freebeacon--2020-03-28--Kennedy Center Tells Musicians It Will Stop Paying Them Hours After $25 Million Bailout Is Signed

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts informed members of the National Symphony Orchestra that they would no longer be paid just hours after President Trump signed a $ 25 million taxpayer bailout for the cultural center , according to an email obtained by the Washington Free Beacon .
Nearly 100 musicians will no longer receive paychecks after April 3 , according to an email from the orchestra 's Covid-19 Advisory Committee .
`` The Covid-19 Advisory Committee was broadsided today during our conversation with [ Kennedy Center President ] Deborah Rutter , '' the email says .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the last paycheck for all musicians and librarians will be April 3 and that we will not be paid again until the Center reopens . ''
The email went out to members on Friday evening , shortly after President Trump signed the $ 2 trillion CARES Act , a stimulus package intended to provide relief to people left unemployed by the coronavirus pandemic .
Congress included $ 25 million in taxpayer funding for the Kennedy Center , a provision that raised eyebrows from both Democrats and Republicans , but ultimately won support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ designed to `` cover operating expenses required to ensure the continuity of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and its affiliates , including for employee compensation and benefits , grants , contracts , payments for rent or utilities , fees for artists or performers , '' according to the law 's text .
The arts organization decided that the relief did not extend to members of the National Symphony Orchestra , its house orchestra .
`` Everyone should proceed as if their last paycheck will be April 3 , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this will come [ as a ] shock to all of you , as it did to us . ''
The Kennedy Center did not return request for comment .
A veteran member of the orchestra , who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal , told the Washington Free Beacon that the decision `` blindsided '' musicians .
The member welcomed the bailout package as necessary funding for the arts , but was stunned that it would not be used to cover payment for the artists .
`` It 's very disappointing [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that money and then drop us afterward , '' the musician said .
`` The Kennedy Center blindsided us . ''
The Kennedy Center , which recently completed a $ 250 million renovation , received $ 41 million from taxpayers in 2019 , but faced massive deficits after shutting its doors on March 12 due to the coronavirus outbreak .
President Rutter went on a media blitz to highlight the cultural hub 's struggles , telling the Washington Post that she would forego her $ 1.2 million salary during the closure .
Members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they should do the same—particularly because they also face the prospect of losing their health benefits after May 31 .
Orchestra members are challenging the Kennedy Center over its handling of the outbreak .
The orchestra is only a few months into a four-year collective bargaining agreement it signed in September 2019 .
The orchestra filed a grievance , released Saturday , saying that the center violated the contract , which stipulates that artists be given at least six-weeks notice before paychecks can stop .
`` While the Union understands that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ performances through May 10 , 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic , those cancellations do not give the Association any contractual basis for failing to comply with the sections of the [ agreement ] , '' the grievance says .
* While orchestra members are confident in their case , committee members said the decision would not likely come for at least two weeks .
`` There is no provision of our collective bargaining agreement that allows the Kennedy Center to decide to stop paying us with only one week of notice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we fully expect that an arbitrator would agree that management violated the CBA and that we are entitled to continued salary and benefits , this process takes time . ''
The Kennedy Center is scheduled to reopen on May 10 , though it can continue spending stimulus funds through September 2021 .
*Update : This piece has been updated with a quote from the grievance

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts informed members of the National Symphony Orchestra that they would no longer be paid just hours after President Trump signed a $25 million taxpayer bailout for the cultural center, according to an email obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
Nearly 100 musicians will no longer receive paychecks after April 3, according to an email from the orchestra's Covid-19 Advisory Committee.
"The Covid-19 Advisory Committee was broadsided today during our conversation with [Kennedy Center President] Deborah Rutter," the email says. "Ms. Rutter abruptly informed us today that the last paycheck for all musicians and librarians will be April 3 and that we will not be paid again until the Center reopens."
The email went out to members on Friday evening, shortly after President Trump signed the $2 trillion CARES Act, a stimulus package intended to provide relief to people left unemployed by the coronavirus pandemic. Congress included $25 million in taxpayer funding for the Kennedy Center, a provision that raised eyebrows from both Democrats and Republicans, but ultimately won support from President Trump. The bailout was designed to "cover operating expenses required to ensure the continuity of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and its affiliates, including for employee compensation and benefits, grants, contracts, payments for rent or utilities, fees for artists or performers," according to the law's text. The arts organization decided that the relief did not extend to members of the National Symphony Orchestra, its house orchestra.
"Everyone should proceed as if their last paycheck will be April 3," the email says. "We understand this will come [as a] shock to all of you, as it did to us."
The Kennedy Center did not return request for comment.
A veteran member of the orchestra, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal, told the Washington Free Beacon that the decision "blindsided" musicians. The member welcomed the bailout package as necessary funding for the arts, but was stunned that it would not be used to cover payment for the artists.
"It's very disappointing [that] they're going to get that money and then drop us afterward," the musician said. "The Kennedy Center blindsided us."
The Kennedy Center, which recently completed a $250 million renovation, received $41 million from taxpayers in 2019, but faced massive deficits after shutting its doors on March 12 due to the coronavirus outbreak. President Rutter went on a media blitz to highlight the cultural hub's struggles, telling the Washington Post that she would forego her $1.2 million salary during the closure. Members of the orchestra chafed at the notion that they should do the same—particularly because they also face the prospect of losing their health benefits after May 31.
Orchestra members are challenging the Kennedy Center over its handling of the outbreak. The orchestra is only a few months into a four-year collective bargaining agreement it signed in September 2019. The orchestra filed a grievance, released Saturday, saying that the center violated the contract, which stipulates that artists be given at least six-weeks notice before paychecks can stop.
"While the Union understands that the Kennedy Center has decided to cancel all performances through May 10, 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, those cancellations do not give the Association any contractual basis for failing to comply with the sections of the [agreement]," the grievance says.*
While orchestra members are confident in their case, committee members said the decision would not likely come for at least two weeks.
"There is no provision of our collective bargaining agreement that allows the Kennedy Center to decide to stop paying us with only one week of notice," the email says. "While we fully expect that an arbitrator would agree that management violated the CBA and that we are entitled to continued salary and benefits, this process takes time."
The Kennedy Center is scheduled to reopen on May 10, though it can continue spending stimulus funds through September 2021.
*Update: This piece has been updated with a quote from the grievance


freebeacon--2020-03-28--Liberal Dark Money Group to Spend $1.2 Million Attacking GOP Senators on Coronavirus

An activist group backed by a major liberal dark money network announced plans to spend more than $ 1 million attacking Republican senators over the coronavirus pandemic .
Tax March , a coalition of more than 70 left-wing groups , will undertake a $ 1.2 million ad campaign against Senators David Perdue ( R. , Ga. ) , Susan Collins ( R. , Maine ) , Pat Toomey ( R. , Pa. ) , and Ron Johnson ( R. , Wis. ) .
Tax March was initially established to demand President Donald Trump release his tax returns .
Its ads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the 2017 tax bill that contained relief to some corporations that could benefit from the $ 2 trillion coronavirus stimulus package .
The ad campaign joins other high-profile Democratic groups spending millions attacking President Donald Trump 's response to the virus .
Unlike many of those groups , however , Tax March does not disclose its benefactors .
It is a part of an intricate web of activist organizations housed at Arabella Advisors , a massive dark money network that obscured the source of more than $ 620 million in funneled cash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ airing ads on Atlanta radio stations against Perdue this week .
Television and digital ads will follow against Collins , Toomey , and Johnson before April 1 .
Tax March is a project of the Sixteen Thirty Fund , a fiscal sponsor at Arabella Advisors that offers its legal and tax-exempt status to groups that the IRS does not recognize as nonprofits .
Such a setup creates a layer of secrecy between deep-pocketed liberal donors and the initiatives they fund .
Donors who steer money to a group that falls under the auspices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to designate what organization they are funding .
Instead , they can mark the money as going to the fund itself , which is then passed to their intended group .
Tax March 's coalition of partners includes John Podesta 's Center for American Progress Action Fund , liberal watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington , and David Brock 's Media Matters for America .
Tax March 's advisory board consists of leaders from various progressive advocacy groups .
The Sixteen Thirty Fund spent $ 141 million on Democratic causes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of dozens of liberal initiatives at the fund .
Also under its umbrella is Demand Justice , a group led by former Hillary Clinton press secretary Brian Fallon that pushes back against Trump judicial nominations .
Many of its groups are state-based initiatives , including Michigan Families for Economic Prosperity , North Carolinians for a Fair Economy , and Ohioans for Economic Opportunity .
Scott Neilsen , managing director of advocacy at Arabella , has worked with other donor institutions in the past , including George Soros 's Open Society Foundations and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of wealthy donors cofounded by Soros .
The alliance directs its members to push cash to groups at Arabella as part of a $ 275 million spending plan for the 2020 elections , according to documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon .
Tax March did not respond to a request for comment by press time .
The campaign comes as other prominent Democratic groups are pouring millions into advertisements criticizing Trump 's handling of the pandemic .
Priorities USA , the largest Democratic super PAC , is spending $ 6 million on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 million from Soros 's Democracy PAC last month .
PACRONYM , the super PAC associated with dark money nonprofit ACRONYM , is spending $ 5 million on digital advertisements .
American Bridge , a group led by David Brock , has also used the outbreak to attack the president .
Despite these attacks , a new Gallup survey showed that 60 percent of Americans approve of Trump 's response to the coronavirus .

An activist group backed by a major liberal dark money network announced plans to spend more than $1 million attacking Republican senators over the coronavirus pandemic.
Tax March, a coalition of more than 70 left-wing groups, will undertake a $1.2 million ad campaign against Senators David Perdue (R., Ga.), Susan Collins (R., Maine), Pat Toomey (R., Pa.), and Ron Johnson (R., Wis.). Tax March was initially established to demand President Donald Trump release his tax returns. Its ads will attack the senators over their support for the 2017 tax bill that contained relief to some corporations that could benefit from the $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus package.
The ad campaign joins other high-profile Democratic groups spending millions attacking President Donald Trump's response to the virus. Unlike many of those groups, however, Tax March does not disclose its benefactors. It is a part of an intricate web of activist organizations housed at Arabella Advisors, a massive dark money network that obscured the source of more than $620 million in funneled cash in 2018 alone.
Tax March began airing ads on Atlanta radio stations against Perdue this week. Television and digital ads will follow against Collins, Toomey, and Johnson before April 1.
Tax March is a project of the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a fiscal sponsor at Arabella Advisors that offers its legal and tax-exempt status to groups that the IRS does not recognize as nonprofits. Such a setup creates a layer of secrecy between deep-pocketed liberal donors and the initiatives they fund. Donors who steer money to a group that falls under the auspices of the Sixteen Thirty Fund do not have to designate what organization they are funding. Instead, they can mark the money as going to the fund itself, which is then passed to their intended group.
Tax March's coalition of partners includes John Podesta's Center for American Progress Action Fund, liberal watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and David Brock's Media Matters for America. Tax March's advisory board consists of leaders from various progressive advocacy groups.
The Sixteen Thirty Fund spent $141 million on Democratic causes in 2018. Tax March is just one of dozens of liberal initiatives at the fund. Also under its umbrella is Demand Justice, a group led by former Hillary Clinton press secretary Brian Fallon that pushes back against Trump judicial nominations. Many of its groups are state-based initiatives, including Michigan Families for Economic Prosperity, North Carolinians for a Fair Economy, and Ohioans for Economic Opportunity.
Scott Neilsen, managing director of advocacy at Arabella, has worked with other donor institutions in the past, including George Soros's Open Society Foundations and the Democracy Alliance, an invite-only club of wealthy donors cofounded by Soros. The alliance directs its members to push cash to groups at Arabella as part of a $275 million spending plan for the 2020 elections, according to documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
Tax March did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
The campaign comes as other prominent Democratic groups are pouring millions into advertisements criticizing Trump's handling of the pandemic.
Priorities USA, the largest Democratic super PAC, is spending $6 million on such ads. The group received $3 million from Soros's Democracy PAC last month. PACRONYM, the super PAC associated with dark money nonprofit ACRONYM, is spending $5 million on digital advertisements. American Bridge, a group led by David Brock, has also used the outbreak to attack the president.
Despite these attacks, a new Gallup survey showed that 60 percent of Americans approve of Trump's response to the coronavirus.


freebeacon--2020-03-28--Review: ‘Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism’ by Anne Case and Angus Deaton

Americans , you may have heard , are dying `` deaths of despair '' : suicides , drug overdoses , and alcoholic liver disease that are together driving down the nation 's life expectancy .
The concept has been bandied about since it was coined by Princeton economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton .
After five years , Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism is the pair 's book-length offering on what they believe is driving the crisis .
Case and Deaton are accomplished social scientists .
But although their book highlights real issues faced by America 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overcome the burden of proof in explaining why the country has experienced a mysterious death spike .
They did the world a service by identifying the trend ; their elaboration , however , is deeply unsatisfying .
Deaths of Despair can be conceptually divided into three sections : the what , the who , and the why .
The `` what '' —the empirical phenomenon around which the book is organized—is likely to be the concept most familiar to readers , but a rehearsal of its history may be useful .
Five years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disturbing trend .
Mortality rates , which usually fall steadily in developed nations , had plateaued or increased in the United States beginning in the late 1990s .
They looked more closely at the data and identified that the trend was primarily driven by an increase in deaths among middle-aged , non-Hispanic whites .
The largest share of that increase was deaths from suicide , drug overdose , and alcoholic liver disease—a proxy for drinking oneself to death .
Because all of these deaths are in a sense `` self-inflicted '' and can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Deaton labeled them collectively `` deaths of despair . ''
Deaths of Despair is a book about what caused this increase , so it 's worth asking—do all of these causes of death empirically go together ?
As I 've written previously , the answer is probably no .
The three distinct causes of death started rising in different parts of the country and have different proximate causes .
Most `` deaths of despair '' today are drug overdose deaths , and most drug overdose deaths are the result of a shock to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of hyper-potent synthetic opioids , particularly fentanyl .
Rising suicide rates are not obviously related to a general increase in despair , and exhibit a number of peculiar traits that Case and Deaton largely ignore .
The demographic dynamics of the crisis are also more complicated than the authors let on .
While rising deaths among middle-aged whites drive the overall mortality decline , suicide and OD death rates are up across age groups , and drug ODs are up among blacks as well as whites .
A truly parsimonious theory would explain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Deaton largely ignore them .
They also underspecify the problem .
Statisticians Andrew Gelman and Jonathan Auerbach noted back in 2015 that breaking down white middle-aged all-cause mortality trends further revealed that the trend line was only going up for white women in the southern United States .
( Case and Deaton have acknowledged this criticism , although it goes unmentioned in the book . )
The book 's second section more closely examines who , among middle-aged whites , is dying deaths of despair .
In short , the answer is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Case and Deaton show that over the last several decades , not only have those without degrees borne the brunt of the rise in mortality , but they have also faced worsening health outcomes , increasing chronic pain , and declining access to both economic and social capital .
Their point is that something about the conditions of the `` working class '' has changed to cause the sudden spike .
There is an important elision made here , insofar as Case and Deaton more or less synonymize `` no college degree '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the data they are working with makes clear why : Death records list highest degree achieved , but no other indicator of socioeconomic status .
In other words , Case and Deaton 's conclusion is partially a product of the constraints of their data .
Yet they largely fail to account for the fact that the average 30-year-old without a college degree in 2019 is qualitatively different from a 30-year-old without a college degree in , e.g.
, 1969 .
As the share of individuals with a college degree grows ( 16 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2019 ) , the population of non-degree holders becomes more `` negatively selected '' : As it becomes easier to get a degree , the population without one has a lower average skill level , which in turn predicts lower social and economic outcomes .
One paper from last year actually attempted to account for this and found that deaths of despair among whites are driven primarily by high-school dropouts—a group receiving little to no particular attention from Case and Deaton .
This said , it is likely that the declining economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the rise in suicides , drug overdoses , and alcohol-associated deaths .
In particular , communities ' exposure to trade normalization with China , especially through a decline in manufacturing jobs , is tightly related to an increase in suicides and accidental poisonings ( although less so to alcohol deaths ) .
But that increase is not necessarily causal—while counties experiencing economic decline saw bigger increases in OD deaths , for example , the relationship is `` mostly explained by confounding factors . ''
This question of causation—did declining working class standards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
—is , or at least ought to be , at the heart of Deaths of Despair .
Case and Deaton , however , waive the standards of causal inference now in vogue among economists , dismissing rigorous mathematical techniques as `` of little use to us here in describing a slowly evolving and large-scale disintegration that involves a historically contingent set of forces , many of which interact . ''
This sentence is , in effect , an abdication of responsibility : All that goes after need not be causally linked to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the authors ' minds .
The fundamental `` why , '' Case and Deaton argue , is a system of `` upwards redistribution '' from the poor to the wealthy .
Unlike either poverty or inequality—which are summarily dismissed as being the real problem— '' upwards redistribution '' seems to name a mélange of objections , rather than one single , measurable thing .
The sudden spike in deaths of despair are caused , variously , by the rising cost of health care , too many lobbyists , concentration of the airline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ automation , Facebook , noncompete clauses , and so on .
Case and Deaton do not attempt formal analysis linking any of these causes to rising deaths of despair , but rather seem happy , in many cases , to draw sweeping conclusions based on single incidents of malfeasance .
They freely acknowledge that , for example , `` there is currently no smoking gun that links deaths of despair to a lack of safety nets , either within countries or between them , '' but nonetheless pin much of the blame for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on our lack of universal health care and , in particular , the wickedness of the medical industry .
Their solutions are similarly broad .
They call for universal insurance , in particular arguing that `` further expansion of Medicaid would be helpful , for drug problems as well as other medical care '' —ignoring the evidence that states which took Medicaid expansion under Obamacare actually saw higher rates of drug OD deaths than those that did not .
They recommend further crackdowns on prescription opioids , even as deaths involving those drugs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what to do about fentanyl ODs .
Some prescriptions are distressingly vague , as in a call to `` reform corporate governance '' with few details as to what that would mean .
It is entirely possible that the condition of the working class in America is exacerbating the deaths of despair problem .
The issue is that it is also entirely possible , even likely , that other factors—like the surge of illicit fentanyl from China and Mexico—play a much bigger role .
Case and Deaton could have ruled out these possibilities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but they do not .
There are already a number of other , better books on the state of America 's working class .
It is good that Case and Deaton identified the `` deaths of despair '' phenomenon in the first place .
But in order to tread new ground , a book on the topic would have needed to take the numbers far more seriously and address the problems outlined above .
That Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism does not do so makes it a disappointing contribution to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .

Americans, you may have heard, are dying "deaths of despair": suicides, drug overdoses, and alcoholic liver disease that are together driving down the nation's life expectancy. The concept has been bandied about since it was coined by Princeton economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton. After five years, Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism is the pair's book-length offering on what they believe is driving the crisis.
Case and Deaton are accomplished social scientists. But although their book highlights real issues faced by America's working class, the pair do not overcome the burden of proof in explaining why the country has experienced a mysterious death spike. They did the world a service by identifying the trend; their elaboration, however, is deeply unsatisfying.
Deaths of Despair can be conceptually divided into three sections: the what, the who, and the why. The "what"—the empirical phenomenon around which the book is organized—is likely to be the concept most familiar to readers, but a rehearsal of its history may be useful.
Five years ago, Case and Deaton noticed a disturbing trend. Mortality rates, which usually fall steadily in developed nations, had plateaued or increased in the United States beginning in the late 1990s. They looked more closely at the data and identified that the trend was primarily driven by an increase in deaths among middle-aged, non-Hispanic whites. The largest share of that increase was deaths from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease—a proxy for drinking oneself to death. Because all of these deaths are in a sense "self-inflicted" and can indicate an unhappy mind, Case and Deaton labeled them collectively "deaths of despair."
Deaths of Despair is a book about what caused this increase, so it's worth asking—do all of these causes of death empirically go together? As I've written previously, the answer is probably no. The three distinct causes of death started rising in different parts of the country and have different proximate causes. Most "deaths of despair" today are drug overdose deaths, and most drug overdose deaths are the result of a shock to the illicit drug supply in the form of hyper-potent synthetic opioids, particularly fentanyl. Rising suicide rates are not obviously related to a general increase in despair, and exhibit a number of peculiar traits that Case and Deaton largely ignore.
The demographic dynamics of the crisis are also more complicated than the authors let on. While rising deaths among middle-aged whites drive the overall mortality decline, suicide and OD death rates are up across age groups, and drug ODs are up among blacks as well as whites. A truly parsimonious theory would explain these deaths as well, but Case and Deaton largely ignore them. They also underspecify the problem. Statisticians Andrew Gelman and Jonathan Auerbach noted back in 2015 that breaking down white middle-aged all-cause mortality trends further revealed that the trend line was only going up for white women in the southern United States. (Case and Deaton have acknowledged this criticism, although it goes unmentioned in the book.)
The book's second section more closely examines who, among middle-aged whites, is dying deaths of despair. In short, the answer is: those without a college degree. Case and Deaton show that over the last several decades, not only have those without degrees borne the brunt of the rise in mortality, but they have also faced worsening health outcomes, increasing chronic pain, and declining access to both economic and social capital. Their point is that something about the conditions of the "working class" has changed to cause the sudden spike.
There is an important elision made here, insofar as Case and Deaton more or less synonymize "no college degree" with "working class." Knowing the data they are working with makes clear why: Death records list highest degree achieved, but no other indicator of socioeconomic status. In other words, Case and Deaton's conclusion is partially a product of the constraints of their data.
Yet they largely fail to account for the fact that the average 30-year-old without a college degree in 2019 is qualitatively different from a 30-year-old without a college degree in, e.g., 1969. As the share of individuals with a college degree grows (16 percent of 30-year-olds in 1969 vs. 40 percent in 2019), the population of non-degree holders becomes more "negatively selected": As it becomes easier to get a degree, the population without one has a lower average skill level, which in turn predicts lower social and economic outcomes. One paper from last year actually attempted to account for this and found that deaths of despair among whites are driven primarily by high-school dropouts—a group receiving little to no particular attention from Case and Deaton.
This said, it is likely that the declining economic position of the working class has contributed to the rise in suicides, drug overdoses, and alcohol-associated deaths. In particular, communities' exposure to trade normalization with China, especially through a decline in manufacturing jobs, is tightly related to an increase in suicides and accidental poisonings (although less so to alcohol deaths). But that increase is not necessarily causal—while counties experiencing economic decline saw bigger increases in OD deaths, for example, the relationship is "mostly explained by confounding factors."
This question of causation—did declining working class standards cause the rise in deaths of despair?—is, or at least ought to be, at the heart of Deaths of Despair. Case and Deaton, however, waive the standards of causal inference now in vogue among economists, dismissing rigorous mathematical techniques as "of little use to us here in describing a slowly evolving and large-scale disintegration that involves a historically contingent set of forces, many of which interact." This sentence is, in effect, an abdication of responsibility: All that goes after need not be causally linked to deaths of despair, only conceptually related in the authors' minds.
The fundamental "why," Case and Deaton argue, is a system of "upwards redistribution" from the poor to the wealthy. Unlike either poverty or inequality—which are summarily dismissed as being the real problem—"upwards redistribution" seems to name a mélange of objections, rather than one single, measurable thing. The sudden spike in deaths of despair are caused, variously, by the rising cost of health care, too many lobbyists, concentration of the airline industry, not enough unemployment insurance, automation, Facebook, noncompete clauses, and so on.
Case and Deaton do not attempt formal analysis linking any of these causes to rising deaths of despair, but rather seem happy, in many cases, to draw sweeping conclusions based on single incidents of malfeasance. They freely acknowledge that, for example, "there is currently no smoking gun that links deaths of despair to a lack of safety nets, either within countries or between them," but nonetheless pin much of the blame for America's unique deaths of despair problem on our lack of universal health care and, in particular, the wickedness of the medical industry.
Their solutions are similarly broad. They call for universal insurance, in particular arguing that "further expansion of Medicaid would be helpful, for drug problems as well as other medical care"—ignoring the evidence that states which took Medicaid expansion under Obamacare actually saw higher rates of drug OD deaths than those that did not. They recommend further crackdowns on prescription opioids, even as deaths involving those drugs have fallen—the book is entirely silent on what to do about fentanyl ODs. Some prescriptions are distressingly vague, as in a call to "reform corporate governance" with few details as to what that would mean.
It is entirely possible that the condition of the working class in America is exacerbating the deaths of despair problem. The issue is that it is also entirely possible, even likely, that other factors—like the surge of illicit fentanyl from China and Mexico—play a much bigger role. Case and Deaton could have ruled out these possibilities by seriously grappling with the numbers, but they do not.
There are already a number of other, better books on the state of America's working class. It is good that Case and Deaton identified the "deaths of despair" phenomenon in the first place. But in order to tread new ground, a book on the topic would have needed to take the numbers far more seriously and address the problems outlined above. That Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism does not do so makes it a disappointing contribution to solving a mystery that grows deadlier every year.


freebeacon--2020-03-27--UPDATE: The Journos Are Still Out of Control

President Donald Trump and the national media have at least two things in common .
They are both attempting to do their jobs amidst the ongoing coronavirus pandemic , and both are seen by the American people as unreliable sources of information .
Nevertheless , a majority of Americans ( 60 percent ) approve of Trump 's handling of the crisis .
The same can not be said of the national media .
According to the most recent Gallup survey , 55 percent of Americans disapprove of the media 's response to the China-caused pandemic .
Members of the national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their minds .
After downplaying the seriousness of the virus in January by regurgitating Chinese propaganda and denouncing Trump 's decision to ban travel from China as racist and xenophobic , the media continue to demand the trust and respect of the American people—even as their collective hysteria ascends to unprecedented levels .
( For what it 's worth , they 're still promoting Chinese propaganda . )
The media 's efforts to assert their credibility during the crisis have been complicated by the fact that the media do n't really respect or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mitchell lamented on MSNBC : `` No matter what [ the president ] says , people seem to be seeing him as a leader . ''
A headline in the Washington Post was more explicit : `` Trump fans believe him over the media on coronavirus .
This is dangerous . ''
Take that , America !
This is what you get for not trusting us .
The Washington Post is all over the story—Why Trump is Bad , etc.— publishing two separate ( yet practically identical ) opinion columns really sticking it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still exceptional—but now for its incompetence , '' by Fareed Zakaria and `` Trump made us No .
1 — in the spread of a deadly disease , '' by Jennifer Rubin .
What does the coronavirus have to do with abortion ?
Very little , unless you 're the Post .
Take , for instance , Max Boot 's cerebral column on how the pandemic proves `` the conservative devotion to life ends at birth . ''
Indeed , there is no shortage of journalists who are openly accusing the president of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` worst case '' policy draft leaked to the press—full of grim details about `` comfort measures '' and the prioritization of ventilators—journalists pounced .
Former National Journal editor Ron Fournier cited the policy draft as evidence that Trump `` has abandoned Michigan doctors and hospitals .
He is letting people die . ''
The hospital was forced to clarify that the draft policies were not actually in effect , but not before the journos had racked up a bunch of precious retweets .
Meanwhile , the New York Times and the Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publish the most insightful headline on the intersection of religion and public health .
• NYT : `` The Road to Coronavirus Hell Was Paved by Evangelicals '' The Times wins this round , but the national media are further than ever from winning back the American people 's trust and respect .
`` Less trustworthy than Trump '' is quite the honorific , but the media are certainly doing their best to show they deserve it .

President Donald Trump and the national media have at least two things in common. They are both attempting to do their jobs amidst the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, and both are seen by the American people as unreliable sources of information.
Nevertheless, a majority of Americans (60 percent) approve of Trump's handling of the crisis. The same cannot be said of the national media. According to the most recent Gallup survey, 55 percent of Americans disapprove of the media's response to the China-caused pandemic.
Members of the national media have responded in predictable fashion—by losing their minds. After downplaying the seriousness of the virus in January by regurgitating Chinese propaganda and denouncing Trump's decision to ban travel from China as racist and xenophobic, the media continue to demand the trust and respect of the American people—even as their collective hysteria ascends to unprecedented levels. (For what it's worth, they're still promoting Chinese propaganda.)
The media's efforts to assert their credibility during the crisis have been complicated by the fact that the media don't really respect or trust the American people. As Andrea Mitchell lamented on MSNBC: "No matter what [the president] says, people seem to be seeing him as a leader." A headline in the Washington Post was more explicit: "Trump fans believe him over the media on coronavirus. This is dangerous."
Take that, America! This is what you get for not trusting us.
Who's the shithole country now? https://t.co/7NL4aHbyHq — Julia Ioffe (@juliaioffe) March 26, 2020
The Washington Post is all over the story—Why Trump is Bad, etc.— publishing two separate (yet practically identical) opinion columns really sticking it to America: "The U.S. is still exceptional—but now for its incompetence," by Fareed Zakaria and "Trump made us No. 1 — in the spread of a deadly disease," by Jennifer Rubin.
What does the coronavirus have to do with abortion? Very little, unless you're the Post. Take, for instance, Max Boot's cerebral column on how the pandemic proves "the conservative devotion to life ends at birth." Indeed, there is no shortage of journalists who are openly accusing the president of murder.
This is monstrous and people will die. https://t.co/RpipBFJI9l — Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) March 27, 2020
When a Michigan hospital's "worst case" policy draft leaked to the press—full of grim details about "comfort measures" and the prioritization of ventilators—journalists pounced. Former National Journal editor Ron Fournier cited the policy draft as evidence that Trump "has abandoned Michigan doctors and hospitals. He is letting people die." The hospital was forced to clarify that the draft policies were not actually in effect, but not before the journos had racked up a bunch of precious retweets.
Meanwhile, the New York Times and the Washington Post were competing to see who could publish the most insightful headline on the intersection of religion and public health.
WaPo: "Trump defiles Christianity's holiest day"
NYT: "The Road to Coronavirus Hell Was Paved by Evangelicals"
The Times wins this round, but the national media are further than ever from winning back the American people's trust and respect. "Less trustworthy than Trump" is quite the honorific, but the media are certainly doing their best to show they deserve it.


freebeacon--2020-03-27--U.S. Will Not Release Cash Assets to Iran Amid Coronavirus Outbreak

The U.S. State Department shot down `` inaccurate '' reports claiming the Trump administration would soon be granting special sanctions exceptions to give Iran access to cash assets as it struggles to fight the coronavirus , according to information exclusively provided to the Washington Free Beacon .
The United States had `` agreed to grant sanctions waivers to some countries allowing them to release frozen Iranian assets in order to help Tehran buy medicine and equipment to fight the coronavirus , '' according to a report late Friday in Middle Eastern Eye that cited `` sources . ''
Scores of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ European bank accounts due to the Trump administration 's tough sanctions regime on Iran .
The State Department slapped down these reports as false when asked by the Free Beacon to address the matter .
`` These reports are inaccurate , '' a State Department official told the Free Beacon .
`` Despite the regime ’ s disinformation , the truth is that it already has funds available to it to spend on humanitarian trade that would benefit the Iranian people .
Instead , it chooses to spend this money on terrorism and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better . ''
Iran has been seeking for years to gain access to frozen assets that have been held in escrow across Europe .
While the landmark nuclear deal permitted Iran to access billions of dollars in once-frozen funds , the Trump administration 's reimposition of major sanctions cut Iran off from the global financial community .
Those arguing for sanctions relief , including some European allies , want to see Iran granted access to these funds .
Trump administration officials maintain that Iran would use this money to bolster its ballistic missile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operations across the region , including in Syria , Yemen , and Lebanon .
Humanitarian relief channels have remained open to Iran since the virus first began to ravage the Islamic Republic .
This includes medicine and other critical goods that would aid Tehran in its treatment of those sick .
Iran and its allies in the United States—including a cadre of former Obama administration officials—have been pressuring the Trump administration to grant Iran a full pass on sanctions , falsely claiming the country can not access much-needed medical goods .
The regime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected and dead , even going so far as to imprison whistleblowers seeking to expose the regime 's lies .
`` The regime has imprisoned dozens of Iranians for sharing statistics and forced hospital officials across Iran to falsify the number of cases and deaths , '' State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus told the Free Beacon earlier this week .
`` We can be sure that the same regime that lied about shooting down a passenger jet and that still has n't revealed the number of protesters killed last November is not being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths from coronavirus today , '' Ortagus said , referring to Iran 's downing of a commercial airliner in January that killed everyone on board .
As of Friday , Iranian officials claimed 32,332 confirmed cases of coronavirus , with 2,378 dying .
It is likely that number is far higher .
Iranian leaders also claimed on Friday that the United States had taken several of its scientists hostage .
This is just the latest unfounded claim to be disseminated by Tehran as it seeks to blame America for engineering the virus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hostage—without charge or on spurious sanctions charges— & not releasing them ; even when its OWN courts reject the absurd charges , '' Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif tweeted on Friday .

The U.S. State Department shot down "inaccurate" reports claiming the Trump administration would soon be granting special sanctions exceptions to give Iran access to cash assets as it struggles to fight the coronavirus, according to information exclusively provided to the Washington Free Beacon.
The United States had "agreed to grant sanctions waivers to some countries allowing them to release frozen Iranian assets in order to help Tehran buy medicine and equipment to fight the coronavirus," according to a report late Friday in Middle Eastern Eye that cited "sources." Scores of Iranian assets are currently frozen in many European bank accounts due to the Trump administration's tough sanctions regime on Iran.
The State Department slapped down these reports as false when asked by the Free Beacon to address the matter.
"These reports are inaccurate," a State Department official told the Free Beacon. "Despite the regime’s disinformation, the truth is that it already has funds available to it to spend on humanitarian trade that would benefit the Iranian people. Instead, it chooses to spend this money on terrorism and proxy groups. The Iranian people deserve better."
Iran has been seeking for years to gain access to frozen assets that have been held in escrow across Europe. While the landmark nuclear deal permitted Iran to access billions of dollars in once-frozen funds, the Trump administration's reimposition of major sanctions cut Iran off from the global financial community.
Those arguing for sanctions relief, including some European allies, want to see Iran granted access to these funds. Trump administration officials maintain that Iran would use this money to bolster its ballistic missile program and fund regional terror groups' operations across the region, including in Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon.
Humanitarian relief channels have remained open to Iran since the virus first began to ravage the Islamic Republic. This includes medicine and other critical goods that would aid Tehran in its treatment of those sick.
Iran and its allies in the United States—including a cadre of former Obama administration officials—have been pressuring the Trump administration to grant Iran a full pass on sanctions, falsely claiming the country cannot access much-needed medical goods.
The regime also has lied about the number of infected and dead, even going so far as to imprison whistleblowers seeking to expose the regime's lies.
"The regime has imprisoned dozens of Iranians for sharing statistics and forced hospital officials across Iran to falsify the number of cases and deaths," State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus told the Free Beacon earlier this week.
"We can be sure that the same regime that lied about shooting down a passenger jet and that still hasn't revealed the number of protesters killed last November is not being transparent with the number of cases and deaths from coronavirus today," Ortagus said, referring to Iran's downing of a commercial airliner in January that killed everyone on board.
As of Friday, Iranian officials claimed 32,332 confirmed cases of coronavirus, with 2,378 dying. It is likely that number is far higher.
Iranian leaders also claimed on Friday that the United States had taken several of its scientists hostage. This is just the latest unfounded claim to be disseminated by Tehran as it seeks to blame America for engineering the virus.
"US has taken several Iranian scientists hostage—without charge or on spurious sanctions charges—& not releasing them; even when its OWN courts reject the absurd charges," Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif tweeted on Friday.


freebeacon--2020-03-27--Gun-Rights Groups Sue North Carolina, Los Angeles Sheriffs Over Coronavirus Shut Downs

The suits come in the wake of California governor Gavin Newsom 's decision to allow local authorities to close gun stores under his emergency lockdown order .
Los Angeles County sheriff Alex Villanueva , acting on Newsom 's guidance , mandated gun-store closures .
A separate suit was filed in North Carolina after Wake County sheriff Gerald Baker ( D. ) refused to process new pistol-purchase and gun-carry permits starting on Tuesday .
The Second Amendment Foundation ( SAF ) , National Rifle Association , California Gun Rights Foundation ( CGF ) , and Firearms Policy Coalition ( FPC ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an effort to keep gun stores in one the country 's most populous counties open to the public .
SAF founder Alan Gottlieb called the shutdowns in Los Angeles County an `` attack on fundamental rights . ''
The NRA said California officials were denying people guns at a time they need them most .
`` Municipalities and states that target lawful gun stores for closure are n't promoting safety—by weaponizing their politics to disarm you and your loved ones , these shameless partisans are wantonly promoting a gun-control agenda that suffocates your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most , '' Jason Ouimet , executive director of the NRA 's Institute for Legislative Action said .
The Los Angeles County Sheriff 's Department told the Washington Free Beacon it `` has not been served with this lawsuit and has no comment at this time . ''
Villanueva said in a statement on Thursday that gun stores will be able to continue selling firearms to security companies , adding that civilians who had already completed a purchase would be allowed to pick up their firearms .
The stores , however , would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Local officials have argued that gun stores are not `` essential '' and are thus subject to a statewide lockdown .
`` Especially due to the restrictive nature of California 's byzantine gun laws that require the use of licensed dealers to buy and transfer both firearms and ammunition , the defendants ' orders and actions challenged individually and collectively violate the Constitution and individuals ' fundamental rights to keep and bear arms and due process of law , '' he said .
`` These irrational and outrageous fiat restrictions can not withstand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement . ''
Kraut said the case against Wake County , N.C. , sheriff Baker was equally urgent , arguing that the sheriff 's refusal to process new permits to purchase or carry a pistol also makes it impossible for residents to exercise their gun rights .
`` Sheriff Baker 's unconstitutional actions have and will deprive law-abiding , peaceable individuals the opportunity to obtain handguns , the ‘ quintessential self-defense weapon ' according to the U.S. Supreme Court , in a time where the arms are most needed , '' he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sheriff 's Office declined to comment on the lawsuit .
Baker said in a statement that his decision `` does not limit anyone 's right to purchase a handgun , '' but is necessary because of the overwhelming number of people who have applied to purchase pistols as coronavirus has spread .
`` Over the past several weeks , our staff has been inundated with high volumes of permit applications that have made it impossible to process by law , '' he said .
`` This decision is not a violation of anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this action will limit persons encountering one another during this time of State of Emergency , consistent with Governor Roy Cooper 's Executive Orders and that of Wake County Commissioner Greg Ford . ''
The gun-rights groups accused Baker of misinterpreting the law , comparing his actions to the Washington , D.C. , handgun ban that was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the landmark 2008 Heller ruling .
`` Sheriff Baker is implementing by fiat what the Supreme Court struck down in Heller—a ban on a citizen 's right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearth and home , '' Ed Green , Grass Roots North Carolina director of legal affairs , said in a statement .
`` This action can not be allowed to stand . ''
Hearings for each case have not yet been set .

A collection of Second Amendment activists filed a pair of federal lawsuits on Friday targeting sheriffs in California and North Carolina over mandatory coronavirus-related shutdowns of gun stores and permit-purchase systems, respectively.
The suits come in the wake of California governor Gavin Newsom's decision to allow local authorities to close gun stores under his emergency lockdown order. Los Angeles County sheriff Alex Villanueva, acting on Newsom's guidance, mandated gun-store closures. A separate suit was filed in North Carolina after Wake County sheriff Gerald Baker (D.) refused to process new pistol-purchase and gun-carry permits starting on Tuesday.
The outcome of the cases will shape how local officials can restrict Americans' access to constitutionally protected gun rights during the emergency response to the novel coronavirus. Gun stores and manufacturers are facing potential shutdowns in a dozen states even as Americans flood stores during the crisis. Gun store and permitting process shutdowns have thwarted buyers in parts of the country, leading gun-rights groups to take legal action.
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), National Rifle Association, California Gun Rights Foundation (CGF), and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed suit against Villanueva and Newsom in an effort to keep gun stores in one the country's most populous counties open to the public. SAF founder Alan Gottlieb called the shutdowns in Los Angeles County an "attack on fundamental rights." The NRA said California officials were denying people guns at a time they need them most.
"Municipalities and states that target lawful gun stores for closure aren't promoting safety—by weaponizing their politics to disarm you and your loved ones, these shameless partisans are wantonly promoting a gun-control agenda that suffocates your Second Amendment rights when you need them most," Jason Ouimet, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action said. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department told the Washington Free Beacon it "has not been served with this lawsuit and has no comment at this time."
Villanueva said in a statement on Thursday that gun stores will be able to continue selling firearms to security companies, adding that civilians who had already completed a purchase would be allowed to pick up their firearms. The stores, however, would be closed to the general public. Local officials have argued that gun stores are not "essential" and are thus subject to a statewide lockdown.
"There's nothing essential about being able to purchase a new handgun," Los Angeles city attorney Mike Feuer told the Associated Press. Feuer did not respond to a request for comment.
Adam Kraut, FPC director of legal strategy, said the decision to shutter gun stores makes it effectively impossible to legally purchase guns or ammunition in the county.
"Especially due to the restrictive nature of California's byzantine gun laws that require the use of licensed dealers to buy and transfer both firearms and ammunition, the defendants' orders and actions challenged individually and collectively violate the Constitution and individuals' fundamental rights to keep and bear arms and due process of law," he said. "These irrational and outrageous fiat restrictions cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny and must be enjoined from enforcement."
Kraut said the case against Wake County, N.C., sheriff Baker was equally urgent, arguing that the sheriff's refusal to process new permits to purchase or carry a pistol also makes it impossible for residents to exercise their gun rights.
"Sheriff Baker's unconstitutional actions have and will deprive law-abiding, peaceable individuals the opportunity to obtain handguns, the 'quintessential self-defense weapon' according to the U.S. Supreme Court, in a time where the arms are most needed," he said. A spokesman for Wake County's Sheriff's Office declined to comment on the lawsuit.
Baker said in a statement that his decision "does not limit anyone's right to purchase a handgun," but is necessary because of the overwhelming number of people who have applied to purchase pistols as coronavirus has spread.


freebeacon--2020-03-27--Supreme Court Will Allow Review of Decades-Old Deportations

A little-noticed immigration decision at the Supreme Court Monday could give a boost to foreign nationals challenging deportation orders long after their removal from the United States .
The case involves an immigrant , Pedro Pablo Guerrero-Lasprilla , who was deported in 1998 in connection with the seizure of 50 kilograms of cocaine .
The Supreme Court ruled seven to two on Monday that Guerrero-Lasprilla can fight his deportation in federal court , giving him a chance at returning to the United States .
`` Practically speaking , the Supreme Court may have opened the door for thousands of aliens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago , to request review of their deportation orders .
If that happens , the operations of the Executive Office for Immigration Review , already struggling under a backlog of a million cases , may collapse and come to a screeching halt , '' Matt O'Brien , director of research at the Federation for American Immigration Reform and a former assistant chief counsel with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement , told the Washington Free Beacon .
The ruling was a rare setback for the Trump administration , which has generally fared well before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It may take years to appreciate the scope of the decision , as it 's not clear how many migrants might benefit .
Two other cases the Supreme Court is considering this term similarly explore when federal courts have power to consider immigration issues .
In ruling for Guerrero-Lasprilla on Monday , the justices may be signaling more defeats to come for the Trump administration , and an expanded role for judges in deportations .
The Immigration and Nationality Act ( INA ) is at the center of Monday 's case .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ immigrants who commit crimes easy and straightforward .
To that end , the INA dictates that immigrants convicted of violent crimes or drug offenses can not challenge their deportation in federal court .
Congress adopted that rule , called the `` criminal-alien bar , '' because it wanted expert immigration authorities in the executive branch , not federal courts , to make final judgments about deportation , O ’ Brien told the Free Beacon .
There are two exceptions to the criminal-alien bar .
One provides that immigrants can fight a deportation order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` question of law . ''
The issue in Monday ’ s case was a technical one—whether the application of law to undisputed facts counts as a `` question of law . ''
A seven-justice majority led by Justice Stephen Breyer said the answer is yes , citing a background rule that `` executive determinations generally are subject to judicial review . ''
In doing so , the Court may have greatly expanded the number of immigrants who can fight their deportations before a judge .
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented , warning that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more leeway to review deportation orders than Congress intended .
`` The majority effectively nullifies a jurisdiction-stripping statute , expanding the scope of judicial review well past the boundaries set by Congress , '' Thomas wrote .
Justice Samuel Alito joined Thomas 's dissent .
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Sonia Sotomayor , Elena Kagan , Neil Gorsuch , and Brett Kavanaugh joined Breyer ’ s opinion for the Court .
More disconcerting , O'Brien said , is a second issue the ruling did not broach : when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deportation in federal court expires .
`` Some deported aliens may retain the possibility of contesting their removal orders decades into the future , '' O'Brien told the Free Beacon .
`` And that possibility undermines the effectiveness of deportation as a method for preserving our national sovereignty and border security . ''
The case of another immigrant—Ruben Ovalles—was decided with Guerrero-Lasprilla 's .
In 2003 , Ovalles pleaded guilty to attempted possession of heroin .
Thereafter , immigration authorities deported him to the Dominican Republic in 2004 , where he remains today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ became a lawful permanent resident in the United States in 1986 .
A jury convicted him of possession with intent to distribute more than 50 kilograms of cocaine base worth over $ 1 million in 1988 .
Following a 10-year prison sentence , he was deported to Colombia in 1998 , where he still lives as of this writing .
The case is No .
18-776 Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr .

A little-noticed immigration decision at the Supreme Court Monday could give a boost to foreign nationals challenging deportation orders long after their removal from the United States.
The case involves an immigrant, Pedro Pablo Guerrero-Lasprilla, who was deported in 1998 in connection with the seizure of 50 kilograms of cocaine. The Supreme Court ruled seven to two on Monday that Guerrero-Lasprilla can fight his deportation in federal court, giving him a chance at returning to the United States.
"Practically speaking, the Supreme Court may have opened the door for thousands of aliens, many removed from the U.S. years ago, to request review of their deportation orders. If that happens, the operations of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, already struggling under a backlog of a million cases, may collapse and come to a screeching halt," Matt O'Brien, director of research at the Federation for American Immigration Reform and a former assistant chief counsel with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told the Washington Free Beacon.
The ruling was a rare setback for the Trump administration, which has generally fared well before the Supreme Court on criminal immigration issues. It may take years to appreciate the scope of the decision, as it's not clear how many migrants might benefit. Two other cases the Supreme Court is considering this term similarly explore when federal courts have power to consider immigration issues. In ruling for Guerrero-Lasprilla on Monday, the justices may be signaling more defeats to come for the Trump administration, and an expanded role for judges in deportations.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is at the center of Monday's case. Congress wanted to make the deportation of immigrants who commit crimes easy and straightforward. To that end, the INA dictates that immigrants convicted of violent crimes or drug offenses cannot challenge their deportation in federal court.
Congress adopted that rule, called the "criminal-alien bar," because it wanted expert immigration authorities in the executive branch, not federal courts, to make final judgments about deportation, O’Brien told the Free Beacon.
There are two exceptions to the criminal-alien bar. One provides that immigrants can fight a deportation order in court if their case involves a "question of law." The issue in Monday’s case was a technical one—whether the application of law to undisputed facts counts as a "question of law."
A seven-justice majority led by Justice Stephen Breyer said the answer is yes, citing a background rule that "executive determinations generally are subject to judicial review." In doing so, the Court may have greatly expanded the number of immigrants who can fight their deportations before a judge.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, warning that the Court's decision gives judges far more leeway to review deportation orders than Congress intended.
"The majority effectively nullifies a jurisdiction-stripping statute, expanding the scope of judicial review well past the boundaries set by Congress," Thomas wrote. Justice Samuel Alito joined Thomas's dissent.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined Breyer’s opinion for the Court.
More disconcerting, O'Brien said, is a second issue the ruling did not broach: when an immigrant's ability to challenge his deportation in federal court expires.
"Some deported aliens may retain the possibility of contesting their removal orders decades into the future," O'Brien told the Free Beacon. "And that possibility undermines the effectiveness of deportation as a method for preserving our national sovereignty and border security."
The case of another immigrant—Ruben Ovalles—was decided with Guerrero-Lasprilla's. In 2003, Ovalles pleaded guilty to attempted possession of heroin. Thereafter, immigration authorities deported him to the Dominican Republic in 2004, where he remains today.
Guerrero-Lasprilla is a native Colombian who became a lawful permanent resident in the United States in 1986. A jury convicted him of possession with intent to distribute more than 50 kilograms of cocaine base worth over $1 million in 1988.
Following a 10-year prison sentence, he was deported to Colombia in 1998, where he still lives as of this writing.
The case is No. 18-776 Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr.
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr ... by Washington Free Beacon on Scribd


freebeacon--2020-03-27--China Gives Chilly Response to Request for U.S. Journalists to Remain in Country

BEIJING ( Reuters ) – China hit out at what it called `` biased '' reporting on Friday in a frosty response to a request by three major U.S. newspapers to reverse the expulsion of several of their China-based journalists .
China announced on March 18 it was revoking the press accreditations of all American journalists in the China bureaus of the New York Times ( NYT.N ) , Wall Street Journal ( NWSA.O ) and Washington Post , which were due to expire at the end of 2020 .
In an open letter published earlier this week , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move , saying it was `` uniquely damaging and reckless '' at a time when the world is sharing the burden of fighting the coronavirus .
China 's Foreign Ministry said in a statement on its website that it welcomed media and reporters from all countries to report in China `` in accordance with laws and regulations '' but that it did not accept `` the arrogance and prejudice '' it said was revealed in the letter of the three publishers .
The statement did not directly answer the newspapers ' request but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accept it .
`` The Chinese people do not welcome reports that are not objective and not fair , '' said the statement .
`` Faced with the escalating political suppression and discriminatory practices of the United States , do you expect China to be merely a ‘ silent lamb ' '' ?
The ministry reiterated that the blame for the situation lay with Washington , rather than Beijing , for first restricting the number of Chinese media in the United States .
Last month , Washington demanded journalists from Chinese state media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying it was a reponse to the growing crackdown on independent reporting in China .
China then expelled three Wall Street Journal reporters – two Americans and an Australian – after the paper published an opinion column calling China the `` real sick man of Asia '' .
In early March , the United States ordered four Chinese news organisations to slash their staff by around a third , impacting 60 reporters .
The Foreign Ministry described the move as unreasonable and driven by `` ideological bias '' .
The ministry also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the letter between the timing of the journalists ' expulsion and the need to report on China 's coronavirus epidemic .
China has bristled at accusations by U.S. officials that it covered up the earlier stages of the virus , exacerbating tension between the world 's top two economies .

BEIJING (Reuters) - China hit out at what it called "biased" reporting on Friday in a frosty response to a request by three major U.S. newspapers to reverse the expulsion of several of their China-based journalists.
China announced on March 18 it was revoking the press accreditations of all American journalists in the China bureaus of the New York Times (NYT.N), Wall Street Journal (NWSA.O) and Washington Post, which were due to expire at the end of 2020.
In an open letter published earlier this week, the three publishers urged China to reconsider the move, saying it was "uniquely damaging and reckless" at a time when the world is sharing the burden of fighting the coronavirus.
China's Foreign Ministry said in a statement on its website that it welcomed media and reporters from all countries to report in China "in accordance with laws and regulations" but that it did not accept "the arrogance and prejudice" it said was revealed in the letter of the three publishers.
The statement did not directly answer the newspapers' request but suggested Beijing was in no mood to accept it.
"The Chinese people do not welcome reports that are not objective and not fair," said the statement.
"Faced with the escalating political suppression and discriminatory practices of the United States, do you expect China to be merely a 'silent lamb'"?
The ministry reiterated that the blame for the situation lay with Washington, rather than Beijing, for first restricting the number of Chinese media in the United States.
Last month, Washington demanded journalists from Chinese state media be registered as staff of diplomatic missions, saying it was a reponse to the growing crackdown on independent reporting in China.
China then expelled three Wall Street Journal reporters - two Americans and an Australian - after the paper published an opinion column calling China the "real sick man of Asia".
In early March, the United States ordered four Chinese news organisations to slash their staff by around a third, impacting 60 reporters.
The Foreign Ministry described the move as unreasonable and driven by "ideological bias".
The ministry also lashed out at the connection made in the letter between the timing of the journalists' expulsion and the need to report on China's coronavirus epidemic.
China has bristled at accusations by U.S. officials that it covered up the earlier stages of the virus, exacerbating tension between the world's top two economies.
(Reporting by Dominique Patton, Editing by William Maclean)


Corona Conservatism

Not long ago , as the severity of the coronavirus pandemic became clear , journalists were quick to say that the crisis marked the end of an era .
`` The Trump Presidency is Over , '' declared a headline in the Atlantic .
One article in Politico said , `` The Pandemic Is the End of Trumpism . ''
A New York Times op-ed column carried the headline , `` The Era of Small Government Is Over . ''
Well , yes .
At least so far as that last article is concerned .
The era of small government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ever happened at all ) .
The highpoint of Republican and conservative efforts to limit the size and scope of the federal Leviathan was either Ronald Reagan 's 1982 budget or the Clinton-Gingrich welfare reform of 1996 .
Then the GOP abandoned its plans for minimal government .
Even the Tea Party insurgency—which began as a rebellion against standpatters in the Republican establishment—protested cuts to Medicare and achieved little more than a sequester that severely damaged military readiness .
And , of course , the current Republican president was elected on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and retirement benefits .
No small-government conservative , he .
What the moment requires is some intellectual modesty .
It is far too early in the development of this national emergency to make definitive judgments on its political , economic , social , and cultural effects .
We might as well explore alternative scenarios .
For example : The coronavirus might not signify a conclusion to or beginning of a historical era , so much as an acceleration of previously germinating inclinations .
This quickening is most visible in the United States Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members of the Republican conference who first recognized the severity of the challenges emanating from Wuhan , China .
As Congress put together its economic relief bill , these lawmakers did not worry about violating free-market dogma .
They recognized the extraordinary nature of the situation .
Their primary concern was the fate of the unemployed .
In so far as `` Trumpism , '' to the degree that it exists , describes a political tendency that is suspicious of overseas commitments , international trade , and unchecked immigration , and more worried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revanchism of Russia , this pandemic does not spell the `` end . ''
It may even serve as vindication .
The Republican senators most widely seen as preparing to run for president in 2024 have used the past few weeks to articulate a conservatism that is more heavily weighted toward security than freedom .
Tom Cotton has a bill , cosponsored by Mike Gallagher in the House , to end U.S. dependence on the Chinese manufacture of pharmaceuticals .
Josh Hawley introduced an `` Emergency Family Relief Act '' that was much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) onetime payments included in the economic triage bill .
Marco Rubio designed the small-business lending component that is essential to the CARES Act .
They all criticized the Chinese government for lying about the coronavirus as it spread throughout the world .
On Capitol Hill , then , the virus has elevated the senators and staffers who have spent the last few years calling for a `` realignment '' of Republican politics away from the prerogatives and priorities of corporate America and toward those of middle- and working-class families without college degrees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and advocates of industrial policy have found themselves playing the role of Cassandra , who saw the cost of war firsthand after her warnings were dismissed .
The young people on the right drawn to the agenda of national populism will come out of this experience more skeptical of China , more critical of the pre-crisis economic policy of the GOP , more suspicious of uncontrolled flows of labor , capital , and goods across borders .
They may find that they have company , since the number of unemployed and nonparticipants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swell .
If the results of the disease and recession are widespread and long-lasting , expect the new acolytes of realignment to adopt Tyler Cowen 's formulation of `` state-capacity libertarianism '' as a possible model for reconciling markets with a state strong enough to boost infrastructure , education , and research and development .
The lack of capacity in the public health system and in the domestic manufacture of pharmaceuticals and personal protective equipment is a tragic reminder of the consequences of drift .
Recent days have provided empirical proof of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end , a government program .
A traditionalist right that understands the United States is in a full-spectrum competition with China , that uses public policy to strengthen working families in both the service and manufacturing sectors , and that observes and promotes American traditions of constitutional liberty would not be the worst upshot of this calamity .
But it is just one conceivable outcome .
And by no means the most likely .
The debate over conservative economic policy is just that , a debate , and the pro-market and supply-side constituencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corners of the internet , have lost none of their vigor , none of their intellectual ability , none of their institutional power .
The mounting pressure from some on the right to restore economic normalcy as soon as possible testifies not only to the un-sustainability of lockdowns over time , but also to the potency of the status quo ante coronavirus .
After all , the law of unintended consequences stipulates that for every action there is an equal and unplanned and ( probably ) negative reaction .
The cascading collapses of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon put us in a world more unstable than the creaky one we already inhabit .
And if past is prologue , the monetary and fiscal expansion that authorities have used to stave off doomsday will look very different to conservatives out of power .
One year from now , the American political scene could well resemble that of a decade ago , when a unified Democratic government was under siege from Red State outsiders who had rekindled opposition to deficit spending .
If that happens , then anyone connected to the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And Nikki Haley , who defended capitalism with aplomb in the Wall Street Journal , and resigned from the board of Boeing after the company requested a federal bailout , will benefit from an anti-statist turn on the grassroots right .
In the long run , then , coronavirus may end up reinvigorating both the nationalist and free-market camps .
But you know what else happens in the long run .
For the time being , coronavirus has accelerated a generational and ideological transition within American conservatism toward the politics of social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic solidarity .

Not long ago, as the severity of the coronavirus pandemic became clear, journalists were quick to say that the crisis marked the end of an era. "The Trump Presidency is Over," declared a headline in the Atlantic. One article in Politico said, "The Pandemic Is the End of Trumpism." A New York Times op-ed column carried the headline, "The Era of Small Government Is Over."
Well, yes. At least so far as that last article is concerned. The era of small government has been over for decades (if it ever happened at all). The highpoint of Republican and conservative efforts to limit the size and scope of the federal Leviathan was either Ronald Reagan's 1982 budget or the Clinton-Gingrich welfare reform of 1996. Then the GOP abandoned its plans for minimal government.
Even the Tea Party insurgency—which began as a rebellion against standpatters in the Republican establishment—protested cuts to Medicare and achieved little more than a sequester that severely damaged military readiness. And, of course, the current Republican president was elected on a pledge not to touch senior health care and retirement benefits. No small-government conservative, he.
What the moment requires is some intellectual modesty. It is far too early in the development of this national emergency to make definitive judgments on its political, economic, social, and cultural effects. We might as well explore alternative scenarios. For example: The coronavirus might not signify a conclusion to or beginning of a historical era, so much as an acceleration of previously germinating inclinations.
This quickening is most visible in the United States Senate. It was the youthful and heterodox members of the Republican conference who first recognized the severity of the challenges emanating from Wuhan, China. As Congress put together its economic relief bill, these lawmakers did not worry about violating free-market dogma. They recognized the extraordinary nature of the situation. Their primary concern was the fate of the unemployed. In so far as "Trumpism," to the degree that it exists, describes a political tendency that is suspicious of overseas commitments, international trade, and unchecked immigration, and more worried about the rise of China than the revanchism of Russia, this pandemic does not spell the "end." It may even serve as vindication.
The Republican senators most widely seen as preparing to run for president in 2024 have used the past few weeks to articulate a conservatism that is more heavily weighted toward security than freedom. Tom Cotton has a bill, cosponsored by Mike Gallagher in the House, to end U.S. dependence on the Chinese manufacture of pharmaceuticals. Josh Hawley introduced an "Emergency Family Relief Act" that was much more ambitious than the (for now) onetime payments included in the economic triage bill. Marco Rubio designed the small-business lending component that is essential to the CARES Act. They all criticized the Chinese government for lying about the coronavirus as it spread throughout the world.
On Capitol Hill, then, the virus has elevated the senators and staffers who have spent the last few years calling for a "realignment" of Republican politics away from the prerogatives and priorities of corporate America and toward those of middle- and working-class families without college degrees. The China hawks, economic nationalists, and advocates of industrial policy have found themselves playing the role of Cassandra, who saw the cost of war firsthand after her warnings were dismissed.
The young people on the right drawn to the agenda of national populism will come out of this experience more skeptical of China, more critical of the pre-crisis economic policy of the GOP, more suspicious of uncontrolled flows of labor, capital, and goods across borders. They may find that they have company, since the number of unemployed and nonparticipants in the labor force is about to swell.
If the results of the disease and recession are widespread and long-lasting, expect the new acolytes of realignment to adopt Tyler Cowen's formulation of "state-capacity libertarianism" as a possible model for reconciling markets with a state strong enough to boost infrastructure, education, and research and development. The lack of capacity in the public health system and in the domestic manufacture of pharmaceuticals and personal protective equipment is a tragic reminder of the consequences of drift. Recent days have provided empirical proof of the aphorism that capitalism is, in the end, a government program.
A traditionalist right that understands the United States is in a full-spectrum competition with China, that uses public policy to strengthen working families in both the service and manufacturing sectors, and that observes and promotes American traditions of constitutional liberty would not be the worst upshot of this calamity. But it is just one conceivable outcome. And by no means the most likely.
The debate over conservative economic policy is just that, a debate, and the pro-market and supply-side constituencies, while no longer fashionable in certain corners of the internet, have lost none of their vigor, none of their intellectual ability, none of their institutional power. The mounting pressure from some on the right to restore economic normalcy as soon as possible testifies not only to the un-sustainability of lockdowns over time, but also to the potency of the status quo ante coronavirus.
After all, the law of unintended consequences stipulates that for every action there is an equal and unplanned and (probably) negative reaction. The cascading collapses of demand, liquidity, and solvency may soon put us in a world more unstable than the creaky one we already inhabit. And if past is prologue, the monetary and fiscal expansion that authorities have used to stave off doomsday will look very different to conservatives out of power. One year from now, the American political scene could well resemble that of a decade ago, when a unified Democratic government was under siege from Red State outsiders who had rekindled opposition to deficit spending.
If that happens, then anyone connected to the coronavirus response will be exposed to intra-party challenges. And Nikki Haley, who defended capitalism with aplomb in the Wall Street Journal, and resigned from the board of Boeing after the company requested a federal bailout, will benefit from an anti-statist turn on the grassroots right. In the long run, then, coronavirus may end up reinvigorating both the nationalist and free-market camps.
But you know what else happens in the long run. For the time being, coronavirus has accelerated a generational and ideological transition within American conservatism toward the politics of social conservatism, foreign policy unilateralism, and economic solidarity.


freebeacon--2020-03-27--Hospitality Union Demands Dues From Members Left Unemployed By Coronavirus

A hospitality union is still demanding dues payments from workers left unemployed by the coronavirus , threatening to cut off health insurance benefits for those who fall behind on payments .
UNITE HERE Local 11 , which represents more than 30,000 hotel employees in Southern California and Arizona , has continued to request dues from laid off workers as the pandemic halts travel across the country .
The union on Tuesday sent payment reminders to members via text message , telling many unemployed workers , `` It is critical for you to keep paying your dues so that we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who recently lost his job at a hotel as California launched a statewide lockdown , called the union 's practices `` pathetic . ''
`` It 's kind of pathetic the way they 're doing things.… It sounds to me like all they want is the money , and that ’ s it .
They don ’ t care about their employees , '' the member told the Washington Free Beacon .
`` My phone company told my wife a couple days ago , ‘ If you 're not able to pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We can wait . '
If other companies are doing this , why ca n't the union do the same thing ? ''
UNITE HERE Local 11 did not respond to a request for comment .
Although the member was laid off , the hotel extended health insurance coverage for workers through September .
He was told by a union representative that those benefits are linked to maintaining dues payments , which ranged from $ 28 to $ 71 each month , according to its 2019 federal labor filings .
`` I said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that gon na work ? '
[ The representative ] goes , ‘ Oh well , you ’ ll be covered until September .
Well , as long as you keep paying your union dues , ' '' the member said .
The text messages arrived as many American companies work to ease constraints on workers displaced by the virus .
The Los Angeles-based STAPLES Center announced in March it would continue to pay hourly employees scheduled to work during canceled sporting events , a decision UNITE HERE Local 11 recognized on Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders have been difficult to reach during the crisis .
Though the union 's payment reminder message listed its Los Angeles office phone number for questions , the offices are closed due to the virus .
`` Coworkers have sent me text messages saying that they couldn ’ t talk to anybody at the union , that the phone was always busy and nobody was answering .
But someone sent them a text message saying they need to pay the union , regardless how , '' the member said .
`` I 'm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing anything about it . ''
Labor watchdogs criticized the union 's callous approach to struggling members .
Charlyce Bozzello , spokeswoman for the Center for Union Facts , said UNITE HERE owes members an apology .
`` For Local 11 to expect struggling , out-of-work employees to continue paying dues is just disgraceful , '' she said .
`` Local 11 seems unwilling to see a drop in its dues revenue , regardless of whether or not its members can afford it . ''
Patrick Semmens , spokesman for the National Right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to withhold insurance benefits during a deadly pandemic demonstrated a `` total lack of compassion '' from local labor leaders .
`` Sadly this is yet another example of the seemingly endless greed union bosses have for extracting dues from rank-and-file workers , '' he said .
`` As example after example demonstrates , union officials will lie , threaten and act with a total lack of compassion towards the very workers they claim to represent in order to line their own pockets . ''
UNITE HERE ’ s national organization maintains close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given nearly $ 7.5 million to Democrats since 2000 , and just $ 256,900 to Republicans , according to the Center for Responsive Politics .
The national union recently praised House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D. , Calif. ) , who has received more than $ 38,000 from the union since 1998 , following the passage of the Coronavirus Response Agreement in March .
The group also accused congressional Republicans of `` shafting '' workers .
UNITE HERE national representatives did not respond to a request for comment on Local 11 's decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
UNITE HERE Local 11 spent more than $ 800,000 on political activities and lobbying in 2019 , according to its federal labor filings .
It has also touted its involvement in national politics , saying it played a role `` not just in local Democratic politics , but in the incalculably larger transformation of the American labor movement and the broader movement for economic justice . ''
The union endorsed both Sens .
Bernie Sanders ( I. , Vt. ) and Elizabeth Warren ( D. , Mass . )
in January .

Member: 'It sounds to me like all they want is the money'
A hospitality union is still demanding dues payments from workers left unemployed by the coronavirus, threatening to cut off health insurance benefits for those who fall behind on payments.
UNITE HERE Local 11, which represents more than 30,000 hotel employees in Southern California and Arizona, has continued to request dues from laid off workers as the pandemic halts travel across the country. The union on Tuesday sent payment reminders to members via text message, telling many unemployed workers, "It is critical for you to keep paying your dues so that we can keep fighting."
One current member, who recently lost his job at a hotel as California launched a statewide lockdown, called the union's practices "pathetic."
"It's kind of pathetic the way they're doing things.… It sounds to me like all they want is the money, and that’s it. They don’t care about their employees," the member told the Washington Free Beacon. "My phone company told my wife a couple days ago, 'If you're not able to pay, we can always make arrangements. We can wait.' If other companies are doing this, why can't the union do the same thing?"
UNITE HERE Local 11 did not respond to a request for comment.
Although the member was laid off, the hotel extended health insurance coverage for workers through September. He was told by a union representative that those benefits are linked to maintaining dues payments, which ranged from $28 to $71 each month, according to its 2019 federal labor filings.
"I said, 'Medical insurance, how is that gonna work?' [The representative] goes, 'Oh well, you’ll be covered until September. Well, as long as you keep paying your union dues,'" the member said.
The text messages arrived as many American companies work to ease constraints on workers displaced by the virus. The Los Angeles-based STAPLES Center announced in March it would continue to pay hourly employees scheduled to work during canceled sporting events, a decision UNITE HERE Local 11 recognized on Twitter.
Members have also complained that union leaders have been difficult to reach during the crisis. Though the union's payment reminder message listed its Los Angeles office phone number for questions, the offices are closed due to the virus.
"Coworkers have sent me text messages saying that they couldn’t talk to anybody at the union, that the phone was always busy and nobody was answering. But someone sent them a text message saying they need to pay the union, regardless how," the member said. "I'm kind of losing hope. Nobody's doing anything about it."
Labor watchdogs criticized the union's callous approach to struggling members. Charlyce Bozzello, spokeswoman for the Center for Union Facts, said UNITE HERE owes members an apology.
"For Local 11 to expect struggling, out-of-work employees to continue paying dues is just disgraceful," she said. "Local 11 seems unwilling to see a drop in its dues revenue, regardless of whether or not its members can afford it."
Patrick Semmens, spokesman for the National Right to Work Foundation, said that threatening to withhold insurance benefits during a deadly pandemic demonstrated a "total lack of compassion" from local labor leaders.
"Sadly this is yet another example of the seemingly endless greed union bosses have for extracting dues from rank-and-file workers," he said. "As example after example demonstrates, union officials will lie, threaten and act with a total lack of compassion towards the very workers they claim to represent in order to line their own pockets."
UNITE HERE’s national organization maintains close ties to Democrats. The union has given nearly $7.5 million to Democrats since 2000, and just $256,900 to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The national union recently praised House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), who has received more than $38,000 from the union since 1998, following the passage of the Coronavirus Response Agreement in March. The group also accused congressional Republicans of "shafting" workers.
UNITE HERE national representatives did not respond to a request for comment on Local 11's decision to pursue dues from recently unemployed members.
UNITE HERE Local 11 spent more than $800,000 on political activities and lobbying in 2019, according to its federal labor filings. It has also touted its involvement in national politics, saying it played a role "not just in local Democratic politics, but in the incalculably larger transformation of the American labor movement and the broader movement for economic justice." The union endorsed both Sens. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) in January.