hotair--2020-04-16--Study: Infectiousness of coronavirus peaks 'on or before symptom onset'

Why does the coronavirus spread so quickly ?
According to a study published yesterday in Nature , it ’ s at least partly because people spread it before they even know they are sick .
The study took evidence from 98 patients in a Chinese hospital and attempted to estimate when “ viral shedding ” meaning giving off virus particles that could infect others , began .
What they found was that in the case of the coronavirus this shedding probably begins a few days before most people have symptoms and peaks right around , possibly right before , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the abstract : The rest of the study is harder to parse but here ’ s the estimate of when the virus peaks in someone ’ s system : The study included some charts that illustrate how various diseases spread .
Here ’ s the chart for SARS , a similar coronavirus which spread in 2002-2003 .
The bar at the top represents the moment someone became infected and the change of color from blue to red represents the first onset of symptoms .
Below that bar is a distribution curve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the infected person .
In the case of SARS , all of that happens after the person has symptoms , meaning they are likely to be aware they are sick before they become infectious : Here ’ s a similar chart for the seasonal flu .
In this case , notice that the distribution curve shows the infected person begins shedding the virus even before they have symptoms , though most of the distribution is after that point .
As a result , someone can infect others with the flu before they realize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggests is that COVID-19 viral shedding actually peaks just before the symptom onset .
This graph was published in the study as a hypothetical example , not specific data about COVID-19 , but this is closer to what the study is describing ( except the peak of the curve should come slightly before the onset of symptoms ) : Why is this important ?
Because if this is accurate it means isolating people once they realize they are sick won ’ t be enough to prevent nearly half ( 44 % ) of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Significant presymptomatic transmission would probably reduce the effectiveness of control measures that are initiated by symptom onset , such as isolation , contact tracing and enhanced hygiene or use of face masks for symptomatic persons.
” So what would work ?
“ With a substantial proportion of presymptomatic transmission , measures such as enhanced personal hygiene and social distancing for all would likely be the key instruments for community disease control.
” Wash your hands .
Maintain distance .
And we could probably add to that , the use of masks in public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spreading the virus to others through sneezing , coughing , or just breathing .
On that last point , another study published yesterday suggested that breathing was probably enough to transmit the virus : Speaking calmly and at a normal volume produces liquid droplets so small they can remain suspended in the air long enough to enter the airways of other people , potentially exposing them to viruses including the one that causes Covid-19 , according to a new study led by scientists at the National Institutes of Health .
“ Aerosols from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat even at considerable distances and in enclosed spaces , particularly if there is poor ventilation , ” Harvard University biologist Matthew Meselson wrote in a commentary accompanying the paper , which used a laser to visualize airborne droplets created when volunteers uttered the words “ stay healthy.
” To sum all of this up , even if you don ’ t feel sick you a ) could have the virus and b ) could spread it to others though something as simple as a normal conversation .

Why does the coronavirus spread so quickly? According to a study published yesterday in Nature, it’s at least partly because people spread it before they even know they are sick. The study took evidence from 98 patients in a Chinese hospital and attempted to estimate when “viral shedding” meaning giving off virus particles that could infect others, began. What they found was that in the case of the coronavirus this shedding probably begins a few days before most people have symptoms and peaks right around, possibly right before, the first symptoms of illness hit. Here’s the abstract:
We report temporal patterns of viral shedding in 94 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and modeled COVID-19 infectiousness profiles from a separate sample of 77 infector–infectee transmission pairs. We observed the highest viral load in throat swabs at the time of symptom onset, and inferred that infectiousness peaked on or before symptom onset. We estimated that 44% (95% confidence interval, 25–69%) of secondary cases were infected during the index cases’ presymptomatic stage, in settings with substantial household clustering, active case finding and quarantine outside the home. Disease control measures should be adjusted to account for probable substantial presymptomatic transmission.
The rest of the study is harder to parse but here’s the estimate of when the virus peaks in someone’s system:
Assuming an incubation period distribution of mean 5.2 days from a separate study of early COVID-19 cases1, we inferred that infectiousness started from 2.3 days (95% CI, 0.8–3.0 days) before symptom onset and peaked at 0.7 days (95% CI, −0.2–2.0 days) before symptom onset (Fig. 1c). The estimated proportion of presymptomatic transmission (area under the curve) was 44% (95% CI, 25–69%).
The study included some charts that illustrate how various diseases spread. Here’s the chart for SARS, a similar coronavirus which spread in 2002-2003. The bar at the top represents the moment someone became infected and the change of color from blue to red represents the first onset of symptoms. Below that bar is a distribution curve showing when the virus is shedding from the infected person. In the case of SARS, all of that happens after the person has symptoms, meaning they are likely to be aware they are sick before they become infectious:
Here’s a similar chart for the seasonal flu. In this case, notice that the distribution curve shows the infected person begins shedding the virus even before they have symptoms, though most of the distribution is after that point. As a result, someone can infect others with the flu before they realize they are sick.
What this study suggests is that COVID-19 viral shedding actually peaks just before the symptom onset. This graph was published in the study as a hypothetical example, not specific data about COVID-19, but this is closer to what the study is describing (except the peak of the curve should come slightly before the onset of symptoms):
Why is this important? Because if this is accurate it means isolating people once they realize they are sick won’t be enough to prevent nearly half (44%) of infections. The study states, “Significant presymptomatic transmission would probably reduce the effectiveness of control measures that are initiated by symptom onset, such as isolation, contact tracing and enhanced hygiene or use of face masks for symptomatic persons.”
So what would work? “With a substantial proportion of presymptomatic transmission, measures such as enhanced personal hygiene and social distancing for all would likely be the key instruments for community disease control.” Wash your hands. Maintain distance. And we could probably add to that, the use of masks in public. Masks help prevent the wearer from spreading the virus to others through sneezing, coughing, or just breathing. On that last point, another study published yesterday suggested that breathing was probably enough to transmit the virus:
Speaking calmly and at a normal volume produces liquid droplets so small they can remain suspended in the air long enough to enter the airways of other people, potentially exposing them to viruses including the one that causes Covid-19, according to a new study led by scientists at the National Institutes of Health. “Aerosols from infected persons may therefore pose an inhalation threat even at considerable distances and in enclosed spaces, particularly if there is poor ventilation,” Harvard University biologist Matthew Meselson wrote in a commentary accompanying the paper, which used a laser to visualize airborne droplets created when volunteers uttered the words “stay healthy.”
To sum all of this up, even if you don’t feel sick you a) could have the virus and b) could spread it to others though something as simple as a normal conversation.


hotair--2020-04-16--NBC's Todd: Pelosi, Schumer playing with fire on COVID-19 paycheck protection relief

And not just because Democrats have put themselves in the position of obstructing badly needed relief , either .
Chuck Todd tells Hugh Hewitt that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have made the same mistake that both parties have made in the past when it comes to budget fights and government shutdowns — miscalculating the patience that voters have with food fights in normal times .
When jobs are getting obliterated like they are in this crisis , Todd says the smarter move would be to cooperate now and deliver the bill later .
He thinks Democrats are “ being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relief , though : HH : Okay , that ’ s fair .
I want to turn to the PPP .
I have Brad Dinsmore coming on in a little bit .
He is the president of Pacific Mercantile Bank .
They lent the Nixon Foundation , which I run , our PPP .
They got it done .
They ’ ve saved tens of thousands of jobs .
That is running out of money today or tomorrow .
I think Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer are running a grave risk , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this money .
How do you analyze this ?
CT : Look , I think any side that is on the side that looks like they ’ re holding up money , I think , is bad politics .
I think , I think that the Democrats are genuine in their sticking up for the governors here .
I think that ’ s what they believe they ’ re doing .
I believe they think that you know , Cuomo and Hogan are basically lobbying on their side on this , right , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re like we need our money , too .
So I think that ’ s what Democrats are calculating , that this is , this is , you know , if you look at it through one eye , it looks like they ’ re holding up small business money .
If you look at it through the other one , hey , governors are asking for their money .
So I think that ’ s what the Democrats are calculating .
I don ’ t know if that ’ s coming to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small business money issue is something that ’ s more front and center with the public than the issue of reimbursing the states .
And so I think that on a perception marker here , sort of you ’ re short term politics , I think the Republicans have the upper hand .
HH : You ’ re never wrong .
This is why I have Chuck on every week .
You ’ re never wrong on the Hot Line stuff .
And this is what ’ s happening .
They ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did this before on a shutdown , and they have miscalculated the impact of people getting laid off .
CT : You know , here ’ s the thing .
It ’ s really interesting here , and they each , I think at times , almost miscalculated , right ?
I think when some House Republicans wanted to mess around , it was like don ’ t do that .
You know , and one of these things , so this is one of those where Schumer and Pelosi , I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold the chit , and then come back and be more powerful when they come back for their ask in three weeks .
Small-business money is “ more front and center with the public , ” because the public owns , patronizes , and/or work at small businesses all over America .
Their local restaurants , their hair and nail salons , their butchers and bakers and candlestick makers largely come from that sector of the economy .
Those independent businesses will make a large difference in whether we have an economic recovery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers are employed by firms with fewer than 100 employees ( using 2018 data ) .
State and local governments , on the other hand , employed 12.6 % of all workers in 2018 .
Americans can do the math , even if Pelosi and Schumer can ’ t .
Furthermore , no one really believes that the bureaucratic jobs will be lost for long , but small business jobs will get destroyed very quickly when businesses fail , and there won ’ t be any way to bring those back again .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sector that state and local governments are forcing to close for now , not in the bureaucratic ranks .
On top of that , Pelosi and Schumer are AWOL in this fight .
Schumer tromped around New York City without a mask with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Tuesday , but Democrats won ’ t come back to Congress to hash this out honestly .
While Nancy Pelosi tweets out her ice-cream stash , Donald Trump holds daily press briefings at the White House and at least looks like he ’ s on the job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is doing the same thing .
It ’ s going to be really tough to explain why Pelosi and Schumer are holding up funds for half of all American workers just to protect bureaucrats whose jobs aren ’ t really at risk in the long term .
In fact , that would be a great question for Chuck Todd to ask them .

And not just because Democrats have put themselves in the position of obstructing badly needed relief, either. Chuck Todd tells Hugh Hewitt that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have made the same mistake that both parties have made in the past when it comes to budget fights and government shutdowns — miscalculating the patience that voters have with food fights in normal times. When jobs are getting obliterated like they are in this crisis, Todd says the smarter move would be to cooperate now and deliver the bill later.
He thinks Democrats are “being genuine” about their concern for state-government relief, though:
HH: Okay, that’s fair. I want to turn to the PPP. I have Brad Dinsmore coming on in a little bit. He is the president of Pacific Mercantile Bank. They lent the Nixon Foundation, which I run, our PPP. They got it done. They’ve saved tens of thousands of jobs. That is running out of money today or tomorrow. I think Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer are running a grave risk, Chuck, if they do not appropriate this money. How do you analyze this? CT: Look, I think any side that is on the side that looks like they’re holding up money, I think, is bad politics. I think, I think that the Democrats are genuine in their sticking up for the governors here. I think that’s what they believe they’re doing. I believe they think that you know, Cuomo and Hogan are basically lobbying on their side on this, right, the two national governors. They’re like we need our money, too. So I think that’s what Democrats are calculating, that this is, this is, you know, if you look at it through one eye, it looks like they’re holding up small business money. If you look at it through the other one, hey, governors are asking for their money. So I think that’s what the Democrats are calculating. I don’t know if that’s coming to fruition, though. I think that small business money issue is something that’s more front and center with the public than the issue of reimbursing the states. And so I think that on a perception marker here, sort of you’re short term politics, I think the Republicans have the upper hand. HH: You’re never wrong. This is why I have Chuck on every week. You’re never wrong on the Hot Line stuff. And this is what’s happening. They’ve misjudged again. CT: Yeah. HH: Chuck Schumer did this before on a shutdown, and they have miscalculated the impact of people getting laid off. CT: You know, here’s the thing. It’s really interesting here, and they each, I think at times, almost miscalculated, right? I think when some House Republicans wanted to mess around, it was like don’t do that. You know, and one of these things, so this is one of those where Schumer and Pelosi, I think, could basically give them this, hold the chit, and then come back and be more powerful when they come back for their ask in three weeks. HH: Yes. Absolutely.
Small-business money is “more front and center with the public,” because the public owns, patronizes, and/or work at small businesses all over America. Their local restaurants, their hair and nail salons, their butchers and bakers and candlestick makers largely come from that sector of the economy. Those independent businesses will make a large difference in whether we have an economic recovery, since nearly half of all American workers are employed by firms with fewer than 100 employees (using 2018 data).
State and local governments, on the other hand, employed 12.6% of all workers in 2018. Americans can do the math, even if Pelosi and Schumer can’t. Furthermore, no one really believes that the bureaucratic jobs will be lost for long, but small business jobs will get destroyed very quickly when businesses fail, and there won’t be any way to bring those back again. The real emergency is in the private sector that state and local governments are forcing to close for now, not in the bureaucratic ranks.
On top of that, Pelosi and Schumer are AWOL in this fight. Schumer tromped around New York City without a mask with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Tuesday, but Democrats won’t come back to Congress to hash this out honestly. While Nancy Pelosi tweets out her ice-cream stash, Donald Trump holds daily press briefings at the White House and at least looks like he’s on the job and taking care of business. Mnuchin is doing the same thing. It’s going to be really tough to explain why Pelosi and Schumer are holding up funds for half of all American workers just to protect bureaucrats whose jobs aren’t really at risk in the long term. In fact, that would be a great question for Chuck Todd to ask them.


hotair--2020-04-16--Cuomo hires consultant firm to develop "Trump-proof" science metrics for reopening economy; <span cl

Cuomo hires consultant firm to develop "Trump-proof" science metrics for reopening economy; Update: Midwest governors announce regional coalition

This is clever , just as that multistate confederation he formed with other governors in the northeast and mid-Atlantic was clever .
Cuomo understands that Trump ’ s about to wage a PR war demanding that governors reopen on the wholly arbitrary date of May 1 or else they ’ re guilty of murdering the economy with their bare hands .
His PR countermeasure : Strength in numbers .
It ’ s easier to convince New Yorkers that restrictions on business are still needed despite what the president says if you have a group of other governors backing you up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own states .
And it ’ s easier to convince them to stick with the shutdown strategy if there ’ s a specific plan to reopen that they can see for themselves .
Trump ’ s “ reopen now ” un-strategy is stupid but seductive in that it suggests there ’ s an easy way out of this mess in areas with lower death tolls .
Just go back to work .
Don ’ t take reckless risks , but also don ’ t be afraid to go out to eat .
Things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s appealing , however unrealistic .
If Cuomo and his allies want to counter it , they need benchmarks to show their residents that they ’ re thinking about how to reopen too , albeit in a way more conducive to their safety .
Otherwise they ’ ll be accused of having no strategy except “ lockdown forever , ” which is silly but politically potent .
The weird thing is that Cuomo ’ s the last state official in the country who needs to aggressively prepare for a Trump PR war .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He governs a deep blue state where Trump is unpopular .
And NYC is the single biggest coronavirus hot spot on Earth , the last place anyone — Trump included — expects to reopen soon .
It ’ s someone like Gretchen Whitmer , who governs a purple state and has become a political lightning rod , who should be thinking about multistate alliances and independent metrics on reopening to head Trump off , not Cuomo .
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has hired high-powered consultants to develop a science-based plan for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that can thwart expected pressure from President Donald Trump to move more rapidly , state government sources told Reuters on Wednesday .
As part of Cuomo ’ s effort , McKinsey & Company is producing models on testing , infections and other key data points that will underpin decisions on how and when to reopen the region ’ s economy , the sources said… The goal is to “ Trump-proof ” the plan , said an adviser to New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy .
“ We think Trump ultimately will blink on this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to push back , and we are reaching out to top experts and other professionals to come up with a bullet-proof plan , ” to open on the state ’ s terms , said a Cuomo adviser .
Reuters notes that the 10 states that are currently part of multistate recovery coalitions , which include New York and California , account for 38 percent of the U.S. economy .
Each of the other 40 states could reopen on May 1 and the national recovery will remain at just two-thirds strength .
In fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours that New York ’ s lockdown will remain in effect until May 15 at least : I ’ d guess that he recruited McKinsey partly in order to make that extension more palatable to the public as well .
Not that New Yorkers are in a rush to go out and mingle with the city still in the grip of an epidemic , but Cuomo needs to show that the sustained lockdown isn ’ t arbitrary .
McKinsey ’ s benchmarks will let him do that .
Especially if this encouraging trend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continues and people begin to feel more confident about reemerging : Trump ’ s not going to end up hassling Cuomo .
As I say , even he grasps that New York is in no condition to reopen soon .
He ’ s going to choose a few select governors as foils , starting with Whitmer , and encourage protests against their stay-at-home orders after May 1 .
Whitmer ’ s a perfect foil for various reasons .
He ’ s already developed a grudge against her for complaining about the lack of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a probable shortlister for Biden ’ s VP .
She governs a state he ( barely ) won in 2016 and which he ’ ll need to win again , in which case he ’ ll be looking for ways to galvanize his fans there before the election .
She ’ s also made herself an easy target with overly aggressive restrictions on movement .
Frankly , she may relish being a target of Trump and the MAGA right , knowing how it raises her profile nationally .
It ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out next month , with Trump egging on protests in Michigan while quietly ignoring the much more economically burdensome shutdowns in New York and California and the media lavishing praise on Whitmer for refusing to budge as the president tries to bully her into a reckless reopening .
That ’ s the only reason I can think of for why she hasn ’ t tried to form a coalition with Wisconsin , Minnesota , and especially Ohio , which is governed by Republican Mike DeWine , on when to reopen .
Maybe she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a crowd like Cuomo is doing .
Maybe she wants Trump ’ s attention .
Either that or the other governors in her region don ’ t want to form any coalitions right now .
I can understand why DeWine , a member of Trump ’ s own party in a state he won easily , might not want that headache but I ’ m not sure why the Democratic governors of Wisconsin and Minnesota would resist .
Update : And there it is , the new midwest confederacy .
And yes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most interesting names are Beshear and Holcomb .
Beshear is the Democratic governor of Kentucky , which isn ’ t a midwestern state even though it borders Ohio .
These regional coalitions are starting to become less regional .
Meanwhile , Holcomb is the governor of Indiana , a deep red state , and a Republican himself .
That makes four Republican governors — including DeWine , Charlie Baker in Massachusetts , and Larry Hogan in Maryland — who are gearing up to resist Trump ’ s demands to reopen on May 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more appropriate timeline .

This is clever, just as that multistate confederation he formed with other governors in the northeast and mid-Atlantic was clever. Cuomo understands that Trump’s about to wage a PR war demanding that governors reopen on the wholly arbitrary date of May 1 or else they’re guilty of murdering the economy with their bare hands. His PR countermeasure: Strength in numbers. It’s easier to convince New Yorkers that restrictions on business are still needed despite what the president says if you have a group of other governors backing you up, maintaining the same restrictions in their own states.
And it’s easier to convince them to stick with the shutdown strategy if there’s a specific plan to reopen that they can see for themselves. Trump’s “reopen now” un-strategy is stupid but seductive in that it suggests there’s an easy way out of this mess in areas with lower death tolls. Just go back to work. Don’t take reckless risks, but also don’t be afraid to go out to eat. Things’ll be fine. That’s appealing, however unrealistic. If Cuomo and his allies want to counter it, they need benchmarks to show their residents that they’re thinking about how to reopen too, albeit in a way more conducive to their safety. Otherwise they’ll be accused of having no strategy except “lockdown forever,” which is silly but politically potent.
The weird thing is that Cuomo’s the last state official in the country who needs to aggressively prepare for a Trump PR war. His job approval is sky high now. He governs a deep blue state where Trump is unpopular. And NYC is the single biggest coronavirus hot spot on Earth, the last place anyone — Trump included — expects to reopen soon. It’s someone like Gretchen Whitmer, who governs a purple state and has become a political lightning rod, who should be thinking about multistate alliances and independent metrics on reopening to head Trump off, not Cuomo.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has hired high-powered consultants to develop a science-based plan for the safe economic reopening of the region that can thwart expected pressure from President Donald Trump to move more rapidly, state government sources told Reuters on Wednesday. As part of Cuomo’s effort, McKinsey & Company is producing models on testing, infections and other key data points that will underpin decisions on how and when to reopen the region’s economy, the sources said… The goal is to “Trump-proof” the plan, said an adviser to New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy. “We think Trump ultimately will blink on this, but if not, we need to push back, and we are reaching out to top experts and other professionals to come up with a bullet-proof plan,” to open on the state’s terms, said a Cuomo adviser.
Reuters notes that the 10 states that are currently part of multistate recovery coalitions, which include New York and California, account for 38 percent of the U.S. economy. Each of the other 40 states could reopen on May 1 and the national recovery will remain at just two-thirds strength. In fact, Cuomo announced within the past few hours that New York’s lockdown will remain in effect until May 15 at least:
NEW: NY Gov. Cuomo extends state shutdown until May 15. pic.twitter.com/EsOsISyXev — NBC News (@NBCNews) April 16, 2020
I’d guess that he recruited McKinsey partly in order to make that extension more palatable to the public as well. Not that New Yorkers are in a rush to go out and mingle with the city still in the grip of an epidemic, but Cuomo needs to show that the sustained lockdown isn’t arbitrary. McKinsey’s benchmarks will let him do that. Especially if this encouraging trend in New York’s COVID-19 crisis continues and people begin to feel more confident about reemerging:
Cuomo highlights drop in total hospitalizations and intubations. https://t.co/64Eln04lVw pic.twitter.com/ujPUvGKAgc — Dan Linden (@DanLinden) April 16, 2020
Trump’s not going to end up hassling Cuomo. As I say, even he grasps that New York is in no condition to reopen soon. He’s going to choose a few select governors as foils, starting with Whitmer, and encourage protests against their stay-at-home orders after May 1. Whitmer’s a perfect foil for various reasons. He’s already developed a grudge against her for complaining about the lack of supplies from the federal government. She’s a probable shortlister for Biden’s VP. She governs a state he (barely) won in 2016 and which he’ll need to win again, in which case he’ll be looking for ways to galvanize his fans there before the election. She’s also made herself an easy target with overly aggressive restrictions on movement. Frankly, she may relish being a target of Trump and the MAGA right, knowing how it raises her profile nationally. It’ll be fun to watch that standoff play out next month, with Trump egging on protests in Michigan while quietly ignoring the much more economically burdensome shutdowns in New York and California and the media lavishing praise on Whitmer for refusing to budge as the president tries to bully her into a reckless reopening.
That’s the only reason I can think of for why she hasn’t tried to form a coalition with Wisconsin, Minnesota, and especially Ohio, which is governed by Republican Mike DeWine, on when to reopen. Maybe she doesn’t want to hide in a crowd like Cuomo is doing. Maybe she wants Trump’s attention. Either that or the other governors in her region don’t want to form any coalitions right now. I can understand why DeWine, a member of Trump’s own party in a state he won easily, might not want that headache but I’m not sure why the Democratic governors of Wisconsin and Minnesota would resist.
Here’s Cuomo explaining why “reopen now” won’t cut it.
NY Gov. Cuomo: "Why don’t you open tomorrow? Because we’re afraid the infection rate will go up and everything we’ve been doing is to slow the infection rate." pic.twitter.com/0NUSpB8a8m — MSNBC (@MSNBC) April 16, 2020
Update: And there it is, the new midwest confederacy. And yes, Mike DeWine is onboard.
NEW: Midwest governors Gretchen Whitmer, Mike DeWine, Tony Evers, Tim Walz, JB Pritzker, Eric Holcomb and Andy Beshear just announced they will coordinate to reopen the economy in the Midwest region. pic.twitter.com/ySqj39bGbh — Kat Stafford (@kat__stafford) April 16, 2020
The two most interesting names are Beshear and Holcomb. Beshear is the Democratic governor of Kentucky, which isn’t a midwestern state even though it borders Ohio. These regional coalitions are starting to become less regional. Meanwhile, Holcomb is the governor of Indiana, a deep red state, and a Republican himself. That makes four Republican governors — including DeWine, Charlie Baker in Massachusetts, and Larry Hogan in Maryland — who are gearing up to resist Trump’s demands to reopen on May 1 by partnering with neighboring states on a more appropriate timeline.


hotair--2020-04-16--Ruth Marcus: Why I don't believe Tara Reade (Update)

Ruth Marcus is a columnist for the Washington Post who wrote a book about the Kavanaugh confirmation .
Her book concluded that Christine Blasey Ford was telling the truth and that , therefore , Justice Kavanaugh ’ s name would always have an asterisk next to it .
Wednesday the Post published a piece in which Marcus weighed the evidence for Tara Reade ’ s claim against Joe Biden .
You ’ ll be shocked to learn that she doesn ’ t believe Tara Reade is telling the truth , though she admits her claims could be true .
Marcus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four parts : Contemporaneous evidence , evidence predating the current allegation , credibility , and pattern evidence .
Let ’ s look at those in order .
Contemporaneous evidence shows that someone told the same story back when the incident happened .
As it stands now , Tara Reade ’ s story is backed by contemporaneous evidence where Dr. Ford ’ s was not .
But notice how Marcus dismisses Ford ’ s lack of contemporaneous evidence as “ no surprise.
” What Marcus is doing here is using Ford ’ s later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time .
But the fact that , many decades later , she can rationalize her own silence doesn ’ t mean it ’ s “ no surprise ” she didn ’ t tell anyone .
Leigh Corfman was a teenage high school student when Roy Moore allegedly asked her on a date , drove her to his home , convinced her to strip down to her underwear before driving her home .
Corfman told friends about the incident , even mentioning the name of the man involved to one friend at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told people about the incident gives her story credibility .
The fact that Ford didn ’ t tell anyone means her story lacks credibility , no matter her excuse for that silence years later .
And the fact that the people she claimed were in the room didn ’ t remember the party in question is also a problem for her credibility .
Why couldn ’ t Leland Keyser , a friend who obviously wanted to believe Ford ’ s story , back up her account about the party .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t remember , it ’ s the entire setting ?
No part of Ford ’ s recollection of that night was backed up .
Marcus simply ignores this completely .
The next bit of evidence Marcus looks at is what Reade/Ford told people later , closer to the time the story became public .
Both Ford and Reade claim they told a therapist about the incident , but Reade hasn ’ t released the therapists notes and Ford did .
Also , Reade told a different story last year that didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : I agree that Reade ’ s shifting story is a problem for her credibility .
And if it weren ’ t for the contemporaneous confirmation from her friend , this would probably be the point at which I would conclude her story lacked consistency and credibility .
However , it ’ s not true that Ford ’ s story never changed .
The therapist notes she released did not tell the same story she told to the world .
She blamed the difference on a mistake by the therapist .
Here ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the notes : Ford ’ s story , which she hadn ’ t told for 30 years , appears to have changed .
There was also some confusion about the number of people at the party .
But once again , Ford has a belated explanation for that , so we ’ re just supposed to overlook the fact that the therapist notes don ’ t quite tell the same story .
Here is where Marcus tries to make up for a lack of evidence elsewhere by suggesting Ford had loads of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emphasis added ] .
Two points .
First , in the very sentence Marcus denies that Ford had an ideological motive , she points out that Ford was concerned about the ideology of the nominee .
But of course , she frames this as something in Ford ’ s favor .
She was worried the next nominee could be worse !
Well , maybe she was also worried the current nominee , Kavanaugh , was bad enough .
That ’ s what Ford ’ s own lawyer would later imply when she told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade , we will know who he is , we know his character , and we know what motivates him , and that is important ; it is important that we know , and that is part of what motivated Christine.
” Marcus never mentions this statement , probably because it undercuts her argument .
Meanwhile , she takes the fact that Tara Reade previously supported Bernie Sanders as possible evidence that she is lying to damage Biden ’ s campaign .
Is that possible ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ford wanted to keep a pro-life judge off the Supreme Court .
Of course .
Marcus can acknowledge the former possibility but not the latter .
The idea here is that Kavanaugh had a pattern of behavior that fits the allegations but Biden does not : So the “ pattern of behavior ” in Kavanaugh ’ s case relies on two other allegations .
Marcus doesn ’ t even mention their names .
One of those allegations , involving gang rape at parties , was completely unreliable .
NBC interviewed Julie Swetnick and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t corroborated by anyone .
NBC later clarified that the “ corroborating witness ” provided by Michael Avenatti said Avenatti had twisted her words .
Pointing to this claim to establish a pattern of behavior is absurd .
That ’ s probably why Marcus doesn ’ t mention Swetnick by name .
The other allegation , from Deborah Ramirez , came after Ramirez herself said she couldn ’ t remember if the person involved ( in exposing himself at a party ) was Kavanaugh .
She even told Ronan Farrow she wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above , no one could back up any of the details made by Ford .
So the pattern of abuse by Kavanaugh is pretty thin .
As for the pattern by Biden , there clearly is one of him touching women in ways that make them uncomfortable .
We ’ ve all seen the videos so there ’ s no room to doubt it .
I agree that what Reade describes goes well beyond that pattern .
So the evidence that he would do this is also pretty thin ( on this basis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Marcus hasn ’ t really looked at the evidence fairly and evenhandedly .
If she had , she ’ d have to admit that neither story is completely solid but that Tara Reade ’ s story has at least as much credibility as Ford ’ s did .
Given that fact , it looks to a lot of us that the reason Reade isn ’ t getting much support has less to do with the evidence at hand and more to do with politics .
Update : A flashback courtesy of Stephen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marcus treated Kavanaugh at the time .
So is there no benefit of the doubt for Biden with the White House on the line ?
Update : From Rose McGowan , responding to an article in The Nation : “ Make no mistake the slander of the brave Tara Reade is because she ’ s not a Liberal feminist ’ s idea of what Joe Biden would want to touch .
”

Ruth Marcus is a columnist for the Washington Post who wrote a book about the Kavanaugh confirmation. Her book concluded that Christine Blasey Ford was telling the truth and that, therefore, Justice Kavanaugh’s name would always have an asterisk next to it. Wednesday the Post published a piece in which Marcus weighed the evidence for Tara Reade’s claim against Joe Biden. You’ll be shocked to learn that she doesn’t believe Tara Reade is telling the truth, though she admits her claims could be true.
This column represents a good-faith effort to grapple with the seriousness of, and flaws in, the Reade allegations. My conclusion is that while Ford’s allegations are on balance stronger, those who took Ford’s complaints seriously cannot simply dismiss Reade’s claims out of hand. I don’t think what Reade claimed happened, yet the evidence is murky.
Marcus breaks her analysis of the evidence into four parts: Contemporaneous evidence, evidence predating the current allegation, credibility, and pattern evidence. Let’s look at those in order.
Contemporaneous evidence
Contemporaneous evidence shows that someone told the same story back when the incident happened. As it stands now, Tara Reade’s story is backed by contemporaneous evidence where Dr. Ford’s was not. But notice how Marcus dismisses Ford’s lack of contemporaneous evidence as “no surprise.”
Bottom line: the contemporaneous evidence is inconclusive but stronger than that in the Kavanaugh case. That comes as no surprise; in fact, Ford said she took pains not to let family and friends know about the alleged assault.
What Marcus is doing here is using Ford’s later justification for not telling anyone her story at the time. But the fact that, many decades later, she can rationalize her own silence doesn’t mean it’s “no surprise” she didn’t tell anyone.
Leigh Corfman was a teenage high school student when Roy Moore allegedly asked her on a date, drove her to his home, convinced her to strip down to her underwear before driving her home. Corfman told friends about the incident, even mentioning the name of the man involved to one friend at the time. The fact that she told people about the incident gives her story credibility. The fact that Ford didn’t tell anyone means her story lacks credibility, no matter her excuse for that silence years later.
And the fact that the people she claimed were in the room didn’t remember the party in question is also a problem for her credibility. Why couldn’t Leland Keyser, a friend who obviously wanted to believe Ford’s story, back up her account about the party. It’s not just the assault Keyser doesn’t remember, it’s the entire setting? No part of Ford’s recollection of that night was backed up. Marcus simply ignores this completely.
Evidence predating current allegation
The next bit of evidence Marcus looks at is what Reade/Ford told people later, closer to the time the story became public. Both Ford and Reade claim they told a therapist about the incident, but Reade hasn’t released the therapists notes and Ford did. Also, Reade told a different story last year that didn’t mention sexual assault, just unwanted touching:
Bottom line: Reade’s shifting account introduces a confusing element. If Biden did what she now alleges, why did she not say this a year ago? Reade says she did not feel comfortable telling her full story then, but she seems to have offered no clue that there was more to her story. Ford had similarly shared her account about Kavanaugh with friends, family and therapists; however, by contrast with Reade, her story did not change over time.
I agree that Reade’s shifting story is a problem for her credibility. And if it weren’t for the contemporaneous confirmation from her friend, this would probably be the point at which I would conclude her story lacked consistency and credibility. However, it’s not true that Ford’s story never changed. The therapist notes she released did not tell the same story she told to the world. She blamed the difference on a mistake by the therapist. Here’s the Washington Post’s description of the notes:
Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.
Ford’s story, which she hadn’t told for 30 years, appears to have changed. There was also some confusion about the number of people at the party. But once again, Ford has a belated explanation for that, so we’re just supposed to overlook the fact that the therapist notes don’t quite tell the same story.
Credibility
Here is where Marcus tries to make up for a lack of evidence elsewhere by suggesting Ford had loads of credibility and no reason to lie [emphasis added].
Reade presents a confounding figure — to me, much more so than Ford, although I have the advantage of not only having watched Ford’s testimony but also having interviewed her over many hours. One fundamental difference involves the matter of motive. Ford came forward only reluctantly, and without evident ideological motivation; she told me that she worried, actually, that if Kavanaugh were forced to withdraw, a more conservative nominee might take his place. Reade supported Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I) presidential bid, and the fact that she went public with her allegations just as Biden was on the verge of cementing the Democratic nomination raises the possibility of political motivation, although Reade denies this.
Two points. First, in the very sentence Marcus denies that Ford had an ideological motive, she points out that Ford was concerned about the ideology of the nominee. But of course, she frames this as something in Ford’s favor. She was worried the next nominee could be worse! Well, maybe she was also worried the current nominee, Kavanaugh, was bad enough. That’s what Ford’s own lawyer would later imply when she told a feminist legal conference, “When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important; it is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”
Marcus never mentions this statement, probably because it undercuts her argument. Meanwhile, she takes the fact that Tara Reade previously supported Bernie Sanders as possible evidence that she is lying to damage Biden’s campaign. Is that possible? Of course. Is it possible Dr. Ford wanted to keep a pro-life judge off the Supreme Court. Of course. Marcus can acknowledge the former possibility but not the latter.
Pattern evidence
The idea here is that Kavanaugh had a pattern of behavior that fits the allegations but Biden does not:
Bottom line: The Kavanaugh chapter produced evidence, albeit inconclusive, of other incidents, when he was young, of problematic behavior toward women. The absence of a pattern in Biden’s case does not disprove Reade’s allegations. Still, it seems unlikely that behavior this egregious would be a one-time incident.
So the “pattern of behavior” in Kavanaugh’s case relies on two other allegations. Marcus doesn’t even mention their names. One of those allegations, involving gang rape at parties, was completely unreliable. NBC interviewed Julie Swetnick and found that her story changed and wasn’t corroborated by anyone. NBC later clarified that the “corroborating witness” provided by Michael Avenatti said Avenatti had twisted her words. Pointing to this claim to establish a pattern of behavior is absurd. That’s probably why Marcus doesn’t mention Swetnick by name.
The other allegation, from Deborah Ramirez, came after Ramirez herself said she couldn’t remember if the person involved (in exposing himself at a party) was Kavanaugh. She even told Ronan Farrow she wasn’t sure. And as discussed above, no one could back up any of the details made by Ford. So the pattern of abuse by Kavanaugh is pretty thin.
As for the pattern by Biden, there clearly is one of him touching women in ways that make them uncomfortable. We’ve all seen the videos so there’s no room to doubt it. I agree that what Reade describes goes well beyond that pattern. So the evidence that he would do this is also pretty thin (on this basis alone).
My bottom line is that Marcus hasn’t really looked at the evidence fairly and evenhandedly. If she had, she’d have to admit that neither story is completely solid but that Tara Reade’s story has at least as much credibility as Ford’s did. Given that fact, it looks to a lot of us that the reason Reade isn’t getting much support has less to do with the evidence at hand and more to do with politics.
Update: A flashback courtesy of Stephen Miller. Here’s how Ruth Marcus treated Kavanaugh at the time. So is there no benefit of the doubt for Biden with the White House on the line?
When Blasey Ford came forward it was no I’m sorry you don’t get the benefit of the doubt, you must step down. These people have killed MeToo, and laughably so. pic.twitter.com/fl3anJbTap — Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) April 16, 2020
Update: From Rose McGowan, responding to an article in The Nation: “Make no mistake the slander of the brave Tara Reade is because she’s not a Liberal feminist’s idea of what Joe Biden would want to touch.”


hotair--2020-04-16--South Dakota's herd immunity plan is looking dubious thus far... or is it?

There ’ s a lot of public pressure being put on South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem this week .
She ’ s one of only five governors in the country to not issue a mandatory shutdown , lockdown or quarantine order .
Until quite recently , that didn ’ t seem to be much of an issue , but in the past couple of weeks , the number of confirmed cases of the novel coronavirus has begun to exhibit that steep curve that we ’ ve come to know all too well in New York City and New Orleans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ already issued a public statement calling on the Governor to shut the state down .
But we should probably take a more careful look at the numbers coming out of the Mount Rushmore State before rushing to judgment .
( NY Post ) South Dakota ’ s coronavirus cases have begun to soar after its governor steadfastly refused to mandate a quarantine .
The number of confirmed cases in the state has risen from 129 to 988 since April 1 — when Gov .
Kristi Noem criticized the “ draconian measures ” of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus in her state .
Noem had criticized the quarantine idea as “ herd mentality , not leadership ” during a news conference , adding “ South Dakota is not New York.
” As of yesterday , there were 988 confirmed cases of COVID-19 with a total of six deaths .
Obviously , every death is tragic and nearly a thousand cases is nothing to sneeze at ( pardon the pun ) , even in a state with a population of roughly 884,000 people .
But still , that ’ s really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the population .
Even more importantly , nearly one-third of the total number of cases in South Dakota all came from a single place .
That would be the Smithfield Foods pork processing plant in Sioux Falls .
Going down the list of counties in South Dakota , we see that of the 988 confirmed cases identified so far , 768 of them are in Minnehaha County , where Sioux Falls is located .
That ’ s also the location of one third ( 2 ) of the deaths thus far .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Lincoln County where there are 55 cases .
There are four more counties with between 13 and 22 cases .
Beyond that , 34 more counties have between 1 and 9 cases , with the remaining 26 counties having zero cases .
Granted , Sioux Falls accounts for twenty percent of the state ’ s population and no doubt has a higher human density rating than nearly any other part of South Dakota .
But that only feeds into the idea that they have their coronavirus issue contained to a relatively small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shutting down her entire state and disrupting the lives of the other 700,000 South Dakotans ?
I suppose I could understand if Governor Noem decided to issue a lockdown order and some social distancing protocols just for Sioux City and its surrounding suburbs .
But the point that Governor is making is worth considering .
When asked why she still hadn ’ t taken any drastic actions , she said , “ The people themselves are primarily responsible for their safety .
They are the ones that are entrusted with expansive freedoms.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treating them like adults .
Perhaps instead of an executive order , she could simply issue a clear , well-defined set of guidelines for people to follow , taking the responsibility to do so upon themselves .
Nearly any employer can put the same sets of precautions in place that most grocery stores are using these days .
Have workers enter the building one at a time , separate desks and works stations as much as possible , increase sanitization procedures and have everyone keep their distance .
What I just described is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the Smithfield Foods plant .
They plan on reopening , but first , they are scrubbing the entire place down and installing plexiglass shield around the employees ’ workstations and controlling the flow of workers in , out and through the plant .
In addition , they ’ ve already tested everyone there .
If they can resume operations without a second surge in cases , couldn ’ t that be done virtually anywhere ?
Before we declare South Dakota ’ s decisions during the pandemic a failure , we should take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data and see if there isn ’ t anything to be learned here .
What they are doing could also serve as a partial model for opening up the rest of the country , assuming they are still keeping these numbers under control a few weeks from now .

There’s a lot of public pressure being put on South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem this week. She’s one of only five governors in the country to not issue a mandatory shutdown, lockdown or quarantine order. Until quite recently, that didn’t seem to be much of an issue, but in the past couple of weeks, the number of confirmed cases of the novel coronavirus has begun to exhibit that steep curve that we’ve come to know all too well in New York City and New Orleans. The state’s Medical Association has already issued a public statement calling on the Governor to shut the state down. But we should probably take a more careful look at the numbers coming out of the Mount Rushmore State before rushing to judgment. (NY Post)
South Dakota’s coronavirus cases have begun to soar after its governor steadfastly refused to mandate a quarantine. The number of confirmed cases in the state has risen from 129 to 988 since April 1 — when Gov. Kristi Noem criticized the “draconian measures” of social distancing to stop the spread of the virus in her state. Noem had criticized the quarantine idea as “herd mentality, not leadership” during a news conference, adding “South Dakota is not New York.”
As of yesterday, there were 988 confirmed cases of COVID-19 with a total of six deaths. Obviously, every death is tragic and nearly a thousand cases is nothing to sneeze at (pardon the pun), even in a state with a population of roughly 884,000 people. But still, that’s really less than one-tenth of one percent of the population.
Even more importantly, nearly one-third of the total number of cases in South Dakota all came from a single place. That would be the Smithfield Foods pork processing plant in Sioux Falls. Going down the list of counties in South Dakota, we see that of the 988 confirmed cases identified so far, 768 of them are in Minnehaha County, where Sioux Falls is located. That’s also the location of one third (2) of the deaths thus far.
The next highest concentration of confirmed cases is in Lincoln County where there are 55 cases. There are four more counties with between 13 and 22 cases. Beyond that, 34 more counties have between 1 and 9 cases, with the remaining 26 counties having zero cases.
Granted, Sioux Falls accounts for twenty percent of the state’s population and no doubt has a higher human density rating than nearly any other part of South Dakota. But that only feeds into the idea that they have their coronavirus issue contained to a relatively small area. Should the Governor really be shutting down her entire state and disrupting the lives of the other 700,000 South Dakotans?
I suppose I could understand if Governor Noem decided to issue a lockdown order and some social distancing protocols just for Sioux City and its surrounding suburbs. But the point that Governor is making is worth considering. When asked why she still hadn’t taken any drastic actions, she said, “The people themselves are primarily responsible for their safety. They are the ones that are entrusted with expansive freedoms.”
In other words, she’s treating them like adults. Perhaps instead of an executive order, she could simply issue a clear, well-defined set of guidelines for people to follow, taking the responsibility to do so upon themselves. Nearly any employer can put the same sets of precautions in place that most grocery stores are using these days. Have workers enter the building one at a time, separate desks and works stations as much as possible, increase sanitization procedures and have everyone keep their distance.
What I just described is nearly identical to the plans currently unfolding at the Smithfield Foods plant. They plan on reopening, but first, they are scrubbing the entire place down and installing plexiglass shield around the employees’ workstations and controlling the flow of workers in, out and through the plant. In addition, they’ve already tested everyone there. If they can resume operations without a second surge in cases, couldn’t that be done virtually anywhere?
Before we declare South Dakota’s decisions during the pandemic a failure, we should take a long, hard look at the data and see if there isn’t anything to be learned here. What they are doing could also serve as a partial model for opening up the rest of the country, assuming they are still keeping these numbers under control a few weeks from now.


hotair--2020-04-16--Stacey Abrams to Biden: "I'd be an excellent running mate"

The push is on to offer up Stacey Abrams as the woman Joe Biden should pick for his vice-presidential choice .
It is certainly beginning to look like a coordinated effort in the press to move her name to the top of his list of potential running mates .
It began earlier this week with an opinion piece in the New York Times .
The author of the piece is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress .
Abrams sits on the board of that liberal group .
The title sums it up : It ’ s Obvious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President .
It ’ s obvious to him , anyway .
His reasoning is that Stacey Abrams is the answer to three of Joe Biden ’ s problems in the presidential election – a lack of voter enthusiasm , young people are not interested in voting for him , and he doesn ’ t have the Latino vote .
He thinks Abrams checks all of those boxes for Biden .
She ’ d obviously bring out the female African-American vote but on a national level , her ability to turn out Latino voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
Wednesday Elle magazine ran a slobbering piece on Abrams .
What struck me as I read it was the abundance of confidence the woman has in herself .
To read it is to think she has it all sewn up .
She is certainly aggressively pursuing the chance to run with Biden .
When asked if she is interested in being chosen , she doesn ’ t try to nuance her answer at all .
“ I would be an excellent running mate.
” Well , now .
How ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the whole package , at least in her own mind .
What really interested me is her claim of expertise in foreign policy , because she ’ s been reading up on it for years , or something .
Foreign policy is supposed to be Biden ’ s area of expertise among politicians in the Democrat Party so she may want to tread lightly there .
Remember , though Joe Biden has been historically wrong on foreign policy decisions throughout his 40 plus year career , Barack Obama chose him to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience in that area .
It should be fairly easy for President Trump to campaign against Biden on that subject .
Abrams wants to “ restore America ’ s place in the world ” ?
Please .
The Obama-Biden administration completely caved to Iran , apologized throughout the world for the successes of the United States , bungled withdrawal efforts in Iraq , sat by and watched during the Arab Spring , and where was Joe Biden as Ambassador Stevens died in Benghazi ?
Does the United States need to sign on to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American economy , like the Paris Climate Agreement ?
Abrams has political experience in the State of Georgia but not at the national level .
Her resume boasts that she was the first woman to lead a political party in Georgia ’ s General Assembly .
She was the first African American to lead the Georgia House of Representatives .
And , had she been legitimately successful in her campaign to be Governor of Georgia , she would have been the first black woman governor in the United States .
But she lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She tried to transition from the Georgia House of Representatives to the next level , the governorship , and she failed to garner enough votes to do that .
Then , as Democrats do , when she lost that race she cried voter suppression and racism and sexism and everything else she could .
She took the Hillary Clinton route instead of showing grace and professionalism .
She still hasn ’ t conceded to Governor Kemp .
If Joe Biden chooses her , she ’ ll have to step down as Governor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here is how she looks at the results of that race : “ I ’ m supposed to say nice things and accept my fate , ” Abrams writes in the preface to her New York Times best-seller , Lead From the Outside .
“ I refused to be gaslighted into throwing away my power , diminishing my voice.
” She has the chutzpah to later declare herself “ a really good loser ” .
What ?
I ’ m thinking her ego won ’ t allow her to be a good vice-president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to play second fiddle to good old Joe ?
“ I ’ ve learned that failure is not permanent , ” Abrams tells me .
“ My responsibility is to not let failure dissuade me from my core obligations .
Sometimes we pursue a challenge thinking it is about our victory , but we don ’ t know the true purpose until later .
Not becoming governor of one state gave me the opportunity to launch a national network in 20 states [ to fight for fair elections ] .
We are helping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broken and battered .
We are fixing access to a census that the president of the United States tried to destroy.
” She continues , “ I may not have won the office , but what I was able to earn for the causes I serve has been extraordinary , and beyond anything I could have imagined .
Apparently , I ’ m a really good loser.
” More accurately , she ’ s been successful in cashing in on victimhood .
Joe Biden has committed to picking a woman to run with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as the African-American box , and she ’ s from a southern red state .
According to Real Clear Politics , Trump leads Biden an average of 7.5 points in Georgia .
Color me skeptical that a Biden-Abrams ticket would flip Georgia into the blue state column .

The push is on to offer up Stacey Abrams as the woman Joe Biden should pick for his vice-presidential choice. It is certainly beginning to look like a coordinated effort in the press to move her name to the top of his list of potential running mates.
It began earlier this week with an opinion piece in the New York Times. The author of the piece is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. Abrams sits on the board of that liberal group. The title sums it up: It’s Obvious Whom Joe Biden Should Pick as Vice President. It’s obvious to him, anyway. His reasoning is that Stacey Abrams is the answer to three of Joe Biden’s problems in the presidential election – a lack of voter enthusiasm, young people are not interested in voting for him, and he doesn’t have the Latino vote. He thinks Abrams checks all of those boxes for Biden. She’d obviously bring out the female African-American vote but on a national level, her ability to turn out Latino voters in Georgia may not transcend across the country.
Wednesday Elle magazine ran a slobbering piece on Abrams. What struck me as I read it was the abundance of confidence the woman has in herself. To read it is to think she has it all sewn up. She is certainly aggressively pursuing the chance to run with Biden. When asked if she is interested in being chosen, she doesn’t try to nuance her answer at all. “I would be an excellent running mate.”
But Stacey Abrams does not give the expected answer when I ask if she would accept an offer from former vice president Joe Biden to serve as his 2020 running mate. “Yes. I would be honored,” Abrams says. “I would be an excellent running mate. I have the capacity to attract voters by motivating typically ignored communities. I have a strong history of executive and management experience in the private, public, and nonprofit sectors. I’ve spent 25 years in independent study of foreign policy. I am ready to help advance an agenda of restoring America’s place in the world. If I am selected, I am prepared and excited to serve.”
Well, now. How’s that for a prepared response? She’s the whole package, at least in her own mind. What really interested me is her claim of expertise in foreign policy, because she’s been reading up on it for years, or something. Foreign policy is supposed to be Biden’s area of expertise among politicians in the Democrat Party so she may want to tread lightly there. Remember, though Joe Biden has been historically wrong on foreign policy decisions throughout his 40 plus year career, Barack Obama chose him to balance out Obama’s lack of experience in that area. It should be fairly easy for President Trump to campaign against Biden on that subject. Abrams wants to “restore America’s place in the world”? Please. The Obama-Biden administration completely caved to Iran, apologized throughout the world for the successes of the United States, bungled withdrawal efforts in Iraq, sat by and watched during the Arab Spring, and where was Joe Biden as Ambassador Stevens died in Benghazi? Does the United States need to sign on to more feckless international agreements that restrict the American economy, like the Paris Climate Agreement?
Abrams has political experience in the State of Georgia but not at the national level. Her resume boasts that she was the first woman to lead a political party in Georgia’s General Assembly. She was the first African American to lead the Georgia House of Representatives. And, had she been legitimately successful in her campaign to be Governor of Georgia, she would have been the first black woman governor in the United States. But she lost. That’s the point. She tried to transition from the Georgia House of Representatives to the next level, the governorship, and she failed to garner enough votes to do that. Then, as Democrats do, when she lost that race she cried voter suppression and racism and sexism and everything else she could. She took the Hillary Clinton route instead of showing grace and professionalism. She still hasn’t conceded to Governor Kemp. If Joe Biden chooses her, she’ll have to step down as Governor of Georgia. I’m kidding but here is how she looks at the results of that race: “I’m supposed to say nice things and accept my fate,” Abrams writes in the preface to her New York Times best-seller, Lead From the Outside. “I refused to be gaslighted into throwing away my power, diminishing my voice.”
She has the chutzpah to later declare herself “a really good loser”. What? I’m thinking her ego won’t allow her to be a good vice-president. Does she sound like someone willing to play second fiddle to good old Joe?
“I’ve learned that failure is not permanent,” Abrams tells me. “My responsibility is to not let failure dissuade me from my core obligations. Sometimes we pursue a challenge thinking it is about our victory, but we don’t know the true purpose until later. Not becoming governor of one state gave me the opportunity to launch a national network in 20 states [to fight for fair elections]. We are helping reform democracy in places where it was broken and battered. We are fixing access to a census that the president of the United States tried to destroy.” She continues, “I may not have won the office, but what I was able to earn for the causes I serve has been extraordinary, and beyond anything I could have imagined. Apparently, I’m a really good loser.”
More accurately, she’s been successful in cashing in on victimhood.
Joe Biden has committed to picking a woman to run with him. She checks that box, as well as the African-American box, and she’s from a southern red state. According to Real Clear Politics, Trump leads Biden an average of 7.5 points in Georgia. Color me skeptical that a Biden-Abrams ticket would flip Georgia into the blue state column.


hotair--2020-04-16--Business leaders tell Trump on conference call: What the economy needs to reopen is much more corona

Business leaders tell Trump on conference call: What the economy needs to reopen is much more coronavirus testing

I mentioned this last night but there are so many news reports this morning about how the call went that it ’ s worth devoting a separate thread to it .
The key point is that this was supposed to be a PR opportunity for the White House , specifically for Trump ’ s plan to reopen parts of the country on May 1 come hell or high water .
A few days ago word leaked that his new “ economy task force ” would be composed of loyal aides and family members like Mark Meadows , Larry Kudlow , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to shift , with Trump announcing on Tuesday night that all sorts of business leaders would be participating in the new “ council ” to provide input on how to reopen the economy .
That was smart .
A round of conference calls between the president and participants was scheduled for yesterday .
But the question remained : Would the council really provide input or would it be a political fig leaf Trump will use to try to justify a decision he ’ s already reached ?
Was this a deliberative body , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gimmick ?
Sounds like it ’ s a PR gimmick .
For one thing , every account of the calls that were held notes that some members of the “ council ” had no idea they were invited to participate until they heard Trump announce publicly on Tuesday night that they were on the team .
Imagine being a CEO who ’ s wary of being linked to the federal government ’ s shambolic coronavirus response and turning on the TV to find you ’ ve been drafted , that you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ends up deciding to do .
“ We got a note about a conference call , like you ’ d get an invite to a Zoom thing , a few lines in an email , and that was it , ” a lobbyist for one corporation told WaPo .
“ Then our CEO heard his name in the Rose Garden ?
What the [ expletive ] ?
” Members of Congress apparently were also surprised to be informed — not invited — that they would be participating in a new White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
None of that makes sense if the goal is to find people willing and able to provide meaningful input on economic next steps .
But it makes lots of sense if the goal is to simply be able to say later “ I consulted with business before doing what I was going to do all along.
” One exec who dialed into a call told Politico the call was a “ sh*t show ” that amounted to nothing substantive .
I suspect Trump thought business leaders , of all people , would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economy open immediately , whatever the state of the outbreak might be .
Surely if there ’ s any segment of American life that can be trusted to prioritize economic vitality over public health , it ’ s those who oversee enterprise .
That ’ s where the PR opportunity went wrong , though .
The message he got from them was that economic vitality won ’ t return unless and until the public health crisis is addressed first .
What they understand , and what Trump often seems not to , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ return to normal once businesses open their doors .
The longer it takes for the feds to boost risk management via increased testing , the more skittish Americans will be about resuming old consumer habits and the more sluggish the recovery will be .
Beyond the haphazard nature of the call , senior bankers are getting increasingly frustrated with Trump ’ s approach to the crisis .
They say pressure tactics to reopen the economy as fast as possible make no sense if the virus isn ’ t fully under control and consumers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to resume anything close to normal activities .
“ I really don ’ t understand how they are communicating on this , ” one CEO told POLITICO on condition that neither they nor their firm be named for fear of angering the White House .
“ He ’ s got to stop talking about turning the economy back on and start talking about making people feel safe , things that are happening around testing and the health care system .
That ’ s the only way you will really get the economy reopened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ T ] he preferred approach [ among business leaders ] is take the big hits now , get the virus in check , and restore people ’ s sense of safety while providing them with as much financial support as possible .
Only then can the economy truly start to crawl back toward anything resembling normal .
Among those pressing the president on expanded testing was Jeff Bezos .
But apparently it was clear enough that Trump ’ s going to press ahead whether testing is ready or not .
“ Trump made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go on May 1 , ” a person who was on one of the afternoon calls said .
The person , who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private call , added that Trump seemed to bask in the praise from CEOs , who repeatedly opened their comments with compliments for the president… On one of the morning calls , the point most emphasized by the chief executives was the need for massive testing , which they said would be necessary to create the psychological circumstances for the nation to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and recreation , according to a person familiar with the call .
The president — who acted as the emcee of the call — expressed his personal view that the economy will snap back quickly as soon as the country begins to reopen , citing what he described as pent-up demand .
But some on the call were skeptical of such a robust economic reboot , predicting it may be steady , but slower .
I don ’ t think even Larry Kudlow and Peter Navarro are predicting a V-shaped recovery in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay-at-home orders are lifted .
If the president believes it , he ’ s even more disconnected from reality than I thought .
But he ’ s probably also looking abroad at the fact that some European economies are beginning to reopen and wondering why we shouldn ’ t keep pace : Germany ’ s population is a quarter the size of ours .
We ’ d need 2.6 million tests per week to match their testing capacity .
Last week we managed about a million , with some regions of the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular criteria because there ’ s just not enough capacity to test everyone who needs it .
Specifically , there aren ’ t enough testing implements : “ Many of them say the biggest challenge is getting not the diagnostic tests themselves but the supplies to process them , including chemical reagents , swabs and pipettes .
Manufacturers are facing a huge global demand as every country fights the pandemic , with many attempting the widest-scale testing they have ever undertaken.
” Many Americans might be willing to overlook that and get back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard data showed that we ’ re moving past the first wave of the epidemic .
New York , at least , seems to have flattened its curve locally .
But daily deaths from COVID-19 across the entire U.S. reached a new high yesterday .
The previous high was one day earlier .
The IHME model projected that the U.S. would hit its peak three days ago , which means we ’ re now doing worse than expected in managing the crisis .
The modelers have since increased their projections of how many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10,000 , from around 60,000 a week ago to almost 69,000 today .
That ’ s the public-health backdrop for Trump insisting that he thinks we ’ re now ready to reopen .
I wonder what the conscripts in his new “ reopen the country ” council will do if he plows ahead against their advice and calls for reopening on May 1 despite the testing shortfall .
On the one hand , no CEO wants to make an enemy of the president , especially a vindictive president .
On the other hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and thanks to the White House ’ s rash decision to involve them in a council without inviting them first , they now have a public platform as official presidential advisors to challenge him .
They could issue a joint statement politely expressing their belief that more tests are needed to ensure that any reopening will be durable .
That ’ ll put pressure on him to actually address the problem instead of waving it off with declarations that we have the greatest testing regime in history or whatever .

I mentioned this last night but there are so many news reports this morning about how the call went that it’s worth devoting a separate thread to it.
The key point is that this was supposed to be a PR opportunity for the White House, specifically for Trump’s plan to reopen parts of the country on May 1 come hell or high water. A few days ago word leaked that his new “economy task force” would be composed of loyal aides and family members like Mark Meadows, Larry Kudlow, and Javanka. But then it seemed to shift, with Trump announcing on Tuesday night that all sorts of business leaders would be participating in the new “council” to provide input on how to reopen the economy. That was smart. A round of conference calls between the president and participants was scheduled for yesterday. But the question remained: Would the council really provide input or would it be a political fig leaf Trump will use to try to justify a decision he’s already reached? Was this a deliberative body, in other words, or a PR gimmick?
Sounds like it’s a PR gimmick. For one thing, every account of the calls that were held notes that some members of the “council” had no idea they were invited to participate until they heard Trump announce publicly on Tuesday night that they were on the team. Imagine being a CEO who’s wary of being linked to the federal government’s shambolic coronavirus response and turning on the TV to find you’ve been drafted, that you’re now partially on the hook for whatever Trump ends up deciding to do. “We got a note about a conference call, like you’d get an invite to a Zoom thing, a few lines in an email, and that was it,” a lobbyist for one corporation told WaPo. “Then our CEO heard his name in the Rose Garden? What the [expletive]?” Members of Congress apparently were also surprised to be informed — not invited — that they would be participating in a new White House congressional task force for reopening the economy.
None of that makes sense if the goal is to find people willing and able to provide meaningful input on economic next steps. But it makes lots of sense if the goal is to simply be able to say later “I consulted with business before doing what I was going to do all along.” One exec who dialed into a call told Politico the call was a “sh*t show” that amounted to nothing substantive.
I suspect Trump thought business leaders, of all people, would go along with him in demanding that the economy open immediately, whatever the state of the outbreak might be. Surely if there’s any segment of American life that can be trusted to prioritize economic vitality over public health, it’s those who oversee enterprise. That’s where the PR opportunity went wrong, though. The message he got from them was that economic vitality won’t return unless and until the public health crisis is addressed first. What they understand, and what Trump often seems not to, is that consumer demand won’t return to normal once businesses open their doors. The longer it takes for the feds to boost risk management via increased testing, the more skittish Americans will be about resuming old consumer habits and the more sluggish the recovery will be.
Beyond the haphazard nature of the call, senior bankers are getting increasingly frustrated with Trump’s approach to the crisis. They say pressure tactics to reopen the economy as fast as possible make no sense if the virus isn’t fully under control and consumers and businesses don’t feel safe to resume anything close to normal activities. “I really don’t understand how they are communicating on this,” one CEO told POLITICO on condition that neither they nor their firm be named for fear of angering the White House. “He’s got to stop talking about turning the economy back on and start talking about making people feel safe, things that are happening around testing and the health care system. That’s the only way you will really get the economy reopened over a period of time.” [T]he preferred approach [among business leaders] is take the big hits now, get the virus in check, and restore people’s sense of safety while providing them with as much financial support as possible. Only then can the economy truly start to crawl back toward anything resembling normal.
Among those pressing the president on expanded testing was Jeff Bezos. But apparently it was clear enough that Trump’s going to press ahead whether testing is ready or not.
“Trump made it very clear he was ready to go on May 1,” a person who was on one of the afternoon calls said. The person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private call, added that Trump seemed to bask in the praise from CEOs, who repeatedly opened their comments with compliments for the president… On one of the morning calls, the point most emphasized by the chief executives was the need for massive testing, which they said would be necessary to create the psychological circumstances for the nation to feel comfortable returning to offices, restaurants and recreation, according to a person familiar with the call. The president — who acted as the emcee of the call — expressed his personal view that the economy will snap back quickly as soon as the country begins to reopen, citing what he described as pent-up demand. But some on the call were skeptical of such a robust economic reboot, predicting it may be steady, but slower.
I don’t think even Larry Kudlow and Peter Navarro are predicting a V-shaped recovery in which demand “snaps back” once the stay-at-home orders are lifted. If the president believes it, he’s even more disconnected from reality than I thought. But he’s probably also looking abroad at the fact that some European economies are beginning to reopen and wondering why we shouldn’t keep pace:
Germany is set to reopen small businesses next week and schools on May 4. Here's why: Germany has a comprehensive testing system that allows officials to identify and isolate the infected at an early stage. It has the capacity to run 650K tests a week. https://t.co/EkT1E95OHa — Geoff Bennett (@GeoffRBennett) April 16, 2020
Germany’s population is a quarter the size of ours. We’d need 2.6 million tests per week to match their testing capacity. Last week we managed about a million, with some regions of the U.S. still restricting testing to people who meet particular criteria because there’s just not enough capacity to test everyone who needs it. Specifically, there aren’t enough testing implements: “Many of them say the biggest challenge is getting not the diagnostic tests themselves but the supplies to process them, including chemical reagents, swabs and pipettes. Manufacturers are facing a huge global demand as every country fights the pandemic, with many attempting the widest-scale testing they have ever undertaken.”
Many Americans might be willing to overlook that and get back to shopping once business reopens if the hard data showed that we’re moving past the first wave of the epidemic. New York, at least, seems to have flattened its curve locally. But daily deaths from COVID-19 across the entire U.S. reached a new high yesterday. The previous high was one day earlier. The IHME model projected that the U.S. would hit its peak three days ago, which means we’re now doing worse than expected in managing the crisis. The modelers have since increased their projections of how many Americans will die before August by nearly 10,000, from around 60,000 a week ago to almost 69,000 today. That’s the public-health backdrop for Trump insisting that he thinks we’re now ready to reopen.
I wonder what the conscripts in his new “reopen the country” council will do if he plows ahead against their advice and calls for reopening on May 1 despite the testing shortfall. On the one hand, no CEO wants to make an enemy of the president, especially a vindictive president. On the other hand, there’s strength in numbers — and thanks to the White House’s rash decision to involve them in a council without inviting them first, they now have a public platform as official presidential advisors to challenge him. They could issue a joint statement politely expressing their belief that more tests are needed to ensure that any reopening will be durable. That’ll put pressure on him to actually address the problem instead of waving it off with declarations that we have the greatest testing regime in history or whatever.


hotair--2020-04-16--Breaking: SBA: COVID-19 emergency rescue program protecting American jobs o

Breaking: SBA: COVID-19 emergency rescue program protecting American jobs officially out of cash -- no kidding; Hmmm: Sinema backs clean PPP funding

At just the moment that American workers desperately need a rescue , Congress ’ absence from the scene has closed the doors on its most important form .
The Small Business Administration just made it official : The Paycheck Protection Program has allocated its entire $ 350 billion appropriation in just under two weeks , leaving lots of struggling businesses in the COVID-19 lockdown cold .
The program would work to save jobs and put Americans back to work , Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin argued , if Congress would just appropriate more funds to the PPP .
That is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary Steven Mnuchin and US Small Business Administration head Jovita Carranza urged Congress to provide more money for the SBA ’ s Paycheck Protection Program in a statement Wednesday night .
The new loan program was designed to help put millions of dollars directly into the hands of small business owners affected by coronavirus .
But as CNN has reported , the program is expected to officially run out of funding by Wednesday evening or Thursday morning amid an impasse between Democrats and Republicans on funding it .
“ We urge Congress to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Program — a critical and overwhelmingly bipartisan program — at which point we will once again be able to process loan applications , issue loan numbers , and protect millions more paychecks , ” the statement reads .
Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy concurred last night .
They took aim at House Democrats for digging in their heels on a broader Phase 4 bill rather than an emergency resupply of PPP : The small business rescue set up by Congress to avert massive layoffs is set to exhaust its $ 350 billion funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress remained in a stalemate over how to allocate more money for the popular loan program .
In a joint statement Wednesday evening , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California said that funding for the so-called Paycheck Protection Program will be depleted “ in a matter of hours.
” That would force the program to stop accepting applications for the government-backed loans , which can be forgiven if businesses agree to maintain their payrolls .
As of 9 p.m. , the SBA reported that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than $ 324 billion .
In a message obtained by POLITICO , the agency began to warn banks Wednesday that lenders would no longer be able to load loan requests into the SBA ’ s systems and that the agency would not accept applications for new lenders to participate in the program .
Mnuchin had been negotiating with Chuck Schumer as Pelosi ’ s proxy on the issue , but that hasn ’ t produced an agreement yet .
Mnuchin has apparently not made much of a dent in Democrats ’ strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer , are set to talk again today , with a Senate pro forma session scheduled for 3 p.m. the next opportunity to act should there be a breakthrough .
But odds of that happening may be dimming .
Any deal would require unanimous consent with Congress not scheduled to return to Washington until May .
The talks are taking place as government data Thursday showed 5.25 million people applied for unemployment benefits last week , capping four weeks of coronavirus-related shutdowns that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creation .
The figures suggest an unemployment rate around at least 17 % — far above the 10 % reached in the wake of the recession that ended in 2009 .
Mnuchin wants to add $ 251 billion for a $ 349 billion small business aid program that is set to run out of money Thursday .
One issue that has proved contentious is whether and how much aid to send to state and local governments , many of which are starting to furlough employees and employ other spending cuts because their revenue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ present on Capitol Hill , this could get worked out rather quickly among all of the players .
Few elected officials if any would stall on a vote to provide more funding for a rescue mechanism Congress created for this very purpose while jobless claims rocket into the stratosphere — if they were actually in Washington .
Instead , with members sheltering at home and no method of remote voting , Nancy Pelosi gets to use unanimous consent as a tool to force the Senate and White House into concessions from the safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ice-cream stash : This is an absurd situation , as I have written repeatedly for the last week .
The nation is facing its gravest economic crisis in at least a decade , possibly in a century , and Congress remains on the sidelines .
Doctors , nurses , first responders , grocery-store workers , postal carriers and more are risking their health to take care of a nation , and yet its governing class has largely skedaddled rather than do their jobs .
It ’ s the Brave Sir Robin Congress .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier today .
He should have been tweeting it every day for a week : The executive branch is doing their jobs .
It ’ s way past time for the legislative branch — both the House and Senate — to start doing theirs .
Addendum : A crack in Democratic unity ?
Maybe a small crack , but not significant : That makes Schumer ’ s job a little tougher , but it doesn ’ t really change Pelosi ’ s calculus .
We ’ d need to see a mass defection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calculus here .

At just the moment that American workers desperately need a rescue, Congress’ absence from the scene has closed the doors on its most important form. The Small Business Administration just made it official:
BREAKING: $350B coronavirus small business relief program has run out of money. “The SBA is currently unable to accept new applications for the Paycheck Protection Program based on available appropriations funding,” US Small Business Admin. says. — NBC News (@NBCNews) April 16, 2020
The Paycheck Protection Program has allocated its entire $350 billion appropriation in just under two weeks, leaving lots of struggling businesses in the COVID-19 lockdown cold. The program would work to save jobs and put Americans back to work, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin argued, if Congress would just appropriate more funds to the PPP.
That is, if we could find Congress:
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and US Small Business Administration head Jovita Carranza urged Congress to provide more money for the SBA’s Paycheck Protection Program in a statement Wednesday night. The new loan program was designed to help put millions of dollars directly into the hands of small business owners affected by coronavirus. But as CNN has reported, the program is expected to officially run out of funding by Wednesday evening or Thursday morning amid an impasse between Democrats and Republicans on funding it. “We urge Congress to appropriate additional funds for the Paycheck Protection Program — a critical and overwhelmingly bipartisan program — at which point we will once again be able to process loan applications, issue loan numbers, and protect millions more paychecks,” the statement reads.
Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy concurred last night. They took aim at House Democrats for digging in their heels on a broader Phase 4 bill rather than an emergency resupply of PPP:
The small business rescue set up by Congress to avert massive layoffs is set to exhaust its $350 billion funding capacity, top lawmakers say, as Congress remained in a stalemate over how to allocate more money for the popular loan program. In a joint statement Wednesday evening, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California said that funding for the so-called Paycheck Protection Program will be depleted “in a matter of hours.” That would force the program to stop accepting applications for the government-backed loans, which can be forgiven if businesses agree to maintain their payrolls. As of 9 p.m., the SBA reported that 1.5 million applications had been approved for more than $324 billion. In a message obtained by POLITICO, the agency began to warn banks Wednesday that lenders would no longer be able to load loan requests into the SBA’s systems and that the agency would not accept applications for new lenders to participate in the program.
Mnuchin had been negotiating with Chuck Schumer as Pelosi’s proxy on the issue, but that hasn’t produced an agreement yet. Mnuchin has apparently not made much of a dent in Democrats’ strategy:
The two sides, including staff for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, are set to talk again today, with a Senate pro forma session scheduled for 3 p.m. the next opportunity to act should there be a breakthrough. But odds of that happening may be dimming. Any deal would require unanimous consent with Congress not scheduled to return to Washington until May. The talks are taking place as government data Thursday showed 5.25 million people applied for unemployment benefits last week, capping four weeks of coronavirus-related shutdowns that erased more than 10 years of job creation. The figures suggest an unemployment rate around at least 17% — far above the 10% reached in the wake of the recession that ended in 2009. Mnuchin wants to add $251 billion for a $349 billion small business aid program that is set to run out of money Thursday. One issue that has proved contentious is whether and how much aid to send to state and local governments, many of which are starting to furlough employees and employ other spending cuts because their revenue is plummeting.
If Congress actually were present on Capitol Hill, this could get worked out rather quickly among all of the players. Few elected officials if any would stall on a vote to provide more funding for a rescue mechanism Congress created for this very purpose while jobless claims rocket into the stratosphere — if they were actually in Washington. Instead, with members sheltering at home and no method of remote voting, Nancy Pelosi gets to use unanimous consent as a tool to force the Senate and White House into concessions from the safety of her twin $12,000 refrigerators and ice-cream stash:
We all have found our ways to keep our spirits up during these trying times. Mine just happens to fill up my freezer. #LateLateShow pic.twitter.com/dqA32d5lU1 — Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) April 14, 2020
This is an absurd situation, as I have written repeatedly for the last week. The nation is facing its gravest economic crisis in at least a decade, possibly in a century, and Congress remains on the sidelines. Doctors, nurses, first responders, grocery-store workers, postal carriers and more are risking their health to take care of a nation, and yet its governing class has largely skedaddled rather than do their jobs. It’s the Brave Sir Robin Congress.
Small wonder that Trump tweeted this out earlier today. He should have been tweeting it every day for a week:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1250779261595783168
The executive branch is doing their jobs. It’s way past time for the legislative branch — both the House and Senate — to start doing theirs.
Addendum: A crack in Democratic unity? Maybe a small crack, but not significant:
The PPP program is going to run out of funding soon – the Senate should approve add’l funding by unanimous consent ASAP. Small businesses need our help to survive during this emergency. https://t.co/kYTbjGHCXM — Kyrsten Sinema (@kyrstensinema) April 16, 2020
That makes Schumer’s job a little tougher, but it doesn’t really change Pelosi’s calculus. We’d need to see a mass defection among House Democrats to change the negotiating calculus here.