csmonitor--2020-04-14--Too soon to reopen US economy? Trump appoints panel to find out.

Every day , a team of public health officials turns up in the White House briefing room to lay out measures being taken to contain the coronavirus pandemic .
A different team , expected to be formally announced as early as Tuesday , has begun meeting behind closed doors in the West Wing to tackle another matter paramount to President Donald Trump : how to begin reopening the American economy .
The council , which is not expected to include health officials , could bring to the forefront the push-pull tensions within the White House between economists and public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy vs. proceeding cautiously to ensure the virus does n't spike again .
With the country barreling toward a likely recession ahead of November 's election , Mr. Trump is eager to spur an economic revival , hoping to steady financial markets and restore some of the 16 million jobs already lost due to the pandemic .
He originally hoped to have the country stirring again by Easter but now wants at least a partial reopening by the end of the month .
Many medical experts in the government , including Dr. Anthony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cautioned that easing up on social distancing too soon could lead a new wave of the disease that would require shuttering the economy again , with disastrous results .
As for the new council , Mr. Trump said he expected `` they will give us some also good advice but no , we want to be very , very safe .
At the same time we 've got to get our country open . ''
Some ethics experts and participants in past councils created by Mr. Trump voiced concerned that the president may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ panel to explore diverse viewpoints and hard truths about the best path forward .
`` It does n't work if you bring in the hallelujah chorus , '' said Thea Lee , president of the Economic Policy Institute , a left-leaning Washington think tank .
Mr. Lee served on a short-lived manufacturing council that Mr. Trump established early in his presidency .
Among those expected to be part of the new team : Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin , Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross , Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson , and White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Kevin Hassett and Larry Kudlow .
New White House chief of staff Mark Meadows is expected to chair the effort .
Senior White House aides Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump had been expected to be part of the team , but Mr. Trump , who previously declared the group would be comprised of `` the greatest minds , '' said on Monday they would not be included .
It would work separately from the coronavirus task force led by Vice President Mike Pence , though there could be some overlap of participants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governors also may join the group of administration officials who already are informally meeting and holding conference calls with the president .
The new council is expected to act as an internal West Wing counterbalance to health experts who want Trump to go slow in reopening the nation .
The president said Monday the new panel would seek counsel from various industries and include committees representing fields like manufacturing , transportation and religious interests .
Arthur Laffer , an economist Mr. Trump has praised , acknowledged that the economy was severely damaged but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it should reopen .
`` There 's nothing smart about doing it too early , '' said Mr. Laffer .
The expected new group , so far , largely resembles the upper echelon of the Trump administration : white and wealthy .
Mr. Carson is the council 's most prominent African American .
The U.S. economy is so vast that the council will need to consider the needs of workers in food services , health care , transportation , construction , and other sectors in which a diverse workforce that often makes lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a re-opened economy .
`` You do need a range of opinions and a range of experiences , '' said Jay Shambaugh , an economist at George Washington University and director of the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution .
`` This is one of those cases where the minority report is really important – you need people who are n't all thinking the same thing . ''
Danielle Brian , executive director of the Washington watchdog group Project on Government Oversight , said she is concerned that Trump may not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent ouster of government inspectors general who had criticized administration actions .
`` We 've seen very starkly recently how , even when it comes to the sort of the fundamental questions of oversight , people are discounted or fired when they say something that he does n't want to hear , '' said Ms. Brian .
Donald Sherman , deputy director for the oversight group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington , said Mr. Trump 's track record of `` choosing patrons and sycophants to run significant parts of his government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be much more than a rubber stamp .
The White House said Mr. Trump 's decision-making process would be measured and involve consultation with the public health officials .
`` The President wants to see this economy open again so people can get back to work , but scientific data will drive the timeline on those decisions because his number one priority is to protect the safety and well-being of the American people , '' said deputy press secretary Judd Deere .
During his first year in office , Mr. Trump put together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included Intel 's Brian Krzanich , Tesla 's Elon Musk , and AFL-CIO leader Richard Trumka .
Those panels fell apart as executives resigned in protest against Mr. Trump 's response to violent , race-infused protests in Charlottesville , Virginia , and his decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord .
Scott Paul , president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing , served on Mr. Trump 's now-defunct manufacturing council .
He said the administration used the advisory group in a `` self-congratulatory '' manner meant to spotlight `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president about something that was important to him . ''
There were `` a lot serious people on the advisory council , '' Mr. Paul said , `` but I did n't see it as doing serious work . ''
This story was reported by The Associated Press .
Mr. Lemire reported from New York and Madhani from Chicago .
Associated Press writers Josh Boak in Baltimore and Jill Colvin and Zeke Miller in Washington contributed to this report .
Editor ’ s note : As a public service , the Monitor has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coverage .
It ’ s free .

Jonathan Lemire, Kevin Freking, and Aamer Madhani

Every day, a team of public health officials turns up in the White House briefing room to lay out measures being taken to contain the coronavirus pandemic. A different team, expected to be formally announced as early as Tuesday, has begun meeting behind closed doors in the West Wing to tackle another matter paramount to President Donald Trump: how to begin reopening the American economy.
The council, which is not expected to include health officials, could bring to the forefront the push-pull tensions within the White House between economists and public health officials over how quickly to reopen the economy vs. proceeding cautiously to ensure the virus doesn't spike again.
With the country barreling toward a likely recession ahead of November's election, Mr. Trump is eager to spur an economic revival, hoping to steady financial markets and restore some of the 16 million jobs already lost due to the pandemic. He originally hoped to have the country stirring again by Easter but now wants at least a partial reopening by the end of the month.
Many medical experts in the government, including Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx, have cautioned that easing up on social distancing too soon could lead a new wave of the disease that would require shuttering the economy again, with disastrous results.
As for the new council, Mr. Trump said he expected "they will give us some also good advice but no, we want to be very, very safe. At the same time we've got to get our country open."
Some ethics experts and participants in past councils created by Mr. Trump voiced concerned that the president may not be open to using the new panel to explore diverse viewpoints and hard truths about the best path forward.
"It doesn't work if you bring in the hallelujah chorus," said Thea Lee, president of the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning Washington think tank. Mr. Lee served on a short-lived manufacturing council that Mr. Trump established early in his presidency.
Among those expected to be part of the new team: Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, and White House economic advisers, past and present, Kevin Hassett and Larry Kudlow. New White House chief of staff Mark Meadows is expected to chair the effort.
Senior White House aides Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump had been expected to be part of the team, but Mr. Trump, who previously declared the group would be comprised of "the greatest minds," said on Monday they would not be included. It would work separately from the coronavirus task force led by Vice President Mike Pence, though there could be some overlap of participants.
Some outside business leaders and perhaps governors also may join the group of administration officials who already are informally meeting and holding conference calls with the president.
The new council is expected to act as an internal West Wing counterbalance to health experts who want Trump to go slow in reopening the nation. The president said Monday the new panel would seek counsel from various industries and include committees representing fields like manufacturing, transportation and religious interests.
Arthur Laffer, an economist Mr. Trump has praised, acknowledged that the economy was severely damaged but said it was difficult to tell when it should reopen.
"There's nothing smart about doing it too early," said Mr. Laffer.
The expected new group, so far, largely resembles the upper echelon of the Trump administration: white and wealthy. Mr. Carson is the council's most prominent African American.
The U.S. economy is so vast that the council will need to consider the needs of workers in food services, health care, transportation, construction, and other sectors in which a diverse workforce that often makes lower wages will be on the front lines of a re-opened economy.
"You do need a range of opinions and a range of experiences," said Jay Shambaugh, an economist at George Washington University and director of the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution. "This is one of those cases where the minority report is really important – you need people who aren't all thinking the same thing."
Danielle Brian, executive director of the Washington watchdog group Project on Government Oversight, said she is concerned that Trump may not be open to contrary opinions, citing his recent ouster of government inspectors general who had criticized administration actions.
"We've seen very starkly recently how, even when it comes to the sort of the fundamental questions of oversight, people are discounted or fired when they say something that he doesn't want to hear," said Ms. Brian.
Donald Sherman, deputy director for the oversight group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said Mr. Trump's track record of "choosing patrons and sycophants to run significant parts of his government" leaves him skeptical the council will be much more than a rubber stamp.
The White House said Mr. Trump's decision-making process would be measured and involve consultation with the public health officials.
"The President wants to see this economy open again so people can get back to work, but scientific data will drive the timeline on those decisions because his number one priority is to protect the safety and well-being of the American people," said deputy press secretary Judd Deere.
During his first year in office, Mr. Trump put together several high-profile advisory economic groups, which included Intel's Brian Krzanich, Tesla's Elon Musk, and AFL-CIO leader Richard Trumka. Those panels fell apart as executives resigned in protest against Mr. Trump's response to violent, race-infused protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, and his decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord.
Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, served on Mr. Trump's now-defunct manufacturing council. He said the administration used the advisory group in a "self-congratulatory" manner meant to spotlight "a bunch of CEOs talking to the president about something that was important to him."
There were "a lot serious people on the advisory council," Mr. Paul said, "but I didn't see it as doing serious work."
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
This story was reported by The Associated Press. Mr. Lemire reported from New York and Madhani from Chicago. Associated Press writers Josh Boak in Baltimore and Jill Colvin and Zeke Miller in Washington contributed to this report.
Editor’s note: As a public service, the Monitor has removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage. It’s free.


csmonitor--2020-04-13--No longer rivals: Sanders endorses Biden for president

Bernie Sanders endorsed Joe Biden 's presidential campaign on Monday , encouraging his progressive supporters to rally behind the presumptive Democratic nominee in an urgent bid to defeat President Donald Trump .
`` I am asking all Americans , I 'm asking every Democrat , I 'm asking every independent , I 'm asking a lot of Republicans , to come together in this campaign to support your candidacy , which I endorse , '' the Vermont senator said in a virtual event with Mr. Biden .
The backing came less than a week after Mr. Sanders ended his presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies such as universal health care .
It 's a crucial development for Mr. Biden , who must bridge the Democratic Party 's entrenched ideological divides to put together a coalition that can beat Mr. Trump .
Democratic disunity helped contribute to Hillary Clinton 's loss to Mr. Trump in 2016 .
Perhaps eager to avoid a repeat of that bruising election year , Mr. Sanders offered his endorsement much earlier in the 2020 campaign .
Mr. Sanders backed Mrs. Clinton four years ago , but only after the end of a drawn-out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democratic platform that extended to the summer convention .
Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders differed throughout the primary , particularly over whether a government-run system should replace private health insurance .
Mr. Biden has resisted Mr. Sanders ' `` Medicare for All '' plan and has pushed instead a public option that would operate alongside private coverage .
Appearing in a split screen with Mr. Biden , Mr. Sanders said there 's `` no great secret out there that you and I have our differences . ''
But Mr. Sanders said the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persuasions should be defeating Mr. Trump .
`` We 've got to make Trump a one-term president , '' he added .
`` I will do all that I can to make that happen . ''
The coronavirus prevented Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders from appearing together in person on Monday .
But they made clear they would continue working together , announcing the formation of six `` task forces '' made up of representatives from both campaigns to work on policy agreements addressing health care , the economy , education , criminal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Mr. Biden , 77 , has already made some overtures to progressives by embracing aspects of Mr. Sanders ' and Sen. Elizabeth Warren 's policies .
The day after Mr. Sanders exited the race , Mr. Biden came out in support of lowering the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 60 while pledging to cancel student debt for many low- and middle-income borrowers .
He 's also previously embraced Ms. Warren 's bankruptcy reform plan .
Mr. Sanders , 78 , is sure to remain a force throughout the campaign .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he would keep his name on the ballot in states that have not yet voted in order to collect more delegates that could be used to influence the party 's platform .
He did n't say on Monday whether he would continue to fight for those delegates .
Still , Mr. Sanders and Mr. Biden emphasized their mutual respect for each other on Monday .
Mr. Sanders referred to the former vice president as `` Joe . ''
Mr. Biden answered him repeatedly as `` pal . ''
The two men asked the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Jill Biden and Jane Sanders .
Mr. Biden told Mr. Sanders : `` I really need you , not just to win the campaign but to govern . ''
Even with Mr. Sanders ' dozens of campaign stops for Mrs. Clinton – a record he brought up repeatedly to push back at the idea that he was partly to blame for her defeat – Monday 's conversation was something voters never saw between the 2016 rivals .
Whether that translates to how Mr. Sanders ' progressive base sees Mr. Biden is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive but guarded in response to Mr. Sanders ' endorsement .
`` This endorsement shows that everyone wants to beat Trump , '' said Adam Green , co-founder of the Progressive Change Committee that originally supported Warren .
`` Our side will be increasingly energized the more it 's clear that progressive ideas and progressive leaders like Elizabeth Warren , Bernie Sanders , and grassroots organizations have strong positions of influence with Biden , '' Mr. Green said .
But others remained skeptical .
The divisions in the party were clear on Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Associated Press just a few hours before Mr. Sanders ' endorsement , New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez criticized Biden 's overtures to progressives on health care .
`` We need a real plan and not just gestures , '' she said .
`` What I 'd like to see at a bare minimum is a health care plan that helps extend health care to young people . ''
Mr. Trump 's campaign , meanwhile , seized on Mr. Sanders ' endorsement to underscore Mr. Biden 's embrace of some of his plans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a statement that `` though Bernie Sanders wo n't be on the ballot in November , his issues will be . ''
`` Biden had to adopt most of Bernie 's agenda to be successful in the Democrat primaries .
One thing that is missing is enthusiasm , however , as almost no one is excited about a Biden candidacy , '' he said .
But Mr. Sanders could go a long way toward infusing Mr. Biden 's campaign with additional energy if he 's able to bring his enthusiastic following of millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him to support Mr. Biden .
Young voters , a key Democratic voting bloc , have long supported Mr. Sanders over his former primary rivals by huge margins .
Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders on Monday emphasized the need to address the challenges confronting young people during the pandemic , with Mr. Sanders describing `` a generation of young people who are experiencing crisis after crisis . ''
This story was reported by The Associated Press .
Editor ’ s note : As a public service , the Monitor has removed the paywall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s free .

Bernie Sanders endorsed Joe Biden's presidential campaign on Monday, encouraging his progressive supporters to rally behind the presumptive Democratic nominee in an urgent bid to defeat President Donald Trump.
"I am asking all Americans, I'm asking every Democrat, I'm asking every independent, I'm asking a lot of Republicans, to come together in this campaign to support your candidacy, which I endorse," the Vermont senator said in a virtual event with Mr. Biden.
The backing came less than a week after Mr. Sanders ended his presidential campaign, which was centered around progressive policies such as universal health care. It's a crucial development for Mr. Biden, who must bridge the Democratic Party's entrenched ideological divides to put together a coalition that can beat Mr. Trump. Democratic disunity helped contribute to Hillary Clinton's loss to Mr. Trump in 2016.
Perhaps eager to avoid a repeat of that bruising election year, Mr. Sanders offered his endorsement much earlier in the 2020 campaign. Mr. Sanders backed Mrs. Clinton four years ago, but only after the end of a drawn-out nomination fight and a bitter dispute over the Democratic platform that extended to the summer convention.
Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders differed throughout the primary, particularly over whether a government-run system should replace private health insurance. Mr. Biden has resisted Mr. Sanders' "Medicare for All" plan and has pushed instead a public option that would operate alongside private coverage.
Appearing in a split screen with Mr. Biden, Mr. Sanders said there's "no great secret out there that you and I have our differences."
But Mr. Sanders said the greater priority for Democrats of all political persuasions should be defeating Mr. Trump.
"We've got to make Trump a one-term president," he added. "I will do all that I can to make that happen."
The coronavirus prevented Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders from appearing together in person on Monday. But they made clear they would continue working together, announcing the formation of six "task forces" made up of representatives from both campaigns to work on policy agreements addressing health care, the economy, education, criminal justice, climate change, and immigration.
Mr. Biden, 77, has already made some overtures to progressives by embracing aspects of Mr. Sanders' and Sen. Elizabeth Warren's policies. The day after Mr. Sanders exited the race, Mr. Biden came out in support of lowering the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 60 while pledging to cancel student debt for many low- and middle-income borrowers. He's also previously embraced Ms. Warren's bankruptcy reform plan.
Mr. Sanders, 78, is sure to remain a force throughout the campaign. When he ended his candidacy, he said he would keep his name on the ballot in states that have not yet voted in order to collect more delegates that could be used to influence the party's platform.
He didn't say on Monday whether he would continue to fight for those delegates.
Still, Mr. Sanders and Mr. Biden emphasized their mutual respect for each other on Monday.
Mr. Sanders referred to the former vice president as "Joe." Mr. Biden answered him repeatedly as "pal." The two men asked the other to give regards to their wives, Jill Biden and Jane Sanders.
Mr. Biden told Mr. Sanders: "I really need you, not just to win the campaign but to govern."
Even with Mr. Sanders' dozens of campaign stops for Mrs. Clinton – a record he brought up repeatedly to push back at the idea that he was partly to blame for her defeat – Monday's conversation was something voters never saw between the 2016 rivals. Whether that translates to how Mr. Sanders' progressive base sees Mr. Biden is not yet clear.
Some progressive leaders were positive but guarded in response to Mr. Sanders' endorsement.
"This endorsement shows that everyone wants to beat Trump," said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Committee that originally supported Warren.
"Our side will be increasingly energized the more it's clear that progressive ideas and progressive leaders like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and grassroots organizations have strong positions of influence with Biden," Mr. Green said.
But others remained skeptical. The divisions in the party were clear on Monday when, in an interview with The Associated Press just a few hours before Mr. Sanders' endorsement, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez criticized Biden's overtures to progressives on health care.
"We need a real plan and not just gestures," she said. "What I'd like to see at a bare minimum is a health care plan that helps extend health care to young people."
Mr. Trump's campaign, meanwhile, seized on Mr. Sanders' endorsement to underscore Mr. Biden's embrace of some of his plans, with campaign manager Brad Parscale saying in a statement that "though Bernie Sanders won't be on the ballot in November, his issues will be."
"Biden had to adopt most of Bernie's agenda to be successful in the Democrat primaries. One thing that is missing is enthusiasm, however, as almost no one is excited about a Biden candidacy," he said.
But Mr. Sanders could go a long way toward infusing Mr. Biden's campaign with additional energy if he's able to bring his enthusiastic following of millions of young and progressive voters along with him to support Mr. Biden. Young voters, a key Democratic voting bloc, have long supported Mr. Sanders over his former primary rivals by huge margins.
Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders on Monday emphasized the need to address the challenges confronting young people during the pandemic, with Mr. Sanders describing "a generation of young people who are experiencing crisis after crisis."
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
This story was reported by The Associated Press.
Editor’s note: As a public service, the Monitor has removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage. It’s free.


csmonitor--2020-04-13--Why some US immigrants won't get a $1,200 federal relief check

The $ 2.2 trillion package that Congress approved to offer financial help during the coronavirus pandemic has one major exclusion : millions of immigrants who do not have legal status in the United States but work here and pay taxes .
That includes Carmen Contreras Lopez , a housekeeper who , though she earns low wages , files a tax return each year .
Since the virus took hold , she has lost most of her clients and is getting by with help from her oldest son .
But she wo n't see a penny of the money promised to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` It 's hard because to the government , we do n't exist , '' said Ms. Contreras Lopez , who has lived in the U.S. for 30 years and has four grown children who are U.S. citizens .
The government expects to begin making payments to millions of Americans in mid-April .
Anyone earning up to $ 75,000 in adjusted gross income and who has a Social Security number will receive $ 1,200 .
The payment steadily declines for those who make more .
Legal permanent residents , or green card @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roughly 4.3 million mostly unauthorized immigrants who do not have a Social Security number file taxes using what 's known as a taxpayer identification number , according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy .
Many say they pay federal taxes because they hope it will one day help them achieve legal residency and because they feel it 's the right thing to do .
`` We made that decision because we 're living in a country that 's welcomed us with a lot of love , '' said Ingrid Vaca , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ D.C. , area .
Ms. Vaca said immigrants take care of communities , children , the elderly , and homes , but they will not receive any help themselves .
Also left out are the workers ' 3.5 million children , many of whom are American citizens .
`` This is a nightmare to me and many of my colleagues , '' Ms. Vaca said , lamenting the lack of income for rent and basic necessities .
`` We need for us to be respected . ''
Asked how immigrants without legal status @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without any aid , President Donald Trump acknowledged the difficulty but said many citizens without work need help first .
`` It 's a really sad situation , and we are working on it .
I will tell you I 'm not going to give you a hard and fast answer because I just want to tell you it 's something I think about , '' Mr. Trump said .
Democratic lawmakers introduced legislation last week in the House and Senate that would allow immigrants to access relief funds .
`` COVID-19 does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so neither should our response , '' U.S. Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva , an Arizona Democrat , said in a statement .
Maria Zamorano , a day laborer in the Los Angeles area , has also been left without work .
Until recently , she worked seven days a week cleaning houses , earning roughly $ 700 weekly .
But all of her employers canceled services .
After she did an interview with The New York Times about her situation , two of those employers decided to keep paying her , she said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how long .
She 's still short on cash for food , rent , and bills .
`` Like thousands of others who do n't have legal status , we are left empty-handed in this crisis , '' Ms. Zamorano said .
`` I pay taxes , but the government does n't consider that we should get help . ''
In rural Massachusetts , Jose Martinez said a pandemic stimulus check could have helped cover at least a month 's worth of expenses , if he had qualified .
The 34-year-old Mexican crossed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and lives near the Vermont state line with his 4-year-old American-born daughter .
Mr. Martinez , a house painter , says work has dropped off during the pandemic .
His boss still owes him more than $ 500 for recent jobs , and the restaurant where he washes dishes part-time has also been temporarily shuttered .
`` The check would have given me the opportunity to stay at home , avoid sickness , and keep my family safe , '' Mr. Martinez said , referring to the stimulus money .
`` But I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposing us to risk .
I do n't know what else to do . ''
Luis Jiménez , a 35-year-old Mexican who takes cares of calves in New York , near Canada , said he feels forgotten by the government even though his work is vital to feed Americans .
`` We are essential to the economy and to feed this country , but we do n't get any help or support , '' said the father of three , who has lived in the United States without legal status for 16 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his kids and spouse , said he makes about $ 38,000 a year and pays about $ 6,000 in taxes annually .
He has been paying them since 2005 , he said .
`` Every day we go to work and we are exposed to everything .
In the farm , there are hardly any protection measures '' against coronavirus , he said .
This story was reported by The Associated Press .
Mr. Marcelo reported from Boston .
Ms. Torrens reported from New York .
AP writers Nomaan Merchant in Houston , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anita Snow in Phoenix also contributed to this report .
Editor ’ s note : As a public service , the Monitor has removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage .
It ’ s free .

Astrid Galvan, Philip Marcelo, and Claudia Torrens

The $2.2 trillion package that Congress approved to offer financial help during the coronavirus pandemic has one major exclusion: millions of immigrants who do not have legal status in the United States but work here and pay taxes.
That includes Carmen Contreras Lopez, a housekeeper who, though she earns low wages, files a tax return each year. Since the virus took hold, she has lost most of her clients and is getting by with help from her oldest son. But she won't see a penny of the money promised to most Americans in response to the pandemic.
"It's hard because to the government, we don't exist," said Ms. Contreras Lopez, who has lived in the U.S. for 30 years and has four grown children who are U.S. citizens.
The government expects to begin making payments to millions of Americans in mid-April. Anyone earning up to $75,000 in adjusted gross income and who has a Social Security number will receive $1,200. The payment steadily declines for those who make more. Legal permanent residents, or green card holders, are expected to benefit.
Roughly 4.3 million mostly unauthorized immigrants who do not have a Social Security number file taxes using what's known as a taxpayer identification number, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
Many say they pay federal taxes because they hope it will one day help them achieve legal residency and because they feel it's the right thing to do.
"We made that decision because we're living in a country that's welcomed us with a lot of love," said Ingrid Vaca, a house cleaner in the Washington, D.C., area.
Ms. Vaca said immigrants take care of communities, children, the elderly, and homes, but they will not receive any help themselves.
Also left out are the workers' 3.5 million children, many of whom are American citizens.
"This is a nightmare to me and many of my colleagues," Ms. Vaca said, lamenting the lack of income for rent and basic necessities. "We need for us to be respected."
Asked how immigrants without legal status will survive the pandemic's economic toll without any aid, President Donald Trump acknowledged the difficulty but said many citizens without work need help first.
"It's a really sad situation, and we are working on it. I will tell you I'm not going to give you a hard and fast answer because I just want to tell you it's something I think about," Mr. Trump said.
Democratic lawmakers introduced legislation last week in the House and Senate that would allow immigrants to access relief funds.
"COVID-19 does not care about your immigration status, so neither should our response," U.S. Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat, said in a statement.
Maria Zamorano, a day laborer in the Los Angeles area, has also been left without work. Until recently, she worked seven days a week cleaning houses, earning roughly $700 weekly. But all of her employers canceled services. After she did an interview with The New York Times about her situation, two of those employers decided to keep paying her, she said, but she doesn't know for how long. She's still short on cash for food, rent, and bills.
"Like thousands of others who don't have legal status, we are left empty-handed in this crisis," Ms. Zamorano said. "I pay taxes, but the government doesn't consider that we should get help."
In rural Massachusetts, Jose Martinez said a pandemic stimulus check could have helped cover at least a month's worth of expenses, if he had qualified. The 34-year-old Mexican crossed the border illegally about 15 years ago and lives near the Vermont state line with his 4-year-old American-born daughter.
Mr. Martinez, a house painter, says work has dropped off during the pandemic. His boss still owes him more than $500 for recent jobs, and the restaurant where he washes dishes part-time has also been temporarily shuttered.
"The check would have given me the opportunity to stay at home, avoid sickness, and keep my family safe," Mr. Martinez said, referring to the stimulus money. "But I have to keep looking for work and exposing us to risk. I don't know what else to do."
Luis Jiménez, a 35-year-old Mexican who takes cares of calves in New York, near Canada, said he feels forgotten by the government even though his work is vital to feed Americans.
"We are essential to the economy and to feed this country, but we don't get any help or support," said the father of three, who has lived in the United States without legal status for 16 years.
Mr. Jiménez, who lives with his kids and spouse, said he makes about $38,000 a year and pays about $6,000 in taxes annually. He has been paying them since 2005, he said.
"Every day we go to work and we are exposed to everything. In the farm, there are hardly any protection measures" against coronavirus, he said.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
This story was reported by The Associated Press. Mr. Marcelo reported from Boston. Ms. Torrens reported from New York. AP writers Nomaan Merchant in Houston, Regina Garcia Cano in Washington, and Anita Snow in Phoenix also contributed to this report.
Editor’s note: As a public service, the Monitor has removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage. It’s free.


csmonitor--2020-04-10--In scramble for supplies, states start banding together

Vice President Pence applauded the move at that day ’ s briefing .
Oregon , he said , was acting “ in the very highest American tradition of loving your neighbor.
” Last Saturday , Oregon Gov .
Kate Brown tweeted that she was sending 140 ventilators to New York , noting that her state was “ in a better position right now.
” Still , states are rising to the occasion and helping each other .
In the Midwest , a consortium of states is working together on purchasing supplies to avoid competition that drives up prices .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and California have been loaning ventilators to other states as their case loads recede .
A depleted Strategic National Stockpile has states competing among themselves and with the federal government for personal protective equipment .
“ They ’ re losing out to the entity that told them to buy it .
It ’ s just bonkers , ” says Jeremy Konyndyk , a senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Development and a former Obama-era official .
The nation ’ s multi-layered , federalist form of government is facing the test of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shortages of equipment and are banding together to do what the federal government can ’ t or won ’ t do for them .
President Donald Trump calls himself a “ wartime president ” against an “ invisible enemy , ” the novel coronavirus .
Indeed , there is no disputing the warlike nature of the threat , as governments around the globe and at all levels in the United States , along with the private sector , nonprofits , and individuals rally to save as many lives as possible and defeat the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beneath this picture of resolve and shared sacrifice lies a stark reality : The nation ’ s multilayered , federalist form of government is facing the test of a lifetime , as states grapple with shortages of equipment and are banding together to do what the federal government can ’ t or won ’ t do for them .
The depletion of the Strategic National Stockpile and the inability of the Federal Emergency Management Agency , or FEMA , to fill these needs has forced such action , governors say .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working together on purchasing supplies to avoid competition that drives up prices .
In the West , the governors of Oregon and California have swung into action , loaning ventilators to other states as their case loads recede .
Gov .
Gavin Newsom of California is also using his state ’ s purchasing power to acquire millions of pieces of protective equipment for his own state ’ s use and potentially for neighboring states .
Editor ’ s note : As a public service , we ’ ve removed the paywall for all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free .
To veterans of past public health emergencies , the scramble for supplies reflects a flat-footed U.S. response born of overconfidence after past epidemics , such as SARS , were thwarted with minimal American casualties .
Delays in testing set back the U.S. response by weeks , and as the outbreak grew , the nation ’ s command-and-control systems were simply not up to the task , says Dr. Elias Zerhouni , former director of the National Institutes of Health under President George W. Bush .
“ You win the war not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ You win the war by good logistics.
” And it ’ s logistics that have proved painfully challenging to the U.S. ’ s multi-tiered , federal-state-local system of government , in which each piece plays a critical role .
During disasters , states are supposed to take the lead and the federal government is meant to serve as a backup .
But when the disaster is nationwide – in fact , global – the potential for the system being swamped was always high .
“ A statewide or regional disaster is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affects all 50 states is something else , ” says Joshua Sharfstein , a public health expert at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore .
“ The federal government is supposed to provide the framework for the states to act in .
On that , the government has in many ways largely abdicated.
” Even in regional disasters , a strong federal response can prove essential , as it was in 2005 , when Hurricane Katrina slammed the Gulf Coast and state and local authorities proved unable to manage the disaster .
Often , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involved who can make or break a situation .
Looking at today ’ s pandemic , “ I don ’ t think any disarray , such as it is , is caused by federalism , ” says Ilya Shapiro , a constitutional scholar at the libertarian CATO Institute in Washington .
The federal government ’ s job is to look out for the country as a whole , while the governors need the flexibility to do what ’ s right for their state , he notes .
New York is not South Dakota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Trump administration ’ s multiple chains of command : President Trump puts himself out front daily in televised briefings , making himself the prime authority .
He ’ s backed by a White House Coronavirus Task Force that has many coordinators , including Vice President Mike Pence , Dr. Deborah Birx , and various Cabinet members and other presidential advisers who handle different aspects of the response .
Mr. Trump ’ s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner also has a hand in the task force , and caused a flap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ building up their own stockpiles of supplies .
The Strategic National Stockpile , he said , is “ supposed to be our stockpile – it ’ s not supposed to be state stockpiles that they then use.
” The Department of Health and Human Services soon changed its website to reflect his comments , adding more tension with states .
When asked about logistics , the president used to point to the director of FEMA , Pete Gaynor .
But more recently , it ’ s been Rear Adm. John Polowczyk , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Adm. Brett Giroir , the coronavirus “ testing czar.
” Even amid a national crisis , Mr. Trump has continued his rampage against inspectors general , who are meant to be a semi-independent check on federal government activities .
Last week , he fired the inspector general of the intelligence community , fallout from his agitation over impeachment .
On Tuesday , he fired the inspector general meant to oversee the group charged with monitoring the coronavirus relief fund .
The day before , at his briefing , he attacked the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had released a report about hospitals facing severe shortages of equipment needed to fight the pandemic .
Veterans of past disasters point to the need for an overarching “ czar ” – such as a high-ranking military figure – who has the president ’ s full confidence and superior organizational skill .
Adm. Thad Allen , former commandant of the Coast Guard , served that function for both the second President Bush , during Katrina , and President Barack Obama , during the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Public Service ’ s Center for Presidential Transition , Admiral Allen notes that the two presidents he served had different styles , but there was a common denominator : the need to separate the disaster from political concerns , have the authority to set up the appropriate framework , and execute the plan .
His motto : Every crisis is an exercise in applied civics .
“ Both gave me wide rein to figure out what the problem was , make recommendations to them , speak frankly to the American people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if I wasn ’ t doing the job , ” Admiral Allen says .
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer has pressed Mr. Trump to appoint a top military figure to run the pandemic response , but so far to no avail .
Admiral Allen responds carefully when asked if he ’ d be willing to come out of retirement to lead the U.S. response on COVID-19 .
“ Some of the basic tenets that allowed me to be successful may or may not exist in this current administration , ” the admiral says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freely and honestly with the American people .
If the conditions were right , he said , he ’ d “ always consider helping the country out.
” Other past disaster-response officials are less diplomatic when looking at today ’ s crisis .
“ The federal government has to take ownership of this response , because it ’ s a national level crisis , ” says Jeremy Konyndyk , a senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Development and a former Obama-era foreign aid official .
“ But it can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t willing to step up .
It seems like the president wants the attention but not the responsibility.
” A depleted Strategic National Stockpile also has states competing among themselves and with the federal government for personal protective equipment .
“ They ’ re losing out to the entity that told them to buy it .
It ’ s just bonkers , ” says Mr. Konyndyk .
But faced with the reality of needing to be proactive on supplies , states are rising to the occasion and helping each other .
Last Saturday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she was sending 140 ventilators to New York , a global hot spot for the virus , noting that her state was “ in a better position right now.
” Vice President Pence applauded the move at that day ’ s briefing .
Oregon , he said , was acting “ in the very highest American tradition of loving your neighbor.
” Editor ’ s note : As a public service , we ’ ve removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage .
It ’ s free .

Vice President Pence applauded the move at that day’s briefing. Oregon, he said, was acting “in the very highest American tradition of loving your neighbor.”
Last Saturday, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown tweeted that she was sending 140 ventilators to New York, noting that her state was “in a better position right now.”
Still, states are rising to the occasion and helping each other. In the Midwest, a consortium of states is working together on purchasing supplies to avoid competition that drives up prices. In the West, the governors of Oregon and California have been loaning ventilators to other states as their case loads recede.
During disasters, the federal government backs up the states. But when the crisis is nationwide, a lack of coordination can lead to mayhem. Some are pushing for an overarching “czar,” as states scramble to fill the gaps.
A depleted Strategic National Stockpile has states competing among themselves and with the federal government for personal protective equipment. “They’re losing out to the entity that told them to buy it. It’s just bonkers,” says Jeremy Konyndyk, a senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Development and a former Obama-era official.
The nation’s multi-layered, federalist form of government is facing the test of a lifetime, as states grapple with shortages of equipment and are banding together to do what the federal government can’t or won’t do for them.
President Donald Trump calls himself a “wartime president” against an “invisible enemy,” the novel coronavirus.
Indeed, there is no disputing the warlike nature of the threat, as governments around the globe and at all levels in the United States, along with the private sector, nonprofits, and individuals rally to save as many lives as possible and defeat the adversary.
But in the U.S., beneath this picture of resolve and shared sacrifice lies a stark reality: The nation’s multilayered, federalist form of government is facing the test of a lifetime, as states grapple with shortages of equipment and are banding together to do what the federal government can’t or won’t do for them.
Why We Wrote This During disasters, the federal government backs up the states. But when the crisis is nationwide, a lack of coordination can lead to mayhem. Some are pushing for an overarching “czar,” as states scramble to fill the gaps.
The depletion of the Strategic National Stockpile and the inability of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, to fill these needs has forced such action, governors say. In the Midwest, a consortium of states is working together on purchasing supplies to avoid competition that drives up prices.
In the West, the governors of Oregon and California have swung into action, loaning ventilators to other states as their case loads recede. Gov. Gavin Newsom of California is also using his state’s purchasing power to acquire millions of pieces of protective equipment for his own state’s use and potentially for neighboring states.
Editor’s note: As a public service, we’ve removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage. It’s free.
To veterans of past public health emergencies, the scramble for supplies reflects a flat-footed U.S. response born of overconfidence after past epidemics, such as SARS, were thwarted with minimal American casualties.
Delays in testing set back the U.S. response by weeks, and as the outbreak grew, the nation’s command-and-control systems were simply not up to the task, says Dr. Elias Zerhouni, former director of the National Institutes of Health under President George W. Bush.
“You win the war not by heroics,” Dr. Zerhouni says. “You win the war by good logistics.”
And it’s logistics that have proved painfully challenging to the U.S.’s multi-tiered, federal-state-local system of government, in which each piece plays a critical role. During disasters, states are supposed to take the lead and the federal government is meant to serve as a backup. But when the disaster is nationwide – in fact, global – the potential for the system being swamped was always high.
“A statewide or regional disaster is one thing, but an emergency that affects all 50 states is something else,” says Joshua Sharfstein, a public health expert at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. “The federal government is supposed to provide the framework for the states to act in. On that, the government has in many ways largely abdicated.”
Rich Pedroncelli/AP View caption Hide caption California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced his state saw its first daily decrease in intensive care hospitalizations during the coronavirus outbreak, at his daily briefing in Rancho Cordova, Calif., Thursday, April 9, 2020. He went on to say the state's hospitals have thousands of ventilators available should the number of patients suddenly surge again.
Even in regional disasters, a strong federal response can prove essential, as it was in 2005, when Hurricane Katrina slammed the Gulf Coast and state and local authorities proved unable to manage the disaster. Often, then, it’s the leaders involved who can make or break a situation.
Looking at today’s pandemic, “I don’t think any disarray, such as it is, is caused by federalism,” says Ilya Shapiro, a constitutional scholar at the libertarian CATO Institute in Washington. The federal government’s job is to look out for the country as a whole, while the governors need the flexibility to do what’s right for their state, he notes. New York is not South Dakota.
Part of the challenge today comes with the Trump administration’s multiple chains of command: President Trump puts himself out front daily in televised briefings, making himself the prime authority. He’s backed by a White House Coronavirus Task Force that has many coordinators, including Vice President Mike Pence, Dr. Deborah Birx, and various Cabinet members and other presidential advisers who handle different aspects of the response.
Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner also has a hand in the task force, and caused a flap recently when he scolded states for not building up their own stockpiles of supplies. The Strategic National Stockpile, he said, is “supposed to be our stockpile – it’s not supposed to be state stockpiles that they then use.” The Department of Health and Human Services soon changed its website to reflect his comments, adding more tension with states.
When asked about logistics, the president used to point to the director of FEMA, Pete Gaynor. But more recently, it’s been Rear Adm. John Polowczyk, the supply chain task force lead at FEMA, and Adm. Brett Giroir, the coronavirus “testing czar.”
Even amid a national crisis, Mr. Trump has continued his rampage against inspectors general, who are meant to be a semi-independent check on federal government activities. Last week, he fired the inspector general of the intelligence community, fallout from his agitation over impeachment. On Tuesday, he fired the inspector general meant to oversee the group charged with monitoring the coronavirus relief fund. The day before, at his briefing, he attacked the acting inspector general of HHS, who had released a report about hospitals facing severe shortages of equipment needed to fight the pandemic.
Veterans of past disasters point to the need for an overarching “czar” – such as a high-ranking military figure – who has the president’s full confidence and superior organizational skill.
Adm. Thad Allen, former commandant of the Coast Guard, served that function for both the second President Bush, during Katrina, and President Barack Obama, during the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
In a podcast with the Partnership for Public Service’s Center for Presidential Transition, Admiral Allen notes that the two presidents he served had different styles, but there was a common denominator: the need to separate the disaster from political concerns, have the authority to set up the appropriate framework, and execute the plan. His motto: Every crisis is an exercise in applied civics.
“Both gave me wide rein to figure out what the problem was, make recommendations to them, speak frankly to the American people, and be held accountable and be removed if I wasn’t doing the job,” Admiral Allen says.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer has pressed Mr. Trump to appoint a top military figure to run the pandemic response, but so far to no avail.
Admiral Allen responds carefully when asked if he’d be willing to come out of retirement to lead the U.S. response on COVID-19.
“Some of the basic tenets that allowed me to be successful may or may not exist in this current administration,” the admiral says, noting specifically the ability to speak freely and honestly with the American people. If the conditions were right, he said, he’d “always consider helping the country out.”
Other past disaster-response officials are less diplomatic when looking at today’s crisis.
“The federal government has to take ownership of this response, because it’s a national level crisis,” says Jeremy Konyndyk, a senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Development and a former Obama-era foreign aid official. “But it can’t do that if the president isn’t willing to step up. It seems like the president wants the attention but not the responsibility.”
A depleted Strategic National Stockpile also has states competing among themselves and with the federal government for personal protective equipment. “They’re losing out to the entity that told them to buy it. It’s just bonkers,” says Mr. Konyndyk.
But faced with the reality of needing to be proactive on supplies, states are rising to the occasion and helping each other. Last Saturday, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown tweeted that she was sending 140 ventilators to New York, a global hot spot for the virus, noting that her state was “in a better position right now.”
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
Vice President Pence applauded the move at that day’s briefing. Oregon, he said, was acting “in the very highest American tradition of loving your neighbor.”
Editor’s note: As a public service, we’ve removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage. It’s free.


csmonitor--2020-04-10--If Biden picks a woman as his running mate, who's on the list?

Joe Biden faces the most important decision of his five-decade political career : choosing a vice president .
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee expects to name a committee to vet potential running mates next week , according to three Democrats with knowledge of the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal plans .
Mr. Biden , a former vice president himself , has committed to picking a woman and told donors this week that his team has discussed naming a choice well ahead of the Democratic convention in August .
Selecting a running mate is always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it 's an especially urgent calculation for the 77-year-old Mr. Biden , who , if he wins , would be the oldest American president in history .
The decision carries added weight amid the coronavirus pandemic , which , beyond its death toll , threatens to devastate the world economy and define a prospective Biden administration .
`` We 're still going to be in crisis or recovery , and you want a vice president who can manage that , '' said Karen Finney , a Democratic strategist who worked for Hillary Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like a much more important decision than usual . ''
Mr. Biden faces pressure on multiple fronts .
He must consider the demands of his racially , ethnically , and ideologically diverse party , especially the black women who propelled his nomination .
He must balance those concerns with his stated desire for a `` simpatico '' partner who is `` ready to be president on a moment 's notice . ''
The campaign 's general counsel , Dana Remus , and former White House counsel Bob Bauer are gathering information about prospects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say they 've not yet been contacted .
Mr. Biden has offered plenty of hints .
He 's said he can easily name 12 to 15 women who meet his criteria , but would likely seriously consider anywhere from six to 11 candidates .
He 's given no indication of whether he 'll look to the Senate , where he spent six terms , to governors , or elsewhere .
Some Biden advisers said the campaign has heard from many Democrats who want a woman of color .
Black women helped rescue Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in predominately white Iowa and New Hampshire .
Yet there 's no firm agreement that Mr. Biden must go that route .
`` The best thing you can do for all segments of the population is to win , '' said Mr. Biden 's campaign co-chairman Cedric Richmond , a Louisiana congressman and former Congressional Black Caucus chairman .
`` He has shown a commitment to diversity from the beginning .
But this has to be based on , like the VP says , who he trusts . ''
Mr. Biden has regularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former rival who endorsed him in March and campaigned for him .
When she introduced him at a fundraiser this week , Mr. Biden did little to tamp down speculation about her prospects .
`` I 'm coming for you , kid , '' he said .
He 's also spoken positively of Stacey Abrams , who narrowly missed becoming the first African American female governor in U.S. history when she lost the 2018 Georgia governor 's race .
Yet those two women highlight Mr. Biden 's tightrope .
At 55 , Ms. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donors , a valuable commodity for a nominee with a fundraising weakness .
But she 's also a former prosecutor who faces the same skepticism among progressives as Mr. Biden .
Meanwhile , her home state is already firmly in the Democratic column and could make her an easy target for Republicans eager to blast the party as too liberal .
Ms. Abrams , 46 , is a star for many younger Democrats , a group Mr. Biden struggled to win over in the primary .
And she could help turn Georgia into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highest post she 's ever held is minority leader in the Georgia House of Representatives , a possible vulnerability in a time of crisis .
Paul Maslin , a Democratic pollster based in the battleground state of Wisconsin , said it will be impossible for Mr. Biden to please everyone .
`` You can ask too much of a vice president pick to bridge everything – ideology , generational gap , gender , race , experience , '' he said .
`` There 's going to be something wrong with every one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Michelle Lujan Grisham is Democrats ' only nonwhite female governor .
Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has reportedly vouched for his state 's Latina senator , Catherine Cortez Masto .
Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth is a veteran who lost limbs in combat .
She 's of Thai heritage and has notably jousted with President Donald Trump .
And Rep. Val Demings , a black congresswoman from the swing state of Florida , helped lead the House impeachment efforts against Mr. Trump .
Yet all four women are relative unknowns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington to Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan , one of the three Great Lakes states that delivered Mr. Trump his Electoral College majority in 2016 .
She 's won plaudits during the pandemic and meshes with Mr. Biden 's pragmatic sensibilities , winning her post in 2018 with promises to `` fix the damn roads . ''
But it 's not clear that a 48-year-old white woman from the Midwest brings Mr. Biden advantages he does n't already have or ca n't find elsewhere .
It 's a similar conundrum for others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a former rival who fits seamlessly with Mr. Biden 's politics .
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren , meanwhile , could offer a bridge to progressives , but several Democrats said her age , 70 , is a bigger liability than potential policy differences with Mr. Biden .
Several African American advocates and progressive leaders said the Democratic ticket 's policies and empathetic appeals are what 's most important .
Black voters `` have to trust the messenger , '' said Adrianne Shropshire , executive director of Black PAC , and `` a black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority to lead on those big issues facing the country right now . ''
But she said that does n't mean a white , Asian , or Latina vice presidential nominee could n't `` speak to the systemic issues , the structural issues that allow for inequalities to persist . ''
This story was reported by The Associated Press .
AP writer Thomas Beaumont contributed to this report from Des Moines , Iowa .
Editor ’ s note : As a public service , the Monitor has removed the paywall for all our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Joe Biden faces the most important decision of his five-decade political career: choosing a vice president.
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee expects to name a committee to vet potential running mates next week, according to three Democrats with knowledge of the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal plans. Mr. Biden, a former vice president himself, has committed to picking a woman and told donors this week that his team has discussed naming a choice well ahead of the Democratic convention in August.
Selecting a running mate is always critical for a presidential candidate. But it's an especially urgent calculation for the 77-year-old Mr. Biden, who, if he wins, would be the oldest American president in history. The decision carries added weight amid the coronavirus pandemic, which, beyond its death toll, threatens to devastate the world economy and define a prospective Biden administration.
"We're still going to be in crisis or recovery, and you want a vice president who can manage that," said Karen Finney, a Democratic strategist who worked for Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. "This seems like a much more important decision than usual."
Mr. Biden faces pressure on multiple fronts. He must consider the demands of his racially, ethnically, and ideologically diverse party, especially the black women who propelled his nomination. He must balance those concerns with his stated desire for a "simpatico" partner who is "ready to be president on a moment's notice."
The campaign's general counsel, Dana Remus, and former White House counsel Bob Bauer are gathering information about prospects. Democrats close to several presumed contenders say they've not yet been contacted.
Mr. Biden has offered plenty of hints. He's said he can easily name 12 to 15 women who meet his criteria, but would likely seriously consider anywhere from six to 11 candidates. He's given no indication of whether he'll look to the Senate, where he spent six terms, to governors, or elsewhere.
Some Biden advisers said the campaign has heard from many Democrats who want a woman of color. Black women helped rescue Mr. Biden's campaign after an embarrassing start in predominately white Iowa and New Hampshire. Yet there's no firm agreement that Mr. Biden must go that route.
"The best thing you can do for all segments of the population is to win," said Mr. Biden's campaign co-chairman Cedric Richmond, a Louisiana congressman and former Congressional Black Caucus chairman. "He has shown a commitment to diversity from the beginning. But this has to be based on, like the VP says, who he trusts."
Mr. Biden has regularly praised California Sen. Kamala Harris, a former rival who endorsed him in March and campaigned for him. When she introduced him at a fundraiser this week, Mr. Biden did little to tamp down speculation about her prospects.
"I'm coming for you, kid," he said.
He's also spoken positively of Stacey Abrams, who narrowly missed becoming the first African American female governor in U.S. history when she lost the 2018 Georgia governor's race.
Yet those two women highlight Mr. Biden's tightrope. At 55, Ms. Harris is talented and popular with Democratic donors, a valuable commodity for a nominee with a fundraising weakness. But she's also a former prosecutor who faces the same skepticism among progressives as Mr. Biden. Meanwhile, her home state is already firmly in the Democratic column and could make her an easy target for Republicans eager to blast the party as too liberal.
Ms. Abrams, 46, is a star for many younger Democrats, a group Mr. Biden struggled to win over in the primary. And she could help turn Georgia into a genuine swing state. But the highest post she's ever held is minority leader in the Georgia House of Representatives, a possible vulnerability in a time of crisis.
Paul Maslin, a Democratic pollster based in the battleground state of Wisconsin, said it will be impossible for Mr. Biden to please everyone.
"You can ask too much of a vice president pick to bridge everything – ideology, generational gap, gender, race, experience," he said. "There's going to be something wrong with every one of these choices."
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is Democrats' only nonwhite female governor. Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has reportedly vouched for his state's Latina senator, Catherine Cortez Masto. Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth is a veteran who lost limbs in combat. She's of Thai heritage and has notably jousted with President Donald Trump. And Rep. Val Demings, a black congresswoman from the swing state of Florida, helped lead the House impeachment efforts against Mr. Trump.
Yet all four women are relative unknowns nationally.
Mr. Biden could go beyond Washington to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, one of the three Great Lakes states that delivered Mr. Trump his Electoral College majority in 2016. She's won plaudits during the pandemic and meshes with Mr. Biden's pragmatic sensibilities, winning her post in 2018 with promises to "fix the damn roads."
But it's not clear that a 48-year-old white woman from the Midwest brings Mr. Biden advantages he doesn't already have or can't find elsewhere.
It's a similar conundrum for others, including Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a former rival who fits seamlessly with Mr. Biden's politics. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, meanwhile, could offer a bridge to progressives, but several Democrats said her age, 70, is a bigger liability than potential policy differences with Mr. Biden.
Several African American advocates and progressive leaders said the Democratic ticket's policies and empathetic appeals are what's most important.
Black voters "have to trust the messenger," said Adrianne Shropshire, executive director of Black PAC, and "a black woman could stand up and have moral authority to lead on those big issues facing the country right now."
But she said that doesn't mean a white, Asian, or Latina vice presidential nominee couldn't "speak to the systemic issues, the structural issues that allow for inequalities to persist."
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
This story was reported by The Associated Press. AP writer Thomas Beaumont contributed to this report from Des Moines, Iowa.
Editor’s note: As a public service, the Monitor has removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage. It’s free.


csmonitor--2020-04-09--COVID-19 models vary widely. What that means for leaders under pressure.

There is another variable that may well tip in our favor , says Herman B .
“ Dutch ” Leonard , a professor of public management at Harvard Kennedy School .
That ’ s America ’ s ability to innovate its way through crisis .
“ We are just beginning to do our best thinking , ” he says .
So far , there isn ’ t enough data to provide definitive transmission or fatality rates .
Wide-ranging variations in the adoption of and adherence to social distancing further complicate the picture .
“ I think we could be doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Ioannidis , an epidemiologist and statistician at Stanford University , who adds that that stress affects susceptibility to viral and respiratory infections .
Others defend sobering models as essential to helping leaders and health care systems brace for a surge in demand and saving lives .
Ideally , scientific advisers can help officials understand the underlying assumptions that modelers have used to piece together fragmentary data .
But often those assumptions get lost in the fray , creating an aura of certainty – and dread – when projections are splashed across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public officials turn for trusted advice on COVID-19 when models of the pandemic ’ s arc have offered such divergent projections of death rates and hospital shortages ?
As mayors , governors , and presidents weigh how best to guide their communities through the coronavirus crisis , they must navigate dramatically divergent models of the arc of the pandemic .
In the United States alone , leaders have already made decisions that have disrupted millions of citizens ’ lives and cost trillions of dollars , with a disproportionate economic impact on low-wage earners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country wonder whether they and their loved ones will be safe , how they ’ ll pay their bills , and when they 'll be able to return to work , some are pressing their leaders to take stricter measures while others are questioning the models that prompted such unprecedented steps .
The modeling debate within the scientific community is due in part to uncertainty around key questions , including transmission and fatality rates .
And the challenge is further complicated by wide-ranging variations in adoption of and adherence to preventative measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Editor ’ s note : As a public service , all our coronavirus coverage is free .
No paywall .
“ I think we should use all data to inform our views , but we shouldn ’ t be overconfident in the results from any one data set or even any combination of data sets , ” says Marc Lipsitch , a professor of epidemiology and director of the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at the Harvard T.H .
Chan School of Public Health .
“ I think we ’ re still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are the caveats.
’ ” But the caveats and underlying assumptions are sometimes lost in the fray .
For average citizens , the charts depicting expected spikes in fatality rates or hospital shortages can take on an aura of certainty – and dread .
“ No matter what the numbers are , if they are accompanied by pictures of people dying and of graves and trucks carrying the dead ... [ people ] read the numbers through these narratives , through these stories , ” says John Ioannidis , a professor of epidemiology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the media compounds an already stressful environment , he adds , noting that stress affects susceptibility to viral and respiratory infections .
“ In such a situation , with panic and horror being disseminated , I think we could be doing a lot of harm.
” Why the models diverge so widely Two of the most prominent COVID-19 models are from Imperial College London and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation ( IHME ) in Washington state .
Imperial ’ s Neil Ferguson and his colleagues garnered headlines with their projection that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the United Kingdom and U.S. over two years would total 510,000 and 2.2 million , respectively , and demand for critical care beds would peak at 30 times actual capacity .
Their March 16 report , which advocated social distancing , is widely credited with prompting Britain and many U.S. states to close schools , churches , and nonessential services .
The Trump administration issued guidance the same day recommending that employees work at home and gatherings be limited to 10 or fewer people .
Dr. Ferguson , who is one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ field , came under fire for allegedly reversing course nine days later when he told British Parliament that due to the U.K. ’ s lockdown and social distancing policies , he estimated the death toll at 20,000 and possibly substantially less .
The 20,000 estimate was in fact included in the original report – but as one of 46 different projected death tolls ranging from 5,600 to 120,000 depending on the rate of transmission and the scope of societal restrictions .
( See page 13 in this PDF . )
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A survey of 14 studies on quarantine in past disease outbreaks , for example , found that rates of adherence varied from 0 % to 92 % .
“ I think we need to be very careful with narratives that say ... ‘ Only 20,000 died because we did the right thing , ’ ” says Dr. Ioannidis , who has made a career out of finding holes in medical research and cautions against a “ bandwagon ” effect among researchers .
Last month he published a provocative article in STAT warning of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 , asking how policymakers could be sure they weren ’ t doing more harm than good by implementing draconian countermeasures based on patchy data .
Dr. Lipsitch wrote a rebuttal piece arguing that despite the lack of data , inaction was not an option given the exponential nature of infection .
One of the key unknowns is the infection fatality rate .
Under ideal circumstances , fatality rates are a matter of simple arithmetic – divide the number of deaths by the number of infections .
But without widespread testing of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to produce a reliable denominator .
What ’ s more , the number of fatalities isn ’ t entirely certain , either .
In Italy , for instance , there have been indications that deaths may have been either overstated or understated , casting doubt on totals elsewhere as well .
The World Health Organization initially estimated the fatality rate for global cases at 3.4 % .
But more recent estimates have come in lower .
A March 13 article in the journal Science , for example , concluded that China ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Imperial ’ s study put the U.K. rate at 0.9 % .
The other model garnering a lot of attention , from IHME at the University of Washington , didn ’ t attempt to calculate fatality rates .
It focused on projecting total deaths and the strain on health care systems , initially using data from Wuhan , China , and then other locations as more data became available .
IHME ’ s March 25 forecast projected lower death tolls than numerous other models – in part because it assumed that within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have adopted four social distancing measures that China implemented .
But two weeks later , 41 states have implemented two or fewer .
Nevertheless , IMHE has since reduced its projections to 60,415 U.S. deaths by August , and lowered its estimate of total hospital beds needed at peak demand by nearly half .
So how are public officials supposed to make sense of the debate within the scientific community – and fast ?
Ideally , their scientific advisers can help sort through the relevant studies or models , including the fine print @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House scientific adviser under President Barack Obama .
“ It ’ s the responsibility of the modelers [ individuals and their agencies ] to make the assumptions and associated uncertainties clear when they describe their results , and the responsibility of science advisors to policy makers to try to make sure these points are understood , ” says Dr. Holdren in an emailed comment .
The Trump administration showed IMHE ’ s model at a March 31 press conference when it unveiled its own estimate of 100,000 to 240,000 fatalities , also citing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and others .
But the White House gave little visibility into how it arrived at those numbers .
“ I ’ m not quite clear – and I ’ m a pretty experienced pandemic watcher – about the process of deliberation , ” says Howard Markel , a physician and professor of the history of medicine at the University of Michigan who has studied pandemics from the Black Death to the 1918 Spanish flu and was part of a group of experts tapped to evaluate the Obama administration ’ s H1N1 influenza policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2011 .
Key in crisis : Scientists and politicians working together One of the critical performance factors in handling a crisis is how successfully the scientific community and political actors interface with each other , says Herman B .
“ Dutch ” Leonard , a professor of public management at Harvard Kennedy School who is working with mayors from around the world through the Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative .
Politicians are sometimes skeptical of scientists ’ projections , he says , while scientists can underestimate the political difficulty of enforcing something like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act as if the mayor has a wand and can order the public to stay home , but she ’ s using up really scarce political capital , ” which could undermine her ability to act as the pandemic worsens , says Professor Leonard .
But Dr. Markel says that a public health official changing strategy as new data comes in is analogous to a physician who adjusts his treatment of a patient as symptoms change , and that should be communicated to the public .
“ It ’ s the patient-doctor relationship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care of a community , ” he says .
As leaders strive to give an unvarnished view of the facts without creating undue fear , Professor Leonard says one variable may be higher than people realize : America ’ s ability to innovate its way through crisis .
“ We consistently underpredict the resilience in our political and economic system because we can ’ t ourselves figure out what the answer is , ” he says , even as an automotive factory is figuring out how to produce masks , for example .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ our best thinking.
” Editor ’ s note : As a public service , all our coronavirus coverage is free .
No paywall .

There is another variable that may well tip in our favor, says Herman B. “Dutch” Leonard, a professor of public management at Harvard Kennedy School. That’s America’s ability to innovate its way through crisis. “We are just beginning to do our best thinking,” he says.
So far, there isn’t enough data to provide definitive transmission or fatality rates. Wide-ranging variations in the adoption of and adherence to social distancing further complicate the picture.
“I think we could be doing a lot of harm,” says John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist and statistician at Stanford University, who adds that that stress affects susceptibility to viral and respiratory infections. Others defend sobering models as essential to helping leaders and health care systems brace for a surge in demand and saving lives.
Determining a rational course of action can be challenging when fear abounds. Understanding the underlying assumptions that have led to dramatically different projections of COVID-19 infection and fatality rates can help.
Ideally, scientific advisers can help officials understand the underlying assumptions that modelers have used to piece together fragmentary data. But often those assumptions get lost in the fray, creating an aura of certainty – and dread – when projections are splashed across the news with grave images.
Where can public officials turn for trusted advice on COVID-19 when models of the pandemic’s arc have offered such divergent projections of death rates and hospital shortages?
As mayors, governors, and presidents weigh how best to guide their communities through the coronavirus crisis, they must navigate dramatically divergent models of the arc of the pandemic.
In the United States alone, leaders have already made decisions that have disrupted millions of citizens’ lives and cost trillions of dollars, with a disproportionate economic impact on low-wage earners and their families. As citizens across the country wonder whether they and their loved ones will be safe, how they’ll pay their bills, and when they'll be able to return to work, some are pressing their leaders to take stricter measures while others are questioning the models that prompted such unprecedented steps.
The modeling debate within the scientific community is due in part to uncertainty around key questions, including transmission and fatality rates. And the challenge is further complicated by wide-ranging variations in adoption of and adherence to preventative measures like social distancing and voluntary home quarantine.
Why We Wrote This Determining a rational course of action can be challenging when fear abounds. Understanding the underlying assumptions that have led to dramatically different projections of COVID-19 infection and fatality rates can help.
Editor’s note: As a public service, all our coronavirus coverage is free. No paywall.
“I think we should use all data to inform our views, but we shouldn’t be overconfident in the results from any one data set or even any combination of data sets,” says Marc Lipsitch, a professor of epidemiology and director of the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “I think we’re still at the stage of, ‘Here are the caveats.’”
But the caveats and underlying assumptions are sometimes lost in the fray. For average citizens, the charts depicting expected spikes in fatality rates or hospital shortages can take on an aura of certainty – and dread.
“No matter what the numbers are, if they are accompanied by pictures of people dying and of graves and trucks carrying the dead ... [people] read the numbers through these narratives, through these stories,” says John Ioannidis, a professor of epidemiology at Stanford University. Such packaging in the media compounds an already stressful environment, he adds, noting that stress affects susceptibility to viral and respiratory infections. “In such a situation, with panic and horror being disseminated, I think we could be doing a lot of harm.”
Why the models diverge so widely
Two of the most prominent COVID-19 models are from Imperial College London and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in Washington state.
Imperial’s Neil Ferguson and his colleagues garnered headlines with their projection that if nothing were done, COVID-19 deaths in the United Kingdom and U.S. over two years would total 510,000 and 2.2 million, respectively, and demand for critical care beds would peak at 30 times actual capacity.
Their March 16 report, which advocated social distancing, is widely credited with prompting Britain and many U.S. states to close schools, churches, and nonessential services. The Trump administration issued guidance the same day recommending that employees work at home and gatherings be limited to 10 or fewer people.
Dr. Ferguson, who is one of the most highly respected figures in his field, came under fire for allegedly reversing course nine days later when he told British Parliament that due to the U.K.’s lockdown and social distancing policies, he estimated the death toll at 20,000 and possibly substantially less.
The 20,000 estimate was in fact included in the original report – but as one of 46 different projected death tolls ranging from 5,600 to 120,000 depending on the rate of transmission and the scope of societal restrictions. (See page 13 in this PDF.)
It’s unclear how effective such restrictions are. A survey of 14 studies on quarantine in past disease outbreaks, for example, found that rates of adherence varied from 0% to 92%.
“I think we need to be very careful with narratives that say ... ‘Only 20,000 died because we did the right thing,’” says Dr. Ioannidis, who has made a career out of finding holes in medical research and cautions against a “bandwagon” effect among researchers.
Last month he published a provocative article in STAT warning of a once-in-a-century “evidence fiasco” around COVID-19, asking how policymakers could be sure they weren’t doing more harm than good by implementing draconian countermeasures based on patchy data. Dr. Lipsitch wrote a rebuttal piece arguing that despite the lack of data, inaction was not an option given the exponential nature of infection.
One of the key unknowns is the infection fatality rate. Under ideal circumstances, fatality rates are a matter of simple arithmetic – divide the number of deaths by the number of infections. But without widespread testing of the general population, it’s difficult to produce a reliable denominator. What’s more, the number of fatalities isn’t entirely certain, either. In Italy, for instance, there have been indications that deaths may have been either overstated or understated, casting doubt on totals elsewhere as well.
The World Health Organization initially estimated the fatality rate for global cases at 3.4%. But more recent estimates have come in lower. A March 13 article in the journal Science, for example, concluded that China’s fatality rate was closer to 0.5%. Imperial’s study put the U.K. rate at 0.9%.
The other model garnering a lot of attention, from IHME at the University of Washington, didn’t attempt to calculate fatality rates. It focused on projecting total deaths and the strain on health care systems, initially using data from Wuhan, China, and then other locations as more data became available.
IHME’s March 25 forecast projected lower death tolls than numerous other models – in part because it assumed that within one week, all U.S. states would have adopted four social distancing measures that China implemented. But two weeks later, 41 states have implemented two or fewer. Nevertheless, IMHE has since reduced its projections to 60,415 U.S. deaths by August, and lowered its estimate of total hospital beds needed at peak demand by nearly half.
John Locher/AP View caption Hide caption Medical students Claire Chen (center left) and Miranda Stiewig (center right) take people's temperatures to screen for possible coronavirus cases at a makeshift camp for homeless people on March 28, 2020, in Las Vegas.
Making assumptions clear
So how are public officials supposed to make sense of the debate within the scientific community – and fast?
Ideally, their scientific advisers can help sort through the relevant studies or models, including the fine print, says John Holdren, former White House scientific adviser under President Barack Obama.
“It’s the responsibility of the modelers [individuals and their agencies] to make the assumptions and associated uncertainties clear when they describe their results, and the responsibility of science advisors to policy makers to try to make sure these points are understood,” says Dr. Holdren in an emailed comment.
The Trump administration showed IMHE’s model at a March 31 press conference when it unveiled its own estimate of 100,000 to 240,000 fatalities, also citing studies from Imperial College, Harvard, and others. But the White House gave little visibility into how it arrived at those numbers.
“I’m not quite clear – and I’m a pretty experienced pandemic watcher – about the process of deliberation,” says Howard Markel, a physician and professor of the history of medicine at the University of Michigan who has studied pandemics from the Black Death to the 1918 Spanish flu and was part of a group of experts tapped to evaluate the Obama administration’s H1N1 influenza policies on a daily basis from 2009 to 2011.
Key in crisis: Scientists and politicians working together
One of the critical performance factors in handling a crisis is how successfully the scientific community and political actors interface with each other, says Herman B. “Dutch” Leonard, a professor of public management at Harvard Kennedy School who is working with mayors from around the world through the Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative.
Politicians are sometimes skeptical of scientists’ projections, he says, while scientists can underestimate the political difficulty of enforcing something like social distancing.
“The scientists often act as if the mayor has a wand and can order the public to stay home, but she’s using up really scarce political capital,” which could undermine her ability to act as the pandemic worsens, says Professor Leonard.
But Dr. Markel says that a public health official changing strategy as new data comes in is analogous to a physician who adjusts his treatment of a patient as symptoms change, and that should be communicated to the public. “It’s the patient-doctor relationship writ large because you’re taking care of a community,” he says.
As leaders strive to give an unvarnished view of the facts without creating undue fear, Professor Leonard says one variable may be higher than people realize: America’s ability to innovate its way through crisis.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
“We consistently underpredict the resilience in our political and economic system because we can’t ourselves figure out what the answer is,” he says, even as an automotive factory is figuring out how to produce masks, for example. “We are just beginning to do our best thinking.”
Editor’s note: As a public service, all our coronavirus coverage is free. No paywall.