freebeacon--2020-03-19--Cash-for-Coronavirus Reveals a Philosophical Divide in the GOP

As the Senate works to shore up an economy decimated by the coronavirus , a surprising fight has emerged among Republicans : Is the government spending enough ?
Spurning payroll tax cuts and universal sick leave as insufficient , a trio of Republican senators—Mitt Romney ( Utah ) , Tom Cotton ( Ark . )
, and Josh Hawley ( Mo . )
—have floated plans to directly pay American families thousands of dollars .
The trio has the support of the White House , which has come out swinging for fiscal stimulus .
They face resistance , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( R. , S.C. ) , right-leaning economists , and the Wall Street Journal ‘ s editorial board , for whom their plans represent a dangerously liberal approach .
While the disagreement is prompted by the coronavirus crisis , it has roots in an ongoing dispute in the GOP .
For decades , Republicans have been skeptical of government transfers , reserving welfare for those most in need , and otherwise preferring to boost growth by shrinking the state .
A newer wave of party leaders , however , increasingly see a role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ directly with cash , rather than merely getting out of their way .
This difference of vision , part of a larger libertarian/populist contention , will doubtless continue to play out after the crisis is over , into the 2024 political season .
Republicans ' cash payment plans have come in a flurry over the past week .
On Monday , Romney proposed $ 1,000 onetime checks to every American adult .
He was followed on Tuesday by Cotton , who floated an income-capped onetime payment of $ 1,000 per adult and $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who called for direct payments to families in the amount of IRS estimates of average monthly expenses , up to $ 2,206 for a family of five .
These are expensive , expansive proposals , on par with or exceeding those floated by Democratic colleagues like Sens .
Bernie Sanders ( I. , Vt. ) and Kamala Harris ( D. , Calif. ) .
While such payouts have precedent in the Bush administration 's tax rebates in the 2001 and 2008 recessions , their aggressiveness indicates Republicans are worried less about fiscal restraint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and in general .
`` Privately , many Republican lawmakers have warmed to cash benefits as a proactive but non-bureaucratic way to support families , '' Samuel Hammond , who directs welfare policy at the libertarian-leaning Niskanen Institute and helped design the Hawley plan , told the Washington Free Beacon .
`` They have just been waiting for the right moment to act .
No one expected that moment to be a global pandemic , but here we are . ''
In part because they recognize this dynamic , the cash-for-coronavirus push has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R. , S.C. ) told reporters on Tuesday that cash payments were redundant and the government should focus on providing small business loans : `` I 'm not going to give a check on top of a check . ''
The Wall Street Journal editorial board on Tuesday issued its own condemnation of the instant cash plan , arguing that it is ill-suited to address `` genuine hardship , '' while `` some people who will get the $ 1,000 wo n't need it . ''
Conservative economists Steve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moore also opposed the idea , saying it and other transfers `` will inhibit growth and discourage work . ''
The common theme in these objections is a skepticism of what government welfare can achieve .
Rather than issuing universal payments , this more-libertarian camp argues it is better for the government to narrowly target support to those most in need , while otherwise staying out of the way to avoid hampering economic growth .
While the current dispute is prompted by the coronavirus , similar back-and-forths have flared up before .
During @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservatives , Sens .
Marco Rubio ( Fla. ) and Mike Lee ( Utah ) , attempted to trade an increase in corporate tax rates for an expansion of the child tax credit , in effect giving most families with children money back on their payroll taxes at the cost of making businesses pay more .
Rubio described the plan as `` pro-growth '' and `` pro-worker , '' an appeal to more populist conservative values .
But to those now opposing cash transfers , the idea of a child payment reeked of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for slowing tax reform and for introducing `` a disincentive to work [ that ] we would have thought antithetical to conservative principles , '' i.e.
, paying a tax refund to those who owe no federal tax .
The amendment was eventually defeated by a group of Republicans who joined with Democratic colleagues in opposition .
Just as with cash-for-coronavirus , among Republicans , the dispute was philosophical : Can universal payments help people , or should the government just stay out of the way ?
Joshua McCabe , a professor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ historical study of recent American welfare policy , told the Free Beacon that he sees the difference between the pro-payment and anti-payment camps as coming down to how they define `` welfare . ''
Other nations ' conservatives , McCabe said , make a distinction between `` social assistance '' —generous benefits for those most in need , like the unemployed—and `` income supplements '' —universal , but much smaller benefits to give families a leg up .
Conservatives in America have long synonymized the two but , McCabe argued , that may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP has been moving toward support for universal payments slowly over the past several years—first with the Rubio-Lee amendment , and most recently with Romney 's announcement of his support for a universal child benefit .
Now , McCabe said , `` We see a broad group of Senate Republicans , including Hawley and Cotton , pushing for similar measures . ''
The backing from the White House is likely to help move the ball even further for the pro-cash camp .
`` The key thing to watch is which group rank and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' McCabe said .
`` In the past , cash-friendly members would n't bother sticking their necks out and deviating from the orthodoxy because they had no cover and no concrete proposal to support .
Now they have a viable option .
That changes the calculus . ''
That seems to be making anti-cash GOPers nervous—about this fight , but also about their political futures .
Cotton , Hawley , and Rubio are all considered potential contenders for the 2024 Republican presidential primary .
A successful run by any of them could shift @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from its more libertarian , business-oriented wing and into the hands of the nascent populist , worker-focused tendency awakened by , among other things , the electoral success of President Donald Trump .
What that means is even as Congress works to avert economic catastrophe , everyone is still thinking about the long game .
The success of cash-for-coronavirus may be the nod some GOPers need to come out more strongly for measures like a child payment during better economic times .
That , in turn , would profoundly alter Republican orthodoxy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party itself .
Update 1:37 p.m. : This post was updated to more precisely describe the Rubio-Lee amendment .

As the Senate works to shore up an economy decimated by the coronavirus, a surprising fight has emerged among Republicans: Is the government spending enough?
Spurning payroll tax cuts and universal sick leave as insufficient, a trio of Republican senators—Mitt Romney (Utah), Tom Cotton (Ark.), and Josh Hawley (Mo.)—have floated plans to directly pay American families thousands of dollars. The trio has the support of the White House, which has come out swinging for fiscal stimulus. They face resistance, however, from libertarian-leaning opponents like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), right-leaning economists, and the Wall Street Journal's editorial board, for whom their plans represent a dangerously liberal approach.
While the disagreement is prompted by the coronavirus crisis, it has roots in an ongoing dispute in the GOP. For decades, Republicans have been skeptical of government transfers, reserving welfare for those most in need, and otherwise preferring to boost growth by shrinking the state. A newer wave of party leaders, however, increasingly see a role for government in supporting families and workers directly with cash, rather than merely getting out of their way. This difference of vision, part of a larger libertarian/populist contention, will doubtless continue to play out after the crisis is over, into the 2024 political season.
Republicans' cash payment plans have come in a flurry over the past week. On Monday, Romney proposed $1,000 onetime checks to every American adult. He was followed on Tuesday by Cotton, who floated an income-capped onetime payment of $1,000 per adult and $500 per child, and Hawley, who called for direct payments to families in the amount of IRS estimates of average monthly expenses, up to $2,206 for a family of five.
These are expensive, expansive proposals, on par with or exceeding those floated by Democratic colleagues like Sens. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and Kamala Harris (D., Calif.). While such payouts have precedent in the Bush administration's tax rebates in the 2001 and 2008 recessions, their aggressiveness indicates Republicans are worried less about fiscal restraint, and more about bolstering families—both now and in general.
"Privately, many Republican lawmakers have warmed to cash benefits as a proactive but non-bureaucratic way to support families," Samuel Hammond, who directs welfare policy at the libertarian-leaning Niskanen Center and helped design the Hawley plan, told the Washington Free Beacon. "They have just been waiting for the right moment to act. No one expected that moment to be a global pandemic, but here we are."
In part because they recognize this dynamic, the cash-for-coronavirus push has raised some coalition members' hackles. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) told reporters on Tuesday that cash payments were redundant and the government should focus on providing small business loans: "I'm not going to give a check on top of a check."
The Wall Street Journal editorial board on Tuesday issued its own condemnation of the instant cash plan, arguing that it is ill-suited to address "genuine hardship," while "some people who will get the $1,000 won't need it." Conservative economists Steve Forbes, Art Laffer, and Stephen Moore also opposed the idea, saying it and other transfers "will inhibit growth and discourage work."
The common theme in these objections is a skepticism of what government welfare can achieve. Rather than issuing universal payments, this more-libertarian camp argues it is better for the government to narrowly target support to those most in need, while otherwise staying out of the way to avoid hampering economic growth.
While the current dispute is prompted by the coronavirus, similar back-and-forths have flared up before. During the 2017 tax debate, two populist-minded conservatives, Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Mike Lee (Utah), attempted to trade an increase in corporate tax rates for an expansion of the child tax credit, in effect giving most families with children money back on their payroll taxes at the cost of making businesses pay more. Rubio described the plan as "pro-growth" and "pro-worker," an appeal to more populist conservative values.
But to those now opposing cash transfers, the idea of a child payment reeked of liberal welfare. The Journal blasted Rubio for slowing tax reform and for introducing "a disincentive to work [that] we would have thought antithetical to conservative principles," i.e., paying a tax refund to those who owe no federal tax. The amendment was eventually defeated by a group of Republicans who joined with Democratic colleagues in opposition. Just as with cash-for-coronavirus, among Republicans, the dispute was philosophical: Can universal payments help people, or should the government just stay out of the way?
Joshua McCabe, a professor of sociology at Endicott College who authored a historical study of recent American welfare policy, told the Free Beacon that he sees the difference between the pro-payment and anti-payment camps as coming down to how they define "welfare." Other nations' conservatives, McCabe said, make a distinction between "social assistance"—generous benefits for those most in need, like the unemployed—and "income supplements"—universal, but much smaller benefits to give families a leg up. Conservatives in America have long synonymized the two but, McCabe argued, that may be changing.
McCabe noted that the GOP has been moving toward support for universal payments slowly over the past several years—first with the Rubio-Lee amendment, and most recently with Romney's announcement of his support for a universal child benefit. Now, McCabe said, "We see a broad group of Senate Republicans, including Hawley and Cotton, pushing for similar measures." The backing from the White House is likely to help move the ball even further for the pro-cash camp.
"The key thing to watch is which group rank and file members end up gravitating toward," McCabe said. "In the past, cash-friendly members wouldn't bother sticking their necks out and deviating from the orthodoxy because they had no cover and no concrete proposal to support. Now they have a viable option. That changes the calculus."
That seems to be making anti-cash GOPers nervous—about this fight, but also about their political futures. Cotton, Hawley, and Rubio are all considered potential contenders for the 2024 Republican presidential primary. A successful run by any of them could shift the balance of power in the party away from its more libertarian, business-oriented wing and into the hands of the nascent populist, worker-focused tendency awakened by, among other things, the electoral success of President Donald Trump.
What that means is even as Congress works to avert economic catastrophe, everyone is still thinking about the long game. The success of cash-for-coronavirus may be the nod some GOPers need to come out more strongly for measures like a child payment during better economic times. That, in turn, would profoundly alter Republican orthodoxy on welfare—and, by extension, the party itself.
Update 1:37 p.m.: This post was updated to more precisely describe the Rubio-Lee amendment.


freebeacon--2020-03-19--‘The Party Is Over’: Florida Governor Shuts Down Spring Break

Florida Gov .
Ron DeSantis ( R. ) announced the state 's beaches will be closed to prevent defiant spring breakers from congregating and spreading the coronavirus , in accordance with CDC guidelines .
`` The message I think for spring breakers is the party is over in Florida , '' DeSantis said on Fox & Friends Thursday .
`` You ’ re not going to be able to congregate on any beach in the state .
Many of the hot spots that people like to go to , whether it ’ s Miami Beach , Fort Lauderdale , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time being . ''
On Wednesday the governor called for bars and clubs to close down , and for restaurants to limit their capacity .
His statement came after reports showed crowds of college students gathering in large groups on the beach while much of the rest of the country practiced social distancing to slow the spread of the deadly virus .
Students boasted that not even the pandemic could keep them from enjoying their spring break .
Some lamented the imposition the outbreak already had on their fun .
`` If I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At the end of the day , I 'm not going to let it stop me from partying , '' said Brady Sluder , a spring breaker from Ohio .
DeSantis offered a glimmer of hope to the disappointed spring breakers by saying they are welcome to return to the Sunshine State when there is no imminent danger from the pandemic .
The New York Times reported that new CDC data revealed 40 percent of patients hospitalized in the United States are between the ages of 20 and 54 .
The data show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of becoming seriously ill from the highly contagious virus , however .

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R.) announced the state's beaches will be closed to prevent defiant spring breakers from congregating and spreading the coronavirus, in accordance with CDC guidelines.
"The message I think for spring breakers is the party is over in Florida," DeSantis said on Fox & Friends Thursday. "You’re not going to be able to congregate on any beach in the state. Many of the hot spots that people like to go to, whether it’s Miami Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Clearwater Beach are closed entirely for the time being."
On Wednesday the governor called for bars and clubs to close down, and for restaurants to limit their capacity.
His statement came after reports showed crowds of college students gathering in large groups on the beach while much of the rest of the country practiced social distancing to slow the spread of the deadly virus. Students boasted that not even the pandemic could keep them from enjoying their spring break. Some lamented the imposition the outbreak already had on their fun.
"If I get corona, I get corona. At the end of the day, I'm not going to let it stop me from partying," said Brady Sluder, a spring breaker from Ohio.
'If I get corona, I get corona. At the end of the day, I'm not gonna let it stop me from partying": Spring breakers are still flocking to Miami, despite coronavirus warnings. https://t.co/KoYKI8zNDH pic.twitter.com/rfPfea1LrC — CBS News (@CBSNews) March 18, 2020
DeSantis offered a glimmer of hope to the disappointed spring breakers by saying they are welcome to return to the Sunshine State when there is no imminent danger from the pandemic.
The New York Times reported that new CDC data revealed 40 percent of patients hospitalized in the United States are between the ages of 20 and 54. The data show the elderly are still at greater risk of becoming seriously ill from the highly contagious virus, however.


freebeacon--2020-03-19--WaPo: Biden Didn’t Lie, He ‘Described His Stance Inaccurately’

A Washington Post fact-checker ruled Thursday that Joe Biden had n't lied when he said he supported a fracking ban during Sunday 's Democratic presidential debate .
Rather , Biden had simply `` described his fracking stance inaccurately . ''
The Post gave Biden `` Zero Pinocchios '' for saying during the most recent Democratic debate that he opposed fracking entirely .
Instead , the paper pointed to the Biden campaign 's explanation that the candidate had `` misspoken '' and that `` his position was the same as ever , '' opposing fracking only on public lands .
Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden 's remarks verbatim .
`` Critics pounced , '' the fact-checker wrote .
`` Republican operatives cut a short video of Biden ’ s remarks , to use as a cudgel in races against moderate House Democrats .
Sanders supporters accused Biden of misleading voters about his policy , which doesn ’ t ban fracking outright , as Sanders would . ''
During Sunday 's debate , Sanders said that he was pushing for a ban on future fracking .
`` So am I , '' Biden responded .
`` Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , '' Sanders replied .
Later , the Vermont senator said , `` You can not continue , as I understand , Joe believes , to continue fracking . ''
`` No more—no new fracking , '' Biden said in response .
`` The Trump campaign also used a Biden video snippet from the debate in a tweet claiming he would ‘ ban fracking , ' '' the Post complained .
`` Right-wing media outlets including the Washington Free Beacon , the Daily Caller and Fox News all reported on Biden 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tougher line . ''
The Free Beacon article quoting Biden 's remarks , to which the Post did not link , covered Biden 's statement during the debate that there 'd be `` no more drilling '' under his administration and only mentioned the fracking comments as an aside .
The Free Beacon accurately wrote that `` Biden , confronted by Sanders for not taking dramatic enough steps to combat climate change , also said there would be no ‘ new fracking ' and ‘ not another coal plant will be built ' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drilling comments , another instance of the candidate `` misspeaking '' in a way that made his environmental platform more palatable to his party 's left-wing base , was not acknowledged in the Post fact-check .
Biden previously said he `` misspoke , '' avoiding a bad rating from the Post fact-checker , after he was caught falsely claiming on two separate occasions that he opposed the Iraq war from the moment it started .
`` Regular readers know that we withhold Pinocchios when a politician admits error .
Biden was on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acknowledged that he misspoke , '' the Post wrote .
`` So we will leave this unrated and let readers make their own decision . ''

A Washington Post fact-checker ruled Thursday that Joe Biden hadn't lied when he said he supported a fracking ban during Sunday's Democratic presidential debate. Rather, Biden had simply "described his fracking stance inaccurately."
The Post gave Biden "Zero Pinocchios" for saying during the most recent Democratic debate that he opposed fracking entirely. Instead, the paper pointed to the Biden campaign's explanation that the candidate had "misspoken" and that "his position was the same as ever," opposing fracking only on public lands.
Meanwhile, the Post criticized those who quoted Biden's remarks verbatim. "Critics pounced," the fact-checker wrote. "Republican operatives cut a short video of Biden’s remarks, to use as a cudgel in races against moderate House Democrats. Sanders supporters accused Biden of misleading voters about his policy, which doesn’t ban fracking outright, as Sanders would."
During Sunday's debate, Sanders said that he was pushing for a ban on future fracking. "So am I," Biden responded.
"Well, I'm not sure your proposal does that," Sanders replied. Later, the Vermont senator said, "You cannot continue, as I understand, Joe believes, to continue fracking."
"No more—no new fracking," Biden said in response.
"The Trump campaign also used a Biden video snippet from the debate in a tweet claiming he would 'ban fracking,'" the Post complained. "Right-wing media outlets including the Washington Free Beacon, the Daily Caller and Fox News all reported on Biden's remarks as though he had adopted a tougher line."
The Free Beacon article quoting Biden's remarks, to which the Post did not link, covered Biden's statement during the debate that there'd be "no more drilling" under his administration and only mentioned the fracking comments as an aside. The Free Beacon accurately wrote that "Biden, confronted by Sanders for not taking dramatic enough steps to combat climate change, also said there would be no 'new fracking' and 'not another coal plant will be built' under his administration."
Biden's drilling comments, another instance of the candidate "misspeaking" in a way that made his environmental platform more palatable to his party's left-wing base, was not acknowledged in the Post fact-check.
Biden previously said he "misspoke," avoiding a bad rating from the Post fact-checker, after he was caught falsely claiming on two separate occasions that he opposed the Iraq war from the moment it started.
"Regular readers know that we withhold Pinocchios when a politician admits error. Biden was on his way to Four Pinocchios until his staff acknowledged that he misspoke," the Post wrote. "So we will leave this unrated and let readers make their own decision."


freebeacon--2020-03-19--Tulsi Gabbard Drops Out, Endorses Biden

Tulsi Gabbard Drops Out, Endorses Biden

( Reuters ) – U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard , an Iraq War veteran who campaigned to end `` forever wars , '' dropped her long-shot bid for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination on Thursday and endorsed front-runner Joe Biden in a video posted to Twitter .
`` Although I may not agree with the vice president on every issue , I know that he has a good heart , and he ’ s motivated by his love for our country and the American people , '' said Gabbard , 38 .
She has served as a congresswoman from Hawaii since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Congress .
The endorsement was somewhat of a surprise , given Gabbard ’ s past support for Biden ’ s main rival , Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont .
But she noted that recent state nominating contests had made it clear that Democratic voters had chosen the former vice president to take on Republican President Donald Trump in November ’ s general election .
Despite remaining mired far behind Biden and Sanders , Gabbard had stayed in the race even as better-known rivals dropped out .
In all nine state contests over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind other contenders who had already abandoned their campaigns but still appeared on ballots .
She earned her only two delegates by finishing second in American Samoa , where she was born .
Biden has won at least 971 delegates of the 1,991 delegates needed to clinch the nomination , while Sanders has collected 737 , according to Edison Research – an advantage for Biden that is widely seen as virtually unassailable .
Gabbard , a major in the Hawaii National Guard who was deployed in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` forever wars . ''
Despite her liberal views on most other issues , she has won praise from some Trump supporters and conservative media outlets , where she frequently appears as a commentator .
She has consistently opposed U.S. intervention in Syria , going so far as to meet secretly with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in January 2017 during President Barack Obama ’ s administration , sparking fierce criticism from some in her own party .
She became embroiled in an ugly war of words in October after 2016 Democratic presidential candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groomed '' to disrupt the 2020 election as a third-party candidate .
In January , Gabbard sued for defamation , seeking at least $ 50 million in damages from Clinton for harming her reputation by allegedly suggesting she was a Russian asset .
Reporting by Joseph Ax and Doina Chiacu ; Additional reporting by Ginger Gibson ; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Jonathan Oatis

By Doina Chiacu and Joseph Ax
(Reuters) - U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran who campaigned to end "forever wars," dropped her long-shot bid for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination on Thursday and endorsed front-runner Joe Biden in a video posted to Twitter.
"Although I may not agree with the vice president on every issue, I know that he has a good heart, and he’s motivated by his love for our country and the American people," said Gabbard, 38. She has served as a congresswoman from Hawaii since 2013 and is the first Hindu elected to Congress.
The endorsement was somewhat of a surprise, given Gabbard’s past support for Biden’s main rival, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. But she noted that recent state nominating contests had made it clear that Democratic voters had chosen the former vice president to take on Republican President Donald Trump in November’s general election.
Despite remaining mired far behind Biden and Sanders, Gabbard had stayed in the race even as better-known rivals dropped out. In all nine state contests over the last two weeks, she finished behind other contenders who had already abandoned their campaigns but still appeared on ballots.
She earned her only two delegates by finishing second in American Samoa, where she was born. Biden has won at least 971 delegates of the 1,991 delegates needed to clinch the nomination, while Sanders has collected 737, according to Edison Research - an advantage for Biden that is widely seen as virtually unassailable.
Gabbard, a major in the Hawaii National Guard who was deployed in Iraq from 2004 to 2005, is a fierce opponent of what she calls "forever wars." Despite her liberal views on most other issues, she has won praise from some Trump supporters and conservative media outlets, where she frequently appears as a commentator.
She has consistently opposed U.S. intervention in Syria, going so far as to meet secretly with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in January 2017 during President Barack Obama’s administration, sparking fierce criticism from some in her own party.
She became embroiled in an ugly war of words in October after 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Gabbard was being "groomed" to disrupt the 2020 election as a third-party candidate.
In January, Gabbard sued for defamation, seeking at least $50 million in damages from Clinton for harming her reputation by allegedly suggesting she was a Russian asset.
Reporting by Joseph Ax and Doina Chiacu; Additional reporting by Ginger Gibson; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Jonathan Oatis


freebeacon--2020-03-19--Labor Group Exploits Coronavirus to Fill Coffers

A labor group plans to line its pockets with donations sent to an emergency fund that claims to help service-sector workers affected by the coronavirus .
The forced closure of restaurants amid the coronavirus outbreak has forced the service sector to furlough or terminate its employees , a major economic disruption that is expected to cost workers between $ 300 to $ 400 million per month in New York City alone .
In response , One Fair Wage ( OFW ) , a labor group , set up the `` Emergency Coronavirus Affected Workers Support Fund '' on Monday to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tipped and service-sector workers in 10 U.S. states and the District of Columbia .
OFW 's `` no-strings-attached cash assistance '' for workers comes with some major caveats : Workers must sign up for OFW , `` participate in a confirmation interview '' to qualify , and kick back a portion of donations to organizers , while the group will pocket any unclaimed donations for its own purposes .
The group asked supporters to contribute to the fund , but it is unclear how much of that money will end up in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` administrative fee '' from all donations , according to the website .
Furthermore , OFW will pocket all unclaimed money to fuel its activism if not enough people claim the stipend .
`` Our goal is to raise a significant amount of money to temporarily meet some of the significant needs in our community , and get that money out the door quickly , '' the fundraising page said .
`` The One Fair Wage campaign will deduct a standard administrative fee and any unspent funds will support tipped worker organizing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a server from Seattle and a director of employee advocacy nonprofit Restaurant Workers of America , condemned the OFW campaign , arguing that the group was taking advantage of desperate service-sector workers to fill its coffers .
`` They 're taking advantage of the crisis to raise money for themselves .
That should tell anybody right there what kind of people these are , '' she told the Washington Free Beacon .
`` They 're wolves .
That 's what they are—predators . ''
OFW did not respond to request for comment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Restaurant Opportunities Centers United ( ROC ) .
While ROC frequently stages protests and strikes against restaurants , the federal government considers the group a nonprofit , exempting it from the regulations that govern a traditional labor union .
The controversial labor group pushes for tipped workers to receive the same base wage as other minimum wage workers .
ROC and OFW have been greeted by resistance from some of the workers they claim to represent .
In 2016 , ROC successfully spearheaded a Maine ballot measure to end the minimum wage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the measure following public outcry from tipped workers who said hiking the minimum wage would cut their pay and lead to job losses .
Joshua Chaisson , a Maine bartender and a director for Restaraunt Workers of America , compared the OFW 's coronavirus fund to the 2016 minimum wage hike campaign .
While donors may think they are helping struggling workers , they are actually giving to a `` grotesque money grab '' that is `` essentially a membership drive . ''
`` We were not surprised at all when we saw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Chaisson said .
`` To use a time of national crisis , especially for the hospitality industry , as a grotesque money grab to suit their own political agenda is appalling and disgusting . ''
ROC did not respond to a request for comment .
ROC and OFW have close ties with the Democratic establishment .
The Obama administration named Saru Jayaraman , ROC cofounder and OFW president , as a `` Champion of Change '' in 2014 .
Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden celebrated the $ 15 minimum wage ROC championed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders ( I. , Vt. ) and Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez publicly joined ROC 's campaign to hike the minimum wage in Maine .
Labor watchdogs criticized the group for exploiting the crisis to advance its own ends .
Michael Saltsman , managing director of the Employment Policies Institute , said ROC and OFW are undermining struggling workers .
`` The corona crisis is devastating to the hospitality industry , and both workers and employers need their legislators to provide direct aid and relief , '' Saltsman said .
`` This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunistic actions of ROC and One Fair Wage , which could siphon donations away from legitimate fundraisers in service of a membership drive for the failed tip credit elimination campaign . ''
Barron said that the best way to support tipped workers during this pandemic is to order food from local restaurants , rather than donate money to shady charities .
`` If people want to support restaurants … just stick with us until we get through this , '' she said .
`` And if they offer takeout , go grab takeout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a lot of restaurant 's lifeline through this , so just go and patronize them in that regard . ''

A labor group plans to line its pockets with donations sent to an emergency fund that claims to help service-sector workers affected by the coronavirus.
The forced closure of restaurants amid the coronavirus outbreak has forced the service sector to furlough or terminate its employees, a major economic disruption that is expected to cost workers between $300 to $400 million per month in New York City alone. In response, One Fair Wage (OFW), a labor group, set up the "Emergency Coronavirus Affected Workers Support Fund" on Monday to pay $213 in cash to any tipped and service-sector workers in 10 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. OFW's "no-strings-attached cash assistance" for workers comes with some major caveats: Workers must sign up for OFW, "participate in a confirmation interview" to qualify, and kick back a portion of donations to organizers, while the group will pocket any unclaimed donations for its own purposes.
The group asked supporters to contribute to the fund, but it is unclear how much of that money will end up in the hands of workers. It deducts an "administrative fee" from all donations, according to the website. Furthermore, OFW will pocket all unclaimed money to fuel its activism if not enough people claim the stipend.
"Our goal is to raise a significant amount of money to temporarily meet some of the significant needs in our community, and get that money out the door quickly," the fundraising page said. "The One Fair Wage campaign will deduct a standard administrative fee and any unspent funds will support tipped worker organizing and advocacy efforts."
Simone Barron, a server from Seattle and a director of employee advocacy nonprofit Restaurant Workers of America, condemned the OFW campaign, arguing that the group was taking advantage of desperate service-sector workers to fill its coffers.
"They're taking advantage of the crisis to raise money for themselves. That should tell anybody right there what kind of people these are," she told the Washington Free Beacon. "They're wolves. That's what they are—predators."
OFW did not respond to request for comment.
OFW is controlled by the former leaders of Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC). While ROC frequently stages protests and strikes against restaurants, the federal government considers the group a nonprofit, exempting it from the regulations that govern a traditional labor union. The controversial labor group pushes for tipped workers to receive the same base wage as other minimum wage workers.
ROC and OFW have been greeted by resistance from some of the workers they claim to represent. In 2016, ROC successfully spearheaded a Maine ballot measure to end the minimum wage exemption for tipped employees. Lawmakers overturned the measure following public outcry from tipped workers who said hiking the minimum wage would cut their pay and lead to job losses.
Joshua Chaisson, a Maine bartender and a director for Restaraunt Workers of America, compared the OFW's coronavirus fund to the 2016 minimum wage hike campaign. While donors may think they are helping struggling workers, they are actually giving to a "grotesque money grab" that is "essentially a membership drive."
"We were not surprised at all when we saw what is essentially a membership drive," Chaisson said. "To use a time of national crisis, especially for the hospitality industry, as a grotesque money grab to suit their own political agenda is appalling and disgusting."
ROC did not respond to a request for comment.
ROC and OFW have close ties with the Democratic establishment. The Obama administration named Saru Jayaraman, ROC cofounder and OFW president, as a "Champion of Change" in 2014. Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden celebrated the $15 minimum wage ROC championed in New York. Both Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez publicly joined ROC's campaign to hike the minimum wage in Maine.
Labor watchdogs criticized the group for exploiting the crisis to advance its own ends. Michael Saltsman, managing director of the Employment Policies Institute, said ROC and OFW are undermining struggling workers.
"The corona crisis is devastating to the hospitality industry, and both workers and employers need their legislators to provide direct aid and relief," Saltsman said. "This worthy cause isn't helped by the opportunistic actions of ROC and One Fair Wage, which could siphon donations away from legitimate fundraisers in service of a membership drive for the failed tip credit elimination campaign."
Barron said that the best way to support tipped workers during this pandemic is to order food from local restaurants, rather than donate money to shady charities.
"If people want to support restaurants … just stick with us until we get through this," she said. "And if they offer takeout, go grab takeout from them. That's going to be a lot of restaurant's lifeline through this, so just go and patronize them in that regard."


freebeacon--2020-03-19--SCIENCE: Global Warming May Be Our Only Hope of Containing Wuhan Virus

`` Global warming '' is a threat to humanity , according to libs .
But , assuming it 's real , it might be our only hope of containing the greater threat posed by the Wuhan bat virus .
This is n't some right-wing conspiracy—it 's basic science .
A recent scientific study of the Wuhan virus found that high temperature and high humidity `` significantly reduce the transmission of [ the Wuhan virus ] , '' much in the same way that warmer , wetter weather reduces the transmission of the flu .
According to the authors , their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summer and rainy season in the northern hemisphere can effectively reduce the transmission of the [ Wuhan bat virus ] . ''
That 's great news for humanity , but bad news for the libs , who have been celebrating the widespread adoption of `` social distancing '' and other measures to reduce the spread of the Wuhan virus .
The New York Times , among others , is embracing the pandemic as a tool to `` fight climate change , '' the phenomenon previously known as global warming .
`` Never waste @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so-called expert told the Times .
Others are hopeful the dramatic efforts to prevent the virus from spreading will be `` good for the planet '' by reducing carbon emissions from air travel in particular .
Unfortunately , science suggests that what 's good for the planet is bad for the collective health of the people living on it .
Efforts to speed the warming of the planet will be difficult in light of the restrictions imposed by most governments , but that does n't make them any less essential to conquering the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is best positioned to lead the way in this time of crisis , and all citizens should be doing what they can to pump carbon into the atmosphere .
If you 're driving less as a result of social distancing , consider leaving your car running overnight .
Idling engines are routinely cited as a significant contributor to global warming .
Driving up the demand for beef by eating as much of the delicious meat as possible is another way Americans can solve the Wuhan crisis .
The alleged environmental harm caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many reasons the libs want to cancel cows .
Restrictions on public gatherings should n't stop you from taking a stroll through an isolated wooded area and ( safely ) cutting down some trees with a chainsaw or rocket launcher .
Trees help remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere , encouraging the Wuhan virus to spread .
Take as many of them out as you can .
When you return home , do your part to save humanity by turning on every light in the house and running as many appliances as your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to purchase several adaptors to maximize your energy output .
Most of that electricity will be produced by coal-burning factories—another thing the libs hate that could end up saving millions of lives .
Speaking of lives , there are few things the libs hate more than babies .
Have some !
The libs will tell you having children is bad for the planet .
Tell the libs that their sanctimonious abstinence is exactly what the Wuhan virus wants .
If we all do our part , this new generation of Wuhan babies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and surging economy—all thanks to the brave sacrifices of previous generations , who decided to stop coddling the planet for the good of mankind .

"Global warming" is a threat to humanity, according to libs. But, assuming it's real, it might be our only hope of containing the greater threat posed by the Wuhan bat virus.
This isn't some right-wing conspiracy—it's basic science. A recent scientific study of the Wuhan virus found that high temperature and high humidity "significantly reduce the transmission of [the Wuhan virus]," much in the same way that warmer, wetter weather reduces the transmission of the flu. According to the authors, their findings indicate that "the arrival of summer and rainy season in the northern hemisphere can effectively reduce the transmission of the [Wuhan bat virus]."
That's great news for humanity, but bad news for the libs, who have been celebrating the widespread adoption of "social distancing" and other measures to reduce the spread of the Wuhan virus. The New York Times, among others, is embracing the pandemic as a tool to "fight climate change," the phenomenon previously known as global warming.
"Never waste even a tragic crisis," one so-called expert told the Times. Others are hopeful the dramatic efforts to prevent the virus from spreading will be "good for the planet" by reducing carbon emissions from air travel in particular. Unfortunately, science suggests that what's good for the planet is bad for the collective health of the people living on it.
Efforts to speed the warming of the planet will be difficult in light of the restrictions imposed by most governments, but that doesn't make them any less essential to conquering the Wuhan plague. America, as usual, is best positioned to lead the way in this time of crisis, and all citizens should be doing what they can to pump carbon into the atmosphere.
If you're driving less as a result of social distancing, consider leaving your car running overnight. Idling engines are routinely cited as a significant contributor to global warming. Driving up the demand for beef by eating as much of the delicious meat as possible is another way Americans can solve the Wuhan crisis. The alleged environmental harm caused by bovine flatulence is one of the many reasons the libs want to cancel cows.
Restrictions on public gatherings shouldn't stop you from taking a stroll through an isolated wooded area and (safely) cutting down some trees with a chainsaw or rocket launcher. Trees help remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, encouraging the Wuhan virus to spread. Take as many of them out as you can.
When you return home, do your part to save humanity by turning on every light in the house and running as many appliances as your outlet situation allows. You'll probably need to purchase several adaptors to maximize your energy output. Most of that electricity will be produced by coal-burning factories—another thing the libs hate that could end up saving millions of lives.
Speaking of lives, there are few things the libs hate more than babies. Have some! The libs will tell you having children is bad for the planet. Tell the libs that their sanctimonious abstinence is exactly what the Wuhan virus wants. If we all do our part, this new generation of Wuhan babies will inherit a vibrant, healthy society and surging economy—all thanks to the brave sacrifices of previous generations, who decided to stop coddling the planet for the good of mankind.


freebeacon--2020-03-18--Hickenlooper Ethics Hearing on Private Jet Use Postponed Due to Coronavirus

Democratic Senate hopeful John Hickenlooper 's ethics hearing has been pushed back more than a month due to coronavirus fears .
The Colorado Independent Ethics Commission announced Monday that the start of Hickenlooper 's hearing has been postponed from March 24 to April 28 , according to Colorado Politics .
The former presidential candidate is accused of accepting free private jet rides during his time as governor in violation of the state 's constitution .
The postponement could serve to hurt Hickenlooper , the favorite of national Democratic leadership , as the hearing was pushed closer to the state 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a strong primary challenge from progressive Andrew Romanoff .
In early March , Romanoff polled 25 points higher than Hickenlooper among voters in a primary preference vote taken during the state 's Democratic caucuses .
Hickenlooper 's troubles stem from complaints filed by the Public Trust Institute , a group created by Colorado 's former speaker of the house Frank McNulty .
The group alleged that Hickenlooper `` traveled on private jets owned by for-profit corporations both domestically and internationally and illegally accepted luxury hotel accommodations and expensive travel expenses from corporations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ accepted a number of private jet trips , including a chartered flight to Connecticut covered by Hickenlooper 's billionaire friend .
Another flight at issue was a 2018 charter to Italy for a Bilderberg meeting .
In November , the state 's ethics commission released a report that included interview segments , checks , and itineraries that would be used for the investigation .
Hickenlooper 's attorney sought to get the investigation dropped .
The commission unanimously voted against that request .
McNulty called the commission 's report a `` wake-up call '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chicago-style politics . ''
Public Trust said Hickenlooper 's chartered flights violated Amendment 41 of the Colorado Constitution , which bars public officials from accepting gifts valued above $ 53 per year .
A spokesman for the Colorado Republican Party told the Washington Free Beacon that voters will hold Hickenlooper accountable regardless of when the hearing occurs .
`` It does n't matter when this hearing takes place , '' said Joseph Jackson , communications director for the Colorado Republican Party .
`` Coloradans already know that John Hickenlooper abused his office and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unethical behavior at the ballot box . ''
Hickenlooper has denied the allegations .
His spokeswoman , Melissa Miller , has pinned his ethics troubles on Republican dark money groups .
The delay now pushes a decision on Hickenlooper 's actions closer to the state 's June 30 primary , as Romanoff 's campaign garners new attention .
`` The appetite on the part of the national establishment was to crush our little grassroots army here , and that didn ’ t turn out too well for them , '' Romanoff said at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Voters want somebody who is going to go and fight for them and not just do the bidding of some party boss or the bidding of a power broker in Washington . ''
Local reports out of the state indicate the hearing could be pushed back again at a later time .

Democratic Senate hopeful John Hickenlooper's ethics hearing has been pushed back more than a month due to coronavirus fears.
The Colorado Independent Ethics Commission announced Monday that the start of Hickenlooper's hearing has been postponed from March 24 to April 28, according to Colorado Politics. The former presidential candidate is accused of accepting free private jet rides during his time as governor in violation of the state's constitution.
The postponement could serve to hurt Hickenlooper, the favorite of national Democratic leadership, as the hearing was pushed closer to the state's June 30 Senate primary. Hickenlooper faces a strong primary challenge from progressive Andrew Romanoff. In early March, Romanoff polled 25 points higher than Hickenlooper among voters in a primary preference vote taken during the state's Democratic caucuses.
Hickenlooper's troubles stem from complaints filed by the Public Trust Institute, a group created by Colorado's former speaker of the house Frank McNulty. The group alleged that Hickenlooper "traveled on private jets owned by for-profit corporations both domestically and internationally and illegally accepted luxury hotel accommodations and expensive travel expenses from corporations."
The complaints allege that Hickenlooper improperly accepted a number of private jet trips, including a chartered flight to Connecticut covered by Hickenlooper's billionaire friend. Another flight at issue was a 2018 charter to Italy for a Bilderberg meeting.
In November, the state's ethics commission released a report that included interview segments, checks, and itineraries that would be used for the investigation. Hickenlooper's attorney sought to get the investigation dropped. The commission unanimously voted against that request.
McNulty called the commission's report a "wake-up call" and accused the former governor of "Chicago-style politics." Public Trust said Hickenlooper's chartered flights violated Amendment 41 of the Colorado Constitution, which bars public officials from accepting gifts valued above $53 per year.
A spokesman for the Colorado Republican Party told the Washington Free Beacon that voters will hold Hickenlooper accountable regardless of when the hearing occurs.
"It doesn't matter when this hearing takes place," said Joseph Jackson, communications director for the Colorado Republican Party. "Coloradans already know that John Hickenlooper abused his office and they will hold him accountable for his unethical behavior at the ballot box."
Hickenlooper has denied the allegations. His spokeswoman, Melissa Miller, has pinned his ethics troubles on Republican dark money groups.
The delay now pushes a decision on Hickenlooper's actions closer to the state's June 30 primary, as Romanoff's campaign garners new attention.
"The appetite on the part of the national establishment was to crush our little grassroots army here, and that didn’t turn out too well for them," Romanoff said at the time of the preference poll. "Voters want somebody who is going to go and fight for them and not just do the bidding of some party boss or the bidding of a power broker in Washington."
Local reports out of the state indicate the hearing could be pushed back again at a later time.


freebeacon--2020-03-20--Coronavirus Tests America’s Social Capacity

A few months after September 11 , 2001 , David Brooks went back and looked at coverage of Pearl Harbor for an article in the Weekly Standard ( `` After Pearl Harbor , '' December 10 , 2001 ) .
What he saw intrigued him .
A sense of unity and patriotism followed both surprise attacks .
But media after Pearl Harbor had none of the sorrow , sensitivity , and angst that filled the news , with reason , after 9/11 .
Recognizing the inevitable costs of war , Americans on the home front at the outset of World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on as usual .
They did not apologize or second-guess .
They soldiered on .
`` When you step back and contemplate the range of post-Pearl Harbor media , '' Brooks wrote , `` you are struck by how extraordinarily proud of itself America then was . ''
I revisited Brooks 's article this week while thinking about the differences between America during the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918-1919 and America during the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic today .
Some of the distinctions are self-evident .
America is far more wealthy , free , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We enjoy the benefits of incorporating half the population into our economy and society , of ending de jure anti-black racism , of attracting the best and most ambitious talent from across the globe .
We are no longer a rising power but a reluctant hegemon .
A raw deal awaits any American who trades places with a doppelgänger from midway through Woodrow Wilson 's second term .
What changed is the American ethos .
Expressive individualism replaced self-restraint .
Narcissism and the therapeutic sensibility triumphed over the reticence and sense of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and times where there is no safety net and death is a constant presence .
The culture of debunking , revisionism , and repudiation informs education , entertainment , art , and occasionally sport .
The size , scope , and ambition of the federal government and its managers is far greater now than it was then .
So are the public 's expectations of government capabilities and performance .
The institutions that stand between the individual and state have weakened where they have not crumbled .
Family , community , religion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them of their traditional functions .
The United States is beginning to shut down and self-isolate .
Its G7 partners range from states of quarantine ( Italy ) to lockdown ( France ) to closed borders ( Germany ) .
Countries do not make such decisions on a lark .
Nor is the reason for these extraordinary measures a secret .
What terrifies the authorities is the prospect of surges in infection that would push public health systems beyond capacity and result in mass death .
To prevent a medical catastrophe , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social capacity of America has received less attention .
The worst-case scenarios anticipate an epidemic that lasts until a vaccine can be mass produced 18 months from now .
Do we believe that American society could withstand until then the additional pressures that have been put on it over the past week ?
The typical discussion of how coronavirus will change your life focuses on a specific practice or sector of industry .
You hear a lot about telework , home schooling , vote by mail , or movies released on Video on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ piecemeal approach is understandable .
Perhaps the problem is so complex , the potential extent of the disruption so massive , that the way to approach it is to study one aspect at a time .
But an extended lockdown will affect more than activities .
It will warp institutions .
There is a debate over how Congress might operate under social distancing .
What about churches , synagogues , and mosques ?
Church attendance was falling before the virus .
Even if the pandemic were to revive the religious impulse , would-be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attend services .
Church finances—nonprofits in general—will be harmed .
In some cases , the damage will be irreparable .
The family enters this crisis beleaguered .
My American Enterprise Institute colleague Nicholas Eberstadt writes in National Affairs of `` the collapse of work for adult men , and the retreat from the world of work of growing numbers of men of conventional working age . ''
The recent improvements in the overall labor force participation rate will disappear if the economic fallout of the pandemic is large and enduring .
Long-term joblessness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marriage and to family formation .
And the two-parent family is the seedbed for the character formation of young people .
The social costs are enormous .
And they are mounting .
Bill de Blasio 's indecision over whether to close New York City schools revealed that these institutions perform parental functions as much as educational ones .
The school has become much more than a place of instruction .
It is the site of feeding , caring , and supervision ( if not disciplining ) of children .
Deprived of the shelter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young adults will have to look to parents for meals , instruction , and surveillance .
Are parents ready to fulfill the responsibilities assumed by the state ?
What will happen when parents return to work or look for new employment ?
Will teenagers obey a guidance or curfew that is not enforced under penalty of law ?
Large pools of nonworking or truant males are not associated with social or political stability .
But they loom large in our future .
The economic self-isolation of America can continue only for so long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans , as they have tended to do , revolt against strictures from above , how will authorities respond ?
None of the answers are comforting .
If the coronavirus overwhelms America 's social capacity , our government wo n't be in a position to choose between an economic crisis or a pandemic .
It will have both .

A few months after September 11, 2001, David Brooks went back and looked at coverage of Pearl Harbor for an article in the Weekly Standard ("After Pearl Harbor," December 10, 2001). What he saw intrigued him. A sense of unity and patriotism followed both surprise attacks. But media after Pearl Harbor had none of the sorrow, sensitivity, and angst that filled the news, with reason, after 9/11. Recognizing the inevitable costs of war, Americans on the home front at the outset of World War II were nonetheless eager to carry on as usual. They did not apologize or second-guess. They soldiered on. "When you step back and contemplate the range of post-Pearl Harbor media," Brooks wrote, "you are struck by how extraordinarily proud of itself America then was."
I revisited Brooks's article this week while thinking about the differences between America during the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918-1919 and America during the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic today. Some of the distinctions are self-evident. America is far more wealthy, free, and technologically advanced than it was then. We enjoy the benefits of incorporating half the population into our economy and society, of ending de jure anti-black racism, of attracting the best and most ambitious talent from across the globe. We are no longer a rising power but a reluctant hegemon. A raw deal awaits any American who trades places with a doppelgänger from midway through Woodrow Wilson's second term.
What changed is the American ethos. Expressive individualism replaced self-restraint. Narcissism and the therapeutic sensibility triumphed over the reticence and sense of tragedy that comes from living in places and times where there is no safety net and death is a constant presence. The culture of debunking, revisionism, and repudiation informs education, entertainment, art, and occasionally sport.
The size, scope, and ambition of the federal government and its managers is far greater now than it was then. So are the public's expectations of government capabilities and performance. The institutions that stand between the individual and state have weakened where they have not crumbled. Family, community, religion, and voluntary association attenuate as modernity deprives them of their traditional functions.
The United States is beginning to shut down and self-isolate. Its G7 partners range from states of quarantine (Italy) to lockdown (France) to closed borders (Germany). Countries do not make such decisions on a lark. Nor is the reason for these extraordinary measures a secret. What terrifies the authorities is the prospect of surges in infection that would push public health systems beyond capacity and result in mass death. To prevent a medical catastrophe, the authorities guarantee an economic one.
The social capacity of America has received less attention. The worst-case scenarios anticipate an epidemic that lasts until a vaccine can be mass produced 18 months from now. Do we believe that American society could withstand until then the additional pressures that have been put on it over the past week?
The typical discussion of how coronavirus will change your life focuses on a specific practice or sector of industry. You hear a lot about telework, home schooling, vote by mail, or movies released on Video on Demand rather than in theaters. This piecemeal approach is understandable. Perhaps the problem is so complex, the potential extent of the disruption so massive, that the way to approach it is to study one aspect at a time.
But an extended lockdown will affect more than activities. It will warp institutions. There is a debate over how Congress might operate under social distancing. What about churches, synagogues, and mosques? Church attendance was falling before the virus. Even if the pandemic were to revive the religious impulse, would-be prodigal sons won't be able to attend services. Church finances—nonprofits in general—will be harmed. In some cases, the damage will be irreparable.
The family enters this crisis beleaguered. My American Enterprise Institute colleague Nicholas Eberstadt writes in National Affairs of "the collapse of work for adult men, and the retreat from the world of work of growing numbers of men of conventional working age." The recent improvements in the overall labor force participation rate will disappear if the economic fallout of the pandemic is large and enduring. Long-term joblessness and lack of prospects are barriers to marriage and to family formation. And the two-parent family is the seedbed for the character formation of young people. The social costs are enormous. And they are mounting.
Bill de Blasio's indecision over whether to close New York City schools revealed that these institutions perform parental functions as much as educational ones. The school has become much more than a place of instruction. It is the site of feeding, caring, and supervision (if not disciplining) of children. Deprived of the shelter of the local school, children and young adults will have to look to parents for meals, instruction, and surveillance. Are parents ready to fulfill the responsibilities assumed by the state? What will happen when parents return to work or look for new employment? Will teenagers obey a guidance or curfew that is not enforced under penalty of law?
Large pools of nonworking or truant males are not associated with social or political stability. But they loom large in our future. The economic self-isolation of America can continue only for so long as American society permits. And if Americans, as they have tended to do, revolt against strictures from above, how will authorities respond? None of the answers are comforting. If the coronavirus overwhelms America's social capacity, our government won't be in a position to choose between an economic crisis or a pandemic. It will have both.


freebeacon--2020-03-20--Georgia Dem Sets Up Coronavirus Townhall Using Her Tennessee Phone Number

A Georgia Democrat , who has been accused of carpetbagging , used a Tennessee phone number to alert constituents of a coronavirus tele-townhall , according to a voicemail shared with the Washington Free Beacon .
Rep. Lucy McBath ( D. , Ga. ) left a voicemail to constituents of her suburban Atlanta district announcing the townhall Thursday , though she used a phone number with an eastern Tennessee area code .
McBath voted in Tennessee as recently as 2016 , and her husband was a permanent resident of the state during her 2018 bid to oust former Republican congresswoman Karen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , McBath for nearly two decades claimed a homestead exemption in suburban Atlanta , which allows permanent residents to decrease their property tax liabilities .
McBath was ordered to pay back-taxes after a 2019 audit found she did not qualify for the exemption from 2015 through 2018 , meaning she was not a resident of Georgia when she was elected to Congress .
McBath 's 2018 candidate financial disclosure listed two vehicles registered in Blount County , Tenn. , where her husband lived at the time .
Though the area code used in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not fall in Blount County , it did until 1999 , when state officials decided to split the county from the code 's section .
Property records indicate McBath 's husband lived in the county at the time of the change .
In addition , McBath 's husband owned a home in Chattanooga , Tenn. , which does use area code 423 , as recently as 2017 .
A relative of McBath currently lives in the home , according to property records .
McBath 's office did not respond to a request for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Tennessee phone number .
It is unclear if McBath will be holding the tele-townhall from the Volunteer State .
`` Hi , this is congresswoman Lucy McBath , '' the representative said in a voicemail obtained by the Washington Free Beacon .
`` I 'm calling you to invite you to participate in our coronavirus telephone townhall tomorrow . ''
The voicemail did not once mention the state of Georgia .
McBath 's residency was often disputed during her 2018 campaign , though she called the charges `` baseless . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a resident of Georgia in April , she dismissed questions about her residency in a statement to the Free Beacon .
`` Lucy has lived in her home in Marietta in the Sixth District since 2008 , '' her campaign said .
`` During the 2016 presidential cycle … she briefly changed her residency to Tennessee . ''
The statement did not address tax documents showing vehicle registrations , voter registrations , and driver 's license applications in other states .
After the 2019 audit determined McBath was not a resident of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state , the National Republican Congressional Committee sent the Democrat a Tennessee-themed gift bag to her home in the Volunteer State .
McBath signed for the gift on the morning of April 5 , 2019 .
The House of Representatives was in session the previous day .
McBath defeated Handel in Georgia 's Sixth Congressional District by just 1 point in 2018 .
The pair will face off again in November .

A Georgia Democrat, who has been accused of carpetbagging, used a Tennessee phone number to alert constituents of a coronavirus tele-townhall, according to a voicemail shared with the Washington Free Beacon.
Rep. Lucy McBath (D., Ga.) left a voicemail to constituents of her suburban Atlanta district announcing the townhall Thursday, though she used a phone number with an eastern Tennessee area code. McBath voted in Tennessee as recently as 2016, and her husband was a permanent resident of the state during her 2018 bid to oust former Republican congresswoman Karen Handel.
Despite her husband's residence, McBath for nearly two decades claimed a homestead exemption in suburban Atlanta, which allows permanent residents to decrease their property tax liabilities. McBath was ordered to pay back-taxes after a 2019 audit found she did not qualify for the exemption from 2015 through 2018, meaning she was not a resident of Georgia when she was elected to Congress.
McBath's 2018 candidate financial disclosure listed two vehicles registered in Blount County, Tenn., where her husband lived at the time. Though the area code used in McBath's voicemail to constituents—area code 423—does not fall in Blount County, it did until 1999, when state officials decided to split the county from the code's section. Property records indicate McBath's husband lived in the county at the time of the change.
In addition, McBath's husband owned a home in Chattanooga, Tenn., which does use area code 423, as recently as 2017. A relative of McBath currently lives in the home, according to property records.
McBath's office did not respond to a request for comment on why she left the voicemail from the Tennessee phone number. It is unclear if McBath will be holding the tele-townhall from the Volunteer State.
"Hi, this is congresswoman Lucy McBath," the representative said in a voicemail obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. "I'm calling you to invite you to participate in our coronavirus telephone townhall tomorrow." The voicemail did not once mention the state of Georgia.
McBath's residency was often disputed during her 2018 campaign, though she called the charges "baseless." Even after McBath was determined not to be a resident of Georgia in April, she dismissed questions about her residency in a statement to the Free Beacon.
"Lucy has lived in her home in Marietta in the Sixth District since 2008," her campaign said. "During the 2016 presidential cycle … she briefly changed her residency to Tennessee."
The statement did not address tax documents showing vehicle registrations, voter registrations, and driver's license applications in other states.
After the 2019 audit determined McBath was not a resident of Georgia when she was elected to represent the state, the National Republican Congressional Committee sent the Democrat a Tennessee-themed gift bag to her home in the Volunteer State. McBath signed for the gift on the morning of April 5, 2019. The House of Representatives was in session the previous day.
McBath defeated Handel in Georgia's Sixth Congressional District by just 1 point in 2018. The pair will face off again in November.


freebeacon--2020-03-20--Gun-Rights Group Files Suit Challenging Coronavirus Shutdown

A top gun-rights group is challenging the state-ordered shutdown of `` non-essential '' businesses because of the coronavirus outbreak , and leading Second Amendment advocates say more could be in store .
Brandon Combs , president of the Firearms Policy Coalition , said his group filed a case on Friday asking the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to block Democratic governor Tom Wolf from including gun stores in a statewide shutdown of `` non-essential '' businesses .
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has told Gov .
Wolf he has until 8 p.m. on Friday to respond to the arguments in the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the most essential business types in the United States , '' Combs told the Washington Free Beacon .
`` There is no ‘ except in emergencies ’ clause in the Constitution and the government can not shut down the people ’ s right to keep and bear arms . ''
Government mandates shuttering businesses in several states have raised the prospect that more gun retailers could be ordered to shut their doors .
California and Pennsylvania have already started shutting down businesses other than grocery stores , gas stations , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wolf described them .
At least one gun store near San Jose has been forced to close in an effort to slow the spread of the virus , according to a Mercury News report .
But gun-rights advocates say Americans ' access to firearms and ammunition should not be prohibited despite the threat of the virus .
`` They [ retailers ] are required by the government to be a point of access to the exercise of fundamental human rights , '' Combs said .
As fears of the pandemic increase and police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer make arrests over certain crimes , Americans have flooded gun stores and online ammunition dealers in recent weeks .
A shutdown of gun stores would drastically limit their ability to purchase firearms for self-defense .
It would also raise significant constitutional questions that gun-rights groups say they will challenge in court if lawmakers attempt to curb gun sales .
`` We are monitoring and working to resolve all these issues in a timely manner .
All options—legal , legislative , and otherwise—are on the table , '' Amy Hunter , a spokeswoman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beacon .
`` Law-abiding Americans must not be deprived of the right to defend themselves and their loved ones at any time . ''
`` Gun prohibitionists want to close down every gun store they can and will use any means necessary , '' said Alan Gottlieb , founder of the Second Amendment Foundation ( SAF ) .
`` They do not believe that the means for self-defense is essential or a protected constitutional right .
Our legal team is monitoring the situation very closely . ''
Gottlieb said even if shutdowns do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find a case that 's likely to succeed in court for a number of reasons .
He acknowledged there are several challenges for Second Amendment supporters in the courts .
`` Before SAF can sue we need to wait and see how long forced closures of gun stores will last , '' he said .
`` We are up against a compelling government interest in stopping a deadly virus from spreading .
We also need to find the right plaintiffs to have standing and a compelling need to buy a gun and ammunition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group , the National Shooting Sports Foundation , said it is also monitoring the situation and ready to intervene .
`` We 're monitoring how our businesses are going to be affected as governors start to say we 're going to shut down non-essential businesses , '' said Mark Oliva , a spokesman for the group .
`` We believe our businesses are essential .
We 're starting to get ready to defend that if we have to . ''
Wolf 's order is expected to take effect on Saturday .

A top gun-rights group is challenging the state-ordered shutdown of "non-essential" businesses because of the coronavirus outbreak, and leading Second Amendment advocates say more could be in store.
Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, said his group filed a case on Friday asking the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to block Democratic governor Tom Wolf from including gun stores in a statewide shutdown of "non-essential" businesses. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has told Gov. Wolf he has until 8 p.m. on Friday to respond to the arguments in the case.
"Weapons and ammunition retailers are one of the most essential business types in the United States," Combs told the Washington Free Beacon. "There is no ‘except in emergencies’ clause in the Constitution and the government cannot shut down the people’s right to keep and bear arms."
Government mandates shuttering businesses in several states have raised the prospect that more gun retailers could be ordered to shut their doors. California and Pennsylvania have already started shutting down businesses other than grocery stores, gas stations, and other "life-sustaining" industries, as Wolf described them. At least one gun store near San Jose has been forced to close in an effort to slow the spread of the virus, according to a Mercury News report.
But gun-rights advocates say Americans' access to firearms and ammunition should not be prohibited despite the threat of the virus.
"They [retailers] are required by the government to be a point of access to the exercise of fundamental human rights," Combs said.
As fears of the pandemic increase and police in major cities announce they will no longer make arrests over certain crimes, Americans have flooded gun stores and online ammunition dealers in recent weeks. A shutdown of gun stores would drastically limit their ability to purchase firearms for self-defense. It would also raise significant constitutional questions that gun-rights groups say they will challenge in court if lawmakers attempt to curb gun sales.
"We are monitoring and working to resolve all these issues in a timely manner. All options—legal, legislative, and otherwise—are on the table," Amy Hunter, a spokeswoman for the NRA, told the Free Beacon. "Law-abiding Americans must not be deprived of the right to defend themselves and their loved ones at any time."
"Gun prohibitionists want to close down every gun store they can and will use any means necessary," said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). "They do not believe that the means for self-defense is essential or a protected constitutional right. Our legal team is monitoring the situation very closely."
Gottlieb said even if shutdowns do occur, it could take time to find a case that's likely to succeed in court for a number of reasons. He acknowledged there are several challenges for Second Amendment supporters in the courts.
"Before SAF can sue we need to wait and see how long forced closures of gun stores will last," he said. "We are up against a compelling government interest in stopping a deadly virus from spreading. We also need to find the right plaintiffs to have standing and a compelling need to buy a gun and ammunition."
The gun industry's trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said it is also monitoring the situation and ready to intervene.
"We're monitoring how our businesses are going to be affected as governors start to say we're going to shut down non-essential businesses," said Mark Oliva, a spokesman for the group. "We believe our businesses are essential. We're starting to get ready to defend that if we have to."
Wolf's order is expected to take effect on Saturday.


freebeacon--2020-03-20--Be Smart: How the Mainstream Media Sweep Their Mistakes Under the Rug

The online news outlet Axios on Wednesday published a bombshell news story : Bernie Sanders , reporter Alexi McCammond wrote , was suspending his presidential campaign .
`` It ’ s an end to the campaign of the leading progressive in the race—and the candidate who seemed to be the clear front-runner for the Democratic nomination less than a month ago , '' the report stated .
The only problem : It wasn ’ t true .
And this wasn ’ t a run-of-the mill error , but a miscue on arguably the most anticipated ( and inevitable ) political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Axios was not an explanation to its readers of how it got the story wrong , but an excuse for how it was mistakenly published ( Axios editor in chief Nicholas Johnston blamed process breakdown in a `` fully remote '' newsroom ) .
Axios ’ s response was an exercise in obfuscation and blame shifting .
A tweet broadcasting the original story was disappeared without explanation .
Days after the publication of the mistaken report , the author had not addressed her mistake publicly on Twitter , where reporters routinely explain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The same was true of the official Axios Twitter account , which broadcast only the corrected report .
About that report : For hours after it was posted , it included no correction acknowledging the initial error .
That correction lived on its own web page , buried on Axios ’ s website .
Traditionally , news organizations append corrections either at the top of , or at the bottom of , news reports .
Axios has done just that in the past , posting corrections to reports about Uber ’ s move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a harassment investigation , for example , and again in regard to claims from a former adviser to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky about President Donald Trump ’ s demands , communicating with its readers transparently about the error and the update to the story .
It is also what Axios did nearly four hours after posting its botched report—after Bloomberg News presidential politics reporter Gregory Korte posted a screenshot of the original piece , which ran under the headline `` Bernie Sanders Suspends Presidential Campaign , '' and a second Bloomberg News reporter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ followers for creating confusion by tweeting the original report .
It was more than Axios ’ s McCammond did .
Neither she nor Johnston , the editor in chief , have provided an explanation for the error except to say , in an anodyne company statement , that `` our process for full approval in a fully remote newsroom broke down . ''
One imagines that an error of the same magnitude from a conservative reportorial outlet would not be treated with the same level of understanding with which it was received by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Media reporters at the country ’ s top newspapers didn ’ t muster a tweet about the incident .
Mediaite , an online publication devoted to covering print , digital , and television media , covered the story this way : `` Bernie Sanders Swats Down ‘ Absolutely False ’ Report Claiming End of Campaign After Twitter Frenzy . ''
The incident reveals the insidious way in which the mainstream media , which have spent the past three years obsessing about the spread of fake news , operate like a cartel , ruthlessly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police themselves .
That ’ s also why you didn ’ t hear more about the Washington Post ’ s botched report indicating that Russia had hacked the U.S. power grid ( it hadn ’ t ) or the shoddy 60 Minutes report that the federal employee who blew the whistle on President Donald Trump was under federal protection ( he wasn ’ t ) ; it is also why ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen ’ s testimony that he had never visited Prague , which contradicted a McClatchy News report and the claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , received coverage largely in the conservative press .
There are certainly Axios employees—and members of the competition—who understand what happened and why , but who are unlikely to speak up .
That would make the cocktail parties awkward .
Assuming there are cocktail parties in the post-corona future .

The online news outlet Axios on Wednesday published a bombshell news story: Bernie Sanders, reporter Alexi McCammond wrote, was suspending his presidential campaign.
"It’s an end to the campaign of the leading progressive in the race—and the candidate who seemed to be the clear front-runner for the Democratic nomination less than a month ago," the report stated.
The only problem: It wasn’t true. And this wasn’t a run-of-the mill error, but a miscue on arguably the most anticipated (and inevitable) political story in the country.
What followed from Axios was not an explanation to its readers of how it got the story wrong, but an excuse for how it was mistakenly published (Axios editor in chief Nicholas Johnston blamed process breakdown in a "fully remote" newsroom).
Axios’s response was an exercise in obfuscation and blame shifting. A tweet broadcasting the original story was disappeared without explanation. Days after the publication of the mistaken report, the author had not addressed her mistake publicly on Twitter, where reporters routinely explain errors and corrections to their pieces. The same was true of the official Axios Twitter account, which broadcast only the corrected report.
About that report: For hours after it was posted, it included no correction acknowledging the initial error. That correction lived on its own web page, buried on Axios’s website.
Traditionally, news organizations append corrections either at the top of, or at the bottom of, news reports. Axios has done just that in the past, posting corrections to reports about Uber’s move to fire employees in the wake of a harassment investigation, for example, and again in regard to claims from a former adviser to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky about President Donald Trump’s demands, communicating with its readers transparently about the error and the update to the story.
It is also what Axios did nearly four hours after posting its botched report—after Bloomberg News presidential politics reporter Gregory Korte posted a screenshot of the original piece, which ran under the headline "Bernie Sanders Suspends Presidential Campaign," and a second Bloomberg News reporter Laura Litvan, apologized to her Twitter followers for creating confusion by tweeting the original report.
It was more than Axios’s McCammond did. Neither she nor Johnston, the editor in chief, have provided an explanation for the error except to say, in an anodyne company statement, that "our process for full approval in a fully remote newsroom broke down."
One imagines that an error of the same magnitude from a conservative reportorial outlet would not be treated with the same level of understanding with which it was received by Axios’s mainstream media counterparts. Media reporters at the country’s top newspapers didn’t muster a tweet about the incident. Mediaite, an online publication devoted to covering print, digital, and television media, covered the story this way: "Bernie Sanders Swats Down ‘Absolutely False’ Report Claiming End of Campaign After Twitter Frenzy."
The incident reveals the insidious way in which the mainstream media, which have spent the past three years obsessing about the spread of fake news, operate like a cartel, ruthlessly enforcing standards on outsiders but refusing to police themselves.
That’s also why you didn’t hear more about the Washington Post’s botched report indicating that Russia had hacked the U.S. power grid (it hadn’t) or the shoddy 60 Minutes report that the federal employee who blew the whistle on President Donald Trump was under federal protection (he wasn’t); it is also why ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s testimony that he had never visited Prague, which contradicted a McClatchy News report and the claims of dozens of journalists on national television, received coverage largely in the conservative press.
There are certainly Axios employees—and members of the competition—who understand what happened and why, but who are unlikely to speak up. That would make the cocktail parties awkward. Assuming there are cocktail parties in the post-corona future.


freebeacon--2020-03-20--Texas’s Largest County Settles Lawsuit Over Noncitizens on Voter Rolls

The largest county in Texas settled a lawsuit with a watchdog group after refusing to release records dealing with noncitizens on its voter rolls .
A federal district court in Houston entered a settlement agreement this week between the Harris County voter registrar and the Public Interest Legal Foundation ( PILF ) .
The settlement calls for the county to turn over records on its cancellations of ineligible voters , copies of registration applications that have blank or negative responses to citizenship questions , and all registrar communications with law enforcement regarding ineligible registrants , among other records .
Officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ county in Texas , previously testified that `` thousands '' of noncitizens were discovered on its voter rolls every year .
The settlement comes as the election watchdog group seeks to clean voter rolls in major cities ahead of the November elections .
Democrats have pushed back against attempts to clean voter rolls , often calling them `` purges . ''
Individuals removed for ineligibility tend to belong to demographic groups that lean Democrat .
Texas has in recent years become a target of national Democrats , who have poured millions into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power .
PILF initially sought access to Harris County 's voter information in December 2017 under Section 8 of the National Voters Registration Act of 1993 .
The act allows individuals to look at records `` concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters . ''
PILF wanted information on registrants who were removed for being noncitizens but was refused access to the documents .
The group sent a final notice in January 2018 warning the county it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PILF 's inspection .
County officials did not budge .
PILF filed its lawsuit in March 2018 .
`` For more than a decade , Harris County officials lobbied for or against state and federal election reforms citing the fact that noncitizens were becoming registered there , '' Logan Churchwell , communications director for PILF , told the Washington Free Beacon .
`` We know this is a problem around the country .
Harris County records can provide the largest sampling of the reported problems in Texas and identify system flaws in need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not afford weaknesses , '' Churchwell said .
`` We must plug gaps that are impacting citizens and immigrants alike . ''
The county defendants did not respond to a request for comment on the settlement .
PILF has filed a number of lawsuits in cities across the country in recent months .
The group filed a suit against Detroit officials after discovering 2,500 dead registrants on the city 's voter rolls .
Nearly 5,000 voters appeared more than once on the rolls , and there were more registered voters than there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PILF also filed suit against Pittsburgh officials after finding dead voters , duplicate registrants , and 1,500 registrants aged 100 or above ( 49 marked as being born in the 1800s ) on county voter rolls .

The largest county in Texas settled a lawsuit with a watchdog group after refusing to release records dealing with noncitizens on its voter rolls.
A federal district court in Houston entered a settlement agreement this week between the Harris County voter registrar and the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF). The settlement calls for the county to turn over records on its cancellations of ineligible voters, copies of registration applications that have blank or negative responses to citizenship questions, and all registrar communications with law enforcement regarding ineligible registrants, among other records. Officials from Harris County, the most populous county in Texas, previously testified that "thousands" of noncitizens were discovered on its voter rolls every year.
The settlement comes as the election watchdog group seeks to clean voter rolls in major cities ahead of the November elections. Democrats have pushed back against attempts to clean voter rolls, often calling them "purges." Individuals removed for ineligibility tend to belong to demographic groups that lean Democrat. Texas has in recent years become a target of national Democrats, who have poured millions into the Lone Star State in attempts to gain power.
PILF initially sought access to Harris County's voter information in December 2017 under Section 8 of the National Voters Registration Act of 1993. The act allows individuals to look at records "concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters."
PILF wanted information on registrants who were removed for being noncitizens but was refused access to the documents. The group sent a final notice in January 2018 warning the county it would face litigation if it continued to block PILF's inspection. County officials did not budge. PILF filed its lawsuit in March 2018.
"For more than a decade, Harris County officials lobbied for or against state and federal election reforms citing the fact that noncitizens were becoming registered there," Logan Churchwell, communications director for PILF, told the Washington Free Beacon. "We know this is a problem around the country. Harris County records can provide the largest sampling of the reported problems in Texas and identify system flaws in need of attention."
"Our elections cannot afford weaknesses," Churchwell said. "We must plug gaps that are impacting citizens and immigrants alike."
The county defendants did not respond to a request for comment on the settlement.
PILF has filed a number of lawsuits in cities across the country in recent months. The group filed a suit against Detroit officials after discovering 2,500 dead registrants on the city's voter rolls. Nearly 5,000 voters appeared more than once on the rolls, and there were more registered voters than there were eligible voters in the city.
PILF also filed suit against Pittsburgh officials after finding dead voters, duplicate registrants, and 1,500 registrants aged 100 or above (49 marked as being born in the 1800s) on county voter rolls.