washingtonmonthly--2020-03-20--McConnell Can Ignore Senate Democrats, But Not Pelosi

As I suggested previously , the economic crisis facing American workers is unfolding at least as fast as the coronavirus is spreading—perhaps even more so .
For example , here ’ s the news from Pennsylvania .
That news comes amidst a report that the White House has asked states to not report their unemployment numbers—replicating Trump ’ s attempt to keep the number of coronavirus cases in the country quiet .
There can be no doubt that the president is truly delusional , assuming that if Americans don ’ t hear the news , it will simply go away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary , Steve Mnuchin , is forecasting that unemployment will reach 20 percent .
While it ’ s hard to believe anything coming from this White House , that tracks with an NPR/PBS poll , which found that as of March 14th , 18 percent of respondents said they had already been let go or had their hours reduced .
Derek Thompson reminds us of who is going to get hurt the worst .
Ground zero for the pandemic ’ s threat to the labor force are the face-to-face services and leisure economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shut down by governments to prevent the spread of the virus… The workers in these sectors—salespeople , waiters , hotel desk clerks , groundskeepers , maids , and entertainment attendants—have a few things in common : First , their average annual wages are less than $ 30,000 , including tips , according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics… Second , they have the fewest labor protections , such as paid sick leave , and in many cases their tips don ’ t count as income when they apply for unemployment insurance .
Third @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work from home .
Thompson sums things up well when he writes that , “ the virus may swing the economy from the lowest unemployment rate since the 1950s to the highest rate since the 1930s.
” The urgency of this situation is dire , which is why both Republicans and Democrats are working feverishly on a “ phase 3 ” stimulus package to shore up the economy .
On Thursday night , Senate Republicans released their plan that has been crafted behind closed doors without any input from Democrats .
You can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve included in this article by Caitlin Emma and Jennifer Scholtes .
It includes loans and loan guarantees for the airline industry , small business loans , and financial support for hospitals and providers who are treating coronavirus patients .
When it comes to American workers who are struggling financially , this is what they ’ ve included .
…a direct payment to qualified Americans of up to $ 1,200 .
Married couples could get $ 2,400 .
Taxpayers who earn more than $ 75,000 annually will begin to see that payment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100 they earn over the $ 75,000 threshold , with those who make more than $ 99,000 getting nothing .
Families with children would get $ 500 per child .
While a Treasury Department outline circulated earlier in the week had called for two payments from the IRS — one each in April and May — the Senate GOP proposal only calls for one check at this time .
In addition to only being a one-time payment , there ’ s this issue : While various Democrats have proposed the inclusion of restrictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out major industries , the overwhelming issue with the Republican proposal for direct cash payments to individual Americans is that it is entirely insufficient .
McConnell knows that this will be a problem for Democrats , which is why he is going to try to rush this proposal through the Senate .
It is very likely that what McConnell will do is use his vast knowledge of Senate procedures to push his bill through on Monday and limit the ability of members to negotiate changes or propose amendments .
That will place Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either vote in favor of McConnell ’ s bill or nothing .
In defending his exclusion of Democrats in crafting his bill , McConnell suggested that this was the fastest way to get something done .
That would be true if your only goal was to pass a bill in the Senate .
But to actually get some relief out to American workers , it will also have to pass the House .
House Democrats are still finalizing their plan and , when it passes , the two bills will go to conference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ differences .
As things are taking shape , that is where the actual negotiations will happen .
Eventually , McConnell and his colleagues will have to deal with Nancy Pelosi .

As I suggested previously, the economic crisis facing American workers is unfolding at least as fast as the coronavirus is spreading—perhaps even more so. For example, here’s the news from Pennsylvania.
Robert O’Brien, the state’s deputy secretary of labor and industry, said the government had been overwhelmed by a flood of unemployment insurance claims — 180,000 in the last few days. He said that was far more than the state usually gets in a whole month.
That news comes amidst a report that the White House has asked states to not report their unemployment numbers—replicating Trump’s attempt to keep the number of coronavirus cases in the country quiet. There can be no doubt that the president is truly delusional, assuming that if Americans don’t hear the news, it will simply go away.
Meanwhile, Trump’s Treasury Secretary, Steve Mnuchin, is forecasting that unemployment will reach 20 percent. While it’s hard to believe anything coming from this White House, that tracks with an NPR/PBS poll, which found that as of March 14th, 18 percent of respondents said they had already been let go or had their hours reduced. Derek Thompson reminds us of who is going to get hurt the worst.
Ground zero for the pandemic’s threat to the labor force are the face-to-face services and leisure economy, much of which have been forcibly shut down by governments to prevent the spread of the virus… The workers in these sectors—salespeople, waiters, hotel desk clerks, groundskeepers, maids, and entertainment attendants—have a few things in common: First, their average annual wages are less than $30,000, including tips, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics… Second, they have the fewest labor protections, such as paid sick leave, and in many cases their tips don’t count as income when they apply for unemployment insurance. Third, they can’t do their work from home.
Thompson sums things up well when he writes that, “the virus may swing the economy from the lowest unemployment rate since the 1950s to the highest rate since the 1930s.”
The urgency of this situation is dire, which is why both Republicans and Democrats are working feverishly on a “phase 3” stimulus package to shore up the economy. On Thursday night, Senate Republicans released their plan that has been crafted behind closed doors without any input from Democrats. You can read a good summary of what they’ve included in this article by Caitlin Emma and Jennifer Scholtes. It includes loans and loan guarantees for the airline industry, small business loans, and financial support for hospitals and providers who are treating coronavirus patients. When it comes to American workers who are struggling financially, this is what they’ve included.
…a direct payment to qualified Americans of up to $1,200. Married couples could get $2,400. Taxpayers who earn more than $75,000 annually will begin to see that payment reduced by $5 for every $100 they earn over the $75,000 threshold, with those who make more than $99,000 getting nothing. Families with children would get $500 per child. While a Treasury Department outline circulated earlier in the week had called for two payments from the IRS — one each in April and May — the Senate GOP proposal only calls for one check at this time.
In addition to only being a one-time payment, there’s this issue:
The poorest families, those with no federal income tax liability, would see smaller benefits, though the minimum would be set at $600…About 22 million people earning under $40,000 a year would see no benefit under the GOP plan, according to an initial analysis by Ernie Tedeschi, a former Obama administration economist.
While various Democrats have proposed the inclusion of restrictions on money that is spent to bail out major industries, the overwhelming issue with the Republican proposal for direct cash payments to individual Americans is that it is entirely insufficient. McConnell knows that this will be a problem for Democrats, which is why he is going to try to rush this proposal through the Senate.
It is very likely that what McConnell will do is use his vast knowledge of Senate procedures to push his bill through on Monday and limit the ability of members to negotiate changes or propose amendments. That will place Senate Democrats in the position of having to either vote in favor of McConnell’s bill or nothing.
In defending his exclusion of Democrats in crafting his bill, McConnell suggested that this was the fastest way to get something done. That would be true if your only goal was to pass a bill in the Senate. But to actually get some relief out to American workers, it will also have to pass the House.
House Democrats are still finalizing their plan and, when it passes, the two bills will go to conference committee in order to iron out the differences. As things are taking shape, that is where the actual negotiations will happen. Eventually, McConnell and his colleagues will have to deal with Nancy Pelosi.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-20--Could the Democrats Win a Filibuster-Proof Senate Majority?

One thing I can say with confidence is that what comes after this pandemic will have only a passing resemblance to what preceded it , which means that none of our political assumptions are safe .
That definitely goes for the red/blue divide in this country , and for what seats should be considered safe .
The Cook Political Report ( subscription only ) now believes that the Democrats have a 50 percent chance of winning control of the Senate : “ Biden leading the ticket , instead of Sanders , was the first blow for Republicans , making the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between socialism and the Democratic Party much harder .
But then came the COVID-19 outbreak .
The Trump administration ’ s slow reaction to manage this health crisis has many Republicans worrying a souring environment will only further endanger already vulnerable GOP senators.
” “ One top Republican strategist described it as the ‘ perfect storm ’ against them .
All these things taken together mean that the chances of Democrats taking back the Senate are rising , and is now close to 50-50 odds.
” I ’ m a little bit more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats ’ odds were at least that good before the coronavirus crisis overtook the world .
They only need a net gain of three seats to win control if Biden wins the election , and a net four seats if he doesn ’ t ( because the vice-president breaks 50-50 ties in the Senate ) .
The most likely path was for the Democrats to win seats in Arizona , Colorado , Maine and North Carolina .
Assuming that Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama won ’ t be able to hold his seat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get the Democrats to 50-50 .
I figured this was not only doable , but likely .
Now I ’ m wondering what it would take for the Democrats to win a filibuster-proof 60 seats .
Consider that Goldman Sachs is now predicting a 24 percent economic contraction in the second quarter .
Or , ponder the possible fallout from senators selling off stocks after receiving a private briefing on the severity of the pandemic threat while keeping their constituents in the dark .
All but one of the senators so far implicated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senators representing Georgia .
Until recently , the contest in Montana didn ’ t look competitive , but now Democratic Governor Steve Bullock has changed course and agreed to run for Steve Daines ’ s senate seat .
The first poll of the race shows it dead-even .
Another race that looks newly competitive is in Alaska , where the Democrats have agreed not to field a candidate .
Incumbent Republican Dan Sullivan isn ’ t even from Alaska and his opponent is an orthopedic surgeon who intended all along to run on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Alaskans .
Al Gross will run as an independent , but he ’ ll caucus with the Democrats if he wins .
Think of him as a cross between Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont .
The race in Texas was already looking like it might give the Republicans trouble , with Air Force veteran MJ Heger going up against John Cornyn .
But Cornyn will be especially vulnerable as the number two behind Mitch McConnell in the Senate leadership .
If this race looked lean-Republican before the crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toss-up now .
And for the same reasons , Mitch McConnell could actually be defeated this time around , as he ’ s also facing a woman and a military veteran in Amy McGrath .
He ’ s never been very popular at home , often rating as the least liked senator among his own constituents .
Kentucky rates as one of Trump ’ s strongest states , but if they begin to waver a bit on that McConnell could find himself underwater just as Governor Matt Bevin recently did in his reelection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Carolina , but his strategy has been to tie himself as closely as possible to Trump .
This could backfire on him if the public perceives Trump as having failed as president .
Even prior to the pandemic , Graham was looking a little weak in head-to-head polls with Democratic challenger Jaime Harrison .
The political terrain after this becomes more difficult .
On paper , the easiest picking is in Iowa where Joni Ernst is seeking reelection , presumably against Theresa Greenfield .
Polling has shown the Republicans with stubborn strength @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s also a state with a history of swinging either way .
The Democrats are feeling pretty good about their recruit in Kansas .
Barbara Bollier is a former Republican who bolted when Sam Brownback ’ s administration was too much for her .
She has the right profile to win this seat that is being vacated by Sen. Pat Roberts , but Kansas hasn ’ t sent a Democratic senator to Washington since the 1930s .
At this point , I ’ ve identified 13 Republican-held seats that conceivably fall : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , North Carolina , South Carolina , Georgia ( 2 ) , Kentucky , Alaska , Iowa , Kansas , and Texas .
That would get the Democrats to 60 seats if Doug Jones wins reelection in Alabama , and 59 if he does not .
For insurance , the Democrats would have to pull off some kind of miracle .
There ’ s an open seat in Tennessee where Lamar Alexander is retiring .
Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe is one of the senators who sold stocks after being briefed on the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans , relies on the overwhelming support of white voters and any significant erosion of that support could put her in jeopardy .
She has a fairly strong opponent in Mike Espy .
Outside of these races , it ’ s hard for me to foresee circumstances that could lead to Republican defeats in Wyoming ( although it is an open seat ) , Idaho , South Dakota , West Virginia , or Arkansas .
And there are a couple of Democratic seats that aren ’ t complete locks ( e.g .
Minnesota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in New Mexico ) .
Still , I can picture a political atmosphere in November that is so toxic to incumbent Republican senators that it could produce a net loss of 13 seats .
It ’ s in no way likely to happen , but neither is it impossible .
As I said at the top , the only thing I ’ m sure about is that the future will only have a passing resemblance to the past .
I remember when Ronald Reagan carried 49 states , including Hawaii , Massachusetts and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a state may seem for one party , there are extraordinary circumstances that can defy expectations .
This pandemic has the potential to create a very wide range of responses from the electorate .
If the response is hostile to Trump and his congressional enablers , there could be a very strong wipeout in the Senate , and a new Democratic president empowered to pass their platform .

One thing I can say with confidence is that what comes after this pandemic will have only a passing resemblance to what preceded it, which means that none of our political assumptions are safe. That definitely goes for the red/blue divide in this country, and for what seats should be considered safe.
The Cook Political Report (subscription only) now believes that the Democrats have a 50 percent chance of winning control of the Senate:
“Biden leading the ticket, instead of Sanders, was the first blow for Republicans, making the ties they’d hoped to make between socialism and the Democratic Party much harder. But then came the COVID-19 outbreak. The Trump administration’s slow reaction to manage this health crisis has many Republicans worrying a souring environment will only further endanger already vulnerable GOP senators.” “One top Republican strategist described it as the ‘perfect storm’ against them. All these things taken together mean that the chances of Democrats taking back the Senate are rising, and is now close to 50-50 odds.”
I’m a little bit more optimistic than that. I thought the Democrats’ odds were at least that good before the coronavirus crisis overtook the world. They only need a net gain of three seats to win control if Biden wins the election, and a net four seats if he doesn’t (because the vice-president breaks 50-50 ties in the Senate).
The most likely path was for the Democrats to win seats in Arizona, Colorado, Maine and North Carolina. Assuming that Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama won’t be able to hold his seat, that would still be enough to get the Democrats to 50-50. I figured this was not only doable, but likely.
Now I’m wondering what it would take for the Democrats to win a filibuster-proof 60 seats.
Consider that Goldman Sachs is now predicting a 24 percent economic contraction in the second quarter. Or, ponder the possible fallout from senators selling off stocks after receiving a private briefing on the severity of the pandemic threat while keeping their constituents in the dark. All but one of the senators so far implicated are Republicans, including both of the senators representing Georgia.
Until recently, the contest in Montana didn’t look competitive, but now Democratic Governor Steve Bullock has changed course and agreed to run for Steve Daines’s senate seat. The first poll of the race shows it dead-even.
Another race that looks newly competitive is in Alaska, where the Democrats have agreed not to field a candidate. Incumbent Republican Dan Sullivan isn’t even from Alaska and his opponent is an orthopedic surgeon who intended all along to run on health care, which is exorbitantly expensive for Alaskans. Al Gross will run as an independent, but he’ll caucus with the Democrats if he wins. Think of him as a cross between Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
The race in Texas was already looking like it might give the Republicans trouble, with Air Force veteran MJ Heger going up against John Cornyn. But Cornyn will be especially vulnerable as the number two behind Mitch McConnell in the Senate leadership. If this race looked lean-Republican before the crisis, it seems like at least a toss-up now.
And for the same reasons, Mitch McConnell could actually be defeated this time around, as he’s also facing a woman and a military veteran in Amy McGrath. He’s never been very popular at home, often rating as the least liked senator among his own constituents. Kentucky rates as one of Trump’s strongest states, but if they begin to waver a bit on that McConnell could find himself underwater just as Governor Matt Bevin recently did in his reelection bid.
Lindsey Graham seems safe in South Carolina, but his strategy has been to tie himself as closely as possible to Trump. This could backfire on him if the public perceives Trump as having failed as president. Even prior to the pandemic, Graham was looking a little weak in head-to-head polls with Democratic challenger Jaime Harrison.
The political terrain after this becomes more difficult. On paper, the easiest picking is in Iowa where Joni Ernst is seeking reelection, presumably against Theresa Greenfield. Polling has shown the Republicans with stubborn strength in the Hawkeye State, but it’s also a state with a history of swinging either way.
The Democrats are feeling pretty good about their recruit in Kansas. Barbara Bollier is a former Republican who bolted when Sam Brownback’s administration was too much for her. She has the right profile to win this seat that is being vacated by Sen. Pat Roberts, but Kansas hasn’t sent a Democratic senator to Washington since the 1930s.
At this point, I’ve identified 13 Republican-held seats that conceivably fall: Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Maine, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia (2), Kentucky, Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, and Texas. That would get the Democrats to 60 seats if Doug Jones wins reelection in Alabama, and 59 if he does not.
For insurance, the Democrats would have to pull off some kind of miracle. There’s an open seat in Tennessee where Lamar Alexander is retiring. Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe is one of the senators who sold stocks after being briefed on the coronavirus. Cindy Hyde-Smith, like all Mississippi Republicans, relies on the overwhelming support of white voters and any significant erosion of that support could put her in jeopardy. She has a fairly strong opponent in Mike Espy.
Outside of these races, it’s hard for me to foresee circumstances that could lead to Republican defeats in Wyoming (although it is an open seat), Idaho, South Dakota, West Virginia, or Arkansas. And there are a couple of Democratic seats that aren’t complete locks (e.g. Minnesota, Michigan, and an open seat in New Mexico).
Still, I can picture a political atmosphere in November that is so toxic to incumbent Republican senators that it could produce a net loss of 13 seats. It’s in no way likely to happen, but neither is it impossible.
As I said at the top, the only thing I’m sure about is that the future will only have a passing resemblance to the past. I remember when Ronald Reagan carried 49 states, including Hawaii, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. No matter how safe a state may seem for one party, there are extraordinary circumstances that can defy expectations. This pandemic has the potential to create a very wide range of responses from the electorate. If the response is hostile to Trump and his congressional enablers, there could be a very strong wipeout in the Senate, and a new Democratic president empowered to pass their platform.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-23--The Pain of Not Preparing For a Pandemic

World War II ’ s occupations , trench warfare , shooting and bombing , and the starvation that followed , killed 20 million .
The war ’ s casualties split nearly evenly between military and civilian deaths ; Americans and Europeans .
Since then , lethal pandemics have lurked as a danger to our globalizing societies .
The real threat and risk were always understood by public-health policy analysts and scenario-planning government agencies.Publicly , we had our own recent reminders : SARS , MERS , H1N1 , Ebola .
Citizens and leaders judged this threat to be off in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more comfortable way to go about our daily lives .
It was easier for us to focus on our routines , invest in future markets and defer , or completely ignore , historic precedent .
In the best case , we thought we could confront threatening outbreaks when the time arrived , before they became epidemics .
In the worst case , we told ourselves we could head off those epidemics before they developed into pandemics .
That seemingly distant dystopian future has arrived , and we all feel as if we were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the thing : We should not be surprised .
We should have been ready .
This is not an “ I told you so ” moment .
For years , people such as Dr. Peter Piot have been telling us this was going to happen .
The warnings have not been subtle , either .
Piot wrote the 2012 book “ No Time to Lose ” declaring that the world was not planning for the next big , hard-to-contain pandemic .
His experience told him that next time—this time ?
—perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Piot is not a fearmonger .
He is the microbiologist credited with discovering Ebola .
He ’ s been a senior official at the World Health Organization , the United Nations and the Gates Foundation .
He currently is the director of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine .
I had a long talk with him in 2018 and walked away shell-shocked , fearful that a public health pandemic was looming .
Piot said a pandemic like COVID-19 was inevitable .
For years now he ’ s been telling us what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how to do it .
First , society needs to recognize that an outbreak ’ s containment begins locally .
Local action failed in this case , China ’ s repressive political system prevented the honest dissemination of information on the initial outbreak .
By the time the real news got out and the rest of China and the world became aware of the coronavirus ’ contagious spread , it was too late .
Early containment was the key to stopping this thing in its tracks , buying time to develop a vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be controlled .
Instead , we have witnessed failure all around .
Piot says that containing a potential pandemic requires political leadership and will .
We have seen an absence of both .
What was a preventable public health problem has now mutated into a global economic crisis .
Piot was not the only one to warn us .
He used his amplified voice and platform , but so did others , such as Laurie Garrett in her award-winning 1994 book , “ The Coming Plague.
” Movies , too , presented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pandemic ’ s consequences , as in Steven Soderbergh ’ s 2011 “ Contagion.
” Despite the warnings , the fears and the expectation that this was coming , the COVID-19 virus is all around us now .
Global preparation was weak , and the initial American response was anemic .
Seemingly normal , safe , everyday life is upended by a simple , invisible , potentially invincible virus .
We shelter in place .
We worry about society ’ s most vulnerable : the elderly , those with weak immune systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cracks of our healthcare systems or struggle to keep a roof over their heads .
Our executive leadership ignored the warning signs and the experts .
Our federal government had the tools and the resources to do something , but failed to target them and failed to plan .
As we continue to suffer the consequences and wake up daily to a new challenge—more deaths—and early finger-pointing , how can we be certain that the next big global threat will be met ?
Nuclear-weapon agreements are lapsing .
Sophisticated cyber weapons can take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Biological hazards abound .
There are plenty of experts and authors sounding the alarm .
If this pandemic achieves anything positive , it should be to prepare us for future threats to our survival and way of life .

World War II’s occupations, trench warfare, shooting and bombing, and the starvation that followed, killed 20 million. The war’s casualties split nearly evenly between military and civilian deaths; Americans and Europeans.
Since then, lethal pandemics have lurked as a danger to our globalizing societies. The real threat and risk were always understood by public-health policy analysts and scenario-planning government agencies. Publicly, we had our own recent reminders: SARS, MERS, H1N1, Ebola. Citizens and leaders judged this threat to be off in the far distance. That illusion was a more comfortable way to go about our daily lives. It was easier for us to focus on our routines, invest in future markets and defer, or completely ignore, historic precedent. In the best case, we thought we could confront threatening outbreaks when the time arrived, before they became epidemics. In the worst case, we told ourselves we could head off those epidemics before they developed into pandemics.
That seemingly distant dystopian future has arrived, and we all feel as if we were somehow caught off-guard, unprepared.
Here’s the thing: We should not be surprised. We should have been ready.
This is not an “I told you so” moment. For years, people such as Dr. Peter Piot have been telling us this was going to happen.
The warnings have not been subtle, either. Piot wrote the 2012 book “No Time to Lose” declaring that the world was not planning for the next big, hard-to-contain pandemic. His experience told him that next time—this time?—perhaps millions of people worldwide could die.
Piot is not a fearmonger. He is the microbiologist credited with discovering Ebola. He’s been a senior official at the World Health Organization, the United Nations and the Gates Foundation. He currently is the director of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. I had a long talk with him in 2018 and walked away shell-shocked, fearful that a public health pandemic was looming.
Piot said a pandemic like COVID-19 was inevitable. For years now he’s been telling us what to do as a society, and how to do it.
First, society needs to recognize that an outbreak’s containment begins locally. Local action failed in this case, China’s repressive political system prevented the honest dissemination of information on the initial outbreak. By the time the real news got out and the rest of China and the world became aware of the coronavirus’ contagious spread, it was too late. Early containment was the key to stopping this thing in its tracks, buying time to develop a vaccine and gaining public confidence that the disease could be controlled.
Instead, we have witnessed failure all around.
Piot says that containing a potential pandemic requires political leadership and will. We have seen an absence of both. What was a preventable public health problem has now mutated into a global economic crisis.
Piot was not the only one to warn us. He used his amplified voice and platform, but so did others, such as Laurie Garrett in her award-winning 1994 book, “The Coming Plague.” Movies, too, presented us an extreme and graphic version of a pandemic’s consequences, as in Steven Soderbergh’s 2011 “Contagion.”
Despite the warnings, the fears and the expectation that this was coming, the COVID-19 virus is all around us now. Global preparation was weak, and the initial American response was anemic.
Seemingly normal, safe, everyday life is upended by a simple, invisible, potentially invincible virus. We shelter in place. We worry about society’s most vulnerable: the elderly, those with weak immune systems, the ones who slip through the cracks of our healthcare systems or struggle to keep a roof over their heads.
Our executive leadership ignored the warning signs and the experts. Our federal government had the tools and the resources to do something, but failed to target them and failed to plan. As we continue to suffer the consequences and wake up daily to a new challenge—more deaths—and early finger-pointing, how can we be certain that the next big global threat will be met?
Heed the warning signs.
Nuclear-weapon agreements are lapsing. Sophisticated cyber weapons can take down a nation’s strategic infrastructure. Biological hazards abound. There are plenty of experts and authors sounding the alarm. If this pandemic achieves anything positive, it should be to prepare us for future threats to our survival and way of life.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-23--Generation X Will Govern a Country It Hardly Recognizes

I was a grown-ass man by the time planes slammed into the World Trade Center in 2001 , and I was nearing forty years of age when the economy collapsed in 2008 .
Those were enormous events in my life , but they weren ’ t formative .
In many ways , my life in politics has been an effort to battle the way we reacted to those traumas because I think they made most Americans go a little crazy .
This is a Generation X type of reaction .
It ’ s a lot different from how younger generations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a chasm in our culture and even among progressives on the left .
Here ’ s how Maggie Astor of the New York Times describes it : The oldest of them were just out of college on 9/11 ; the youngest were not yet born .
Over the two decades that followed , they all came of age under storm clouds : of war , of recession , of mass shootings , wildfires and now a pandemic .
The result is perhaps the most profound generational gap since the 1960s : between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Generation voters who remember one world , and the millennial and Generation Z voters for whom that world never existed .
I never really thought my generation would be lumped with the Silent Generation since the most fundamental fact of my youth was that the 1960s had ruptured everything .
Today , people can look back to the early years of the century and see a recognizable America .
Growing up in the 1970s , the 1950s might as well have been the 1850s .
But I do see the point Ms. Astor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generational gap between Generation X and the Millennials in the massive difference in who they support for the Democratic presidential nomination .
And you can see the discomfort Millennials and Gen Y folks have with not getting their way .
They ’ re coming into their own , but it ’ s Gen X ’ s time to run the country .
We ’ ve waited patiently for the Boomers to pass the torch and we won ’ t be skipped over .
At the same time , nothing is ever going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is over .
The old debates about big and small government are over .
Many of the death-grip battles of the Boomer generation will be set aside or diminished in importance , and that ’ s been a lifelong goal of Gen X ’ ers .
I think we will discover our destiny was to serve as a bridge between the old and the new rather than a force in our own right .
We ’ re here to keep the porridge from getting too hot or cold .
For the next twenty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the most power in the country , but we ’ ll be living in a world we hardly recognize .
It ’ s a big responsibility , it ’ s not what we expected , but I think we ’ re up to the challenge .

I was a grown-ass man by the time planes slammed into the World Trade Center in 2001, and I was nearing forty years of age when the economy collapsed in 2008. Those were enormous events in my life, but they weren’t formative. In many ways, my life in politics has been an effort to battle the way we reacted to those traumas because I think they made most Americans go a little crazy. This is a Generation X type of reaction. It’s a lot different from how younger generations have responded, and this has created a chasm in our culture and even among progressives on the left. Here’s how Maggie Astor of the New York Times describes it:
The oldest of them were just out of college on 9/11; the youngest were not yet born. Over the two decades that followed, they all came of age under storm clouds: of war, of recession, of mass shootings, wildfires and now a pandemic. The result is perhaps the most profound generational gap since the 1960s: between the Generation X, baby boomer and Silent Generation voters who remember one world, and the millennial and Generation Z voters for whom that world never existed.
I never really thought my generation would be lumped with the Silent Generation since the most fundamental fact of my youth was that the 1960s had ruptured everything. Today, people can look back to the early years of the century and see a recognizable America. Growing up in the 1970s, the 1950s might as well have been the 1850s.
But I do see the point Ms. Astor is making. You can see the generational gap between Generation X and the Millennials in the massive difference in who they support for the Democratic presidential nomination. And you can see the discomfort Millennials and Gen Y folks have with not getting their way. They’re coming into their own, but it’s Gen X’s time to run the country. We’ve waited patiently for the Boomers to pass the torch and we won’t be skipped over.
At the same time, nothing is ever going to be the same after the coronavirus pandemic is over. The old debates about big and small government are over. Many of the death-grip battles of the Boomer generation will be set aside or diminished in importance, and that’s been a lifelong goal of Gen X’ers.
I think we will discover our destiny was to serve as a bridge between the old and the new rather than a force in our own right. We’re here to keep the porridge from getting too hot or cold. For the next twenty years or so, Gen X will have the most power in the country, but we’ll be living in a world we hardly recognize. It’s a big responsibility, it’s not what we expected, but I think we’re up to the challenge.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-23--The GOP Principles That Paved the Way For Massive Suffering

One of the critiques that is often leveled at the NeverTrumpers is that , even as they reject the current president ’ s words and deeds , they fail to assume any responsibility for how we got here .
That isn ’ t true of Stuart Stevens , who once served as Mitt Romney ’ s campaign strategist .
He has written a courageous piece titled , “ Republicans like me built this moment .
Then we looked the other way.
” As the country deals with the fallout of this administration ’ s failure to respond to a pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it didn ’ t all start with Donald Trump .
During his 1981 inaugural address , the patron saint of the Republican Party—Ronald Reagan—famously said that “ Government is not the solution to our problem , government is the problem.
” He was articulating a foundational principle of the modern-day GOP , which sees government as the enemy of free-market capitalism .
Leading up to Reagan ’ s election , Republicans used the so-called “ Southern Strategy ” to win over support from the majority of white Americans for their efforts to dismantle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Civil War , they did so under the banner of “ state rights , ” and by claiming that federal government initiatives were designed to help “ those people.
” During the Reagan era , a strategy to “ starve the beast ” was incorporated , which promoted tax cuts as a way to reduce federal revenue .
One of the main proponents of that strategy was Grover Norquist , who famously said , “ I don ’ t want to abolish government .
I simply want to reduce it to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
” Fast forward to 2016 and we have Donald Trump running for president on a promise to “ drain the swamp.
” As we now know , that wasn ’ t an allusion to ending corruption .
While serving as White House chief strategist , Steve Bannon explained that the goal was “ the deconstruction of the administrative state.
” Through a combination of incompetence and malevolence , they have been wildly successful in those efforts .
Because most of the programs and regulations administered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the majority of Americans , advocating for their dissolution has always required subterfuge .
That is why one of the fallbacks has always been to employ racism .
But when it came time to “ starve the beast , ” Republicans invented the lie of “ trickle-down economics , ” suggesting that tax breaks to the wealthy would somehow trickle down to the rest of us .
All of that meant that , as David Roberts wrote , Republicans became the post-truth party .
Republicans thus talk about “ taxes ” and “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the abstract , since Americans oppose them in the abstract even as they support their specific manifestations .
They talk about cutting the deficit even as they slash taxes on the rich and launch unfunded wars .
They talk about free markets even as they subsidize fossil fuels .
They talk about American exceptionalism even as they protect fossil-fuel incumbents and fight research and infrastructure investments .
In short , Republicans have mastered post-truth politics .
They ’ ve realized that their rhetoric doesn ’ t have to bear any connection to their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different slogans , different rationales , different fights , depending on the political landscape of the moment .
They need not feel bound by previous slogans , rationales , or fights .
They ’ ve realized that policy is policy and politics is politics and they can push for the former while waging the latter battle on its own terms .
The two have become entirely unmoored .
In order to sell those lies , Republicans had to reject things like facts , science , and math .
Experts on those matters were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relegated to liberal coastal states ) who were attempting to silence the “ heartland.
” That became a rallying cry of the so-called “ populists ” during the 2016 election .
This cartoon captures what it means to reject elitists who happen to be the experts .
That attitude helps explain how we wound up with a man in the White House whose major claim to fame had previously been to star in a reality television series .
As the saying goes , I ’ m old enough to remember that Republicans howled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Kerry suggested that a president ’ s decision to go to war should pass a global test of legitimacy .
Four years later , they accused President Obama of leading from behind when he attempted to partner with our allies .
Those were the harbingers to Trump ’ s isolationism captured by his “ America First ” mentality .
A Republican president is now presiding over the federal government ’ s response to a pandemic .
He is doing so with a bureaucracy that has been decimated , while he lies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assumes that a virus can be stopped by building walls .
Stevens sums it up by writing , “ What is happening now is the inevitable result of a party that embraced fear , weaponized xenophobia , and regarded facts as dangerous , left-wing landmines that must be avoided.
” Of course , the first order of business for all of us is to get through this pandemic as best we can .
But we should never forget that it wasn ’ t just Trump that failed in his response .
He is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paved the way for needless suffering on a massive scale .

One of the critiques that is often leveled at the NeverTrumpers is that, even as they reject the current president’s words and deeds, they fail to assume any responsibility for how we got here. That isn’t true of Stuart Stevens, who once served as Mitt Romney’s campaign strategist. He has written a courageous piece titled, “Republicans like me built this moment. Then we looked the other way.”
The failures of the government’s response to the coronavirus crisis can be traced directly to some of the toxic fantasies now dear to the Republican Party. Here are a few: Government is bad. Establishment experts are overrated or just plain wrong. Science is suspect. And we can go it alone, the world be damned.
As the country deals with the fallout of this administration’s failure to respond to a pandemic, it is important to remember that it didn’t all start with Donald Trump.
During his 1981 inaugural address, the patron saint of the Republican Party—Ronald Reagan—famously said that “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” He was articulating a foundational principle of the modern-day GOP, which sees government as the enemy of free-market capitalism.
Leading up to Reagan’s election, Republicans used the so-called “Southern Strategy” to win over support from the majority of white Americans for their efforts to dismantle the federal government. Harkening back to the Civil War, they did so under the banner of “state rights,” and by claiming that federal government initiatives were designed to help “those people.”
During the Reagan era, a strategy to “starve the beast” was incorporated, which promoted tax cuts as a way to reduce federal revenue. One of the main proponents of that strategy was Grover Norquist, who famously said, “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”
Fast forward to 2016 and we have Donald Trump running for president on a promise to “drain the swamp.” As we now know, that wasn’t an allusion to ending corruption. While serving as White House chief strategist, Steve Bannon explained that the goal was “the deconstruction of the administrative state.” Through a combination of incompetence and malevolence, they have been wildly successful in those efforts.
Because most of the programs and regulations administered by the federal government are supported by the majority of Americans, advocating for their dissolution has always required subterfuge. That is why one of the fallbacks has always been to employ racism. But when it came time to “starve the beast,” Republicans invented the lie of “trickle-down economics,” suggesting that tax breaks to the wealthy would somehow trickle down to the rest of us.
All of that meant that, as David Roberts wrote, Republicans became the post-truth party.
Republicans thus talk about “taxes” and “spending” and “regulation” in the abstract, since Americans oppose them in the abstract even as they support their specific manifestations. They talk about cutting the deficit even as they slash taxes on the rich and launch unfunded wars. They talk about free markets even as they subsidize fossil fuels. They talk about American exceptionalism even as they protect fossil-fuel incumbents and fight research and infrastructure investments. In short, Republicans have mastered post-truth politics. They’ve realized that their rhetoric doesn’t have to bear any connection to their policy agenda. They can go through different slogans, different rationales, different fights, depending on the political landscape of the moment. They need not feel bound by previous slogans, rationales, or fights. They’ve realized that policy is policy and politics is politics and they can push for the former while waging the latter battle on its own terms. The two have become entirely unmoored.
In order to sell those lies, Republicans had to reject things like facts, science, and math. Experts on those matters were labeled “elitists” (most often relegated to liberal coastal states) who were attempting to silence the “heartland.” That became a rallying cry of the so-called “populists” during the 2016 election. This cartoon captures what it means to reject elitists who happen to be the experts.
That attitude helps explain how we wound up with a man in the White House whose major claim to fame had previously been to star in a reality television series.
As the saying goes, I’m old enough to remember that Republicans howled when, during a 2004 debate, John Kerry suggested that a president’s decision to go to war should pass a global test of legitimacy. Four years later, they accused President Obama of leading from behind when he attempted to partner with our allies. Those were the harbingers to Trump’s isolationism captured by his “America First” mentality.
A Republican president is now presiding over the federal government’s response to a pandemic. He is doing so with a bureaucracy that has been decimated, while he lies, rejects the advice of experts, and assumes that a virus can be stopped by building walls. Stevens sums it up by writing, “What is happening now is the inevitable result of a party that embraced fear, weaponized xenophobia, and regarded facts as dangerous, left-wing landmines that must be avoided.”
Of course, the first order of business for all of us is to get through this pandemic as best we can. But we should never forget that it wasn’t just Trump that failed in his response. He is heir to decades of Republican principles that paved the way for needless suffering on a massive scale.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-24--McConnell Simply Wants to Blame Democrats, So Pelosi Takes Charge

After taking an extended break over the prior weekend , Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is suddenly in a hurry to rush through a stimulus package meant to shore up the economy during the crisis created by the coronavirus .
He has brought his own bill up for a procedural vote twice ( on Sunday and Monday ) , while negotiations between Democrats and the White House were still underway .
The measure failed both times .
Here is how Democratic Senator Brian Schatz described what happened .
Here ’ s how the number two Republican in the Senate reacted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in a nutshell , is that he can ’ t even win the support of Senator Joe Manchin , the one Democrat who is most likely to vote with Republicans .
If he can ’ t get Manchin , McConnell is never going to get enough votes to pass anything in the Senate .
So why bring this bill up for a vote—twice ?
The answer to that question is that it allows someone like Senator Susan Collins to go into a rage against Democrats .
Yes , that is the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her brow and talk about her disappointment when the Republican president committed impeachable offenses .
But now she ’ s really mad !
If you take the time to listen to Collins in that clip , you might notice that she talks about the need to help small businesses , but never once mentioned the big-ticket item in McConnell ’ s bill : a $ 500 billion slush fund for corporate bailouts that Secretary Mnuchin will be able to distribute as he pleases .
But Senator Collins ’ concern about the provision to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she had a hand in writing that portion of the bill , which happens to also include this .
According to language in the bill forwarded to me by a senior Senate Democratic aide , this provision excludes “ nonprofits receiving Medicaid expenditures , ” which would not be eligible for those loans .
This language has been interpreted in some quarters as an effort to deny funding to Planned Parenthood , a longtime GOP target .
But Democratic aides think the language means a lot more than this .
Specifically , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from eligibility for this financial assistance a big range of other nonprofits that get Medicaid funding , such as home and community-based disability providers ; community-based nursing homes , mental health providers and health centers ; group homes for the disabled ; and even rape crisis centers .
So spare us your hair-on-fire rants Ms. Collins , right along with your attempts to paint yourself as a “ moderate ” Republican .
As Michael Grunwald tweeted about her performance on the floor of the Senate , “ when someone demands to pass their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t have another MINUTE to delay , ’ watch your wallet.
” At this point , Speaker Pelosi has had enough .
On Monday , she rolled out a plan for the House to consider .
With a nod to Trump ’ s refusal to take responsibility for his own failures during the coronavirus crisis , they have named the bill , the “ Take Responsibility for Workers and Families Act.
” Along with provisions to aid workers , small businesses , healthcare workers , families , and students , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate Republicans are simply looking for an excuse to blame Democrats , Pelosi is in the process of once again taking charge to get something done for the American people .
Of course , her male opponents aren ’ t real happy about that .
After the Senate suffered a crushing setback on efforts to pass a $ 1.6 trillion coronavirus rescue bill Sunday , Republicans reached for a familiar foe to blame : Speaker Nancy Pelosi .
“ She ’ s the speaker of the House , not the speaker of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one , ” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) said angrily after a key procedural vote failed due to Democratic opposition .
“ We were doing just fine until that intervention.
” As Senate leaders struggled to reach a deal Monday morning , Republicans continued to scapegoat Pelosi , with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R-Calif. ) blasting the speaker during an early appearance on Fox News and accusing Pelosi of trying to blackmail Republicans with a wish-list of demands .
In other words , the boys are having a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Speaker is foiling their plot and once again showing them how it ’ s done .
Back in 2009 , Pelosi published a book titled , “ Know Your Power : A Message to America ’ s Daughters.
” She is now in the process of providing those daughters with an object lesson in how that ’ s done .

After taking an extended break over the prior weekend, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is suddenly in a hurry to rush through a stimulus package meant to shore up the economy during the crisis created by the coronavirus. He has brought his own bill up for a procedural vote twice (on Sunday and Monday), while negotiations between Democrats and the White House were still underway. The measure failed both times.
Here is how Democratic Senator Brian Schatz described what happened.
Here’s how the number two Republican in the Senate reacted to Democratic demands.
McConnell’s problem, in a nutshell, is that he can’t even win the support of Senator Joe Manchin, the one Democrat who is most likely to vote with Republicans.
If he can’t get Manchin, McConnell is never going to get enough votes to pass anything in the Senate. So why bring this bill up for a vote—twice? The answer to that question is that it allows someone like Senator Susan Collins to go into a rage against Democrats.
Yes, that is the same Senator Collins who only managed to furrow her brow and talk about her disappointment when the Republican president committed impeachable offenses. But now she’s really mad!
If you take the time to listen to Collins in that clip, you might notice that she talks about the need to help small businesses, but never once mentioned the big-ticket item in McConnell’s bill: a $500 billion slush fund for corporate bailouts that Secretary Mnuchin will be able to distribute as he pleases. But Senator Collins’ concern about the provision to help small businesses stems from the fact that she had a hand in writing that portion of the bill, which happens to also include this.
According to language in the bill forwarded to me by a senior Senate Democratic aide, this provision excludes “nonprofits receiving Medicaid expenditures,” which would not be eligible for those loans. This language has been interpreted in some quarters as an effort to deny funding to Planned Parenthood, a longtime GOP target. But Democratic aides think the language means a lot more than this. Specifically, Democratic aides believe this language would exclude from eligibility for this financial assistance a big range of other nonprofits that get Medicaid funding, such as home and community-based disability providers; community-based nursing homes, mental health providers and health centers; group homes for the disabled; and even rape crisis centers.
So spare us your hair-on-fire rants Ms. Collins, right along with your attempts to paint yourself as a “moderate” Republican. As Michael Grunwald tweeted about her performance on the floor of the Senate, “when someone demands to pass their $1.6 TRILLION stimulus because ‘we don’t have another MINUTE to delay,’ watch your wallet.”
At this point, Speaker Pelosi has had enough. On Monday, she rolled out a plan for the House to consider. With a nod to Trump’s refusal to take responsibility for his own failures during the coronavirus crisis, they have named the bill, the “Take Responsibility for Workers and Families Act.” Along with provisions to aid workers, small businesses, healthcare workers, families, and students, it includes this provision:
For our Democracy: Ensures that states can carry out this year’s election with billions in grant funding for states through the Election Assistance Commission and a national requirement for both 15 days of early voting and no-excuse absentee vote-by-mail, including mailing a ballot to all registered voters in an emergency.
While McConnell and Senate Republicans are simply looking for an excuse to blame Democrats, Pelosi is in the process of once again taking charge to get something done for the American people. Of course, her male opponents aren’t real happy about that.
After the Senate suffered a crushing setback on efforts to pass a $1.6 trillion coronavirus rescue bill Sunday, Republicans reached for a familiar foe to blame: Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “She’s the speaker of the House, not the speaker of the Senate. We don’t have one,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said angrily after a key procedural vote failed due to Democratic opposition. “We were doing just fine until that intervention.” As Senate leaders struggled to reach a deal Monday morning, Republicans continued to scapegoat Pelosi, with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) blasting the speaker during an early appearance on Fox News and accusing Pelosi of trying to blackmail Republicans with a wish-list of demands.
In other words, the boys are having a bit of a temper tantrum because Madam Speaker is foiling their plot and once again showing them how it’s done.
Back in 2009, Pelosi published a book titled, “Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters.” She is now in the process of providing those daughters with an object lesson in how that’s done.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-24--They Can Help Fight Coronavirus. Trump Wants to Deport Them.

The huge spike in coronavirus cases across the United States has hospitals struggling to remain fully staffed .
A looming national doctor shortage appears imminent , and it ’ s never been clearer just how important America ’ s frontline medical workers are .
Many of them may not be able to work here much longer .
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether hundreds of thousands of young people in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ( DACA ) program—among them thousands of doctors and other medical professionals—lose the protected status that allows them to temporarily live and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of deportation .
The U.S. Supreme Court in November heard oral arguments on a set of cases challenging the legality of President Donald Trump ’ s efforts to terminate DACA , which provided temporary protection from deportation and work authorization to some 825,000 undocumented young people , including those who are studying to enter the medical field .
A decision from the high court could come any day .
But the new reality of world upended by COVID-19 raises the obvious question : Why would the Trump administration deny Americans the services of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the very moment when it needs them most .
A Center for American Progress analysis from 2017 found that roughly 27,000 DACA recipients are health care practitioners , including physicians .
Their vulnerability was a problem long before the coronavirus ; the Association of American Medical Colleges concluded in a study last year that the United States will see a shortage of up to nearly 122,000 physicians by 2032 .
Now , the global pandemic threatens to make this problem even worse.The prospect of losing DACA has long been a concern for Ali-Reza @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 29-year-old medical student has worried about the impact the disease will have on his community .
“ A lot of people don ’ t really discuss how this specific outbreak affects underserved communities , ” said Torabi , a native of Iran who immigrated to California when he was five years old .
He now studies medicine at Loyola University ’ s Stritch School of Medicine outside Chicago .
DACA recipients “ are already struggling on so many levels , ” he said adding that undocumented immigrants are “ probably going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” because of their reticence to seek out medical care , for fear that their immigration status could be discovered and they could be deported .
Indeed , many Dreamers pursuing medical careers chose the profession precisely because they or their loved ones found themselves without access to affordable medical care as a result of their undocumented status .
Of course , the shortage of medical professionals across the United States was already bound to hit the field of primary care medicine particularly hard , as baby boomer retirements accelerate and the population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states are likely to be most impacted .
A study by the University of California at San Francisco determined that the state faces a massive shortage of primary care doctors .
The state ’ s Future Health Workforce Commission predicted a shortfall of 8,000 primary care practitioners in the coming decade .
Similarly , Florida ’ s Physician Workforce Annual report , which found last year that 12.5 percent of the state ’ s doctors are planning to retire in the next five years , reported that one-third of its 67 counties have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As America prepares to combat coronavirus and other public health scourges , it ’ s hard to imagine that it could do better than dedicated young doctors like Luis Gutierrez , 28 , a Dreamer who worked his way through his bachelor degree studies Gutierrez , now a second-year medical student at the University of Miami who is also pursuing a Masters ’ degree in public health , wants to serve underinsured communities like the Oakland neighborhood in which he grew up .
“ I have an interest in emergency medicine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community in its most vulnerable place , ” said Gutierrez , whose undocumented family immigrated from Michoacan , Mexico when he was a young child .
Dreamers like Gutierrez reveal yet another flaw with the logic of trying to abrogate DACA : These people often fill societal roles in which there is serious need—helping the most vulnerable among us .
Now , with the threat of coronavirus , everyone is learning just how necessary they are for the health and wellbeing of our nation .

The huge spike in coronavirus cases across the United States has hospitals struggling to remain fully staffed. A looming national doctor shortage appears imminent, and it’s never been clearer just how important America’s frontline medical workers are.
Many of them may not be able to work here much longer. The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether hundreds of thousands of young people in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program—among them thousands of doctors and other medical professionals—lose the protected status that allows them to temporarily live and work in the United States without fear of deportation.
The U.S. Supreme Court in November heard oral arguments on a set of cases challenging the legality of President Donald Trump’s efforts to terminate DACA, which provided temporary protection from deportation and work authorization to some 825,000 undocumented young people, including those who are studying to enter the medical field. A decision from the high court could come any day.
But the new reality of world upended by COVID-19 raises the obvious question: Why would the Trump administration deny Americans the services of this talented cadre of young people at the very moment when it needs them most?
A Center for American Progress analysis from 2017 found that roughly 27,000 DACA recipients are health care practitioners, including physicians. Their vulnerability was a problem long before the coronavirus; the Association of American Medical Colleges concluded in a study last year that the United States will see a shortage of up to nearly 122,000 physicians by 2032. Now, the global pandemic threatens to make this problem even worse. The prospect of losing DACA has long been a concern for Ali-Reza Torabi. More recently, however, the 29-year-old medical student has worried about the impact the disease will have on his community.
“A lot of people don’t really discuss how this specific outbreak affects underserved communities,” said Torabi, a native of Iran who immigrated to California when he was five years old. He now studies medicine at Loyola University’s Stritch School of Medicine outside Chicago.
DACA recipients “are already struggling on so many levels,” he said adding that undocumented immigrants are “probably going to get hit harder than anybody else,” because of their reticence to seek out medical care, for fear that their immigration status could be discovered and they could be deported.
Indeed, many Dreamers pursuing medical careers chose the profession precisely because they or their loved ones found themselves without access to affordable medical care as a result of their undocumented status.
Of course, the shortage of medical professionals across the United States was already bound to hit the field of primary care medicine particularly hard, as baby boomer retirements accelerate and the population grows. Some of the fastest growing states are likely to be most impacted. A study by the University of California at San Francisco determined that the state faces a massive shortage of primary care doctors. The state’s Future Health Workforce Commission predicted a shortfall of 8,000 primary care practitioners in the coming decade. Similarly, Florida’s Physician Workforce Annual report, which found last year that 12.5 percent of the state’s doctors are planning to retire in the next five years, reported that one-third of its 67 counties have fewer than 10 doctors per 10,000 inhabitants.
As America prepares to combat coronavirus and other public health scourges, it’s hard to imagine that it could do better than dedicated young doctors like Luis Gutierrez, 28, a Dreamer who worked his way through his bachelor degree studies.
Gutierrez, now a second-year medical student at the University of Miami who is also pursuing a Masters’ degree in public health, wants to serve underinsured communities like the Oakland neighborhood in which he grew up. “I have an interest in emergency medicine, that’s where you help the community in its most vulnerable place,” said Gutierrez, whose undocumented family immigrated from Michoacan, Mexico when he was a young child.
Dreamers like Gutierrez reveal yet another flaw with the logic of trying to abrogate DACA: These people often fill societal roles in which there is serious need—helping the most vulnerable among us. Now, with the threat of coronavirus, everyone is learning just how necessary they are for the health and well-being of our nation.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-24--Trump Is Willing to Risk Hundreds of Thousands of Lives

The news coming out of the president ’ s Monday press conference on the coronavirus is truly alarming .
President Trump , under growing pressure to rescue an economy in free fall , said Monday that he may soon loosen federal guidelines for social distancing and encourage shuttered businesses to reopen—defying public health experts , who have warned that doing so risks accelerating the spread of the novel coronavirus or even allowing it to rebound .
“ America will again and soon be open for business—very soon , ” Trump said at the daily White House news conference .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse than the problem itself.
” … The consensus among experts—including infectious disease expert Anthony S. Fauci and other senior officials on Trump ’ s coronavirus task force—is that restaurants , bars , schools , offices and other gathering places should remain closed for many more weeks to mitigate the outbreak , the worst effects of which are yet to be felt in the United States .
But Trump has been chafing against that notion and impatient to get American life back to normal .
“ If it were up to the doctors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s keep it shut down , let ’ s shut down the entire world .
.
.
and let ’ s keep it shut for a couple of years , ” Trump said Monday .
“ We can ’ t do that.
” Of course , Trump is incapable of telling the truth .
No one is suggesting that we need to shut down for a couple of years .
But he has to exaggerate to make a point .
During the press conference , John Karl asked the president whether he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon , the virus would start spreading .
The correct response would be to remind Karl that the virus hasn ’ t been contained .
It is still spreading .
Instead , Trump suggested that he would lift restrictions based on what he is hearing about the mortality rate .
At the beginning , “ nobody knew anything about this particular virus ” , and Trump said he heard numbers that the mortality rate for the virus might be as high as 5 % , compared with “ .001 or 2 or 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The mortality rate , to me that is a very big factor , ” Trump said .
“ We ’ re under 1 % now , ” Trump said .
“ It ’ s still terrible .
The whole concept of death is terrible , but there ’ s a tremendous difference between something under 1 % and 4 or 5 or even 3 % .
” Once again , the president isn ’ t telling the truth .
Here is what the World Health Organization said about the coronavirus mortality rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult to discuss these issues when we are referring to people ’ s lives , the estimates from WHO of 3-4 percent were based on the number of reported cases rather than the number of infections .
Experts have calculated an infection mortality rate of 1.4 percent in the city of Wuhan , China , where the virus is believed to have originated .
But given that mortality rates vary , here is a summary of what we currently know .
Nevertheless , on Monday night , Trump tweeted this from Ann Coulter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump loved that number , but didn ’ t bother reading the linked article .
If he had , he would have learned that the author , while having worked on pandemics , is an engineer , not a health professional .
But , for the sake of argument , let ’ s go with his figures .
The population of the United States is currently about 327 million .
Estimates are that somewhere between 20-60 percent of the population will be infected with the coronavirus .
If the mortality rate was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death of between 294,000 and 883,000 Americans .
We are currently at about 600 .
Those are the lives this president is willing to sacrifice on the altar of the economy .
Here is how Governor Cuomo reacted to the president ’ s plan .
Those joining the president in choosing the economy over life include Texas Lt .
Governor Dan Patrick .
Of course , Trump ’ s economic advisors and some business leaders are joining that chorus .
But what about those who , on religious grounds , claim to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First Things , ” which touts itself as “ America ’ s most influential journal of religion and public life , ” published an article about this by R.R .
Reno .
Undoubtedly “ shelter in place ” will slow the spread of disease , but at what cost to the body politic ?
Beware public health officials who advise burning the village in order to get rid of the pestilence .
And beware those who pronounce that we should save lives “ at any cost.
” That ’ s a dangerous falsehood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slavery .
There are many things more important than physical survival—love , honor , beauty , and faith .
Anyone who believes that our earthly existence is worth preserving “ at any cost ” will accept slavery .
As St. Paul teaches , he is already a slave , spiritually speaking .
All of a sudden , when we are talking about the economy instead of women ’ s bodies , asking people to “ shelter in place ” is the road to slavery .
Risking a minimum of 300,000 lives is small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of something David Simon said about the message he was sending with his series The Wire .
I didn ’ t start out as a cynic , but at every given moment where this country has had a choice – its governments , institutions , corporations , its social framework – to exalt the value of individuals over the value of the shared price , we have chosen raw unencumbered capitalism .
Capitalism has become our god .
You are not looking at a marxist up here , but you are looking at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capitalism can work absent a social framework that accepts that it is relatively easy to marginalize more and more people in this economy .
Capitalism has to be attended to .
And that has to be a conscious calculation on the part of society , if that is going to succeed…A t some point , either more of us are going to find our conscience or we ’ re not .
It is clear that Donald Trump and his enablers are devoid of a conscience .
In the coming weeks , as hundreds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line , we ’ ll find out about the rest of us .

The news coming out of the president’s Monday press conference on the coronavirus is truly alarming.
President Trump, under growing pressure to rescue an economy in free fall, said Monday that he may soon loosen federal guidelines for social distancing and encourage shuttered businesses to reopen—defying public health experts, who have warned that doing so risks accelerating the spread of the novel coronavirus or even allowing it to rebound. “America will again and soon be open for business—very soon,” Trump said at the daily White House news conference. “We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself.”… The consensus among experts—including infectious disease expert Anthony S. Fauci and other senior officials on Trump’s coronavirus task force—is that restaurants, bars, schools, offices and other gathering places should remain closed for many more weeks to mitigate the outbreak, the worst effects of which are yet to be felt in the United States. But Trump has been chafing against that notion and impatient to get American life back to normal. “If it were up to the doctors, they’d say let’s keep it shut down, let’s shut down the entire world . . . and let’s keep it shut for a couple of years,” Trump said Monday. “We can’t do that.”
Of course, Trump is incapable of telling the truth. No one is suggesting that we need to shut down for a couple of years. But he has to exaggerate to make a point.
During the press conference, John Karl asked the president whether he was worried that if he lifted restrictions too soon, the virus would start spreading. The correct response would be to remind Karl that the virus hasn’t been contained. It is still spreading. Instead, Trump suggested that he would lift restrictions based on what he is hearing about the mortality rate.
At the beginning, “nobody knew anything about this particular virus”, and Trump said he heard numbers that the mortality rate for the virus might be as high as 5%, compared with “.001 or 2 or 3” percent for the normal flu. “The mortality rate, to me that is a very big factor,” Trump said. “We’re under 1% now,” Trump said. “It’s still terrible. The whole concept of death is terrible, but there’s a tremendous difference between something under 1% and 4 or 5 or even 3%.”
Once again, the president isn’t telling the truth. Here is what the World Health Organization said about the coronavirus mortality rate earlier this month.
Mortality for COVID-19 appears higher than for influenza, especially seasonal influenza. While the true mortality of COVID-19 will take some time to fully understand, the data we have so far indicate that the crude mortality ratio (the number of reported deaths divided by the reported cases) is between 3-4%, the infection mortality rate (the number of reported deaths divided by the number of infections) will be lower. For seasonal influenza, mortality is usually well below 0.1%.
While it is difficult to discuss these issues when we are referring to people’s lives, the estimates from WHO of 3-4 percent were based on the number of reported cases rather than the number of infections. Experts have calculated an infection mortality rate of 1.4 percent in the city of Wuhan, China, where the virus is believed to have originated. But given that mortality rates vary, here is a summary of what we currently know.
The chance of someone with symptomatic Covid-19 dying varied by age, confirming other studies. For those aged 15 to 44, the fatality rate was 0.5%, though it might have been as low as 0.1% or as high as 1.3%. For people 45 to 64, the fatality rate was also 0.5%, with a possible low of 0.2% and a possible high of 1.1%. For those over 64, it was 2.7%, with a low and high estimate of 1.5% and 4.7%.
Nevertheless, on Monday night, Trump tweeted this from Ann Coulter.
It is probably safe to say that Trump loved that number, but didn’t bother reading the linked article. If he had, he would have learned that the author, while having worked on pandemics, is an engineer, not a health professional.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s go with his figures. The population of the United States is currently about 327 million. Estimates are that somewhere between 20-60 percent of the population will be infected with the coronavirus. If the mortality rate was 0.45 percent, that would mean the death of between 294,000 and 883,000 Americans. We are currently at about 600. Those are the lives this president is willing to sacrifice on the altar of the economy.
Here is how Governor Cuomo reacted to the president’s plan.
Those joining the president in choosing the economy over life include Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick.
Of course, Trump’s economic advisors and some business leaders are joining that chorus. But what about those who, on religious grounds, claim to be “pro-life?” The publication “First Things,” which touts itself as “America’s most influential journal of religion and public life,” published an article about this by R.R. Reno.
Undoubtedly “shelter in place” will slow the spread of disease, but at what cost to the body politic? Beware public health officials who advise burning the village in order to get rid of the pestilence. And beware those who pronounce that we should save lives “at any cost.” That’s a dangerous falsehood, one that leads to barbarism and slavery. There are many things more important than physical survival—love, honor, beauty, and faith. Anyone who believes that our earthly existence is worth preserving “at any cost” will accept slavery. As St. Paul teaches, he is already a slave, spiritually speaking.
All of a sudden, when we are talking about the economy instead of women’s bodies, asking people to “shelter in place” is the road to slavery. Risking a minimum of 300,000 lives is small potatoes to Reno.
I am reminded of something David Simon said about the message he was sending with his series The Wire.
I didn’t start out as a cynic, but at every given moment where this country has had a choice – its governments, institutions, corporations, its social framework – to exalt the value of individuals over the value of the shared price, we have chosen raw unencumbered capitalism. Capitalism has become our god. You are not looking at a marxist up here, but you are looking at somebody who doesn’t believe that capitalism can work absent a social framework that accepts that it is relatively easy to marginalize more and more people in this economy. Capitalism has to be attended to. And that has to be a conscious calculation on the part of society, if that is going to succeed…A t some point, either more of us are going to find our conscience or we’re not.
It is clear that Donald Trump and his enablers are devoid of a conscience. In the coming weeks, as hundreds of thousands of lives are on the line, we’ll find out about the rest of us.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-24--How Far Will the Republicans Go Before They Defy Trump?

History has taught us that there is more than one way to kill a few million people .
Deliberate famine worked pretty well for Joe Stalin , for example .
There ’ s even a term for this ( “ Holodomor ” ) which is a compound of the Ukrainian words holod “ hunger ” and mor “ plague ” .
Apparently , historians still debate whether Stalin ’ s Great Famine of 1932 and 1933 meets the technical definition of genocide .
I guess it ’ s hard to parse between benign and malicious neglect .
When does maladministration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eradicate a whole people ?
Who is qualified to say ?
We ’ re at risk now of suffering a “ Trumpomor.
” This is almost solely because the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate neglected to remove President Trump when they were given good cause .
Since he is still in power , he ’ s in a position to cause a million or more excess deaths in this country and more than that on a global scale .
He might do it for no better reason than so he can have people visit his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real estate empire goes broke .
He might be less inclined to do this if the Republicans in Congress had forced him to divest from his business interests rather than tripping over each other to patronize them .
So , as you can see , I ’ m building a decent case that congressional Republicans are giving us a Holodomor .
I wonder , however , if Trump is acting in such a reckless manner that the Republicans may be forced to remove him after all .
President Donald Trump has never been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ span .
Now , as the coronavirus crisis threatens his presidency , and upends his campaign for reelection , Trump is rapidly losing patience with the medical professionals who have made the case day after day that the only way to prevent a catastrophic loss of life is to essentially shut down the country — to minimize transmission and “ flatten the curve ” so hospitals aren ’ t overwhelmed with critical patients .
The president also has been furious that his efforts to halt the harrowing drop in the stock market have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been calling friends and economists at all hours and berated aides and reporters who try to persuade him to recognize the severity of the outbreak .
The man is berating people who try to persuade him to recognize the severity of the coronavirus outbreak .
He is inclined to do whatever he can to get people back to work , back on the subways , back on airplanes , back in our public parks , and ( above all ) back in his hotels .
This has the potential to cause two million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him this , he yells at and insults them .
Congress doesn ’ t have the luxury of ignoring this .
There are members of Congress who are severely ill with COVID-19 , and many others who are currently self-quarantining and unable to vote .
They ’ re also responsible for their constituents ’ health , and most of them are not outright insane .
They know that the best policy is to follow expert scientific advice , and the best politics is to let others take responsibility for any negative economic consequences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead to a couple of million excess deaths isn ’ t going to be good for them on any level , especially because it won ’ t improve the economy .
There may come a point soon when Trump openly defies his health advisors and causes many of them to resign .
That will be the point when members of Trump ’ s cabinet will have to decide whether or not to invoke the 25th Amendment .
The prospect of having a couple million deaths on your conscience can change people ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a president to be unfit for office .
If the 25th Amendment ever is invoked , this is how it will look : Mike Pence would become president , at least temporarily , and considering that he ’ s listening to health experts every day , that would be a good thing .
But it would be up to Congress to decide if Pence remained in charge .
Thereafter , when the President [ Trump ] transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide , transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office .
Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue , assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration , or , if Congress is not in session , within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble , determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office , the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President ; otherwise , the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office .
A lot of people have been fantasizing about this result for a few years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a different world now .
The president has snapped at aides delivering news that contradicts his relentless belief the crisis will be resolved soon .
Upon his return from a trip to India last month , Trump lit into aides about Dr. Nancy Messonnier , the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , who had provided a dire warning about the virus ’ potential impact .
He chided Vice President Mike Pence in a West Wing meeting for defending Washington Gov @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential contender , for his handling of the crisis .
And he angrily upbraided medical providers who called on his administration to do more , saying they should be upset instead with their local leadership .
If Trump tries to end the containment policy , he will face resistance .
There has to be some line beyond which the Republicans will not go in their blind obedience to Trump .
This crisis seems perfectly designed to discover exactly where that line is .

History has taught us that there is more than one way to kill a few million people. Deliberate famine worked pretty well for Joe Stalin, for example. There’s even a term for this (“Holodomor”) which is a compound of the Ukrainian words holod “hunger” and mor “plague”.
Apparently, historians still debate whether Stalin’s Great Famine of 1932 and 1933 meets the technical definition of genocide. I guess it’s hard to parse between benign and malicious neglect. When does maladministration cross over into a maniacal desire to eradicate a whole people? Who is qualified to say?
We’re at risk now of suffering a “Trumpomor.” This is almost solely because the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate neglected to remove President Trump when they were given good cause. Since he is still in power, he’s in a position to cause a million or more excess deaths in this country and more than that on a global scale. He might do it for no better reason than so he can have people visit his resorts and golf courses before his whole real estate empire goes broke.
He might be less inclined to do this if the Republicans in Congress had forced him to divest from his business interests rather than tripping over each other to patronize them. So, as you can see, I’m building a decent case that congressional Republicans are giving us a Holodomor.
I wonder, however, if Trump is acting in such a reckless manner that the Republicans may be forced to remove him after all.
President Donald Trump has never been known for his patience or long attention span. Now, as the coronavirus crisis threatens his presidency, and upends his campaign for reelection, Trump is rapidly losing patience with the medical professionals who have made the case day after day that the only way to prevent a catastrophic loss of life is to essentially shut down the country — to minimize transmission and “flatten the curve” so hospitals aren’t overwhelmed with critical patients. The president also has been furious that his efforts to halt the harrowing drop in the stock market have so far proven ineffective. He has been calling friends and economists at all hours and berated aides and reporters who try to persuade him to recognize the severity of the outbreak.
The man is berating people who try to persuade him to recognize the severity of the coronavirus outbreak. He is inclined to do whatever he can to get people back to work, back on the subways, back on airplanes, back in our public parks, and (above all) back in his hotels. This has the potential to cause two million excess American deaths. When people tell him this, he yells at and insults them.
Congress doesn’t have the luxury of ignoring this. There are members of Congress who are severely ill with COVID-19, and many others who are currently self-quarantining and unable to vote. They’re also responsible for their constituents’ health, and most of them are not outright insane. They know that the best policy is to follow expert scientific advice, and the best politics is to let others take responsibility for any negative economic consequences that result. Taking actions that will lead to a couple of million excess deaths isn’t going to be good for them on any level, especially because it won’t improve the economy.
There may come a point soon when Trump openly defies his health advisors and causes many of them to resign. That will be the point when members of Trump’s cabinet will have to decide whether or not to invoke the 25th Amendment. The prospect of having a couple million deaths on your conscience can change people’s ordinary calculation of what it means for a president to be unfit for office.
If the 25th Amendment ever is invoked, this is how it will look:
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Mike Pence would become president, at least temporarily, and considering that he’s listening to health experts every day, that would be a good thing. But it would be up to Congress to decide if Pence remained in charge.
Thereafter, when the President [Trump] transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
A lot of people have been fantasizing about this result for a few years now, but we’re in a different world now.
The president has snapped at aides delivering news that contradicts his relentless belief the crisis will be resolved soon. Upon his return from a trip to India last month, Trump lit into aides about Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who had provided a dire warning about the virus’ potential impact. He chided Vice President Mike Pence in a West Wing meeting for defending Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a one-time Democratic presidential contender, for his handling of the crisis. And he angrily upbraided medical providers who called on his administration to do more, saying they should be upset instead with their local leadership.
If Trump tries to end the containment policy, he will face resistance.
There is dissent within the Republican Party, however, including from some close allies of the president.
“It would be a major mistake to suggest any change of course when it comes to containment,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) said in an interview. “I just spoke with Dr. [Anthony] Fauci — he believes that, if anything, we should be more aggressive and do more. . . . You can’t have a functioning economy if you have hospitals overflowing.”
There has to be some line beyond which the Republicans will not go in their blind obedience to Trump. This crisis seems perfectly designed to discover exactly where that line is.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-25--Schumer and Pelosi Employ a Good Cop-Bad Cop Strategy

Once Majority Leader McConnell released his plan for a stimulus bill to boost the economy during the coronavirus crisis , Democrats rallied around three major changes that needed to be made to the bill .
• Transparency and oversight for the money designated to bail out major corporations affected by coronavirus .
• The addition of a “ Marshall Plan ” for hospitals and health care facilities .
While Minority Leader Schumer was negotiating with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin about these changes , McConnell brought his own bill up for a procedural vote in the Senate twice , knowing that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his colleagues to rant about Democrats and blame them for not recognizing the urgency of the situation .
As I noted previously , that is when Speaker Pelosi stepped up to the plate with an alternative bill for the House to consider .
Congressional Republicans proceeded to have a bit of a temper tantrum , with McConnell saying that “ we were doing just fine until that intervention.
” Of course , McConnell wasn ’ t doing just fine if the goal was to actually pass a bill .
It was about that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progress being made in negotiations on the Senate side .
Late Monday night , both Schumer and Mnuchin indicated that they were closing in on a deal .
By Tuesday morning , McConnell and Pelosi were included in the negotiations and Schumer took to the floor of the Senate to indicate that Republicans had agreed to all three changes Democrats were requesting .
What appears to have happened is that McConnell got out-strategized by Schumer and Pelosi .
The majority leader seemed to think that he could either shame Senate Democrats into voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it failed .
But while Schumer was playing “ good cop ” in ongoing negotiations with Mnuchin , Pelosi donned the “ bad cop ” role by sending the message that Republicans should “ deal with my partner or here ’ s what you ’ ll face in the House.
” It worked brilliantly .
Along with oversight for the bailout funds and support for hospitals that have been included in the bill , the plan for unemployment insurance will provide significant relief for American workers .
The first thing to note is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now qualify for UI .
Secondly , for four months , payment will include the normal UI benefit plus $ 600—up to 100 percent of previous income .
Finally , workers don ’ t need to be laid off to qualify for UI .
Companies can simply consider them furloughed , which means that not only can they be hired back , but they can keep their benefits intact .
All of that is in addition to the one-time “ checks for everyone ” that will mean $ 1,200 per individual adult plus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this bill continued late into Tuesday night and were finalized shortly after midnight .
The Senate is expected to take up the measure almost immediately and Pelosi has said that a strong bipartisan vote in that chamber would make it possible to pass the bill by unanimous consent in the House .

Once Majority Leader McConnell released his plan for a stimulus bill to boost the economy during the coronavirus crisis, Democrats rallied around three major changes that needed to be made to the bill.
Transparency and oversight for the money designated to bail out major corporations affected by coronavirus. The addition of a “Marshall Plan” for hospitals and health care facilities. The inclusion of ramped-up unemployment insurance.
While Minority Leader Schumer was negotiating with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin about these changes, McConnell brought his own bill up for a procedural vote in the Senate twice, knowing that it would fail. That allowed him and his colleagues to rant about Democrats and blame them for not recognizing the urgency of the situation.
As I noted previously, that is when Speaker Pelosi stepped up to the plate with an alternative bill for the House to consider. Congressional Republicans proceeded to have a bit of a temper tantrum, with McConnell saying that “we were doing just fine until that intervention.” Of course, McConnell wasn’t doing just fine if the goal was to actually pass a bill.
It was about that time that we started hearing reports about progress being made in negotiations on the Senate side. Late Monday night, both Schumer and Mnuchin indicated that they were closing in on a deal. By Tuesday morning, McConnell and Pelosi were included in the negotiations and Schumer took to the floor of the Senate to indicate that Republicans had agreed to all three changes Democrats were requesting.
What appears to have happened is that McConnell got out-strategized by Schumer and Pelosi. The majority leader seemed to think that he could either shame Senate Democrats into voting for his bill or blame them if it failed. But while Schumer was playing “good cop” in ongoing negotiations with Mnuchin, Pelosi donned the “bad cop” role by sending the message that Republicans should “deal with my partner or here’s what you’ll face in the House.” It worked brilliantly.
Along with oversight for the bailout funds and support for hospitals that have been included in the bill, the plan for unemployment insurance will provide significant relief for American workers. The first thing to note is that independent contractors and gig workers will now qualify for UI. Secondly, for four months, payment will include the normal UI benefit plus $600—up to 100 percent of previous income. Finally, workers don’t need to be laid off to qualify for UI. Companies can simply consider them furloughed, which means that not only can they be hired back, but they can keep their benefits intact. All of that is in addition to the one-time “checks for everyone” that will mean $1,200 per individual adult plus $500 per child.
In addition to that relief, Democrats secured a provision in the bill that prohibits businesses controlled by Trump, Pence, members of Congress and heads of executive departments from getting loans or investments from the funds included in the bill. That prohibition also applies to their spouses, children and in-laws.
Negotiations on this bill continued late into Tuesday night and were finalized shortly after midnight. The Senate is expected to take up the measure almost immediately and Pelosi has said that a strong bipartisan vote in that chamber would make it possible to pass the bill by unanimous consent in the House.