thefiscaltimes--2020-01-30--Here’s What the Democratic Candidates’ Agendas Will Cost

The Progressive Policy Institute , a centrist Democratic think tank , has released an analysis of the tax and spending proposals of four leading Democratic presidential candidates : former Vice President Joe Biden , former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , Sen. Bernie Sanders , Sen. Elizabeth Warren .
“ All four leading Democratic candidates for president would offer a dramatic departure from the Trump administration ’ s agenda of cutting taxes for the rich , slashing public investment , and undermining health-care coverage for millions of Americans , ” the report by Ben Ritz and Brendan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raise both taxes and spending , Sanders and Warren propose far greater increases in both .
The report , unsurprisingly , warns that they “ would likely have trouble finding enough revenue sources to pay for their expensive agendas without exacerbating the enormous budget problems America already faces .
Warren proposes over $ 8 trillion more in new spending than in new revenue over the next decade , while the Sanders shortfall is over $ 27 trillion – more than the total value of all goods and services produced by the U.S. economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has already proposed steep tax hikes on the wealthy , Ritz says that it will be difficult for her to fund all of her plans without breaking her commitment to avoid raising taxes on the middle class .
Biden , meanwhile , has proposed $ 1.8 trillion more in spending then he has in revenue increases .
His plans call for the least new spending , but the highest share going to infrastructure , education and scientific research — areas that the authors say lay the foundation for long-term economic growth but where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 40 % since the 1970s .
Buttigieg is the only candidate among the four to have fully offset the cost of his agenda , with $ 200 billion more in revenue than new spending .
The think tank says that there isn ’ t enough information available to assess the fiscal effects of proposals from two other Democratic candidates , former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar .
See the full report here .

The Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank, has released an analysis of the tax and spending proposals of four leading Democratic presidential candidates: former Vice President Joe Biden, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
“All four leading Democratic candidates for president would offer a dramatic departure from the Trump administration’s agenda of cutting taxes for the rich, slashing public investment, and undermining health-care coverage for millions of Americans,” the report by Ben Ritz and Brendan McDermott says.
While each candidate would raise both taxes and spending, Sanders and Warren propose far greater increases in both. The report, unsurprisingly, warns that they “would likely have trouble finding enough revenue sources to pay for their expensive agendas without exacerbating the enormous budget problems America already faces. Warren proposes over $8 trillion more in new spending than in new revenue over the next decade, while the Sanders shortfall is over $27 trillion – more than the total value of all goods and services produced by the U.S. economy in a year.”
Given that Warren has already proposed steep tax hikes on the wealthy, Ritz says that it will be difficult for her to fund all of her plans without breaking her commitment to avoid raising taxes on the middle class.
Biden, meanwhile, has proposed $1.8 trillion more in spending then he has in revenue increases. His plans call for the least new spending, but the highest share going to infrastructure, education and scientific research — areas that the authors say lay the foundation for long-term economic growth but where government spending has fallen by more than 40% since the 1970s.
Buttigieg is the only candidate among the four to have fully offset the cost of his agenda, with $200 billion more in revenue than new spending.
The think tank says that there isn’t enough information available to assess the fiscal effects of proposals from two other Democratic candidates, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar.
See the full report here.


thefiscaltimes--2020-03-25--What’s in the $2 Trillion Coronavirus Relief Package

Congressional leaders and the Trump administration agreed early Wednesday morning to a massive $ 2 trillion aid package designed to support individuals and businesses struggling amid the coronavirus epidemic .
The Senate is expected to vote on the legislation later Wednesday , sending it to the House , which could vote as early as Thursday , assuming no complications arise .
This is huge : The emergency relief package is unprecedented in its size and scope , equivalent to about 10 % of annual U.S. economic output .
It ’ s more than twice the size of the stimulus Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and would provide hundreds of billions of dollars more than the discretionary budget set by Congress for this year .
“ This is a wartime level of investment into our nation , ” Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in announcing the deal .
For context : Prior to the coronavirus relief spending , the federal government was projected to spend $ 4.7 trillion this year in total — some $ 2.9 trillion in mandatory spending on health care , Social Security and other parts of the social safety net and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determined annually by Congress ) for defense , transportation , education and other programs .
But more will be needed : As large as the package is , lawmakers and analysts note that it is aimed more at limiting the near-term economic hit from the virus , keeping families and businesses afloat , rather than providing stimulus to the economy .
“ If the outbreak and the disruptions continue through summer , lawmakers will need to spend even more , ” Jim Tankersley writes at The New York Times .
John Lettieri , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think tank in Washington , told Tankersley that the lending capacity needed to prevent small business closures and layoffs could wind up four or five times larger than what is being provided now .
House leaders have reportedly told their members to expect at least two more coronavirus stimulus measures in the months ahead .
Not everyone is pleased with the current deal : New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo , who has taken a leading role in responding to the crisis , said the package was “ terrible ” for his state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 3.8 billion in aid for New York state and $ 1.3 billion for New York City , currently the epicenter of the pandemic in the U.S. , a “ drop in the bucket.
” He added that lost tax revenue will cost his state as much as $ 15 billion .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday her caucus would review the bill , and The Hill reports that there could be support for amending the package in light of Cuomo ’ s criticisms .
A separate House version of the aid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , compared to a total of $ 3.5 billion for the state in the Senate package .
Some Republicans also expressed reservations .
Sens .
Ben Sasse , Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham charged that the bill as written could mean that some unemployed workers would earn more on unemployment than they would working .
“ Unless this bill is fixed , there is a strong incentive for employees to be laid off instead of going to work .
... We must sadly oppose the fast-tracking of this bill until this text is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues regulatory guidance that no American would earn more by not working than by working , '' the trio said in a statement .
Other senators have pushed back , though , and Bernie Sanders warned that unless the Republicans drop their objections he is prepared to put a hold on the legislation until stronger conditions are imposed on the $ 500 billion in aid for corporations .
• Direct payments for individuals of $ 1,200 for each adult and $ 500 for each child in households earning up to $ 75,000 a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couples .
The payments taper off at higher incomes and are eliminated above $ 99,000 , or $ 198,000 for couples .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said payments could be issued as soon as April 6 and arrive by April 15 , though they ’ ll take longer for taxpayers who don ’ t have direct deposit information on file with the IRS .
• Unemployment benefits extended by four months , with state-level payments boosted by as much as $ 600 a week .
Eligibility will be expanded to include freelancers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been furloughed .
• Small business assistance worth about $ 350 billion in the form of loans , available through June 30 .
A portion of the loans are eligible for forgiveness for firms that keep workers on payroll .
• Corporate bailouts from a $ 425 billion pool managed by the Federal Reserve , with an additional $ 75 billion earmarked for specific industries , including airlines and hotels .
The bill bans stock buybacks for a year for companies receiving assistance and prohibits businesses owned by President Trump and other lawmakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other health care providers are targeted with aid package worth about $ 100 billion .
• Tax incentives including a two-year suspension of the employer share of payroll taxes .

Congressional leaders and the Trump administration agreed early Wednesday morning to a massive $2 trillion aid package designed to support individuals and businesses struggling amid the coronavirus epidemic.
The Senate is expected to vote on the legislation later Wednesday, sending it to the House, which could vote as early as Thursday, assuming no complications arise.
This is huge: The emergency relief package is unprecedented in its size and scope, equivalent to about 10% of annual U.S. economic output. It’s more than twice the size of the stimulus Congress passed as the economy swooned in 2009, and would provide hundreds of billions of dollars more than the discretionary budget set by Congress for this year. “This is a wartime level of investment into our nation,” Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in announcing the deal.
For context: Prior to the coronavirus relief spending, the federal government was projected to spend $4.7 trillion this year in total — some $2.9 trillion in mandatory spending on health care, Social Security and other parts of the social safety net and $1.4 trillion in discretionary spending (determined annually by Congress) for defense, transportation, education and other programs.
But more will be needed: As large as the package is, lawmakers and analysts note that it is aimed more at limiting the near-term economic hit from the virus, keeping families and businesses afloat, rather than providing stimulus to the economy. “If the outbreak and the disruptions continue through summer, lawmakers will need to spend even more,” Jim Tankersley writes at The New York Times. John Lettieri, the head of the Economic Innovation Group think tank in Washington, told Tankersley that the lending capacity needed to prevent small business closures and layoffs could wind up four or five times larger than what is being provided now.
House leaders have reportedly told their members to expect at least two more coronavirus stimulus measures in the months ahead.
Not everyone is pleased with the current deal: New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who has taken a leading role in responding to the crisis, said the package was “terrible” for his state. Cuomo called the bill’s $3.8 billion in aid for New York state and $1.3 billion for New York City, currently the epicenter of the pandemic in the U.S., a “drop in the bucket.” He added that lost tax revenue will cost his state as much as $15 billion.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday her caucus would review the bill, and The Hill reports that there could be support for amending the package in light of Cuomo’s criticisms. A separate House version of the aid package gave New York $17 billion, compared to a total of $3.5 billion for the state in the Senate package.
Some Republicans also expressed reservations. Sens. Ben Sasse, Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham charged that the bill as written could mean that some unemployed workers would earn more on unemployment than they would working. “Unless this bill is fixed, there is a strong incentive for employees to be laid off instead of going to work. ... We must sadly oppose the fast-tracking of this bill until this text is addressed, or the Department of Labor issues regulatory guidance that no American would earn more by not working than by working," the trio said in a statement.
Other senators have pushed back, though, and Bernie Sanders warned that unless the Republicans drop their objections he is prepared to put a hold on the legislation until stronger conditions are imposed on the $500 billion in aid for corporations.
What’s in the bill:
Direct payments for individuals of $1,200 for each adult and $500 for each child in households earning up to $75,000 a year, or $150,000 for married couples. The payments taper off at higher incomes and are eliminated above $99,000, or $198,000 for couples. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said payments could be issued as soon as April 6 and arrive by April 15, though they’ll take longer for taxpayers who don’t have direct deposit information on file with the IRS.
Unemployment benefits extended by four months, with state-level payments boosted by as much as $600 a week. Eligibility will be expanded to include freelancers, gig workers and those who have been furloughed.
Small business assistance worth about $350 billion in the form of loans, available through June 30. A portion of the loans are eligible for forgiveness for firms that keep workers on payroll.
Corporate bailouts from a $425 billion pool managed by the Federal Reserve, with an additional $75 billion earmarked for specific industries, including airlines and hotels. The bill bans stock buybacks for a year for companies receiving assistance and prohibits businesses owned by President Trump and other lawmakers from benefiting from aid.
Hospitals and other health care providers are targeted with aid package worth about $100 billion.


thefiscaltimes--2020-03-24--A Public Health Expert’s 5 Point Plan to Combat the Coronavirus

Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel , an oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania Medical School and one of the architects of the Affordable Care Act in the Obama administration , outlined a proposal in The New York Times Tuesday for fighting the coronavirus – a battle he says we are currently losing .
Emanuel recognizes there ’ s reason to worry about the economic cost of the current approach , but we must keep in mind the millions of deaths that could occur in the next year if we fail to “ flatten the curve ” of infections as quickly as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy can not be fixed without solving the pandemic , ” Emanuel says .
“ Only after the virus is contained can we reopen restaurants , bars , gyms and stores ; allow people to travel , attend conferences and visit museums ; and persuade them to buy cars and houses.
” To get to that point , Emanuel calls for a seven to 14-day period of mobilization to confront the pandemic .
“ If the United States intervenes immediately on the scale that China did , our death toll could be under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Within three to four months we might be able to begin a return to more normal lives.
” • President Trump should immediately issue a shelter-in-place order for the whole country , closing all schools and non-essential businesses .
The policy could be lifted gradually over two or three months .
• The federal government should take over all testing for the virus , with the aim of analyzing the entire population on an on-going basis .
• Coordinate production of medical equipment at the federal level , paid for by Congress on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contractors .
• Publicly-funded assistance for hospitals , with a national overseer to manage care , equipment and personnel .
• Grants to businesses to maintain payrolls , and use of the unemployed to help combat the pandemic , with tasks such as contact tracing and disinfecting public spaces .
In the end , the country needs to mobilize as it has rarely done before , Emanuel says .
If successful , “ in two to three months the country can begin to return to normal , stores can reopen , people can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a rapid , V-shaped economic recovery.
” But if the country fails to act quickly and decisively , he warns , the U.S. “ will follow Italy ’ s course or , worse , that of Iran , and recovery may take a decade or more with extraordinary levels of death and dislocation .
”

Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, an oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania Medical School and one of the architects of the Affordable Care Act in the Obama administration, outlined a proposal in The New York Times Tuesday for fighting the coronavirus – a battle he says we are currently losing.
Emanuel recognizes there’s reason to worry about the economic cost of the current approach, but we must keep in mind the millions of deaths that could occur in the next year if we fail to “flatten the curve” of infections as quickly as possible.
“[T]he economy cannot be fixed without solving the pandemic,” Emanuel says. “Only after the virus is contained can we reopen restaurants, bars, gyms and stores; allow people to travel, attend conferences and visit museums; and persuade them to buy cars and houses.”
To get to that point, Emanuel calls for a seven to 14-day period of mobilization to confront the pandemic. “If the United States intervenes immediately on the scale that China did, our death toll could be under 100,000,” he says. “Within three to four months we might be able to begin a return to more normal lives.”
Here’s Emanuel’s plan:
President Trump should immediately issue a shelter-in-place order for the whole country, closing all schools and non-essential businesses. The policy could be lifted gradually over two or three months. The federal government should take over all testing for the virus, with the aim of analyzing the entire population on an on-going basis. Coordinate production of medical equipment at the federal level, paid for by Congress on a cost-plus basis, similar to defense contractors. Publicly-funded assistance for hospitals, with a national overseer to manage care, equipment and personnel. Grants to businesses to maintain payrolls, and use of the unemployed to help combat the pandemic, with tasks such as contact tracing and disinfecting public spaces.
In the end, the country needs to mobilize as it has rarely done before, Emanuel says. If successful, “in two to three months the country can begin to return to normal, stores can reopen, people can work, and the United States will have a rapid, V-shaped economic recovery.” But if the country fails to act quickly and decisively, he warns, the U.S. “will follow Italy’s course or, worse, that of Iran, and recovery may take a decade or more with extraordinary levels of death and dislocation.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-03-24--Trump Wants US 'Opened Up' by Easter

Trump Wants US 'Opened Up' by Easter

President Trump said Tuesday that he hopes to have the U.S. economy reopened in less than three weeks .
“ I would love to have the country opened up and just raring to go by Easter , ” Trump said on a Fox News town hall from the White House Rose Garden .
Easter falls on April 12 .
Trump has expressed increasing frustration in recent days over the economic impact of the virus and measures enacted to slow its spread .
He has warned repeatedly that the damage being done to the economy could be worse that the threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he tweeted : “ Our people want to return to work .
They will practice Social Distancing and all else , and Seniors will be watched over protectively & lovingly .
We can do two things together .
THE CURE CAN NOT BE WORSE ( by far ) THAN THE PROBLEM !
Congress MUST ACT NOW .
We will come back strong !
” Asked on Monday if he would go against the advice of public health officials , Trump said : “ If it was up to the doctors they might say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disagree : Public health experts have warned that the worst of the coronavirus pandemic is still to come — and that restrictions on Americans ’ activity may need to stay in place far longer to help contain the outbreak .
They have also warned that prematurely loosening social distancing guidelines and other restrictions could undercut efforts to fight the virus and be disastrous for hospitals and health care providers .
And some experts have suggested that the economy won ’ t be able to truly recover until the country resolves the worst of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ haven ’ t yet even seen signs that the growth is slowing , much less reversing .
Now is the time to tighten restrictions on contacts that could transmit the virus , not loosen them , ” Marc Lipsitch , an epidemiology professor at the Harvard T.H .
Chan School of Public Health and director of Harvard ’ s Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics , told The Washington Post .
“ If we let up now we can be virtually certain that health care will be overwhelmed in many if not all parts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view of every well-informed infectious epidemiologist I know of.
” Bill Gates calls for a shutdown : On a program hosted by TED conferences Tuesday , Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates said the country still needs to close up shop .
“ The U.S. is past this opportunity to control [ Covid-19 ] without shutdown .
We did not act fast enough to have an ability to avoid the shutdown .
It ’ s January when everybody should ’ ve been on notice.
” But Trump has supporters : Yet Trump is far from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economy to reopen quickly , with some Republican lawmakers and other expressing similar desires .
Lloyd Blankfein , the former CEO of Goldman Sachs , tweeted Sunday that “ crushing the economy , jobs and morale is also a health issue-and beyond .
Within a very few weeks let those with a lower risk to the disease return to work .
”

President Trump said Tuesday that he hopes to have the U.S. economy reopened in less than three weeks.
“I would love to have the country opened up and just raring to go by Easter,” Trump said on a Fox News town hall from the White House Rose Garden. Easter falls on April 12.
Trump has expressed increasing frustration in recent days over the economic impact of the virus and measures enacted to slow its spread. He has warned repeatedly that the damage being done to the economy could be worse that the threat from the virus. On Tuesday morning he tweeted:
“Our people want to return to work. They will practice Social Distancing and all else, and Seniors will be watched over protectively & lovingly. We can do two things together. THE CURE CANNOT BE WORSE (by far) THAN THE PROBLEM! Congress MUST ACT NOW. We will come back strong!”
Asked on Monday if he would go against the advice of public health officials, Trump said: “If it was up to the doctors they might say shut down the entire world.”
Experts disagree: Public health experts have warned that the worst of the coronavirus pandemic is still to come — and that restrictions on Americans’ activity may need to stay in place far longer to help contain the outbreak. They have also warned that prematurely loosening social distancing guidelines and other restrictions could undercut efforts to fight the virus and be disastrous for hospitals and health care providers. And some experts have suggested that the economy won’t be able to truly recover until the country resolves the worst of the public health threat.
“We haven’t yet even seen signs that the growth is slowing, much less reversing. Now is the time to tighten restrictions on contacts that could transmit the virus, not loosen them,” Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiology professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and director of Harvard’s Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics, told The Washington Post. “If we let up now we can be virtually certain that health care will be overwhelmed in many if not all parts of the country. This is the view of every well-informed infectious epidemiologist I know of.”
Bill Gates calls for a shutdown: On a program hosted by TED conferences Tuesday, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates said the country still needs to close up shop. “The U.S. is past this opportunity to control [Covid-19] without shutdown. We did not act fast enough to have an ability to avoid the shutdown. It’s January when everybody should’ve been on notice.”
But Trump has supporters: Yet Trump is far from alone in pushing for some parts of the economy to reopen quickly, with some Republican lawmakers and other expressing similar desires. Lloyd Blankfein, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, tweeted Sunday that “crushing the economy, jobs and morale is also a health issue-and beyond. Within a very few weeks let those with a lower risk to the disease return to work.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-03-23--Some States Reopen Obamacare Markets

Some States Reopen Obamacare Markets

As the Affordable Care Act reaches its 10th anniversary of being signed into law , at least eight states are reopening their Obamacare health insurance marketplaces in response to the coronavirus pandemic .
On Saturday , the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said the federal government may do the same by allowing for a special enrollment period in the 32 states where it operates the health care marketplaces .
The HealthCare.gov exchanges overseen by the Trump administration closed on December 15 .
Ordinarily , new enrollees have to wait until the next enrollment period in the fall to sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was weighing the need to reopen the exchanges as millions of Americans face job – and health insurance – loss at a time when access to testing and treatment is more important than ever .
The eight states already allowing new enrollments – Colorado , Connecticut , Maryland , Massachusetts , Nevada , New York , Rhode Island and Washington – run their own health exchanges , according to Kaiser Health News , giving them more flexibility to set their own rules .
A ninth state , California , has not closed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to sign up for health coverage through June .
Those who sign up for new plans should have coverage by April 1 .
More than 28 million Americans are currently uninsured , and that number could grow rapidly as layoffs mount in the coming weeks .
The Trump administration is currently backing a lawsuit that would overturn the Affordable Care Act in its entirety , potentially removing coverage from about 20 million people .

As the Affordable Care Act reaches its 10th anniversary of being signed into law, at least eight states are reopening their Obamacare health insurance marketplaces in response to the coronavirus pandemic. On Saturday, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said the federal government may do the same by allowing for a special enrollment period in the 32 states where it operates the health care marketplaces.
The HealthCare.gov exchanges overseen by the Trump administration closed on December 15. Ordinarily, new enrollees have to wait until the next enrollment period in the fall to sign up for coverage, but CMS said it was weighing the need to reopen the exchanges as millions of Americans face job – and health insurance – loss at a time when access to testing and treatment is more important than ever.
The eight states already allowing new enrollments – Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island and Washington – run their own health exchanges, according to Kaiser Health News, giving them more flexibility to set their own rules. A ninth state, California, has not closed its exchange this year and will allow people to sign up for health coverage through June. Those who sign up for new plans should have coverage by April 1.
More than 28 million Americans are currently uninsured, and that number could grow rapidly as layoffs mount in the coming weeks. The Trump administration is currently backing a lawsuit that would overturn the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, potentially removing coverage from about 20 million people.


thefiscaltimes--2020-03-27--Trump Orders GM to Produce Ventilators

Trump Orders GM to Produce Ventilators

President Trump invoked the Defense Production Act Friday to force General Motors to start producing ventilators .
In a presidential memorandum directed at just one company , Trump authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services “ to require General Motors to accept , perform , and prioritize Federal contracts for ventilators.
” Earlier in the day , Trump lashed out at the company and its CEO , Mary Barra , accusing the company of charging too much and moving too slowly in its effort to produce mechanical ventilators .
“ As usual with ‘ this ’ General Motors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Trump tweeted .
“ They said they were going to give us 40,000 much needed Ventilators , ‘ very quickly ’ .
Now they are saying it will only be 6000 , in late April , and they want top dollar .
Always a mess with Mary B.
” Trump also appeared to order GM and perhaps Ford to start producing the medical equipment , though in doing so he referred to an auto plant GM no longer owns : “ General Motors MUST immediately open their stupidly abandoned Lordstown plant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and START MAKING VENTILATORS , NOW !
!
!
!
!
!
FORD , GET GOING ON VENTILATORS , FAST !
!
!
!
!
!
” The background : General Motors has been in negotiations with Ventec Life Systems to form a joint venture that would have the capacity to produce as many as 80,000 ventilators , but according to a report in The New York Times Thursday , the Federal Emergency Management Agency balked at what could be a $ 1 billion price tag .
( It 's not clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under Trump 's order . )
Perhaps not coincidentally , Trump downplayed the need for more ventilators on Thursday night in an interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News .
“ I don ’ t believe you need 40,000 or 30,000 ventilators , ” he said in an apparent reference to a request made by New York state .
“ You go into major hospitals sometimes , and they ’ ll have two ventilators .
And now all of a sudden they ’ re saying , ‘ Can we order 30,000 ventilators ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ said more than a week ago that would invoke the Defense Production Act , a 1950 law that gives him the power to coordinate the production of goods needed to respond to a national emergency such as the coronavirus epidemic .
But until today he had declined to order any companies to start producing desperately needed equipment , saying he prefers to allow private companies to meet the demand for medical supplies on a voluntary basis .
Along with several key public and private White House advisers , the U.S. Chamber of Commerce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of the act , and the president has recently suggested that he sees federal coordination of private production as something akin to socialism .
`` Call a person over in Venezuela , '' Trump said Sunday .
`` Ask them how did nationalization of their businesses work out .
Not too well . ''
Instead , Trump said that the country ’ s industrial base is mobilizing at a level not seen since World War II on its own , while claiming that “ [ w ] e ’ re getting what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of government down.
” In a statement Thursday , the White said the response from private industry “ has been overwhelming , fulfilling government-identified needs faster than anyone thought possible.
” Facts on the ground say otherwise : A growing chorus of critics have argued that the country is falling well short of meeting the needs of the hospitals dealing with a surge of patients .
More than 100 former national security officials sent Trump a letter this week asking the president to use his authority under the DPA to increase the supply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts without more extensive government support are proving far from sufficient to meet the current and anticipated needs.
” More broadly , the signatories said , the government needs to step in and play a central organizing role in the middle of a national emergency .
“ Beyond questions of supply , the private sector lacks the ability to process incoming requests , prioritize the most urgent needs , and coordinate with other companies absent more concerted government involvement , ” they wrote .
“ That is precisely what the DPA is designed @ @ @ @

President Trump invoked the Defense Production Act Friday to force General Motors to start producing ventilators.
In a presidential memorandum directed at just one company, Trump authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services “to require General Motors to accept, perform, and prioritize Federal contracts for ventilators.”
Earlier in the day, Trump lashed out at the company and its CEO, Mary Barra, accusing the company of charging too much and moving too slowly in its effort to produce mechanical ventilators. “As usual with ‘this’ General Motors, things just never seem to work out,” Trump tweeted. “They said they were going to give us 40,000 much needed Ventilators, ‘very quickly’. Now they are saying it will only be 6000, in late April, and they want top dollar. Always a mess with Mary B.”
Trump also appeared to order GM and perhaps Ford to start producing the medical equipment, though in doing so he referred to an auto plant GM no longer owns: “General Motors MUST immediately open their stupidly abandoned Lordstown plant in Ohio, or some other plant, and START MAKING VENTILATORS, NOW!!!!!! FORD, GET GOING ON VENTILATORS, FAST!!!!!!”
The background: General Motors has been in negotiations with Ventec Life Systems to form a joint venture that would have the capacity to produce as many as 80,000 ventilators, but according to a report in The New York Times Thursday, the Federal Emergency Management Agency balked at what could be a $1 billion price tag. (It's not clear yet what the government will be paying under Trump's order.)
Perhaps not coincidentally, Trump downplayed the need for more ventilators on Thursday night in an interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News. “I don’t believe you need 40,000 or 30,000 ventilators,” he said in an apparent reference to a request made by New York state. “You go into major hospitals sometimes, and they’ll have two ventilators. And now all of a sudden they’re saying, ‘Can we order 30,000 ventilators?’”
The deeper background: Trump said more than a week ago that would invoke the Defense Production Act, a 1950 law that gives him the power to coordinate the production of goods needed to respond to a national emergency such as the coronavirus epidemic. But until today he had declined to order any companies to start producing desperately needed equipment, saying he prefers to allow private companies to meet the demand for medical supplies on a voluntary basis.
Along with several key public and private White House advisers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had reportedly lobbied Trump to oppose the use of the act, and the president has recently suggested that he sees federal coordination of private production as something akin to socialism. "Call a person over in Venezuela," Trump said Sunday. "Ask them how did nationalization of their businesses work out. Not too well."
Instead, Trump said that the country’s industrial base is mobilizing at a level not seen since World War II on its own, while claiming that “[w]e’re getting what we need without putting the heavy hand of government down.” In a statement Thursday, the White said the response from private industry “has been overwhelming, fulfilling government-identified needs faster than anyone thought possible.”
Facts on the ground say otherwise: A growing chorus of critics have argued that the country is falling well short of meeting the needs of the hospitals dealing with a surge of patients. More than 100 former national security officials sent Trump a letter this week asking the president to use his authority under the DPA to increase the supply of medical goods, since “private efforts without more extensive government support are proving far from sufficient to meet the current and anticipated needs.”
More broadly, the signatories said, the government needs to step in and play a central organizing role in the middle of a national emergency. “Beyond questions of supply, the private sector lacks the ability to process incoming requests, prioritize the most urgent needs, and coordinate with other companies absent more concerted government involvement,” they wrote. “That is precisely what the DPA is designed to do.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-03-27--After Late Drama, House Passes — and Trump Signs — $2 Trillion Coronavirus Bill

The House of Representatives approved a massive , $ 2 trillion coronavirus relief package and President Trump signed it into law Friday afternoon , but not without some late drama that threatened to delay enactment of the unprecedented measure to lessen the economic toll of the pandemic .
The House passage came by overwhelming voice vote , after an objection from one Republican lawmaker forced hundreds of members to scramble back to Capitol Hill .
One congressman infuriates many : Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky , described by Politico as “ a libertarian-leaning gadfly frequently at odds with leadership , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adds to the deficit and included provisions he said were unrelated to the pandemic .
And he argued that having a vote without a quorum present — at least 216 of the 430 current members of the House , far exceeding the CDC ’ s guidelines against gatherings of more than 10 people — would be unconstitutional , though as The Washington Post notes , that requirement is rarely enforced .
Massie ’ s procedural move drew the ire of President Trump and fellow lawmakers .
Trump took to Twitter to rip Massie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and called for him to be thrown out of the Republican Party .
Representatives of both parties criticized Massie ’ s stance as irresponsible , selfish and costly .
Leaders in both parties tried to talk the Kentucky lawmaker out of following through , to no avail .
Some conservatives defended Massie , but when he called for a recorded vote , he failed to get the required support of one fifth of the members present , ensuring the defeat of his motion within a matter of seconds .
Lawmakers — spread throughout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House floor to avoid close contact , armed with hand sanitizer and disinfectant wipes , with some donning gloves — cheered the passage .
“ House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy elbow bumped a top leadership aid who ’ d counted numbers in his head , ” the post reports .
“ Rep .
Kevin Brady ( R-Texas ) walked across the aisle and elbow bumped Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer ( D-Md. )
.
A few curses seemed to be hurled from rank-and-file members on both sides.
” What ’ s next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for an undetermined amount of time .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated that Democrats will be working on the next phase of coronavirus relief legislation , but House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California has questioned whether additional steps are needed yet .
In the meantime , federal departments and agencies will have to confront the challenge of quickly implementing the sweeping relief bill , including sending payments to families and setting up loan facilities for businesses .

The House of Representatives approved a massive, $2 trillion coronavirus relief package and President Trump signed it into law Friday afternoon, but not without some late drama that threatened to delay enactment of the unprecedented measure to lessen the economic toll of the pandemic.
The House passage came by overwhelming voice vote, after an objection from one Republican lawmaker forced hundreds of members to scramble back to Capitol Hill.
One congressman infuriates many: Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, described by Politico as “a libertarian-leaning gadfly frequently at odds with leadership,” opposed the relief bill because it adds to the deficit and included provisions he said were unrelated to the pandemic. And he argued that having a vote without a quorum present — at least 216 of the 430 current members of the House, far exceeding the CDC’s guidelines against gatherings of more than 10 people — would be unconstitutional, though as The Washington Post notes, that requirement is rarely enforced.
Massie’s procedural move drew the ire of President Trump and fellow lawmakers. Trump took to Twitter to rip Massie as “a third rate Grandstander” and called for him to be thrown out of the Republican Party. Representatives of both parties criticized Massie’s stance as irresponsible, selfish and costly. Leaders in both parties tried to talk the Kentucky lawmaker out of following through, to no avail. Some conservatives defended Massie, but when he called for a recorded vote, he failed to get the required support of one fifth of the members present, ensuring the defeat of his motion within a matter of seconds.
Lawmakers — spread throughout the chamber and the public galleries above the House floor to avoid close contact, armed with hand sanitizer and disinfectant wipes, with some donning gloves — cheered the passage. “House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy elbow bumped a top leadership aid who’d counted numbers in his head,” the post reports. “Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) walked across the aisle and elbow bumped Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). A few curses seemed to be hurled from rank-and-file members on both sides.”
What’s next: The House will be in recess for an undetermined amount of time. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated that Democrats will be working on the next phase of coronavirus relief legislation, but House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California has questioned whether additional steps are needed yet. In the meantime, federal departments and agencies will have to confront the challenge of quickly implementing the sweeping relief bill, including sending payments to families and setting up loan facilities for businesses.


thefiscaltimes--2020-03-26--Breaking Down the Costs of the $2 Trillion Coronavirus Rescue Package

The nearly 900-page coronavirus relief package passed by the Senate late Wednesday night includes some $ 2.3 trillion in costs , according to the The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget , though some of that may be recovered over time as , for example , loans get repaid .
The ultimate deficit impact of the legislation remains unclear .
Here ’ s an overview of the elements of the rescue package from Bloomberg : And here ’ s the CRFB tally of provisions in the bill , with some additional details : $ 510 billion in loans and loan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ municipalities : The bulk of the assistance for big business would come through $ 454 billion is funding for the Treasury Department to backstop loans from the Federal Reserve .
“ Effectively one dollar of loss absorption of backstop from Treasury is enough to support $ 10 worth of loans , ” Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said in an interview with NBC ’ s “ Today ” show Thursday morning .
“ When it comes to this lending we ’ re not going to run out of ammunition.
” The package also includes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and cargo airlines and $ 10 billion in loans to the U.S .
Postal Service .
$ 377 billion for small business loans and grants : Loans would be forgiven for businesses that spend the funds to maintain their payrolls or cover rent , mortgage interest and utilities .
The total also includes $ 10 billion in emergency grants .
$ 290 billion for one-time direct payments : See the details below .
About $ 280 billion in tax cuts for businesses : One key provision would let companies use operating losses from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five prior years .
Congress had eliminated such “ net operating loss carrybacks ” as part of the 2017 tax overhaul .
This will enable some companies to get large refund checks from the IRS — and , as The Wall Street Journal ’ s Richard Rubin reported this week , it will create an incentive for companies to pack their losses into 2020 in an effort to recoup prior tax payments .
$ 260 billion to expand and extend unemployment insurance benefits : The bill would extend coverage by 13 weeks and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It would also cover gig workers and others not normally eligible .
More than $ 180 billion for hospital and health-care spending : This includes $ 100 billion for hospitals and public health as well as $ 27 billion in preparedness funding .
$ 150 billion in aid to states : This funding is mostly allocated by population , but each state is guaranteed to get at least $ 1.25 billion and the money must go out within 30 days of enactment .
( See more details at the Tax Foundation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Andrew Cuomo , have already said that the package , which covers COVID-19 expenses , isn ’ t enough .
Cuomo said it fails to address the budget hole that his state faces due to tax revenues lost as a result of the economic shutdown .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday the Congress will still need to provide more money for state and local governments .
$ 42 billion to strengthen the safety net : This includes $ 25 billion for food assistance and $ 12 billion in housing support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion in grants and tax breaks for transportation providers , including airlines ; $ 45 billion for FEMA ’ s disaster assistance fund ; $ 32 billion for education spending ; about $ 10 billion in tax cuts for individuals ; and more than $ 25 billion in other spending .

The nearly 900-page coronavirus relief package passed by the Senate late Wednesday night includes some $2.3 trillion in costs, according to the The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, though some of that may be recovered over time as, for example, loans get repaid. The ultimate deficit impact of the legislation remains unclear.
Here’s an overview of the elements of the rescue package from Bloomberg:
And here’s the CRFB tally of provisions in the bill, with some additional details:
$510 billion in loans and loan guarantees for large businesses, states and municipalities: The bulk of the assistance for big business would come through $454 billion is funding for the Treasury Department to backstop loans from the Federal Reserve. “Effectively one dollar of loss absorption of backstop from Treasury is enough to support $10 worth of loans,” Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said in an interview with NBC’s “Today” show Thursday morning. “When it comes to this lending we’re not going to run out of ammunition.”
The package also includes $29 billion in loans to passenger and cargo airlines and $10 billion in loans to the U.S. Postal Service.
$377 billion for small business loans and grants: Loans would be forgiven for businesses that spend the funds to maintain their payrolls or cover rent, mortgage interest and utilities. The total also includes $10 billion in emergency grants.
$290 billion for one-time direct payments: See the details below.
About $280 billion in tax cuts for businesses: One key provision would let companies use operating losses from 2018 through 2020 to offset profits from five prior years. Congress had eliminated such “net operating loss carrybacks” as part of the 2017 tax overhaul. This will enable some companies to get large refund checks from the IRS — and, as The Wall Street Journal’s Richard Rubin reported this week, it will create an incentive for companies to pack their losses into 2020 in an effort to recoup prior tax payments.
$260 billion to expand and extend unemployment insurance benefits: The bill would extend coverage by 13 weeks and raise benefits by $600 a week. It would also cover gig workers and others not normally eligible.
More than $180 billion for hospital and health-care spending: This includes $100 billion for hospitals and public health as well as $27 billion in preparedness funding.
$150 billion in aid to states: This funding is mostly allocated by population, but each state is guaranteed to get at least $1.25 billion and the money must go out within 30 days of enactment. (See more details at the Tax Foundation.) Several governors, including New York’s Andrew Cuomo, have already said that the package, which covers COVID-19 expenses, isn’t enough. Cuomo said it fails to address the budget hole that his state faces due to tax revenues lost as a result of the economic shutdown. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday the Congress will still need to provide more money for state and local governments.
$42 billion to strengthen the safety net: This includes $25 billion for food assistance and $12 billion in housing support.
The package also includes $72 billion in grants and tax breaks for transportation providers, including airlines; $45 billion for FEMA’s disaster assistance fund; $32 billion for education spending; about $10 billion in tax cuts for individuals; and more than $25 billion in other spending.


thefiscaltimes--2020-03-30--What’s After the $2 Trillion Rescue? Pelosi Plans a Big Stimulus

President Trump signed a $ 2 trillion coronavirus relief bill into law on Friday — the largest such package in U.S. history .
Now , officials are already looking ahead to the next phase of emergency measures — and the cost of those measures could again run into the trillions .
“ Legislators from both parties , administration officials , economists , think tanks and lobbyists are already roughing out the contours of yet another emergency-spending package—perhaps larger than the last—to try to keep the coronavirus crisis from turning into a 21st-century Great Depression .
Many expect the debate to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pelosi prioritizing help for states : The legislation passed last week was mostly aimed at minimizing the wreckage from the forced economic shutdown that has choked off business revenue and worker wages .
The next step reportedly could involve more economic stimulus while also extending the benefits in the latest legislation and addressing the gaps it left — most notably , more aid to state and local governments whose budgets are sure to face massive shortfalls due to lost tax revenues and emergency spending needs .
“ We have to have more resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in an interview with The New York Times on Monday .
Pelosi added that “ this isn ’ t about how fast we can do it , it ’ s how fast we must do it.
” Partisan differences could quickly reemerge : There ’ s some disagreement on just how urgent additional action is , though — and some early signs that the unusual speed and cooperation Congress displayed in scrambling to pass the $ 2 trillion “ Phase Three ” package could be harder to come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ differences bubble up again .
“ The left is going to want to do infrastructure , welfare payments and food stamps , ” Stephen Moore , a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation and an outside economic adviser to the Trump administration and some congressional Republicans , told the Journal .
“ Our side will want to do tax cuts and deregulation.
” Some Republicans also want to tap the brakes before considering additional action , a hesitation fueled in some cases by concerns about a more permanent expansion of government .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking about a phase four would pause right now , ” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy , a California Republican , said Friday on Fox News .
“ Let ’ s make sure this is actually working in the process and be smart , get the data back of where—if—we do need more help.
” Travel restrictions and social distancing requirements could also complicate any future legislation .
The bottom line : The state budget crunch is going to be real , and you ’ ll likely hear more governors raise the issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fiscal year begins for most states .
This could also be an opportunity for the Trump administration and Congress to resurrect the large infrastructure plan all sides seem to want , perhaps with some less pressure than in the past to figure out how to finance it all .

President Trump signed a $2 trillion coronavirus relief bill into law on Friday — the largest such package in U.S. history. Now, officials are already looking ahead to the next phase of emergency measures — and the cost of those measures could again run into the trillions.
As The Wall Street Journal reported late Sunday:
“Legislators from both parties, administration officials, economists, think tanks and lobbyists are already roughing out the contours of yet another emergency-spending package—perhaps larger than the last—to try to keep the coronavirus crisis from turning into a 21st-century Great Depression. Many expect the debate to begin in earnest by late April.”
Pelosi prioritizing help for states: The legislation passed last week was mostly aimed at minimizing the wreckage from the forced economic shutdown that has choked off business revenue and worker wages. The next step reportedly could involve more economic stimulus while also extending the benefits in the latest legislation and addressing the gaps it left — most notably, more aid to state and local governments whose budgets are sure to face massive shortfalls due to lost tax revenues and emergency spending needs.
“We have to have more resources for state and local government,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in an interview with The New York Times on Monday. Pelosi added that “this isn’t about how fast we can do it, it’s how fast we must do it.”
Partisan differences could quickly reemerge: There’s some disagreement on just how urgent additional action is, though — and some early signs that the unusual speed and cooperation Congress displayed in scrambling to pass the $2 trillion “Phase Three” package could be harder to come by for future legislative steps as ideological differences bubble up again.
“The left is going to want to do infrastructure, welfare payments and food stamps,” Stephen Moore, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation and an outside economic adviser to the Trump administration and some congressional Republicans, told the Journal. “Our side will want to do tax cuts and deregulation.”
Some Republicans also want to tap the brakes before considering additional action, a hesitation fueled in some cases by concerns about a more permanent expansion of government. “I would hope anybody that’s talking about a phase four would pause right now,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, said Friday on Fox News. “Let’s make sure this is actually working in the process and be smart, get the data back of where—if—we do need more help.”
Travel restrictions and social distancing requirements could also complicate any future legislation.
The bottom line: The state budget crunch is going to be real, and you’ll likely hear more governors raise the issue as we approach July 1, when the fiscal year begins for most states. This could also be an opportunity for the Trump administration and Congress to resurrect the large infrastructure plan all sides seem to want, perhaps with some less pressure than in the past to figure out how to finance it all.


thefiscaltimes--2020-03-30--What Takes So Long? A Behind-the-Scenes Look at the Steps Involved in Covid-19 Testing

After a slow start , testing for COVID-19 has ramped up in recent weeks , with giant commercial labs jumping into the effort , drive-up testing sites established in some places and new types of tests approved under emergency rules set by the Food and Drug Administration .
But even for people who are able to get tested ( and there ’ s still a big lag in testing ability in hot spots across the U.S. ) , there can be a frustratingly long wait for results — not just hours , but often days .
Sen. Rand Paul ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive test results for six days and is now being criticized for not self-quarantining during that time .
We asked experts to help explain why the turn-around time for results can vary widely — from hours to days or even a week — and how that might be changing .
First , a sample is taken from a patient ’ s nose or throat , using a special swab .
That swab goes into a tube and is sent to a lab .
Some large hospitals have on-site molecular test labs , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for processing .
More on that later .
That transit time usually runs about 24 hours , but it could be longer , depending on how far the hospital is from the processing lab .
Once at the lab , the specimen is processed , which means lab workers extract the virus ’ s RNA , the molecule that helps regulate genes .
“ That step of cleaning , the RNA extraction step , is one limiting factor , ” said Cathie Klapperich , vice chair of the department of biomedical engineering at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biggest labs have automated ways of extracting RNA from a sample and doing it quickly.
” After the RNA is extracted , technicians also must carefully mix special chemicals with each sample and run those combinations in a machine for analysis , a process called polymerase chain reaction ( PCR ) , which can detect whether the sample is positive or negative for COVID .
“ Typically , a PCR test takes six hours from start to finish to complete , ” said Kelly Wroblewski , director of infectious disease programs at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labs have larger staffs and more machines , so they can process more tests at a time than others .
But even for those labs , as demand grows , so does the backlog .
Capacity Is Expanding , But Not Enough Initially , only a few public health labs and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention processed COVID-19 tests .
Problems with the first CDC test kits also led to delays .
Now the CDC has a better kit , and 94 public health labs across the country do COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labs can ’ t possibly do all that ’ s needed .
In normal times , their main function is regular public health surveillance — detecting more common threats such as outbreaks of measles or monitoring seasonal influenza — “ but not to do diagnostic testing of the magnitude that is required in this response , ” she said .
Large commercial labs like those run by companies such as Quest Diagnostics and LabCorp were given the go-ahead late last month by the FDA to start testing , too .
The FDA has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private labs — those that are already certified to perform complex testing — and diagnostic companies from developing their own test kits .
Labs at some big-name hospital systems , such as Advent Health , the Cleveland Clinic and the University of Washington , are among those doing this .
In addition , the FDA has approved more than a dozen testing kits by various manufacturers or labs under special emergency rules designed to speed the process .
Those include tests by Quest Diagnostics , LabCorp , Roche , Quidel Corp. and others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ machines , either in hospital labs or large commercial labs .
“ A chief medical officer on the East Coast said that , up until two days ago , on average it was taking 72 hours to get results , ” said Susan Van Meter , executive director of AdvaMedDx , a division of the Advanced Medical Technology Association , a device and diagnostics industry trade group .
“ That will get better as our member companies come on the market.
” Even so , supply is not keeping up with demand , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March 23 .
Roche won the first approval from the FDA for a test kit under emergency rules , and it has delivered more than 400,000 kits so far .
“ Demand continues to be much higher than supply , ” Schwan told CNBC .
“ So we are glad that overall capacity is increasing , but the reality is that broad-based testing is not yet possible.
” How Many Tests Can Be Done At A Time ?
That varies .
Large commercial labs can do a lot .
LabCorp , for example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a day — and hopes to do more soon .
Other test kit makers and labs are also ramping up capacity .
Smaller labs — such as molecular labs at some hospitals — can do far fewer per day but get results to patients faster because they save on transit time .
Still , it ’ s usually only large academic medical centers and some health systems that have their own molecular testing labs , which require complex equipment .
One of those is Medstar Georgetown University Hospital in Washington , D.C. “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to six hours , ” said Joeffrey Chahine , technical director for the molecular pathology division there .
Even at such hospitals , the tests are often prioritized for patients who have been admitted and staff who might have been exposed to COVID-19 , said Chahine .
His lab can process 93 samples at a time and run a few cycles a day , up to about 280 , he said .
Last week , it did 186 a day , three days in a row .
But hospitals with this ability are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centers or the ER , ” he said .
In other words , the in-house labs aren ’ t running tests from walk-in patients .
Those tests are sent to large outside labs “ so as not to overwhelm the hospital lab.
” While those outside labs have large staffs , “ the demand is so high that these outpatient clinics and ERs say the turnaround time can be four to seven business days , ” he said .
As the worldwide demand for testing has grown , so , too , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the test kits , the swabs used to get the samples , and the protective masks and gear used by health workers taking the samples .
“ There is an inadequate supply of so many things associated with testing , ” said Wroblewski , which is why her group , along with officials in states including New York and cities including Los Angeles , recommend prioritizing who should be tested for COVID-19 .
At the front of the line , she said , should be health care workers and first responders ; older @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living in nursing homes or assisted living residences ; and people who may have other illnesses that would be treated differently if they were infected .
Bottom line : prioritizing who is tested will help speed the turnaround time for getting results to people in these circumstances and reduce their risk of spreading the illness .
Still , urgent shortages of some of the chemicals needed to process the tests are hampering efforts to test health care workers , including at hospitals such as SUNY Downstate medical center in hard-hit New York .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ quicker tests .
Indeed , the FDA in recent days has approved tests from two companies that promise results in 45 minutes or less .
Those will be available only in hospitals that have special equipment to run them .
One of those companies , Cepheid of Sunnyvale , California , says about 5,000 U.S. hospitals already have the equipment needed to process these tests .
Both firms say they will ship to the hospitals soon but have given few specifics on quantity or timing .
But many public health officials say doctors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can use in their offices , one like the tests already in use for influenza or strep throat .
A number of companies are moving in that direction .
Late Friday , for instance , Abbott Laboratories announced that the FDA has given emergency-use authorization for the company ’ s rapid , point-of-care test , which can deliver positive results in as little as five minutes and negative results in 13 .
The tests are processed on a small device already installed in thousands of medical offices , ERs , urgent care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will begin this week to make 50,000 tests available per day .
“ That ’ s going to make a meaningful difference , ” said Van Meter at AdvaMedDx , who believes the rapid tests are a critical piece in the continuum of available testing .
Even though lab-based PCR tests , which are done at large labs and academic medical centers , can take several hours to produce a result , the machines used can test high numbers of cases all at once .
The rapid test by Abbott — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — do far fewer at a time but deliver results much faster .
“ This can be provided in a doctor ’ s office or an ER , helping to triage patients who are waiting to get in , ” said Van Meter .
“ It ’ s a very fine complement to the testing that exists .
”

After a slow start, testing for COVID-19 has ramped up in recent weeks, with giant commercial labs jumping into the effort, drive-up testing sites established in some places and new types of tests approved under emergency rules set by the Food and Drug Administration.
But even for people who are able to get tested (and there’s still a big lag in testing ability in hot spots across the U.S.), there can be a frustratingly long wait for results — not just hours, but often days. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) didn’t get his positive test results for six days and is now being criticized for not self-quarantining during that time.
We asked experts to help explain why the turn-around time for results can vary widely — from hours to days or even a week — and how that might be changing.
It’s A Multistep Process
First, a sample is taken from a patient’s nose or throat, using a special swab. That swab goes into a tube and is sent to a lab. Some large hospitals have on-site molecular test labs, but most samples are sent to outside labs for processing. More on that later.
That transit time usually runs about 24 hours, but it could be longer, depending on how far the hospital is from the processing lab.
Once at the lab, the specimen is processed, which means lab workers extract the virus’s RNA, the molecule that helps regulate genes.
“That step of cleaning, the RNA extraction step, is one limiting factor,” said Cathie Klapperich, vice chair of the department of biomedical engineering at Boston University. “Only the very biggest labs have automated ways of extracting RNA from a sample and doing it quickly.”
After the RNA is extracted, technicians also must carefully mix special chemicals with each sample and run those combinations in a machine for analysis, a process called polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which can detect whether the sample is positive or negative for COVID.
“Typically, a PCR test takes six hours from start to finish to complete,” said Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious disease programs at the Association of Public Health Laboratories.
Some labs have larger staffs and more machines, so they can process more tests at a time than others. But even for those labs, as demand grows, so does the backlog.
Capacity Is Expanding, But Not Enough
Initially, only a few public health labs and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention processed COVID-19 tests. Problems with the first CDC test kits also led to delays.
Now the CDC has a better kit, and 94 public health labs across the country do COVID-19 testing, said Wroblewski.
But those labs can’t possibly do all that’s needed. In normal times, their main function is regular public health surveillance — detecting more common threats such as outbreaks of measles or monitoring seasonal influenza — “but not to do diagnostic testing of the magnitude that is required in this response,” she said.
Large commercial labs like those run by companies such as Quest Diagnostics and LabCorp were given the go-ahead late last month by the FDA to start testing, too.
The FDA has said it won’t stop certain private labs — those that are already certified to perform complex testing — and diagnostic companies from developing their own test kits. Labs at some big-name hospital systems, such as Advent Health, the Cleveland Clinic and the University of Washington, are among those doing this.
In addition, the FDA has approved more than a dozen testing kits by various manufacturers or labs under special emergency rules designed to speed the process. Those include tests by Quest Diagnostics, LabCorp, Roche, Quidel Corp. and others. The kits are used in PCR machines, either in hospital labs or large commercial labs.
“A chief medical officer on the East Coast said that, up until two days ago, on average it was taking 72 hours to get results,” said Susan Van Meter, executive director of AdvaMedDx, a division of the Advanced Medical Technology Association, a device and diagnostics industry trade group. “That will get better as our member companies come on the market.”
Even so, supply is not keeping up with demand, Roche CEO Severin Schwan told CNBC on March 23. Roche won the first approval from the FDA for a test kit under emergency rules, and it has delivered more than 400,000 kits so far.
“Demand continues to be much higher than supply,” Schwan told CNBC. “So we are glad that overall capacity is increasing, but the reality is that broad-based testing is not yet possible.”
How Many Tests Can Be Done At A Time?
That varies. Large commercial labs can do a lot. LabCorp, for example, said it is processing 20,000 tests a day — and hopes to do more soon. Other test kit makers and labs are also ramping up capacity.
Smaller labs — such as molecular labs at some hospitals — can do far fewer per day but get results to patients faster because they save on transit time.
Still, it’s usually only large academic medical centers and some health systems that have their own molecular testing labs, which require complex equipment.
One of those is Medstar Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, D.C.
“From beginning to results can take five to six hours,” said Joeffrey Chahine, technical director for the molecular pathology division there.
Even at such hospitals, the tests are often prioritized for patients who have been admitted and staff who might have been exposed to COVID-19, said Chahine. His lab can process 93 samples at a time and run a few cycles a day, up to about 280, he said. Last week, it did 186 a day, three days in a row.
But hospitals with this ability are generally “not testing from their outpatient centers or the ER,” he said. In other words, the in-house labs aren’t running tests from walk-in patients.
Those tests are sent to large outside labs “so as not to overwhelm the hospital lab.” While those outside labs have large staffs, “the demand is so high that these outpatient clinics and ERs say the turnaround time can be four to seven business days,” he said.
Supply Shortages Are Slowing Test Production
As the worldwide demand for testing has grown, so, too, have shortages of the chemical agents used in the test kits, the swabs used to get the samples, and the protective masks and gear used by health workers taking the samples.
“There is an inadequate supply of so many things associated with testing,” said Wroblewski, which is why her group, along with officials in states including New York and cities including Los Angeles, recommend prioritizing who should be tested for COVID-19.
At the front of the line, she said, should be health care workers and first responders; older adults who have symptoms, especially those living in nursing homes or assisted living residences; and people who may have other illnesses that would be treated differently if they were infected. Bottom line: prioritizing who is tested will help speed the turnaround time for getting results to people in these circumstances and reduce their risk of spreading the illness.
Still, urgent shortages of some of the chemicals needed to process the tests are hampering efforts to test health care workers, including at hospitals such as SUNY Downstate medical center in hard-hit New York.
Looking forward, companies are working on quicker tests. Indeed, the FDA in recent days has approved tests from two companies that promise results in 45 minutes or less. Those will be available only in hospitals that have special equipment to run them. One of those companies, Cepheid of Sunnyvale, California, says about 5,000 U.S. hospitals already have the equipment needed to process these tests. Both firms say they will ship to the hospitals soon but have given few specifics on quantity or timing.
But many public health officials say doctors and clinics need a truly rapid test they can use in their offices, one like the tests already in use for influenza or strep throat.
A number of companies are moving in that direction. Late Friday, for instance, Abbott Laboratories announced that the FDA has given emergency-use authorization for the company’s rapid, point-of-care test, which can deliver positive results in as little as five minutes and negative results in 13.
The tests are processed on a small device already installed in thousands of medical offices, ERs, urgent care clinics and other settings. Abbott said it will begin this week to make 50,000 tests available per day.
“That’s going to make a meaningful difference,” said Van Meter at AdvaMedDx, who believes the rapid tests are a critical piece in the continuum of available testing.
Even though lab-based PCR tests, which are done at large labs and academic medical centers, can take several hours to produce a result, the machines used can test high numbers of cases all at once. The rapid test by Abbott — and other, similar tests now under development — do far fewer at a time but deliver results much faster.
“This can be provided in a doctor’s office or an ER, helping to triage patients who are waiting to get in,” said Van Meter. “It’s a very fine complement to the testing that exists.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-03-26--Answers to Your Questions About the Coronavirus Direct Payments

Millions of Americans — and many of our readers — are wondering what kind of check they ’ ll be getting from the Treasury as part of the emergency aid package that is expected to become law as soon as Friday .
We ’ ve gotten some reader questions about who is or isn ’ t eligible for the payments and other details of the program .
Do you have to apply ?
No .
The IRS is basing the payments on 2019 tax returns , or 2018 for those who have yet to file a 2019 return .
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ income requirements , adults will receive $ 1,200 each , with an additional $ 500 per child .
The Washington Post has a handy calculator you can use to determine how much you ’ ll get .
What are the income requirements ?
Adults who have Social Security numbers and are U.S. residents will receive the full amount if they earn up to $ 75,000 in adjusted gross income ( $ 150,000 for couples ) .
Someone filing as head of household would get the full amount if they earn $ 112,500 or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a rate of $ 5 for every $ 100 in income above those thresholds , with individuals making $ 99,000 or more ( $ 198,000 for couples ) not eligible .
How will the money arrive ?
The IRS will use direct deposit if it has the necessary information and send checks if it does not .
When will the money arrive ?
This is still an open question .
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the money would go out about three weeks after the bill becomes law , but Senate Minority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money will start flowing on April 6 .
Former IRS officials told Bloomberg News that both schedules are overly optimistic , and that the money could take about two months to arrive .
Can you show me a graph to make it easier ?
Thanks to the Tax Foundation , the answer to that question is yes :

Millions of Americans — and many of our readers — are wondering what kind of check they’ll be getting from the Treasury as part of the emergency aid package that is expected to become law as soon as Friday. We’ve gotten some reader questions about who is or isn’t eligible for the payments and other details of the program.
Some basics:
Do you have to apply? No. The IRS is basing the payments on 2019 tax returns, or 2018 for those who have yet to file a 2019 return.
How much? For those who meet the income requirements, adults will receive $1,200 each, with an additional $500 per child. The Washington Post has a handy calculator you can use to determine how much you’ll get.
What are the income requirements? Adults who have Social Security numbers and are U.S. residents will receive the full amount if they earn up to $75,000 in adjusted gross income ($150,000 for couples). Someone filing as head of household would get the full amount if they earn $112,500 or less.
The payments are phased out at a rate of $5 for every $100 in income above those thresholds, with individuals making $99,000 or more ($198,000 for couples) not eligible.
How will the money arrive? The IRS will use direct deposit if it has the necessary information and send checks if it does not.
When will the money arrive? This is still an open question. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the money would go out about three weeks after the bill becomes law, but Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he hopes the money will start flowing on April 6. Former IRS officials told Bloomberg News that both schedules are overly optimistic, and that the money could take about two months to arrive.
Can you show me a graph to make it easier? Thanks to the Tax Foundation, the answer to that question is yes:


thefiscaltimes--2020-03-30--Chart of the Day: The Massive Response to the Coronavirus

The world has never seen anything like the current fiscal and monetary response to the coronavirus epidemic , says Gavyn @ @ @ @ @ , and the U.S. taking some of the most aggressive steps so far in its @ @ @ @ @ afloat .
“ The increase in fiscal spending and loans in the US this year @ @ @ @ @ 10 per cent of gross domestic product , ” Davies writes , “ larger than @ @ @ @ @ deficit through 2008 and 2009.
” Low interest rates mean the relief and stimulus efforts @ @ @ @ @ as long as the Federal Reserve absorbs the increased debt .
“ It is likely @ @ @ @ @ , that part of the rise in public debt ends up on central bank balance @ @ @ @ @ time , ” Davies says .

The world has never seen anything like the current fiscal and monetary response to the coronavirus epidemic, says Gavyn Davies of the Financial Times, and the U.S. taking some of the most aggressive steps so far in its effort to keep the economy afloat. “The increase in fiscal spending and loans in the US this year alone will reach more than 10 per cent of gross domestic product,” Davies writes, “larger than the rise in the federal deficit through 2008 and 2009.”
Low interest rates mean the relief and stimulus efforts will likely be affordable, as long as the Federal Reserve absorbs the increased debt. “It is likely, given present economic conditions, that part of the rise in public debt ends up on central bank balance sheets for a very long time,” Davies says.


thefiscaltimes--2020-04-02--Poll of the Day: A Pandemic-Driven Pickup in Support for ‘Medicare for All’

As the coronavirus sweeps across the country and ravages the U.S. economy , support for “ Medicare for All ” @ @ @ @ @ of registered voters , its highest level in about nine months , according to a @ @ @ @ @ over a third of voters oppose the single-payer plan , but , for the first @ @ @ @ @ a majority of independents favor it .
The poll found that about 40 % of @ @ @ @ @ pandemic has made them more likely to support both the Affordable Care Act and universal @ @ @ @ @ 44 % of Republicans say the outbreak has made them less likely to support the @ @ @ @ @ 1,997 registered voters was conducted March 27 to 29 and has a margin of error @ @ @ @ @

As the coronavirus sweeps across the country and ravages the U.S. economy, support for “Medicare for All” has risen to 55% of registered voters, its highest level in about nine months, according to a Morning Consult/Politico survey. Just over a third of voters oppose the single-payer plan, but, for the first time since June 2019, a majority of independents favor it.
The poll found that about 40% of voters say that the coronavirus pandemic has made them more likely to support both the Affordable Care Act and universal health care proposals. But 44% of Republicans say the outbreak has made them less likely to support the ACA.
The poll of 1,997 registered voters was conducted March 27 to 29 and has a margin of error of 2 percentage points.


thefiscaltimes--2020-04-01--The Scramble Is On to Send Millions of Coronavirus Checks

Congress last week approved legislation to send millions of Americans coronavirus relief payments and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Sunday that the money would start arriving “ within three weeks.
” The good news is that the IRS will be able to send the coronavirus rebates easily to the roughly 80 % of tax filers who have provided the agency with their direct deposit information .
Complicating matters , The Washington Post ’ s Heather Long reports that the Trump administration is requiring Americans who get Social Security to file a tax return to receive their payment .
And for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t provided the IRS with their direct deposit information or don ’ t have bank accounts , sending out those billions of dollars — and doing it “ as rapidly as possible , ” as the new law directs — requires overcoming some significant and long-standing tech challenges .
The Post ’ s Tony Romm reports that officials are scrambling to get it done and looking to set up a website to people to enter the data needed to get their checks : “ [ T ] he Treasury Department ’ s ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systems it is still bringing online .
In a matter of days , federal officials must craft a website for some people to enter their banking information , beef up their security so that malicious actors can ’ t steal sensitive financial data , and brace to be bombarded by questions from Americans who aren ’ t sure what they ’ re owed and how to obtain the money .
… “ But tight timelines — and the potential for tech troubles — suggest the payments could come out in a staggered fashion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ account data on file with the government could receive payments quickly , but millions of others might have to wait months for the money , which can range up to $ 1,200 for an individual , depending on their income .
… ” “ The race to release $ 250 billion in coronavirus stimulus aid has cast a new light on a long-understood problem : The machinery of Washington often is lumbering , and in some cases , digitally deficient , complicating even the most well-intentioned attempts to provide Americans relief in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at The Washington Post .

Congress last week approved legislation to send millions of Americans coronavirus relief payments and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Sunday that the money would start arriving “within three weeks.” The good news is that the IRS will be able to send the coronavirus rebates easily to the roughly 80% of tax filers who have provided the agency with their direct deposit information.
Complicating matters, The Washington Post’s Heather Long reports that the Trump administration is requiring Americans who get Social Security to file a tax return to receive their payment. And for millions of other Americans who haven’t provided the IRS with their direct deposit information or don’t have bank accounts, sending out those billions of dollars — and doing it “as rapidly as possible,” as the new law directs — requires overcoming some significant and long-standing tech challenges.
The Post’s Tony Romm reports that officials are scrambling to get it done and looking to set up a website to people to enter the data needed to get their checks:
“[T]he Treasury Department’s ability to meet that congressional mandate hinges on systems it is still bringing online. In a matter of days, federal officials must craft a website for some people to enter their banking information, beef up their security so that malicious actors can’t steal sensitive financial data, and brace to be bombarded by questions from Americans who aren’t sure what they’re owed and how to obtain the money. …
“But tight timelines — and the potential for tech troubles — suggest the payments could come out in a staggered fashion. Many Americans who already have bank account data on file with the government could receive payments quickly, but millions of others might have to wait months for the money, which can range up to $1,200 for an individual, depending on their income. …”
“The race to release $250 billion in coronavirus stimulus aid has cast a new light on a long-understood problem: The machinery of Washington often is lumbering, and in some cases, digitally deficient, complicating even the most well-intentioned attempts to provide Americans relief in an economic crisis.”
Read the full story at The Washington Post.


thefiscaltimes--2020-04-01--About That Infrastructure Package ...

About That Infrastructure Package ...

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday that the next phase of coronavirus stimulus legislation should include at least $ 760 billion over five years for water projects , broadband and transportation as well as $ 10 billion for community health centers and money for housing and education .
“ We need to invest in our infrastructure to address some of the critical impacts and vulnerabilities that have been laid bare by the coronavirus , ” Pelosi said on a call with reporters , according to Bloomberg News .
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC something similar Wednesday , per Politico @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rebuild the country .
And with interest rates low , that ’ s something that is very important to him .
We ’ ve been discussing this for the last year , with the Democrats and the Republicans .
I ’ ve had ongoing conversations with [ House Ways and Means Committee Chairman ] Richie Neal on this .
We ’ ll continue to have those conversations .
So , we expect there will be more bills .
And we think it is a great time now to invest in infrastructure.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on the infrastructure plan House Democrats outlined in late January , is “ probably in the same ballpark ” as President Trump ’ s call Tuesday morning for a $ 2 trillion infrastructure package , given that the Democratic plan is for five years while the president ’ s ( presumably ) is spread over 10 years .
So infrastructure should be easy peasy , right ?
Of course not .
As Politico notes , we ’ re still a long way from consensus on the next phase of coronavirus stimulus — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obstacle to getting there , as Republicans are likely to rebuff provisions resembling the “ Green New Deal.
” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy reportedly said Wednesday that Republicans stand ready to work in a bipartisan fashion to fight the effects of the coronavirus , but he also warned against “ continued attempts to force partisan objectives into our response . ''
And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that he prefers to see how Congress ’ s last coronavirus package works before turning to additional legislation .
McConnell also said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow this to be an opportunity for the Democrats to achieve unrelated policy items that they would not otherwise be able to pass.
” The bottom line : Everybody supports the idea of an infrastructure package in principle , but the critical details — how much to spend , what to spend it on and how to pay for it — are where past efforts have broken down .
Will the coronavirus crisis provide enough incentive to overcome those differences and push through something big ?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday that the next phase of coronavirus stimulus legislation should include at least $760 billion over five years for water projects, broadband and transportation as well as $10 billion for community health centers and money for housing and education.
“We need to invest in our infrastructure to address some of the critical impacts and vulnerabilities that have been laid bare by the coronavirus,” Pelosi said on a call with reporters, according to Bloomberg News.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC something similar Wednesday, per Politico: “The president very much wants to rebuild the country. And with interest rates low, that’s something that is very important to him. We’ve been discussing this for the last year, with the Democrats and the Republicans. I’ve had ongoing conversations with [House Ways and Means Committee Chairman] Richie Neal on this. We’ll continue to have those conversations. So, we expect there will be more bills. And we think it is a great time now to invest in infrastructure.”
Pelosi reportedly also said her proposal, based on the infrastructure plan House Democrats outlined in late January, is “probably in the same ballpark” as President Trump’s call Tuesday morning for a $2 trillion infrastructure package, given that the Democratic plan is for five years while the president’s (presumably) is spread over 10 years.
So infrastructure should be easy peasy, right? Of course not.
As Politico notes, we’re still a long way from consensus on the next phase of coronavirus stimulus — and climate politics could be a significant obstacle to getting there, as Republicans are likely to rebuff provisions resembling the “Green New Deal.”
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy reportedly said Wednesday that Republicans stand ready to work in a bipartisan fashion to fight the effects of the coronavirus, but he also warned against “continued attempts to force partisan objectives into our response." And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that he prefers to see how Congress’s last coronavirus package works before turning to additional legislation. McConnell also said that he’s “not going to allow this to be an opportunity for the Democrats to achieve unrelated policy items that they would not otherwise be able to pass.”
The bottom line: Everybody supports the idea of an infrastructure package in principle, but the critical details — how much to spend, what to spend it on and how to pay for it — are where past efforts have broken down. Will the coronavirus crisis provide enough incentive to overcome those differences and push through something big?


thefiscaltimes--2020-04-01--Trump Will Not Reopen Obamacare Exchanges

President Trump has decided not to reopen the state-level health insurance exchanges run by the federal government , a White House aide said Tuesday .
No reason for the decision was given , Politico reported .
Trump suggested last week that due to the coronavirus pandemic he was considering such a move , which would affect the 32 states that rely on HealthCare.gov to sell Obamacare plans to residents .
Nearly a dozen other states that run their own exchanges , including Massachusetts , New York and Washington , have reopened their insurance marketplaces as they grapple with a surge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical care .
Under normal circumstances , the exchanges close at the end of the enrollment period in December .
The Affordable Care Act allows for people who lost their private health insurance because they were laid off to sign up for publicly subsidized plans throughout the year .
But millions of Americans who have gone without insurance , or who have less expensive short-term plans that may provide little coverage for hospitalization , may now want to sign up for comprehensive insurance amid the pandemic emergency .
Trump continues to oppose the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by his predecessor , and his administration supports an ongoing lawsuit that , if successful , would invalidate the Affordable Care Act in its entirety .

President Trump has decided not to reopen the state-level health insurance exchanges run by the federal government, a White House aide said Tuesday. No reason for the decision was given, Politico reported.
Trump suggested last week that due to the coronavirus pandemic he was considering such a move, which would affect the 32 states that rely on HealthCare.gov to sell Obamacare plans to residents. Nearly a dozen other states that run their own exchanges, including Massachusetts, New York and Washington, have reopened their insurance marketplaces as they grapple with a surge in job losses and increased demand for medical care. Under normal circumstances, the exchanges close at the end of the enrollment period in December.
The Affordable Care Act allows for people who lost their private health insurance because they were laid off to sign up for publicly subsidized plans throughout the year. But millions of Americans who have gone without insurance, or who have less expensive short-term plans that may provide little coverage for hospitalization, may now want to sign up for comprehensive insurance amid the pandemic emergency.
Trump continues to oppose the landmark health care program signed into law by his predecessor, and his administration supports an ongoing lawsuit that, if successful, would invalidate the Affordable Care Act in its entirety.


thefiscaltimes--2020-03-31--Economic Outlook Has Grown Even Darker, Goldman Sachs Says

The economy is expected to shrink at an annualized rate of 34 % in the second quarter this year , according to the latest estimate from economists at Goldman Sachs .
The new analysis paints a darker picture of where the economy is headed than even the notably pessimistic report from Goldman released less than two weeks ago , which predicted a 24 % decline in GDP on an annualized basis in the second quarter .
Goldman says that the `` sky-high jobless claims numbers '' along with anecdotal evidence of weakness led to the most recent revision .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on an annualized basis in the first quarter , worse than the 6 % decline they predicted in the previous report .
As this CNBC chart makes clear , that would mean that the first two quarters of 2020 would be the worst for GDP growth since 1948 by a considerable margin .
For the full year , Goldman projects a 6.2 % decline in GDP , which would be the worst annual figure since the Great Depression .
Unemployment is also seen as coming in worse than expected .
The Goldman team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of June , but now foresees it rising to 15 % .
Light at the end of the tunnel : The economists say that the current emergency monetary and fiscal programs are setting the stage for a rapid recovery in the second half of the year , and could produce a 19 % jump in economic activity on an annualized basis in the third quarter , up from the 12 % rate projected in the last report .
If that scenario pans out , the third quarter would be the best quarter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or maybe not : Some economists are starting to doubt that there will be a V-shaped recovery along the lines predicted by Goldman Sachs .
“ We have no certainty the virus will be gone by the end of the second quarter , ” Nobel prizewinner Joseph Stiglitz told Bloomberg News .
If the pandemic “ lasts through the summer , then all the effects will be amplified ” and the economy will continue to suffer .
Instead of a V-shaped recovery , with a sharp decline followed by an equally sharp rise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zandi is forecasting something more like a “ Nike swoosh.
” Zandi thinks the economy could drop 25 % in the second quarter , rebound about 15 % in the third , but then stall , limping along for an extended period of time .
“ Past pandemics lasted years , not months , ” says Tom Orlik , chief economist at Bloomberg Economics .
“ Scientists at Imperial College London are warning containment measures may have to stay in place for 18 months .
”

The economy is expected to shrink at an annualized rate of 34% in the second quarter this year, according to the latest estimate from economists at Goldman Sachs.
The new analysis paints a darker picture of where the economy is headed than even the notably pessimistic report from Goldman released less than two weeks ago, which predicted a 24% decline in GDP on an annualized basis in the second quarter. Goldman says that the "sky-high jobless claims numbers" along with anecdotal evidence of weakness led to the most recent revision.
The economists expect GDP to shrink 9% on an annualized basis in the first quarter, worse than the 6% decline they predicted in the previous report. As this CNBC chart makes clear, that would mean that the first two quarters of 2020 would be the worst for GDP growth since 1948 by a considerable margin.
For the full year, Goldman projects a 6.2% decline in GDP, which would be the worst annual figure since the Great Depression.
Unemployment is also seen as coming in worse than expected. The Goldman team had projected 9% unemployment by the end of June, but now foresees it rising to 15%.
Light at the end of the tunnel: The economists say that the current emergency monetary and fiscal programs are setting the stage for a rapid recovery in the second half of the year, and could produce a 19% jump in economic activity on an annualized basis in the third quarter, up from the 12% rate projected in the last report. If that scenario pans out, the third quarter would be the best quarter for growth since at least 1948.
Or maybe not: Some economists are starting to doubt that there will be a V-shaped recovery along the lines predicted by Goldman Sachs. “We have no certainty the virus will be gone by the end of the second quarter,” Nobel prizewinner Joseph Stiglitz told Bloomberg News. If the pandemic “lasts through the summer, then all the effects will be amplified” and the economy will continue to suffer.
Instead of a V-shaped recovery, with a sharp decline followed by an equally sharp rise, Moody’s Analytics economist Mark Zandi is forecasting something more like a “Nike swoosh.” Zandi thinks the economy could drop 25% in the second quarter, rebound about 15% in the third, but then stall, limping along for an extended period of time.
“Past pandemics lasted years, not months,” says Tom Orlik, chief economist at Bloomberg Economics. “Scientists at Imperial College London are warning containment measures may have to stay in place for 18 months.”