motherjones--2020-04-16--Adam Schiff: Why We Need a Coronavirus Commission to Investigate What Went Wrong

On April 8 , President Trump posted one of his routinely outrageous tweets : “ Once we OPEN UP OUR GREAT COUNTRY , and it will be sooner rather than later , the horror of the Invisible Enemy , except for those that sadly lost a family member or friend , must be quickly forgotten.
” Quickly forgotten .
As in no looking backward , no finger-pointing over why his administration ’ s response was lackadaisical and inept—and likely led to the deaths of thousands of Americans who might have otherwise survived .
Nothing to see .
Keep moving .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Adam Schiff , chair of the House Intelligence Committee .
Two days later , he and several Democratic colleagues in the House introduced a bill to set up a bipartisan commission—based on the 9/11 Commission—to investigate the US government ’ s preparation ( or lack thereof ) for the coronavirus attack and the steps and missteps the Trump administration took in reacting to the pandemic .
And Senate Democrats are proceeding with a similar bill in their chamber .
So a political clash may be coming : Will there be any accountability for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) during this crisis ?
In an interview with Mother Jones , Schiff explained why such an investigation is needed and why the battle to remember and learn is crucial .
Asked whether that Trump tweet signaled that the president and the Republicans will push a let ’ s-forget-and-move-on message if the pandemic subsides , Schiff replied , “ I wouldn ’ t be surprised .
No matter what the result or the extent of the loss of life , you can bet the president is going to talk about his response being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But nonetheless , no , this is not going to be forgotten .
If we were to forget it , we could pretty well be guaranteed a repeat of this when the next coronavirus comes along.
” Schiff pointed out that the 9/11 Commission—which eventually produced an elegantly written report that in devastating detail chronicled all that had gone wrong within US intelligence , the White House , law enforcement , the military , and aviation on the day of the attack and the weeks , months , and years prior—initially drew opposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney claimed no such investigation was needed , and their administration fought against legislation to establish it .
Bush , Schiff noted , “ was afraid that it was going to establish fault with his handling of 9/11 or the run-up to 9/11.
” But , the Congress member added , “ that position was overcome by very powerful groups of victims of 9/11 who came together and coalesced to demand answers of their government .
They were the ones who essentially pushed through that legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were appointed were in fact objective fact-finders , made sure that witnesses cooperated with the commission .
And then [ they ] were very important in making sure the recommendations of the commission were in fact followed through .
I think you ’ re going to have exactly the same phenomenon here , where people who lost loved ones to the virus , people that went thru the ill health effects of it , and thousands and tens of thousands of health-care workers on the front lines , who right now are really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wartime—they ’ re going to demand accountability and demand answers.
” Schiff was correct in recalling that the relatives of people killed in the 9/11 attacks—particularly a savvy group of widows of financial firm executives who perished in that massacre—mounted a crusade that attracted media attention and shamed reticent Republicans into accepting the commission .
Before introducing his bill , Schiff spoke to former 9/11 commissioners and legislators who had pushed for that investigation , and they each highlighted the importance of mobilizing similar constituencies to support the proposed coronavirus commission .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is obvious : “ The American people really have a right to know and a need to know why we were caught so flat-footed by this virus .
Why we didn ’ t have the ventilators we should have had , why we didn ’ t have the stockpiles of protective gear , why it took this country , which leads in sciences , so much longer to develop a test and distribute it than other countries .
Why we still to this date don ’ t really know how many Americans have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precious weeks and months in the handling of the response .
These questions are going to have to be answered .
Why the federal government isn ’ t playing more of a role in helping [ with ] the logistical challenges .
States now are competing with each other and being outbid by the federal government .
You couldn ’ t describe a much more uncoordinated response by the administration .
And now they ’ re setting up another task force…Jared Kushner ’ s task force .
It ’ s a model , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when you ’ re dealing with a pandemic , incompetence kills.
” But will Trump and the Republicans even consider for a nanosecond establishing such a commission ?
The Republicans succumbed to public pressure after 9/11 .
But the political landscape two decades later is mighty different , and the GOP ’ s main mission these days appears to be defending Trump no matter what .
Do Republicans want attention focused on the life-costing blunders and ego-driven miscalculations of the man they have tossed aside core principles to embrace ?
Moreover , Schiff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successful effort to impeach Trump , is a favorite target of Republican and conservative partisans .
It ’ s difficult to envision Rs accepting any idea identified with Schiff .
Schiff , though , insisted a coronavirus commission is not a lost cause : “ When I first began circulating a draft [ bill ] on this , it got a predictable response from the Republican [ congressional ] campaign committee , which was , ‘ Oh there ’ s Adam Schiff out there with another impeachment.
’ But they quickly had to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were other very similar bills to mine introduced in the House by Republicans.
” Indeed , Rep. John Katko , a New York Republican , joined with Rep. Stephanie Murphy , a Florida Democrat , to introduce their own legislation calling for a coronavirus commission .
And Rep. Rodney Davis , an Illinois Republican , introduced a similar proposal that was co-sponsored by almost a dozen Republican House members .
“ It turns out there is support within the Republican [ House ] conference for this , too , ” Schiff said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ grow because I think that everyone recognizes the tremendous value the 9/11 Commission added.
” And , Schiff pointed out , his proposed commission would not kickstart its investigation until early next year—after the election .
So it will not have any impact on the 2020 campaign .
“ That ’ s not the point , ” Schiff remarked .
Schiff ’ s intelligence committee , however , is currently investigating what intelligence on the coronavirus threat was produced by the community , what information was shared with Trump , and how Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new House select committee created by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi—and chaired by Rep. James Clyburn , a South Carolina Democrat—will conduct oversight regarding the Trump administration ’ s ongoing response to the pandemic .
“ I do expect that this administration will strongly oppose any form of accountability , ” Schiff commented .
“ You can see that , frankly , in all the attacks they are mounting now on the inspectors general.
” ( He was referring to Trump ’ s firing of the intelligence community IG , who had sent to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukraine scandal , and Trump ’ s demotion of the Pentagon IG and his removal of that IG as leader of a panel overseeing the $ 2 trillion coronavirus relief package . )
But as the crisis continues , Schiff added , he expects more Republicans to join this campaign for accountability .
In the interview , Schiff also reflected on the Trump impeachment trial in the Senate .
He said he had no second thoughts about the Democrats ’ presentation : “ It ’ s hard to imagine putting on a stronger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republicans senators said essentially the House proved its case.
” They just didn ’ t want to oust Trump .
Schiff noted that he was surprised by one element of the trial .
It seemed to him that the Republican senators had generally not watched the House impeachment hearings that detailed Trump ’ s efforts to pressure Ukraine to open investigations to target Joe Biden and to bolster the unfounded conspiracy theory that Ukraine , not Russia , had intervened in the 2016 election .
The GOP senators , Schiff observed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox News and had very little idea of what the actual facts were , what the strength of the evidence was…So when we went before the Senate and put on this video testimony [ from the House impeachment hearings ] …you could see the visceral reaction of the Republicans…They were astonished at how voluminous the evidence was , at how powerful the evidence was.
” With a whiff of pride , Schiff cited the statement of Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-Tenn. ) , who declared , “ The House managers have proved [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure Ukraine ] with what they call a ‘ mountain of overwhelming evidence . '
” ( Alexander , nevertheless , voted to keep Trump in the White House . )
During the House impeachment hearings , Schiff maintained , House Republicans didn ’ t recognize or pay attention to the core facts of the scandal and instead raised tangential matters .
But in the Senate , he found a different attitude among the Republicans : “ The senators still had an appreciation for truth and fact and they may lack the courage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act on it .
But at least they acknowledged the truth of the president ’ s misconduct , and I have to say I found that refreshing .
Also , I think what Mitt Romney did [ by voting for impeachment ] and the courage he showed really validated the founder ’ s belief that people possess sufficient virtue to be self-governing .
It wasn ’ t a majority in the Senate , but nonetheless I ended up leaving the trial uplifted , even as I think those who voted against removing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as I mentioned during the trial , be tied to him with a cord of steel and for the rest of history .
They will not be treated well by history for that abdication of their constitutional duty.
” Schiff also took a jab at those Republicans who during the Trump impeachment and trial argued there was no need to remove Trump from office so close to an election , even if he had acted corruptly .
“ It was , ” Schiff said , “ a sort of an undercurrent among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much damage could he really do ?
Can ’ t we just wait until the election ?
’ And our answer was , ‘ A lot.
’ Frankly , we had no idea just how much damage he would do in the months ahead and how many Americans would lose their lives as a result…Little did we know how prescient this would be .
”

On April 8, President Trump posted one of his routinely outrageous tweets: “Once we OPEN UP OUR GREAT COUNTRY, and it will be sooner rather than later, the horror of the Invisible Enemy, except for those that sadly lost a family member or friend, must be quickly forgotten.” Quickly forgotten. As in no looking backward, no finger-pointing over why his administration’s response was lackadaisical and inept—and likely led to the deaths of thousands of Americans who might have otherwise survived. Nothing to see. Keep moving.
But not so fast, said Rep. Adam Schiff, chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Two days later, he and several Democratic colleagues in the House introduced a bill to set up a bipartisan commission—based on the 9/11 Commission—to investigate the US government’s preparation (or lack thereof) for the coronavirus attack and the steps and missteps the Trump administration took in reacting to the pandemic. And Senate Democrats are proceeding with a similar bill in their chamber. So a political clash may be coming: Will there be any accountability for Trump’s actions (and inactions) during this crisis?
“The American people really have a right to know and a need to know why we were caught so flat-footed by this virus. Why we didn’t have the ventilators we should have had, why we didn’t have the stockpiles of protective gear, why it took this country, which leads in sciences, so much longer to develop a test and distribute it than other countries.”
In an interview with Mother Jones, Schiff explained why such an investigation is needed and why the battle to remember and learn is crucial. Asked whether that Trump tweet signaled that the president and the Republicans will push a let’s-forget-and-move-on message if the pandemic subsides, Schiff replied, “I wouldn’t be surprised. No matter what the result or the extent of the loss of life, you can bet the president is going to talk about his response being the perfect response to this pandemic. But nonetheless, no, this is not going to be forgotten. If we were to forget it, we could pretty well be guaranteed a repeat of this when the next coronavirus comes along.”
Schiff pointed out that the 9/11 Commission—which eventually produced an elegantly written report that in devastating detail chronicled all that had gone wrong within US intelligence, the White House, law enforcement, the military, and aviation on the day of the attack and the weeks, months, and years prior—initially drew opposition. At the time, both President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney claimed no such investigation was needed, and their administration fought against legislation to establish it. Bush, Schiff noted, “was afraid that it was going to establish fault with his handling of 9/11 or the run-up to 9/11.” But, the Congress member added, “that position was overcome by very powerful groups of victims of 9/11 who came together and coalesced to demand answers of their government. They were the ones who essentially pushed through that legislation and then made sure the commissioners who were appointed were in fact objective fact-finders, made sure that witnesses cooperated with the commission. And then [they] were very important in making sure the recommendations of the commission were in fact followed through. I think you’re going to have exactly the same phenomenon here, where people who lost loved ones to the virus, people that went thru the ill health effects of it, and thousands and tens of thousands of health-care workers on the front lines, who right now are really experiencing a trauma not seen outside of wartime—they’re going to demand accountability and demand answers.”
Schiff was correct in recalling that the relatives of people killed in the 9/11 attacks—particularly a savvy group of widows of financial firm executives who perished in that massacre—mounted a crusade that attracted media attention and shamed reticent Republicans into accepting the commission. Before introducing his bill, Schiff spoke to former 9/11 commissioners and legislators who had pushed for that investigation, and they each highlighted the importance of mobilizing similar constituencies to support the proposed coronavirus commission.
For Schiff, the need for this commission is obvious: “The American people really have a right to know and a need to know why we were caught so flat-footed by this virus. Why we didn’t have the ventilators we should have had, why we didn’t have the stockpiles of protective gear, why it took this country, which leads in sciences, so much longer to develop a test and distribute it than other countries. Why we still to this date don’t really know how many Americans have this virus. And we lost such precious weeks and months in the handling of the response. These questions are going to have to be answered. Why the federal government isn’t playing more of a role in helping [with] the logistical challenges. States now are competing with each other and being outbid by the federal government. You couldn’t describe a much more uncoordinated response by the administration. And now they’re setting up another task force…Jared Kushner’s task force. It’s a model, I think, of incompetence. And when you’re dealing with a pandemic, incompetence kills.”
But will Trump and the Republicans even consider for a nanosecond establishing such a commission? The Republicans succumbed to public pressure after 9/11. But the political landscape two decades later is mighty different, and the GOP’s main mission these days appears to be defending Trump no matter what. Do Republicans want attention focused on the life-costing blunders and ego-driven miscalculations of the man they have tossed aside core principles to embrace? Moreover, Schiff, who led the House’s successful effort to impeach Trump, is a favorite target of Republican and conservative partisans. It’s difficult to envision Rs accepting any idea identified with Schiff.
Schiff, though, insisted a coronavirus commission is not a lost cause: “When I first began circulating a draft [bill] on this, it got a predictable response from the Republican [congressional] campaign committee, which was, ‘Oh there’s Adam Schiff out there with another impeachment.’ But they quickly had to drop that line of attack when there were other very similar bills to mine introduced in the House by Republicans.” Indeed, Rep. John Katko, a New York Republican, joined with Rep. Stephanie Murphy, a Florida Democrat, to introduce their own legislation calling for a coronavirus commission. And Rep. Rodney Davis, an Illinois Republican, introduced a similar proposal that was co-sponsored by almost a dozen Republican House members. “It turns out there is support within the Republican [House] conference for this, too,” Schiff said. “That support is only going to grow because I think that everyone recognizes the tremendous value the 9/11 Commission added.”
And, Schiff pointed out, his proposed commission would not kickstart its investigation until early next year—after the election. So it will not have any impact on the 2020 campaign. “That’s not the point,” Schiff remarked. Schiff’s intelligence committee, however, is currently investigating what intelligence on the coronavirus threat was produced by the community, what information was shared with Trump, and how Trump responded to that intelligence. And a new House select committee created by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi—and chaired by Rep. James Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat—will conduct oversight regarding the Trump administration’s ongoing response to the pandemic.
“I do expect that this administration will strongly oppose any form of accountability,” Schiff commented. “You can see that, frankly, in all the attacks they are mounting now on the inspectors general.” (He was referring to Trump’s firing of the intelligence community IG, who had sent to Congress the whistleblower report that triggered the Ukraine scandal, and Trump’s demotion of the Pentagon IG and his removal of that IG as leader of a panel overseeing the $2 trillion coronavirus relief package.) But as the crisis continues, Schiff added, he expects more Republicans to join this campaign for accountability.
In the interview, Schiff also reflected on the Trump impeachment trial in the Senate. He said he had no second thoughts about the Democrats’ presentation: “It’s hard to imagine putting on a stronger case than we did…A substantial number of the Republicans senators said essentially the House proved its case.” They just didn’t want to oust Trump.
Schiff noted that he was surprised by one element of the trial. It seemed to him that the Republican senators had generally not watched the House impeachment hearings that detailed Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to open investigations to target Joe Biden and to bolster the unfounded conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, had intervened in the 2016 election. The GOP senators, Schiff observed, had been “getting their information…filtered through Fox News and had very little idea of what the actual facts were, what the strength of the evidence was…So when we went before the Senate and put on this video testimony [from the House impeachment hearings]…you could see the visceral reaction of the Republicans…They were astonished at how voluminous the evidence was, at how powerful the evidence was.” With a whiff of pride, Schiff cited the statement of Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who declared, “The House managers have proved [that Trump withheld US military assistance to pressure Ukraine] with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.'” (Alexander, nevertheless, voted to keep Trump in the White House.)
During the House impeachment hearings, Schiff maintained, House Republicans didn’t recognize or pay attention to the core facts of the scandal and instead raised tangential matters. But in the Senate, he found a different attitude among the Republicans: “The senators still had an appreciation for truth and fact and they may lack the courage and indeed did lack the courage to act on it. But at least they acknowledged the truth of the president’s misconduct, and I have to say I found that refreshing. Also, I think what Mitt Romney did [by voting for impeachment] and the courage he showed really validated the founder’s belief that people possess sufficient virtue to be self-governing. It wasn’t a majority in the Senate, but nonetheless I ended up leaving the trial uplifted, even as I think those who voted against removing the president, convicting the president, will, as I mentioned during the trial, be tied to him with a cord of steel and for the rest of history. They will not be treated well by history for that abdication of their constitutional duty.”
Schiff also took a jab at those Republicans who during the Trump impeachment and trial argued there was no need to remove Trump from office so close to an election, even if he had acted corruptly. “It was,” Schiff said, “a sort of an undercurrent among the Republicans: ‘Well, how much damage could he really do? Can’t we just wait until the election?’ And our answer was, ‘A lot.’ Frankly, we had no idea just how much damage he would do in the months ahead and how many Americans would lose their lives as a result…Little did we know how prescient this would be.”


motherjones--2020-04-16--How One Wisconsin Town Figured Out How to Conduct an Election in a Pandemic

As the country grapples with how to safely conduct elections amidst the COVID-19 pandemic , calls for increased access to vote-by-mail have grown loud and persistent .
While some form of voting by mail is already available in each state with varying degrees of ease , the push to make it more widely accessible , even against the backdrop of the pandemic , remains mired in partisan politics and opposed by Republicans .
But the actions of one small town just north of Milwaukee show how local officials—given the right resources , legal framework , and attitude—can take simple steps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters to cast ballots from the safety of home .
Three weeks before thousands of Wisconsinites were forced to trudge to polling places on April 7 in spite of a statewide “ safer-at-home ” order , Paul Boening , the village manager of suburban Whitefish Bay , had already concluded that this wasn ’ t going to be a normal election .
On March 16 , Boening and the village board met to make a plan for the burgeoning public health crisis , and decided that access to public buildings would be shut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last day the village administration office was open , he says , the vast majority of residents stopping by were there for the same reason : They wanted to fill out an application for a mail ballot .
The in-person interest convinced Boening and the board to look ahead and automatically send each of the town ’ s roughly 10,000 registered voters an absentee ballot application .
“ We wanted to be proactive , ” he told Mother Jones on Tuesday .
“ We didn ’ t want to get into a situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the election and there were a number of residents still scrambling tying to figure out how to get a ballot , or for us to be able to get them one in time.
” While such mailings are a relatively common tactic for political parties or campaigns looking to drive turnout in a particular community to boost their causes and candidates , this was the village ’ s own decision in reaction to an unprecedented situation .
And , according to data analyzed by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel , the effort paid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bay ’ s voters followed through and ended up voting via mail ballot , the most of any village or city in Wisconsin and almost double the statewide average of about 34 percent .
In 2016 , when both Democrats and Republicans had contested presidential primaries on Wisconsin ’ s ballot , Whitefish Bay , a relatively affluent community fronting Lake Michigan , recorded 73 percent turnout .
Stacking that up against this year ’ s numbers , Boening says that “ given the fact that there ’ s a global pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bay was one of seven smaller communities north of Milwaukee—all in Milwaukee County—that sent out a joint letter urging people to apply for a mail ballot .
While final figures aren ’ t yet known , at least one of the other communities that joined the push , North Shore village , also saw a huge returns on the effort , with 59 percent of registered voters there voting via mail ballot , according to the Journal Sentinel .
Boening estimates that “ just a few hundred ” voters ended up voting in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ That ’ s what our goal was , ” Boening said .
Without the Republican state legislature agreeing to delay the election , village officials figured they would have to open and staff their usual four voting locations .
“ We wanted to try to limit the foot traffic to comply with the guidance from public health officials .
We knew that every resident who voted by mail was one less person who would be coming to the polls on Election Day.
” Whitefish Bay has some advantages that made the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elsewhere , including Wisconsin laws that allow anyone , without any kind of excuse , to vote absentee .
With just 10,000 registered voters , Boening estimated it cost the town just a few thousand dollars .
“ We , along with every other government agency is going to be expending funds that we did not anticipate ” in responding to the virus , he said .
“ Whether that ’ s first responder overtime , or the cost to acquire PPE , and I would say the voting mailing was no different.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s track record of high election turnout and engagement , which he credited in part to its relatively small geographic footprint which “ lends itself to community and belonging.
” Boening also said the small town ’ s political traditions—the village board is nonpartisan and mostly concerns itself with core services—made it easier to act without considering any broader statewide or national political interests .
Decisions were made , he says , from a “ public health perspective , and there was zero pushback whatsoever , and it was great to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boening said that election staff is already preparing for the state ’ s next election , which will be in August , and after that , for November .
“ I would just hope that everyone takes a step back and really takes a hard look at how things went in April , ” he said .
“ It doesn ’ t seem like COVID itself is going away…Now is the time to begin planning for how those elections should take place and not waiting until it ’ s too late .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
As the country grapples with how to safely conduct elections amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, calls for increased access to vote-by-mail have grown loud and persistent. While some form of voting by mail is already available in each state with varying degrees of ease, the push to make it more widely accessible, even against the backdrop of the pandemic, remains mired in partisan politics and opposed by Republicans.
“Every resident who voted by mail was one less person who would be coming to the polls on Election Day.”
But the actions of one small town just north of Milwaukee show how local officials—given the right resources, legal framework, and attitude—can take simple steps to encourage and empower large numbers of voters to cast ballots from the safety of home. Three weeks before thousands of Wisconsinites were forced to trudge to polling places on April 7 in spite of a statewide “safer-at-home” order, Paul Boening, the village manager of suburban Whitefish Bay, had already concluded that this wasn’t going to be a normal election. On March 16, Boening and the village board met to make a plan for the burgeoning public health crisis, and decided that access to public buildings would be shut down the next day. On that last day the village administration office was open, he says, the vast majority of residents stopping by were there for the same reason: They wanted to fill out an application for a mail ballot.
The in-person interest convinced Boening and the board to look ahead and automatically send each of the town’s roughly 10,000 registered voters an absentee ballot application. “We wanted to be proactive,” he told Mother Jones on Tuesday. “We didn’t want to get into a situation where we were a day or two from the election and there were a number of residents still scrambling tying to figure out how to get a ballot, or for us to be able to get them one in time.”
While such mailings are a relatively common tactic for political parties or campaigns looking to drive turnout in a particular community to boost their causes and candidates, this was the village’s own decision in reaction to an unprecedented situation. And, according to data analyzed by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the effort paid off: Roughly 60 percent of Whitefish Bay’s voters followed through and ended up voting via mail ballot, the most of any village or city in Wisconsin and almost double the statewide average of about 34 percent. In 2016, when both Democrats and Republicans had contested presidential primaries on Wisconsin’s ballot, Whitefish Bay, a relatively affluent community fronting Lake Michigan, recorded 73 percent turnout. Stacking that up against this year’s numbers, Boening says that “given the fact that there’s a global pandemic, we’ll take it.”
Whitefish Bay was one of seven smaller communities north of Milwaukee—all in Milwaukee County—that sent out a joint letter urging people to apply for a mail ballot. While final figures aren’t yet known, at least one of the other communities that joined the push, North Shore village, also saw a huge returns on the effort, with 59 percent of registered voters there voting via mail ballot, according to the Journal Sentinel. Boening estimates that “just a few hundred” voters ended up voting in person on April 7 in Whitefish Bay.
“That’s what our goal was,” Boening said. Without the Republican state legislature agreeing to delay the election, village officials figured they would have to open and staff their usual four voting locations. “We wanted to try to limit the foot traffic to comply with the guidance from public health officials. We knew that every resident who voted by mail was one less person who would be coming to the polls on Election Day.”
Whitefish Bay has some advantages that made the effort more feasible that it might be elsewhere, including Wisconsin laws that allow anyone, without any kind of excuse, to vote absentee. With just 10,000 registered voters, Boening estimated it cost the town just a few thousand dollars. “We, along with every other government agency is going to be expending funds that we did not anticipate” in responding to the virus, he said. “Whether that’s first responder overtime, or the cost to acquire PPE, and I would say the voting mailing was no different.”
Boening also pointed to the village’s track record of high election turnout and engagement, which he credited in part to its relatively small geographic footprint which “lends itself to community and belonging.” Boening also said the small town’s political traditions—the village board is nonpartisan and mostly concerns itself with core services—made it easier to act without considering any broader statewide or national political interests. Decisions were made, he says, from a “public health perspective, and there was zero pushback whatsoever, and it was great to have that support from the governing body.”
Boening said that election staff is already preparing for the state’s next election, which will be in August, and after that, for November.
“I would just hope that everyone takes a step back and really takes a hard look at how things went in April,” he said. “It doesn’t seem like COVID itself is going away…Now is the time to begin planning for how those elections should take place and not waiting until it’s too late.”


motherjones--2020-04-16--“You Don’t Say No to Joe!”: What Biden’s Role in the Last Economic Crisis Says About How He’d Handle

“You Don’t Say No to Joe!”: What Biden’s Role in the Last Economic Crisis Says About How He’d Handle This One

Joe Biden stood before a packed room to deliver good news .
At a think tank in DC , the VP geared up for a speech clearly tailored to serve as a legacy-building exercise , a signal for how he hoped to be judged as the leader of a crisis , not just the second-in-command .
“ The Recovery Act has played a significant role in changing the trajectory of our economy , ” Biden declared at the Brookings Institution back in September 2009 .
It was a peculiarly rosy outlook at that time .
Banks had foreclosed on more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since the mortgage crisis had begun .
In October , the unemployment rate would reach its Great Recession peak , with one in 10 Americans out of work .
Such woeful economic indicators made it hard to argue that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act , the $ 787 billion stimulus package had visibly turned the economy around .
But Biden had brought his own data .
Economists estimated that three-quarters of a million jobs had been “ created or saved ” thanks to federal spending .
Thousands of infrastructure projects in airports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them on track to finish ahead of schedule and under budget .
“ Instead of talking about the beginning of a depression , we ’ re talking about the end of a recession eight months after taking office , ” Biden declared .
Biden spoke for over an hour , with a polish that kept the ever-colloquial son of Scranton to just five “ folks.
” As he did , he sung his own praises , noting that the early predictions that a recovery of that size would have “ millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dog that didn ’ t bite.
” He also admitted fault : The onerous process his office had implemented to distribute funds moved too slowly in the critical first 100 days .
Throughout the bruising 2020 Democratic primary , Biden ’ s liberal competitors and critics have fixated on Senator Biden , the foreign policy–savvy career politician whose past opposition to busing and abortion put him out of step with his party ’ s base—as did his kid-glove handling of corporate America , most often vilified through his support of the 2005 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consumers .
Those same detractors also hammer the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act itself : The stimulus package signed by President Obama was too small , it made its way to hurting workers too slowly .
But when it comes to Vice President Biden and his role in that recovery , the critiques largely cease .
Obama tasked Biden with overseeing the stimulus and pulling the country out of recession—a position that added merit to Biden ’ s folksy , middle class ethos .
By all accounts , what he oversaw succeeded : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the longest uninterrupted stretch of economic growth in US history , and an analysis from its oversight board found that , by the end of 2011 , only 0.001 percent of the nearly $ 800 billion spent was ever attributed to waste or fraud .
And it was successful because , according to those who knew him , Biden was an adept manager who set the tone and surrounded himself with the right people to ensure oversight ran smoothly .
“ Biden ’ s role as vice president was much more positive than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” says Jeff Hauser , founder of the left-leaning Revolving Door Project , who has been critical of Biden ’ s ties to Wall Street .
“ I do think he did a good job running the Recovery Act .
He was very focused on avoiding scandals , and he succeeded.
” But some say that devotion to oversight also slowed the recovery , and that , in combination with a failure to sell the Recovery Act ’ s merits before its effects took hold , haunted Democrats during elections in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the midst of a pandemic-induced economic collapse , Biden must again try to sell that recovery and his role in it as he tries to make his case against Trump—something he ’ s struggled to do as his campaign goes digital and Trump blankets the airwaves with his press conferences-turned-campaign rallies each night .
He also needs to prove to Democrats skeptical of the Obama administration ’ s response to the crisis that he ’ s learned the lessons of how the Great Recession ’ s recovery fell short .
Just two weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running mate , the federal government took over failing mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac .
The collapse of Lehman Brothers , Merrill Lynch , and AIG followed .
At the end of September , Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to pump $ 700 billion into rescuing the banks .
When Obama took the oath of office on January 20 , 2009 , the unemployment rate had risen to 7.6 percent , up roughly three points from the year before .
Home foreclosures had increased by 81 percent over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspended foreclosures in the last quarter of 2008 .
As its first order of business , the new administration rushed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act through Congress .
The $ 787 billion in the bill was allocated to three buckets : increases in unemployment compensation and safety net programs , and tax breaks to get money back in Americans ’ pockets ; tax cuts and incentives for businesses to resume operation ; and infrastructure projects to immediately put people back to work .
But when Obama signed it into law that February @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liked it .
Progressives deemed it woefully inadequate to stop the economic bleeding , a byproduct of the Obama administration compromising with itself before bringing it to a spend-shy Congress that further docked its reach .
Republicans regarded it as a pork-filled liberal wishlist of government overreach .
A week before his swearing-in , Biden told the New York Times he ’ d like to “ restore the balance ” of the office after eight years of Dick Cheney ’ s unchecked authority , aiming instead to be a trusted adviser of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advisory role , he wrote Obama a memo detailing the need for a White House official to oversee the vast sum of money—to make sure it was spent quickly and without waste .
When Biden shared the memo with Obama over one of their weekly lunches , the president named Biden to that role .
“ Never write a memo to the president suggesting that a job be undertaken that you don ’ t want to have , ” Biden recalled that day at Brookings .
In his new capacity , Biden declared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities and states get back on their feet .
He spent hours on the phone each week with governors , mayors , and county executives to talk about their federally funded projects and address their concerns about the flow of funds , promising state or local officials a 24-hour turnaround time on any calls they made to his office .
But in exchange for helpfulness , Biden demanded accountability— “ not in a draconian way , ” he clarified at the first Recovery Plan Implementation meeting in February 2009 , “ but to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take a “ follow the money ” approach , using the authority Obama had granted him to convene the Cabinet to ensure money flowed swiftly through the agencies to stimulus-backed projects .
During his first two years in office , Biden held 22 Cabinet meetings on the topic—more than Obama held on any subject during that same timeframe .
At the end of 2009 , more than 90 percent of stimulus funding recipients had reported how they ’ d used that money .
Biden allowed that rate was “ remarkably high , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ missing information ” as “ unacceptable.
” By the following spring , a mere 1.6 percent of contracts were unaccounted for .
The only scandal to emerge was the bankruptcy of Solyndra , a solar power manufacturer that received a $ 535 million loan from that stimulus bucket that later went belly up and was subject to an FBI and congressional investigation .
“ If you go back and look at the things [ Republicans ] tried to blow up , you can see that they ’ re tiny peanuts as a share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Goolsbee , who served on Obama ’ s Council of Economic Advisers at the time .
Those who worked alongside the vice president at the time lay much of that success of Biden ’ s management style .
Biden frequently waded into the details of the over 100,000 Recovery Act projects .
As journalist Michael Grunwald details in The New New Deal , Biden would grill Cabinet secretaries to share the names of projects falling behind schedule , call the local officials responsible for those projects , and threaten to take their money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say no to Joe !
” Biden would say .
The former vice president also blocked 260 proposed projects that he feared would make the efforts look silly—including , as Grunwald notes , a “ $ 120,000 Army Corps of Engineers plan to print brochures advertising a lake cleanup in Syracuse.
” Goolsbee says Biden deserves “ a great deal of credit ” for both his own efforts but also for the organization he designed .
It was Biden ’ s idea , for example , to name Ed DeSeve as a special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agencies that channeled the billions into various projects on deadline while ensuring they didn ’ t step on one another ’ s toes .
Those who worked with Biden at the time also praise the people he surrounded himself with , such as his chief of staff , Ron Klain , who , Obama later tasked as the “ Ebola czar.
” “ The vice president conveyed to us that he didn ’ t want to be bitten by one dollar from this act , ” says Jared Bernstein , who served as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
“ That message rippled through Ron Klain , to myself , to our respective staffs .
We either had to implement this well , or get slammed for not doing so.
” Biden ’ s oversight earned high praise from Obama , who lauded the “ complete transparency ” of the stimulus in January 2010 .
“ You guys can go on the White House website and look at every single project that has been awarded a recovery act grant—every single one—and scrutinize them , ” Obama said .
“ You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know who ’ s doing the work .
You know when it ’ s supposed to be finished.
” The tradeoff of “ complete transparency , ” however , was speed .
Before a federally funded project could move forward , it had to go through the oversight process , which baked in delays .
Journalist George Packer , writing for the New Yorker in 2010 , captured this frustration through the eyes of Rep. Tom Perriello , who had been elected to represent Virginia ’ s 5th District the same year Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absolutely determined to get the money out quickly , but that sometimes was in tension with our also admirable goal of providing transparency of every dollar spent , ” Perriello says today .
He recalls being disappointed that companies who could have put contractors and construction crews back to work right away wasted months as they waited for , as Packer put it , the administration ’ s “ painstaking approach ” to run its course .
“ I know I got criticized in the front end of this for being too fastidious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make sure we had the mechanisms in place , ” Biden admitted in April 2010 .
But that concession did little to comfort the 15.3 million of Americans who were still unemployed .
And Biden knew that .
“ When you lose 8 million jobs in this Great Recession and you keep it from being 10 [ million ] , that ’ s jno solace to the 8 million who don ’ t have a job , man , ” he told labor leaders in Florida that March .
As Biden crisscrossed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the 2010 midterm elections , he tried to sell the stimulus , asserting taxpayers had “ gotten their money ’ s worth ” out of the stimulus package .
But any signs of life had disappeared over the summer as dismal unemployment numbers and a gutted housing landscape made headlines .
That November , Republicans seized control of the House as Democrats like Perriello lost their seats to GOP candidates who pinned the lackluster recovery on the president ’ s party .
“ The recovery was already underway , but not with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have felt it yet , ” Perriello says .
“ All people knew about the stimulus was the price tag , not that it prevented a Depression.
” “ We got ourselves into trouble when we were talking about improvements before people could see them or feel them , ” says Bernstein , recalling that he and others used the phrase “ green shoots ” to describe the early signs of economic growth .
“ That was very unresponsive to people ’ s experiences.
” And with the GOP in control of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the recovery going ceased .
“ That single act wasn ’ t a horse that could pull the whole sleigh , ” Biden told Grunwald .
Now , Biden is the presumptive Democratic nominee , and the former veep finds himself tasked with selling that recovery again .
The pandemic has swallowed the 2020 campaign whole—including the very nature of campaigning itself .
Biden ’ s challenge is to contrast how he is better suited to lead the country out of the virus and its economic devastation than its current leader .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right into Biden ’ s experience : None of the oversight mechanisms Congress required of its $ 2 trillion emergency relief package have come together as the government begins distributing billions in aid , and states have struggled to dole out the promised unemployment benefits to jobless workers , citing slowness from the federal agencies responsible for handing them cash .
The parallels between this moment and his role 12 years ago hasn ’ t escaped Biden , and on the ( virtual ) campaign trail , he ’ s touted his “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lack of scandal and Obama ’ s praise .
His criticism of President Trump has centered on what Biden calls a “ false choice ” of choosing between fighting the virus and recovering the economy , noting that it is the federal government ’ s responsibility to take care of workers until the pandemic subsides .
He ’ s emphasized the need to move quickly on getting cash into the hands of jobless Americans and small businesses , another Great Recession lesson heeded .
The visibility of these statements , though , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his abilities : A recent Business Insider survey found that respondents viewed New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo and California Gov .
Gavin Newsom as more trustworthy than Biden on the pandemic response .
In early April , the Biden campaign released a list of recommendations for implementing and overseeing the stimulus bill Congress passed in March , a flex that returns to his Great Recession bona fides .
His campaign is reportedly working on a “ broader case of what is going to be required not just over the next few months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adequately respond to what has happened , ” Jake Sullivan , a senior Biden adviser , told the Wall Street Journal .
And whatever vision emerges in that plan is crucial to another priority Biden faces : Unifying his party , a vast swath of which is disappointed Bernie Sanders is not the nominee and was critical of the Obama administration ’ s reluctance to take a tougher stance against Republicans to keep the federal stimulus funding going .
So far , those lefty critics are heartened by some of the advisers in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enlisted .
They include Bernstein , a left-leaning economist with close ties to the labor movement ; Richard Cordray , the first director of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau , ; and Heather Boushey , who runs the Washington Center for Equitable Growth , a left-leaning economic think tank .
“ If Joe Biden learned the right lessons from how Mitch McConnell and Republicans handled themselves during the Great Recession , ” says Adam Green , a co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee , which backed Elizabeth Warren in the 2020 primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t operate in good faith , then he will have a very powerful opportunity to unite the Democratic Party behind a theory of the fight—perhaps in a way that Bernie Sanders couldn ’ t .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Joe Biden stood before a packed room to deliver good news. At a think tank in DC, the VP geared up for a speech clearly tailored to serve as a legacy-building exercise, a signal for how he hoped to be judged as the leader of a crisis, not just the second-in-command. “The Recovery Act has played a significant role in changing the trajectory of our economy,” Biden declared at the Brookings Institution back in September 2009.
It was a peculiarly rosy outlook at that time. Banks had foreclosed on more homes in August than in any month since the mortgage crisis had begun. In October, the unemployment rate would reach its Great Recession peak, with one in 10 Americans out of work. Such woeful economic indicators made it hard to argue that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the $787 billion stimulus package had visibly turned the economy around.
But Biden had brought his own data. Economists estimated that three-quarters of a million jobs had been “created or saved” thanks to federal spending. Thousands of infrastructure projects in airports, highways, and bridges were underway—many of them on track to finish ahead of schedule and under budget. “Instead of talking about the beginning of a depression, we’re talking about the end of a recession eight months after taking office,” Biden declared.
Biden spoke for over an hour, with a polish that kept the ever-colloquial son of Scranton to just five “folks.” As he did, he sung his own praises, noting that the early predictions that a recovery of that size would have “millions of dollars wasted” ended up being “the dog that didn’t bite.” He also admitted fault: The onerous process his office had implemented to distribute funds moved too slowly in the critical first 100 days.
Throughout the bruising 2020 Democratic primary, Biden’s liberal competitors and critics have fixated on Senator Biden, the foreign policy–savvy career politician whose past opposition to busing and abortion put him out of step with his party’s base—as did his kid-glove handling of corporate America, most often vilified through his support of the 2005 bankruptcy bill that sided with companies over consumers. Those same detractors also hammer the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act itself: The stimulus package signed by President Obama was too small, it made its way to hurting workers too slowly.
But when it comes to Vice President Biden and his role in that recovery, the critiques largely cease. Obama tasked Biden with overseeing the stimulus and pulling the country out of recession—a position that added merit to Biden’s folksy, middle class ethos. By all accounts, what he oversaw succeeded: The Recovery Act jumpstarted what would become the longest uninterrupted stretch of economic growth in US history, and an analysis from its oversight board found that, by the end of 2011, only 0.001 percent of the nearly $800 billion spent was ever attributed to waste or fraud. And it was successful because, according to those who knew him, Biden was an adept manager who set the tone and surrounded himself with the right people to ensure oversight ran smoothly.
“Biden’s role as vice president was much more positive than his role as a senator from Delaware,” says Jeff Hauser, founder of the left-leaning Revolving Door Project, who has been critical of Biden’s ties to Wall Street. “I do think he did a good job running the Recovery Act. He was very focused on avoiding scandals, and he succeeded.”
But some say that devotion to oversight also slowed the recovery, and that, in combination with a failure to sell the Recovery Act’s merits before its effects took hold, haunted Democrats during elections in the years that followed. Now, in the midst of a pandemic-induced economic collapse, Biden must again try to sell that recovery and his role in it as he tries to make his case against Trump—something he’s struggled to do as his campaign goes digital and Trump blankets the airwaves with his press conferences-turned-campaign rallies each night. He also needs to prove to Democrats skeptical of the Obama administration’s response to the crisis that he’s learned the lessons of how the Great Recession’s recovery fell short.
Just two weeks after Barack Obama chose Biden as his running mate, the federal government took over failing mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The collapse of Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and AIG followed. At the end of September, Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to pump $700 billion into rescuing the banks. When Obama took the oath of office on January 20, 2009, the unemployment rate had risen to 7.6 percent, up roughly three points from the year before. Home foreclosures had increased by 81 percent over the previous year—even as a number of lenders suspended foreclosures in the last quarter of 2008.
As its first order of business, the new administration rushed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act through Congress. The $787 billion in the bill was allocated to three buckets: increases in unemployment compensation and safety net programs, and tax breaks to get money back in Americans’ pockets; tax cuts and incentives for businesses to resume operation; and infrastructure projects to immediately put people back to work. But when Obama signed it into law that February, no one in either political party liked it. Progressives deemed it woefully inadequate to stop the economic bleeding, a byproduct of the Obama administration compromising with itself before bringing it to a spend-shy Congress that further docked its reach. Republicans regarded it as a pork-filled liberal wishlist of government overreach.
“Biden’s role as vice president was much more positive than his role as a senator from Delaware.”
A week before his swearing-in, Biden told the New York Times he’d like to “restore the balance” of the office after eight years of Dick Cheney’s unchecked authority, aiming instead to be a trusted adviser of the president. In the spirit of that advisory role, he wrote Obama a memo detailing the need for a White House official to oversee the vast sum of money—to make sure it was spent quickly and without waste. When Biden shared the memo with Obama over one of their weekly lunches, the president named Biden to that role. “Never write a memo to the president suggesting that a job be undertaken that you don’t want to have,” Biden recalled that day at Brookings.
In his new capacity, Biden declared himself the “vehicle” for helping cities and states get back on their feet. He spent hours on the phone each week with governors, mayors, and county executives to talk about their federally funded projects and address their concerns about the flow of funds, promising state or local officials a 24-hour turnaround time on any calls they made to his office. But in exchange for helpfulness, Biden demanded accountability—“not in a draconian way,” he clarified at the first Recovery Plan Implementation meeting in February 2009, “but to actually get this done.” He vowed to take a “follow the money” approach, using the authority Obama had granted him to convene the Cabinet to ensure money flowed swiftly through the agencies to stimulus-backed projects. During his first two years in office, Biden held 22 Cabinet meetings on the topic—more than Obama held on any subject during that same timeframe.
At the end of 2009, more than 90 percent of stimulus funding recipients had reported how they’d used that money. Biden allowed that rate was “remarkably high,” but slammed the laggards’ “missing information” as “unacceptable.” By the following spring, a mere 1.6 percent of contracts were unaccounted for. The only scandal to emerge was the bankruptcy of Solyndra, a solar power manufacturer that received a $535 million loan from that stimulus bucket that later went belly up and was subject to an FBI and congressional investigation. “If you go back and look at the things [Republicans] tried to blow up, you can see that they’re tiny peanuts as a share of the total,” says Austan Goolsbee, who served on Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers at the time.
Those who worked alongside the vice president at the time lay much of that success of Biden’s management style. Biden frequently waded into the details of the over 100,000 Recovery Act projects. As journalist Michael Grunwald details in The New New Deal, Biden would grill Cabinet secretaries to share the names of projects falling behind schedule, call the local officials responsible for those projects, and threaten to take their money away. “You don’t say no to Joe!” Biden would say. The former vice president also blocked 260 proposed projects that he feared would make the efforts look silly—including, as Grunwald notes, a “$120,000 Army Corps of Engineers plan to print brochures advertising a lake cleanup in Syracuse.”
Goolsbee says Biden deserves “a great deal of credit” for both his own efforts but also for the organization he designed. It was Biden’s idea, for example, to name Ed DeSeve as a special advisor in charge of keeping the 28 agencies that channeled the billions into various projects on deadline while ensuring they didn’t step on one another’s toes. Those who worked with Biden at the time also praise the people he surrounded himself with, such as his chief of staff, Ron Klain, whom Obama later tasked as the “Ebola czar.” “The vice president conveyed to us that he didn’t want to be bitten by one dollar from this act,” says Jared Bernstein, who served as Biden’s chief economist at the time. “That message rippled through Ron Klain, to myself, to our respective staffs. We either had to implement this well, or get slammed for not doing so.”
Biden’s oversight earned high praise from Obama, who lauded the “complete transparency” of the stimulus in January 2010. “You guys can go on the White House website and look at every single project that has been awarded a recovery act grant—every single one—and scrutinize them,” Obama said. “You know who the contractors are. You know who’s doing the work. You know when it’s supposed to be finished.”
The tradeoff of “complete transparency,” however, was speed. Before a federally funded project could move forward, it had to go through the oversight process, which baked in delays. Journalist George Packer, writing for the New Yorker in 2010, captured this frustration through the eyes of Rep. Tom Perriello, who had been elected to represent Virginia’s 5th District the same year Obama won the presidency.
“We were absolutely determined to get the money out quickly, but that sometimes was in tension with our also admirable goal of providing transparency of every dollar spent,” Perriello says today. He recalls being disappointed that companies who could have put contractors and construction crews back to work right away wasted months as they waited for, as Packer put it, the administration’s “painstaking approach” to run its course.
“I know I got criticized in the front end of this for being too fastidious about how the money went out, to make sure we had the mechanisms in place,” Biden admitted in April 2010. But that concession did little to comfort the 15.3 million of Americans who were still unemployed. And Biden knew that. “When you lose 8 million jobs in this Great Recession and you keep it from being 10 [million], that’s no solace to the 8 million who don’t have a job, man,” he told labor leaders in Florida that March.
“The vice president conveyed to us that he didn’t want to be bitten by one dollar from this act.”
As Biden crisscrossed the country to stump for fellow Democrats during the 2010 midterm elections, he tried to sell the stimulus, asserting taxpayers had “gotten their money’s worth” out of the stimulus package. But any signs of life had disappeared over the summer as dismal unemployment numbers and a gutted housing landscape made headlines. That November, Republicans seized control of the House as Democrats like Perriello lost their seats to GOP candidates who pinned the lackluster recovery on the president’s party. “The recovery was already underway, but not with enough time or strength for people to have felt it yet,” Perriello says. “All people knew about the stimulus was the price tag, not that it prevented a Depression.”
“We got ourselves into trouble when we were talking about improvements before people could see them or feel them,” says Bernstein, recalling that he and others used the phrase “green shoots” to describe the early signs of economic growth. “That was very unresponsive to people’s experiences.” And with the GOP in control of the House, Congress’ will to keep the recovery going ceased. “That single act wasn’t a horse that could pull the whole sleigh,” Biden told Grunwald.
Now, Biden is the presumptive Democratic nominee, and the former veep finds himself tasked with selling that recovery again. The pandemic has swallowed the 2020 campaign whole—including the very nature of campaigning itself. Biden’s challenge is to contrast how he is better suited to lead the country out of the virus and its economic devastation than its current leader. So far, Trump’s failures play right into Biden’s experience: None of the oversight mechanisms Congress required of its $2 trillion emergency relief package have come together as the government begins distributing billions in aid, and states have struggled to dole out the promised unemployment benefits to jobless workers, citing slowness from the federal agencies responsible for handing them cash.
The parallels between this moment and his role 12 years ago hasn’t escaped Biden, and on the (virtual) campaign trail, he’s touted his “Sheriff Joe” badge as he recalls the lack of scandal and Obama’s praise. His criticism of President Trump has centered on what Biden calls a “false choice” of choosing between fighting the virus and recovering the economy, noting that it is the federal government’s responsibility to take care of workers until the pandemic subsides. He’s emphasized the need to move quickly on getting cash into the hands of jobless Americans and small businesses, another Great Recession lesson heeded. The visibility of these statements, though, hasn’t translated into confidence in his abilities: A recent Business Insider survey found that respondents viewed New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and California Gov. Gavin Newsom as more trustworthy than Biden on the pandemic response.
In early April, the Biden campaign released a list of recommendations for implementing and overseeing the stimulus bill Congress passed in March, a flex that returns to his Great Recession bona fides. His campaign is reportedly working on a “broader case of what is going to be required not just over the next few months but over the next few years to adequately respond to what has happened,” Jake Sullivan, a senior Biden adviser, told the Wall Street Journal.
And whatever vision emerges in that plan is crucial to another priority Biden faces: Unifying his party, a vast swath of which is disappointed Bernie Sanders is not the nominee and was critical of the Obama administration’s reluctance to take a tougher stance against Republicans to keep the federal stimulus funding going. So far, those lefty critics are heartened by some of the advisers in the “kitchen Cabinet” Biden has enlisted. They include Bernstein, a left-leaning economist with close ties to the labor movement; Richard Cordray, the first director of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau; and Heather Boushey, who runs the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, a left-leaning economic think tank.
“If Joe Biden learned the right lessons from how Mitch McConnell and Republicans handled themselves during the Great Recession,” says Adam Green, a co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which backed Elizabeth Warren in the 2020 primary, “which is that they don’t operate in good faith, then he will have a very powerful opportunity to unite the Democratic Party behind a theory of the fight—perhaps in a way that Bernie Sanders couldn’t.”


motherjones--2020-04-16--Progressives Are Going to Hate This Year’s Defense Spending Bill

Few things are clear about next year ’ s defense spending authorization bill—when Congress will be able to debate it , when it will be approved , when President Donald Trump might sign it .
The only certainty , at a time when the coronavirus crisis has upended almost every known quantity in Washington , is that progressive Democrats are going to hate this legislation .
Every spring , Congress puts together a mammoth bill that is supposed to authorize the Defense Department ’ s spending for the next fiscal year , but usually contains dozens of unrelated amendments that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national security policy .
For decades , lawmakers passed the bill , known as the National Defense Authorization Act—or NDAA—with strong bipartisan majorities and avoided prolonged debates over controversial policy matters .
That changed last year when the progressive flank of the House Democratic caucus pushed to include amendments limiting Trump ’ s ability to spend Pentagon funds on his border wall , preventing him from starting a war with Iran without congressional approval , and ending American support for Saudi Arabia ’ s war in Yemen , among other things .
None @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compromise bill , which emerged after negotiations with the Republican-controlled Senate .
In the end , progressives were left feeling discouraged .
This year ’ s debate originally presented an appealing opportunity for progressives in the House to extract concessions from Senate Republicans .
Nearly every major Democratic presidential candidate has spent months calling for a rethinking of American national security strategy , which has been dominated by endless wars in the Middle East .
Even Joe Biden—the presumptive nominee , who is distrusted by many on the left—acknowledged to Military Times that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense and protect our safety and security for less.
” Meanwhile , the Center for International Policy ’ s Sustainable Defense Task Force—composed of former government budget analysts , retired military leaders , and other experts—determined that the United States could save at least $ 1.25 trillion over the next decade by trimming the size of the military by 10 percent , eliminating waste and redundant positions , and halting the Trump administration ’ s massive investment in nuclear weapons .
And now , the death toll and economic devastation caused by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are urgent national priorities and security threats not named Russia , Iran , or ISIS that might require some of the resources normally reserved for the military .
With the pandemic wreaking havoc on the US Navy , there would , perhaps , be no better time than this year to craft a compelling message against maintaining the Pentagon ’ s status quo .
But structural obstacles—including a lengthy , coronavirus-caused delay that is expected to push the passage of the bill into the next fiscal year—will probably make any significant changes near @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a prejudice within the leadership and the Congress to dispense with the NDAA as expeditiously as possible , ” Bill Hartung , director of the Center for International Policy ’ s Arms and Security Program , told me .
Hartung is one of many advocates for a slimmer defense budget who views the pandemic as an appropriate moment to reset the eternal debate over how to spend the Pentagon ’ s money .
But , because of the truncated schedule lawmakers now face , he doesn ’ t expect reformers will have as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to amend the NDAA .
Progressive advocates who are in touch with the committee staff crafting the House version of the bill have also tempered their expectations .
“ It is very , very likely we ’ re going to see an NDAA that reflects business as usual , ” a source affiliated with a group that works on military issues told me , adding that this year ’ s legislation “ is just not designed ” to encompass the vision progressives had for last year ’ s bill .
The primary architect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Adam Smith ( D-Wash. ) , who chairs the Armed Services Committee .
Last year was his first time shepherding the NDAA process , and he was evidently no fan of how the debate unfolded .
Liberal lawmakers stacked the bill with contentious policy provisions , resulting in a rare party-line vote in committee , zero Republican support from the rest of the House , and a compromise negotiation with the Senate that left progressive leaders like Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) and Rep. Ro Khanna ( D-Calif. ) blasting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” An exasperated Smith told Politico at the time that he would be “ a lot more critical ” in the future of lawmakers trying to insert amendments that were “ not within our jurisdiction.
” While the delay in moving forward with the NDAA could open the door to pandemic-related provisions that shore up the Pentagon ’ s response to the virus , it ’ s not likely the bill will be as expansive as in previous years .
“ I think there is a renewed resolve , certainly by both Adam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to our issues , and not allow it to be a vehicle for lots of other wish lists that are not able to make it through ” other committees , Rep. Mac Thornberry ( R-Texas ) , the committee ’ s top Republican , told Defense News earlier this month .
“ Having gone through last year , everybody has a better understanding of what is and is not doable with a Democratic House and a Republican Senate and a Republican president.
” That ’ s not to say Democrats won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war-making authority .
Smith told reporters last week that he expects to revisit the provisions from last year ’ s bill aimed at limiting American support to Saudi Arabia .
In a statement , a spokesperson for Smith said the chairman “ understands and shares the concerns ” of House liberals , “ as well as those of other ” House members .
But this time around , progressive lawmakers say they aren ’ t going to support a bill without assurances that their priorities will be included in the final product .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pass a House NDAA to give them license to strip all the progressive priorities from the bill , as it was last time .
The leadership is going to have to make a choice , ” Khanna , an Armed Services Committee member , told reporters on a conference call Tuesday .
“ They ’ ll either pass a progressive NDAA or pass a bill with Republican votes .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Few things are clear about next year’s defense spending authorization bill—when Congress will be able to debate it, when it will be approved, when President Donald Trump might sign it. The only certainty, at a time when the coronavirus crisis has upended almost every known quantity in Washington, is that progressive Democrats are going to hate this legislation.
Every spring, Congress puts together a mammoth bill that is supposed to authorize the Defense Department’s spending for the next fiscal year, but usually contains dozens of unrelated amendments that help shape the federal government’s national security policy. For decades, lawmakers passed the bill, known as the National Defense Authorization Act—or NDAA—with strong bipartisan majorities and avoided prolonged debates over controversial policy matters.
That changed last year when the progressive flank of the House Democratic caucus pushed to include amendments limiting Trump’s ability to spend Pentagon funds on his border wall, preventing him from starting a war with Iran without congressional approval, and ending American support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, among other things. None of those provisions made it into the compromise bill, which emerged after negotiations with the Republican-controlled Senate. In the end, progressives were left feeling discouraged.
This year’s debate originally presented an appealing opportunity for progressives in the House to extract concessions from Senate Republicans. Nearly every major Democratic presidential candidate has spent months calling for a rethinking of American national security strategy, which has been dominated by endless wars in the Middle East. Even Joe Biden—the presumptive nominee, who is distrusted by many on the left—acknowledged to Military Times that the Pentagon “can maintain a strong defense and protect our safety and security for less.” Meanwhile, the Center for International Policy’s Sustainable Defense Task Force—composed of former government budget analysts, retired military leaders, and other experts—determined that the United States could save at least $1.25 trillion over the next decade by trimming the size of the military by 10 percent, eliminating waste and redundant positions, and halting the Trump administration’s massive investment in nuclear weapons.
And now, the death toll and economic devastation caused by the coronavirus has reinforced the fact that there are urgent national priorities and security threats not named Russia, Iran, or ISIS that might require some of the resources normally reserved for the military. With the pandemic wreaking havoc on the US Navy, there would, perhaps, be no better time than this year to craft a compelling message against maintaining the Pentagon’s status quo.
But structural obstacles—including a lengthy, coronavirus-caused delay that is expected to push the passage of the bill into the next fiscal year—will probably make any significant changes near impossible. “There will probably be a prejudice within the leadership and the Congress to dispense with the NDAA as expeditiously as possible,” Bill Hartung, director of the Center for International Policy’s Arms and Security Program, told me. Hartung is one of many advocates for a slimmer defense budget who views the pandemic as an appropriate moment to reset the eternal debate over how to spend the Pentagon’s money. But, because of the truncated schedule lawmakers now face, he doesn’t expect reformers will have as many opportunities as last year to attempt to amend the NDAA.
Progressive advocates who are in touch with the committee staff crafting the House version of the bill have also tempered their expectations. “It is very, very likely we’re going to see an NDAA that reflects business as usual,” a source affiliated with a group that works on military issues told me, adding that this year’s legislation “is just not designed” to encompass the vision progressives had for last year’s bill.
The primary architect of the the House bill will be Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), who chairs the Armed Services Committee. Last year was his first time shepherding the NDAA process, and he was evidently no fan of how the debate unfolded. Liberal lawmakers stacked the bill with contentious policy provisions, resulting in a rare party-line vote in committee, zero Republican support from the rest of the House, and a compromise negotiation with the Senate that left progressive leaders like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) blasting the legislation’s “astonishing moral cowardice.” An exasperated Smith told Politico at the time that he would be “a lot more critical” in the future of lawmakers trying to insert amendments that were “not within our jurisdiction.”
While the delay in moving forward with the NDAA could open the door to pandemic-related provisions that shore up the Pentagon’s response to the virus, it’s not likely the bill will be as expansive as in previous years. “I think there is a renewed resolve, certainly by both Adam and me, to confine our bill to our issues, and not allow it to be a vehicle for lots of other wish lists that are not able to make it through” other committees, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), the committee’s top Republican, told Defense News earlier this month. “Having gone through last year, everybody has a better understanding of what is and is not doable with a Democratic House and a Republican Senate and a Republican president.”
That’s not to say Democrats won’t offer amendments that challenge Trump’s war-making authority. Smith told reporters last week that he expects to revisit the provisions from last year’s bill aimed at limiting American support to Saudi Arabia.
In a statement, a spokesperson for Smith said the chairman “understands and shares the concerns” of House liberals, “as well as those of other” House members. But this time around, progressive lawmakers say they aren’t going to support a bill without assurances that their priorities will be included in the final product. “The progressives are not going to pass a House NDAA to give them license to strip all the progressive priorities from the bill, as it was last time. The leadership is going to have to make a choice,” Khanna, an Armed Services Committee member, told reporters on a conference call Tuesday. “They’ll either pass a progressive NDAA or pass a bill with Republican votes.”


motherjones--2020-01-07--Trump Should Know About Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. He Did Business With People Linked to It.

One of the many critiques of President Donald Trump ’ s handling of Iran over the past week is that he made the huge decision to assassinate Iranian general Qassem Soleimani without understanding much—or anything—about Iran ’ s internal politics or Soleimani ’ s place in the world .
Four years ago , Trump seemed completely unaware of the Quds Force , the elite branch of the Iran ’ s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps run by Soleimani .
But Trump should have been very familiar with the Revolutionary Guard—because his own business had close ties to it .
In 2012 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a luxury hotel in Baku , the capital of oil-and-gas-rich Azerbaijan .
His business partners on the project presented a range of problems .
First off , as Mother Jones detailed in 2015 , Azerbaijan is regarded as one of the most corrupt countries in the world , and Trump ’ s partners were relatives of Ziya Mammadov , the country ’ s transportation minister and a former Soviet apparatchik with a $ 12,000 annual salary who had still managed to amass billions in personal wealth .
And then there ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excellent 2017 Adam Davidson investigation in the New Yorker , the Mammadov family appears to have had close business ties to construction companies controlled by an associate of the Revolutionary Guard : Davidson found that there were more than just passing links between Keyumars Darvishi and the Guard : At least three Darvishis—the brothers Habil , Kamal , and Keyumars—appear to be associates of the Guard .
In Farsi press accounts , Habil , who runs the Tehran Metro Company , is referred to as a sardar , a term for a senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cable sent on March 6 , 2009 , from the U.S. Embassy in Baku described Kamal as having formerly run “ an alleged Revolutionary Guard-controlled business in Iran.
” The company , called Nasr , developed and acquired instruments , guidance systems , and specialty metals needed to build ballistic missiles .
In 2007 , Nasr was sanctioned by the U.S. for its role in Iran ’ s effort to develop nuclear missiles .
The brothers were awarded at least eight major road projects in Azerbaijan in the years before the Trump hotel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a leaked US diplomatic cable from 2009 noted drily , “ We assume Mammedov [ sic ] is a silent partner in these contracts.
” The Trump Baku project was one of a slew of pricey investments that the Mammadov family made around the same time—investments that didn ’ t quite add up , according to Davidson : Between 2004 and 2014 , Mammadov family businesses spent more than half a billion dollars on large construction projects .
They also poured money into a major construction-materials company , an insurance firm , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not clear how the Mammadovs funded such enormous investments while spending so much on themselves .
They may have received loans , or secretly owned profitable businesses that supported the flurry of spending .
Another explanation is that some of the investment money came from the Revolutionary Guard , through Azarpassillo .
Davidson ’ s investigation details a litany of red flags about the Baku project that would have been hard for the Trump family to ignore , including duffel bags stuffed with millions of dollars in cash paid to contractors .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything amiss .
A Trump executive told the New Yorker that the company did due diligence on the Mammadovs , but wouldn ’ t reveal who did the background check or what the results were .
The current Iranian crisis aside , the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits Americans from being involved with corruption overseas or partnering with people who are involved with corruption , so the Trump Organization certainly had a motive to look into the Mammadovs more closely .
Davidson noted that it would have been hard to miss the connection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of the contracts signed between the Trump Organization and the Mammadovs , Trump didn ’ t have to build or own the tower that would bear his name in Baku , but he was paid a licensing fee , and the Trumps were hired to manage a hotel that was set to operate in the building .
After he was elected president , Trump pulled out of the deal—which appeared to be dead in the water anyway—but he still earned at least $ 2.8 million from the early work on the deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kept the project at arm ’ s length , but according to Davidson ’ s sources , the family , in particular Ivanka Trump , was intimately involved with the most minute details , going far beyond the usual oversight a licensing company might offer :

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
One of the many critiques of President Donald Trump’s handling of Iran over the past week is that he made the huge decision to assassinate Iranian general Qassem Soleimani without understanding much—or anything—about Iran’s internal politics or Soleimani’s place in the world. Four years ago, Trump seemed completely unaware of the Quds Force, the elite branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps run by Soleimani. But Trump should have been very familiar with the Revolutionary Guard—because his own business had close ties to it.
In 2012, Trump signed a deal to develop a luxury hotel in Baku, the capital of oil-and-gas-rich Azerbaijan. His business partners on the project presented a range of problems. First off, as Mother Jones detailed in 2015, Azerbaijan is regarded as one of the most corrupt countries in the world, and Trump’s partners were relatives of Ziya Mammadov, the country’s transportation minister and a former Soviet apparatchik with a $12,000 annual salary who had still managed to amass billions in personal wealth.
And then there’s the matter of Iran. According to an excellent 2017 Adam Davidson investigation in the New Yorker, the Mammadov family appears to have had close business ties to construction companies controlled by an associate of the Revolutionary Guard:
In 2008, the year that the tower was announced, Ziya Mammadov, in his role as Transportation Minister, awarded a series of multimillion-dollar contracts to Azarpassillo, an Iranian construction company. Keyumars Darvishi, its chairman, fought in the Iran-Iraq War. After the war, he became the head of Raman, an Iranian construction firm that is controlled by the Revolutionary Guard.
Davidson found that there were more than just passing links between Keyumars Darvishi and the Guard:
At least three Darvishis—the brothers Habil, Kamal, and Keyumars—appear to be associates of the Guard. In Farsi press accounts, Habil, who runs the Tehran Metro Company, is referred to as a sardar, a term for a senior officer in the Revolutionary Guard. A cable sent on March 6, 2009, from the U.S. Embassy in Baku described Kamal as having formerly run “an alleged Revolutionary Guard-controlled business in Iran.” The company, called Nasr, developed and acquired instruments, guidance systems, and specialty metals needed to build ballistic missiles. In 2007, Nasr was sanctioned by the U.S. for its role in Iran’s effort to develop nuclear missiles.
The brothers were awarded at least eight major road projects in Azerbaijan in the years before the Trump hotel tower in Baku was constructed, and a leaked US diplomatic cable from 2009 noted drily, “We assume Mammedov [sic] is a silent partner in these contracts.”
The Trump Baku project was one of a slew of pricey investments that the Mammadov family made around the same time—investments that didn’t quite add up, according to Davidson:
Between 2004 and 2014, Mammadov family businesses spent more than half a billion dollars on large construction projects. They also poured money into a major construction-materials company, an insurance firm, and a new headquarters. It’s not clear how the Mammadovs funded such enormous investments while spending so much on themselves. They may have received loans, or secretly owned profitable businesses that supported the flurry of spending. Another explanation is that some of the investment money came from the Revolutionary Guard, through Azarpassillo.
Davidson’s investigation details a litany of red flags about the Baku project that would have been hard for the Trump family to ignore, including duffel bags stuffed with millions of dollars in cash paid to contractors. But the Trumps claimed never to have noticed anything amiss. A Trump executive told the New Yorker that the company did due diligence on the Mammadovs, but wouldn’t reveal who did the background check or what the results were.
The current Iranian crisis aside, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits Americans from being involved with corruption overseas or partnering with people who are involved with corruption, so the Trump Organization certainly had a motive to look into the Mammadovs more closely. Davidson noted that it would have been hard to miss the connection to the Revolutionary Guard.
Under the terms of the contracts signed between the Trump Organization and the Mammadovs, Trump didn’t have to build or own the tower that would bear his name in Baku, but he was paid a licensing fee, and the Trumps were hired to manage a hotel that was set to operate in the building. After he was elected president, Trump pulled out of the deal—which appeared to be dead in the water anyway—but he still earned at least $2.8 million from the early work on the deal. The Trump family claimed to have kept the project at arm’s length, but according to Davidson’s sources, the family, in particular Ivanka Trump, was intimately involved with the most minute details, going far beyond the usual oversight a licensing company might offer: