thebulwark--2020-04-17--China Being Wrong Doesn’t Make Trump Right

For those with eyes to see , there can be no doubt that the negligence and corruption of the People ’ s Republic of China are chiefly responsible for the pandemic that is cutting a swath through the world .
The Chinese authorities responded to the outbreak by deliberately lying about the disease and punishing doctors and disappearing journalists who told the truth about it .
The result has been a pathogen that hit the world at full force instead of being prevented or at least arrested in first the weeks after it erupted .
In the wake of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have argued that Trump has been vindicated by China ’ s botched response .
True , his term seems to have marked a certain departure from the conception of China as a “ responsible stakeholder ” that previous American governments once hoped Beijing would become .
But some commentators go further , alleging that Trump ’ s brinksmanship with China has somehow redressed the toxic trade imbalance of “ Chimerica , ” or even seized the initiative in the opening phase of this budding Second Cold War .
This is arrant nonsense .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ catastrophe for America ’ s interest in leading and strengthening the liberal world order .
The broad success of that order was never a forgone conclusion .
From the beginning , it required wise statecraft and principled commitment .
In the aftermath of World War II , far-sighted American leaders reckoned with the wages of isolation and determined that the devastating blunder of “ the unnecessary war ” should not be repeated .
To those architects of American power , it was obvious that they could not help their country without helping others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ egoism , they understood that no state , however strong , could furnish any kind of lasting order by attempting to subordinate others .
Instead , they fused liberal nationalism together with cosmopolitanism to build a freer , more prosperous and more peaceful world for all .
This commitment led to the creation of a plethora of international institutions–the United Nations , the International Monetary Fund , the World Bank , the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ( GATT , which eventually evolved into the World Trade Organization ) , NATO–to serve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order .
But these institutions are flawed and frayed instruments .
They are vulnerable to the political machinations and economic clout of powerful member states , as well as corruption and incompetence from within their own bureaucracies .
It has long been a Chinese ambition to gain bargaining power within these institutions , and it is hard to miss the progress that China has been making toward that objective .
Its undue political influence has been manifest in the way the World Health Organization ( WHO ) hesitated to declare COVID-19 a public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials amplified Chinese officials ’ initial claims that the virus posed no danger of human-to-human transmission .
As the WHO has acted as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chinese Communist Party , President Trump ’ s habit of kowtowing to Chairman Xi has been no less pronounced .
A disturbing trend throughout Trump ’ s presidency has been his ignorant nationalism .
His oft-stated concern for national sovereignty , which almost never extends to ordering punitive measures against hostile states , including China , that interfere in America ’ s democratic process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The outbreak of this pandemic has revealed the perils of our excessive reliance on Chinese supply chains for crucial medical equipment .
It is an urgent matter for America to wean itself , as well as its foreign partners , from this noxious dependency before it ’ s too late .
But what has the Trump administration done in service of this laudable objective ?
It declared costly and ineffective trade wars against both China and its own allies , from Canada to the European Union .
Thus , instead of laying fresh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dangerous Chinese inputs , it has heaped obloquy on the very principle of alliances and diminished the potential for countervailing power against the Chinese regime .
The international organizations established in wake of World War II are ripe for reform .
But they rest on the principle that international cooperation is essential for global welfare .
However imperfect the mechanism , that principle will not go out of fashion .
And yet this is a principle that Trump has always defiled and subverted .
As China seeks to advance its undisguised national interests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States has responded by .
.
.
what ?
Even in this latest crisis , China has encountered little concerted pushback from America and its allies .
The PRC has not even shuttered its wet markets .
Who is going to compel it ?
The unvarnished scorn emanating from this White House for U.S. global leadership has left allies alarmed and enemies emboldened .
The Trump administration has repudiated America ’ s responsibility for world order and surrendered America ’ s obligation to lead .
This is all evident in U.S. policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to defend the national interest has seldom been translated into a coherent or consistent policy .
The Trump administration has not reduced economic interdependence with China in trade and investment , or expanded America ’ s alliance network in the Asia Pacific , or enhanced American credibility against foreign aggression .
In the long-ago age B.C.—Before Coronavirus—one of Trump ’ s greatest blunders occurred in the first week of his presidency when he recklessly abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership .
Although Trump called TPP “ a rape of our country , ” the trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two previous presidencies not merely for the sake of bringing to market cheap consumer goods but to contain growing Chinese power .
As then-Vice President Joe Biden noted in 2016 , the 12 economies linked by the TPP “ account for 30 percent of global trade , 40 percent of global GDP , and 50 percent of projected global economic growth.
” It was on this basis that Biden pointed out that the agreement was “ as much about geopolitics as economics.
” Perhaps in due course , Biden , now the presumptive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fit to remind the public of this considerable gift that Trump presented to Beijing through deplorable diplomacy .
The crucial contest between democracy and autocracy has also recently shifted in Beijing ’ s favor—hardly a surprise given Trump ’ s contempt for republican institutions at home and abroad .
For evidence of this radical defect in American diplomacy , look no further than the president ’ s cold indifference last year to Hong Kong ’ s democratic protesters bravely demonstrating against suffocating interference from the mainland .
Or consider Trump ’ s unwillingness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially its appalling detention of more than one million Muslims in internment camps .
Since the dawn of this century , America ’ s position at the apex of world power has been in jeopardy given the growing economic and military might of China .
To maintain a world order conducive to American interests and American ideals under these frightening circumstances will require the United States to develop a national consensus that favors a strong military and a vigorous pursuit of national interests , broadly construed .
Toward that end , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confidence of badly needed allies .
Pulling up the drawbridge to the world will not stop the export of aggressive nationalism any more than it has stopped infectious disease .
Against the formidable strength of China—and as the world is treated to more depredations from the world ’ s largest one-party state—the principles undergirding U.S. global hegemony will not only continue to apply but are more urgently needed than ever before .
A powerful and malevolent China with vast ambitions is not a reason to avoid the world , but to engage and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the wrong strategic concept .
China ’ s impulses for national greatness as defined by the Chinese Communist Party will only be tamed by a form of global governance ( and guardianship ) that is within the scope of the United States to marshal .
Such enlightened and magnanimous leadership in this crisis would have seen Washington coordinate a global response to diminish the severity of the disease and constrain its duration .
However partially and imperfectly , such coordination would have made a world of difference , mitigating the global death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devastation .
Instead , President Trump unleashed a torrent of drivel and deceit that hurt the American response .
If Republicans believe , as they often say they do , in the strategic challenge posed by China , then it is time they find a realistic and sustainable strategy to deter and repel it .
It should go without saying that the president ’ s short-lived gambit of stoking atavistic emotions by referring to the “ Chinese virus ” does not meet this stringent standard .
From its inception , the “ America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on an erroneous premise : that China could be effectively countered by bluster alone , or even by the United States alone .
In point of fact , Chinese power and perfidy will be repelled by a robust international alliance organized and led by the United States , or it will not be repelled at all .

For those with eyes to see, there can be no doubt that the negligence and corruption of the People’s Republic of China are chiefly responsible for the pandemic that is cutting a swath through the world. The Chinese authorities responded to the outbreak by deliberately lying about the disease and punishing doctors and disappearing journalists who told the truth about it. The result has been a pathogen that hit the world at full force instead of being prevented or at least arrested in first the weeks after it erupted.
In the wake of the coronavirus, some Republican commentators and policymakers have argued that Trump has been vindicated by China’s botched response. True, his term seems to have marked a certain departure from the conception of China as a “responsible stakeholder” that previous American governments once hoped Beijing would become. But some commentators go further, alleging that Trump’s brinksmanship with China has somehow redressed the toxic trade imbalance of “Chimerica,” or even seized the initiative in the opening phase of this budding Second Cold War.
This is arrant nonsense. The Trump presidency has been an abject catastrophe for America’s interest in leading and strengthening the liberal world order. The broad success of that order was never a forgone conclusion. From the beginning, it required wise statecraft and principled commitment. In the aftermath of World War II, far-sighted American leaders reckoned with the wages of isolation and determined that the devastating blunder of “the unnecessary war” should not be repeated.
To those architects of American power, it was obvious that they could not help their country without helping others. Refusing the false consolation of national egoism, they understood that no state, however strong, could furnish any kind of lasting order by attempting to subordinate others. Instead, they fused liberal nationalism together with cosmopolitanism to build a freer, more prosperous and more peaceful world for all. This commitment led to the creation of a plethora of international institutions–the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT, which eventually evolved into the World Trade Organization), NATO–to serve the purpose of constructing a durable world order.
But these institutions are flawed and frayed instruments. They are vulnerable to the political machinations and economic clout of powerful member states, as well as corruption and incompetence from within their own bureaucracies. It has long been a Chinese ambition to gain bargaining power within these institutions, and it is hard to miss the progress that China has been making toward that objective. Its undue political influence has been manifest in the way the World Health Organization (WHO) hesitated to declare COVID-19 a public health emergency of international concern. WHO officials amplified Chinese officials’ initial claims that the virus posed no danger of human-to-human transmission.
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…
As the WHO has acted as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chinese Communist Party, President Trump’s habit of kowtowing to Chairman Xi has been no less pronounced.
A disturbing trend throughout Trump’s presidency has been his ignorant nationalism. His oft-stated concern for national sovereignty, which almost never extends to ordering punitive measures against hostile states, including China, that interfere in America’s democratic process, has proved hollow yet again.
The outbreak of this pandemic has revealed the perils of our excessive reliance on Chinese supply chains for crucial medical equipment. It is an urgent matter for America to wean itself, as well as its foreign partners, from this noxious dependency before it’s too late. But what has the Trump administration done in service of this laudable objective? It declared costly and ineffective trade wars against both China and its own allies, from Canada to the European Union. Thus, instead of laying fresh global supply chains among trusted allies without dangerous Chinese inputs, it has heaped obloquy on the very principle of alliances and diminished the potential for countervailing power against the Chinese regime.
The international organizations established in wake of World War II are ripe for reform. But they rest on the principle that international cooperation is essential for global welfare. However imperfect the mechanism, that principle will not go out of fashion. And yet this is a principle that Trump has always defiled and subverted. As China seeks to advance its undisguised national interests and challenge liberal democratic ideology, the United States has responded by . . . what? Even in this latest crisis, China has encountered little concerted pushback from America and its allies. The PRC has not even shuttered its wet markets. Who is going to compel it?
The unvarnished scorn emanating from this White House for U.S. global leadership has left allies alarmed and enemies emboldened. The Trump administration has repudiated America’s responsibility for world order and surrendered America’s obligation to lead. This is all evident in U.S. policy toward China, where the proclaimed instinct to defend the national interest has seldom been translated into a coherent or consistent policy. The Trump administration has not reduced economic interdependence with China in trade and investment, or expanded America’s alliance network in the Asia Pacific, or enhanced American credibility against foreign aggression.
In the long-ago age B.C.—Before Coronavirus—one of Trump’s greatest blunders occurred in the first week of his presidency when he recklessly abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Although Trump called TPP “a rape of our country,” the trade agreement had in fact been negotiated under two previous presidencies not merely for the sake of bringing to market cheap consumer goods but to contain growing Chinese power.
As then-Vice President Joe Biden noted in 2016, the 12 economies linked by the TPP “account for 30 percent of global trade, 40 percent of global GDP, and 50 percent of projected global economic growth.” It was on this basis that Biden pointed out that the agreement was “as much about geopolitics as economics.” Perhaps in due course, Biden, now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, can see fit to remind the public of this considerable gift that Trump presented to Beijing through deplorable diplomacy.
The crucial contest between democracy and autocracy has also recently shifted in Beijing’s favor—hardly a surprise given Trump’s contempt for republican institutions at home and abroad. For evidence of this radical defect in American diplomacy, look no further than the president’s cold indifference last year to Hong Kong’s democratic protesters bravely demonstrating against suffocating interference from the mainland. Or consider Trump’s unwillingness to challenge China over human rights abuses, especially its appalling detention of more than one million Muslims in internment camps.
Since the dawn of this century, America’s position at the apex of world power has been in jeopardy given the growing economic and military might of China. To maintain a world order conducive to American interests and American ideals under these frightening circumstances will require the United States to develop a national consensus that favors a strong military and a vigorous pursuit of national interests, broadly construed. Toward that end, it must cultivate international partnerships and retain the confidence of badly needed allies.
Pulling up the drawbridge to the world will not stop the export of aggressive nationalism any more than it has stopped infectious disease. Against the formidable strength of China—and as the world is treated to more depredations from the world’s largest one-party state—the principles undergirding U.S. global hegemony will not only continue to apply but are more urgently needed than ever before.
A powerful and malevolent China with vast ambitions is not a reason to avoid the world, but to engage and lead it. Isolationism and Fortress America is the wrong strategic concept. China’s impulses for national greatness as defined by the Chinese Communist Party will only be tamed by a form of global governance (and guardianship) that is within the scope of the United States to marshal.
Such enlightened and magnanimous leadership in this crisis would have seen Washington coordinate a global response to diminish the severity of the disease and constrain its duration. However partially and imperfectly, such coordination would have made a world of difference, mitigating the global death toll as well as curtailing untold material devastation. Instead, President Trump unleashed a torrent of drivel and deceit that hurt the American response.
If Republicans believe, as they often say they do, in the strategic challenge posed by China, then it is time they find a realistic and sustainable strategy to deter and repel it. It should go without saying that the president’s short-lived gambit of stoking atavistic emotions by referring to the “Chinese virus” does not meet this stringent standard. From its inception, the “America First” policy of containing China was based on an erroneous premise: that China could be effectively countered by bluster alone, or even by the United States alone. In point of fact, Chinese power and perfidy will be repelled by a robust international alliance organized and led by the United States, or it will not be repelled at all.


thebulwark--2020-04-17--The Pandemic and the Economics of U.S. Health Care

Alongside the obvious burdens of the COVID-19 pandemic , hospitals and other medical service providers are struggling from the revenue they have lost from canceled services .
With social distancing requirements , patients are deferring appointments and postponing elective procedures .
Further , with less driving and other social activity , many fewer patients are requiring emergency care .
All of this points to a historic collapse in revenue for the nation ’ s vast network of medical service providers .
The falloff may last for some time .
Historically , economic downturns have led to lower use of medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of work or have lost their insurance pull back on non-emergency services .
Consequently , hospitals and physician groups may not see an immediate rebound in revenue when social distancing requirements are relaxed , or even when a vaccine becomes available .
One of the bills among the recent emergency legislation in Congress—the so-called CARES Act—includes a $ 100 billion fund to support hospitals and other providers .
It also bumped up Medicare payments for COVID-related care , and provided advance payments to facilities and physician practices as a bridge loan to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revenue .
It is near certain that the next round of pandemic-related legislation will provide even more financial support for the health sector , in the form of unrestricted grants and additional increases in Medicare and Medicaid payment rates .
Congress ’ s rush to provide substantial financial support to medical service providers represents an abrupt shift in political sentiment , driven by the severity of the current crisis .
This new environment may upend the policy agendas for both parties .
In particular , it is likely to complicate Democratic plans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s relatively low payment rates as the next major step in expanded insurance coverage .
For decades , Medicare has developed complex regulations that establish payment rates for the medical care patients need .
These rates are not negotiated with the service providers , although the industry engages in substantial lobbying of both Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services .
Rather , the government sets the rates and the industry has little choice but to accept them , given the size and importance of Medicare revenue to their bottom lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less than commercial plans for the same services .
Medicare rate-setting is central to the design of public option proposals , such as the one advanced by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden .
Instead of creating a new basis for paying hospitals and physicians , public option plans simply reference the fee schedules established by Medicare .
Doing so allows proponents to claim that these plans are much less expensive on a per-person basis than commercial insurance .
Pre-pandemic , that was a selling point .
Now , however , with medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further cuts for hospitals and doctors may not seem like such a good idea .
While it is far too early to pronounce on how well U.S. health care performed during this ongoing emergency , there is little doubt that better planning might have avoided some of the current rush to expand capacity and acquire supplies .
One commentator blamed “ market forces ” for the problem .
The suggestion is that in recent years hospitals responded to the pressures of private insurers and employers by eliminating duplication and unnecessary inventory , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the unexpected .
That explanation does not fit with the pre-pandemic view of the hospital industry .
The argument made by most analysts was not that hospitals were too “ lean and mean.
” Rather , it was that hospitals were wasteful and charged too much for their services .
Hospital spending was 34 percent higher in 2018 compared to 2008 , after taking out growth that occurred because of economy-wide inflation .
Over that period , spending on hospital care ( adjusted for inflation ) grew at an average rate of 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ services has been fueled by commercial insurance .
A recent study found that , on average , private insurance paid hospital fees in 2017 equal to 241 percent of Medicare ’ s rates , up from 236 percent in 2015 .
For doctors , the story is similar .
In 2017 , commercial insurance paid about one-third more per physician service than did Medicare .
That gap will widen substantially in future years because current law severely restrains the future growth in Medicare ’ s fees .
If hospitals and physician practices were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for this emergency ( a contention that requires further examination ) , the source of the problem would have been cuts in Medicare and Medicaid fees , not “ market forces.
” In the Affordable Care Act , Congress permanently reduced the annual increase for hospitals and other facilities by about 1 percentage point .
So , for instance , if inflation is 3 percent , hospitals now get a 2 percent bump in payments .
Compounded over time , this annual inflation “ haircut ” substantially reduces what Medicare pays compared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimated in 2010 that this ACA provision alone would cut payments to hospitals and other providers by $ 157 billion over a decade , with much more to come in future years .
Congress took a similar step with physician fees in 2015 .
The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act ( MACRA ) replaced the “ sustainable growth rate ” mechanism that threatened large annual cuts in physician fees with a new program that severely restrains future increases .
Under a base case , physicians get a 0.75 percent bump in fees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inflation rate of around 2 percent .
Doctors refusing to participate in what are called “ alternative payment models ” get only a 0.25 percent increase each year .
Over time , physician fees from Medicare will plummet compared to commercial plans .
Joe Biden ’ s public option plan would allow many Americans to opt out of private insurance and enroll instead in a government-run plan that uses Medicare ’ s regulated rates for hospital and physician care .
With lower payments for services , the public option is likely to charge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attract some enrollees .
Hospitals and physicians will face increased financial pressure if significant numbers of their patients switch from private to public insurance .
But Biden ’ s plan was written when the political winds for health-care providers were blowing in a different direction .
In the current environment , with the pandemic still peaking , proposed cuts in reimbursement rates for hospitals and doctors are a non-starter .
It is possible that could change in the coming months if the severity of the crisis recedes .
It is more likely that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reflect the new reality .

Alongside the obvious burdens of the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals and other medical service providers are struggling from the revenue they have lost from canceled services. With social distancing requirements, patients are deferring appointments and postponing elective procedures. Further, with less driving and other social activity, many fewer patients are requiring emergency care. All of this points to a historic collapse in revenue for the nation’s vast network of medical service providers.
The falloff may last for some time. Historically, economic downturns have led to lower use of medical care, as consumers who are out of work or have lost their insurance pull back on non-emergency services. Consequently, hospitals and physician groups may not see an immediate rebound in revenue when social distancing requirements are relaxed, or even when a vaccine becomes available.
One of the bills among the recent emergency legislation in Congress—the so-called CARES Act—includes a $100 billion fund to support hospitals and other providers. It also bumped up Medicare payments for COVID-related care, and provided advance payments to facilities and physician practices as a bridge loan to help them weather a falloff in other patient revenue. It is near certain that the next round of pandemic-related legislation will provide even more financial support for the health sector, in the form of unrestricted grants and additional increases in Medicare and Medicaid payment rates.
Congress’s rush to provide substantial financial support to medical service providers represents an abrupt shift in political sentiment, driven by the severity of the current crisis. This new environment may upend the policy agendas for both parties. In particular, it is likely to complicate Democratic plans to advance a public option using Medicare’s relatively low payment rates as the next major step in expanded insurance coverage.
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…
For decades, Medicare has developed complex regulations that establish payment rates for the medical care patients need. These rates are not negotiated with the service providers, although the industry engages in substantial lobbying of both Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services. Rather, the government sets the rates and the industry has little choice but to accept them, given the size and importance of Medicare revenue to their bottom lines. In general, Medicare pays far less than commercial plans for the same services.
Medicare rate-setting is central to the design of public option proposals, such as the one advanced by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. Instead of creating a new basis for paying hospitals and physicians, public option plans simply reference the fee schedules established by Medicare. Doing so allows proponents to claim that these plans are much less expensive on a per-person basis than commercial insurance. Pre-pandemic, that was a selling point. Now, however, with medical readiness on everyone’s mind, further cuts for hospitals and doctors may not seem like such a good idea.
While it is far too early to pronounce on how well U.S. health care performed during this ongoing emergency, there is little doubt that better planning might have avoided some of the current rush to expand capacity and acquire supplies.
One commentator blamed “market forces” for the problem. The suggestion is that in recent years hospitals responded to the pressures of private insurers and employers by eliminating duplication and unnecessary inventory, at the expense of robustness and readiness for the unexpected.
That explanation does not fit with the pre-pandemic view of the hospital industry. The argument made by most analysts was not that hospitals were too “lean and mean.” Rather, it was that hospitals were wasteful and charged too much for their services. Hospital spending was 34 percent higher in 2018 compared to 2008, after taking out growth that occurred because of economy-wide inflation. Over that period, spending on hospital care (adjusted for inflation) grew at an average rate of 3 percent annually.
Increased spending on hospital services has been fueled by commercial insurance. A recent study found that, on average, private insurance paid hospital fees in 2017 equal to 241 percent of Medicare’s rates, up from 236 percent in 2015.
For doctors, the story is similar. In 2017, commercial insurance paid about one-third more per physician service than did Medicare. That gap will widen substantially in future years because current law severely restrains the future growth in Medicare’s fees.
If hospitals and physician practices were stretched financially and thus not fully prepared for this emergency (a contention that requires further examination), the source of the problem would have been cuts in Medicare and Medicaid fees, not “market forces.”
In the Affordable Care Act, Congress permanently reduced the annual increase for hospitals and other facilities by about 1 percentage point. So, for instance, if inflation is 3 percent, hospitals now get a 2 percent bump in payments. Compounded over time, this annual inflation “haircut” substantially reduces what Medicare pays compared to private insurance. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2010 that this ACA provision alone would cut payments to hospitals and other providers by $157 billion over a decade, with much more to come in future years.
Congress took a similar step with physician fees in 2015. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) replaced the “sustainable growth rate” mechanism that threatened large annual cuts in physician fees with a new program that severely restrains future increases. Under a base case, physicians get a 0.75 percent bump in fees each year, far below the expected inflation rate of around 2 percent. Doctors refusing to participate in what are called “alternative payment models” get only a 0.25 percent increase each year. Over time, physician fees from Medicare will plummet compared to commercial plans.
Joe Biden’s public option plan would allow many Americans to opt out of private insurance and enroll instead in a government-run plan that uses Medicare’s regulated rates for hospital and physician care. With lower payments for services, the public option is likely to charge premiums below commercial rates, and thus attract some enrollees. Hospitals and physicians will face increased financial pressure if significant numbers of their patients switch from private to public insurance.
But Biden’s plan was written when the political winds for health-care providers were blowing in a different direction. In the current environment, with the pandemic still peaking, proposed cuts in reimbursement rates for hospitals and doctors are a non-starter. It is possible that could change in the coming months if the severity of the crisis recedes. It is more likely that Biden will have to adjust his plan to reflect the new reality.


thebulwark--2020-04-17--COVID-19 Crisis: Time to Turn from Reaction to Reconstitution

In the COVID-19 crisis , government power and public attention have gravitated toward the presidency , and naturally so .
The Constitution was intended to empower presidents to lead in crises , and to hold them accountable for doing so .
Since its ratification , the subsequent two centuries of statutes , institutions , and norms have only further concentrated the presidency ’ s powers and obligations in times of crisis .
But now , many weeks after the coronavirus arrived on American shores , the nation has reached a point where management of public health requires fundamental shifts in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for making policy , protecting public health , and disseminating information need to be disaggregated from the White House and reconstituted in Congress , in state and local governments , and in other constitutional institutions .
Making this shift is one of the greatest challenges in constitutional governance , but it is crucial—and urgent .
Energy in the Executive , At First To be sure , the Constitution ’ s provisions empowering and obligating the president to lead the initial reaction to a crisis are invaluable .
The Framers intended to create a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but also energy , and especially executive energy in times of crisis .
As Alexander Hamilton famously put it , in Federalist No .
70 , “ energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government ” ; an energetic and accountable executive branch is “ essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks ” and “ not less essential to the steady administration of the laws.
” One of the reasons that only a president and a well-functioning executive branch can respond effectively to crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ —the singleness of the president , and the executive branch directed by that lone figure , can make decisions and then act to implement them swiftly and ( where necessary ) secretly .
This was true from the start in George Washington ’ s administration , but it is all the more so today , as presidential historian Tevi Troy detailed this in his 2016 book , Shall We Wake the President ?
.
The president has broad powers to act rapidly during emergencies—some rooted in the Constitution itself , many others legislated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administrative state gives him unrivaled access to resources and expertise , as exemplified by President Trump ’ s key task-force advisers , Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health and Dr. Deborah Birx of the State Department ( about whom , more in a moment ) .
So it is natural that President Trump and his administration would be the focus of both government power and public attention in the opening days and weeks of the COVID-19 crisis , a crisis that began as ( per Hamilton ) a “ foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) before becoming a matter of “ steady administration ” at home .
But precisely because the Constitution leaves room for the president to take the lead when crisis strikes , one of the most difficult challenges in all of American constitutionalism is to recognize when it is time for government to pivot back toward a more normal footing—that is , one in which Congress , the states , and other institutions not only play more significant roles but also are seen by the public as doing so .
This is easier said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the present pandemic , the executive branch quickly and naturally assumes roles normally played by other institutions : It becomes the predominant source of national policymaking , instead of Congress ; it becomes the predominant voice on matters of public safety , instead of state and local governments ; and it becomes the predominant source of crucial information for the public , in place of various institutions .
When the crisis passes it deserves credit for its successes and accountability for its failures .
This sudden concentration of national power and prominence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of crisis , is crucial yet natural .
But returning those powers and responsibilities to their proper places , when the time comes , is crucial yet difficult .
The nation needs these roles to be disaggregated from the executive branch because its government works best when each institution focuses on doing the job that it was originally designed to do .
But the disaggregation requires concerted effort by many institutions .
This disaggregation of power will improve Congress and the states , but it will also improve the executive branch itself .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ordinary powers and responsibilities of the rest of government , it undermines its own ability to best accomplish its own fundamental constitutional role : the “ steady administration ” of American law and policy .
Congress Needs to Legislate , Not Vacate Any candid discussion of Congress ’ s legislative role must admit that Congress long ago ceased to act as the Constitution ’ s “ first branch.
” After more than a century of vesting immense powers in the president and agencies , Congress today seems far less interested in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and enacting legislation .
The COVID-19 outbreak is no time to relitigate that general problem , to say the least .
But the extraordinary problems that COVID-19 brings does raise particular issues of congressional power and responsibility that require specific attention .
At the outbreak of a crisis , as mentioned above , the president is particularly well suited to make policy judgments and to implement those judgments through the agencies .
This is a function of not just the Constitution itself , but also of statutes : such laws as the Defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strengthen the government ’ s ability to respond to crises ; various emergency-power statutes ; and the president ’ s broader portfolio of statutory powers and other non-legal norms and institutions that enable him to react swiftly to threats .
But a crisis like COVID-19 quickly raises problems well beyond the reach of ordinary statutes .
It challenges familiar agency processes and norms that were built for ordinary times with old statutes .
And such a crisis creates problems for which no old statutory framework exists at all , as we saw when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by COVID-19 and by the public-health actions taken in response quickly outpaced the Trump administration ’ s and the Federal Reserve ’ s normal capacity for unilateral remedies .
The moment when the nation comes to rely most heavily on the president and his agencies becomes the very moment when Congress is most needed to leap into action .
The initial rounds of COVID-19 legislation were a strong start , but as my colleague Yuval Levin and I wrote recently , Congress needs to do more , longer .
It needs to legislate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and more precise enactments that give the president and agencies meaningful direction and limits .
Congress needs to reassert this power as the nation ’ s policymaking body , because the compromise and deliberation necessary for legislative policymaking is better suited to produce effective and widely acceptable laws needed to overcome the crisis while preserving national unity .
But also , and no less importantly , Congress ’ s reassertion of its own institutional role is necessary to make the executive branch the best possible version of itself in responding to the crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s crucial constitutional role is not to provide “ energy ” aimlessly , but rather to provide energy for the “ steady administration of the laws.
” And , perhaps counterintuitively , this requires Congress to legislate meaningful limits and direction for the executive : Without such limits and direction , a president and his administration are more prone to vacillate wildly among possible courses of actions .
When Congress enacts new laws in response to a crisis , it channels the executive branch ’ s Hamiltonian energy for the sake of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Congress should undertake sustained and meaningful oversight .
While every president bristles at congressional oversight , the need for oversight of the administration ’ s response to the COVID-19 outbreak and its execution of the newly enacted $ 2 trillion relief legislation seems particularly acute in light of President Trump ’ s words and deeds in the crisis so far—from his assertion , before Congress passed the relief act , that “ I ’ ll be the oversight ” in how agencies distribute hundreds of billions of dollars ; to his formal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , purporting to reduce the power of the new Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery ; to his widely scrutinized removal of the newly created Pandemic Response Accountability Committee ’ s initial chairman , Glenn Fine , just days into the job .
These incidents and others make congressional oversight as important as ever .
But the crisis calls for more than just the negative oversight of constraining the administration and spotlighting possible mistakes .
It calls also for the positive oversight of raising questions that might otherwise go unasked within the administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ otherwise go overlooked within it .
It calls for a Congress , and especially a Senate , that invests itself deeply in constitutional administration .
None of this is possible during the initial shock of crisis , of course .
And again , it is only natural that the president would be the nation ’ s predominant policymaker at the moment that the crisis hits .
But now that America has passed that initial point of impact , Congress must reassert itself .
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer ’ s comment this week that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until early May “ absent an emergency , ” in the middle of the single worst public-health emergency in decades , ought to embarrass every member of Congress .
As Justice Robert Jackson observed in his seminal Supreme Court opinion on presidential emergency powers , “ a crisis that challenges the President equally , or perhaps primarily , challenges Congress , ” but in those moments “ only Congress itself can prevent power from slipping through its fingers.
” The States Need to Lead on Public Safety —and to Be Seen as Doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news has been dominated by President Trump ’ s pronouncements on public-health policies being undertaken to prevent the spread of COVID-19 , and his stated hopes for when the crisis will pass and the heavy burdens of social distancing will no longer be necessary .
From his startling but short-lived goal of getting the country “ opened up and just raring to go by Easter , ” to his new goal of “ opening ” the country back up on May 1 , President Trump speaks as though the decision to “ open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that such a decision rests in the hands of any one official .
The nation ’ s obsessive focus on his words in this crisis would seem to suggest as much , too .
But in reality , the president ’ s powers on these questions , and other questions of public health and safety , are very limited .
As we are beginning to see , as small bands of East- and West-coast states assert themselves to fill the governance vacuum , matters of public health and safety are largely the responsibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pursuant to state and local laws to impose shutdowns , stay-at-home orders , and quarantines .
The president and his administration can suggest guidelines ; he can support state and local efforts through the production and distribution of equipment and other resources ; he can order federal agencies to take all lawful actions necessary to accelerate the development of therapeutics and ultimately a vaccine ; and he can take other actions to mitigate the cascading spread of the virus into the United States from abroad or from one state to another .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or reopening it , the president ’ s role is merely a supporting one ; the most significant powers to act , and responsibility for those actions , rest with state and local officials .
In short , the president ’ s new assertion that he has “ total , ” “ ultimate authority ” is astonishingly frivolous , though his comments ( and his subsequent tweets ) raise questions of whether President Trump is planning to leverage federal resources to force states to comply with his policies by threatening to withhold federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect their citizens , a move that would not be surprising but would raise major questions of constitutional law and statutory interpretation .
In the end , the Constitution ’ s allocation of powers to the president and to the states are a fact regardless of whether the president , the press , or other observers say so .
But the lack of clear and consistent public messaging and education on this point undermines one of the most important parts of constitutional government : the mechanisms of political accountability .
As governors like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ohio ’ s Mike DeWine make profoundly important and difficult decisions of public health and economic stability , the press and other institutions need to highlight the real allocations of power and responsibility among national and state officials , in order to strengthen constitutional lines of public accountability .
Governor Cuomo ’ s own daily press conferences have become particularly important , in that they not only provide updates from the hardest-hit state but they also provide daily reminders that the president is not the only elected official responsible for leading government responses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several other governors , of both parties , are not receiving substantial national media coverage .
The national press focuses on President Trump ’ s daily announcements for several reasons : because of the now years-long media obsession with his statements ; because the president ’ s singular status ( again , Hamilton ’ s “ unity ” ) makes him the unique focus of national public attention in times of crisis ; and because reporters are keen to hold him accountable—confront him , even—over his statements .
But so disproportionately amplifying Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the governors ’ has has the precise opposite effect of undermining the proper constitutional mechanisms of political accountability : By constantly confronting the president on matters over which he does not actually have power and responsibility , reporters reinforce the message that he is in charge of those things .
If the White House press corps were to simply refuse to engage him on those issues , and instead focus overwhelmingly on the performance of the CDC and the FDA , and on matters actually within the president ’ s constitutional responsibilities , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide a civics lesson for the public that will someday vote on both the president and the governors .
As with a re-emergence of Congress , recalibrating the public ’ s understanding of the president ’ s and governors ’ respective powers would ideally help to improve the president ’ s own steady administration of the laws .
To the extent that the press ceases to focus on the president ’ s pronouncements on matters not actually within his control , perhaps the president will seek to advance his political fortunes through his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually have been assigned to him by the Constitution and Congress .
At least , one can hope as much .
But at the very least , such disproportionate focus on the president makes a bad situation worse .
The White House Must Not Remain the Central Source of Expert Information When crisis erupts , the federal government ’ s executive branch is uniquely well suited to gather and disseminate information to the public , to Congress , and to state and local governments .
In the modern administrative state , the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House and agencies .
And the agencies can often collect and digest the relevant factual information more quickly and effectively than other institutions .
This is good , because the Constitution ’ s reliance on the president in times of crisis necessarily requires the president to have swift and often secret access to expertise and information .
And the president , in turn , can use his singular place on the national stage to bring relevant information to the public .
We see that , quite literally , in his near-daily presentation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House briefing room .
( Although , as Dr. Fauci himself suggests , it seems frivolous to force him and Dr. Birx to stand on stage for hours every day , and to prep for those briefings , instead letting them devote their scarce time and energy to more productive pursuits . )
But while this dual role of advising both the president and the public is good and necessary in a crisis ’ s initial stages , it becomes untenable as time passes .
The president ’ s control over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shape the information that those experts give to the public .
It also tends to shape the public ’ s own perception of the information they are being given .
This , too , has been evidenced by the recent debates surrounding the projected death tolls announced in the daily White House press briefings : outside experts questioned both the substance of those projections and the process that gave rise to them , while the president ’ s sudden use of those projections as a very generous benchmark spurred politicos to ask if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sake of political goalpost-moving .
Furthermore , the public ’ s continued reliance on the president ’ s own advisers as the primary source for authoritative information inevitably draws attention to possible disagreements between his advisers ’ opinions and his own statements and actions .
This , too , has been exemplified in the COVID-19 crisis , as waves of news coverage amplify apparent disagreements between President Trump and Dr. Fauci .
This dynamic has the precise opposite effect that the press seems to intend : Though seeking to elevate and amplify Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coverage complicates his own relationship with the president and thus threatens his ability to help shape the Trump administration ’ s actions .
Dr. Fauci himself has expressed chagrin over “ this issue of trying to separate the two of us.
” When the nation relies so heavily on the president ’ s advisers for public information , it sets at odds two fundamentally incompatible constitutional needs : the president ’ s need to lead a team that he trusts to advise him candidly behind closed doors and support him in public ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accurate , trustworthy , expert information .
Again , this is not a problem exclusive to this administration : President Trump ’ s particular qualities of character might exacerbate the problem , but this is a problem inherent in the conflict between the presidency ’ s needs and the public ’ s .
So while the public will naturally rely on the president ’ s experts in a crisis ’ s early days , such reliance becomes untenable over time .
And in the COVID-19 crisis , this situation long ago crossed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s informational center of gravity can not remain in the White House briefing room .
Instead , other experts must take the lead on matters of public health .
As with the proper allocation of public accountability among governors and the president , this is a matter in which the press must take some responsibility , by de-emphasizing the public role of the president ’ s advisers and re-emphasizing the public role of knowledgeable experts outside of government .
Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb , my colleague at the American Enterprise Institute , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public ’ s understanding of both the virus and the proper government responses to it ; the public deserves to hear from more voices like his performing the informational role that Dr. Fauci is constantly being called upon to perform .
At the very least , the press should rely less on the president ’ s advisers to cast doubt upon the president .
Instead of making Dr. Fauci ’ s already-difficult job impossible , the press should rely on other experts to challenge or confirm the president ’ s statements .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ should play a central role in the gathering and dissemination of expert opinion .
As Yuval Levin and I urged in our aforementioned article , Congress has a national stage of its own , and House and Senate committees can invite experts to testify at hearings that will inform not just Congress , but also the governors , the public at large , and the Trump administration itself .
Americans are fortunate to have a Constitution that enables the president to react quickly to sudden crises .
But it comes with a responsibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a longer-term challenge , calling not for presidential reaction but constitutional administration—and to reconstitute the institutions of governance accordingly .

In the COVID-19 crisis, government power and public attention have gravitated toward the presidency, and naturally so. The Constitution was intended to empower presidents to lead in crises, and to hold them accountable for doing so. Since its ratification, the subsequent two centuries of statutes, institutions, and norms have only further concentrated the presidency’s powers and obligations in times of crisis.
But now, many weeks after the coronavirus arrived on American shores, the nation has reached a point where management of public health requires fundamental shifts in public administration. Specifically, the responsibilities for making policy, protecting public health, and disseminating information need to be disaggregated from the White House and reconstituted in Congress, in state and local governments, and in other constitutional institutions. Making this shift is one of the greatest challenges in constitutional governance, but it is crucial—and urgent.
Energy in the Executive, At First
To be sure, the Constitution’s provisions empowering and obligating the president to lead the initial reaction to a crisis are invaluable. The Framers intended to create a government that would exemplify not just stability but also energy, and especially executive energy in times of crisis. As Alexander Hamilton famously put it, in Federalist No. 70, “energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government”; an energetic and accountable executive branch is “essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks” and “not less essential to the steady administration of the laws.”
One of the reasons that only a president and a well-functioning executive branch can respond effectively to crisis is what Hamilton called “unity”—the singleness of the president, and the executive branch directed by that lone figure, can make decisions and then act to implement them swiftly and (where necessary) secretly. This was true from the start in George Washington’s administration, but it is all the more so today, as presidential historian Tevi Troy detailed this in his 2016 book, Shall We Wake the President?. The president has broad powers to act rapidly during emergencies—some rooted in the Constitution itself, many others legislated for the president by Congress—and the modern administrative state gives him unrivaled access to resources and expertise, as exemplified by President Trump’s key task-force advisers, Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health and Dr. Deborah Birx of the State Department (about whom, more in a moment).
So it is natural that President Trump and his administration would be the focus of both government power and public attention in the opening days and weeks of the COVID-19 crisis, a crisis that began as (per Hamilton) a “foreign attack” (in an epidemiological sense) before becoming a matter of “steady administration” at home.
Crisis and the Crucial Turning Point
But precisely because the Constitution leaves room for the president to take the lead when crisis strikes, one of the most difficult challenges in all of American constitutionalism is to recognize when it is time for government to pivot back toward a more normal footing—that is, one in which Congress, the states, and other institutions not only play more significant roles but also are seen by the public as doing so.
This is easier said than done. In modern crises, like the present pandemic, the executive branch quickly and naturally assumes roles normally played by other institutions: It becomes the predominant source of national policymaking, instead of Congress; it becomes the predominant voice on matters of public safety, instead of state and local governments; and it becomes the predominant source of crucial information for the public, in place of various institutions. When the crisis passes it deserves credit for its successes and accountability for its failures.
This sudden concentration of national power and prominence in the executive, at a moment of crisis, is crucial yet natural. But returning those powers and responsibilities to their proper places, when the time comes, is crucial yet difficult. The nation needs these roles to be disaggregated from the executive branch because its government works best when each institution focuses on doing the job that it was originally designed to do. But the disaggregation requires concerted effort by many institutions.
This disaggregation of power will improve Congress and the states, but it will also improve the executive branch itself. For when the executive branch takes on the ordinary powers and responsibilities of the rest of government, it undermines its own ability to best accomplish its own fundamental constitutional role: the “steady administration” of American law and policy.
Congress Needs to Legislate, Not Vacate
Any candid discussion of Congress’s legislative role must admit that Congress long ago ceased to act as the Constitution’s “first branch.” After more than a century of vesting immense powers in the president and agencies, Congress today seems far less interested in the hard work of formulating, deliberating, and enacting legislation. The COVID-19 outbreak is no time to relitigate that general problem, to say the least. But the extraordinary problems that COVID-19 brings does raise particular issues of congressional power and responsibility that require specific attention.
At the outbreak of a crisis, as mentioned above, the president is particularly well suited to make policy judgments and to implement those judgments through the agencies. This is a function of not just the Constitution itself, but also of statutes: such laws as the Defense Production Act, passed by Congress to strengthen the government’s ability to respond to crises; various emergency-power statutes; and the president’s broader portfolio of statutory powers and other non-legal norms and institutions that enable him to react swiftly to threats.
But a crisis like COVID-19 quickly raises problems well beyond the reach of ordinary statutes. It challenges familiar agency processes and norms that were built for ordinary times with old statutes. And such a crisis creates problems for which no old statutory framework exists at all, as we saw when the swift and enormous economic burdens caused by COVID-19 and by the public-health actions taken in response quickly outpaced the Trump administration’s and the Federal Reserve’s normal capacity for unilateral remedies. The moment when the nation comes to rely most heavily on the president and his agencies becomes the very moment when Congress is most needed to leap into action.
The initial rounds of COVID-19 legislation were a strong start, but as my colleague Yuval Levin and I wrote recently, Congress needs to do more, longer. It needs to legislate on an ongoing basis, in smaller and more precise enactments that give the president and agencies meaningful direction and limits.
Congress needs to reassert this power as the nation’s policymaking body, because the compromise and deliberation necessary for legislative policymaking is better suited to produce effective and widely acceptable laws needed to overcome the crisis while preserving national unity. But also, and no less importantly, Congress’s reassertion of its own institutional role is necessary to make the executive branch the best possible version of itself in responding to the crisis.
As Hamilton observed, the executive’s crucial constitutional role is not to provide “energy” aimlessly, but rather to provide energy for the “steady administration of the laws.” And, perhaps counterintuitively, this requires Congress to legislate meaningful limits and direction for the executive: Without such limits and direction, a president and his administration are more prone to vacillate wildly among possible courses of actions. When Congress enacts new laws in response to a crisis, it channels the executive branch’s Hamiltonian energy for the sake of steady administration.
In addition to legislation, Congress should undertake sustained and meaningful oversight. While every president bristles at congressional oversight, the need for oversight of the administration’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak and its execution of the newly enacted $2 trillion relief legislation seems particularly acute in light of President Trump’s words and deeds in the crisis so far—from his assertion, before Congress passed the relief act, that “I’ll be the oversight” in how agencies distribute hundreds of billions of dollars; to his formal statement, upon signing the relief act, purporting to reduce the power of the new Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery; to his widely scrutinized removal of the newly created Pandemic Response Accountability Committee’s initial chairman, Glenn Fine, just days into the job. These incidents and others make congressional oversight as important as ever.
But the crisis calls for more than just the negative oversight of constraining the administration and spotlighting possible mistakes. It calls also for the positive oversight of raising questions that might otherwise go unasked within the administration, and of offering answers that might otherwise go overlooked within it. It calls for a Congress, and especially a Senate, that invests itself deeply in constitutional administration.
None of this is possible during the initial shock of crisis, of course. And again, it is only natural that the president would be the nation’s predominant policymaker at the moment that the crisis hits. But now that America has passed that initial point of impact, Congress must reassert itself.
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s comment this week that the House of Representatives will not reconvene until early May “absent an emergency,” in the middle of the single worst public-health emergency in decades, ought to embarrass every member of Congress. As Justice Robert Jackson observed in his seminal Supreme Court opinion on presidential emergency powers, “a crisis that challenges the President equally, or perhaps primarily, challenges Congress,” but in those moments “only Congress itself can prevent power from slipping through its fingers.”
The States Need to Lead on Public Safety
—and to Be Seen as Doing So
For weeks now, the daily news has been dominated by President Trump’s pronouncements on public-health policies being undertaken to prevent the spread of COVID-19, and his stated hopes for when the crisis will pass and the heavy burdens of social distancing will no longer be necessary. From his startling but short-lived goal of getting the country “opened up and just raring to go by Easter,” to his new goal of “opening” the country back up on May 1, President Trump speaks as though the decision to “open” the country is his to make—or that such a decision rests in the hands of any one official. The nation’s obsessive focus on his words in this crisis would seem to suggest as much, too.
But in reality, the president’s powers on these questions, and other questions of public health and safety, are very limited. As we are beginning to see, as small bands of East- and West-coast states assert themselves to fill the governance vacuum, matters of public health and safety are largely the responsibility of governors and mayors, who act pursuant to state and local laws to impose shutdowns, stay-at-home orders, and quarantines. The president and his administration can suggest guidelines; he can support state and local efforts through the production and distribution of equipment and other resources; he can order federal agencies to take all lawful actions necessary to accelerate the development of therapeutics and ultimately a vaccine; and he can take other actions to mitigate the cascading spread of the virus into the United States from abroad or from one state to another. But for real decisions shutting down economic activity or reopening it, the president’s role is merely a supporting one; the most significant powers to act, and responsibility for those actions, rest with state and local officials.
In short, the president’s new assertion that he has “total,” “ultimate authority” is astonishingly frivolous, though his comments (and his subsequent tweets) raise questions of whether President Trump is planning to leverage federal resources to force states to comply with his policies by threatening to withhold federal support from states who act independently to protect their citizens, a move that would not be surprising but would raise major questions of constitutional law and statutory interpretation.
In the end, the Constitution’s allocation of powers to the president and to the states are a fact regardless of whether the president, the press, or other observers say so. But the lack of clear and consistent public messaging and education on this point undermines one of the most important parts of constitutional government: the mechanisms of political accountability. As governors like New York’s Andrew Cuomo and Ohio’s Mike DeWine make profoundly important and difficult decisions of public health and economic stability, the press and other institutions need to highlight the real allocations of power and responsibility among national and state officials, in order to strengthen constitutional lines of public accountability. Governor Cuomo’s own daily press conferences have become particularly important, in that they not only provide updates from the hardest-hit state but they also provide daily reminders that the president is not the only elected official responsible for leading government responses to COVID-19. It is unfortunate that several other governors, of both parties, are not receiving substantial national media coverage.
The national press focuses on President Trump’s daily announcements for several reasons: because of the now years-long media obsession with his statements; because the president’s singular status (again, Hamilton’s “unity”) makes him the unique focus of national public attention in times of crisis; and because reporters are keen to hold him accountable—confront him, even—over his statements. But so disproportionately amplifying Trump’s words and actions instead of the governors’ has has the precise opposite effect of undermining the proper constitutional mechanisms of political accountability: By constantly confronting the president on matters over which he does not actually have power and responsibility, reporters reinforce the message that he is in charge of those things. If the White House press corps were to simply refuse to engage him on those issues, and instead focus overwhelmingly on the performance of the CDC and the FDA, and on matters actually within the president’s constitutional responsibilities, they would both hold him accountable and provide a civics lesson for the public that will someday vote on both the president and the governors.
As with a re-emergence of Congress, recalibrating the public’s understanding of the president’s and governors’ respective powers would ideally help to improve the president’s own steady administration of the laws. To the extent that the press ceases to focus on the president’s pronouncements on matters not actually within his control, perhaps the president will seek to advance his political fortunes through his execution of the powers and responsibilities that actually have been assigned to him by the Constitution and Congress. At least, one can hope as much. But at the very least, such disproportionate focus on the president makes a bad situation worse.
The White House Must Not Remain
the Central Source of Expert Information
When crisis erupts, the federal government’s executive branch is uniquely well suited to gather and disseminate information to the public, to Congress, and to state and local governments. In the modern administrative state, the president can find sometimes unrivaled expertise in his White House and agencies. And the agencies can often collect and digest the relevant factual information more quickly and effectively than other institutions.
This is good, because the Constitution’s reliance on the president in times of crisis necessarily requires the president to have swift and often secret access to expertise and information. And the president, in turn, can use his singular place on the national stage to bring relevant information to the public. We see that, quite literally, in his near-daily presentation of Drs. Fauci and Birx in the White House briefing room. (Although, as Dr. Fauci himself suggests, it seems frivolous to force him and Dr. Birx to stand on stage for hours every day, and to prep for those briefings, instead letting them devote their scarce time and energy to more productive pursuits.)
But while this dual role of advising both the president and the public is good and necessary in a crisis’s initial stages, it becomes untenable as time passes. The president’s control over the experts within his administration tends to shape the information that those experts give to the public. It also tends to shape the public’s own perception of the information they are being given.
This, too, has been evidenced by the recent debates surrounding the projected death tolls announced in the daily White House press briefings: outside experts questioned both the substance of those projections and the process that gave rise to them, while the president’s sudden use of those projections as a very generous benchmark spurred politicos to ask if the projections were conjured just for the sake of political goalpost-moving.
Furthermore, the public’s continued reliance on the president’s own advisers as the primary source for authoritative information inevitably draws attention to possible disagreements between his advisers’ opinions and his own statements and actions. This, too, has been exemplified in the COVID-19 crisis, as waves of news coverage amplify apparent disagreements between President Trump and Dr. Fauci. This dynamic has the precise opposite effect that the press seems to intend: Though seeking to elevate and amplify Dr. Fauci’s expertise, such press coverage complicates his own relationship with the president and thus threatens his ability to help shape the Trump administration’s actions. Dr. Fauci himself has expressed chagrin over “this issue of trying to separate the two of us.”
When the nation relies so heavily on the president’s advisers for public information, it sets at odds two fundamentally incompatible constitutional needs: the president’s need to lead a team that he trusts to advise him candidly behind closed doors and support him in public; and the public’s need for accurate, trustworthy, expert information. Again, this is not a problem exclusive to this administration: President Trump’s particular qualities of character might exacerbate the problem, but this is a problem inherent in the conflict between the presidency’s needs and the public’s.
So while the public will naturally rely on the president’s experts in a crisis’s early days, such reliance becomes untenable over time. And in the COVID-19 crisis, this situation long ago crossed the point of sustainability. The nation’s informational center of gravity cannot remain in the White House briefing room. Instead, other experts must take the lead on matters of public health.
As with the proper allocation of public accountability among governors and the president, this is a matter in which the press must take some responsibility, by de-emphasizing the public role of the president’s advisers and re-emphasizing the public role of knowledgeable experts outside of government. Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, my colleague at the American Enterprise Institute, exemplifies what outside experts can contribute to the public’s understanding of both the virus and the proper government responses to it; the public deserves to hear from more voices like his performing the informational role that Dr. Fauci is constantly being called upon to perform.
At the very least, the press should rely less on the president’s advisers to cast doubt upon the president. Instead of making Dr. Fauci’s already-difficult job impossible, the press should rely on other experts to challenge or confirm the president’s statements.
But Congress, too, can and should play a central role in the gathering and dissemination of expert opinion. As Yuval Levin and I urged in our aforementioned article, Congress has a national stage of its own, and House and Senate committees can invite experts to testify at hearings that will inform not just Congress, but also the governors, the public at large, and the Trump administration itself.
Americans are fortunate to have a Constitution that enables the president to react quickly to sudden crises. But it comes with a responsibility to recognize when the initial crisis becomes a longer-term challenge, calling not for presidential reaction but constitutional administration—and to reconstitute the institutions of governance accordingly.


thebulwark--2020-04-17--Vote-By-Mail Is Happening. Will We Be Ready?

COVID-19 has already transformed the 2020 election , guaranteeing it will be unlike any other in recent history .
I run American Unity PAC , a GOP Super PAC now in our fifth election cycle .
We ’ ve spent millions of dollars electing and reelecting pro-freedom , pro-LGBT Republicans in the House and Senate .
As our team looks ahead to November , we ’ re preparing for a vote-by-mail surge .
But not all Republicans are preparing for this massive shift to vote-by-mail .
The president ’ s opposition has captured the attention of both Republicans and many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , whether he ’ ll continue to oppose it , how he can justify opposing it when he himself voted by mail in Florida ’ s primary last month .
This is how we ended up trapped in a debate about whether we should even allow the practice in the first place .
But this debate has no bearing on reality .
We already allow voting by mail in every state .
Forty-five states have a system for absentee ballots , with some requiring pre-approved reasons for absentee voting and others not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Colorado , Hawaii , Oregon , and Washington ) use vote-by-mail exclusively .
Whether the president supports voting by mail or not , it ’ s going to happen this fall .
We instead need to focus on how state governments will meet demand for mail-in ballots .
Whatever system a state currently has , we can be sure that voters will surge the vote-by-mail options available to them .
Consider : Would you rather expose yourself to a voting booth — shared by countless strangers after waiting in a long line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The safer choice seems pretty obvious , and tens millions of voters will likely reach the same conclusion .
Of course , it ’ s possible we could develop a vaccine or treatment before the election .
We could also implement widespread testing and contact tracing .
But nothing about the federal government ’ s response so far suggests we will .
For now , we should assume the virus will continue to change behavior this fall .
And if that ’ s the case , we can predict record numbers of absentee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change from every previous election .
In North Carolina and Georgia , both of which could be swing states in 2020 , roughly six percent of voters cast ballots by mail in 2018 .
This year , they ’ ll face a tsunami of absentee ballots and applications that the current state systems are not built to handle .
Campaigns will drive the absentee numbers even higher .
Rather than sending out armies of volunteers to knock on doors , both parties will reallocate resources to reaching people online or by phone and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The surge in ballots is coming .
We must improve the current vote-by-mail system so that it ’ s reliable , secure , and scaled for tens of millions of ballots — and we only have a few months to pull it off .
This leads to the real question for Congress and for Trump : How are they going to help the states prepare ?
Theoretical opposition to mail-in voting is beside the point .
Reporters should stop asking Republicans – especially Trump – him if they support voting by mail .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ steps are they taking to make sure states have the resources they need to hold secure , safe , and healthy elections ?
When the president and congressional Republicans are preparing their answers , they should look to the states that implemented vote-by-mail years ago .
Utah uses vote-by-mail exclusively , and is no one ’ s idea of a blue state .
Ohio , which has updated its absentee ballot system under Republican Governor Mike DeWine , allows voters to request absentee ballots online , and the state is actively encouraging voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other state should do the same and should appropriate the money needed to make the transition now .
Forget the bluster and temper tantrums .
Vote-by-mail is happening .
So how will we prepare ?

COVID-19 has already transformed the 2020 election, guaranteeing it will be unlike any other in recent history. I run American Unity PAC, a GOP Super PAC now in our fifth election cycle. We’ve spent millions of dollars electing and reelecting pro-freedom, pro-LGBT Republicans in the House and Senate. As our team looks ahead to November, we’re preparing for a vote-by-mail surge.
But not all Republicans are preparing for this massive shift to vote-by-mail. The president’s opposition has captured the attention of both Republicans and many in the media: why he opposes it, whether he’ll continue to oppose it, how he can justify opposing it when he himself voted by mail in Florida’s primary last month. This is how we ended up trapped in a debate about whether we should even allow the practice in the first place.
But this debate has no bearing on reality. We already allow voting by mail in every state.
Forty-five states have a system for absentee ballots, with some requiring pre-approved reasons for absentee voting and others not. The other five states (Utah, Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington) use vote-by-mail exclusively.
Whether the president supports voting by mail or not, it’s going to happen this fall. We instead need to focus on how state governments will meet demand for mail-in ballots.
Whatever system a state currently has, we can be sure that voters will surge the vote-by-mail options available to them. Consider: Would you rather expose yourself to a voting booth — shared by countless strangers after waiting in a long line — or request an absentee ballot? The safer choice seems pretty obvious, and tens millions of voters will likely reach the same conclusion.
Of course, it’s possible we could develop a vaccine or treatment before the election. We could also implement widespread testing and contact tracing. But nothing about the federal government’s response so far suggests we will. For now, we should assume the virus will continue to change behavior this fall.
And if that’s the case, we can predict record numbers of absentee ballots. It will be an extraordinary change from every previous election. In North Carolina and Georgia, both of which could be swing states in 2020, roughly six percent of voters cast ballots by mail in 2018.
This year, they’ll face a tsunami of absentee ballots and applications that the current state systems are not built to handle.
Campaigns will drive the absentee numbers even higher. Rather than sending out armies of volunteers to knock on doors, both parties will reallocate resources to reaching people online or by phone and help them register for absentee ballots.
The surge in ballots is coming. We must improve the current vote-by-mail system so that it’s reliable, secure, and scaled for tens of millions of ballots — and we only have a few months to pull it off.
This leads to the real question for Congress and for Trump: How are they going to help the states prepare? Theoretical opposition to mail-in voting is beside the point. Reporters should stop asking Republicans – especially Trump – him if they support voting by mail. They should ask instead: what practical steps are they taking to make sure states have the resources they need to hold secure, safe, and healthy elections?
When the president and congressional Republicans are preparing their answers, they should look to the states that implemented vote-by-mail years ago. Utah uses vote-by-mail exclusively, and is no one’s idea of a blue state.
Ohio, which has updated its absentee ballot system under Republican Governor Mike DeWine, allows voters to request absentee ballots online, and the state is actively encouraging voters to cast ballots by mail. Every other state should do the same and should appropriate the money needed to make the transition now.
Forget the bluster and temper tantrums. Vote-by-mail is happening. So how will we prepare?


thebulwark--2020-04-16--The Coming Populist Libertarian Rebellion

And so on the umpteenth day of the Great Lockdown , the masses finally rose up .
Or something : For miles , thousands of drivers clogged the streets to demand Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer ( D ) ease restrictions and allow them to go back to work .
They drowned downtown Lansing , Mich. , in an cacophony of honking .
They blared patriotic songs from car radios , waving all sorts of flags from the windows—President Trump flags , American flags and the occasional Confederate flag .
But in the massive demonstration against Whitmer ’ s stay-at-home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and beyond her authority—the pleas from organizers that protesters stay in their vehicles went unheeded .
Many got out of their cars and crashed the front lawn of the capitol building , with some chanting , “ Lock her up !
” and “ We will not comply !
” It ’ s easy to dunk on this sort of thing as just another vector of wingnuttery .
But it ’ s important to recognize that populist libertarianism is a thing and that it is also completely compatible with Trump ’ s proto-authoritarianism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tension between outrage over the Nanny State and slavish devotion to the Orange God King .
Although as a matter of political philosophy or logic you would think that those two things would be incompatible , as a matter of psychology they ’ re not .
Trump knows this .
And you can be sure he ’ s paying attention .
The stay-at-home orders from Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer were well-intentioned , but they also generated a backlash because they didn ’ t all make sense .
“ Confused shoppers found they could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trip to the grocery store , but couldn ’ t visit the vegetable seed aisle or gardening center , ” reports the Washington Post .
“ The order required large stores to shut down plant nurseries and rope off sections where carpet , flooring and paint were sold , provisions that conservatives found both arbitrary and harmful to business owners.
” The Michigan protest had a sort of Zombie Tea Party vibe , a grassroots-like movement complete with a full-throated Don ’ t Tread On Me ethos .
And that ethos has deep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but also in the national character .
Dismissing it out of hand would be dangerous .
Because if you want to suppress the virus in a liberal democracy you need the consent of the governed .
All things being rational , the public will do the right thing—unless the things they ’ re being told to do are obviously stupid .
Think TSA Theater where we are supposed to imagine that frisking grandma somehow makes America safe .
Even in the midst of a pandemic , people have to feel that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into arbitrary diktats that seem more about signaling and theater than real public safety .
Some examples : orders that tell churchgoers that they can ’ t have drive-in church services even if they keep their windows closed .
Or banning window visits at nursing homes .
Or banning fly-fishing .
A colleague emails me : “ My aunt ’ s town at the Jersey shore closed the boardwalk so no one can walk on it .
And then they closed the parking along the boardwalk so no one can even pull up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ocean .
The reasoning seems to be that ‘ the cars would be too close together.
’ ” All of this seems horribly counterproductive .
And any possible public health gains banked by preventing fly fisherman from plying their hobby seems likely outweighed by sparking a general defiance that gets transferred to guidelines that are actually important .
In a perfect world the government would create an environment where they didn ’ t have to enforce anything because they would already have carefully explained and justified everything so that people took up all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initiative .
But if local officials opt for the picayune and the draconian , they ’ ll start to lose folks .
So far , polls suggests that most Americans are wiling to be patient because they worry about the pandemic more than their finances .
But that may not last if officials give in to their inner autocrats .
The other danger is that these protests will play to Trump ’ s id .
These are his people and he must lead them .
As he faces slumping poll numbers , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the protests , especially if they take place in swing states .
We know what we reads and what he watches , and those corners of the right media are loving the images out of Michigan .
We ’ re already getting mixed messages from his inner circle .
How long before Trump himself starts to tweet encouragement ?

And so on the umpteenth day of the Great Lockdown, the masses finally rose up. Or something:
For miles, thousands of drivers clogged the streets to demand Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) ease restrictions and allow them to go back to work. They drowned downtown Lansing, Mich., in an cacophony of honking. They blared patriotic songs from car radios, waving all sorts of flags from the windows—President Trump flags, American flags and the occasional Confederate flag. But in the massive demonstration against Whitmer’s stay-at-home executive order—which they have argued is excessive and beyond her authority—the pleas from organizers that protesters stay in their vehicles went unheeded. Many got out of their cars and crashed the front lawn of the capitol building, with some chanting, “Lock her up!” and “We will not comply!”
It’s easy to dunk on this sort of thing as just another vector of wingnuttery. But it’s important to recognize that populist libertarianism is a thing and that it is also completely compatible with Trump’s proto-authoritarianism.
In Trumpian politics there is no tension between outrage over the Nanny State and slavish devotion to the Orange God King. Although as a matter of political philosophy or logic you would think that those two things would be incompatible, as a matter of psychology they’re not. Trump knows this. And you can be sure he’s paying attention.
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 stay-at-home orders from Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer were well-intentioned, but they also generated a backlash because they didn’t all make sense. “Confused shoppers found they could buy liquor and lottery tickets on a trip to the grocery store, but couldn’t visit the vegetable seed aisle or gardening center,” reports the Washington Post. “The order required large stores to shut down plant nurseries and rope off sections where carpet, flooring and paint were sold, provisions that conservatives found both arbitrary and harmful to business owners.”
The Michigan protest had a sort of Zombie Tea Party vibe, a grassroots-like movement complete with a full-throated Don’t Tread On Me ethos.
And that ethos has deep roots, not just in conservative politics, but also in the national character. Dismissing it out of hand would be dangerous. Because if you want to suppress the virus in a liberal democracy you need the consent of the governed. All things being rational, the public will do the right thing—unless the things they’re being told to do are obviously stupid.
Think TSA Theater where we are supposed to imagine that frisking grandma somehow makes America safe.
Even in the midst of a pandemic, people have to feel that the rules make sense and have not devolved into arbitrary diktats that seem more about signaling and theater than real public safety. Some examples: orders that tell churchgoers that they can’t have drive-in church services even if they keep their windows closed. Or banning window visits at nursing homes. Or banning fly-fishing.
A colleague emails me: “My aunt’s town at the Jersey shore closed the boardwalk so no one can walk on it. And then they closed the parking along the boardwalk so no one can even pull up, park, and look at the ocean. The reasoning seems to be that ‘the cars would be too close together.’”
All of this seems horribly counterproductive. And any possible public health gains banked by preventing fly fisherman from plying their hobby seems likely outweighed by sparking a general defiance that gets transferred to guidelines that are actually important.
In a perfect world the government would create an environment where they didn’t have to enforce anything because they would already have carefully explained and justified everything so that people took up all of the social distancing in their own initiative. But if local officials opt for the picayune and the draconian, they’ll start to lose folks.
So far, polls suggests that most Americans are wiling to be patient because they worry about the pandemic more than their finances. But that may not last if officials give in to their inner autocrats.
The other danger is that these protests will play to Trump’s id. These are his people and he must lead them. As he faces slumping poll numbers, Trump may grasp at the populist cred offered by the protests, especially if they take place in swing states. We know what we reads and what he watches, and those corners of the right media are loving the images out of Michigan.
We’re already getting mixed messages from his inner circle.
Seems the top US intelligence chief ADNI @RichardGrenell isn’t a fan of the stay at home orders. pic.twitter.com/uwBIfjZRos — Alexander Marquardt (@MarquardtA) April 13, 2020
As the Daily Beast notes:
Grenell’s post foreshadows a major political battle line on the horizon. Republican operatives say the burgeoning movement against coronavirus restrictions could end up stressing an already heavily stressed body politic even further, with conservative activists challenging their governors in increasingly dramatic fashion. Former Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), who is a close White House ally, said he felt the country was nearing a tipping point. “I think it could be a combination of politics, misinformation, economic hardship, emotion/anxiety, and well intentioned civil disobedience,” Kingston wrote. “The liquor stores and dispensaries are open but I can’t buy gun!
How long before Trump himself starts to tweet encouragement?