thebulwark--2020-04-20--Stop Giving Jared and Ivanka a Free Pass

One of the most confounding predicaments of the Trump era is how everyone is supposed to keep treating fundamentally unserious people seriously .
Case in point : Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump .
Why , for example , is Jared on the television screen again , this time to brief the nation about the coronavirus ?
Why do we have to listen to Ivanka laugh along as she accepts false credit from her father for creating 15 million jobs ?
Of course , these are stupid questions because we all know the answer .
Nepotism , duh .
And yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to explain what ’ s so galling about their presence .
For far too long , most of the media has given Jared and Ivanka a free pass .
Maybe reporters hoped Jared and Ivanka would provide a friendly access point to the White House .
Maybe some commentators thought the couple would serve as a moderating force upon the president .
Maybe longstanding journalistic norms about presidents ’ “ children ” being off-limits to close media scrutiny are somehow being applied to this 39-year-old man and 38-year-old woman .
For whatever reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t get the full criticism they deserve—a fact they use to full advantage .
Their carefully crafted calm and cool public images are cheap plaster over unbridled greed and arrogance that leads them to keep assuming positions they have no business taking .
It was reported late last month that Vice President Mike Pence asked Kushner to work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency on coronavirus test kits and ventilator availability .
Standing at the White House podium , Kushner delivered a message that was directly contrary to the very purpose of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be managing .
“ The notion of the federal stockpile was it ’ s supposed to be our stockpile , ” he said .
“ It ’ s not supposed to be state stockpiles that they then use.
” He was wrong , but someone covered for him : Language on the Strategic National Stockpile website was stealth-edited to make what he said seem less wrong .
So whose stockpile is it really ?
If it ’ s not for the states , who is it for ?
The fact that Kushner is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how much trouble we ’ re in .
In his role as senior advisor to the president , Kushner ’ s so-called “ portfolio ” —which is said to include Iraq , China , bringing peace to the Middle East , building the border wall , veterans affairs , criminal justice reform , opioid addiction , government technology , and “ reinventing ” the entire federal government to make it more efficient—means he spends his time on whatever President Trump wants him to do .
Kushner has no “ lane.
” He dabbles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at all .
Then there ’ s Ivanka , who Axios reports is busy lobbying banks for billions .
She is playing “ a key role in negotiating small-business provisions in the new rescue bill being planned by the Hill and the White House.
” Last year , President Trump said he thought about appointing her to the United Nations and offered her the top position at the World Bank because she ’ s “ good with numbers.
” She declined ; why would she leave the White House where she ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
While Ivanka has taken plenty of other turns play-acting as a policy leader , whether it was touring the DMZ or overplaying her hand at the G20 with world leaders , those incidents were merely embarrassing , not necessarily consequential .
This time , she ’ s got her hand directly in the middle of policymaking , business , and money .
For the power-hungry , it doesn ’ t get any better than that .
Recall , neither Ivanka nor Jared has ever been elected or confirmed to any position .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Jared ’ s brief internship in the Manhattan D.A.
’ s office ) .
Neither has subject-matter expertise in the policy fields they have been involved in .
Yet , they now have a say in who gets life-saving medical equipment and to whom and how billions of dollars will flow .
If you ’ ve been waiting to get worried about their roles , now would be the time to start .
How did we get here ?
Well , the only reason Jared and Ivanka are in the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Office of Legal Counsel reversed opinions it had given previous presidents , declaring that federal anti-nepotism statutes don ’ t apply to jobs in the White House office .
Special exceptions for Jared and Ivanka are so standard that it actually would be more helpful to find out what rules do apply to them rather than not .
Together the couple , who a White House spokesman said are “ sacrificing in their service “ to the country , earned somewhere between $ 28.8 million and $ 135.1 million in outside income from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House advisors in 2018 alone .
Their supporters often point out how they forgo government salaries , but that ’ s easy to do when their combined assets are worth as much as $ 786 million .
Especially when they never really gave up their day jobs to begin with .
In the past , White House officials would divest from their businesses or place them in a blind trust to avoid any potential appearances of conflict of interest .
Not this family .
Trump simply handed off ownership of his global empire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similarly transferred some of his assets to his brother and into a trust put in his mother ’ s name .
By and large , Jared and Ivanka continue raking in profits from their outside ventures , such as the Trump International Hotel just five blocks from the White House .
Political supporters , lobbyists , foreign nationals , and anyone else seeking favor from Donald Trump frequent the establishment .
On her most recent financial-disclosure forms , Ivanka reported earning $ 4 million from the hotel .
To help that happen , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutional emoluments exception for the Trumps to accept foreign money through the hotel .
But that ’ s not Ivanka ’ s only play .
She was also nabbing Chinese trademarks as the Trump administration planned trade negotiations with the country .
One of them was for a charitable organization—which is remarkable considering that the Trump family charity , of which Ivanka was a board member until 2017 , was shuttered in 2018 after the New York attorney general launched an investigation into its improper activities .
The attorney general said she found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump Foundation—including unlawful coordination with the Trump presidential campaign , repeated and willful self-dealing , and much more .
.
.
.
This amounted to the Trump Foundation functioning as little more than a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump ’ s business and political interests.
” The Trumps never apologized for their misdeeds .
They simply shut it down , paid a $ 2 million court-ordered fine , and moved along like they always do .
And it ’ s not like their disregard for ethics stops with their accountants .
Despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ lock her up , ” aimed at Hillary Clinton because she had conducted official work over personal email during her tenure as secretary of state , Kushner has done the exact same thing .
And whatever happened to those secret WhatsApp messages he shared with his Saudi buddy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman anyway ?
You remember MBS : He ’ s the guy whom intelligence officials believe directed the brutal killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi .
In any other White House , the likes of Jared Kushner wouldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearance .
But he holds one , courtesy of a presidential order .
So does Ivanka .
Kushner ’ s foreign-policy freelancing makes his wife ’ s Hatch Act violations and gaudy merchandise peddling seem trivial .
But , there doesn ’ t seem to be a day that goes by where Ivanka isn ’ t flaunting some kind of privilege .
She recently posted a video of herself asking Americans to follow social-distancing guidelines and stay home to protect themselves and others from COVID-19 .
Do as Ivanka says , not as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jared , and their kids violated Washington ’ s stay-at-home orders and went to the Trump National Golf Club Bedminster in New Jersey to celebrate Passover .
The human mind sometimes has a way of protecting itself from fully realizing how bad things are .
“ It isn ’ t such a big deal that they went to a family hotel for Passover , is it ?
Why should they have to give up their businesses ?
It makes sense that heirs like Jared and MBS would be friends !
” Rationalize it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that there are so many individual transgressions , big and small , that it ’ s impossible to keep track of everything without making it your full-time job .
It ’ s easier to just put it all out of your mind .
Maybe we don ’ t want to confront the brazenly unethical and illegal nature of these acts because it would mean our fundamental beliefs about fairness in America are slipping away .
However , it ’ s worth asking , as uncomfortable as it is , if our tacit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blatant nepotism is paving the way for something worse .
In her new book American Oligarchs : The Kushners , the Trumps , and the Marriage of Money and Power , journalist Andrea Bernstein argues that Jared and Ivanka are the products of multi-generational grift .
She traces how both families have a long history of abusing the various tax , immigration , political , and legal systems to get ahead .
But neither Jared nor Ivanka seems quite wealthy enough , competent enough , or capable of wielding enough political influence outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ oligarch.
” That doesn ’ t mean they aren ’ t using their time in the White House to toy with the idea , though .
The defining feature of their joint operation involves putting on a nice face while Dad shoves and smashes all manner of norms .
They ’ re Dr. Jekyll .
He ’ s Mr. Hyde .
But they ’ re all running the same game , and they ’ re all taking the winnings .
Before Trump , Jared did it for his father Charlie , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real estate empire and mired himself in various controversies along the way .
The elder Kushner got rich—and he got sent to prison for tax evasion , making illegal campaign contributions , and witness tampering in a scandal that implicated the highest levels of the New Jersey government .
When he got out of prison , Jared was there as the doting son to take over the management of his father ’ s company and rehab its image .
And , with his father ’ s wealth , Kushner bought Observer Media and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 26 , New York ’ s 666 5th Avenue building , valued at $ 1.8 billion .
Not that there ’ s anything wrong with having a rich father .
The question is whether one ’ s rich father deserves quite the kind of loyalty and fealty that Jared and Ivanka give their fathers , when their wealth comes from dodging taxes , greasing the political system , seeking political favors , and flouting the rule of law .
Really , it ’ s no wonder why Jared and Ivanka fell in love @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cash in on so much wrongdoing from their fathers .
They ’ re a match that could only be made in the New York City tabloids .
It would be much better if they stayed had there .
How they help Dad and how Dad helps them may be their business , but it shouldn ’ t be the country ’ s .
Not unless , that is , we are willing to accept a government of , by , and for the Trumps .
Does anyone think Jared and Ivanka are going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s after 2020 or 2024 ?

One of the most confounding predicaments of the Trump era is how everyone is supposed to keep treating fundamentally unserious people seriously. Case in point: Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump.
Why, for example, is Jared on the television screen again, this time to brief the nation about the coronavirus? Why do we have to listen to Ivanka laugh along as she accepts false credit from her father for creating 15 million jobs? Of course, these are stupid questions because we all know the answer. Nepotism, duh. And yet, nepotism doesn’t even begin to explain what’s so galling about their presence.
For far too long, most of the media has given Jared and Ivanka a free pass. Maybe reporters hoped Jared and Ivanka would provide a friendly access point to the White House. Maybe some commentators thought the couple would serve as a moderating force upon the president. Maybe longstanding journalistic norms about presidents’ “children” being off-limits to close media scrutiny are somehow being applied to this 39-year-old man and 38-year-old woman. For whatever reason, Jared and Ivanka still don’t get the full criticism they deserve—a fact they use to full advantage. Their carefully crafted calm and cool public images are cheap plaster over unbridled greed and arrogance that leads them to keep assuming positions they have no business taking.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
It was reported late last month that Vice President Mike Pence asked Kushner to work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency on coronavirus test kits and ventilator availability. Standing at the White House podium, Kushner delivered a message that was directly contrary to the very purpose of the Strategic National Stockpile he is supposed to be managing.
“The notion of the federal stockpile was it’s supposed to be our stockpile,” he said. “It’s not supposed to be state stockpiles that they then use.” He was wrong, but someone covered for him: Language on the Strategic National Stockpile website was stealth-edited to make what he said seem less wrong. So whose stockpile is it really? If it’s not for the states, who is it for? The fact that Kushner is the arbiter of such questions shows just how much trouble we’re in.
In his role as senior advisor to the president, Kushner’s so-called “portfolio”—which is said to include Iraq, China, bringing peace to the Middle East, building the border wall, veterans affairs, criminal justice reform, opioid addiction, government technology, and “reinventing” the entire federal government to make it more efficient—means he spends his time on whatever President Trump wants him to do. Kushner has no “lane.” He dabbles in everything while being accountable for nothing at all.
Then there’s Ivanka, who Axios reports is busy lobbying banks for billions. She is playing “a key role in negotiating small-business provisions in the new rescue bill being planned by the Hill and the White House.” Last year, President Trump said he thought about appointing her to the United Nations and offered her the top position at the World Bank because she’s “good with numbers.” She declined; why would she leave the White House where she’s at the center of all the action?
While Ivanka has taken plenty of other turns play-acting as a policy leader, whether it was touring the DMZ or overplaying her hand at the G20 with world leaders, those incidents were merely embarrassing, not necessarily consequential. This time, she’s got her hand directly in the middle of policymaking, business, and money. For the power-hungry, it doesn’t get any better than that.
Recall, neither Ivanka nor Jared has ever been elected or confirmed to any position. Neither has prior government experience (aside from Jared’s brief internship in the Manhattan D.A.’s office). Neither has subject-matter expertise in the policy fields they have been involved in. Yet, they now have a say in who gets life-saving medical equipment and to whom and how billions of dollars will flow. If you’ve been waiting to get worried about their roles, now would be the time to start.
How did we get here? Well, the only reason Jared and Ivanka are in the White House today is that President Trump’s Office of Legal Counsel reversed opinions it had given previous presidents, declaring that federal anti-nepotism statutes don’t apply to jobs in the White House office. Special exceptions for Jared and Ivanka are so standard that it actually would be more helpful to find out what rules do apply to them rather than not.
Together the couple, who a White House spokesman said are “sacrificing in their service“ to the country, earned somewhere between $28.8 million and $135.1 million in outside income from their various investments while working as White House advisors in 2018 alone. Their supporters often point out how they forgo government salaries, but that’s easy to do when their combined assets are worth as much as $786 million. Especially when they never really gave up their day jobs to begin with.
In the past, White House officials would divest from their businesses or place them in a blind trust to avoid any potential appearances of conflict of interest. Not this family. Trump simply handed off ownership of his global empire to his two eldest sons. Kushner similarly transferred some of his assets to his brother and into a trust put in his mother’s name. By and large, Jared and Ivanka continue raking in profits from their outside ventures, such as the Trump International Hotel just five blocks from the White House. Political supporters, lobbyists, foreign nationals, and anyone else seeking favor from Donald Trump frequent the establishment. On her most recent financial-disclosure forms, Ivanka reported earning $4 million from the hotel. To help that happen, the General Services Administration made a special constitutional emoluments exception for the Trumps to accept foreign money through the hotel.
But that’s not Ivanka’s only play. She was also nabbing Chinese trademarks as the Trump administration planned trade negotiations with the country. One of them was for a charitable organization—which is remarkable considering that the Trump family charity, of which Ivanka was a board member until 2017, was shuttered in 2018 after the New York attorney general launched an investigation into its improper activities. The attorney general said she found “a shocking pattern of illegality involving the Trump Foundation—including unlawful coordination with the Trump presidential campaign, repeated and willful self-dealing, and much more. . . . This amounted to the Trump Foundation functioning as little more than a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump’s business and political interests.” The Trumps never apologized for their misdeeds. They simply shut it down, paid a $2 million court-ordered fine, and moved along like they always do.
And it’s not like their disregard for ethics stops with their accountants.
Despite the 2016 Trump campaign’s chants of “lock her up,” aimed at Hillary Clinton because she had conducted official work over personal email during her tenure as secretary of state, Kushner has done the exact same thing. And whatever happened to those secret WhatsApp messages he shared with his Saudi buddy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman anyway? You remember MBS: He’s the guy whom intelligence officials believe directed the brutal killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
In any other White House, the likes of Jared Kushner wouldn’t be getting a top security clearance. But he holds one, courtesy of a presidential order. So does Ivanka.
Kushner’s foreign-policy freelancing makes his wife’s Hatch Act violations and gaudy merchandise peddling seem trivial. But, there doesn’t seem to be a day that goes by where Ivanka isn’t flaunting some kind of privilege. She recently posted a video of herself asking Americans to follow social-distancing guidelines and stay home to protect themselves and others from COVID-19. Do as Ivanka says, not as she does, though: She, Jared, and their kids violated Washington’s stay-at-home orders and went to the Trump National Golf Club Bedminster in New Jersey to celebrate Passover.
The human mind sometimes has a way of protecting itself from fully realizing how bad things are. “It isn’t such a big deal that they went to a family hotel for Passover, is it? Why should they have to give up their businesses? It makes sense that heirs like Jared and MBS would be friends!” Rationalize it all away. Part of the problem is that there are so many individual transgressions, big and small, that it’s impossible to keep track of everything without making it your full-time job. It’s easier to just put it all out of your mind. Maybe we don’t want to confront the brazenly unethical and illegal nature of these acts because it would mean our fundamental beliefs about fairness in America are slipping away.
However, it’s worth asking, as uncomfortable as it is, if our tacit acceptance of Jared and Ivanka’s blatant nepotism is paving the way for something worse.
In her new book American Oligarchs: The Kushners, the Trumps, and the Marriage of Money and Power, journalist Andrea Bernstein argues that Jared and Ivanka are the products of multi-generational grift. She traces how both families have a long history of abusing the various tax, immigration, political, and legal systems to get ahead. But neither Jared nor Ivanka seems quite wealthy enough, competent enough, or capable of wielding enough political influence outside of Trumpland to properly earn the title of “oligarch.” That doesn’t mean they aren’t using their time in the White House to toy with the idea, though.
The defining feature of their joint operation involves putting on a nice face while Dad shoves and smashes all manner of norms. They’re Dr. Jekyll. He’s Mr. Hyde. But they’re all running the same game, and they’re all taking the winnings.
Before Trump, Jared did it for his father Charlie, who, like Trump, built a real estate empire and mired himself in various controversies along the way. The elder Kushner got rich—and he got sent to prison for tax evasion, making illegal campaign contributions, and witness tampering in a scandal that implicated the highest levels of the New Jersey government. When he got out of prison, Jared was there as the doting son to take over the management of his father’s company and rehab its image. And, with his father’s wealth, Kushner bought Observer Media and then, at the age of only 26, New York’s 666 5th Avenue building, valued at $1.8 billion.
Not that there’s anything wrong with having a rich father. The question is whether one’s rich father deserves quite the kind of loyalty and fealty that Jared and Ivanka give their fathers, when their wealth comes from dodging taxes, greasing the political system, seeking political favors, and flouting the rule of law.
Really, it’s no wonder why Jared and Ivanka fell in love, given their willingness to accommodate and cash in on so much wrongdoing from their fathers. They’re a match that could only be made in the New York City tabloids. It would be much better if they stayed had there. How they help Dad and how Dad helps them may be their business, but it shouldn’t be the country’s. Not unless, that is, we are willing to accept a government of, by, and for the Trumps.
Does anyone think Jared and Ivanka are going away once Trump leaves office—whether that’s after 2020 or 2024?


thebulwark--2020-04-20--The Pandemic and Black Voter Turnout

The Pandemic and Black Voter Turnout

One of the key reasons Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election was a drop in black voter turnout .
Black turnout “ declined for the first time in 20 years in a presidential election , ” according to a Pew analysis , “ falling to 59.6 % in 2016 after reaching a record-high 66.6 % in 2012 .
The 7-percentage-point decline from the previous presidential election is the largest on record for blacks.
” People have debated why this happened—whether it was because Barack Obama wasn ’ t on the ticket for the first time in eight years or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the large number of African Americans staying home had a clear effect , particularly in big cities like Detroit , Milwaukee , Philadelphia , and Atlanta , that gave Trump close victories in states that many observers thought he might lose .
Turnout among African Americans could be a critical factor in deciding this year ’ s presidential election , too—and the COVID-19 crisis may have an effect on it .
Blacks are being infected and dying from the coronavirus at significantly higher rates than the general population—and it is happening in those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lower in 2016 .
Which raises a very provocative question : Will higher death rates from the pandemic lead black voters to have higher turnout rates to vote against Trump in November ?
In some cases , the racial disparity in COVID-19 cases to date can be seen in states and localities Trump won handily in 2016 .
Blacks make up 32 percent of the total population of Louisiana , but they account for 59 percent of the COVID-19 deaths in the state so far .
But Louisiana hasn ’ t voted for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kentucky , too , hasn ’ t been won by a Democrat since 1996 .
There , blacks are 8 percent of the population but 21 percent of the COVID-19 deaths .
In Chicago , they ’ re 30 percent of the population but 72 percent of the COVID-19 deaths .
But some of the states where the disproportionately high COVID-19 death rates for African Americans have been happening are states where low black turnout in 2016 helped Trump win .
In Michigan , for example—where , as we ’ ll discuss further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out a victory in 2016—blacks make up about 14 percent of the state ’ s population , but about 40 percent of the coronavirus deaths and 33 percent of the overall cases so far .
The Trump administration is admitting the disparities are real .
“ The chronic burden of medical ills is likely to make people of color especially less resilient to the ravages of COVID-19 and it ’ s possible—in fact , likely—the burden of social ills is also contributing , ” said Surgeon General Jerome Adams at a White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a CDC analysis published on April 8 , nearly 90 percent of the hospitalized patients identified in a large statistical sample “ had one or more underlying conditions , the most common being obesity , hypertension , chronic lung disease , diabetes mellitus , and cardiovascular disease.
” How will this affect the election ?
Very simply : If African Americans didn ’ t feel they had a reason to show up in big numbers in 2016 , these elevated coronavirus death rates might cause them to show up in 2020 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this will only be significant in certain areas .
These are the states that Trump won that have big urban areas getting hit hard by the coronavirus ( to date ) : Michigan ( 16 Electoral College votes ) , Pennsylvania ( 20 ) , Wisconsin ( 10 ) , Florida ( 29 ) , and Georgia ( 16 ) .
All are considered to be in play this time around , and it is likely the Democrats will use the coronavirus deaths among African Americans in their presidential campaign .
Let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in turn .
Michigan has had more coronavirus deaths to date than any state except New York and New Jersey ( nearly 2,400 at last count ) , and the Detroit area is the hotspot .
Wayne County is about 40 percent African American .
Among the three counties in the metro area—Wayne , Oakland , and Macomb—there have been nearly 2,000 deaths and 24,000 cases .
Trump won the state in 2016 by about 11,000 votes , less than a quarter of a percent of the state ’ s total votes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit Clinton hard : she got 217,000 fewer votes than Obama did in 2008 , and about 114,000 less in 2012 .
The Atlanta metro region has had 208 deaths and 6,396 cases .
Of the five counties included—Fulton , DeKalb , Cobb , Clayton , and Gwinnett—all of them have black populations of more than 25 percent , and three out of the five are above 40 percent .
The five counties were all won by Clinton , but their decline in black turnout between 2012 and 2016 was a huge drop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ’ s office : In Fulton County , 68.5 percent of black registered voters actually voted in 2012 , but in 2016 only 48.4 percent did .
Cobb County black turnout fell from 73.8 to 58.2 percent .
In Gwinnett County , black turnout dropped from 79.21 to 58.5 percent .
Trump won the state by about 212,000—a 5-percentage-point lead over Clinton—but there has been a big push on voter registration and turnout by the state ’ s Democratic party since the 2018 midterms .
( That was the election cycle , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Abrams , a Democrat and an African American , came within 55,000 votes of winning the governorship . )
If black voters come in at a 70 percent turnout this year in just these five counties in and around Atlanta , about 150,000 more black votes would be added to the mix .
Daniel Dawes , director of the Satcher Health Leadership Institute at Morehouse College ’ s School of Medicine in Atlanta , pinned today ’ s racial health disparities on America ’ s history of segregation and policies .
“ If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the historical context and the political determinants , then we ’ re only merely going to nibble around the edges of the problem of inequities , ” he said in an interview last week after seeing the CDC racial numbers .
Milwaukee is getting hit hard by the virus .
With a population of about 950,000 , Milwaukee County has had 125 deaths and 2,150 cases .
The death case number seems small , but is comparable to the deaths in the Chicago area ( 877 in Cook County ) as a percentage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by just 23,000 votes , and Clinton got 39,000 fewer votes in Milwaukee County ( with a black population of 27 percent ) than Obama got in 2012 .
Turnout is a big reason for that drop : according to Marquette University Law School research , in 2012 , 78 percent of black registered voters showed up at the polls in Milwaukee County , while in 2016 , only 49 percent did .
“ Many think much of the decline in turnout by black voters in Milwaukee was simply Obama not being on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a political science professor at Marquette .
“ But it wasn ’ t exactly a dislike of Clinton , but a lack of enthusiasm for her.
” Pennsylvania was a tight win for Trump as well ; he took the state by about 44,000 votes out of nearly 6 million cast .
The Philadelphia area had a slight turnout decline in 2016 , but with Biden running ( he ’ s from Scranton ) , the large number of COVID-19 cases and deaths in Philly may bring more people to the polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American ) has had 365 deaths and 9,214 cases , with the four nearest suburban counties in the state having an additional 385 deaths and 8,136 cases .
“ Look at all the structural issues around , all these health care inequalities all these lower income jobs , it tends to impact individuals and neighborhoods of color a lot more than it does other neighborhoods , ” Philadelphia councilman Darrell Clarke said on April 9 .
“ We have individuals that are working in these jobs in retail , in super markets and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be open .
.
.
.
Those people have to deal with the public on a consistent basis , right ?
They are more likely to come into contact with someone who may be infected than other people.
” Florida is very unpredictable , politically speaking .
In an April 12 op-ed , the Miami Herald asked this question in its headline regarding how the governor was handling the coronavirus outbreak : “ We ’ re looking like ‘ Flori-duh ’ again , Gov .
DeSantis .
Any idea how that happened ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ accused of not knowing basic info about coronavirus ( he said no one under 25 had died from it ) , defining “ essential ” services oddly ( WWE professional wrestling has been deemed an essential service in Florida—alongside hospitals and fire departments ) , and following Trump ’ s lead by pushing the drug hydroxychloroquine as a coronavirus cure ( “ I reached out to physicians and just , you know , asked them , ‘ hey , what ’ s the deal with this ?
’ ” ) But lost in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussions is the fact that Greater Miami is a hotspot for COVID-19 .
In the three counties in the Miami area—Dade , Broward , and Palm Beach—there have been 443 deaths and 15,429 cases .
All three counties are also “ majority minority ” counties , so Trump will have to appeal to them to keep Florida and its 29 electoral votes on his side of the ledger .
Triple-digit deaths on his watch does not help .
Florida ’ s health department does not calculate the disease ’ s impact within racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent analysis found that African Americans made up 24 percent of COVID-19 hospitalizations and 26 percent of deaths in Miami-Dade County .
The county ’ s population is 18 percent black .
One final thought .
Florida governor DeSantis is often viewed as a Trump acolyte in how he has handled the coronavirus , and that can be good or bad .
Right now , it appears to be bad .
FiveThirtyEight assembled the polling data for 15 governors and how they were viewed by voters before and after the pandemic started .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ their governors were handling the crisis : 14 of the 15 saw their approval ratings go up by double digits .
The one governor who didn ’ t see his approval ratings rise ?
Ron DeSantis .
His approval rating went down by 7 points in the state .
Trump ’ s campaign might want to pay attention .

One of the key reasons Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election was a drop in black voter turnout. Black turnout “declined for the first time in 20 years in a presidential election,” according to a Pew analysis, “falling to 59.6% in 2016 after reaching a record-high 66.6% in 2012. The 7-percentage-point decline from the previous presidential election is the largest on record for blacks.”
People have debated why this happened—whether it was because Barack Obama wasn’t on the ticket for the first time in eight years or because voters really just disliked Hillary Clinton—but the large number of African Americans staying home had a clear effect, particularly in big cities like Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Atlanta, that gave Trump close victories in states that many observers thought he might lose.
Turnout among African Americans could be a critical factor in deciding this year’s presidential election, too—and the COVID-19 crisis may have an effect on it. Blacks are being infected and dying from the coronavirus at significantly higher rates than the general population—and it is happening in those very cities where black turnout was notably lower in 2016. Which raises a very provocative question: Will higher death rates from the pandemic lead black voters to have higher turnout rates to vote against Trump in November?
In some cases, the racial disparity in COVID-19 cases to date can be seen in states and localities Trump won handily in 2016. Blacks make up 32 percent of the total population of Louisiana, but they account for 59 percent of the COVID-19 deaths in the state so far. But Louisiana hasn’t voted for a Democrat for president since 1996. Kentucky, too, hasn’t been won by a Democrat since 1996. There, blacks are 8 percent of the population but 21 percent of the COVID-19 deaths. In Chicago, they’re 30 percent of the population but 72 percent of the COVID-19 deaths.
But some of the states where the disproportionately high COVID-19 death rates for African Americans have been happening are states where low black turnout in 2016 helped Trump win. In Michigan, for example—where, as we’ll discuss further in a moment, Trump barely eked out a victory in 2016—blacks make up about 14 percent of the state’s population, but about 40 percent of the coronavirus deaths and 33 percent of the overall cases so far.
The Trump administration is admitting the disparities are real. “The chronic burden of medical ills is likely to make people of color especially less resilient to the ravages of COVID-19 and it’s possible—in fact, likely—the burden of social ills is also contributing,” said Surgeon General Jerome Adams at a White House press briefing on April 10. According to a CDC analysis published on April 8, nearly 90 percent of the hospitalized patients identified in a large statistical sample “had one or more underlying conditions, the most common being obesity, hypertension, chronic lung disease, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease.”
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
How will this affect the election? Very simply: If African Americans didn’t feel they had a reason to show up in big numbers in 2016, these elevated coronavirus death rates might cause them to show up in 2020. But as a matter of electoral math, this will only be significant in certain areas.
These are the states that Trump won that have big urban areas getting hit hard by the coronavirus (to date): Michigan (16 Electoral College votes), Pennsylvania (20), Wisconsin (10), Florida (29), and Georgia (16). All are considered to be in play this time around, and it is likely the Democrats will use the coronavirus deaths among African Americans in their presidential campaign.
Let’s discuss each of these states in turn.
Michigan
Michigan has had more coronavirus deaths to date than any state except New York and New Jersey (nearly 2,400 at last count), and the Detroit area is the hotspot. Wayne County is about 40 percent African American. Among the three counties in the metro area—Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb—there have been nearly 2,000 deaths and 24,000 cases.
Trump won the state in 2016 by about 11,000 votes, less than a quarter of a percent of the state’s total votes. The lower turnout in these three counties hit Clinton hard: she got 217,000 fewer votes than Obama did in 2008, and about 114,000 less in 2012.
Georgia
The Atlanta metro region has had 208 deaths and 6,396 cases. Of the five counties included—Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb, Clayton, and Gwinnett—all of them have black populations of more than 25 percent, and three out of the five are above 40 percent. The five counties were all won by Clinton, but their decline in black turnout between 2012 and 2016 was a huge drop, according to the Georgia secretary of state’s office: In Fulton County, 68.5 percent of black registered voters actually voted in 2012, but in 2016 only 48.4 percent did. Cobb County black turnout fell from 73.8 to 58.2 percent. In Gwinnett County, black turnout dropped from 79.21 to 58.5 percent.
Trump won the state by about 212,000—a 5-percentage-point lead over Clinton—but there has been a big push on voter registration and turnout by the state’s Democratic party since the 2018 midterms. (That was the election cycle, you might recall, in which Stacey Abrams, a Democrat and an African American, came within 55,000 votes of winning the governorship.) If black voters come in at a 70 percent turnout this year in just these five counties in and around Atlanta, about 150,000 more black votes would be added to the mix.
Daniel Dawes, director of the Satcher Health Leadership Institute at Morehouse College’s School of Medicine in Atlanta, pinned today’s racial health disparities on America’s history of segregation and policies. “If we do not take an appreciation for the historical context and the political determinants, then we’re only merely going to nibble around the edges of the problem of inequities,” he said in an interview last week after seeing the CDC racial numbers.
Wisconsin
Milwaukee is getting hit hard by the virus. With a population of about 950,000, Milwaukee County has had 125 deaths and 2,150 cases. The death case number seems small, but is comparable to the deaths in the Chicago area (877 in Cook County) as a percentage of overall population.
Trump won Wisconsin by just 23,000 votes, and Clinton got 39,000 fewer votes in Milwaukee County (with a black population of 27 percent) than Obama got in 2012. Turnout is a big reason for that drop: according to Marquette University Law School research, in 2012, 78 percent of black registered voters showed up at the polls in Milwaukee County, while in 2016, only 49 percent did. “Many think much of the decline in turnout by black voters in Milwaukee was simply Obama not being on the ballot,” says Paul Nolette, a political science professor at Marquette. “But it wasn’t exactly a dislike of Clinton, but a lack of enthusiasm for her.”
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania was a tight win for Trump as well; he took the state by about 44,000 votes out of nearly 6 million cast. The Philadelphia area had a slight turnout decline in 2016, but with Biden running (he’s from Scranton), the large number of COVID-19 cases and deaths in Philly may bring more people to the polls. Philadelphia County (44 percent African American) has had 365 deaths and 9,214 cases, with the four nearest suburban counties in the state having an additional 385 deaths and 8,136 cases.
“Look at all the structural issues around, all these health care inequalities all these lower income jobs, it tends to impact individuals and neighborhoods of color a lot more than it does other neighborhoods,” Philadelphia councilman Darrell Clarke said on April 9. “We have individuals that are working in these jobs in retail, in super markets and stores around that are still allowed to be open. . . . Those people have to deal with the public on a consistent basis, right? They are more likely to come into contact with someone who may be infected than other people.”
Florida
Florida is very unpredictable, politically speaking. In an April 12 op-ed, the Miami Herald asked this question in its headline regarding how the governor was handling the coronavirus outbreak: “We’re looking like ‘Flori-duh’ again, Gov. DeSantis. Any idea how that happened?”
Gov. Ron DeSantis has been accused of not knowing basic info about coronavirus (he said no one under 25 had died from it), defining “essential” services oddly (WWE professional wrestling has been deemed an essential service in Florida—alongside hospitals and fire departments), and following Trump’s lead by pushing the drug hydroxychloroquine as a coronavirus cure (“I reached out to physicians and just, you know, asked them, ‘hey, what’s the deal with this?’”)
But lost in a lot of the confusing Florida leadership discussions is the fact that Greater Miami is a hotspot for COVID-19. In the three counties in the Miami area—Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach—there have been 443 deaths and 15,429 cases. All three counties are also “majority minority” counties, so Trump will have to appeal to them to keep Florida and its 29 electoral votes on his side of the ledger. Triple-digit deaths on his watch does not help. Florida’s health department does not calculate the disease’s impact within racial groups with much exactness, but a recent analysis found that African Americans made up 24 percent of COVID-19 hospitalizations and 26 percent of deaths in Miami-Dade County. The county’s population is 18 percent black.
One final thought. Florida governor DeSantis is often viewed as a Trump acolyte in how he has handled the coronavirus, and that can be good or bad. Right now, it appears to be bad. FiveThirtyEight assembled the polling data for 15 governors and how they were viewed by voters before and after the pandemic started. They found that most Americans liked how their governors were handling the crisis: 14 of the 15 saw their approval ratings go up by double digits.
The one governor who didn’t see his approval ratings rise? Ron DeSantis. His approval rating went down by 7 points in the state. Trump’s campaign might want to pay attention.


thebulwark--2020-04-20--How To Reform Healthcare After COVID-19

How To Reform Healthcare After COVID-19

No one doubts that the coronavirus has created a healthcare tsunami .
Donald Trump has no answer .
While progressives assert that COVID-19 necessitates the creation of a single-payer system , Joe Biden demurs .
So how could he reconfigure our dysfunctional healthcare system to meet this unprecedented challenge ?
The politics are simple ; the policy damnably complex .
So I consulted Dr. Don Berwick : as the former administrator for Medicare and Medicaid under Barack Obama and advisor to Elizabeth Warren , among others , he has plumbed the system in depth .
Easiest to grasp is our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Affordable Care Act , millions lack adequate healthcare .
This is a social tragedy which , in a pandemic , becomes a public health crisis which endangers us all .
Regardless of ideology , one can not make a positive argument for a healthcare system which is arbitrary , wasteful , and corrosive to social stability .
Roughly 28 million people remain uninsured : at least 50 million more are underinsured .
For them , disease or accident are trapdoors to familial and fiscal ruin .
This labyrinth consumes 18 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and expensive private insurance .
To lower this burden , other advanced countries spend two dollars to address the underlying social conditions which compromise health—not simply lack of access to primary care , but factors like food and housing insecurity—for every dollar they spend on healthcare .
Not America : Our ratio is $ 0.90 on underlying social conditions for every dollar spent on actual healthcare .
The result is ballooning costs for healthcare itself .
Hospitals are overtaxed ; public health agencies underfunded ; minorities and the poor underserved .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – favoring the affluent and those with employer-based insurance over the self-employed and less fortunate—often with lethal results .
The Trump administration has worsened these disparities .
Obamacare reduced the uninsured by 22 million , principally by expanding access to Medicaid—the safety net for poorer Americans—and creating healthcare exchanges which provided affordable and reasonably comprehensive healthcare insurance for those who could not otherwise obtain it .
By undercutting both , Berwick told me , Trump raised the total number of uninsured by 6 million—a figure which keeps rising .
Further , Trump has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its protections for those with pre-existing conditions—first , through legislation , then by asking the Supreme Court to invalidate the law .
In this environment COVID-19 will breed catastrophe .
The uninsured are more vulnerable .
Millions will lose their private insurance ; many will be unable to afford COBRA payments .
Some who may have the virus won ’ t seek treatment .
Inevitably , the least advantaged will suffer most .
This must change .
Here is a potential reform agenda through which Biden could dramatically improve our healthcare system and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Under Medicaid , individual states set eligibility requirements .
To expand coverage , the ACA required states to include residents with incomes below 138 percent of the federal poverty line—for whom the federal government would initially cover 100 percent of the additional cost .
But after the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not mandate compliance , 14 states refused to participate .
Trump further weakened Medicaid through work requirements and copayments .
Biden could induce all states to expand Medicaid by permanently guaranteeing a 100 percent federal subsidy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ more people poor , this becomes absolutely essential .
The ACA created exchanges to provide affordable private insurance for millions .
States could rely on the federal exchange , as 38 of them did , or establish their own .
For participating insurers , the law provided standards of adequate coverage .
Between 138 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line , the federal government would supplement premiums on a sliding scale .
Trump weakened these protections by lowering the criteria for adequate care – effectively licensing junk insurance policies – and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find and use the exchanges .
Biden should re-fortify the criteria for adequate care , and increase coverage by including families who make up to 600 percent of the poverty line – which currently means income of $ 26,000 for a family of four .
Traditional Medicare entitles seniors to buy into a federally-run healthcare insurance program .
This licenses government to control costs by setting compensation for physicians and hospitals .
It guarantees access to healthcare while reducing administrative costs to 3 percent of expenditures—a significant reduction in overhead .
Medicare Advantage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buy private insurance .
This foregoes setting compensation or lowering administrative costs—which are capped at 15 percent .
The public option could offer Traditional Medicare for all .
And anyone without another source of insurance could be automatically enrolled .
This would likely complicate the distribution of actuarial risks : If more sick people choose Medicare , its cost may rise as the premiums for private insurance fall .
But this is not an argument for the status quo : Nearly 80 million Americans are bereft of decent healthcare ; in a pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COBRA allows the newly-unemployed to keep their employer-based insurance coverage for a limited time .
But it can be prohibitively expensive : the COBRA premiums average $ 7,200 a year for individuals , and over $ 20,000 for families .
Moreover , the newly unemployed pay 100 percent of the cost themselves and , in many cases , must use taxable dollars to do so .
COVID-19 will push millions of additional people into COBRA – many of whom will be unable to afford it .
The remedy ?
Subsidize 100 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This prevents sick people from choosing between protecting their health—and the health of their coworkers—and getting paid .
COVID-19 has upped the stakes .
At the societal level it is much more cost-effective to pay potentially infected workers to stay home rather than spread the virus throughout their workplace .
Other measures are straightforward : Directly subsidizing overwhelmed hospitals .
Increasing expenditures to fortify our public health system at the federal , state , and local level .
Expanding programs to address the social causes of ill-health , while prioritizing poor and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the incarcerated .
Straightforward doesn ’ t mean simple , or easy to enact .
All of this would cost money , which would mean raising taxes .
But our current healthcare system is a ruinous patchwork of failure : a drag on our economy , a financial sinkhole for too many individuals , and the engine of glaring inequities which immiserates its victims and undermines our societal and public health .
By planning comprehensive change , Biden can maximize his chances of winning .
By winning , he can save lives @

No one doubts that the coronavirus has created a healthcare tsunami. Donald Trump has no answer. While progressives assert that COVID-19 necessitates the creation of a single-payer system, Joe Biden demurs. So how could he reconfigure our dysfunctional healthcare system to meet this unprecedented challenge?
The politics are simple; the policy damnably complex. So I consulted Dr. Don Berwick: as the former administrator for Medicare and Medicaid under Barack Obama and advisor to Elizabeth Warren, among others, he has plumbed the system in depth.
Easiest to grasp is our failure: despite the improvements wrought by the Affordable Care Act, millions lack adequate healthcare. This is a social tragedy which, in a pandemic, becomes a public health crisis which endangers us all.
Regardless of ideology, one cannot make a positive argument for a healthcare system which is arbitrary, wasteful, and corrosive to social stability. Roughly 28 million people remain uninsured: at least 50 million more are underinsured. For them, disease or accident are trapdoors to familial and fiscal ruin.
This labyrinth consumes 18 percent of GDP—reflecting unnecessary expenditures, excessive administrative costs, and expensive private insurance. To lower this burden, other advanced countries spend two dollars to address the underlying social conditions which compromise health—not simply lack of access to primary care, but factors like food and housing insecurity—for every dollar they spend on healthcare.
Not America: Our ratio is $0.90 on underlying social conditions for every dollar spent on actual healthcare. The result is ballooning costs for healthcare itself. Hospitals are overtaxed; public health agencies underfunded; minorities and the poor underserved. We dispense medical care through a class system – favoring the affluent and those with employer-based insurance over the self-employed and less fortunate—often with lethal results.
The Trump administration has worsened these disparities. Obamacare reduced the uninsured by 22 million, principally by expanding access to Medicaid—the safety net for poorer Americans—and creating healthcare exchanges which provided affordable and reasonably comprehensive healthcare insurance for those who could not otherwise obtain it. By undercutting both, Berwick told me, Trump raised the total number of uninsured by 6 million—a figure which keeps rising.
Further, Trump has attempted to repeal Obamacare altogether, including its protections for those with pre-existing conditions—first, through legislation, then by asking the Supreme Court to invalidate the law.
In this environment COVID-19 will breed catastrophe. The uninsured are more vulnerable. Millions will lose their private insurance; many will be unable to afford COBRA payments. Some who may have the virus won’t seek treatment. Inevitably, the least advantaged will suffer most.
This must change. Here is a potential reform agenda through which Biden could dramatically improve our healthcare system and, therefore, our response to COVID-19.
Expanding Medicaid
Under Medicaid, individual states set eligibility requirements. To expand coverage, the ACA required states to include residents with incomes below 138 percent of the federal poverty line—for whom the federal government would initially cover 100 percent of the additional cost.
But after the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not mandate compliance, 14 states refused to participate. Trump further weakened Medicaid through work requirements and copayments.
Biden could induce all states to expand Medicaid by permanently guaranteeing a 100 percent federal subsidy. As COVID-19 drives up unemployment and makes more people poor, this becomes absolutely essential.
Strengthening Healthcare Exchanges
The ACA created exchanges to provide affordable private insurance for millions. States could rely on the federal exchange, as 38 of them did, or establish their own.
For participating insurers, the law provided standards of adequate coverage. Between 138 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line, the federal government would supplement premiums on a sliding scale. Trump weakened these protections by lowering the criteria for adequate care – effectively licensing junk insurance policies – and by making it harder for people to find and use the exchanges.
Biden should re-fortify the criteria for adequate care, and increase coverage by including families who make up to 600 percent of the poverty line – which currently means income of $26,000 for a family of four.
A Medicare Public Option
Medicare provides two choices.
Traditional Medicare entitles seniors to buy into a federally-run healthcare insurance program. This licenses government to control costs by setting compensation for physicians and hospitals. It guarantees access to healthcare while reducing administrative costs to 3 percent of expenditures—a significant reduction in overhead.
Medicare Advantage allows seniors to use their benefits to buy private insurance. This foregoes setting compensation or lowering administrative costs—which are capped at 15 percent.
The public option could offer Traditional Medicare for all. And anyone without another source of insurance could be automatically enrolled.
This would likely complicate the distribution of actuarial risks: If more sick people choose Medicare, its cost may rise as the premiums for private insurance fall. But this is not an argument for the status quo: Nearly 80 million Americans are bereft of decent healthcare; in a pandemic, this spreads risk to everyone.
Subsidizing COBRA Payments
COBRA allows the newly-unemployed to keep their employer-based insurance coverage for a limited time. But it can be prohibitively expensive: the COBRA premiums average $7,200 a year for individuals, and over $20,000 for families. Moreover, the newly unemployed pay 100 percent of the cost themselves and, in many cases, must use taxable dollars to do so. COVID-19 will push millions of additional people into COBRA – many of whom will be unable to afford it.
The remedy? Subsidize 100 percent of COBRA payments for the fired or furloughed.
Paid Sick Leave
This prevents sick people from choosing between protecting their health—and the health of their coworkers—and getting paid. COVID-19 has upped the stakes. At the societal level it is much more cost-effective to pay potentially infected workers to stay home rather than spread the virus throughout their workplace.
Other measures are straightforward: Directly subsidizing overwhelmed hospitals. Increasing expenditures to fortify our public health system at the federal, state, and local level. Expanding programs to address the social causes of ill-health, while prioritizing poor and minority populations. Improving our dismal healthcare for the incarcerated.
Straightforward doesn’t mean simple, or easy to enact. All of this would cost money, which would mean raising taxes. But our current healthcare system is a ruinous patchwork of failure: a drag on our economy, a financial sinkhole for too many individuals, and the engine of glaring inequities which immiserates its victims and undermines our societal and public health.
COVID-19 has made the morally unacceptable logistically unsustainable.
By planning comprehensive change, Biden can maximize his chances of winning.
By winning, he can save lives.


thebulwark--2020-04-20--How Trump Turned the Pandemic Into Identity Politics

No one really knows where the arc of history is bending these days , but this weekend we got a good look at where the arc of conservative activism is heading .
The death toll in the United States from the coronavirus has now topped 40,000 but , egged on by presidential tweets , packs of flag-waving , maskless protesters across the country defied stay-at-home orders to demand that the country reopen quickly .
Let ’ s stipulate here that some of their grievances are legitimate : some of the restrictions seem to overreach and the legal arguments against some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s also important to reaffirm that the right to protest and object to government policy is a fundamental American right .
But , of course , there were alternatives to the in-your-face acts of performative defiance .
It ’ s too early to know whether the protests will become vectors of disease .
But it ’ s already abundantly clear they have become vectors of stupidity in an already exceptionally stupid time .
And Trump World and the GOP are both all-in on them .
At first blush , the protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Obama years .
There were the usual “ Don ’ t Tread On Me ” flags and chants of “ freedom ” but the target here wasn ’ t a giant government bailout package .
“ For heaven ’ s sakes , open the barber shops .
Open the hair salons .
We need haircuts okay ?
” one protester complained .
That ’ s quite a slide from “ give me liberty or give me death ” to .
.
.
“ we want haircuts.
” But even that infantilism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Many of the protests devolved into festivals of recklessness and crackpottery , complete with conspiracy theorists , Confederate flags , gun-wielding cosplay , and chants of “ lock her up.
” Needless to say , Wisconsin was not , and never has been , part of the Confederacy .
So there can ’ t be any “ heritage ” cover story here : There ’ s only one reason someone in Wisconsin would fly the Stars ‘ n ’ Bars .
( And , no , the photo was not doctored in any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rallies was similarly incoherent .
In Texas , demonstrators chanted “ Fire Fauci , ” and carried a sign demanding “ Deliver up the treasonous men , ” including “ Bill Gates , Mike Pompeo , Deborah Birx , Steve Menuchan [ sic ] , and George Soros.
” Of course , if advisers such as Fauci , Pompeo , Birx , and Mnuchin have misled the country , then Trump himself is the dupe-in-chief .
Or worse !
But such contradictions are not a problem for a movement that picks and chooses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment .
Which is how Trump can be both the Great Man who is the only one with the strength to save America and a helpless naif being manipulated by the devious Deep State .
( And by the way , if Mike Pompeo is part of the anti-Trump Deep State , then he deserves every Best Actor Oscar for the rest of all time . )
At other times , the zombie Tea Party events took on an anti-vaxxer affect , with its contempt for science and insistence that personal preference and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public health .
In Madison , one demonstrator held up a sign reading : No tests No vaccine No masks Ironically , the sign does not appear to be intended as a description of Trump ’ s failures , but rather a declaration of quasi-libertarian defiance .
Go figure .
Until recently , the GOP gave a wide berth to the anti-vaxxers , and with good reason : they are not just merely nut jobs , but also represent a real and present danger to the families and communities conservatives claim they want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-social in the sense that they demand exemptions from practices essential to social well-being .
But this cultivated insensitivity was a theme of all of the protests : people will die , but we demand our right to take the risks .
“ We understand there are still many sick and dying , ” Jeanine Pirro said on Fox news .
“ But what about the rest of us ?
” At the protest in Brookfield , Wisconsin , a woman told a reporter : “ And if you come down with it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s on you .
It ’ s a decision that you have to make .
If I die because I came here today , well , I guess… ” And then she just shrugged .
All of this was urged on by the president , who last Friday tweeted “ LIBERATE MICHIGAN !
” and “ LIBERATE MINNESOTA !
” and “ LIBERATE VIRGINIA , and save your great 2nd Amendment .
It is under siege !
” As the New York Times explained , Trump has given up “ any semblance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and is choosing instead to divide the country by playing to his political base.
” His calculation is both cynical and obvious : It ’ s easy to write off the uprisings merely as fringe phenomena , or isolated incidents of astroturfing .
The Washington Post reports that “ A trio of far-right , pro-gun provocateurs is behind some of the largest Facebook groups calling for anti-quarantine protests around the country , offering the latest illustration that some seemingly organic demonstrations are being engineered by a network of conservative activists.
” And polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters say they are more concerned that a lifting the stay-at-home restrictions would lead to more deaths than are concerned that the restrictions are hurting the economy .
But it ’ s important to understand that the protests are not isolated one-offs .
Trump has mobilized much of the right-wing infrastructure that was built over the last 20 years by Conservatism Inc. to get behind this open-it-up campaign and he quickly turning the response to the pandemic from a question of managing a public health and economic catastrophe into just another front of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s had help .
At the sound of their master ’ s voice , Trump ’ s media toadies pivoted once again .
Stephen Moore declared that the protesters were “ modern-day Rosa Parks—they are protesting against injustice and a loss of liberties.
” ( The idea of a modern-day Rosa Parks waving a Confederate flag is .
.
.
interesting . )
“ We ’ re going to see a lot more of [ the protests ] , ” Moore declared on a Youtube video .
“ So , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ladies , for civil disobedience.
” On Friday , Trump retweeted right wing grifter Charlie Kirk 11 times .
Earlier in the day , Kirk had endorsed the calls for protests and referred to the Democratic governors as “ these marxist tyrants ” who needed to “ be recalled and resign.
” The vast majority of protesters ignored Kirk ’ s suggestion they wear masks while displaying their anger and rage .
Because # MAGA .
Or # winning .
Or # something .
There is no indication that there will be any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republican party or what now passes for the conservative movement .
Indeed , Wisconsin is a good example of the way the GOP has gone all-in on the campaign for “ liberation.
” In the video where he compared the protesters to Rosa Park , Stephen Moore also announced plans for protests to shut down Wisconsin ’ s state capitol later this week .
He claimed that a well-heeled donor promised to “ pay the bail and legal fees ” for anyone who was arrested during the April 24 rally .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s no secret that Wisconsin ’ s conservative politics have increasingly been shaped by a handful of activist donors , some of whom have been vocal in their opposition to social distancing initiatives .
But whatever the impetus , virtually every conservative group in the state has gotten in line .
The MacIver Institute bills itself as the “ Free Market Voice For Wisconsin , ” but spent much of the weekend touting the protests in Brookfield and Madison .
The group ’ s chairman , Steve Fettig , accused Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future by putting predictions and guesses ahead of what we know to be the truth .
We must fight for our future .
We must fight for our Wisconsin.
” “ The best way to unshackle Wisconsin from this nightmare is for Wisconsinites to take back our rights and to take back our freedom to care for our own families and communities.
” Other conservative groups also mobilized .
Usually , Wisconsin Family Action sticks to cultural issues .
Its mission statement says the group ’ s goal is “ To advance Judeo-Christian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , preserving , and promoting marriage , family , life , and liberty.
” But last week , the group announced that it had “ launched a statewide online petition calling on Governor Evers to stop extending the time Wisconsin is shut down.
” The state ’ s largest business organization is also demanding a quicker reopening .
The president of Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce , Kurt Bauer declared that “ There is a groundswell of support from every corner of the state and every industry to begin the process of restarting our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be all-in .
Earlier this month , they forced in-person voting in the state .
They have now gone to court to block the extension of the state ’ s shutdown .
Last week , Assembly Speaker Robin Vos retweeted a link to story headlined “ Shutdown Could Kill More Americans Than COVID-19.
” Wisconsin may turn out to be a leading indicator of another emerging narrative : the pandemic was a problem for other people , not for us .
At the protest in Brookfield , one man explained that it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus was limited to urban areas .
“ This isn ’ t common throughout the state .
It ’ s common in Milwaukee .
It ’ s common in Madison .
Lock them down .
I don ’ t need to be locked down.
” A similar sentiment was expressed in an email to the editor of Right Wisconsin ( a publication I used to edit. )
.
A man from Iron River , a town in northern Wisconsin , wrote : As Right Wisconsin editor James Wigderson notes , Iron River is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the county reported its first death from the disease .
“ The individual was 78 years old , had no known contact with a lab-confirmed positive COVID-19 case , nor had traveled out of the area , ” county health officials said in a statement .
The victim ’ s race was not identified .

No one really knows where the arc of history is bending these days, but this weekend we got a good look at where the arc of conservative activism is heading.
The death toll in the United States from the coronavirus has now topped 40,000 but, egged on by presidential tweets, packs of flag-waving, maskless protesters across the country defied stay-at-home orders to demand that the country reopen quickly.
Let’s stipulate here that some of their grievances are legitimate: some of the restrictions seem to overreach and the legal arguments against some of the orders are not trivial. It’s also important to reaffirm that the right to protest and object to government policy is a fundamental American right.
But, of course, there were alternatives to the in-your-face acts of performative defiance. It’s too early to know whether the protests will become vectors of disease. But it’s already abundantly clear they have become vectors of stupidity in an already exceptionally stupid time.
And Trump World and the GOP are both all-in on them.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
At first blush, the protests were reminiscent of the Tea Party uprisings from the Obama years. There were the usual “Don’t Tread On Me” flags and chants of “freedom” but the target here wasn’t a giant government bailout package.
“For heaven’s sakes, open the barber shops. Open the hair salons. We need haircuts okay?” one protester complained.
That’s quite a slide from “give me liberty or give me death” to . . . “we want haircuts.”
But even that infantilism wasn’t the worst part. Many of the protests devolved into festivals of recklessness and crackpottery, complete with conspiracy theorists, Confederate flags, gun-wielding cosplay, and chants of “lock her up.”
Here’s a scene from Saturday’s protest in Brookfield , Wisconsin:
Needless to say, Wisconsin was not, and never has been, part of the Confederacy. So there can’t be any “heritage” cover story here: There’s only one reason someone in Wisconsin would fly the Stars ‘n’ Bars. (And, no, the photo was not doctored in any way.)
The messages at other rallies was similarly incoherent. In Texas, demonstrators chanted “Fire Fauci,” and carried a sign demanding “Deliver up the treasonous men,” including “Bill Gates, Mike Pompeo, Deborah Birx, Steve Menuchan [sic], and George Soros.”
Of course, if advisers such as Fauci, Pompeo, Birx, and Mnuchin have misled the country, then Trump himself is the dupe-in-chief. Or worse! But such contradictions are not a problem for a movement that picks and chooses its slogans and principles to suit the moment. Which is how Trump can be both the Great Man who is the only one with the strength to save America and a helpless naif being manipulated by the devious Deep State. (And by the way, if Mike Pompeo is part of the anti-Trump Deep State, then he deserves every Best Actor Oscar for the rest of all time.)
At other times, the zombie Tea Party events took on an anti-vaxxer affect, with its contempt for science and insistence that personal preference and ignorance should take pride of place over public health. In Madison, one demonstrator held up a sign reading:
No tests
No vaccine
No masks
Ironically, the sign does not appear to be intended as a description of Trump’s failures, but rather a declaration of quasi-libertarian defiance. Go figure.
Until recently, the GOP gave a wide berth to the anti-vaxxers, and with good reason: they are not just merely nut jobs, but also represent a real and present danger to the families and communities conservatives claim they want to protect. They are quite literally anti-social in the sense that they demand exemptions from practices essential to social well-being.
But this cultivated insensitivity was a theme of all of the protests: people will die, but we demand our right to take the risks. “We understand there are still many sick and dying,” Jeanine Pirro said on Fox news. “But what about the rest of us?”
At the protest in Brookfield, Wisconsin, a woman told a reporter: “And if you come down with it and you die, well then that’s on you. It’s a decision that you have to make. If I die because I came here today, well, I guess…”
And then she just shrugged.
All of this was urged on by the president, who last Friday tweeted “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!” and “LIBERATE MINNESOTA!” and “LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege!”
As the New York Times explained, Trump has given up “any semblance of national leadership on the pandemic, and is choosing instead to divide the country by playing to his political base.” His calculation is both cynical and obvious:
By embracing the backlash to the coronavirus restrictions, Mr. Trump is tapping into a powerful well of political energy as he seeks re-election this year. The president is also trying to deflect anger about his response to the virus away from him and toward Democratic governors, who he hopes will shoulder the blame for keeping the restrictions in place and for any deaths that occur after states reopen.
It’s easy to write off the uprisings merely as fringe phenomena, or isolated incidents of astroturfing. The Washington Post reports that “A trio of far-right, pro-gun provocateurs is behind some of the largest Facebook groups calling for anti-quarantine protests around the country, offering the latest illustration that some seemingly organic demonstrations are being engineered by a network of conservative activists.”
And polls show that nearly 60 percent of American voters say they are more concerned that a lifting the stay-at-home restrictions would lead to more deaths than are concerned that the restrictions are hurting the economy.
But it’s important to understand that the protests are not isolated one-offs. Trump has mobilized much of the right-wing infrastructure that was built over the last 20 years by Conservatism Inc. to get behind this open-it-up campaign and he quickly turning the response to the pandemic from a question of managing a public health and economic catastrophe into just another front of the culture war.
That’s some trick.
Of course, he’s had help. At the sound of their master’s voice, Trump’s media toadies pivoted once again. Stephen Moore declared that the protesters were “modern-day Rosa Parks—they are protesting against injustice and a loss of liberties.” (The idea of a modern-day Rosa Parks waving a Confederate flag is . . . interesting.)
“We’re going to see a lot more of [the protests],” Moore declared on a Youtube video. “So, this is a great time, gentleman and ladies, for civil disobedience.”
Fox News host Laura Ingraham pushed the analogies even harder.
How many of those who urged our govt to help liberate the Iraqis, Syrians, Kurds, Afghanis, etc., are as committed now to liberating Virginia, Minnesota, California, etc? — Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) April 17, 2020
On Friday, Trump retweeted right wing grifter Charlie Kirk 11 times. Earlier in the day, Kirk had endorsed the calls for protests and referred to the Democratic governors as “these marxist tyrants” who needed to “be recalled and resign.”
Every patriot should go outside, socially distanced and with masks, and protest these Democrat tyrants They must hear our anger and rage—they are destroying America. Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, California—these marxist tyrants should be recalled & resign Protest! — Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) April 17, 2020
The vast majority of protesters ignored Kirk’s suggestion they wear masks while displaying their anger and rage. Because #MAGA. Or #winning. Or #something.
There is no indication that there will be any pushback from either the main body of the Republican party or what now passes for the conservative movement. Indeed, Wisconsin is a good example of the way the GOP has gone all-in on the campaign for “liberation.”
In the video where he compared the protesters to Rosa Park, Stephen Moore also announced plans for protests to shut down Wisconsin’s state capitol later this week. He claimed that a well-heeled donor promised to “pay the bail and legal fees” for anyone who was arrested during the April 24 rally.
He did not name the donor. But it’s no secret that Wisconsin’s conservative politics have increasingly been shaped by a handful of activist donors, some of whom have been vocal in their opposition to social distancing initiatives.
But whatever the impetus, virtually every conservative group in the state has gotten in line.
The MacIver Institute bills itself as the “Free Market Voice For Wisconsin,” but spent much of the weekend touting the protests in Brookfield and Madison.
The group’s chairman, Steve Fettig, accused Democratic Governor Tony Evers of “destroying our future by putting predictions and guesses ahead of what we know to be the truth. We must fight for our future. We must fight for our Wisconsin.”
“The best way to unshackle Wisconsin from this nightmare is for Wisconsinites to take back our rights and to take back our freedom to care for our own families and communities.”
Other conservative groups also mobilized. Usually, Wisconsin Family Action sticks to cultural issues. Its mission statement says the group’s goal is “To advance Judeo-Christian principles and values in Wisconsin by strengthening, preserving, and promoting marriage, family, life, and liberty.”
But last week, the group announced that it had “launched a statewide online petition calling on Governor Evers to stop extending the time Wisconsin is shut down.”
The state’s largest business organization is also demanding a quicker reopening. The president of Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Kurt Bauer declared that “There is a groundswell of support from every corner of the state and every industry to begin the process of restarting our economy.”
Legislative Republicans also seem to be all-in. Earlier this month, they forced in-person voting in the state. They have now gone to court to block the extension of the state’s shutdown. Last week, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos retweeted a link to story headlined “Shutdown Could Kill More Americans Than COVID-19.”
Wisconsin may turn out to be a leading indicator of another emerging narrative: the pandemic was a problem for other people, not for us.
At the protest in Brookfield, one man explained that it was time to reopen the state because the coronavirus was limited to urban areas. “This isn’t common throughout the state. It’s common in Milwaukee. It’s common in Madison. Lock them down. I don’t need to be locked down.”
A similar sentiment was expressed in an email to the editor of Right Wisconsin (a publication I used to edit.). A man from Iron River, a town in northern Wisconsin, wrote:
THE AFRICAN AMERICAN IN THE WOODPILE (notice how politically correct i am) Am i the only one who has noticed where most covid 19 cases and deaths have occurred? every large city with a black or minority population. why is this. Are rural americans supposed to give up our rights and freedoms to support the slums? i’m more worried about bubonic plague in the homeles s population. give us a break and start treating
rural and urban populations differently. i am from a county with no covid deaths. opens us up. [Sic throughout, obviously.]
As Right Wisconsin editor James Wigderson notes, Iron River is in Bayfield County. On Friday, the county reported its first death from the disease. “The individual was 78 years old, had no known contact with a lab-confirmed positive COVID-19 case, nor had traveled out of the area,” county health officials said in a statement.
The victim’s race was not identified.


thebulwark--2020-04-21--Don’t Deny Pandemic Relief Loans to Second-Chance Entrepreneurs

The coronavirus relief package enacted late last month authorized substantial forgivable loans to small businesses nationwide—and , as of last Thursday , the money is already spent .
It will be up to Congress to add more funds to this important program .
But a flawed regulation may keep some people from deserved pandemic recovery funds .
The Small Business Administration ( SBA ) , which runs the program , has stated that businesses owned by people with criminal records will not be eligible for the loans—an exclusion that appears nowhere in the law Congress passed .
The consequences are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration ’ s rhetoric on criminal justice reform .
The White House can and should intervene to overturn this rule and ensure that people with criminal records are not bureaucratically barred from the recovery .
The coronavirus pandemic is destabilizing even to large , established firms .
For small businesses , it is devastating : many face closure , throwing employees and owners into financial despair .
To avert disaster , on March 27 Congress passed and the president signed passed the CARES Act , a key component of which is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PPP ) , an effort to provide support to small businesses .
Firms can receive loans equal to as much as 2.5 times their monthly payroll ; the loans will be forgiven if the recipient firms keep their employees on staff at their pre-crisis salaries .
The goal of the program is to move beyond traditional unemployment insurance—to keep businesses intact , to make sure there are workplaces to return to once the public-health crisis is brought under control , and to avoid wiping out the savings of large numbers of entrepreneurs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ market and the economy , time is of the essence .
Unfortunately , the SBA , which is tasked with implementing the program , is actively limiting its reach .
The SBA has issued rules and guidance that specifically exclude many business owners who have interacted with the criminal justice system .
According to the PPP borrower application form , any business even partially owned by someone who is currently subject to prosecution—or on probation or parole—is ineligible .
Also excluded are any owners who , within the past five years , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or parole for any felony .
The scale of America ’ s criminal justice system means these rules will affect the lives of many .
At any given moment , there are millions of people on probation or parole in the United States—at the end of 2016 , there were more than 4.5 million .
Any business with an owner , even a part owner , among those millions will not receive a PPP loan .
And the number of people with a felony conviction may be three times that size .
Nor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only ones harmed by this decision : their family members will be affected , as will their employees , if businesses are forced to close down or furlough staff .
These effects will be felt most sharply among black and Latino people , who are over-represented in the criminal justice system and face an especially hostile job market after conviction .
SBA ’ s decision to exclude people with a criminal history is misguided for two other reasons .
First , it ’ s entirely a creation of the administrative state .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ evaluating borrowers are extremely broad , exactly what one would hope to see in an emergency , and make no mention of criminal history .
Criminal history exclusions first crept into an interim SBA regulation released earlier this month , where they were already stricter than SBA ’ s normal disaster lending criteria , and then became even stricter still in the final document .
These exclusions also cut sharply against the bipartisan consensus on criminal justice reform—and the Trump administration ’ s own priorities .
President Trump signed the First Step Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And , following states and cities across the country , Trump signed a federal “ ban-the-box ” bill designed to help people with criminal records find jobs .
Major employers have made their own efforts .
And last year , President Trump pledged to cut the unemployment rate among formerly imprisoned people to “ single digits within five years.
” All of this makes SBA ’ s decision deeply misguided .
Thankfully , it ’ s also easy to reverse .
Because the CARES Act does not require SBA to deny loans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can and should change its rules , without delay and without the need for congressional action .
SBA should also ensure that people who have already been turned away have their applications reconsidered , and the agency should publicize the changes broadly .
If SBA does not reverse course , Congress should step in when it appropriates more funds for the program .
The survival of small businesses is the key to a real and equitable recovery .
People who used their “ second chances ” in life to start businesses and contribute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from it .

The coronavirus relief package enacted late last month authorized substantial forgivable loans to small businesses nationwide—and, as of last Thursday, the money is already spent. It will be up to Congress to add more funds to this important program.
But a flawed regulation may keep some people from deserved pandemic recovery funds. The Small Business Administration (SBA), which runs the program, has stated that businesses owned by people with criminal records will not be eligible for the loans—an exclusion that appears nowhere in the law Congress passed. The consequences are far-reaching, and at odds with the Trump administration’s rhetoric on criminal justice reform. The White House can and should intervene to overturn this rule and ensure that people with criminal records are not bureaucratically barred from the recovery.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
The coronavirus pandemic is destabilizing even to large, established firms. For small businesses, it is devastating: many face closure, throwing employees and owners into financial despair. To avert disaster, on March 27 Congress passed and the president signed passed the CARES Act, a key component of which is the $350 billion Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), an effort to provide support to small businesses. Firms can receive loans equal to as much as 2.5 times their monthly payroll; the loans will be forgiven if the recipient firms keep their employees on staff at their pre-crisis salaries. The goal of the program is to move beyond traditional unemployment insurance—to keep businesses intact, to make sure there are workplaces to return to once the public-health crisis is brought under control, and to avoid wiping out the savings of large numbers of entrepreneurs. Given the rapid deterioration of the labor market and the economy, time is of the essence.
Unfortunately, the SBA, which is tasked with implementing the program, is actively limiting its reach. The SBA has issued rules and guidance that specifically exclude many business owners who have interacted with the criminal justice system. According to the PPP borrower application form, any business even partially owned by someone who is currently subject to prosecution—or on probation or parole—is ineligible. Also excluded are any owners who, within the past five years, have been convicted or been placed on probation or parole for any felony.
The scale of America’s criminal justice system means these rules will affect the lives of many. At any given moment, there are millions of people on probation or parole in the United States—at the end of 2016, there were more than 4.5 million. Any business with an owner, even a part owner, among those millions will not receive a PPP loan. And the number of people with a felony conviction may be three times that size. Nor will people with a criminal record be the only ones harmed by this decision: their family members will be affected, as will their employees, if businesses are forced to close down or furlough staff. These effects will be felt most sharply among black and Latino people, who are over-represented in the criminal justice system and face an especially hostile job market after conviction.
SBA’s decision to exclude people with a criminal history is misguided for two other reasons. First, it’s entirely a creation of the administrative state. The CARES Act’s criteria for evaluating borrowers are extremely broad, exactly what one would hope to see in an emergency, and make no mention of criminal history. Criminal history exclusions first crept into an interim SBA regulation released earlier this month, where they were already stricter than SBA’s normal disaster lending criteria, and then became even stricter still in the final document.
These exclusions also cut sharply against the bipartisan consensus on criminal justice reform—and the Trump administration’s own priorities. President Trump signed the First Step Act, a major criminal justice reform initiative. And, following states and cities across the country, Trump signed a federal “ban-the-box” bill designed to help people with criminal records find jobs. Major employers have made their own efforts. And last year, President Trump pledged to cut the unemployment rate among formerly imprisoned people to “single digits within five years.”
All of this makes SBA’s decision deeply misguided. Thankfully, it’s also easy to reverse. Because the CARES Act does not require SBA to deny loans to entrepreneurs with criminal histories, SBA can and should change its rules, without delay and without the need for congressional action. SBA should also ensure that people who have already been turned away have their applications reconsidered, and the agency should publicize the changes broadly. If SBA does not reverse course, Congress should step in when it appropriates more funds for the program.
The survival of small businesses is the key to a real and equitable recovery. People who used their “second chances” in life to start businesses and contribute to their communities must not be excluded from it.