thenation--2020-03-31--It’s Time to Stop Our Wasteful Military Spending

My dad was born in 1917 .
Somehow , he survived the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918–19 , but an outbreak of whooping cough in 1923 claimed his baby sister , Clementina .
One of my dad ’ s first memories was seeing his sister ’ s tiny white casket .
Another sister was permanently marked by scarlet fever .
In 1923 , my dad was hit by a car and spent two weeks in a hospital with a fractured skull as well as a lacerated thumb .
His immigrant parents had no medical insurance , but the driver of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward the medical bills .
The only lasting effect was the scar my father carried for the rest of his life on his right thumb .
The year 1929 brought the Great Depression and lean times .
My father ’ s father had left the family , so my dad , then 12 , had to pitch in .
He got a newspaper route , which he kept for four years , quitting high school after tenth grade so he could earn money for the family .
In 1935 , like millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he joined the Civilian Conservation Corps ( CCC ) , a creation of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt ’ s New Deal that offered work on environmental projects of many kinds .
He battled forest fires in Oregon for two years before returning to his family and factory work .
In 1942 , he was drafted into the Army , going back to a factory job when World War II ended .
Times grew a little less lean in 1951 when he became a firefighter , after which he felt he could afford to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ m offering all this personal history as the context for a prediction of my dad ’ s that , for obvious reasons , came to my mind again recently .
When I was a teenager , he liked to tell me : “ I had it tough in the beginning and easy in the end .
You , Willy , have had it easy in the beginning , but will likely have it tough in the end.
” His prophecy stayed with me , perhaps because even then , somewhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my dad was right .
The Covid-19 pandemic is now grabbing the headlines , all of them , and a global recession , if not a depression , seems like a near-certainty .
The stock market has been tanking and people ’ s lives are being disrupted in fundamental and scary ways .
My dad knew the experience of losing a loved one to disease , of working hard to make ends meet during times of great scarcity , of sacrificing for the good of one ’ s family .
Compared to him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so far , I ’ ve had an easier life as an officer in the Air Force and then a college teacher and historian .
But at age 57 , am I finally ready for the hard times to come ?
Are any of us ?
And keep in mind that this is just the beginning .
Climate change ( recall Australia ’ s recent and massive wildfires ) promises yet more upheavals , more chaos , more diseases .
America ’ s wanton militarism and lying politicians promise more wars .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or at least attenuate the tough times to come , assuming my dad ’ s prediction is indeed now coming true ?
What can we do ?
Here ’ s the one thing about major disruptions to normalcy : they can create opportunities for dramatic change .
( Disaster capitalists know this , too , unfortunately . )
President Franklin Roosevelt recognized this in the 1930s and orchestrated his New Deal to revive the economy and put Americans like my dad back to work .
In 2001 , the administration of President George @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capitalized on the shock-and-awe disruption of the 9/11 attacks to inflict on the world their vision of a Pax Americana , effectively a militarized imperium justified ( falsely ) as enabling greater freedom for all .
The inherent contradiction in such a dreamscape was so absurd as to make future calamity inevitable .
Recall what an aide to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld scribbled down , only hours after the attack on the Pentagon and the collapse of the Twin Towers , as his boss ’ s instructions ( especially when it came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) : “ Go massive—sweep it all up , things related and not.
” And indeed they would do just that , with an emphasis on the “ not , ” including , of course , the calamitous invasion of Iraq in 2003 .
To progressive-minded people thinking about this moment of crisis , what kind of opportunities might open to us when ( or rather if ) Donald Trump is gone from the White House ?
Perhaps this coronaviral moment is the perfect time to consider what it would mean for us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the usual hubris or those disastrous invasions of foreign countries .
To respond to Covid-19 , climate change , and the staggering wealth inequities in this country that , when combined , will cause unbelievable levels of needless suffering , what ’ s needed is a drastic reordering of our national priorities .
Remember , the Fed ’ s first move was to inject $ 1.5 trillion into the stock market .
( That would have been enough to forgive all current student debt . )
The Trump administration has also promised to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all oil companies and the fracking industry , a perfect storm when it comes to trying to sustain and enrich those upholding a kleptocratic and amoral status quo .
This should be a time for a genuinely new approach , one fit for a world of rising disruption and disaster , one that would define a new , more democratic , less bellicose America .
To that end , here are seven suggestions , focusing—since I ’ m a retired military officer—mainly on the US military , a subject that continues to preoccupy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that military and the rest of the national security state swallow up roughly 60 percent of federal discretionary spending : 1 .
If ever there was a time to reduce our massive and wasteful military spending , this is it .
There was never , for example , any sense in investing up to $ 1.7 trillion over the next 30 years to “ modernize ” America ’ s nuclear arsenal .
( Why are new weapons needed to exterminate humanity when the “ old ” ones still work just fine ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s estimated that Lockheed Martin ’ s disappointing F-35 jet fighter alone will cost $ 1.5 trillion over its life span—do nothing to secure us from pandemics , the devastating effects of climate change , or other all-too-pressing threats .
Such weaponry only emboldens a militaristic and chauvinistic foreign policy that will facilitate yet more wars and blowback problems of every sort .
And speaking of wars , isn ’ t it finally time to end US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan ?
More than $ 6 trillion has already been wasted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time of global peril , even more is being wasted on this country ’ s forever conflicts across the Greater Middle East and Africa .
( Roughly $ 4 billion a month continues to be spent on Afghanistan alone , despite all the talk about “ peace ” there . )
2 .
Along with ending profligate weapons programs and quagmire wars , isn ’ t it time for the United States to begin dramatically reducing its military “ footprint ” on this planet ?
Roughly 800 US military bases circle the globe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yearly cost somewhere north of $ 100 billion .
Cutting such numbers in half over the next decade would be a more than achievable goal .
Permanently cutting provocative “ war games ” in South Korea , Europe , and elsewhere would be no less sensible .
Are North Korea and Russia truly deterred by such dramatic displays of destructive military might ?
3 .
Come to think of it , why does the United States need the immediate military capacity to fight two major foreign wars simultaneously , as the Pentagon continues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in the name of “ defending ” our country ?
Here ’ s a radical proposal : If you add 70,000 Special Operations forces to 186,000 Marine Corps personnel , the United States already possesses a potent quick-strike force of roughly 250,000 troops .
Now , add in the Army ’ s 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions and the 10th Mountain Division .
What you have is more than enough military power to provide for America ’ s actual national security .
All other Army divisions could be reduced to cadres , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threatened by war .
Similarly , restructure the Air Force and Navy to deemphasize the present “ global strike ” vision of those services , while getting rid of Donald Trump ’ s newest service , the Space Force , and the absurdist idea of taking war into low earth orbit .
Doesn ’ t America already have enough war here on this small planet of ours ?
4 .
Bring back the draft , just not for military purposes .
Make it part of a national service program for improving America .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Civilian Conservation Corps focused on fostering a Green New Deal .
It ’ s time for a new Works Progress Administration to rebuild America ’ s infrastructure and reinvigorate our culture , as that organization did in the Great Depression years .
It ’ s time to engage young people in service to this country .
Tackling Covid-19 or future pandemics would be far easier if there were quickly trained medical aides who could help free doctors and nurses to focus on the more difficult cases .
Tackling climate change will likely require @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fires on the west coast , as my dad did while in the CCC—and in a climate-changing world there will be no shortage of other necessary projects to save our planet .
Isn ’ t it time America ’ s youth answered a call to service ?
Better yet , isn ’ t it time we offered them the opportunity to truly put America , rather than themselves , first ?
5 .
And speaking of “ America First , ” that eternal Trumpian catch-phrase , isn ’ t it time for all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change make a mockery of walls and go-it-alone nationalism , not to speak of politics that divide , distract , and keep so many down ?
President Dwight D. Eisenhower once said that only Americans can truly hurt America , but there ’ s a corollary to that : only Americans can truly save America—by uniting , focusing on our common problems , and uplifting one another .
To do so , it ’ s vitally necessary to put an end to fearmongering ( and warmongering ) .
As President Roosevelt famously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the depths of the Great Depression , “ The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
” Fear inhibits our ability to think clearly , to cooperate fully , to change things radically as a community .
6 .
To cite Yoda , the Jedi master , we must unlearn what we have learned .
For example , America ’ s real heroes shouldn ’ t be “ warriors ” who kill or sports stars who throw footballs and dunk basketballs .
We ’ re witnessing our true heroes in action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and other medical personnel , together with our first responders , and those workers who stay in grocery stores , pharmacies , and the like and continue to serve us all despite the danger of contracting the coronavirus from customers .
They are all selflessly resisting a threat too many of us either didn ’ t foresee or refused to treat seriously , most notably , of course , President Donald Trump : a pandemic that transcends borders and boundaries .
But can Americans transcend the increasingly harsh and divisive borders and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we come to work selflessly to save and improve the lives of others ?
Can we become , in a sense , lovers of humanity ?
7 .
Finally , we must extend our love to encompass nature , our planet .
For if we keep treating our lands , our waters , and our skies like a set of trash cans and garbage bins , our children and their children will inherit far harder times than the present moment , hard as it may be .
What these seven suggestions really amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aggression and a corporate mindset of exploitation for one that sees humanity and this planet more holistically .
Isn ’ t it time to regain that vision of the earth we shared collectively during the Apollo moon missions : a fragile blue sanctuary floating in the velvety darkness of space , an irreplaceable home to be cared for and respected , since there ’ s no other place for us to go ?
Otherwise , I fear that my father ’ s prediction will come true not just for me , but for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even he couldn ’ t have imagined .

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nation believes that helping readers stay informed about the impact of the coronavirus crisis is a form of public service. For that reason, this article, and all of our coronavirus coverage, is now free. Please subscribe to support our writers and staff, and stay healthy. This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
My dad was born in 1917. Somehow, he survived the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918–19, but an outbreak of whooping cough in 1923 claimed his baby sister, Clementina. One of my dad’s first memories was seeing his sister’s tiny white casket. Another sister was permanently marked by scarlet fever. In 1923, my dad was hit by a car and spent two weeks in a hospital with a fractured skull as well as a lacerated thumb. His immigrant parents had no medical insurance, but the driver of the car gave his father $50 toward the medical bills. The only lasting effect was the scar my father carried for the rest of his life on his right thumb.
The year 1929 brought the Great Depression and lean times. My father’s father had left the family, so my dad, then 12, had to pitch in. He got a newspaper route, which he kept for four years, quitting high school after tenth grade so he could earn money for the family. In 1935, like millions of other young men of that era, he joined the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), a creation of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal that offered work on environmental projects of many kinds. He battled forest fires in Oregon for two years before returning to his family and factory work. In 1942, he was drafted into the Army, going back to a factory job when World War II ended. Times grew a little less lean in 1951 when he became a firefighter, after which he felt he could afford to buy a house and start a family.
I’m offering all this personal history as the context for a prediction of my dad’s that, for obvious reasons, came to my mind again recently. When I was a teenager, he liked to tell me: “I had it tough in the beginning and easy in the end. You, Willy, have had it easy in the beginning, but will likely have it tough in the end.” His prophecy stayed with me, perhaps because even then, somewhere deep down, I already suspected that my dad was right.
The Covid-19 pandemic is now grabbing the headlines, all of them, and a global recession, if not a depression, seems like a near-certainty. The stock market has been tanking and people’s lives are being disrupted in fundamental and scary ways. My dad knew the experience of losing a loved one to disease, of working hard to make ends meet during times of great scarcity, of sacrificing for the good of one’s family. Compared to him, it’s true that, so far, I’ve had an easier life as an officer in the Air Force and then a college teacher and historian. But at age 57, am I finally ready for the hard times to come? Are any of us?
And keep in mind that this is just the beginning. Climate change (recall Australia’s recent and massive wildfires) promises yet more upheavals, more chaos, more diseases. America’s wanton militarism and lying politicians promise more wars. What’s to be done to avert or at least attenuate the tough times to come, assuming my dad’s prediction is indeed now coming true? What can we do? Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung
It’s Time to Reimagine America
Here’s the one thing about major disruptions to normalcy: they can create opportunities for dramatic change. (Disaster capitalists know this, too, unfortunately.) President Franklin Roosevelt recognized this in the 1930s and orchestrated his New Deal to revive the economy and put Americans like my dad back to work.
In 2001, the administration of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney capitalized on the shock-and-awe disruption of the 9/11 attacks to inflict on the world their vision of a Pax Americana, effectively a militarized imperium justified (falsely) as enabling greater freedom for all. The inherent contradiction in such a dreamscape was so absurd as to make future calamity inevitable. Recall what an aide to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld scribbled down, only hours after the attack on the Pentagon and the collapse of the Twin Towers, as his boss’s instructions (especially when it came to looking for evidence of Iraqi involvement): “Go massive—sweep it all up, things related and not.” And indeed they would do just that, with an emphasis on the “not,” including, of course, the calamitous invasion of Iraq in 2003. Current Issue View our current issue
To progressive-minded people thinking about this moment of crisis, what kind of opportunities might open to us when (or rather if) Donald Trump is gone from the White House? Perhaps this coronaviral moment is the perfect time to consider what it would mean for us to go truly big, but without the usual hubris or those disastrous invasions of foreign countries. To respond to Covid-19, climate change, and the staggering wealth inequities in this country that, when combined, will cause unbelievable levels of needless suffering, what’s needed is a drastic reordering of our national priorities.
Remember, the Fed’s first move was to inject $1.5 trillion into the stock market. (That would have been enough to forgive all current student debt.) The Trump administration has also promised to help airlines, hotels, and above all oil companies and the fracking industry, a perfect storm when it comes to trying to sustain and enrich those upholding a kleptocratic and amoral status quo.
This should be a time for a genuinely new approach, one fit for a world of rising disruption and disaster, one that would define a new, more democratic, less bellicose America. To that end, here are seven suggestions, focusing—since I’m a retired military officer—mainly on the US military, a subject that continues to preoccupy me, especially since, at present, that military and the rest of the national security state swallow up roughly 60 percent of federal discretionary spending:
1. If ever there was a time to reduce our massive and wasteful military spending, this is it. There was never, for example, any sense in investing up to $1.7 trillion over the next 30 years to “modernize” America’s nuclear arsenal. (Why are new weapons needed to exterminate humanity when the “old” ones still work just fine?) Hundreds of stealth fighters and bombers—it’s estimated that Lockheed Martin’s disappointing F-35 jet fighter alone will cost $1.5 trillion over its life span—do nothing to secure us from pandemics, the devastating effects of climate change, or other all-too-pressing threats. Such weaponry only emboldens a militaristic and chauvinistic foreign policy that will facilitate yet more wars and blowback problems of every sort. And speaking of wars, isn’t it finally time to end US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan? More than $6 trillion has already been wasted on those wars and, in this time of global peril, even more is being wasted on this country’s forever conflicts across the Greater Middle East and Africa. (Roughly $4 billion a month continues to be spent on Afghanistan alone, despite all the talk about “peace” there.)
2. Along with ending profligate weapons programs and quagmire wars, isn’t it time for the United States to begin dramatically reducing its military “footprint” on this planet? Roughly 800 US military bases circle the globe in a historically unprecedented fashion at a yearly cost somewhere north of $100 billion. Cutting such numbers in half over the next decade would be a more than achievable goal. Permanently cutting provocative “war games” in South Korea, Europe, and elsewhere would be no less sensible. Are North Korea and Russia truly deterred by such dramatic displays of destructive military might?
3. Come to think of it, why does the United States need the immediate military capacity to fight two major foreign wars simultaneously, as the Pentagon continues to insist we do and plan for, in the name of “defending” our country? Here’s a radical proposal: If you add 70,000 Special Operations forces to 186,000 Marine Corps personnel, the United States already possesses a potent quick-strike force of roughly 250,000 troops. Now, add in the Army’s 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions and the 10th Mountain Division. What you have is more than enough military power to provide for America’s actual national security. All other Army divisions could be reduced to cadres, expandable only if our borders are directly threatened by war. Similarly, restructure the Air Force and Navy to deemphasize the present “global strike” vision of those services, while getting rid of Donald Trump’s newest service, the Space Force, and the absurdist idea of taking war into low earth orbit. Doesn’t America already have enough war here on this small planet of ours?
4. Bring back the draft, just not for military purposes. Make it part of a national service program for improving America. It’s time for a new Civilian Conservation Corps focused on fostering a Green New Deal. It’s time for a new Works Progress Administration to rebuild America’s infrastructure and reinvigorate our culture, as that organization did in the Great Depression years. It’s time to engage young people in service to this country. Tackling Covid-19 or future pandemics would be far easier if there were quickly trained medical aides who could help free doctors and nurses to focus on the more difficult cases. Tackling climate change will likely require more young men and women fighting forest fires on the west coast, as my dad did while in the CCC—and in a climate-changing world there will be no shortage of other necessary projects to save our planet. Isn’t it time America’s youth answered a call to service? Better yet, isn’t it time we offered them the opportunity to truly put America, rather than themselves, first?
5. And speaking of “America First,” that eternal Trumpian catch-phrase, isn’t it time for all Americans to recognize that global pandemics and climate change make a mockery of walls and go-it-alone nationalism, not to speak of politics that divide, distract, and keep so many down? President Dwight D. Eisenhower once said that only Americans can truly hurt America, but there’s a corollary to that: only Americans can truly save America—by uniting, focusing on our common problems, and uplifting one another. To do so, it’s vitally necessary to put an end to fearmongering (and warmongering). As President Roosevelt famously said in his first inaugural address in the depths of the Great Depression, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Fear inhibits our ability to think clearly, to cooperate fully, to change things radically as a community.
6. To cite Yoda, the Jedi master, we must unlearn what we have learned. For example, America’s real heroes shouldn’t be “warriors” who kill or sports stars who throw footballs and dunk basketballs. We’re witnessing our true heroes in action right now: our doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel, together with our first responders, and those workers who stay in grocery stores, pharmacies, and the like and continue to serve us all despite the danger of contracting the coronavirus from customers. They are all selflessly resisting a threat too many of us either didn’t foresee or refused to treat seriously, most notably, of course, President Donald Trump: a pandemic that transcends borders and boundaries. But can Americans transcend the increasingly harsh and divisive borders and boundaries of our own minds? Can we come to work selflessly to save and improve the lives of others? Can we become, in a sense, lovers of humanity?
7. Finally, we must extend our love to encompass nature, our planet. For if we keep treating our lands, our waters, and our skies like a set of trash cans and garbage bins, our children and their children will inherit far harder times than the present moment, hard as it may be.
What these seven suggestions really amount to is rejecting a militarized mindset of aggression and a corporate mindset of exploitation for one that sees humanity and this planet more holistically. Isn’t it time to regain that vision of the earth we shared collectively during the Apollo moon missions: a fragile blue sanctuary floating in the velvety darkness of space, an irreplaceable home to be cared for and respected, since there’s no other place for us to go? Otherwise, I fear that my father’s prediction will come true not just for me, but for generations to come and in ways that even he couldn’t have imagined.


thenation--2020-03-30--Cuomo Helped Get New York Into This Mess

As the novel coronavirus rages in New York , killing more than a thousand and locking down millions , Governor Andrew Cuomo has emerged as the hero of the moment .
On television , he is everything Donald Trump is not : calm , coherent , and blunt , in a strangely reassuring way .
He is becoming a # resistance hero .
Some people are ( literally ) falling in love with him .
But the same Cuomo who is racing to expand New York ’ s hospital capacity and crying out for more federal resources is quietly trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , enraging doctors and nurses , and elected officials of his own party .
The same Cuomo who holds press briefings at a major New York City convention center , now the home of a temporary 1,000-bed hospital , presided over a decade of hospital closures and consolidations , prioritizing cost savings over keeping popular health care institutions open .
It ’ s the same Democratic governor—every liberal pundit ’ s tried-and-true Trump antidote—who is doing damage to his state ’ s health care system at the worst possible moment , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most closely .
“ Andrew Cuomo has repeatedly stated , over and over again , that New York has excess capacity of hospital beds , that it ’ s too expensive and not needed and we need to reduce spending .
He said this over and over again throughout his entire tenure , ” said Sean Petty , a pediatric nurse at a public hospital in the Bronx and a high-ranking member of the state ’ s politically active nurses ’ union .
“ If this budget goes through in April , next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is going to be devastating.
” How Medicare for All Would Stop Hospitals Like Hahnemann From Closing What ’ s striking to Petty and other health care experts is how Cuomo has not backed off his plan to cut Medicaid , despite the horrific Covid-19 outbreak .
Earlier this year , Cuomo empaneled what is called a Medicaid Redesign Team to slash Medicaid spending in New York after a $ 6 billion budget shortfall , driven largely by rising Medicaid costs , became evident in late 2019 .
Medicaid enrollment has been growing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now a $ 70 billion program in the state .
More than 6 million New Yorkers are on Medicaid , which has meant just 4.7 percent of the state is uninsured , a historic low .
The Affordable Care Act has boosted Medicaid enrollment in New York .
Though Medicaid is a federal program that provides low-cost , comprehensive health care to the poor , the state still picks up almost half the costs , with county governments also bearing a small share .
Some of the budgetary abyss has been the Cuomo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Medicaid payments and failing in the past to iron out inefficiencies like the state ’ s paying Medicaid costs for relatively wealthy , private hospitals that don ’ t need the aid in the first place .
Despite his reputation as a big-government progressive , Cuomo has held to a self-imposed caps on state spending and property tax increases , putting additional strains on local governments trying to fund municipal services .
“ You want to target whatever cuts are necessary and target in the smartest possible way , ” said Bill Hammond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Empire Center , a right-leaning think tank that frequently analyzes health care spending in New York .
“ You want to go after wasteful programs but you want to try to protect the needy , the vulnerable and seriously ill and disabled recipients.
” Medicaid is a lifeline for so-called safety net hospitals , the public institutions serving the urban poor in New York City and the rural poor in the northern and western reaches of the state .
These are the hospitals on the front lines of the Covid-19 crisis .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ usually lack the sort of private health insurance that offers generous reimbursements—they are now on the verge of collapse .
Elmhurst Hospital , a Queens public hospital at the center of the pandemic , is so overwhelmed that a refrigerated trailer is stationed outside as a makeshift morgue .
“ It ’ s obscene , ” said State Senator Gustavo Rivera , a Bronx Democrat who chairs the Senate Health Committee .
“ These are immoral actions that the governor is taking.
” With the state budget for the next fiscal year due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to gut Medicaid by $ 400 million , part of $ 2.5 billion in cuts he ’ s seeking over several years .
So determined is Cuomo to slash Medicaid spending that he ’ s prepared to reject more than $ 6 billion in matching federal aid approved earlier this month because it would force him to alter his austerity strategy .
If Cuomo gets his way with the state budget , many of the city ’ s most besieged hospitals will lose money at a time when Covid-19 is threatening to crash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Central Brooklyn hospitals , serving many of the borough ’ s working class and poor , could lose $ 38 million a year .
Manhattan hospitals could lose up to $ 58 million a year .
“ The virus is just one illustration of why it ’ s important to have a strong public health care system , ” said Naomi Zewde , an assistant professor in the Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy at CUNY .
“ The proposal to cut funding to public hospitals during a pandemic reflects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been a priority of Cuomo ’ s since he took office in 2011 .
In his first term , another Medicaid Redesign Team shrunk Medicaid reimbursements , damaging the financially fragile health care facilities that serve low-income patients .
Hospitals , meanwhile , have been shutting their doors across the state .
Part of this reflects a national trend toward consolidation and a movement to ambulatory and outpatient care , as well as the inflation of medical costs and a change in federal reimbursement formulas for Medicare and Medicaid .
What ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 20,000 hospital beds over the last 20 years .
Cuomo , who has governed for almost half that period , never advocated for any kind of expansion of hospital beds until last month ; he now says New York needs 110,000 beds , more than double the current capacity .
He has never been a forceful advocate for keeping hospitals open ; in fact , he ’ s empowered bureaucrats who ’ ve argued aggressively to shutter them .
In 2006 , under Republican Governor George Pataki , a commission recommended closing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ merging dozens of others .
Stephen Berger , the investment banker who chaired that commission , would serve on Cuomo ’ s first Medicaid Redesign Team , which cut funding for Medicaid during his first term .
In 2013 , Berger argued that more New York hospitals needed to close , writing that “ allowing hospitals that have outlived their usefulness to close is a necessary step in the transformation of our health-care system.
” The safety-net hospitals serving the city ’ s poor were losing too much money , he wrote , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially with the rise of community-based primary care .
That year , the Cuomo administration approved the closure of the 500-bed Long Island College Hospital in Brooklyn , over loud community protest .
“ Cuomo basically turned the Department of Health into a rubber stamp for every closure certificate needed , ” Petty said .
It ’ s inarguable that Medicaid spending in New York is—and will keep—rising .
At the same time , the Covid-19 pandemic is eviscerating New York ’ s economy as tax revenue evaporates .
A spokesman for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent comments Cuomo made in response to questions about his continued push for a $ 400 million Medicaid cut .
“ Yeah look , we have no money , right ?
Life is options—the state has no money , ” Cuomo said .
But it isn ’ t as if the state government has no options .
Activists , elected officials , and the New York State Nurses Association want Cuomo to raise taxes on the state ’ s many millionaires and billionaires to make up for some of the looming shortfalls .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ further raise the millionaire ’ s surcharge , and reinstitute a tax on stock transfers , which the state ended in 1981 .
( Technically , taxes are still paid on stock transfers but the state refunds 100 percent of the revenue .
In their January budget testimony , NYSNA estimated that a stock transfer tax could generate $ 20 billion annually . )
Empire State Indivisible , a leading progressive organization , has called for the creation of special taxes for millionaires earning in excess of $ 5 million , billionaires , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and apartments .
Cuomo approved a millionaire ’ s tax in his first term in the aftermath of the 2008 economic crash , but has otherwise been averse to hiking taxes on the wealthy—possibly because his budget director used to work for the State Senate Republicans , who long held the majority , with Cuomo ’ s tacit approval .
Cuomo ’ s resistance to raising taxes puts him out of step with even plutocrat-friendly executives .
After 9/11 , Mayor Michael Bloomberg , a billionaire himself , forced through a less-popular property @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a time when businesses were reeling and few tourists wanted to come to the city .
These days , the best hope for the health care providers and advocates who want to save hospitals from further gutting is for Cuomo to simply change his mind .
As governor , he holds inordinate power over the state budget , where he wants his cuts enshrined .
Lawmakers may have to choose between rejecting his cuts or shooting down the state budget altogether in a time of singular catastrophe .
“ We need to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now we are dealing with a crisis .
Let us deal with the crisis , ” Rivera , the state senator , said .
“ We need to make sure the institutions dealing with the crisis aren ’ t gutted post-crisis .
”

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nation believes that helping readers stay informed about the impact of the coronavirus crisis is a form of public service. For that reason, this article, and all of our coronavirus coverage, is now free. Please subscribe to support our writers and staff, and stay healthy.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
As the novel coronavirus rages in New York, killing more than a thousand and locking down millions, Governor Andrew Cuomo has emerged as the hero of the moment. On television, he is everything Donald Trump is not: calm, coherent, and blunt, in a strangely reassuring way. He is becoming a #resistance hero. Some people are (literally) falling in love with him.
But the same Cuomo who is racing to expand New York’s hospital capacity and crying out for more federal resources is quietly trying to slash Medicaid funding in the state, enraging doctors and nurses, and elected officials of his own party. The same Cuomo who holds press briefings at a major New York City convention center, now the home of a temporary 1,000-bed hospital, presided over a decade of hospital closures and consolidations, prioritizing cost savings over keeping popular health care institutions open.
It’s the same Democratic governor—every liberal pundit’s tried-and-true Trump antidote—who is doing damage to his state’s health care system at the worst possible moment, in the eyes of the critics who follow him most closely.
“Andrew Cuomo has repeatedly stated, over and over again, that New York has excess capacity of hospital beds, that it’s too expensive and not needed and we need to reduce spending. He said this over and over again throughout his entire tenure,” said Sean Petty, a pediatric nurse at a public hospital in the Bronx and a high-ranking member of the state’s politically active nurses’ union. “If this budget goes through in April, next year’s health and hospitals budget is going to be devastating.” Related Article How Medicare for All Would Stop Hospitals Like Hahnemann From Closing Adam Gaffney
What’s striking to Petty and other health care experts is how Cuomo has not backed off his plan to cut Medicaid, despite the horrific Covid-19 outbreak. Earlier this year, Cuomo empaneled what is called a Medicaid Redesign Team to slash Medicaid spending in New York after a $6 billion budget shortfall, driven largely by rising Medicaid costs, became evident in late 2019.
Medicaid enrollment has been growing about 13 percent a year and is now a $70 billion program in the state. More than 6 million New Yorkers are on Medicaid, which has meant just 4.7 percent of the state is uninsured, a historic low.
The Affordable Care Act has boosted Medicaid enrollment in New York. Though Medicaid is a federal program that provides low-cost, comprehensive health care to the poor, the state still picks up almost half the costs, with county governments also bearing a small share. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung Current Issue View our current issue
Some of the budgetary abyss has been the Cuomo administration’s own making: postponing Medicaid payments and failing in the past to iron out inefficiencies like the state’s paying Medicaid costs for relatively wealthy, private hospitals that don’t need the aid in the first place. Despite his reputation as a big-government progressive, Cuomo has held to a self-imposed caps on state spending and property tax increases, putting additional strains on local governments trying to fund municipal services.
“You want to target whatever cuts are necessary and target in the smartest possible way,” said Bill Hammond, the director of health policy at the Empire Center, a right-leaning think tank that frequently analyzes health care spending in New York. “You want to go after wasteful programs but you want to try to protect the needy, the vulnerable and seriously ill and disabled recipients.”
Medicaid is a lifeline for so-called safety net hospitals, the public institutions serving the urban poor in New York City and the rural poor in the northern and western reaches of the state. These are the hospitals on the front lines of the Covid-19 crisis. Struggling for support in ordinary times—their patients usually lack the sort of private health insurance that offers generous reimbursements—they are now on the verge of collapse. Elmhurst Hospital, a Queens public hospital at the center of the pandemic, is so overwhelmed that a refrigerated trailer is stationed outside as a makeshift morgue.
“It’s obscene,” said State Senator Gustavo Rivera, a Bronx Democrat who chairs the Senate Health Committee. “These are immoral actions that the governor is taking.”
With the state budget for the next fiscal year due on April 1, Cuomo is proposing to gut Medicaid by $400 million, part of $2.5 billion in cuts he’s seeking over several years. So determined is Cuomo to slash Medicaid spending that he’s prepared to reject more than $6 billion in matching federal aid approved earlier this month because it would force him to alter his austerity strategy.
If Cuomo gets his way with the state budget, many of the city’s most besieged hospitals will lose money at a time when Covid-19 is threatening to crash New York’s health care system. Central Brooklyn hospitals, serving many of the borough’s working class and poor, could lose $38 million a year. Manhattan hospitals could lose up to $58 million a year.
“The virus is just one illustration of why it’s important to have a strong public health care system,” said Naomi Zewde, an assistant professor in the Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy at CUNY. “The proposal to cut funding to public hospitals during a pandemic reflects really poor decision-making.”
Cutting Medicaid has been a priority of Cuomo’s since he took office in 2011. In his first term, another Medicaid Redesign Team shrunk Medicaid reimbursements, damaging the financially fragile health care facilities that serve low-income patients. Hospitals, meanwhile, have been shutting their doors across the state. Part of this reflects a national trend toward consolidation and a movement to ambulatory and outpatient care, as well as the inflation of medical costs and a change in federal reimbursement formulas for Medicare and Medicaid.
What’s more, the state has lost more than 20,000 hospital beds over the last 20 years. Cuomo, who has governed for almost half that period, never advocated for any kind of expansion of hospital beds until last month; he now says New York needs 110,000 beds, more than double the current capacity. He has never been a forceful advocate for keeping hospitals open; in fact, he’s empowered bureaucrats who’ve argued aggressively to shutter them.
In 2006, under Republican Governor George Pataki, a commission recommended closing more than 20 hospitals and shrinking and merging dozens of others. Stephen Berger, the investment banker who chaired that commission, would serve on Cuomo’s first Medicaid Redesign Team, which cut funding for Medicaid during his first term. In 2013, Berger argued that more New York hospitals needed to close, writing that “allowing hospitals that have outlived their usefulness to close is a necessary step in the transformation of our health-care system.” The safety-net hospitals serving the city’s poor were losing too much money, he wrote, and couldn’t be sustained anymore, especially with the rise of community-based primary care.
That year, the Cuomo administration approved the closure of the 500-bed Long Island College Hospital in Brooklyn, over loud community protest. “Cuomo basically turned the Department of Health into a rubber stamp for every closure certificate needed,” Petty said.
It’s inarguable that Medicaid spending in New York is—and will keep—rising. At the same time, the Covid-19 pandemic is eviscerating New York’s economy as tax revenue evaporates.
A spokesman for Cuomo, Rich Azzopardi, pointed to recent comments Cuomo made in response to questions about his continued push for a $400 million Medicaid cut. “Yeah look, we have no money, right? Life is options—the state has no money,” Cuomo said.
But it isn’t as if the state government has no options. Activists, elected officials, and the New York State Nurses Association want Cuomo to raise taxes on the state’s many millionaires and billionaires to make up for some of the looming shortfalls. Cuomo could also increase corporate taxes, further raise the millionaire’s surcharge, and reinstitute a tax on stock transfers, which the state ended in 1981. (Technically, taxes are still paid on stock transfers but the state refunds 100 percent of the revenue. In their January budget testimony, NYSNA estimated that a stock transfer tax could generate $20 billion annually.)
Empire State Indivisible, a leading progressive organization, has called for the creation of special taxes for millionaires earning in excess of $5 million, billionaires, and a new tax on luxury homes and apartments.
Cuomo approved a millionaire’s tax in his first term in the aftermath of the 2008 economic crash, but has otherwise been averse to hiking taxes on the wealthy—possibly because his budget director used to work for the State Senate Republicans, who long held the majority, with Cuomo’s tacit approval. Cuomo’s resistance to raising taxes puts him out of step with even plutocrat-friendly executives. After 9/11, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire himself, forced through a less-popular property tax hike to fund city services at a time when businesses were reeling and few tourists wanted to come to the city.
These days, the best hope for the health care providers and advocates who want to save hospitals from further gutting is for Cuomo to simply change his mind. As governor, he holds inordinate power over the state budget, where he wants his cuts enshrined. Lawmakers may have to choose between rejecting his cuts or shooting down the state budget altogether in a time of singular catastrophe.
“We need to do this in a calmer fashion. Right now we are dealing with a crisis. Let us deal with the crisis,” Rivera, the state senator, said. “We need to make sure the institutions dealing with the crisis aren’t gutted post-crisis.”


thenation--2020-03-30--All the President’s Crackpots

All the President’s Crackpots

In the policy battle over the response to the coronavirus pandemic , much depends on who has Donald Trump ’ s ear .
All presidents receive conflicting advice , but Trump in particular is susceptible to the last person who talks to him .
During his press conference on Sunday , Trump seemed to accept the position of medical experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci , who insist that the pandemic demands a no-holds-barred response .
But Trump also said , “ We had a lot of people , people were saying maybe we should not do anything , just ride @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ride that sucker right through.
” Trump himself at least on occasion has echoed this line of thought , with his suggestions that social distancing policies should be ended as soon as possible , perhaps even in time to allow the churches to be full on Easter .
The idea that the medical establishment is overreacting to the pandemic continues to be strong in some segments of the political right , especially among libertarians .
As The Washington Post reported on March 23 , “ Conservatives close to Trump and numerous administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Richard A. Epstein of the Hoover Institution , titled ‘ Coronavirus Perspective , ’ that plays down the extent of the spread and the threat.
” Trump wavers back and forth on coronavirus policy because he sometimes listens to medical experts and sometimes to aides who are offering distillations of Epstein ’ s argument .
It ’ s strange that this article had such an impact , because Richard A. Epstein is not a medical expert but a legal scholar .
He ’ s one of the most influential members of the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1950s to persuade judges to apply libertarian economic theories about cost and benefit in rendering legal judgements .
Thanks to the institutional networks created by the Federalist Society , the law and economics movement has played a major role in pushing American jurisprudence to the right .
Even in Federalist Society circles , Epstein is an extremist .
In his book Takings ( 1985 ) , he argued for an expansive view of property law that would require generous compensation to property owners for standard procedures like zoning and wetland regulations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the book was to advocate using the courts to undermine any possibility of environmental policy .
In his subsequent book Forbidden Ground ( 1992 ) , he pushed for the repeal of antidiscrimination laws going back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act .
Epstein made the case that employers should be allowed to hire and fire based on race .
The same stance of radical opposition to government intervention informs Epstein ’ s objection to shutdowns during the pandemic .
But Epstein isn ’ t making just an ideological case .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory of biology that can properly be described as kooky .
In his “ Coronavirus Perspective ” article , posted on March 16 , Epstein argued that the total number of American deaths would be 500 .
This was quickly overtaken by events , and the number of confirmed American deaths now exceeds 2,000 .
Epstein revised his estimate up to 5,000 , but that ’ s likely to also be surpassed shortly .
Epstein himself admits it might be “ somewhat optimistic.
” On Sunday , Trump himself , along with Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American deaths .
Epstein ’ s underestimation of the number of deaths was no mere technical error but sprang from a fundamental theoretical mistake .
He believes that it is the nature of viruses to become less virulent over time .
He argues , “ The adaptive responses should reduce the exposures in the high-risk groups , given the tendency for the coronavirus to weaken over time.
” Isaac Chotiner recently interviewed Epstein for The New Yorker and rightly pushed him on this point .
“ Well , what happens is it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asserted .
Medical experts contacted by The New Yorker strongly disputed this alleged “ evolutionary tendency.
” Albert Ko , a professor of epidemiology and medicine and the department chair at the Yale School of Public Health , stated flatly , “ There is absolutely no evidence for that.
” Epstein ’ s idiosyncratic theory applies to other diseases as well .
He believes , again contrary to mainstream science , that the AIDS virus became milder over time .
When questioned by Chotiner about pushing ideas that have “ no scientific back-up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m giving you this as a theory.
” Epstein added , “ I ’ m not an empiricist , ” but insisted that he ’ s working with a valid “ evolutionary theory.
” According to Epstein , “ I ’ m taking standard Darwinian economics—standard economic-evolutionary theory out of Darwin—and applying it to this particular case.
” This claim of “ Darwinian economics ” might seem bizarre , but it is in keeping with Epstein ’ s intellectual lineage .
Epstein has been much influenced by the economist and social theorist F.A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Law , Legislation and Liberty ( published in three volumes from 1973 to 1979 ) , Hayek tried to ground his arguments for a minimalist state in evolutionary theory , arguing for a congruence between Adam Smith and Charles Darwin .
Hayek also toyed with the ideas of Darwin ’ s precursor Jean-Baptiste Lamarck , who contended that some acquired traits could be passed on from one generation to the next .
Epstein clearly supports the neo-Lamarckian belief in a quick evolution over the span of one or two generations .
As he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tendency of viruses to weaken “ takes time .
It could be a week .
It could be a month .
It could be longer.
” As he gets taxed by Chotiner , a master of the forensic interview , Epstein becomes increasingly agitated .
Toward the end , they have a testy moment : Chotiner may be too polite to say so , but it is absolutely the case that Epstein is a crackpot .
He doesn ’ t have the grounding in medicine or epidemiology to make such grand pronouncements .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ misapplication of science .
As former Obama administration official Ajay Kundaria notes , “ Epstein has always used [ social ] scientific concepts as metaphors to justify his ideological priors.
” In the current case , Epstein is using not real evolutionary theory but rather metaphors taken from evolutionary theory in order to dress up his personal prejudices in the borrowed authority of science .
Although Epstein is a crackpot , he ’ s a crackpot who has a far-reaching influence thanks to the right-wing legal network that has nurtured his entire career @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not just a personal scandal or a blot on his record , but also evidence of wider social and political corruption .
Epstein has been allowed to flourish thanks to a host of institutions , including the Federalist Society , the University of Chicago , New York University , and the Hoover Institution .
All of them are tarnished by his ridiculous coronavirus article .
The pandemic has made Epstein more famous , but his ideas have been circulating in elite legal and political circles for decades .
As such , his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than just a few articles read in the Trump White House .
As author Matt Stoller tweeted , “ In case you ’ re wondering why we can ’ t handle the # coronavirus as a society it ’ s because Richard Epstein types have been designing our corporate and government bureaucracies for four decades.
” In other words , Epstein ’ s delusional views on the coronavirus resonate in the Trump White House because Republicans have been acting on Epstein ’ s ideas for decades .

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nation believes that helping readers stay informed about the impact of the coronavirus crisis is a form of public service. For that reason, this article, and all of our coronavirus coverage, is now free. Please subscribe to support our writers and staff, and stay healthy.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
In the policy battle over the response to the coronavirus pandemic, much depends on who has Donald Trump’s ear. All presidents receive conflicting advice, but Trump in particular is susceptible to the last person who talks to him. During his press conference on Sunday, Trump seemed to accept the position of medical experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci, who insist that the pandemic demands a no-holds-barred response. But Trump also said, “We had a lot of people, people were saying maybe we should not do anything, just ride it. Ride it like a cowboy. Ride that sucker right through.” Trump himself at least on occasion has echoed this line of thought, with his suggestions that social distancing policies should be ended as soon as possible, perhaps even in time to allow the churches to be full on Easter.
The idea that the medical establishment is overreacting to the pandemic continues to be strong in some segments of the political right, especially among libertarians. As The Washington Post reported on March 23, “Conservatives close to Trump and numerous administration officials have been circulating an article by Richard A. Epstein of the Hoover Institution, titled ‘Coronavirus Perspective,’ that plays down the extent of the spread and the threat.”
Trump wavers back and forth on coronavirus policy because he sometimes listens to medical experts and sometimes to aides who are offering distillations of Epstein’s argument.
It’s strange that this article had such an impact, because Richard A. Epstein is not a medical expert but a legal scholar. He’s one of the most influential members of the law and economics movement that has worked since the 1950s to persuade judges to apply libertarian economic theories about cost and benefit in rendering legal judgements. Thanks to the institutional networks created by the Federalist Society, the law and economics movement has played a major role in pushing American jurisprudence to the right.
Even in Federalist Society circles, Epstein is an extremist. In his book Takings (1985), he argued for an expansive view of property law that would require generous compensation to property owners for standard procedures like zoning and wetland regulations, rendering them prohibitively expensive. The purpose of the book was to advocate using the courts to undermine any possibility of environmental policy. In his subsequent book Forbidden Ground (1992), he pushed for the repeal of antidiscrimination laws going back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Epstein made the case that employers should be allowed to hire and fire based on race.
The same stance of radical opposition to government intervention informs Epstein’s objection to shutdowns during the pandemic. But Epstein isn’t making just an ideological case. His article is also informed by a heterodox theory of biology that can properly be described as kooky.
In his “Coronavirus Perspective” article, posted on March 16, Epstein argued that the total number of American deaths would be 500. This was quickly overtaken by events, and the number of confirmed American deaths now exceeds 2,000. Epstein revised his estimate up to 5,000, but that’s likely to also be surpassed shortly. Epstein himself admits it might be “somewhat optimistic.” On Sunday, Trump himself, along with Dr. Fauci, warned of more than 100,000 American deaths. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung Current Issue View our current issue
Epstein’s underestimation of the number of deaths was no mere technical error but sprang from a fundamental theoretical mistake. He believes that it is the nature of viruses to become less virulent over time. He argues, “The adaptive responses should reduce the exposures in the high-risk groups, given the tendency for the coronavirus to weaken over time.”
Isaac Chotiner recently interviewed Epstein for The New Yorker and rightly pushed him on this point. “Well, what happens is it’s an evolutionary tendency,” Epstein asserted. Medical experts contacted by The New Yorker strongly disputed this alleged “evolutionary tendency.” Albert Ko, a professor of epidemiology and medicine and the department chair at the Yale School of Public Health, stated flatly, “There is absolutely no evidence for that.”
Epstein’s idiosyncratic theory applies to other diseases as well. He believes, again contrary to mainstream science, that the AIDS virus became milder over time. When questioned by Chotiner about pushing ideas that have “no scientific back-up” Epstein responded, “I’m giving you this as a theory.” Epstein added, “I’m not an empiricist,” but insisted that he’s working with a valid “evolutionary theory.”
According to Epstein, “I’m taking standard Darwinian economics—standard economic-evolutionary theory out of Darwin—and applying it to this particular case.”
This claim of “Darwinian economics” might seem bizarre, but it is in keeping with Epstein’s intellectual lineage. Epstein has been much influenced by the economist and social theorist F.A. Hayek. In his late-period work Law, Legislation and Liberty (published in three volumes from 1973 to 1979), Hayek tried to ground his arguments for a minimalist state in evolutionary theory, arguing for a congruence between Adam Smith and Charles Darwin.
Hayek also toyed with the ideas of Darwin’s precursor Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who contended that some acquired traits could be passed on from one generation to the next. Epstein clearly supports the neo-Lamarckian belief in a quick evolution over the span of one or two generations. As he tells The New Yorker, the evolutionary tendency of viruses to weaken “takes time. It could be a week. It could be a month. It could be longer.”
As he gets taxed by Chotiner, a master of the forensic interview, Epstein becomes increasingly agitated. Toward the end, they have a testy moment:
[Epstein:] You know nothing about the subject but are so confident that you’re going to say that I’m a crackpot.
[Chotiner:] No. Richard—
That’s what you’re saying, isn’t it? That’s what you’re saying?
I’m not saying anything of the sort.
Admit to it. You’re saying I’m a crackpot.
Chotiner may be too polite to say so, but it is absolutely the case that Epstein is a crackpot. He doesn’t have the grounding in medicine or epidemiology to make such grand pronouncements. His underlying theories derive from a dingbat misapplication of science. As former Obama administration official Ajay Kundaria notes, “Epstein has always used [social] scientific concepts as metaphors to justify his ideological priors.” In the current case, Epstein is using not real evolutionary theory but rather metaphors taken from evolutionary theory in order to dress up his personal prejudices in the borrowed authority of science.
Although Epstein is a crackpot, he’s a crackpot who has a far-reaching influence thanks to the right-wing legal network that has nurtured his entire career. His absurd article on the coronavirus is not just a personal scandal or a blot on his record, but also evidence of wider social and political corruption.
Epstein has been allowed to flourish thanks to a host of institutions, including the Federalist Society, the University of Chicago, New York University, and the Hoover Institution. All of them are tarnished by his ridiculous coronavirus article.
The pandemic has made Epstein more famous, but his ideas have been circulating in elite legal and political circles for decades. As such, his influence on the current moment is deeper than just a few articles read in the Trump White House. As author Matt Stoller tweeted, “In case you’re wondering why we can’t handle the #coronavirus as a society it’s because Richard Epstein types have been designing our corporate and government bureaucracies for four decades.” In other words, Epstein’s delusional views on the coronavirus resonate in the Trump White House because Republicans have been acting on Epstein’s ideas for decades.


thenation--2020-03-30--Out From Under ‘the Economy’

Out From Under ‘the Economy’

In response to an unprecedented crisis , governments around the world are doing unprecedented things .
Student loans , mortgages , and utility payments have been suspended in Canada , Italy , and France respectively ; Spain has gone further and nationalized all its hospitals in one fell swoop .
Even the United States , where the entire political spectrum skews to the right , is moving toward basic income , paid sick leave , and perhaps even socializing components of its private health insurance system .
It seems that calls to do the right thing—house the homeless , free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rich , and bail out workers—are finally being taken seriously and “ the economy ” finally being redirected in favor of everyday people .
These emergency measures are well and good , but nowhere near enough .
The current economic system remains set up to reward delay and dithering .
Across the world , we have seen quarantine and social distancing measures being implemented too late because governments and analysts have been busy calculating if prevention is economically “ worth it.
” This calculation has become explicit as the US government begins to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ OK to sacrifice for the stock market and especially “ the economy.
” As we prepare for the coming decades of crisis , what more could we do if we organized our lives around collective social well-being rather than around “ the economy ” ?
Can we permanently quarantine “ the economy ” precisely in order to save ourselves ?
“ The economy ” and whether it ’ s healthy has too often been the central question of the Covid-19 saga .
This is because metrics like the Dow Jones Industrial Average and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the health of the “ economy , ” are routinely taken as a proxy for overall societal well-being .
But “ the economy ” doesn ’ t really reflect all citizens ’ lives .
Even when a stock market crash accompanies a real livelihood crunch , the two things are often separate problems , and more often the relationship between the stock market and everyday people ’ s well-being is an inverse one .
The Dow and NASDAQ usually rise when wages fall , a fact we forget when we talk of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CEOs are all in it together .
“ The economy ” might seem like a fact of nature , but it is actually a very new way of thinking about production and distribution .
If you said “ the economy ” before the 1930s , nobody would know what you meant .
Back then , economists only ever discussed specific things like individual commodity markets ( wheat , cotton ) , business cycles , or the industriousness of specific populations without thinking of all these things as forming a single totality called “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Depression , World War II , decolonization , and the fall of the gold standard rattled the existing global order , a new way of measuring commercial success had to be found , one that could both be limited to the boundaries of discrete nation-states and yet “ grow ” without acquiring new territories or markets , simply by the faster circulation of goods and services .
This new concept was “ the economy , ” which quickly became governments ’ main responsibility to manage and increasingly a way to measure a country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well-being by proxy of money changing hands .
We already know what ’ s wrong with measuring well-being this way .
Metrics like GDP indiscriminately reward activity even if it ’ s bad , e.g.
, an oil spill or a war .
Like the Dow , economic growth isn ’ t a good measure of everyday people ’ s well-being .
For instance , since 1980 the GDP has grown thanks to financial sector profits , not shrunk because of most Americans ’ stagnating wages .
But the “ economy ” concept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it leads us to assume that disparate things—like workers ’ well-being and the Dow—are necessarily linked , when they don ’ t have to be : It ’ s not as if when the stock market crashes , work worth doing , shelter , and food just disappear off the planet .
Talk of “ the economy crashing ” hides the fact that letting people go hungry during crises of profitability is a political decision , not a natural occurrence .
A second problem with talking of “ the economy ” is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually are linked , e.g .
it casts climate change as an “ externality ” rather than the logical consequence of an economic growth agenda .
Similarly , it excludes and devalues the feminized , racialized , and “ informal ” labor of social reproduction ( e.g.
, caring for children and the elderly , sanitation , janitorial work ) which is often the bedrock of all formal and profitable “ work.
” Because of its skewed valuation of labor , “ the economy ” today does not grow when we undertake urgent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the more inhumane we are .
This is why economic growth is boosted by useless and damaging work boosts economic growth , such as stock trading , landlording , price gouging , attempts to privatize vaccines , flying empty flights , and even political insider trading .
Meanwhile , those whose work is now the most essential—cab drivers , nurses , trucking and delivery workers , grocery store employees—are often devalued and excluded from “ the economy.
” If this is what “ the economy ” means , should we really be rushing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic growth are woefully unprepared to deal with the coming crises that their own single-minded pursuit of growth has produced .
In the US and UK , there aren ’ t enough hospital beds or ventilators , and hospital workers have resorted to making their own face masks .
In contrast to the scarcity of these essentials , the overabundance of steel and aluminum has gotten worse and a crude oil glut is sending investors into a panic .
In short , we have tons of stuff we don ’ t need , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things we need .
So how would things change if we realized that this quarantine and essentials-only society that we are in right now shouldn ’ t be the exception so much as a new rule , going into the future ?
If we apply the clarity that disaster brings to our thinking about how to organize society , the way forward isn ’ t hard to figure out .
Public goods are the bedrock of such a society .
We need guarantees that food , shelter , utilities reach those who need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meaningful contribution must be redefined to include everyone who works to provide essential goods and services like transportation , food , cleaning , essential construction and repair .
Useful work must be seen to include care work , ranging from nursing infants to caring for the sick and elderly .
Care work should be seen as real work , involve training and support networks , and take place in all communities .
Unnecessary jobs—basically everything that is motivated only by profit and is being suspended during this crisis—should be taxed heavily because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bear for putting up with it .
Nonessential forms of commuting and movement should be limited .
This will be easy once everyone can find work in local communities , in their local schools , in their local health centers .
Since we ’ ve been taught to believe in the profit-driven economy , people will wonder : How will we live without the profit motive and its drive to innovation ?
But clearly the profit motive hasn ’ t created innovation .
A vaccine for viral illnesses is within reach but hasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s more profitable to improve Viagra than to develop treatment for pandemics .
Or perhaps some will may ask : Won ’ t living outside of the market system create deficiencies ?
But our health care “ system , ” if you can call it that , always runs on deficiencies .
Millions go untreated , and tens of thousands succumb to preventable illnesses that are silent pandemics like diabetes , heart disease , and obesity .
It does not supply what is needed ; it supplies what is profitable .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will lose retirement ” is also no excuse .
Retirement should come from Social Security , a promise by younger generations to care for their elders enshrined in a collective contract , not the reckless whims of greedy traders .
We need to de-link life ’ s essentials from unessential and damaging things and from the profit motive .
Every crisis is an opportunity not just to set short-term political agendas but to open up long-term visions of what ’ s possible .
Especially in an unprecedented moment when global commercial activity has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be brave about asking for a better world .
Many progressives realize that this crisis requires us to change our political priorities to favor people over profit .
Their short-term response has been to demand paid sick leave , UBI , freezes on rent , etc.
, with long-term demands including Medicare for All and the Green New Deal .
These are all crucial things .
But we can go even further if we recognize that crises aren ’ t going away .
We need to quarantine “ the economy ” and think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for just a “ bailout ” for workers now but for a society where all essential work is rewarded for its full value , once and for all .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
In response to an unprecedented crisis, governments around the world are doing unprecedented things. Student loans, mortgages, and utility payments have been suspended in Canada, Italy, and France respectively; Spain has gone further and nationalized all its hospitals in one fell swoop.
Even the United States, where the entire political spectrum skews to the right, is moving toward basic income, paid sick leave, and perhaps even socializing components of its private health insurance system.
It seems that calls to do the right thing—house the homeless, free prisoners, lift sanctions, tax the rich, and bail out workers—are finally being taken seriously and “the economy” finally being redirected in favor of everyday people.
These emergency measures are well and good, but nowhere near enough. The current economic system remains set up to reward delay and dithering. Across the world, we have seen quarantine and social distancing measures being implemented too late because governments and analysts have been busy calculating if prevention is economically “worth it.” This calculation has become explicit as the US government begins to weigh how many human lives it is OK to sacrifice for the stock market and especially “the economy.” Related Article A Survival Guide for the Coronavirus Economy Joelle Gamble
As we prepare for the coming decades of crisis, what more could we do if we organized our lives around collective social well-being rather than around “the economy”? Can we permanently quarantine “the economy” precisely in order to save ourselves?
“The economy” and whether it’s healthy has too often been the central question of the Covid-19 saga. This is because metrics like the Dow Jones Industrial Average and quarterly GDP estimates, used to assess the health of the “economy,” are routinely taken as a proxy for overall societal well-being. But “the economy” doesn’t really reflect all citizens’ lives. Even when a stock market crash accompanies a real livelihood crunch, the two things are often separate problems, and more often the relationship between the stock market and everyday people’s well-being is an inverse one.
The Dow and NASDAQ usually rise when wages fall, a fact we forget when we talk of a shared “economy” where workers and CEOs are all in it together. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung Current Issue View our current issue
“The economy” might seem like a fact of nature, but it is actually a very new way of thinking about production and distribution. If you said “the economy” before the 1930s, nobody would know what you meant. Back then, economists only ever discussed specific things like individual commodity markets (wheat, cotton), business cycles, or the industriousness of specific populations without thinking of all these things as forming a single totality called “the economy.” But as the Great Depression, World War II, decolonization, and the fall of the gold standard rattled the existing global order, a new way of measuring commercial success had to be found, one that could both be limited to the boundaries of discrete nation-states and yet “grow” without acquiring new territories or markets, simply by the faster circulation of goods and services.
This new concept was “the economy,” which quickly became governments’ main responsibility to manage and increasingly a way to measure a country’s and its people’s well-being by proxy of money changing hands.
We already know what’s wrong with measuring well-being this way. Metrics like GDP indiscriminately reward activity even if it’s bad, e.g., an oil spill or a war. Like the Dow, economic growth isn’t a good measure of everyday people’s well-being. For instance, since 1980 the GDP has grown thanks to financial sector profits, not shrunk because of most Americans’ stagnating wages.
But the “economy” concept does even more mischief. First, it leads us to assume that disparate things—like workers’ well-being and the Dow—are necessarily linked, when they don’t have to be: It’s not as if when the stock market crashes, work worth doing, shelter, and food just disappear off the planet. Talk of “the economy crashing” hides the fact that letting people go hungry during crises of profitability is a political decision, not a natural occurrence.
A second problem with talking of “the economy” is that it prevents us from recognizing when things actually are linked, e.g. it casts climate change as an “externality” rather than the logical consequence of an economic growth agenda. Similarly, it excludes and devalues the feminized, racialized, and “informal” labor of social reproduction (e.g., caring for children and the elderly, sanitation, janitorial work) which is often the bedrock of all formal and profitable “work.”
Because of its skewed valuation of labor, “the economy” today does not grow when we undertake urgent and essential crisis-mitigation labors but instead flourishes the more inhumane we are. This is why economic growth is boosted by useless and damaging work boosts economic growth, such as stock trading, landlording, price gouging, attempts to privatize vaccines, flying empty flights, and even political insider trading.
Meanwhile, those whose work is now the most essential—cab drivers, nurses, trucking and delivery workers, grocery store employees—are often devalued and excluded from “the economy.”
If this is what “the economy” means, should we really be rushing to save it?
Societies organized around economic growth are woefully unprepared to deal with the coming crises that their own single-minded pursuit of growth has produced. In the US and UK, there aren’t enough hospital beds or ventilators, and hospital workers have resorted to making their own face masks. In contrast to the scarcity of these essentials, the overabundance of steel and aluminum has gotten worse and a crude oil glut is sending investors into a panic. In short, we have tons of stuff we don’t need, but we don’t have the things we need.
So how would things change if we realized that this quarantine and essentials-only society that we are in right now shouldn’t be the exception so much as a new rule, going into the future?
If we apply the clarity that disaster brings to our thinking about how to organize society, the way forward isn’t hard to figure out. Public goods are the bedrock of such a society. We need guarantees that food, shelter, utilities reach those who need them and contribute meaningfully to society. Meaningful contribution must be redefined to include everyone who works to provide essential goods and services like transportation, food, cleaning, essential construction and repair. Useful work must be seen to include care work, ranging from nursing infants to caring for the sick and elderly. Care work should be seen as real work, involve training and support networks, and take place in all communities.
Unnecessary jobs—basically everything that is motivated only by profit and is being suspended during this crisis—should be taxed heavily because of the burden we, the society, bear for putting up with it. Nonessential forms of commuting and movement should be limited. This will be easy once everyone can find work in local communities, in their local schools, in their local health centers.
Since we’ve been taught to believe in the profit-driven economy, people will wonder: How will we live without the profit motive and its drive to innovation? But clearly the profit motive hasn’t created innovation. A vaccine for viral illnesses is within reach but hasn’t been developed, because it’s more profitable to improve Viagra than to develop treatment for pandemics.
Or perhaps some will may ask: Won’t living outside of the market system create deficiencies? But our health care “system,” if you can call it that, always runs on deficiencies. Millions go untreated, and tens of thousands succumb to preventable illnesses that are silent pandemics like diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. It does not supply what is needed; it supplies what is profitable. “If the stock market crashes, people will lose retirement” is also no excuse. Retirement should come from Social Security, a promise by younger generations to care for their elders enshrined in a collective contract, not the reckless whims of greedy traders. We need to de-link life’s essentials from unessential and damaging things and from the profit motive.
Every crisis is an opportunity not just to set short-term political agendas but to open up long-term visions of what’s possible. Especially in an unprecedented moment when global commercial activity has come to a standstill, we can be brave about asking for a better world. Many progressives realize that this crisis requires us to change our political priorities to favor people over profit. Their short-term response has been to demand paid sick leave, UBI, freezes on rent, etc., with long-term demands including Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. These are all crucial things. But we can go even further if we recognize that crises aren’t going away. We need to quarantine “the economy” and think beyond it. We should ask not for just a “bailout” for workers now but for a society where all essential work is rewarded for its full value, once and for all.