washingtonmonthly--2020-03-18--Americans Need a Basic Income During the Coronavirus Outbreak

As the economic toll of the coronavirus pandemic escalates , support is growing for immediate economic relief for the millions of Americans whose lives have been upended .
Utah Senator Mitt Romney has proposed sending a one-time infusion of $ 1,000 to every American adult during the crisis , while Trump Administration officials are also weighing the idea of direct cash payments to Americans .
While one-time “ stimulus checks ” are an option— as they were in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis—many Americans are going to need longer-term support to weather the coming financial storm .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , struggling Americans will need an “ emergency basic income ” —i.e .
no-strings-attached , continuing cash support , similar to what former presidential candidate Andrew Yang proposed on the campaign trail .
At the time of his campaign , Yang was pushing for a “ universal basic income ” – a $ 1,000 per month entitlement for every American .
The idea was expensive , impractical .
and rife with the potential for unintended consequences .
But now , Yang ’ s original conception , with some important variations , could save @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That helps explain why its finding new life from proponents l New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( as well as Yang himself ) .
Yet UBI need not be adopted in its original form to do a lot of good ; it need not be as generous as an indefinite entitlement of $ 1,000 a month , nor does it need to be universal .
At least not yet .
Congress should begin with a targeted EBI benefit , aimed especially at lower-wage workers in the financially hemorrhaging hospitality , food service , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers in these sectors should receive at at least six months of emergency aid—at say , $ 500 a month .
This targeted relief to the Americans in greatest distress would be more likely to get through Congress quickly , without a detour into the ideological logjams that have plagued the original debate over UBI .
Over time , Congress can consider expanding relief for longer periods and to more Americans as the fallout ripples through the economy .
As Americans hunker down in their homes to avoid the risk of contagion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convention centers have been the first to suffer the fallout .
In the Washington , D.C. area , for instance , union official John Boardman told the local ABC affiliate that 75 percent of the region ’ s hospitality workers are already idled , and that the share of workers on the sidelines could rise to 90 percent within a week .
Taken to a national scale , this means millions of Americans are already out of work .
The Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS ) reports that 13.3 million Americans work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , bartenders , waitstaff , dishwashers , and other occupations ; more than 3 million work as janitors , maids , and housecleaners ; and another 500,000 work as ticket takers , ushers , and amusement park attendants .
And as Americans stop shopping , getting haircuts , or going to the gym , as more restrictions take hold , that means a heavy financial hit for the 400,000 Americans who work as hairdressers and barbers ; the more than 300,000 who work as fitness trainers ; and the 4.5 million who work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers can afford to go an extended period of time without pay .
Food service workers make an average of $ 25,580 a year , while hairdressers earn an average of $ 30,190 , according to BLS .
Maids and house cleaners earn $ 25,520 on average , while “ amusement and recreation attendants ” make $ 23,460 .
In 2020 , the federal poverty line for a family of three is $ 21,720 .
The nonprofit group Prosperity Now finds that more than a third of U.S. households are “ liquid asset @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have enough the cash on hand to meet three months of household expenses .
Among households of color , who are also disproportionately represented in lower-wage occupations , the liquid poverty rate is as high as 53 percent .
Providing these workers with a stable source of income in the medium-term could help them keep to paying the rent and putting food on the table .
It could help stave off the direst hardships of eviction and hunger and help the vulnerable avoid turning to payday lenders , pawnshops , and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too eager to profit from this crisis .
EBI would also be more immediate than simply expanding unemployment insurance benefits , as the coronavirus relief package recently passed by the House would do .
While the $ 1 billion for unemployment benefits included in that bill is a vital step , many workers are still likely to miss out if they are temporarily idled .
Most state unemployment insurance programs require applicants to prove they are looking for work , a requirement that makes little sense when entire industries have simply evaporated for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be unemployed to be eligible , versus simply furloughed from their jobs .
Plus , they must file for new benefits weekly—a bureaucratic detail that makes sense in normal circumstances but is a needless barrier to relief today .
And while the proposed relief would provide $ 500 million in emergency grant aid to states , those states must then show a 10 percent increase in unemployment to be eligible for these dollars—a seemingly high bar that could take some time to reach .
In short , these programs and proposals do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic .
We will need something more .
The good news is that the Administration ’ s embrace of direct aid means it might be acknowledging the flaws of the payroll tax cut that President Donald Trump first proposed , which would largely benefit more affluent workers and those who manage to keep their jobs .
The economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic will no doubt need long-term , ongoing attention .
But we need to take dramatic actions now to blunt the immediate pain of America ’ s most vulnerable workers .

As the economic toll of the coronavirus pandemic escalates, support is growing for immediate economic relief for the millions of Americans whose lives have been upended. Utah Senator Mitt Romney has proposed sending a one-time infusion of $1,000 to every American adult during the crisis, while Trump Administration officials are also weighing the idea of direct cash payments to Americans.
While one-time “stimulus checks” are an option— as they were in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis—many Americans are going to need longer-term support to weather the coming financial storm. Rather than a single shot of cash, struggling Americans will need an “emergency basic income” (EBI)—i.e. no-strings-attached, continuing cash support, similar to what former presidential candidate Andrew Yang proposed on the campaign trail.
At the time of his campaign, Yang was pushing for a “universal basic income”– a $1,000 per month entitlement for every American. The idea was expensive, impractical. and rife with the potential for unintended consequences. But now, Yang’s original conception, with some important variations, could save millions of Americans from financial catastrophe. That helps explain why its finding new life from proponents l New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (as well as Yang himself). Yet UBI need not be adopted in its original form to do a lot of good; it need not be as generous as an indefinite entitlement of $1,000 a month, nor does it need to be universal. At least not yet.
Congress should begin with a targeted EBI benefit, aimed especially at lower-wage workers in the financially hemorrhaging hospitality, food service, and entertainment industries. Full-time, hourly workers in these sectors should receive at at least six months of emergency aid—at say, $500 a month.
This targeted relief to the Americans in greatest distress would be more likely to get through Congress quickly, without a detour into the ideological logjams that have plagued the original debate over UBI. Over time, Congress can consider expanding relief for longer periods and to more Americans as the fallout ripples through the economy.
As Americans hunker down in their homes to avoid the risk of contagion, restaurants, bars, hotels, and convention centers have been the first to suffer the fallout. In the Washington, D.C. area, for instance, union official John Boardman told the local ABC affiliate that 75 percent of the region’s hospitality workers are already idled, and that the share of workers on the sidelines could rise to 90 percent within a week.
Taken to a national scale, this means millions of Americans are already out of work. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that 13.3 million Americans work in food service, including as cooks, bartenders, waitstaff, dishwashers, and other occupations; more than 3 million work as janitors, maids, and housecleaners; and another 500,000 work as ticket takers, ushers, and amusement park attendants. And as Americans stop shopping, getting haircuts, or going to the gym, as more restrictions take hold, that means a heavy financial hit for the 400,000 Americans who work as hairdressers and barbers; the more than 300,000 who work as fitness trainers; and the 4.5 million who work in retail sales.
Few of these workers can afford to go an extended period of time without pay. Food service workers make an average of $25,580 a year, while hairdressers earn an average of $30,190, according to BLS. Maids and house cleaners earn $25,520 on average, while “amusement and recreation attendants” make $23,460. In 2020, the federal poverty line for a family of three is $21,720.
The nonprofit group Prosperity Now finds that more than a third of U.S. households are “liquid asset poor,” meaning they don’t have enough the cash on hand to meet three months of household expenses. Among households of color, who are also disproportionately represented in lower-wage occupations, the liquid poverty rate is as high as 53 percent.
Providing these workers with a stable source of income in the medium-term could help them keep to paying the rent and putting food on the table. It could help stave off the direst hardships of eviction and hunger and help the vulnerable avoid turning to payday lenders, pawnshops, and other predatory financial providers who might be all too eager to profit from this crisis.
EBI would also be more immediate than simply expanding unemployment insurance benefits, as the coronavirus relief package recently passed by the House would do. While the $1 billion for unemployment benefits included in that bill is a vital step, many workers are still likely to miss out if they are temporarily idled. Most state unemployment insurance programs require applicants to prove they are looking for work, a requirement that makes little sense when entire industries have simply evaporated for the time being. Workers also need to be unemployed to be eligible, versus simply furloughed from their jobs. Plus, they must file for new benefits weekly—a bureaucratic detail that makes sense in normal circumstances but is a needless barrier to relief today. And while the proposed relief would provide $500 million in emergency grant aid to states, those states must then show a 10 percent increase in unemployment to be eligible for these dollars—a seemingly high bar that could take some time to reach. In short, these programs and proposals do not meet the demands of an unprecedented pandemic. We will need something more.
The good news is that the Administration’s embrace of direct aid means it might be acknowledging the flaws of the payroll tax cut that President Donald Trump first proposed, which would largely benefit more affluent workers and those who manage to keep their jobs.
The economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic will no doubt need long-term, ongoing attention. But we need to take dramatic actions now to blunt the immediate pain of America’s most vulnerable workers.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-18--The Urgency of Relief For American Workers

The economic effects of the coronavirus outbreak are starting to explode even faster than the number of cases being identified .
While we don ’ t have national numbers yet , the early news from some states is truly alarming .
In New Jersey , 15,000 people applied for unemployment benefits on Monday , a twelvefold increase over normal levels .
In Connecticut , nearly 8,000 applications arrived over the weekend , an eightfold increase over the norm .
Rhode Island officials reported Tuesday a five-day rise in claims due to the coronavirus from 10 on March 11 to 6,282 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ohio workers have applied for unemployment over the past week , the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services told Sen .
Rob Portman , a nearly sevenfold increase over the previous week… According to an NPR/Marist poll conducted Thursday and Friday , 18 percent of households already reported someone being laid off or having hours reduced because of the coronavirus outbreak , with women hit harder ( 21 percent ) than men ( 16 percent ) , and people who earn less than $ 50,000 hit harder ( 25 percent ) than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 14 percent ) .
“ A coronavirus recession is inevitable , ” said Josh Bivens , director of research at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute , in a blog post .
He estimated that at least 3 million jobs will be lost by summer .
That is why , after passing a bill that included $ 8.3 billion to fight the spread of the virus , Congress is considering measures to shore up the economy and bring some needed relief to American workers .
After taking a recess over the weekend , Majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take up the bill passed by the House last week .
As a reminder , here is what it included .
The legislation includes free coronavirus testing , up to three months of emergency paid leave benefits to all workers affected by the coronavirus , and could also include an 8 percentage point increase in the federal share of Medicaid payments to states , lawmakers and aides said… The paid sick leave component of House Democrats ’ plan would replace two-thirds of wages for most workers , up to a $ 4,000 a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eligibility for unemployment insurance .
It is also expected to include about $ 1 billion in emergency appropriations to expand access to food security programs including food stamps , Meals on Wheels and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women , Infants and Children .
Once that is completed , McConnell said that Republicans would work with the White House on an additional stimulus package that could rise to $ 1 trillion .
According to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin , that package could include direct cash payments to American workers , as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats are preparing their own proposal .
At this point , the proposal garnering the most support from Democrats is the one put forward by Senators Michael Bennet , Cory Booker , and Sherrod Brown .
It calls for immediate $ 2,000 payments to all adults and children in the US below a certain income threshold .
Under the plan , if the US is still in a public health emergency in July , Americans would get another $ 1,500 each .
If the same is true in October , everyone would get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health emergency is over in either July or October when the Treasury secretary does his quarterly check-in , but unemployment has increased by a single point , the checks still go out .
If unemployment rises by half a point , the checks are cut in half , but they still go out .
Signatories to this plan range from centrists like Bob Casey and Tim Kaine to liberals such as Tammy Baldwin and Kamala Harris .
That sets the stage for the partisan wrangling to take place over the third measure—with Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of cash to American workers .
As McConnell and the White House put together their package prior to undertaking negotiations with Democrats , they are ensuring delays that would otherwise be unnecessary .
The likely reason for that is that they are prioritizing getting bailouts to major corporations .
Of course , there is also the possibility of the corporate bailouts becoming “ poison pills.
” Based on what we know about McConnell , he would probably be happy to go into the 2020 election blaming Democrats for obstructing a bill that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As we watch all of this unfold in the coming weeks , it might be helpful to keep in mind some advice from Dr. Michael J. Ryan , Executive Director of the World Health Organization .
He was talking about slowing the growth of a pandemic , but it could also apply to efforts to put the brakes on a major recession .
Ryan said : “ perfection is the enemy of the good when it comes to emergency management .
Speed trumps perfection…The greatest error is not to move.
” I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has been leveled against the initial stimulus package passed by Democrats in 2009 in response to the Great Recession .
It certainly wasn ’ t perfect , but Obama signed that one twenty-eight days after he was inaugurated , having garnered three votes from Republican Senators in order to overcome the sixty-vote barrier put in place by McConnell .
Democrats knew that “ speed trumps perfection ” when it comes to emergency management .
The situation we face right now is equally alarming .
Democrats already know how Republicans will play this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them is to negotiate on behalf of American workers wisely while recognizing that urgency is their primary responsibility .

The economic effects of the coronavirus outbreak are starting to explode even faster than the number of cases being identified. While we don’t have national numbers yet, the early news from some states is truly alarming.
In New Jersey, 15,000 people applied for unemployment benefits on Monday, a twelvefold increase over normal levels. In Connecticut, nearly 8,000 applications arrived over the weekend, an eightfold increase over the norm. Rhode Island officials reported Tuesday a five-day rise in claims due to the coronavirus from 10 on March 11 to 6,282 on March 16. More than 45,000 Ohio workers have applied for unemployment over the past week, the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services told Sen. Rob Portman, a nearly sevenfold increase over the previous week… According to an NPR/Marist poll conducted Thursday and Friday, 18 percent of households already reported someone being laid off or having hours reduced because of the coronavirus outbreak, with women hit harder (21 percent) than men (16 percent), and people who earn less than $50,000 hit harder (25 percent) than those earning $50,000 or more (14 percent). “A coronavirus recession is inevitable,” said Josh Bivens, director of research at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, in a blog post. He estimated that at least 3 million jobs will be lost by summer.
That is why, after passing a bill that included $8.3 billion to fight the spread of the virus, Congress is considering measures to shore up the economy and bring some needed relief to American workers.
After taking a recess over the weekend, Majority Leader McConnell said that the Senate would take up the bill passed by the House last week. As a reminder, here is what it included.
The legislation includes free coronavirus testing, up to three months of emergency paid leave benefits to all workers affected by the coronavirus, and could also include an 8 percentage point increase in the federal share of Medicaid payments to states, lawmakers and aides said… The paid sick leave component of House Democrats’ plan would replace two-thirds of wages for most workers, up to a $4,000 a month plan. The proposal would extend eligibility for unemployment insurance. It is also expected to include about $1 billion in emergency appropriations to expand access to food security programs including food stamps, Meals on Wheels and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children.
Once that is completed, McConnell said that Republicans would work with the White House on an additional stimulus package that could rise to $1 trillion. According to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, that package could include direct cash payments to American workers, as well as bailouts for businesses.
Meanwhile, Senate Democrats are preparing their own proposal.
Democrats in the Senate are proposing their own $750 billion package, which prioritizes workers and contains nary a mention of the airline industry. “If we are going to follow up the House bill with another major economic stimulus package, which we must, our major focus cannot be based on bailing out airlines, cruises and other industries,” Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor Tuesday morning.
At this point, the proposal garnering the most support from Democrats is the one put forward by Senators Michael Bennet, Cory Booker, and Sherrod Brown. It calls for immediate $2,000 payments to all adults and children in the US below a certain income threshold.
Under the plan, if the US is still in a public health emergency in July, Americans would get another $1,500 each. If the same is true in October, everyone would get another $1,000. If the public health emergency is over in either July or October when the Treasury secretary does his quarterly check-in, but unemployment has increased by a single point, the checks still go out. If unemployment rises by half a point, the checks are cut in half, but they still go out.
Signatories to this plan range from centrists like Bob Casey and Tim Kaine to liberals such as Tammy Baldwin and Kamala Harris.
That sets the stage for the partisan wrangling to take place over the third measure—with Republicans attempting to sweeten their bailouts with promises of cash to American workers. As McConnell and the White House put together their package prior to undertaking negotiations with Democrats, they are ensuring delays that would otherwise be unnecessary. The likely reason for that is that they are prioritizing getting bailouts to major corporations.
Of course, there is also the possibility of the corporate bailouts becoming “poison pills.” Based on what we know about McConnell, he would probably be happy to go into the 2020 election blaming Democrats for obstructing a bill that would have provided direct relief to American workers.
As we watch all of this unfold in the coming weeks, it might be helpful to keep in mind some advice from Dr. Michael J. Ryan, Executive Director of the World Health Organization. He was talking about slowing the growth of a pandemic, but it could also apply to efforts to put the brakes on a major recession.
Ryan said: “perfection is the enemy of the good when it comes to emergency management. Speed trumps perfection…The greatest error is not to move.”
I was reminded of all of the criticism that has been leveled against the initial stimulus package passed by Democrats in 2009 in response to the Great Recession. It certainly wasn’t perfect, but Obama signed that one twenty-eight days after he was inaugurated, having garnered three votes from Republican Senators in order to overcome the sixty-vote barrier put in place by McConnell. Democrats knew that “speed trumps perfection” when it comes to emergency management.
The situation we face right now is equally alarming. Democrats already know how Republicans will play this one. What it will require from them is to negotiate on behalf of American workers wisely while recognizing that urgency is their primary responsibility.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-18--It’s Time for Bernie Sanders to Concede the Race

One small advantage America has in tackling the coronavirus outbreak is that it didn ’ t start here .
We have the opportunity to see what worked and what didn ’ t work in China , Italy , and other places , and we have the chance to anticipate some of the things that they didn ’ t anticipate .
Italy , in particular , can be very instructive for our medical hospitals and responsible government officials .
There are simple things that only seem obvious in retrospect , like dedicating only a couple of ambulances for coronavirus cases and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fleet doesn ’ t become infected .
There are things that require a good bit of time , like transforming medical facilities to maximize bed space or building temporary hospitals .
There are best practices for triage , including establishing separate locations for non-coronavirus cases .
Italy has learned these hard lessons too late , but we can benefit from their experience .
As things stand there , in the area of worst impact in Lombardy , no one is getting needed intubation if they ’ re over 60 years old .
Virtually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Intensive Care Units and , in many cases , people over 80 are not being accepted in hospitals at all .
Facilities are not set up to prevent the spread of the virus and their emergency phone lines are overwhelmed .
In normal times , the ambulance service at the Papa Giovanni hospital runs like a Swiss clock .
Calls to 112 , Europe ’ s equivalent of 911 , are answered within 15 to 20 seconds .
Ambulances from the hospital ’ s fleet of more than 200 are dispatched within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stand by at all times .
Patients usually reach an operating room within 30 minutes , said Angelo Giupponi , who runs the emergency response operation : “ We are fast , in peacetime.
” Now , people wait an hour on the phone to report heart attacks , Dr. Giupponi said , because all the lines are busy .
Each day , his team fields 2,500 calls and brings 1,500 people to the hospital .
“ That ’ s not counting those the first responders visit but tell to stay home and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said .
This is what our near-future will look like , and we ’ re running out of time to mitigate the situation .
“ Until three weeks ago , we did everything for every patient .
Now we have to choose which patients to put in intensive care .
This is catastrophic , ” said anesthesiologist and intensive-care specialist Mirco Nacoti .
Dr. Nacoti worked for Doctors Without Borders in Haiti , Chad , Kurdistan and Ivory Coast , and he is one of the few medics in Bergamo who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were diseases with vaccines , such as measles and rubella .
He estimated that around 60 % or more of the population of Bergamo has the coronavirus .
“ There is an enormous number of asymptomatic people , as well as unknown dead who die in their home and are not tested , not counted , ” he said .
“ The ICU is the tip of an iceberg.
” Three weeks is an eternity right now .
But it will be three weeks before there is another Democratic Party presidential primary .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ different place by then , which is something that Bernie Sanders needs to consider : Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) will spend the next few weeks talking to supporters to “ assess his campaign , ” his campaign manager said Wednesday following decisive victories Tuesday by former vice president Joe Biden in Florida , Illinois and Arizonathat gave him firm control of the Democratic nominating contest .
“ The next primary contest is at least three weeks away , ” Faiz Shakir , Sanders ’ s manager said in a statement .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be having conversations with supporters to assess his campaign .
In the immediate term , however , he is focused on the government response to the coronavirus outbreak and ensuring that we take care of working people and the most vulnerable.
” He can no longer hope to win the nomination through the primary process , but of course , he can still maximize how many delegates he will send to the party ’ s convention .
This would help him have influence over the platform and any rules changes affecting future elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place in strictly virtual space online rather than in a Milwaukee arena as planned .
It just seems hard to justify continuing the campaign in these circumstances .
Barring illness , Joe Biden will be the nominee and he should be focused on the campaign against Trump and on assembling a team that can take over in January and get right to work trying to manage one of the worst catastrophes any of us has seen in our lifetimes .
If Sanders can be helpful in that effort , that will be great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impede Biden by distracting him .
I suspect this will be clear to Sanders soon , and probably long before three weeks have elapsed .
But it ’ d be nice if he made his decision before events force his hand .

One small advantage America has in tackling the coronavirus outbreak is that it didn’t start here. We have the opportunity to see what worked and what didn’t work in China, Italy, and other places, and we have the chance to anticipate some of the things that they didn’t anticipate. Italy, in particular, can be very instructive for our medical hospitals and responsible government officials.
There are simple things that only seem obvious in retrospect, like dedicating only a couple of ambulances for coronavirus cases and training the staff so that the whole fleet doesn’t become infected. There are things that require a good bit of time, like transforming medical facilities to maximize bed space or building temporary hospitals. There are best practices for triage, including establishing separate locations for non-coronavirus cases. Italy has learned these hard lessons too late, but we can benefit from their experience.
As things stand there, in the area of worst impact in Lombardy, no one is getting needed intubation if they’re over 60 years old. Virtually no one over 70 is being accepted in Intensive Care Units and, in many cases, people over 80 are not being accepted in hospitals at all. Facilities are not set up to prevent the spread of the virus and their emergency phone lines are overwhelmed.
In normal times, the ambulance service at the Papa Giovanni hospital runs like a Swiss clock. Calls to 112, Europe’s equivalent of 911, are answered within 15 to 20 seconds. Ambulances from the hospital’s fleet of more than 200 are dispatched within 60 to 90 seconds. Two helicopters stand by at all times. Patients usually reach an operating room within 30 minutes, said Angelo Giupponi, who runs the emergency response operation: “We are fast, in peacetime.” Now, people wait an hour on the phone to report heart attacks, Dr. Giupponi said, because all the lines are busy. Each day, his team fields 2,500 calls and brings 1,500 people to the hospital. “That’s not counting those the first responders visit but tell to stay home and call again if their condition worsens,” he said.
This is what our near-future will look like, and we’re running out of time to mitigate the situation.
“Until three weeks ago, we did everything for every patient. Now we have to choose which patients to put in intensive care. This is catastrophic,” said anesthesiologist and intensive-care specialist Mirco Nacoti. Dr. Nacoti worked for Doctors Without Borders in Haiti, Chad, Kurdistan and Ivory Coast, and he is one of the few medics in Bergamo who has seen epidemics. Yet, those were diseases with vaccines, such as measles and rubella. He estimated that around 60% or more of the population of Bergamo has the coronavirus. “There is an enormous number of asymptomatic people, as well as unknown dead who die in their home and are not tested, not counted,” he said. “The ICU is the tip of an iceberg.”
Three weeks is an eternity right now. But it will be three weeks before there is another Democratic Party presidential primary. The country will be in a very different place by then, which is something that Bernie Sanders needs to consider:
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will spend the next few weeks talking to supporters to “assess his campaign,” his campaign manager said Wednesday following decisive victories Tuesday by former vice president Joe Biden in Florida, Illinois and Arizonathat gave him firm control of the Democratic nominating contest. “The next primary contest is at least three weeks away,” Faiz Shakir, Sanders’s manager said in a statement. “Sen. Sanders is going to be having conversations with supporters to assess his campaign. In the immediate term, however, he is focused on the government response to the coronavirus outbreak and ensuring that we take care of working people and the most vulnerable.”
He can no longer hope to win the nomination through the primary process, but of course, he can still maximize how many delegates he will send to the party’s convention. This would help him have influence over the platform and any rules changes affecting future elections, but the convention probably will take place in strictly virtual space online rather than in a Milwaukee arena as planned. It just seems hard to justify continuing the campaign in these circumstances.
Barring illness, Joe Biden will be the nominee and he should be focused on the campaign against Trump and on assembling a team that can take over in January and get right to work trying to manage one of the worst catastrophes any of us has seen in our lifetimes. If Sanders can be helpful in that effort, that will be great, but he certainly shouldn’t impede Biden by distracting him.
I suspect this will be clear to Sanders soon, and probably long before three weeks have elapsed. But it’d be nice if he made his decision before events force his hand.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-18--Biden Should Pick Warren as VP, Immediately

Tuesday night , as Joe Biden was waiting for the polls to close in Florida , Illinois , and Arizona—states he would win handily—Elizabeth Warren published this Twitter thread : This is brilliant .
The moment to impose needed reforms on American industries is precisely when a crisis hits and they ’ re coming hat in hand to Washington asking for bailouts .
If I were Joe Biden , I ’ d immediately announce Warren as my vice-presidential pick .
I ’ d further say that I agree with her bail out terms , and that while I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she does and she ’ s my proxy .
Such a move would give Biden serious leverage on a host of fronts .
First , by elevating Warren and her agenda , he ’ d be sending the message to Bernie voters that as president he really is willing to pursue serious structural change of the rules of American capitalism .
Such a message would help unify the left and moderate wings of the Democratic Party while undercutting whatever argument Sanders still has for staying in the race .
Second , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the immensely significant decisions that are going to be made in Washington in the coming weeks and months .
Presuming he and Warren can come to terms—that is , he would have to agree to follow her lead on policy ideas but she ’ d have to agree that he ’ s the boss and not to go too far beyond what he ’ s comfortable with—her pronouncements on the Senate floor would be seen as the word of the presumptive Democratic nominee .
As such , other Democratic lawmakers would be more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would help unify the Democrats behind an aggressive set of demands they ’ d place before Mitch McConnell and , ultimately , Donald Trump , on the terms of any stimulus/bailout package .
Every time Trump gives into a Democratic congressional demand , he would in essence be conceding to Joe Biden—months before the November elections .
This might sound fanciful .
But is not far from the situation Biden ’ s boss Barack Obama found himself in during the winter of 2008-2009 , when the auto industry sought billions of dollars in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the midst of the financial crisis .
Washington responded , but with stiff terms dictated mostly by congressional Democrats and Obama , who at the time hadn ’ t even been inaugurated .
Though Republicans refused to support a bailout bill , George W. Bush , as a lame duck , reversed himself and reluctantly agreed to use money from the TARP funds , created to fund the banks , for the auto industry bailout—precisely the position Obama had been advocating , and on the terms he ’ d called for—and months later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms when the auto companies asked for more money .
The terms included the firing of car company CEOs and boards , elimination of unprofitable brands and dealerships , and new production of low-mileage cars , including electric models , in American plants ( recall that part of the problem at the time was that Detroit had gone all in on SUVs and light trucks that they couldn ’ t move because of high oil prices ) .
Rightwing free marketers , as well as some on the left , condemned the auto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they not only saved the industry but helped keep the country out of another Great Depression–and the U.S. Treasury ultimately recovered all but about $ 9 billion of the $ 80 billion it invested in the industry .
All of this history will be revisited as the debate over the government ’ s economic response to the coronavirus picks up—including the fact that Trump was for the auto industry bailout before he was against it .
By choosing Warren as his VP , Biden can put himself in the center of that action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single biggest issue facing the nation .

Tuesday night, as Joe Biden was waiting for the polls to close in Florida, Illinois, and Arizona—states he would win handily—Elizabeth Warren published this Twitter thread:
This is brilliant. The moment to impose needed reforms on American industries is precisely when a crisis hits and they’re coming hat in hand to Washington asking for bailouts.
If I were Joe Biden, I’d immediately announce Warren as my vice-presidential pick. I’d further say that I agree with her bail out terms, and that while I don’t have a vote in the Senate, she does and she’s my proxy.
Such a move would give Biden serious leverage on a host of fronts.
First, by elevating Warren and her agenda, he’d be sending the message to Bernie voters that as president he really is willing to pursue serious structural change of the rules of American capitalism. Such a message would help unify the left and moderate wings of the Democratic Party while undercutting whatever argument Sanders still has for staying in the race.
Second, it would make Biden a power player in the immensely significant decisions that are going to be made in Washington in the coming weeks and months. Presuming he and Warren can come to terms—that is, he would have to agree to follow her lead on policy ideas but she’d have to agree that he’s the boss and not to go too far beyond what he’s comfortable with—her pronouncements on the Senate floor would be seen as the word of the presumptive Democratic nominee. As such, other Democratic lawmakers would be more inclined to support her positions. That would help unify the Democrats behind an aggressive set of demands they’d place before Mitch McConnell and, ultimately, Donald Trump, on the terms of any stimulus/bailout package. Every time Trump gives into a Democratic congressional demand, he would in essence be conceding to Joe Biden—months before the November elections.
This might sound fanciful. But is not far from the situation Biden’s boss Barack Obama found himself in during the winter of 2008-2009, when the auto industry sought billions of dollars in federal loans to stave off collapse in the midst of the financial crisis. Washington responded, but with stiff terms dictated mostly by congressional Democrats and Obama, who at the time hadn’t even been inaugurated.
Though Republicans refused to support a bailout bill, George W. Bush, as a lame duck, reversed himself and reluctantly agreed to use money from the TARP funds, created to fund the banks, for the auto industry bailout—precisely the position Obama had been advocating, and on the terms he’d called for—and months later, as president, Obama stiffened the terms when the auto companies asked for more money. The terms included the firing of car company CEOs and boards, elimination of unprofitable brands and dealerships, and new production of low-mileage cars, including electric models, in American plants (recall that part of the problem at the time was that Detroit had gone all in on SUVs and light trucks that they couldn’t move because of high oil prices).
Rightwing free marketers, as well as some on the left, condemned the auto company bailouts. But the truth is they not only saved the industry but helped keep the country out of another Great Depression–and the U.S. Treasury ultimately recovered all but about $9 billion of the $80 billion it invested in the industry.
All of this history will be revisited as the debate over the government’s economic response to the coronavirus picks up—including the fact that Trump was for the auto industry bailout before he was against it. By choosing Warren as his VP, Biden can put himself in the center of that action and start pushing Trump around on the single biggest issue facing the nation.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-19--A Pandemic Should Remind Us of the Need for Immigration Reform

Faced with a crisis like the spread of the coronavirus , Trump ’ s first instinct is isolationism .
So he issued travel bans and is now in the process of shutting down our borders .
There are arguments that can be made in favor of these actions , but the presence of a pandemic that is already spreading within the United States poses a deeper challenge to the Republican response to immigration .
According to estimates , there are currently 11 to 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States .
Pew Research reports that about two-thirds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 10 years .
These are the people who live in the shadows of our economy , especially given the current administration ’ s “ deport ’ em all ” efforts .
Following Mitt Romney ’ s loss to President Obama in the 2012 election , there was initially some movement among Republicans to address this problem .
In the Senate , a bipartisan group developed a plan for comprehensive immigration reform that included not only stronger border enforcement , but also a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate by a vote of 68-32 .
Anti-immigrant fervor had been fanned by the time the bill reached the House and then-Speaker John Boehner refused to even bring it up for a vote .
That was followed by Donald Trump basing his entire candidacy on xenophobic lies about immigration .
So we still have 11 to 12 million people living in the shadows .
Because of their status , they not only depress wages for the entire country , but have been excluded from accessing health care via Obamacare .
During the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether their plans to expand access to healthcare would include covering undocumented immigrants .
When the response was “ yes ” from some of them , we heard howls about how extreme Democrats had become .
But frankly , candidates should have responded by saying that such a question would be moot when comprehensive immigration reform was enacted .
Now we face a pandemic that is spreading all over the country like wildfire .
Those who are undocumented don ’ t have access to healthcare and aren ’ t likely to come forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fear of deportation .
That could thwart efforts in some parts of the country to get this virus under control .
This should be a lesson for all of us about the risks of allowing millions of people to live in the shadows—if not out of concern for them , then at least for ourselves .
As Trump ramps up the xenophobia in response to this pandemic , I don ’ t have much confidence that that will happen .
But it ’ s worth remembering that as recently as seven years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing something about this issue and Republicans chose fear over prudence .

Faced with a crisis like the spread of the coronavirus, Trump’s first instinct is isolationism. So he issued travel bans and is now in the process of shutting down our borders. There are arguments that can be made in favor of these actions, but the presence of a pandemic that is already spreading within the United States poses a deeper challenge to the Republican response to immigration.
According to estimates, there are currently 11 to 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. Pew Research reports that about two-thirds of them have lived in this country for more than 10 years. These are the people who live in the shadows of our economy, especially given the current administration’s “deport ’em all” efforts.
Following Mitt Romney’s loss to President Obama in the 2012 election, there was initially some movement among Republicans to address this problem. In the Senate, a bipartisan group developed a plan for comprehensive immigration reform that included not only stronger border enforcement, but also a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. In the summer of 2013, that plan passed the Senate by a vote of 68-32.
Anti-immigrant fervor had been fanned by the time the bill reached the House and then-Speaker John Boehner refused to even bring it up for a vote. That was followed by Donald Trump basing his entire candidacy on xenophobic lies about immigration.
So we still have 11 to 12 million people living in the shadows. Because of their status, they not only depress wages for the entire country, but have been excluded from accessing health care via Obamacare. During the Democratic presidential debates, candidates were asked whether their plans to expand access to healthcare would include covering undocumented immigrants. When the response was “yes” from some of them, we heard howls about how extreme Democrats had become. But frankly, candidates should have responded by saying that such a question would be moot when comprehensive immigration reform was enacted.
Now we face a pandemic that is spreading all over the country like wildfire. Those who are undocumented don’t have access to healthcare and aren’t likely to come forward to be tested or treated out of fear of deportation. That could thwart efforts in some parts of the country to get this virus under control.
This should be a lesson for all of us about the risks of allowing millions of people to live in the shadows—if not out of concern for them, then at least for ourselves. As Trump ramps up the xenophobia in response to this pandemic, I don’t have much confidence that that will happen. But it’s worth remembering that as recently as seven years ago, there was strong bipartisan agreement on doing something about this issue and Republicans chose fear over prudence.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-19--The ‘Steady State’ Endorses Joe Biden for President

Calling themselves “ The Steady State , ” more than 80 former national security officials have signed a letter endorsing Joe Biden for president .
There are some familiar names on the list , like former Deputy Homeland Security Advisor Rand Beers and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , but you probably have never heard of most of the signatories .
They have held important positions like Assistant Secretary of State , chief of staff at FEMA , Director of Intelligence and Counterintelligence at the Department of Energy , Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Room .
The list includes more than a dozen formerly covert intelligence officers and ambassadors to countries like Yemen , Qatar , and Pakistan .
With a few exceptions , these folks have never been openly partisan before , and most of them have served under both Democratic and Republican presidents .
They ’ ve gone public with their support for Biden because they feel that President Trump “ has created an existential danger to the United States.
” We write to endorse Vice President Joe Biden for President of the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are in disarray ; our alliances frayed , and our national prestige declining .
Our approach to both friends and enemies abroad has been chaotic and unprincipled .
Our credibility as a nation has been lessened .
And , perhaps most importantly , our place in the world as a source of moral leadership has nearly been lost .
As a country , we are increasingly less secure and less safe .
To be clear , those of us signing this letter do not agree on everything , or even most things , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security .
Our policy views cover most of the spectrum , and many of us have often been in opposition , sometimes bitterly , with each other .
But we have always been bound by profound patriotism , and a deep belief in our American democracy .
But the course of events since the 2016 Presidential election has been deeply troubling .
It is not just policy differences .
President Trump , and his approach to leadership at home and abroad , has created an existential danger to the United States , its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ values we share .
His reelection would continue this downward spiral , and will likely have catastrophic results .
Democracy itself is at stake .
They obviously call themselves “ The Steady State ” as a rebuttal to the term “ Deep State.
” They recognize that they will be dismissed by those who feel that there has been a conspiracy within the top echelons of the national security apparatus to undermine President Trump , but they ’ re speaking to the folks who are open-minded .
It ’ s true that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders , but it has more significance for the general election .
It shows one part of what will be a broader trend .
Biden will win endorsements not just from our intelligence and diplomatic corps , but from almost every newspaper editorial board in the country .
He ’ ll be vouched for by countless former Republicans , including many well-known operatives and media personalities .
There will be a host of traditionally Republican or independent business leaders who back Biden over Trump .
Some very well known former generals and senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lifelong neutrality to weigh in on Biden ’ s behalf .
The Establishment won ’ t speak with one voice , but they ’ ll speak overwhelmingly for one side , and often for the first time .
People can view this as a negative if they ’ re so inclined .
Some will figure that if Biden is acceptable to these people , there must be something wrong with him .
Maybe he isn ’ t offering enough change .
But it will be helpful to the effort to beat Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he actually wins the election and needs support for putting this country back on its feet .
It ’ s also going to further isolate the modern Republican Party .
They ’ ll have less legitimacy in Washington D.C. than any major political party has ever suffered .
If Biden becomes the next president in 2021 , he ’ ll be inheriting a bigger mess than Obama faced in 2009 , but he ’ ll also have one of the biggest honeymoons we ’ ve ever seen .
If he loses , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a bureaucracy that views him with nothing but horror .
Which do you think has more potential for success ?

Calling themselves “The Steady State,” more than 80 former national security officials have signed a letter endorsing Joe Biden for president. There are some familiar names on the list, like former Deputy Homeland Security Advisor Rand Beers and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, but you probably have never heard of most of the signatories. They have held important positions like Assistant Secretary of State, chief of staff at FEMA, Director of Intelligence and Counterintelligence at the Department of Energy, Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and senior director of the White House Situation Room. The list includes more than a dozen formerly covert intelligence officers and ambassadors to countries like Yemen, Qatar, and Pakistan.
With a few exceptions, these folks have never been openly partisan before, and most of them have served under both Democratic and Republican presidents. They’ve gone public with their support for Biden because they feel that President Trump “has created an existential danger to the United States.”
We write to endorse Vice President Joe Biden for President of the United States. Our nation’s foreign affairs are in disarray; our alliances frayed, and our national prestige declining. Our approach to both friends and enemies abroad has been chaotic and unprincipled. Our credibility as a nation has been lessened. And, perhaps most importantly, our place in the world as a source of moral leadership has nearly been lost. As a country, we are increasingly less secure and less safe. To be clear, those of us signing this letter do not agree on everything, or even most things, concerning foreign policy, defense or homeland security. Our policy views cover most of the spectrum, and many of us have often been in opposition, sometimes bitterly, with each other. But we have always been bound by profound patriotism, and a deep belief in our American democracy. But the course of events since the 2016 Presidential election has been deeply troubling. It is not just policy differences. President Trump, and his approach to leadership at home and abroad, has created an existential danger to the United States, its place in the world, and the values we share. His reelection would continue this downward spiral, and will likely have catastrophic results. Democracy itself is at stake.
They obviously call themselves “The Steady State” as a rebuttal to the term “Deep State.” They recognize that they will be dismissed by those who feel that there has been a conspiracy within the top echelons of the national security apparatus to undermine President Trump, but they’re speaking to the folks who are open-minded.
It’s true that this is technically an endorsement of Biden over Sanders, but it has more significance for the general election. It shows one part of what will be a broader trend. Biden will win endorsements not just from our intelligence and diplomatic corps, but from almost every newspaper editorial board in the country. He’ll be vouched for by countless former Republicans, including many well-known operatives and media personalities. There will be a host of traditionally Republican or independent business leaders who back Biden over Trump. Some very well known former generals and senior officers in the military will break their lifelong neutrality to weigh in on Biden’s behalf.
The Establishment won’t speak with one voice, but they’ll speak overwhelmingly for one side, and often for the first time.
People can view this as a negative if they’re so inclined. Some will figure that if Biden is acceptable to these people, there must be something wrong with him. Maybe he isn’t offering enough change.
But it will be helpful to the effort to beat Trump. It will be truly beneficial to Biden if he actually wins the election and needs support for putting this country back on its feet.
It’s also going to further isolate the modern Republican Party. They’ll have less legitimacy in Washington D.C. than any major political party has ever suffered.
If Biden becomes the next president in 2021, he’ll be inheriting a bigger mess than Obama faced in 2009, but he’ll also have one of the biggest honeymoons we’ve ever seen. If he loses, Trump will try to govern a city and a bureaucracy that views him with nothing but horror.
Which do you think has more potential for success?


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-19--A Biden Presidency Would Not Be a Return to the Status Quo

Joe Biden likes to talk about his days as Obama ’ s vice president .
He regularly touts the administration ’ s achievements while talking about the need to recapture the “ soul of America ” that has been decimated by the current occupant of the Oval Office .
But progressives are wrong to suggest that a Biden presidency would be nothing more than a return to the status quo of the Obama years .
His platform currently includes the following : • Increase taxes on the wealthy .
The Tax Policy Center calculated that Biden ’ s plan would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the largest wealth transfers in American history .
• Subsidies and Medicaid funding , along with a public option , in order to achieve universal health care .
• A combination of $ 17 trillion in clean energy investment and tighter regulations to bring emissions to zero by 2050 .
• A combined $ 2 trillion in new spending on early education , post-secondary education , and housing .
• Closure of the gun show loophole and a ban on the sale of assault weapons .
• A constitutional amendment to eliminate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Just a few days ago , Biden signed on to support Senator Elizabeth Warren ’ s bankruptcy plan .
When it comes to foreign policy , Biden would , first of all , restore the Iran Nuclear Agreement and re-engage the United States in the Paris Climate Accord .
But I would also remind you that , during his time in the Obama administration , Biden consistently counseled against foreign military intervention .
Restoring the relationships with our allies that have been decimated by the current administration is something Biden would tackle on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reaches the level of change proposed by Senators Sanders and Warren , it hardly qualifies as “ centrist ” or maintenance of the status quo .
It is one of the most progressive platforms we ’ ve ever seen from a presidential candidate .
One of the reasons Biden is so often misunderstood by progressives is that they did the same thing to President Obama .
It is assumed that both men are content with what was accomplished from 2009-2016 .
But here is what Obama said about that last November .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about how change happens in democracies was to compare the federal government to steering an ocean liner .
Here is how he described that to Marc Maron .
The emphasis on “ hope and change ” during the 2008 election captured our aspirations about where we should be going .
But the question becomes , “ how do we operationalize these concepts into concrete actions ?
” When it comes to specifics , the world is complicated and there are choices you have to make .
The trajectory of progress comes in fits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going is balanced by what is and where you ’ ve been .
Progress in a democracy is never instantaneous and it ’ s always partial .
On the idea of “ middle management , ” sometimes your job is just to make things work .
And sometimes your task is to make incremental improvements .
It ’ s like steering an ocean liner and making a 2 degree turn so that 10 years from now we ’ re suddenly in a very different place .
You can ’ t turn 50 degrees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not how societies – especially democracies – work .
As long as we ’ re turning in the right direction and we ’ re making progress , government is working like its supposed to .
To get an idea of what that looks like , we can use this visualization .
Obama ’ s goal was to implement the two-degree turn that would lead to the destination marked “ future.
” That ’ s what he meant when he described Obamacare as a “ starter home.
” To use another one of Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would represent the next leg of the relay race meant to get us there .
There are progressives who might argue that it is , indeed , possible to turn the ocean liner 50 degrees all at once , which is what we need to do right now .
That is an argument that would be worth having .
But it is inaccurate to suggest that either Biden or Obama would advocate for simply returning to the status quo .
And for the time being , it is clear that Democratic voters have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” in favor of more pragmatic change .

Joe Biden likes to talk about his days as Obama’s vice president. He regularly touts the administration’s achievements while talking about the need to recapture the “soul of America” that has been decimated by the current occupant of the Oval Office.
But progressives are wrong to suggest that a Biden presidency would be nothing more than a return to the status quo of the Obama years. His platform currently includes the following:
Increase taxes on the wealthy. The Tax Policy Center calculated that Biden’s plan would raise $4 trillion over a decade—one of the largest wealth transfers in American history. Subsidies and Medicaid funding, along with a public option, in order to achieve universal health care. A combination of $17 trillion in clean energy investment and tighter regulations to bring emissions to zero by 2050. A combined $2 trillion in new spending on early education, post-secondary education, and housing. A $1.3 trillion infrastructure plan. A $15 minimum wage. Closure of the gun show loophole and a ban on the sale of assault weapons. Comprehensive immigration reform, including a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. A comprehensive program for criminal justice reform. A constitutional amendment to eliminate private dollars from our federal elections.
Just a few days ago, Biden signed on to support Senator Elizabeth Warren’s bankruptcy plan.
When it comes to foreign policy, Biden would, first of all, restore the Iran Nuclear Agreement and re-engage the United States in the Paris Climate Accord. But I would also remind you that, during his time in the Obama administration, Biden consistently counseled against foreign military intervention. Restoring the relationships with our allies that have been decimated by the current administration is something Biden would tackle on day one.
While none of that reaches the level of change proposed by Senators Sanders and Warren, it hardly qualifies as “centrist” or maintenance of the status quo. It is one of the most progressive platforms we’ve ever seen from a presidential candidate.
One of the reasons Biden is so often misunderstood by progressives is that they did the same thing to President Obama. It is assumed that both men are content with what was accomplished from 2009-2016. But here is what Obama said about that last November.
…if I were running today, I wouldn’t run the same campaign that I did in 2008.” Conversations around issues like climate change and criminal justice reform have completely shifted, he explained. And as a result, so should the policy pitches. The Affordable Care Act is a “starter home.”
One of the analogies Obama used when talking about how change happens in democracies was to compare the federal government to steering an ocean liner. Here is how he described that to Marc Maron.
The emphasis on “hope and change” during the 2008 election captured our aspirations about where we should be going. But the question becomes, “how do we operationalize these concepts into concrete actions?” When it comes to specifics, the world is complicated and there are choices you have to make. The trajectory of progress comes in fits and starts and where you’re going is balanced by what is and where you’ve been. Progress in a democracy is never instantaneous and it’s always partial. On the idea of “middle management,” sometimes your job is just to make things work. And sometimes your task is to make incremental improvements. It’s like steering an ocean liner and making a 2 degree turn so that 10 years from now we’re suddenly in a very different place. You can’t turn 50 degrees all at once because that’s not how societies – especially democracies – work. As long as we’re turning in the right direction and we’re making progress, government is working like its supposed to.
To get an idea of what that looks like, we can use this visualization.
Obama’s goal was to implement the two-degree turn that would lead to the destination marked “future.” That’s what he meant when he described Obamacare as a “starter home.” To use another one of Obama’s analogies, a Biden presidency would represent the next leg of the relay race meant to get us there.
There are progressives who might argue that it is, indeed, possible to turn the ocean liner 50 degrees all at once, which is what we need to do right now. That is an argument that would be worth having. But it is inaccurate to suggest that either Biden or Obama would advocate for simply returning to the status quo. And for the time being, it is clear that Democratic voters have rejected the notion of a “revolution” in favor of more pragmatic change.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-20--A Biden-Warren Ticket? Answering the Doubters.

Earlier this week , I made the case that Joe Biden should immediately pick Elizabeth Warren as his running mate .
The post got quite a response from commenters here and on social media , both positive and negative .
The critiques deserve answers , which I attempt to provide below .
But let me first sum up my argument .
I had been thinking for some time that Warren would be the best choice for Biden ’ s VP .
Her policy smarts and determination to rewrite the rules of the market would be a necessary compliment to his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ticket that both younger/left-leaning and older/moderate-leaning Democratic voter can get behind .
Warren ’ s impressive Twitter thread from Tuesday convinced me that Biden should do so right away .
She laid out a series of conditions that should be attached to any industry bailouts Congress is contemplating—from requirements that companies pay employees a minimum wage of $ 15 an hour to prohibitions on engaging in the kind of stock buybacks that have left corporations bereft of cash and hence needing bailouts in the first place .
“ The moment to impose needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a crisis hits and they ’ re coming hat in hand to Washington asking for bailouts , ” I wrote , adding that if he puts Warren on the ticket right away [ I ] t would make Biden a power player in the immensely significant decisions that are going to be made in Washington in the coming weeks and months .
Presuming he and Warren can come to terms—that is , he would have to agree to follow her lead on policy ideas but she ’ d have to agree that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go too far beyond what he ’ s comfortable with—her pronouncements on the Senate floor would be seen as the word of the presumptive Democratic nominee .
As such , other Democratic lawmakers would be more inclined to support her positions .
That would help unify the Democrats behind an aggressive set of demands they ’ d place before Mitch McConnell and , ultimately , Donald Trump , on the terms of any stimulus/bailout package .
Every time Trump gives into a Democratic congressional demand , he would in essence be conceding to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The potential for Biden and Warren , together with congressional Democrats , to use this moment of crisis—which Republicans themselves seem increasingly willing to spend trillions of dollars to address—to restructure the rules of the economy in a profoundly progressive direction , and to do so in a way that requires the sitting president to publicly make major concessions to his Democratic rival , all before the November elections , is something I ’ m not sure most people have gotten their heads around .
Still , commenters raised several reasonable arguments for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address those one by one .
First is the question of her age : Warren will be 71 in June .
That ’ s actually not much older than Biden was when he assumed the vice presidency , nor Nelson Rockefeller : both were 66 .
I don ’ t remember anyone complaining about their ages .
And women outlive men !
To be sure , Warren paired with Biden , who turns 78 in November , does not exactly make a youthful tableau .
But compared to what ?
In November , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 74 and 61 respectably .
Younger , yes , but so much so that significant numbers of voters will make that the deciding factor ?
I doubt it .
Second is the argument that Biden ought to choose a vice president who is a member of a minority group .
In an ideal world , he definitely should , for reasons of both justice and political advantage .
But as a practical matter , it ’ s hard to argue that any of the commonly floated names is a better choice than Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the current presidential race—Kamala Harris , Cory Booker , Julian Castro , Andrew Yang , Deval Patrick—none won a single delegate ( Warren won 72 ) and most dropped out before Iowa .
Most minority voters , like most Democratic voters generally , seem to be choosing electability over identity , at least in this cycle .
That fact also argues against Biden taking the risk of tapping a less know , less experienced , less vetted candidate—Stacey Abrams , say , or Michelle Lujan Grisham .
A third concern is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choosing her means losing the chance to win over large numbers of independents and Republicans disgusted with Trump and the GOP .
I am deeply sympathetic to this argument—all the more so because in Amy Klobuchar the Democrats have a quality potential VP candidate who ought to make the ticket attractive to Never Trumpers , especially in the all-important Upper Midwest .
The problem is that if Biden were to choose Klobuchar , he would be effectively dissing the entire left half of the Democratic base .
It ’ s a judgement call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know that anyone has , or even can , do the math .
But it seems to me that there is a bigger potential net upside to Biden picking a candidate who is at least acceptable , and perhaps highly attractive , to loyal Democratic voters on the left than one who might bring in voters on the center-right who are not traditional Democrats Finally , there ’ s the worry that if Warren were to become vice president , Massachusetts ’ Governor Charlie Baker would replace her with a fellow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small concern , since the senate is up for grabs in 2020 and whichever party controls it will control , among other things , the future makeup of the courts .
But the threat here is less than meets the eye .
Baker ’ s replacement would only serve for five months—less if Warren were to resign from the senate earlier , after the November elections but before inauguration—at which point a special election would need to be held that Democrats are likely to win .
Massachusetts Democrats can avoid even that risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state legislature to pass a law saying any senator appointed by the governor has to be from the same party as the previous senator—a law already on the books in a number of states .
Boom , problem solved .

Earlier this week, I made the case that Joe Biden should immediately pick Elizabeth Warren as his running mate. The post got quite a response from commenters here and on social media, both positive and negative. The critiques deserve answers, which I attempt to provide below. But let me first sum up my argument.
I had been thinking for some time that Warren would be the best choice for Biden’s VP. Her policy smarts and determination to rewrite the rules of the market would be a necessary compliment to his more cautious approach, creating a balanced ticket that both younger/left-leaning and older/moderate-leaning Democratic voters can get behind.
Warren’s impressive Twitter thread from Tuesday convinced me that Biden should do so right away. She laid out a series of conditions that should be attached to any industry bailouts Congress is contemplating—from requirements that companies pay employees a minimum wage of $15 an hour to prohibitions on engaging in the kind of stock buybacks that have left corporations bereft of cash and hence needing bailouts in the first place. “The moment to impose needed reforms on American industries is precisely when a crisis hits and they’re coming hat in hand to Washington asking for bailouts,” I wrote, adding that if he puts Warren on the ticket right away
[I]t would make Biden a power player in the immensely significant decisions that are going to be made in Washington in the coming weeks and months. Presuming he and Warren can come to terms—that is, he would have to agree to follow her lead on policy ideas but she’d have to agree that he’s the boss and not to go too far beyond what he’s comfortable with—her pronouncements on the Senate floor would be seen as the word of the presumptive Democratic nominee. As such, other Democratic lawmakers would be more inclined to support her positions. That would help unify the Democrats behind an aggressive set of demands they’d place before Mitch McConnell and, ultimately, Donald Trump, on the terms of any stimulus/bailout package. Every time Trump gives into a Democratic congressional demand, he would in essence be conceding to Joe Biden—months before the November elections.
The potential for Biden and Warren, together with congressional Democrats, to use this moment of crisis—which Republicans themselves seem increasingly willing to spend trillions of dollars to address—to restructure the rules of the economy in a profoundly progressive direction, and to do so in a way that requires the sitting president to publicly make major concessions to his Democratic rival, all before the November elections, is something I’m not sure most people have gotten their heads around.
Still, commenters raised several reasonable arguments for not picking Warren, so let me address those one by one.
First is the question of her age: Warren will be 71 in June. That’s actually not much older than Biden was when he assumed the vice presidency, nor Nelson Rockefeller: both were 66. I don’t remember anyone complaining about their ages. And women outlive men! To be sure, Warren paired with Biden, who turns 78 in November, does not exactly make a youthful tableau. But compared to what? In November, Donald Trump and Mike Pence will be 74 and 61 respectively. Younger, yes, but so much so that significant numbers of voters will make that the deciding factor? I doubt it.
Second is the argument that Biden ought to choose a vice president who is a person of color. In an ideal world, he definitely should, for reasons of both justice and political advantage. But as a practical matter, it’s hard to argue that any of the commonly floated names is a better choice than Warren. Of the minority candidates who ran in the current presidential race—Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Andrew Yang, Deval Patrick—none won a single delegate (Warren won 72) and most dropped out before Iowa. Most minority voters, like most Democratic voters generally, seem to be choosing electability over identity, at least in this cycle. That fact also argues against Biden taking the risk of tapping a less known, less experienced, less vetted candidate—Stacey Abrams, say, or Michelle Lujan Grisham.
A third concern is that Warren is too far left and that choosing her means losing the chance to win over large numbers of independents and Republicans disgusted with Trump and the GOP. I am deeply sympathetic to this argument—all the more so because in Amy Klobuchar the Democrats have a quality potential VP candidate who ought to make the ticket attractive to Never Trumpers, especially in the all-important Upper Midwest. The problem is that if Biden were to choose Klobuchar, he would be effectively dissing the entire left half of the Democratic base. It’s a judgement call, I know, and I don’t know that anyone has, or even can, do the math. But it seems to me that there is a bigger potential net upside to Biden picking a candidate who is at least acceptable, and perhaps highly attractive, to loyal Democratic voters on the left than one who might bring in voters on the center-right who are not traditional Democrats
Finally, there’s the worry that if Warren were to become vice president, Massachusetts’ Governor Charlie Baker would replace her with a fellow Republican. Obviously, this is no small concern, since the senate is up for grabs in 2020 and whichever party controls it will control, among other things, the future makeup of the courts. But the threat here is less than meets the eye. Baker’s replacement would only serve for five months—less if Warren were to resign from the senate earlier, after the November elections but before inauguration—at which point a special election would need to be held that Democrats are likely to win. Massachusetts Democrats can avoid even that risk by using their veto proof majority in the state legislature to pass a law saying any senator appointed by the governor has to be from the same party as the previous senator—a law already on the books in a number of states. Boom, problem solved.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-20--Democrats Are Proving That, In Times of Crisis, Both Sides Don’t Do It

When Barack Obama was sworn into office on January 21 , 2009 , the country was in the midst of the Great Recession .
Credit markets were frozen and the economy was shedding about 800,000 jobs per month .
Businesses were shutting down while people all over the country were losing not just their livelihoods , but their homes as well .
The reason it is important to keep that in mind is because it was at that point that Republicans decided that they would become the party of “ no.
” Michael Grunwald documented that decision .
He wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eric Cantor and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell “ in which they laid out their daring ( though cynical and political ) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency.
” “ If he was for it , ” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained , “ we had to be against it.
” … [ Cantor ] was afraid that if the Democrats managed to pick off two or three Republicans , they ’ d be able to slap a “ bipartisan ” label on the bill… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big promises about bipartisanship , they could break those promises by refusing to cooperate .
In the words of Congressman Tom Cole , a deputy Republican whip : “ We wanted the talking point : ‘ The only thing bipartisan was the opposition.
’ ” In other words , the Republicans prioritized a talking point over their responsibility to the public .
They didn ’ t just obstruct what Democrats proposed , they sat on their asses and didn ’ t offer any constructive alternatives .
It was , indeed , one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A little more than eleven years later , this country is once again in crisis .
But this time , we have a Republican president and Democrats are making a very different decision .
As we ’ ve seen , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken the reins and passed two major bills to tackle this crisis .
Both of them got through the Senate and were signed by the president .
Congress is now in the process of putting together a third bill to respond specifically to the economic crisis resulting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into panic mode and , while not providing any leadership himself , seems to be willing to agree to almost anything .
Meanwhile , Senate Republicans are meeting behind closed doors to come up with their proposal and Democrats are airing numerous plans and ideas .
We don ’ t know yet how those negotiations will pan out .
But one thing is clear : Democrats are doing the exact opposite of what Republicans did during the Great Recession .
Regardless of how it reflects on the opposition , they are going all-in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the American people .
That ’ s because their number one priority is to do their jobs , rather than to simply show allegiance to talking points as part of a power game .
I can ’ t think of a more perfect example of the fact that both sides don ’ t do it .
This would be a great time for the media to recognize that and actually say it out loud .

When Barack Obama was sworn into office on January 21, 2009, the country was in the midst of the Great Recession. Credit markets were frozen and the economy was shedding about 800,000 jobs per month. Businesses were shutting down while people all over the country were losing not just their livelihoods, but their homes as well.
The reason it is important to keep that in mind is because it was at that point that Republicans decided that they would become the party of “no.” Michael Grunwald documented that decision. He wrote about meetings led by House GOP Whip Eric Cantor and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell “in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency.”
“If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.”… [Cantor] was afraid that if the Democrats managed to pick off two or three Republicans, they’d be able to slap a “bipartisan” label on the bill… Republicans recognized that after Obama’s big promises about bipartisanship, they could break those promises by refusing to cooperate. In the words of Congressman Tom Cole, a deputy Republican whip: “We wanted the talking point: ‘The only thing bipartisan was the opposition.’ ”
In other words, the Republicans prioritized a talking point over their responsibility to the public. They didn’t just obstruct what Democrats proposed, they sat on their asses and didn’t offer any constructive alternatives. It was, indeed, one of the most cynical moments in American politics.
A little more than eleven years later, this country is once again in crisis. But this time, we have a Republican president and Democrats are making a very different decision. As we’ve seen, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken the reins and passed two major bills to tackle this crisis. Both of them got through the Senate (with only Republicans voting against them) and were signed by the president.
Congress is now in the process of putting together a third bill to respond specifically to the economic crisis resulting from the coronavirus. Trump has gone into panic mode and, while not providing any leadership himself, seems to be willing to agree to almost anything. Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are meeting behind closed doors to come up with their proposal and Democrats are airing numerous plans and ideas.
We don’t know yet how those negotiations will pan out. But one thing is clear: Democrats are doing the exact opposite of what Republicans did during the Great Recession. Regardless of how it reflects on the opposition, they are going all-in on doing whatever is necessary to help the American people. That’s because their number one priority is to do their jobs, rather than to simply show allegiance to talking points as part of a power game.
I can’t think of a more perfect example of the fact that both sides don’t do it. This would be a great time for the media to recognize that and actually say it out loud.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-20--A Woman President Isn’t That Far Away

A Woman President Isn’t That Far Away

So many women I love and respect are despairing over Elizabeth Warren ’ s departure from the presidential race , but I ’ m not .
The reason : my eighth-grade son ’ s basketball team .
Don ’ t get me wrong , no matter your political persuasion , it would be nice to finally see a woman sitting behind the Resolute desk .
And even though that won ’ t happen in January , I ’ m hopeful , even optimistic , that it will happen in my lifetime .
Just a couple of weeks ago , my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basketball team crammed into my van for a twenty-minute ride .
As kids get older , these moments come along less frequently , so I savored the chance to eavesdrop on their coming-of-age conversation.Among other things , they talked about who is the best at Surviv and who picked the hardest topic for a science project .
I ’ ve thought of those chuckling boys often as I ’ ve read and heard so many women exclaim in effect : “ If men in America won ’ t vote for Elizabeth Warren , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a female president !
” I don ’ t buy it.Because when those boys in my van become voting age , they will gladly vote for a woman as long as they believe she is the best candidate .
I know because I asked them .
“ Forget the politics , ” I said , “ I ’ m just asking you if you think a woman could be a good president.
” And they looked at me as if I had asked them if they wanted to drive through McDonald ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , ” they said .
Those boys in my van are representative of a generation of young men who have strong , educated women in their lives .
Some see their mothers lead organizations or offices , often as the family ’ s primary earner .
One of the boys saw his sister graduate from college with honors while another saw his sister elected to student government —and that ’ s just what they see at home .
They are reaching the age of reason and tuning into current events just as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress than ever before ; nearly a quarter of the membership of the 116th Congress are women .
• The number of women serving in the highest ranks of the U.S. military has doubled in the past two decades .
• For the first time in history , women lead the law reviews at the nation ’ s most prestigious law schools .
• The majority of students enrolled at degree-granting institutions are women , and women are more likely than their male classmates to earn degrees .
• Of today ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When the Gen X parents of today ’ s adolescents were growing up , that number was three percent .
Young boys today see what ’ s happening around them , and they perceive girls as being capable leaders .
It ’ s not an idea they must get used to as adults ; for many of them , it ’ s already part of their organic belief systems .
Think of how many millions of women have participated in organized marches for equality just since 2016 .
Surely , at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one son .
It seems safe to assume that those sons will grow up to consider women capable of being in charge .
In fact , when they imagine “ a person in charge , ” most are unlikely notto think of a woman .
As the mother of two sons , I find myself a touch offended by all the pessimism about the future male citizens of the U.S. of A .
Does the Twittersphere really think that those of us down here in the trenches rearing the next generation are looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , my boys and their friends are members of a demographic who , in the not-so-distant-past , were often brought up to inherit the kingdom based on their gender , ancestry , and skin tone .
I don ’ t think I ’ m alone when I say , “ Not on my watch !
” Sure , there are still cesspools of misogyny and racism out there .
I ’ m not naïve and Pollyanna , chirping that the battle is finished .
I ’ m saying the world is changing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convicted .
Chris Matthews was fired .
A very short time ago , we would have seen different outcomes in both of those situations .
Yes , change comes too slowly .
That can be frustrating .
As Martin Luther King Jr. said of the fight for civil rights , “ …when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of ‘ nobodiness ’ —then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait.
” Women in this country have been ready to see one of our kind in the Oval Office for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard to be patient waiting for the goofballs in the back of my van grow up to be tomorrow ’ s voters .
But we ’ ll just keep teaching them and keep feeding them .
Eventually , it will happen .
If you don ’ t believe me , please imagine the wrinkled brows and incredulous eyes of six 13-year-old boys when faced with the question , “ Can a woman be in charge ?
” Their answer was almost in unison : “ What a weird question .
Of course !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( and possibly motivated by self-interest ) , but I still think there is something to be gleaned from this small sampling .
To be sure , there are plenty of male voters who probably can not envision someone who looks and sounds like Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar or Kamala Harris as their commander in chief .
But don ’ t count out the younger generations .
For every little girl who got a pinky-swear from Elizabeth Warren , and who is dreaming of running for president someday , there is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote for her .

So many women I love and respect are despairing over Elizabeth Warren’s departure from the presidential race, but I’m not. The reason: my eighth-grade son’s basketball team.
Don’t get me wrong, no matter your political persuasion, it would be nice to finally see a woman sitting behind the Resolute Desk. And even though that won’t happen in January, I’m hopeful, even optimistic, that it will happen in my lifetime.
Just a couple of weeks ago, my teenaged son and some members of his basketball team crammed into my van for a twenty-minute ride. As kids get older, these moments come along less frequently, so I savored the chance to eavesdrop on their coming-of-age conversation. Among other things, they talked about who is the best at Surviv and who picked the hardest topic for a science project. I’ve thought of those chuckling boys often as I’ve read and heard so many women exclaim in effect: “If men in America won’t vote for Elizabeth Warren, then we have no hope of ever electing a female president!”
I don’t buy it. Because when those boys in my van become voting age, they will gladly vote for a woman as long as they believe she is the best candidate. I know because I asked them. “Forget the politics,” I said, “I’m just asking you if you think a woman could be a good president.” And they looked at me as if I had asked them if they wanted to drive through McDonald’s for milkshakes. “Duh, of course,” they said.
Those boys in my van are representative of a generation of young men who have strong, educated women in their lives. Some see their mothers lead organizations or offices, often as the family’s primary earner. One of the boys saw his sister graduate from college with honors while another saw his sister elected to student government—and that’s just what they see at home. They are reaching the age of reason and tuning into current events just as:
More women are serving in Congress than ever before; nearly a quarter of the membership of the 116 th Congress are women.
Congress are women. The number of women serving in the highest ranks of the U.S. military has doubled in the past two decades.
For the first time in history, women lead the law reviews at the nation’s most prestigious law schools.
The majority of students enrolled at degree-granting institutions are women, and women are more likely than their male classmates to earn degrees.
Of today’s stay-at-home parents, 17 percent are dads. When the Gen X parents of today’s adolescents were growing up, that number was three percent.
Young boys today see what’s happening around them, and they perceive girls as being capable leaders. It’s not an idea they must get used to as adults; for many of them, it’s already part of their organic belief systems. Think of how many millions of women have participated in organized marches for equality just since 2016. Surely, at least half of those women have a least one son. It seems safe to assume that those sons will grow up to consider women capable of being in charge. In fact, when they imagine “a person in charge,” most are unlikely not to think of a woman.
As the mother of two sons, I find myself a touch offended by all the pessimism about the future male citizens of the U.S. of A. Does the Twittersphere really think that those of us down here in the trenches rearing the next generation are looking to spawn a new patriarchy? Yes, my boys and their friends are members of a demographic who, in the not-so-distant-past, were often brought up to inherit the kingdom based on their gender, ancestry, and skin tone. I don’t think I’m alone when I say, “Not on my watch!”
Sure, there are still cesspools of misogyny and racism out there. I’m not naïve and Pollyanna, chirping that the battle is finished. I’m saying the world is changing and there is hope. Harvey Weinstein was convicted. Chris Matthews was fired. A very short time ago, we would have seen different outcomes in both of those situations.
Yes, change comes too slowly. That can be frustrating. As Martin Luther King Jr. said of the fight for civil rights, “…when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of ‘nobodiness’—then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait.” Women in this country have been ready to see one of our kind in the Oval Office for a long time. It’s hard to be patient waiting for the goofballs in the back of my van grow up to be tomorrow’s voters. But we’ll just keep teaching them and keep feeding them. Eventually, it will happen.
If you don’t believe me, please imagine the wrinkled brows and incredulous eyes of six 13-year-old boys when faced with the question, “Can a woman be in charge?” Their answer was almost in unison: “What a weird question. Of course!”
Granted, this evidence is anecdotal (and possibly motivated by self-interest), but I still think there is something to be gleaned from this small sampling. To be sure, there are plenty of male voters who probably cannot envision someone who looks and sounds like Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar or Kamala Harris as their commander in chief. But don’t count out the younger generations. For every little girl who got a pinky-swear from Elizabeth Warren, and who is dreaming of running for president someday, there is a little boy who is being raised to vote for her.