan were below their March 1 levels. Last Friday, New York State’s own data showed the same trend that Kinsa’s fever readings had spotted five days earlier.
We’re seeing a lot of really alarming news out of New York City about the spread of COVID-19, so it’s encouraging to know that there is good reason to believe that they’re preventing new infections.
When this pandemic is over and we’re trying to learn our lessons so that we’re better prepared in the future, I think the early detection afforded by opt-in internet-thermometers will have to be a big part of the government’s solution. It really should help save lives, and not only with novel viruses. More visibility on more familiar flu outbreaks will help us hold done how many people die from influenza each year, and so will many of other things we’ve learned during this crisis, like how to avoid spreading our sickness to others.
Now I’m thinking maybe buying one of those thermometers would be a public service rather than just another way to have my life tracked. I’m also comforted to know that there’s a point to being locked in my house.