dailysignal--2020-09-16--Why the Trump Administration Needs to Embrace New, Faster COVID-19 Tests

We ’ ve come a long way over the past eight months since the first recorded U.S. case of COVID-19 on Jan. 20 .
We now have both the knowledge and the technology needed to move forward confidently .
That path should be created immediately with a heightened focus on new , rapid testing .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Learn more here .
We know we need a very targeted and tiered response because we have learned over time exactly who is most vulnerable .
We now know that people over age 65 account for 80 % of U.S. virus-related deaths .
This older population remains the most vulnerable : 55 % of deaths have occurred in nursing homes and long-term care facilities .
People with comorbidities are especially at risk of dying .
Children rarely have severe illness .
We also now know how person-to-person transmission takes place ; namely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coughs , sneezes , or talks .
We also know that people who do not appear sick can still spread the virus .
All of these data points add up to significant information that clarifies best practices for public health .
Additionally , what we do know helps us focus on what we still don ’ t know .
The big uncertainty now is : Who has the virus and who does not ?
That combination creates both risks and fear about how safe it is to interact with others the way we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back many from resuming normal life .
The British are currently conducting a large study of 20,000 households where everyone over the age of 2 is tested once a week for COVID-19 .
The results from April to July revealed that only 1 in 4,000 was positive for COVID-19 .
The vast majority ( 67 % ) of those testing positive did not know they had it and were unwitting vectors for their neighbors and community .
The implication ?
For each person who has a serious medical problem , 3,999 people have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clarity and focus to our path forward because we can solve that problem with widespread , rapid screening tests , which let you know in minutes if you ’ re negative or positive for the virus .
That ’ s a sharp improvement over some widely used tests , which can take days to return results .
There have been some vitally important developments recently , with potentially transformative possibilities .
For example , a new , rapid SalivaDirect test , developed by Yale and approved by the Food and Drug Administration , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yale has made the technology publicly available to every lab .
It ’ s much easier to do these tests .
They use a saliva sample , rather than a deep nasal swab .
Initial reports suggest the results compare favorably in accuracy to the swab tests .
These rapid tests matter because they will allow low-risk people to have the confidence to resume their normal lives .
They ’ re especially well-suited for people who want to go to crowded situations , such as theaters , schools , airplanes , or some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you had screened negative , you could engage in activities with more assurance .
Rapid tests will need to be used alongside other mitigation measures , especially for people who are at high risk , but their use is potentially transformative in how we ’ re approaching our response to the virus .
To make rapid COVID-19 screening work , President Donald Trump should direct his administration to embrace the new tests and move quickly .
The FDA should quickly evaluate other new , rapid screening tests ; ideally , ones that work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with a result in hand immediately .
There are several such rapid tests available worldwide that are inexpensive to produce .
The FDA should work to get good ones on the U.S. market as quickly as possible .
The Department of Health and Human Services needs to explore redirecting funds already provided by Congress for testing toward these tests , so everyone who needs one can get one as often as needed .
Crucially , Americans need a consistent and clear message on how to protect themselves and others .
Specifically , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs to provide Americans with clear direction by outlining these guidelines .
Rapid screening is the missing piece in our response to date .
Rapid knowledge of who is testing negative will keep us safe and allow us to fully resume our lives .
With this technology , we don ’ t have to wait , as some have suggested , until a vaccine is available for wide use .
If we press ahead with emerging screening tests , we can conquer the paralyzing fears that are preventing Americans from returning to normal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic response , the world was focused on the need for ventilators for treatment , so the engine of American ingenuity and production ramped up and met that demand .
Today , a redirected focus is clear : We need rapid tests for every American .
It ’ s time for Trump to bring that focus .

We’ve come a long way over the past eight months since the first recorded U.S. case of COVID-19 on Jan. 20.
We now have both the knowledge and the technology needed to move forward confidently. That path should be created immediately with a heightened focus on new, rapid testing.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
We know we need a very targeted and tiered response because we have learned over time exactly who is most vulnerable. We now know that people over age 65 account for 80% of U.S. virus-related deaths. This older population remains the most vulnerable: 55% of deaths have occurred in nursing homes and long-term care facilities. People with comorbidities are especially at risk of dying. Children rarely have severe illness.
We also now know how person-to-person transmission takes place; namely, by droplets when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks. We also know that people who do not appear sick can still spread the virus.
All of these data points add up to significant information that clarifies best practices for public health. Additionally, what we do know helps us focus on what we still don’t know.
The big uncertainty now is: Who has the virus and who does not? That combination creates both risks and fear about how safe it is to interact with others the way we did pre-pandemic. That’s holding back many from resuming normal life.
The British are currently conducting a large study of 20,000 households where everyone over the age of 2 is tested once a week for COVID-19. The results from April to July revealed that only 1 in 4,000 was positive for COVID-19.
The vast majority (67%) of those testing positive did not know they had it and were unwitting vectors for their neighbors and community. The implication? For each person who has a serious medical problem, 3,999 people have an information problem.
This should bring clarity and focus to our path forward because we can solve that problem with widespread, rapid screening tests, which let you know in minutes if you’re negative or positive for the virus.
That’s a sharp improvement over some widely used tests, which can take days to return results.
There have been some vitally important developments recently, with potentially transformative possibilities.
For example, a new, rapid SalivaDirect test, developed by Yale and approved by the Food and Drug Administration, costs about $2 in supplies. Yale has made the technology publicly available to every lab.
It’s much easier to do these tests. They use a saliva sample, rather than a deep nasal swab. Initial reports suggest the results compare favorably in accuracy to the swab tests.
These rapid tests matter because they will allow low-risk people to have the confidence to resume their normal lives. They’re especially well-suited for people who want to go to crowded situations, such as theaters, schools, airplanes, or some workplaces.
If you knew everyone around you had screened negative, you could engage in activities with more assurance. Rapid tests will need to be used alongside other mitigation measures, especially for people who are at high risk, but their use is potentially transformative in how we’re approaching our response to the virus.
To make rapid COVID-19 screening work, President Donald Trump should direct his administration to embrace the new tests and move quickly. The FDA should quickly evaluate other new, rapid screening tests; ideally, ones that work like a home pregnancy test—done at home, with a result in hand immediately.
There are several such rapid tests available worldwide that are inexpensive to produce. The FDA should work to get good ones on the U.S. market as quickly as possible. The Department of Health and Human Services needs to explore redirecting funds already provided by Congress for testing toward these tests, so everyone who needs one can get one as often as needed.
Crucially, Americans need a consistent and clear message on how to protect themselves and others. Specifically, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention needs to provide Americans with clear direction by outlining these guidelines.
Americans in long-term care or nursing homes must get regular, frequent testing. Those in a high-risk health category (diabetics or over 65, for example) should take extra precautions even in low-contact situations; namely, wear a mask or face shield and carefully social distance. For routine situations of possible contact (at grocery stores, for example), Americans don’t need a screening test if they feel well, but they should wear a mask or face covering, and wash hands or use hand sanitizer. Before a high-contact situation (e.g., on an airplane or in a theater), Americans should get a rapid screening test first to increase safety and reduce fear.
Rapid screening is the missing piece in our response to date. Rapid knowledge of who is testing negative will keep us safe and allow us to fully resume our lives.
With this technology, we don’t have to wait, as some have suggested, until a vaccine is available for wide use. If we press ahead with emerging screening tests, we can conquer the paralyzing fears that are preventing Americans from returning to normal life.
In the early days of the pandemic response, the world was focused on the need for ventilators for treatment, so the engine of American ingenuity and production ramped up and met that demand.
Today, a redirected focus is clear: We need rapid tests for every American. It’s time for Trump to bring that focus.


dailysignal--2020-09-15--A New Test for COVID-19 Shows Promise

A New Test for COVID-19 Shows Promise

Another new test for COVID-19 was recently authorized—and this one could be a game-changer .
The Abbott Diagnostics BinaxNOW antigen test is a new point-of-care test that reportedly costs only $ 5 to administer , delivers results in as little as 15 minutes , and requires no laboratory equipment to perform .
That means it can be used in clinics far from commercial labs or without relying on a nearby hospital lab .
That last factor is key .
There are other quick COVID-19 tests on the market , but they have all required lab equipment that can be expensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be prohibitive in places that need tests most .
This kind of test is reminiscent of rapid flu tests that are ubiquitous in clinics .
They ’ ll give providers tremendous flexibility in testing for the disease in not just clinics , but with trained and licensed medical professionals , in schools , workplaces , camps , or any other number of places .
With other kinds of tests taking sometimes days to produce results , thanks to supply chain bottlenecks in parts of the country , innovations like this may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs a test can get one—fast .
So what ’ s new about this test ?
Most of the current tests detect viral RNA , the genetic material of SARS-CoV-2 .
This is a very accurate way of detecting the virus , but it requires lab equipment to break apart the virus and amplify the amount of genetic material to high enough levels for detection .
The BinaxNOW test detects antigens—proteins unique to the virus that are usually detectable whenever there is an active infection .
There are a small number of other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viral antigens rather than viral RNA .
But like the RNA tests , they also require using proprietary equipment to read the results .
This one only requires the test kit , which can be stored at room temperature , and a nasal swab that can be found in every clinic or medical facility .
Because this test is different from other COVID-19 tests , its production doesn ’ t require many of the extra supplies needed to make the test work—reagents or components—that are in high demand for the RNA-based tests .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ been a major cause of slow testing result turnaround times .
Abbott says it intends to produce 50 million tests per month starting in October .
That ’ s far more than the number tested in July , when we were breaking new testing records on a daily basis with approximately 23 million tests recorded .
But even if these tests are produced in the promised numbers , whether they ’ ll help depends on how they are distributed and employed .
There are some potential pitfalls with these tests .
The first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used at all by a clinic .
While the technology is different ( antigen versus RNA ) , they both require nasal swabs to collect a sample .
Unfortunately , nasal swabs have frequently been in short supply in areas trying to conduct large numbers of tests .
The other issue is that , while this test allows an outlying clinic to easily test patients for COVID-19 , no doctor ’ s office will schedule a patient with a suspected case of COVID-19 to walk into the waiting room to be tested .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ times more infectious than H1N1 influenza—clinics will almost certainly require special protocols for COVID-19 testing .
If a clinic is unable to accommodate suspected cases of COVID-19 , it ’ ll likely direct patients to local health department resources that are more likely to use RNA-based tests that need to be sent to commercial labs .
But those who use these tests , and future ones like it , now have the option to employ them in ways to best suit their needs .
Quick point-of-care tests , unbound by complex equipment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regime looks like when society shifts to catching new cases before outbreaks can occur .
In the meantime , if Abbott is able to meet its production goals , it could greatly alleviate backlogs in testing .
The important thing is that this kind of innovation continues to happen .
The Trump administration ’ s effort to clear out red tape is paying off .
It ’ s leading to private industry doing what it does best—figuring out how to help us beat the pandemic through new tests and treatments .
Whether the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remains to be seen , but the increasing number and variety of available tests is a welcome development working to wipe out COVID-19 in America .

Another new test for COVID-19 was recently authorized—and this one could be a game-changer.
The Abbott Diagnostics BinaxNOW antigen test is a new point-of-care test that reportedly costs only $5 to administer, delivers results in as little as 15 minutes, and requires no laboratory equipment to perform. That means it can be used in clinics far from commercial labs or without relying on a nearby hospital lab.
That last factor is key. There are other quick COVID-19 tests on the market, but they have all required lab equipment that can be expensive to maintain and operate, and costs can be prohibitive in places that need tests most.
This kind of test is reminiscent of rapid flu tests that are ubiquitous in clinics. They’ll give providers tremendous flexibility in testing for the disease in not just clinics, but with trained and licensed medical professionals, in schools, workplaces, camps, or any other number of places.
With other kinds of tests taking sometimes days to produce results, thanks to supply chain bottlenecks in parts of the country, innovations like this may be an important part of ensuring everyone who needs a test can get one—fast.
So what’s new about this test? Most of the current tests detect viral RNA, the genetic material of SARS-CoV-2. This is a very accurate way of detecting the virus, but it requires lab equipment to break apart the virus and amplify the amount of genetic material to high enough levels for detection. The BinaxNOW test detects antigens—proteins unique to the virus that are usually detectable whenever there is an active infection.
There are a small number of other tests on the market that also detect viral antigens rather than viral RNA. But like the RNA tests, they also require using proprietary equipment to read the results. This one only requires the test kit, which can be stored at room temperature, and a nasal swab that can be found in every clinic or medical facility.
Because this test is different from other COVID-19 tests, its production doesn’t require many of the extra supplies needed to make the test work—reagents or components—that are in high demand for the RNA-based tests. High demand for those test components have been a major cause of slow testing result turnaround times.
Abbott says it intends to produce 50 million tests per month starting in October. That’s far more than the number tested in July, when we were breaking new testing records on a daily basis with approximately 23 million tests recorded.
But even if these tests are produced in the promised numbers, whether they’ll help depends on how they are distributed and employed. There are some potential pitfalls with these tests.
The first issue is whether the test can be used at all by a clinic. While the technology is different (antigen versus RNA), they both require nasal swabs to collect a sample. Unfortunately, nasal swabs have frequently been in short supply in areas trying to conduct large numbers of tests.
The other issue is that, while this test allows an outlying clinic to easily test patients for COVID-19, no doctor’s office will schedule a patient with a suspected case of COVID-19 to walk into the waiting room to be tested.
As this disease is so infectious—approximately four times more infectious than H1N1 influenza—clinics will almost certainly require special protocols for COVID-19 testing. If a clinic is unable to accommodate suspected cases of COVID-19, it’ll likely direct patients to local health department resources that are more likely to use RNA-based tests that need to be sent to commercial labs.
But those who use these tests, and future ones like it, now have the option to employ them in ways to best suit their needs.
Quick point-of-care tests, unbound by complex equipment, may become part of what the testing regime looks like when society shifts to catching new cases before outbreaks can occur. In the meantime, if Abbott is able to meet its production goals, it could greatly alleviate backlogs in testing.
The important thing is that this kind of innovation continues to happen. The Trump administration’s effort to clear out red tape is paying off. It’s leading to private industry doing what it does best—figuring out how to help us beat the pandemic through new tests and treatments.
Whether the BinaxNOW test is a game-changer or not remains to be seen, but the increasing number and variety of available tests is a welcome development working to wipe out COVID-19 in America.
Originally published by RealClearHealth


dailysignal--2020-09-18--Rabbis Condemn Southern Poverty Law Center, Call on Amazon Smile to Drop It

Prominent Jewish rabbis—including leaders in the Rabbinical Alliance of America and Young Israel—are urging Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos to eject the Southern Poverty Law Center from the Amazon Smile program .
The Southern Poverty Law Center ostensibly strives to expose hate groups .
It rightly identifies numerous groups , such as the KKK and the Nation of Islam , as hateful , but it also leverages its credibility to wrongly apply that label to others .
It targets groups engaged in countering ideological extremism , which deprives itself and others of valuable allies in the fight against white supremacy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that reason , a chorus of Jewish leaders are decrying the Southern Poverty Law Center as “ uniquely detrimental and even dangerous to the Jewish community.
” Defamation is nothing new to the organization .
In 2018 , it paid $ 3.4 million and issued a public apology for calling Maajid Nawaz , executive director of the Quilliam Foundation , an “ anti-Muslim extremist.
” Nawaz is himself a Muslim who has devoted his life to fighting Islamism , white supremacy , and neo-Nazism .
How shameful that the organization nearly derailed his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the same publication , it called Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Policy Forum—one of the most reputable opponents of anti-Semitism— “ anti-Muslim.
” Pipes warned that the Southern Poverty Law Center has strayed far from its mission of defeating racism .
“ The SPLC has turned into a left-wing hatchet group , using its accumulated prestige to go after legitimate organizations and individuals .
Along the way , ironically , SPLC itself acquired some of the reprehensible characteristics it was created to fight .
The result is a hugely rich institution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d ’ etre or even a moral conscience .
It has become a parody of itself.
” Its inclusion in the Amazon Smile program arms the organization with funds to continue its defamatory endeavors .
The partnership fools an unsuspecting public into thinking that the Southern Poverty Law Center is a mainstream charity .
An unwarranted “ hate group ” label from the group poisons the public to the important message of the targeted organizations and dries up their financial support .
The Amazon Smile partnership only invites those dangerous consequences and gives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of respectability it doesn ’ t deserve .
Amazon should sever those ties .

Prominent Jewish rabbis—including leaders in the Rabbinical Alliance of America and Young Israel—are urging Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos to eject the Southern Poverty Law Center from the Amazon Smile program.
The Southern Poverty Law Center ostensibly strives to expose hate groups. It rightly identifies numerous groups, such as the KKK and the Nation of Islam, as hateful, but it also leverages its credibility to wrongly apply that label to others.
It targets groups engaged in countering ideological extremism, which deprives itself and others of valuable allies in the fight against white supremacy, anti-Semitism, and radical Islamism.
For that reason, a chorus of Jewish leaders are decrying the Southern Poverty Law Center as “uniquely detrimental and even dangerous to the Jewish community.”
Defamation is nothing new to the organization. In 2018, it paid $3.4 million and issued a public apology for calling Maajid Nawaz, executive director of the Quilliam Foundation, an “anti-Muslim extremist.” Nawaz is himself a Muslim who has devoted his life to fighting Islamism, white supremacy, and neo-Nazism. How shameful that the organization nearly derailed his worthy mission to eliminate such hate.
In the same publication, it called Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Policy Forum—one of the most reputable opponents of anti-Semitism—“anti-Muslim.”
Pipes warned that the Southern Poverty Law Center has strayed far from its mission of defeating racism.
“The SPLC has turned into a left-wing hatchet group, using its accumulated prestige to go after legitimate organizations and individuals. Along the way, ironically, SPLC itself acquired some of the reprehensible characteristics it was created to fight. The result is a hugely rich institution with a formidable reputation lacking a raison d’etre or even a moral conscience. It has become a parody of itself.”
Its inclusion in the Amazon Smile program arms the organization with funds to continue its defamatory endeavors. The partnership fools an unsuspecting public into thinking that the Southern Poverty Law Center is a mainstream charity. An unwarranted “hate group” label from the group poisons the public to the important message of the targeted organizations and dries up their financial support.
The Amazon Smile partnership only invites those dangerous consequences and gives the Southern Poverty Law Center a patina of respectability it doesn’t deserve. Amazon should sever those ties.


dailysignal--2020-09-18--How Trump Impeachment ‘Knocked Gun Control in the Head’

A little-noticed casualty of Democrats ’ impeachment push against President Donald Trump last year was gun control , Rep. Thomas Massie , R-Ky. , says .
In an interview for my book “ Abuse of Power : Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump , ” Massie noted that the president was ready to pull the trigger on a federal law allowing orders to disallow possession of a gun because of extreme risk , commonly known as a “ red flag law.
” “ I ’ ve told my colleagues , the one good thing to come out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the head , ” Massie said .
The impeachment was nearly certain to fail in the Senate .
But , Massie said , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , was up against progressives ’ strong demand for impeaching Trump , and she faced the “ choice of getting a major policy achievement for her side or jeopardizing her speakership.
” “ Red flag laws ” allow nonstate actors—such as family members , teachers , or employers—to request that a hearing be held on whether someone close to them should have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he or she is an extreme risk of danger to self or others .
Currently , 17 states and the District of Columbia have some such law , but no federal law of this type exists .
What follows is an adapted excerpt from my book “ Abuse of Power.
” In early August 2019 , two mass shootings in Dayton , Ohio , and El Paso , Texas , occurred within 13 hours of one another during one weekend , murdering 31 people and wounding dozens .
President Trump expressed actual enthusiasm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extreme-risk protection orders that allow authorities to confiscate guns in specific cases , such as when a known deranged person owns a firearm .
The National Rifle Association wasn ’ t thrilled , issuing a statement saying “ there needs to be real evidence of danger—and we can not sacrifice anyone ’ s constitutional rights without due process.
” The Second Amendment rights group added : “ It is not enough anymore to simply say that ‘ we need more background checks.
’ Considering both suspects in El Paso and Dayton passed them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and campaign rallies—not a call for constructive progress.
” The NRA has a good track record of winning arguments , but Trump said he thought the organization either would come along with him on red flag laws or stay neutral .
“ I think my base relies very much on common sense , and they rely on me in terms of telling them what ’ s happening , ” Trump told reporters outside the White House before boarding Marine One on Aug. 9 , 2019 .
“ I think meaningful background checks are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know .
Good , bad , or indifferent , I don ’ t want crazy people having guns.
” Referring to NRA Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre , Trump sounded a tad presumptuous , asserting , “ In the end , Wayne and the NRA will either be there or may be a little bit more neutral .
That would be OK , too.
” Clearly , a Democrat House would pass a measure that allowed for gun confiscation .
But Trump added that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the press , Trump seemed to think this was a unique opportunity where a Republican president would sign a gun control measure .
“ I think with a lot of the success we ’ ve had ; I think I ’ ve got a greater influence over the Senate and over the House .
I think we can get something really good done , ” Trump said .
“ I think we can have some really meaningful background checks .
We don ’ t want people who are mentally ill , people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want them having guns.
” Trump might have been correct that the NRA and Republican leadership eventually would be on board .
Perhaps the NRA was willing to have a throwdown with the president , but it risked alienating many of its members to do so , and worse , could risk damaging Trump and making an anti-Second Amendment Democrat president more likely .
Trump could have pressed the “ common sense ” angle that it was only taking guns from “ crazy people.
” Some activist and Republican members of Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy , R-Calif. , likely would not challenge the president on something he was committed to , and would whip enough of their caucus to vote with almost all Democrats to pass the measure .
A substantial number of progressives in Congress likely would have become born-again Second Amendment advocates , fearful that Trump was trampling on civil liberties and eager to oppose him on anything .
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer , D-N.Y. , weren ’ t going to walk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump and Pelosi would have declared victory in a bipartisan win .
But for the left , it would have been a crowning achievement .
The capacity—at the federal level—to confiscate guns from anyone might have allowed Democrats to get their foot in the door .
All this , of course , would have to be adjudicated in court , but that ’ s never a certainty—particularly if Chief Justice John Roberts is reluctant to strike down congressionally enacted laws .
In this case , such reluctance would be more pronounced in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a red flag law was locked and loaded once the August recess was over and lawmakers returned in September 2019 .
Then impeachment fever erupted over Trump ’ s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy .
“ The biggest policy impact is gun control .
Trump was going to do a red flag law , ” Rep. Thomas Massie , R-Ky. , noted in an interview for this book .
It ’ s something Massie said he and many of his other conservative colleagues would have fought .
But the Kentucky Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Trump was under tremendous pressure to do gun control and work out a deal with Democrats , ” Massie said .
“ The speaker had the choice of getting a major policy achievement for her side or jeopardizing her speakership .
She chose her speakership.
” “ I ’ ve told my colleagues [ that ] the one good thing to come out of impeachment is that it knocked gun control in the head .
”

A little-noticed casualty of Democrats’ impeachment push against President Donald Trump last year was gun control, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., says.
In an interview for my book “Abuse of Power: Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump,” Massie noted that the president was ready to pull the trigger on a federal law allowing orders to disallow possession of a gun because of extreme risk, commonly known as a “red flag law.”
“I’ve told my colleagues, the one good thing to come out of impeachment is that it knocked gun control in the head,” Massie said.
The impeachment was nearly certain to fail in the Senate. But, Massie said, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was up against progressives’ strong demand for impeaching Trump, and she faced the “choice of getting a major policy achievement for her side or jeopardizing her speakership.”
“Red flag laws” allow nonstate actors—such as family members, teachers, or employers—to request that a hearing be held on whether someone close to them should have the right to possess firearms temporarily revoked because he or she is an extreme risk of danger to self or others.
Currently, 17 states and the District of Columbia have some such law, but no federal law of this type exists.
What follows is an adapted excerpt from my book “Abuse of Power.”
***
In early August 2019, two mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas, occurred within 13 hours of one another during one weekend, murdering 31 people and wounding dozens.
President Trump expressed actual enthusiasm for red flag laws, which are extreme-risk protection orders that allow authorities to confiscate guns in specific cases, such as when a known deranged person owns a firearm.
The National Rifle Association wasn’t thrilled, issuing a statement saying “there needs to be real evidence of danger—and we cannot sacrifice anyone’s constitutional rights without due process.”
The Second Amendment rights group added: “It is not enough anymore to simply say that ‘we need more background checks.’ Considering both suspects in El Paso and Dayton passed them, that is rhetoric for billionaire activists and campaign rallies—not a call for constructive progress.”
The NRA has a good track record of winning arguments, but Trump said he thought the organization either would come along with him on red flag laws or stay neutral.
“I think my base relies very much on common sense, and they rely on me in terms of telling them what’s happening,” Trump told reporters outside the White House before boarding Marine One on Aug. 9, 2019. “I think meaningful background checks are really positive. Politically, I don’t know. Good, bad, or indifferent, I don’t want crazy people having guns.”
Referring to NRA Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre, Trump sounded a tad presumptuous, asserting, “In the end, Wayne and the NRA will either be there or may be a little bit more neutral. That would be OK, too.”
Clearly, a Democrat House would pass a measure that allowed for gun confiscation. But Trump added that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was “totally on board.”
Talking to the press, Trump seemed to think this was a unique opportunity where a Republican president would sign a gun control measure.
“I think with a lot of the success we’ve had; I think I’ve got a greater influence over the Senate and over the House. I think we can get something really good done,” Trump said. “I think we can have some really meaningful background checks. We don’t want people who are mentally ill, people who are sick, we don’t want them having guns.”
Trump might have been correct that the NRA and Republican leadership eventually would be on board. Perhaps the NRA was willing to have a throwdown with the president, but it risked alienating many of its members to do so, and worse, could risk damaging Trump and making an anti-Second Amendment Democrat president more likely.
Trump could have pressed the “common sense” angle that it was only taking guns from “crazy people.”
Some activist and Republican members of Congress would have opposed the measure. But McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., likely would not challenge the president on something he was committed to, and would whip enough of their caucus to vote with almost all Democrats to pass the measure.
A substantial number of progressives in Congress likely would have become born-again Second Amendment advocates, fearful that Trump was trampling on civil liberties and eager to oppose him on anything.
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., weren’t going to walk away from a watershed gun control measure.
Trump and Pelosi would have declared victory in a bipartisan win. But for the left, it would have been a crowning achievement.
The capacity—at the federal level—to confiscate guns from anyone might have allowed Democrats to get their foot in the door.
All this, of course, would have to be adjudicated in court, but that’s never a certainty—particularly if Chief Justice John Roberts is reluctant to strike down congressionally enacted laws. In this case, such reluctance would be more pronounced in striking down a bipartisan law.
So a red flag law was locked and loaded once the August recess was over and lawmakers returned in September 2019.
Then impeachment fever erupted over Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
“The biggest policy impact is gun control. Trump was going to do a red flag law,” Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., noted in an interview for this book.
It’s something Massie said he and many of his other conservative colleagues would have fought.
But the Kentucky Republican doubts they would have been successful.
“Trump was under tremendous pressure to do gun control and work out a deal with Democrats,” Massie said. “The speaker had the choice of getting a major policy achievement for her side or jeopardizing her speakership. She chose her speakership.”
“I’ve told my colleagues [that] the one good thing to come out of impeachment is that it knocked gun control in the head.”


dailysignal--2020-09-18--The News As We Once Knew It Is Dead—of Self-Inflicted Wounds

In 2017 , the liberal Shorenstein Center on Media , Politics , and Public Policy at Harvard University found that 93 % of CNN ’ s coverage of the Trump administration was negative .
The center found similarly negative Trump coverage at other major news outlets .
The election year 2020 has only accelerated that asymmetrical bias—to the point that major newspapers and network- and cable-news organizations are now fused with the Joe Biden campaign .
Sometimes stories are covered only in terms of political agendas .
Take COVID-19 .
The media assure us that the Trump administration ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disaster .
But their conclusions are not supported by any evidence .
In the United States , the coronavirus death rate per million people is similar to , or lower than , most major European countries except Germany .
When the virus was at its worst , before the partisan campaign of this election year heated up , the governors in our four largest states had only compliments for the Trump administration .
Democrats Andrew Cuomo of New York and Gavin Newsom of California and Republicans Greg Abbott of Texas and Ron DeSantis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s cooperation with their own frontline efforts .
The most recent conclusions of impartial heads of federal agencies responsible for coordinating national and state policies are about the same .
Dr. Deborah Birx ( adviser to both the Obama and Trump administrations on responses to infectious diseases ) , Dr. Anthony Fauci ( director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ) , and Dr. Scott Gottlieb ( former head of the Food and Drug Administration ) have not faulted the Trump administration ’ s overall COVID-19 response .
They attribute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the origins and nature of the epidemic , incompetence at the World Health Organization , or the initial inability of bureaucracies to produce easily available and reliable test kits .
Prominent progressive Trump critics , such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , criticized the necessary Trump travel ban , yet Pelosi told people there was no reason to cancel planned travel to San Francisco ’ s Chinatown .
However , the real warping of the news is not just a matter of slanting coverage , but deliberately not covering the news at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has achieved the most stunning breakthroughs in Middle East diplomacy in over half a century .
Countries once hostile to Israel , such as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain , now formally recognize it .
Other Arab nations may follow .
Ancient existential enemies Kosovo and Serbia also agreed to normalize their relationship with Israel by signing economic agreements .
Yet none of these historic events have drawn much media attention .
All of them would have been canonized were they achievements of the Obama administration .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s plans to get out of the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate accord , to confront Chinese mercantilism , to forge new alliances between Israel and moderate Arab regimes , to isolate an ascendant Iran , to close the southern border to illegal immigration , to jawbone NATO alliance members into honoring their defense expenditure commitments , and to destroy ISIS and weaken Hezbollah were all impossible , counterproductive , or sheer madness .
An embargoed and bankrupt Iran is teetering on the brink .
Its international terrorist appendages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China is increasingly being ostracized by much of the world .
The U.S. has cut its carbon emissions , often at a rate superior to those nations still adhering to the Paris climate accord targets .
Cross-border illegal immigration has been reduced , according to many metrics .
ISIS was bombed into near dissolution .
Moderate regimes in the Middle East are ascendant .
Radical cliques like Hamas and al-Qaeda are not .
More NATO members are meeting their commitments .
The alliance ’ s aggregate defense investments are way up .
Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really .
Instead , every three or four days the public is fed a series of fantasy “ bombshells , ” much like the daily hysterias of the Robert Mueller investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump team and Russia—a two-year , media-hyped dud .
In recent weeks , the media warned us that Trump was dismantling the U.S .
Postal Service to disrupt mail-in balloting .
Trump , we are told , has decided never to concede his sure loss in November and might have to be forcibly removed , perhaps by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defiled the memory of fallen American soldiers in cemeteries abroad .
We are lectured that Trump supposedly never took COVID-19 seriously .
All of these stories were either demonstrably untrue , were supported only by anonymous sources , or were the sensationalism of authors hawking books .
Yet such concocted melodramas will continue each week up to Election Day , while fundamental geostrategic shifts abroad brought about by American diplomacy will by intent go unnoticed .
The news as we once understood it is dead .
It has been replaced by the un-news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who believe the noble ends of destroying Trump justify any biased means necessary—including destroying their own reputation and craft .

In 2017, the liberal Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard University found that 93% of CNN’s coverage of the Trump administration was negative.
The center found similarly negative Trump coverage at other major news outlets.
The election year 2020 has only accelerated that asymmetrical bias—to the point that major newspapers and network- and cable-news organizations are now fused with the Joe Biden campaign.
Sometimes stories are covered only in terms of political agendas. Take COVID-19.
The media assure us that the Trump administration’s handling of the pandemic has been a disaster. But their conclusions are not supported by any evidence.
In the United States, the coronavirus death rate per million people is similar to, or lower than, most major European countries except Germany.
When the virus was at its worst, before the partisan campaign of this election year heated up, the governors in our four largest states had only compliments for the Trump administration.
Democrats Andrew Cuomo of New York and Gavin Newsom of California and Republicans Greg Abbott of Texas and Ron DeSantis of Florida effusively praised the administration’s cooperation with their own frontline efforts.
The most recent conclusions of impartial heads of federal agencies responsible for coordinating national and state policies are about the same.
Dr. Deborah Birx (adviser to both the Obama and Trump administrations on responses to infectious diseases), Dr. Anthony Fauci (director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), and Dr. Scott Gottlieb (former head of the Food and Drug Administration) have not faulted the Trump administration’s overall COVID-19 response.
They attribute any shortcomings to initial global ignorance about the origins and nature of the epidemic, incompetence at the World Health Organization, or the initial inability of bureaucracies to produce easily available and reliable test kits.
Prominent progressive Trump critics, such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, criticized the necessary Trump travel ban, yet Pelosi told people there was no reason to cancel planned travel to San Francisco’s Chinatown.
However, the real warping of the news is not just a matter of slanting coverage, but deliberately not covering the news at all.
In the past two weeks, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has achieved the most stunning breakthroughs in Middle East diplomacy in over half a century.
Countries once hostile to Israel, such as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, now formally recognize it. Other Arab nations may follow. Ancient existential enemies Kosovo and Serbia also agreed to normalize their relationship with Israel by signing economic agreements.
Yet none of these historic events have drawn much media attention. All of them would have been canonized were they achievements of the Obama administration.
In 2017, the media suggested that Trump’s plans to get out of the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate accord, to confront Chinese mercantilism, to forge new alliances between Israel and moderate Arab regimes, to isolate an ascendant Iran, to close the southern border to illegal immigration, to jawbone NATO alliance members into honoring their defense expenditure commitments, and to destroy ISIS and weaken Hezbollah were all impossible, counterproductive, or sheer madness.
And now?
An embargoed and bankrupt Iran is teetering on the brink. Its international terrorist appendages, including Hezbollah, are broke.
China is increasingly being ostracized by much of the world.
The U.S. has cut its carbon emissions, often at a rate superior to those nations still adhering to the Paris climate accord targets.
Cross-border illegal immigration has been reduced, according to many metrics.
ISIS was bombed into near dissolution. Moderate regimes in the Middle East are ascendant. Radical cliques like Hamas and al-Qaeda are not.
More NATO members are meeting their commitments. The alliance’s aggregate defense investments are way up.
Is any of that considered news? Not really.
Instead, every three or four days the public is fed a series of fantasy “bombshells,” much like the daily hysterias of the Robert Mueller investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump team and Russia—a two-year, media-hyped dud.
In recent weeks, the media warned us that Trump was dismantling the U.S. Postal Service to disrupt mail-in balloting.
Trump, we are told, has decided never to concede his sure loss in November and might have to be forcibly removed, perhaps by the military.
We read that Trump defiled the memory of fallen American soldiers in cemeteries abroad. We are lectured that Trump supposedly never took COVID-19 seriously.
All of these stories were either demonstrably untrue, were supported only by anonymous sources, or were the sensationalism of authors hawking books.
Yet such concocted melodramas will continue each week up to Election Day, while fundamental geostrategic shifts abroad brought about by American diplomacy will by intent go unnoticed.
The news as we once understood it is dead.
It has been replaced by the un-news: a political narrative created by partisans who believe the noble ends of destroying Trump justify any biased means necessary—including destroying their own reputation and craft.
(C) 2020 Tribune Content Agency LLC


dailysignal--2020-09-21--Trump to Nominate Ginsburg Replacement From Short List of 5 After Funeral

President Donald Trump said Monday morning that he will announce his nominee for the Supreme Court either Friday or Saturday , and has narrowed the list of contenders to five .
In an interview on Fox News Channel ’ s “ Fox & Friends , ” Trump said the short delay was intended to allow time to pay respects to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , who died Friday at age 87 .
During the interview , Trump was asked about , among others , candidates such as Judge Amy Coney Barrett , 48 , of the U.S. Court of Appeals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lagoa , 52 , of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ; and Judge Allison Jones Rushing , 38 , of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit .
He didn ’ t deny that any of them was on his short list of five potential nominees , but declined to say specifically who the five are .
“ The final [ Senate ] vote should be taken , frankly , before the election , ” Trump said .
The postponement till Friday or Saturday would result in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ginsburg , the president said .
“ I think it will be on Friday or Saturday , and we want to pay respects .
It looks like we will have services on Thursday or Friday , as I understand it , and I think we should , with all due respect for Justice Ginsburg , wait for services to be over , ” he said .
Trump praised those on his short list .
“ No matter how you would look at it , these are the finest people in the nation—young people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the president said , adding : “ These are the smartest people , the smartest young people .
You like to go young , because they ’ re there for a long time.
” In an interview Sunday with ABC News , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , seemed open to the idea of impeaching Trump again as a means to slow down the Supreme Court nomination process .
“ I heard if I [ nominate ] , they ’ re going to impeach me , so they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do , ” he said , later adding , “ If they do it , I think my [ job approval ] numbers will go up .
”

President Donald Trump said Monday morning that he will announce his nominee for the Supreme Court either Friday or Saturday, and has narrowed the list of contenders to five.
In an interview on Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” Trump said the short delay was intended to allow time to pay respects to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Friday at age 87.
During the interview, Trump was asked about, among others, candidates such as Judge Amy Coney Barrett, 48, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit; Judge Barbara Lagoa, 52, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit; and Judge Allison Jones Rushing, 38, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.
He didn’t deny that any of them was on his short list of five potential nominees, but declined to say specifically who the five are.
“The final [Senate] vote should be taken, frankly, before the election,” Trump said.
The postponement till Friday or Saturday would result in the announcement coming after memorial services for Ginsburg, the president said.
“I think it will be on Friday or Saturday, and we want to pay respects. It looks like we will have services on Thursday or Friday, as I understand it, and I think we should, with all due respect for Justice Ginsburg, wait for services to be over,” he said.
Trump praised those on his short list.
“No matter how you would look at it, these are the finest people in the nation—young people, pretty young for the most part,” the president said, adding: “These are the smartest people, the smartest young people. You like to go young, because they’re there for a long time.”
In an interview Sunday with ABC News, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., seemed open to the idea of impeaching Trump again as a means to slow down the Supreme Court nomination process.
Trump almost welcomed the challenge.
“I heard if I [nominate], they’re going to impeach me, so they’re impeaching me for what constitutionally I have to do,” he said, later adding, “If they do it, I think my [job approval] numbers will go up.”


dailysignal--2020-09-22--4 Things to Know About Supreme Court Vacancies in Election Years

As the nation stands bitterly , even violently , divided with weeks to go before a hotly contested presidential election , another tremor hits when a Supreme Court justice of three decades dies .
This leaves the Republican president and fierce rival of the departed , Democrat-appointed justice to fill the vacancy .
In this instance , the Supreme Court was not at the top of President Abraham Lincoln ’ s priorities when Chief Justice Roger Taney died 27 days before the election of 1864 .
To this day , this is the closest to Election Day that a high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lose reelection , Lincoln ’ s term wouldn ’ t expire until March 1865 , so the prospect of a long lame-duck presidency loomed in those pre-20th Amendment days .
After winning reelection , Lincoln in December nominated his former treasury secretary , Salmon Chase , to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court .
The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Chase that same month .
Taney , the justice whom Chase succeeded , was confirmed by the Senate in March 1836 , during an election year , but President Andrew Jackson had nominated him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 29 times a Supreme Court vacancy has occurred in an election year , 22 different presidents nominated a replacement–either before the election or in the lame-duck period before the next presidential inauguration .
That total soon will be 30 , as President Donald Trump is poised by this Saturday to nominate a successor to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , who died Friday at 87 , just 46 days before the Nov. 3 election .
Here ’ s what to know about Supreme Court confirmations in presidential election years .
1 .
What Happens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate ?
Of those 29 times a vacancy on the high court occurred in an election year , 19 presidents nominated a successor when their party controlled the Senate .
In those cases , the Senate majority party confirmed their president ’ s nomination 17 times .
Most of those nominations , a total of 10 , occurred before Election Day .
The rest occurred after , during what is traditionally called the lame-duck session .
All but one pre-Election Day nominee were confirmed .
The exception came in 1968 , when President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice .
Chief Justice Earl Warren had announced he would retire , but remain on the court until a successor was confirmed .
Fortas became engulfed in a financial scandal , prompting a bipartisan group of senators to stall a vote even though Democrats controlled the chamber .
Johnson also was poised to nominate Homer Thornberry to fill the court vacancy created when Fortas moved up , but did not proceed because no vacancy occurred .
Like Johnson , other incumbent presidents–Barack Obama , Millard Filmore , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court nominations in elections years when they weren ’ t running for reelection .
2 .
How Many Presidents Nominated Justices While Running for Reelection ?
This is the situation Trump is in today .
In nearly every other case , like this one , the president ’ s party also controlled the Senate .
The last time an incumbent president facing reelection nominated a Supreme Court justice was in 1940 .
It took President Franklin Roosevelt just 11 days to get the Democrat-controlled Senate to confirm Frank Murphy in January to replace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the previous November .
Besides Roosevelt , three other 20th-century presidents made Supreme Court nominations when running for reelection when their party controlled the Senate , and all three were successful .
President William Howard Taft nominated Mahlon Pitney , who was confirmed by a Republican-controlled Senate in 1912 before Taft lost the election .
President Woodrow Wilson , Taft ’ s successor , in 1916 won confirmations in a Democrat-controlled Senate of two new justices , John Clarke and Louis Brandeis .
Wilson was reelected .
President Hebert Hoover , a Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 .
But Hoover won confirmation of Justice Benjamin Cardozo from a Republican-controlled Senate before an ugly Election Day for the Republican Party .
The first-ever such case might be a questionable example , because President George Washington was elected twice by acclamation .
But Washington technically was in a reelection year when he nominated two men for the Supreme Court in 1796 , both of them confirmed promptly by the Senate .
Washington nominated Oliver Ellsworth to be chief justice and Samuel Chase as associate justice .
The Federalists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington , controlled the Senate at the time .
President Thomas Jefferson ’ s Democratic-Republicans controlled the Senate when he was up for reelection in 1804 and nominated William Johnson in March .
The Senate confirmed Johnson that same month .
Jefferson was reelected late that year .
President Benjamin Harrison nominated George Shiras to the high court when his fellow Republicans held a Senate majority and they confirmed Shiras in July 1892 .
Harrison lost his reelection bid .
Four years earlier , Democrat Grover Cleveland convinced a Republican Senate to confirm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ middle of the 1888 presidential election campaign .
Cleveland lost reelection .
3 .
What Happens When the Opposition Party Controls the Senate ?
Of the 10 times a president nominated a justice when the opposing party controlled the Senate , only two of the nominees were confirmed .
Of those instances , the president nominated a replacement before Election Day six times .
The most recent example , of course , was President Barack Obama ’ s nomination of Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy of Justice Antonin Scalia , who died @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declined to hold a confirmation hearing for Garland .
Trump , as the new president elected that November , successfully nominated Neil Gorsuch .
The Whig-controlled Senate shot down four of President John Tyler ’ s five high court nominees in 1844 .
But it confirmed Samuel Nelson as a justice during the lame-duck session of February 1845 .
Tyler and the Whig Congress were fierce opponents .
President Millard Filmore had three nominations rejected by the Senate in 1852 .
Two other presidents whose party was out of power in the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the lame- duck session .
These were John Quincy Adams in 1829 and James Buchanan in 1861 .
Republican Rutherford B. Hayes , elected president in 1876 in a controversial outcome , saw his party lose the Senate .
In the lame-duck session in early 1881 , Hayes secured one confirmation to the Supreme Court ( Stanley Matthews ) but lost another ( William Woods ) .
In a case that overlaps categories with regard to an election year , President Dwight Eisenhower faced a Democrat-controlled Senate in 1956 .
In what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholic vote , Eisenhower recess-appointed William Brennan to the high court in October 1956 , shortly before his landslide reelection .
The Democratic Senate confirmed Brennan in March 1957 .
In another case that doesn ’ t easily fit , President Ronald Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court in November 1987 , after two previous failed nominations to fill the seat of Justice Lewis Powell , who retired in June 1987 .
The Democratic Senate confirmed Kennedy in February 1988 .
4 .
What Presidents Made Lame-Duck Picks After the Election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President John Adams ’ successful appointment of fellow Federalist John Marshall to be chief justice in January 1801 , after Adams lost reelection to Jefferson .
In his final days as president in March 1837 , Jackson , a two-term Democrat , secured Senate confirmations of two high court nominees , John Catron and William Smith .
Jackson ’ s successor , Democrat Martin Van Buren , lost his reelection bid in 1840 , but managed to get the Democratic Senate to confirm his nominee , Peter Daniel , to the high court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1872 , President Ulysses S. Grant nominated Justice Hunt to the Supreme Court , and saw him confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate that December .
After losing reelection , Benjamin Harrison nevertheless got Howell Jackson confirmed for the high court in February 1893 .
And after winning reelection to a full term , President Calvin Coolidge named Justice Harlan Stone in January 1925 .
He was confirmed the next month .

As the nation stands bitterly, even violently, divided with weeks to go before a hotly contested presidential election, another tremor hits when a Supreme Court justice of three decades dies.
This leaves the Republican president and fierce rival of the departed, Democrat-appointed justice to fill the vacancy.
In this instance, the Supreme Court was not at the top of President Abraham Lincoln’s priorities when Chief Justice Roger Taney died 27 days before the election of 1864.
To this day, this is the closest to Election Day that a high court vacancy has occurred.
Win or lose reelection, Lincoln’s term wouldn’t expire until March 1865, so the prospect of a long lame-duck presidency loomed in those pre-20th Amendment days.
After winning reelection, Lincoln in December nominated his former treasury secretary, Salmon Chase, to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Chase that same month.
Taney, the justice whom Chase succeeded, was confirmed by the Senate in March 1836, during an election year, but President Andrew Jackson had nominated him back in July 1835.
Of the 29 times a Supreme Court vacancy has occurred in an election year, 22 different presidents nominated a replacement—either before the election or in the lame-duck period before the next presidential inauguration.
That total soon will be 30, as President Donald Trump is poised by this Saturday to nominate a successor to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Friday at 87, just 46 days before the Nov. 3 election.
Here’s what to know about Supreme Court confirmations in presidential election years.
1. What Happens When President’s Party Controls the Senate?
Of those 29 times a vacancy on the high court occurred in an election year, 19 presidents nominated a successor when their party controlled the Senate. In those cases, the Senate majority party confirmed their president’s nomination 17 times.
Most of those nominations, a total of 10, occurred before Election Day. The rest occurred after, during what is traditionally called the lame-duck session. All but one pre-Election Day nominee were confirmed.
The exception came in 1968, when President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, nominated Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice.
Chief Justice Earl Warren had announced he would retire, but remain on the court until a successor was confirmed. Fortas became engulfed in a financial scandal, prompting a bipartisan group of senators to stall a vote even though Democrats controlled the chamber.
Johnson also was poised to nominate Homer Thornberry to fill the court vacancy created when Fortas moved up, but did not proceed because no vacancy occurred.
Like Johnson, other incumbent presidents—Barack Obama, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, and Andrew Jackson—made high court nominations in election years when they weren’t running for reelection.
2. How Many Presidents Nominated Justices While Running for Reelection?
This is the situation Trump is in today. In nearly every other case, like this one, the president’s party also controlled the Senate.
The last time an incumbent president facing reelection nominated a Supreme Court justice was in 1940. It took President Franklin Roosevelt just 11 days to get the Democrat-controlled Senate to confirm Frank Murphy in January to replace Justice Pierce Butler, who had died the previous November.
Besides Roosevelt, three other 20th-century presidents made Supreme Court nominations when running for reelection when their party controlled the Senate, and all three were successful.
President William Howard Taft nominated Mahlon Pitney, who was confirmed by a Republican-controlled Senate in 1912 before Taft lost the election.
President Woodrow Wilson, Taft’s successor, in 1916 won confirmations in a Democrat-controlled Senate of two new justices, John Clarke and Louis Brandeis. Wilson was reelected.
President Herbert Hoover, a Republican, lost to Roosevelt by a landslide in 1932. But Hoover won confirmation of Justice Benjamin Cardozo from a Republican-controlled Senate before an ugly Election Day for the Republican Party.
The first-ever such case might be a questionable example because President George Washington was elected twice by acclamation. But Washington technically was in a reelection year when he nominated two men for the Supreme Court in 1796, both of them confirmed promptly by the Senate.
Washington nominated Oliver Ellsworth to be chief justice and Samuel Chase as associate justice. The Federalists, a faction most closely associated with Washington, controlled the Senate at the time.
President Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans controlled the Senate when he was up for reelection in 1804 and nominated William Johnson in March. The Senate confirmed Johnson that same month. Jefferson was reelected late that year.
President Benjamin Harrison nominated George Shiras to the high court when his fellow Republicans held a Senate majority and they confirmed Shiras in July 1892. Harrison lost his reelection bid.
Four years earlier, Democrat Grover Cleveland convinced a Republican Senate to confirm Melville Fuller as chief justice in the middle of the 1888 presidential election campaign. Cleveland lost reelection.
3. What Happens When the Opposition Party Controls the Senate?
Of the 10 times a president nominated a justice when the opposing party controlled the Senate, only two of the nominees were confirmed. Of those instances, the president nominated a replacement before Election Day six times.
The most recent example, of course, was President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February 2016.
The Republican-controlled Senate declined to hold a confirmation hearing for Garland. Trump, as the new president elected that November, successfully nominated Neil Gorsuch.
The Whig-controlled Senate shot down four of President John Tyler’s five high court nominees in 1844. But it confirmed Samuel Nelson as a justice during the lame-duck session of February 1845. Tyler and the Whig Congress were fierce opponents.
President Millard Fillmore had three nominations rejected by the Senate in 1852.
Two other presidents whose party was out of power in the Senate failed to get high court nominees confirmed in the lame-duck session. These were John Quincy Adams in 1829 and James Buchanan in 1861.
Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, elected president in 1876 in a controversial outcome, saw his party lose the Senate. In the lame-duck session in early 1881, Hayes secured one confirmation to the Supreme Court (Stanley Matthews) but lost another (William Woods).
In a case that overlaps categories with regard to an election year, President Dwight Eisenhower faced a Democrat-controlled Senate in 1956.
In what was reported as an appeal to the Catholic vote, Eisenhower recess-appointed William Brennan to the high court in October 1956, shortly before his landslide reelection. The Democratic Senate confirmed Brennan in March 1957.
In another case that doesn’t easily fit, President Ronald Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court in November 1987, after two previous failed nominations to fill the seat of Justice Lewis Powell, who retired in June 1987. The Democratic Senate confirmed Kennedy in February 1988.
4. What Presidents Made Lame-Duck Picks After the Election?
The most consequential lame-duck nomination was President John Adams’ successful appointment of fellow Federalist John Marshall to be chief justice in January 1801, after Adams lost reelection to Jefferson.
In his final days as president in March 1837, Jackson, a two-term Democrat, secured Senate confirmations of two high court nominees, John Catron and William Smith.
Jackson’s successor, Democrat Martin Van Buren, lost his reelection bid in 1840, but managed to get the Democratic Senate to confirm his nominee, Peter Daniel, to the high court in February 1845.
After winning reelection in 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant nominated Ward Hunt to the Supreme Court, and saw him confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate that December.
After losing reelection, Benjamin Harrison nevertheless got Howell Jackson confirmed for the high court in February 1893.
And after winning reelection to a full term, President Calvin Coolidge named Justice Harlan Stone in January 1925. He was confirmed the next month.


dailysignal--2020-09-18--The News as We Once Knew It Is Dead—of Self-Inflicted Wounds


dailysignal--2020-09-22--What’s Needed for Health Care Reform: Personalized Care That Puts You and Your Doctor in Charge

The following is an open letter to the American people from 68 leaders participating in the Health Policy Consensus Group .
The full list of signatories follows the letter .
The nation faces a clear choice between two paths for America ’ s health care future : • One path is largely controlled by the government , where you get few choices and no options to escape .
• The other is controlled by you and doctors , leading to more choices , lower costs , and improved quality and access .
The first path builds on failure .
Approaches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the installment plan—double down on Obamacare ’ s failures , especially its soaring costs and tightening restrictions on access to the doctors and hospitals you want and need .
Make no mistake : No matter how their ideas are packaged , the left ’ s ultimate goal is Medicare for All—legislation sponsored by a majority of House Democrats that is full of empty promises and that would outlaw your existing coverage and put you on a government-run plan .
The second path reflects what Americans want—an innovative patient-focused approach that gives you more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s a path that frees patients and doctors to make care decisions and empowers innovators to produce better solutions at lower prices .
It makes insurance and care more affordable , while better protecting those with preexisting conditions and chronic health challenges .
Americans know we need real change .
You want to be in charge of your health care without asking Washington politicians or health insurance bureaucrats for permission .
Here ’ s how the Health Care Choices 2020 proposal makes you better off in at least 10 ways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you to keep your health coverage and doctors when you change or lose your job .
The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the need for people to have secure , portable health coverage .
Congress should codify and improve the administration ’ s Health Reimbursement Arrangement rule that allows employers to offer and employees to use tax-free dollars to buy insurance they can keep if they lose or change jobs .
Our plan also would let low-income patients use the value of their existing government coverage to enroll in better , private health plans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saves you money on health care and drugs by making the prices of health care transparent .
Medical care is one of the few services where you don ’ t know the price until weeks or months after you receive care .
Congress should codify the administration ’ s transparency rules so you can compare prices and obtain the best value—and share in the savings .
3 .
Eliminates your risk of surprise medical bills through transparency and truth in advertising .
Too many patients face high medical bills they did not expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Transparent prices and truth in advertising are the first steps to resolving that problem .
4 .
Benefits you financially when you choose lower-cost , high-quality care .
Prices for the same medical services can vary by thousands of dollars .
You should be able to benefit if you choose a lower-cost alternative that better suits your needs .
Congress should permanently eliminate regulatory barriers that keep you from being able to shop for value , and it should allow you to put any savings you receive into a health savings account .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lower premiums , and better access to doctors if you get sick , have a preexisting condition , and need financial help .
Today , Congress sends money to insurance companies and imposes burdensome mandates that drive up the cost of coverage for everyone .
Instead , Congress should give regulatory relief to states so they can reform their insurance markets .
And it should convert the subsidies that currently go to Medicaid expansion and health insurance tax credits into formula grants to the states to support coverage for lower-income and vulnerable patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Children ’ s Health Insurance Program , with built-in life protections so taxpayer money can ’ t be used to fund abortions .
6 .
Gives you access to specialized plans and care if you have a chronic illness .
Health insurance plans can perform better when they don ’ t try to be all things to all people .
Instead , we should encourage plans that include centers of excellence that cater to patients with specific medical problems , such as heart disease or diabetes .
Congress should clear away barriers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gives you more options to get insurance and care tailored to your needs and those of your family .
Government rules that dictate every detail of insurance policies keep consumers from selecting plans that make the most sense .
Congress should codify the administration ’ s rules on Association Health Plans and short-term policies , expanding the range of options for consumers to get coverage that meets their needs , including the ability to choose a direct primary care doctor or join a health care sharing ministry .
8 .
Makes it easier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care dollars .
Millions of Americans with high health costs are not eligible to contribute to health savings accounts , including seniors on Medicare .
Congress should create broad , flexible access to these accounts so anyone can use them in conjunction with more versatile plans , including those that provide high-quality care for chronic illness .
9 .
Makes telehealth permanent so you can talk “ virtually ” with medical care providers .
Telehealth allows patients to have access to their doctors without long waits , trips to emergency rooms , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a doctor ’ s office .
Regulators cleared away barriers to telehealth during the pandemic , and the number of virtual doctors ’ visits has soared in just a few months .
Congress and the states should make this temporary relief permanent and relax other barriers to unleash the full potential of new care delivery options .
10 .
Offers more choices , lower prices , and better quality by removing barriers to innovation and competition .
Policymakers at the federal and state levels have imposed burdensome mandates and regulations that discourage competition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the care of their choosing , and reward big businesses and special interests at the expense of patients .
Examples include laws such as certificate-of-need regulations that create barriers to entry and rules that prevent providers from practicing at the top of their licenses .
Congress and the states should lift those barriers to foster innovation and provide more and better options for consumers to get lower prices and better quality through competition .
The debate today is between those who want to exert even more government control over the health care sector @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favor giving patients more choice and control , and who support allowing the creativity we have seen in the COVID-19 crisis to flourish .
We want a system that encourages innovation and competition to provide consumers the best care at the lowest cost .
We welcome the opportunity to work with policymakers to shape the better , brighter health care future we believe can be ahead .
The Honorable Rick Santorum , former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania and Patriot Voices Newt Gingrich , former speaker of the House of Representatives

The following is an open letter to the American people from 81 leaders participating in the Health Policy Consensus Group. The full list of signatories follows the letter.
The nation faces a clear choice between two paths for America’s health care future:
One path is largely controlled by the government, where you get few choices and no options to escape.
The other is controlled by you and doctors, leading to more choices, lower costs, and improved quality and access.
The first path builds on failure. Approaches like a public option—”Medicare for All” on the installment plan—double down on Obamacare’s failures, especially its soaring costs and tightening restrictions on access to the doctors and hospitals you want and need.
Make no mistake: No matter how their ideas are packaged, the left’s ultimate goal is Medicare for All—legislation sponsored by a majority of House Democrats that is full of empty promises and that would outlaw your existing coverage and put you on a government-run plan.
The second path reflects what Americans want—an innovative patient-focused approach that gives you more control and better choices at lower costs.
It’s a path that frees patients and doctors to make care decisions and empowers innovators to produce better solutions at lower prices. It makes insurance and care more affordable, while better protecting those with preexisting conditions and chronic health challenges.
Americans know we need real change. You want to be in charge of your health care without asking Washington politicians or health insurance bureaucrats for permission.
Here’s how the Health Care Choices 2020 proposal makes you better off in at least 10 ways. The proposal:
1. Empowers you to keep your health coverage and doctors when you change or lose your job. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the need for people to have secure, portable health coverage. Congress should codify and improve the administration’s Health Reimbursement Arrangement rule that allows employers to offer and employees to use tax-free dollars to buy insurance they can keep if they lose or change jobs. Our plan also would let low-income patients use the value of their existing government coverage to enroll in better, private health plans, including employer-sponsored coverage.
2. Saves you money on health care and drugs by making the prices of health care transparent. Medical care is one of the few services where you don’t know the price until weeks or months after you receive care. Congress should codify the administration’s transparency rules so you can compare prices and obtain the best value—and share in the savings.
3. Eliminates your risk of surprise medical bills through transparency and truth in advertising. Too many patients face high medical bills they did not expect and did not agree to pay. Transparent prices and truth in advertising are the first steps to resolving that problem.
4. Benefits you financially when you choose lower-cost, high-quality care. Prices for the same medical services can vary by thousands of dollars. You should be able to benefit if you choose a lower-cost alternative that better suits your needs. Congress should permanently eliminate regulatory barriers that keep you from being able to shop for value, and it should allow you to put any savings you receive into a health savings account.
5. Gives you better options, lower premiums, and better access to doctors if you get sick, have a preexisting condition, and need financial help. Today, Congress sends money to insurance companies and imposes burdensome mandates that drive up the cost of coverage for everyone. Instead, Congress should give regulatory relief to states so they can reform their insurance markets. And it should convert the subsidies that currently go to Medicaid expansion and health insurance tax credits into formula grants to the states to support coverage for lower-income and vulnerable patients. The grants would be distributed through the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with built-in life protections so taxpayer money can’t be used to fund abortions.
6. Gives you access to specialized plans and care if you have a chronic illness. Health insurance plans can perform better when they don’t try to be all things to all people. Instead, we should encourage plans that include centers of excellence that cater to patients with specific medical problems, such as heart disease or diabetes. Congress should clear away barriers that block this option.
7. Gives you more options to get insurance and care tailored to your needs and those of your family. Government rules that dictate every detail of insurance policies keep consumers from selecting plans that make the most sense. Congress should codify the administration’s rules on Association Health Plans and short-term policies, expanding the range of options for consumers to get coverage that meets their needs, including the ability to choose a direct primary care doctor or join a health care sharing ministry.
8. Makes it easier for you to manage your own health care dollars. Millions of Americans with high health costs are not eligible to contribute to health savings accounts, including seniors on Medicare. Congress should create broad, flexible access to these accounts so anyone can use them in conjunction with more versatile plans, including those that provide high-quality care for chronic illness.
9. Makes telehealth permanent so you can talk “virtually” with medical care providers. Telehealth allows patients to have access to their doctors without long waits, trips to emergency rooms, and risking exposure to other sick patients in a doctor’s office. Regulators cleared away barriers to telehealth during the pandemic, and the number of virtual doctors’ visits has soared in just a few months. Congress and the states should make this temporary relief permanent and relax other barriers to unleash the full potential of new care delivery options.
10. Offers more choices, lower prices, and better quality by removing barriers to innovation and competition. Policymakers at the federal and state levels have imposed burdensome mandates and regulations that discourage competition, interfere with patients’ access to the care of their choosing, and reward big businesses and special interests at the expense of patients. Examples include laws such as certificate-of-need regulations that create barriers to entry and rules that prevent providers from practicing at the top of their licenses.
Congress and the states should lift those barriers to foster innovation and provide more and better options for consumers to get lower prices and better quality through competition.
The debate today is between those who want to exert even more government control over the health care sector and those, like us, who favor giving patients more choice and control, and who support allowing the creativity we have seen in the COVID-19 crisis to flourish.
We want a system that encourages innovation and competition to provide consumers the best care at the lowest cost. We welcome the opportunity to work with policymakers to shape the better, brighter health care future we believe can be ahead.
Signatories:*
Marie Fishpaw, The Heritage Foundation
Grace Marie Turner, Galen Institute
John Goodman, The Goodman Institute
Doug Badger, Galen Institute and The Heritage Foundation
Yuval Levin, American Enterprise Institute
Rick Santorum, former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania and Patriot Voices
Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House of Representatives
Joe DeSantis, Gingrich 360
Joel White, Council for Affordable Health Coverage
Nina Owcharenko Schaefer, The Heritage Foundation
Brian Blase, Galen Institute and Foundation for Government Accountability
Jonathan Imbody, Freedom2Care
Lanhee Chen, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Phil Kerpen, American Commitment
Richard Ralston, Americans for Free Choice in Medicine
Kyle Wingfield, Georgia Public Policy Foundation
Chris Denson, Georgia Public Policy Foundation
Amy Anderson, DNP, RN, Texas Christian University and University of North Texas Health Science Center
Bob Carlstrom, Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC) Action
Derek Monson, Sutherland Institute
Jessica Anderson, Heritage Action for America
Garrett Bess, Heritage Action for America
Sally Pipes, Pacific Research Institute
Kevin Pham, M.D., The Daily Signal
Bob Moffit, The Heritage Foundation
Ed Haislmaier, The Heritage Foundation
Steve White, M.D., Catholic Medical Association
Richard Manning, Americans for Limited Government
James Taylor, The Heartland Institute
Michael Parker, M.D., Catholic Medical Association
C.L. Gray, M.D., Physicians for Reform
Alfredo Ortiz, Job Creators Network
Dave Hoppe, Hoppe Strategies
Tim Chapman, Stand for America
Joe Antos, American Enterprise Institute
Saul Anuzis, 60 Plus Association
Louis Brown Jr., Christ Medicus
Dean Clancy, Americans for Prosperity
Ryan Ellis, Center for a Free Economy
Robert Fellner, Nevada Policy Research Institute
Beverly Gossage, HSA Benefits Consulting
John Hart, Patient Freedom Coalition
Rea Hederman, Buckeye Institute
Alex Hendrie, Americans for Tax Reform
Heather Higgins, Independent Women’s Voice
Carrie Lukas, Independent Women’s Forum
Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform
Mary Mahoney, 60 Plus Association
Andy Mangione, AMAC
Hadley Heath Manning, Independent Women’s Forum
James Martin, 60 Plus Association
Bethany Marcum, Alaska Policy Forum
Joel Noble, Samaritan Ministries International
Sal Nuzzo, The James Madison Institute
Ramesh Ponnuru, American Enterprise Institute
Nancy Piotter, Virginians for Quality Health Care
Chad Savage, M.D., Docs 4 Patient Care Foundation
Hal Scherz, M.D., Docs 4 Patient Care Foundation
Thomas Schatz, Citizens Against Government Waste
Jennifer Schubert-Akin, Steamboat Institute
Roger Stark, M.D., Washington Policy Center
Elizabeth Wright, Citizens Against Government Waste
Elizabeth Stelle, Commonwealth Foundation
Rep. Tan Parker, Texas House of Representatives
Jenny Beth Martin, Tea Party Patriots Action
Brian Miller, M.D., The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Charlie Sauer, Market Institute
Star Parker, Center for Urban Renewal and Education
Dick Patten, American Business Defense Council
Seton Motley, Less Government
Mario Lopez, Hispanic Leadership Fund
Robert Sade, M.D., Medical University of South Carolina
Robert Hamilton, M.D., FACS, Consumers for Health Care Reform
Sean Sullivan, Institute for Health and Productivity Management
Deborah Love, Institute for Health and Productivity Management
Lee Kurisko, M.D., Physicians for Reform
Dan Perrin, HSA Coalition
Linda Gorman, Independence Institute
Merrill Matthews, Institute for Policy Innovation
David Wilson, Wilson Partners
Betsy McCaughey, Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths
*Affiliations listed for identification purposes only.
This column has been updated to include additional signatories to the letter.


dailysignal--2020-09-22--Just 1% of US Counties Have Had Nearly Half of All COVID-19 Deaths

As Heritage Foundation researchers have demonstrated throughout the coronavirus pandemic , the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. has been heavily concentrated in a small number of states—and among a small number of counties within those states .
As our research has pointed out , state-level figures do not adequately describe the concentrated nature of the spread of COVID-19 .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
Moreover , even though the U.S. saw a rapid rise in cases during the summer , the overall levels of concentration have remained fairly consistent .
For instance , as of Sept. 15 , the 30 counties with the most COVID-19 deaths accounted for 26 % of all the cases in the U.S. and 40 % of all deaths , much greater than those counties ’ share of the population ( 18.4 % ) .
That is , just 1 % of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over 18 % of the population , are responsible for almost half of the country ’ s COVID-19 deaths .
The Heritage Foundation ’ s newest interactive graphic allows individuals to see more detail on these concentrations among the counties with the most deaths as well as those with the fewest .
For instance , the graphic allows users to select data from the five counties with the most deaths , all the way up to the 50 counties with the most deaths .
It also allows visitors to select data from counties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to counties with 10 or fewer .
Once a category is selected , the graphic provides the percentage of counties represented by that category , the percentage of the population contained in those counties , and the percentage of all U.S. COVID-19 deaths in those counties .
For example , as of Sept. 15 , 60.6 % of all counties are reporting 10 or fewer deaths .
These counties represent 13.1 % of the population , and account for only 2.7 % of total COVID-19 deaths in the U.S .
In contrast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 deaths represent just 0.2 % of all counties , but they account for 16 % of all COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. , nearly three times their population share of 6.5 % .
A list of the 50 counties with the most deaths is also provided , and that list has not changed very much since April .
New York , for instance , recorded 32,745 deaths as of Sept. 15 .
In fact , New York City has exerted an outsized influence on the national COVID-19-related death rate .
Removing New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. from eighth place in the world in deaths per million to 13th place .
The New York City metropolitan statistical area even has an outsized influence on the overall statistics for the state of New York .
Removing counties in the New York City metropolitan statistical area from the state ’ s totals drops the death rate for New York state to 348 per million , nearly 80 % lower than the state ’ s rate when the New York City metropolitan statistical area is included ( 1,674 ) .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would move New York state from second place to 23rd place in deaths per million .
The same exercise with COVID-19 cases in the New York City area has a similar effect on the state ’ s totals .
Specifically , when withholding the New York City metropolitan statistical area cases , the overall case rate for New York state plummets by 71 % ( from 22,065 to 6,505 ) , a level that is well below the national average .
Removing the New York City metropolitan statistical area moves the state of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among U.S. states to 42nd place .
As new Heritage Foundation research shows , as of Aug. 22 , the death rate of 2,196 per million residents recorded in the New York City metropolitan statistical area is almost twice that of its nearest rival , Detroit , at 1,177 .
Furthermore , the gap between New York City ’ s COVID-19-related death rate and those of cities that have experienced more recent outbreaks is even more pronounced .
The New York City metropolitan statistical area ’ s death rate is more than triple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have recorded higher rates of infection than New York .
It is four and a half times that of Los Angeles and nearly six times that of Houston .
Now that COVID-19 testing has increased dramatically and many state and local governments have relaxed stay-at-home orders , it ’ s even more critical to study the trends in deaths along with cases .
To make studying these trends easier , The Heritage Foundation now has two interactive COVID-19 trackers .
One tracks trends in cases ; the other tracks trends in deaths .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases—or deaths—is increasing or decreasing over the prior 14 days , and provides a visual depiction of new cases—or deaths—during that time period .
These tools help put the concentrated nature of the pandemic in perspective with county-level data .
They show just how difficult it can be to use only one metric to gauge whether a county—or state—is doing well .
Readers are invited to explore the information in the tracker and check back frequently for updates , as well as to explore the other visual tools on Heritage ’ s COVID-19 @ @ @

As Heritage Foundation researchers have demonstrated throughout the coronavirus pandemic, the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. has been heavily concentrated in a small number of states—and among a small number of counties within those states.
As our research has pointed out, state-level figures do not adequately describe the concentrated nature of the spread of COVID-19.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
Moreover, even though the U.S. saw a rapid rise in cases during the summer, the overall levels of concentration have remained fairly consistent.
For instance, as of Sept. 15, the 30 counties with the most COVID-19 deaths accounted for 26% of all the cases in the U.S. and 40% of all deaths, much greater than those counties’ share of the population (18.4%). That is, just 1% of the counties in the U.S., representing just over 18% of the population, are responsible for almost half of the country’s COVID-19 deaths.
The Heritage Foundation’s newest interactive graphic allows individuals to see more detail on these concentrations among the counties with the most deaths as well as those with the fewest.
For instance, the graphic allows users to select data from the five counties with the most deaths, all the way up to the 50 counties with the most deaths. It also allows visitors to select data from counties with no deaths, all the way up to counties with 10 or fewer.
Once a category is selected, the graphic provides the percentage of counties represented by that category, the percentage of the population contained in those counties, and the percentage of all U.S. COVID-19 deaths in those counties.
For example, as of Sept. 15, 60.6% of all counties are reporting 10 or fewer deaths. These counties represent 13.1% of the population, and account for only 2.7% of total COVID-19 deaths in the U.S.
In contrast, the five counties with the most COVID-19 deaths represent just 0.2% of all counties, but they account for 16% of all COVID-19 deaths in the U.S., nearly three times their population share of 6.5%.
A list of the 50 counties with the most deaths is also provided, and that list has not changed very much since April. New York, for instance, recorded 32,745 deaths as of Sept. 15.
In fact, New York City has exerted an outsized influence on the national COVID-19-related death rate. Removing New York City’s deaths moves the U.S. from eighth place in the world in deaths per million to 13th place.
The New York City metropolitan statistical area even has an outsized influence on the overall statistics for the state of New York.
Removing counties in the New York City metropolitan statistical area from the state’s totals drops the death rate for New York state to 348 per million, nearly 80% lower than the state’s rate when the New York City metropolitan statistical area is included (1,674).
That’s well below the national average and would move New York state from second place to 23rd place in deaths per million.
The same exercise with COVID-19 cases in the New York City area has a similar effect on the state’s totals.
Specifically, when withholding the New York City metropolitan statistical area cases, the overall case rate for New York state plummets by 71% (from 22,065 to 6,505), a level that is well below the national average.
Removing the New York City metropolitan statistical area moves the state of New York from sixth in case rate among U.S. states to 42nd place.
As new Heritage Foundation research shows, as of Aug. 22, the death rate of 2,196 per million residents recorded in the New York City metropolitan statistical area is almost twice that of its nearest rival, Detroit, at 1,177.
Furthermore, the gap between New York City’s COVID-19-related death rate and those of cities that have experienced more recent outbreaks is even more pronounced. The New York City metropolitan statistical area’s death rate is more than triple those of Phoenix and Miami—two cities that have recorded higher rates of infection than New York. It is four and a half times that of Los Angeles and nearly six times that of Houston.
Now that COVID-19 testing has increased dramatically and many state and local governments have relaxed stay-at-home orders, it’s even more critical to study the trends in deaths along with cases.
To make studying these trends easier, The Heritage Foundation now has two interactive COVID-19 trackers. One tracks trends in cases; the other tracks trends in deaths.
The trackers describe whether the trend of cases—or deaths—is increasing or decreasing over the prior 14 days, and provides a visual depiction of new cases—or deaths—during that time period.
These tools help put the concentrated nature of the pandemic in perspective with county-level data. They show just how difficult it can be to use only one metric to gauge whether a county—or state—is doing well. Readers are invited to explore the information in the tracker and check back frequently for updates, as well as to explore the other visual tools on Heritage’s COVID-19 resources page.