motherjones--2020-03-19--We Need More Ventilators, But We Also Need People Who Know How to Use Them

In the past days and weeks , health care experts have focused on a horrifying reality : the acute shortage of ventilators , a common medical device that is necessary to help patients with serious respiratory diseases , such as COVID-19 , breathe .
There are an estimated 160,000 ventilators in hospitals throughout the United States .
( The numbers are not precise . )
That is far from the amount that might be needed , and without ventilators people with the worst cases of COVID-19 will die .
The media have been covering the ventilator deficit and efforts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is a parallel story that has drawn less attention : the availability of the health care professionals who can insert and operate the ventilators .
In most hospitals , the use of ventilators is managed by respiratory therapists who tend to work in intensive care units .
These are specially trained clinicians who attend two- or four-year programs and who are licensed within their states .
Without an army of professionals to operate the ventilators , having enough machines does no good .
Are there enough of them ?
To learn more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kallstrom , the chief executive officer of the American Association for Respiratory Care .
Kallstrom , who used to be a practicing respiratory therapist in the Cleveland area , says that a survey conducted by his outfit five years ago determined there were about 155,000 respiratory therapists in the United States , with a vast majority of them working in ICUs .
Should hundreds of thousands of Americans end up requiring ventilators in a short period of time , this work force could be stretched thin .
Kallstrom notes that on average a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at once .
But that ’ s in normal times .
“ If we have to ventilate 750,000 people , we will have a situation we can ’ t handle , ” Kallstrom observes .
Working closely with infected patients , respiratory therapists are also at great risk of becoming infected themselves by the coronavirus , and such transmission could cut down their ranks .
Making matters more dire , some facilities may only have a handful of licensed therapists .
One respiratory therapist who works in a medium-sized hospital on the East @ @ @ @ @ @ @ named , tells me that she is one of just three respiratory therapists in her facility .
Ventilators are needed in advanced and serious stages of respiratory disease , when lungs are not functioning sufficiently to supply the body with the oxygen it needs to survive .
A respiratory therapist “ intubates ” the patient—that is , he or she directs a tube past the vocal cords and toward the lungs .
The device then balloons out and starts pumping the lungs .
The respiratory therapist has to determine the appropriate settings for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , blood gasses , and other factors .
The ventilator and the patient subsequently have to be monitored by the therapist , around the clock .
These visits can take a brief amount of time , though complicated cases can require much more .
Usually , a patient must remain on the ventilator for days , if not a week or longer .
And for this stretch , he or she is sedated .
“ I was on a ventilator for a respiratory disease a few years ago , ” Kallstrom recalls , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the experience .
I just woke up.
” Should a shortage of respiratory therapists occur , there are options , Kallstrom explains .
A great many respiratory therapists are Baby Boomers , and a large number of them have retired in recent years .
Hospitals could begin reaching out to the retirees and asking them to return , if only to support the non-retired therapists and enable them to concentrate on ventilator management for COVID-19 patients .
Students currently enrolled in training programs to become respiratory therapists could be used in a similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nurses and doctors could certainly be trained to work the ventilators .
But , of course , they will be overwhelmed with other tasks .
On another front , state legislatures and the federal government could move to ease or end the restriction that prevents respiratory therapists from working in states other than the ones in which they are licensed .
Kallstrom notes that Vice President Mike Pence , who heads the federal coronavirus task force , has said that this restriction on clinicians will be lifted , but he adds , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a clear signal on this .
It will behoove the states to allow that to happen.
” This will permit respiratory therapists to move across state lines to help areas with the most desperate need .
At this stage , Kallstrom is not predicting doom .
But he states the obvious : hospitals , the medical community , and the government need to start preparing for the worst as quickly as possible .
And that includes thinking about who will be operating life-saving ventilators .
“ Not many people know what respiratory therapists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We want to make sure Americans know they are on the frontlines in this crisis .
It sounds gross , but they will take the spit to the face , as they manage the coronavirus patients .
They are heroes .
But they are unsung heroes .
”

In the past days and weeks, health care experts have focused on a horrifying reality: the acute shortage of ventilators, a common medical device that is necessary to help patients with serious respiratory diseases, such as COVID-19, breathe. There are an estimated 160,000 ventilators in hospitals throughout the United States. (The numbers are not precise.) That is far from the amount that might be needed, and without ventilators people with the worst cases of COVID-19 will die.
Without an army of professionals to operate the ventilators, having enough machines does no good. Are there enough of them?
The media have been covering the ventilator deficit and efforts to increase production of the device. But there is a parallel story that has drawn less attention: the availability of the health care professionals who can insert and operate the ventilators. In most hospitals, the use of ventilators is managed by respiratory therapists who tend to work in intensive care units. These are specially trained clinicians who attend two- or four-year programs and who are licensed within their states. Without an army of professionals to operate the ventilators, having enough machines does no good. Are there enough of them?
To learn more about this, I spoke with Thomas Kallstrom, the chief executive officer of the American Association for Respiratory Care. Kallstrom, who used to be a practicing respiratory therapist in the Cleveland area, says that a survey conducted by his outfit five years ago determined there were about 155,000 respiratory therapists in the United States, with a vast majority of them working in ICUs. Should hundreds of thousands of Americans end up requiring ventilators in a short period of time, this work force could be stretched thin.
Kallstrom notes that on average a single respiratory therapist can manage ten patients at once. But that’s in normal times. “If we have to ventilate 750,000 people, we will have a situation we can’t handle,” Kallstrom observes.
Working closely with infected patients, respiratory therapists are also at great risk of becoming infected themselves by the coronavirus, and such transmission could cut down their ranks. Making matters more dire, some facilities may only have a handful of licensed therapists. One respiratory therapist who works in a medium-sized hospital on the East Coast, who asked not to be named, tells me that she is one of just three respiratory therapists in her facility.
Ventilators are needed in advanced and serious stages of respiratory disease, when lungs are not functioning sufficiently to supply the body with the oxygen it needs to survive. A respiratory therapist “intubates” the patient—that is, he or she directs a tube past the vocal cords and toward the lungs. The device then balloons out and starts pumping the lungs. The respiratory therapist has to determine the appropriate settings for the device, based on body size, blood gasses, and other factors. The ventilator and the patient subsequently have to be monitored by the therapist, around the clock. These visits can take a brief amount of time, though complicated cases can require much more.
Usually, a patient must remain on the ventilator for days, if not a week or longer. And for this stretch, he or she is sedated. “I was on a ventilator for a respiratory disease a few years ago,” Kallstrom recalls, “and I don’t remember the experience. I just woke up.”
Should a shortage of respiratory therapists occur, there are options, Kallstrom explains. A great many respiratory therapists are Baby Boomers, and a large number of them have retired in recent years. Hospitals could begin reaching out to the retirees and asking them to return, if only to support the non-retired therapists and enable them to concentrate on ventilator management for COVID-19 patients. Students currently enrolled in training programs to become respiratory therapists could be used in a similar fashion. And in a jam, nurses and doctors could certainly be trained to work the ventilators. But, of course, they will be overwhelmed with other tasks.
“Not many people know what respiratory therapists do. We want to make sure Americans know they are on the frontlines in this crisis.”
On another front, state legislatures and the federal government could move to ease or end the restriction that prevents respiratory therapists from working in states other than the ones in which they are licensed. Kallstrom notes that Vice President Mike Pence, who heads the federal coronavirus task force, has said that this restriction on clinicians will be lifted, but he adds, “We’re still trying to get a clear signal on this. It will behoove the states to allow that to happen.” This will permit respiratory therapists to move across state lines to help areas with the most desperate need.
At this stage, Kallstrom is not predicting doom. But he states the obvious: hospitals, the medical community, and the government need to start preparing for the worst as quickly as possible. And that includes thinking about who will be operating life-saving ventilators.
“Not many people know what respiratory therapists do,” he says. “We want to make sure Americans know they are on the frontlines in this crisis. It sounds gross, but they will take the spit to the face, as they manage the coronavirus patients. They are heroes. But they are unsung heroes.”


motherjones--2020-03-19--“This Is How America Work”: Mind-Boggling New Allegations About a Donor to Trump’s Inauguration

Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles this week described a dizzying array of secret foreign lobbying by a major donor to both political parties—a new twist in a case that could reveal whether there were foreign efforts to funnel money to President Donald Trump ’ s 2017 inaugural committee .
The donor , Imaad Zuberi , is a longtime Democratic backer who began lavishing funds on Republicans after Trump ’ s surprise 2016 electoral victory .
His largesse included a $ 900,000 contribution to Trump ’ s inaugural committee .
Zuberi agreed in October to plead guilty to tax evasion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and to making almost $ 1 million in illegal campaign contributions , much of it secretly put up by foreign entities and people hoping to influence US politics .
In their initial filings , prosecutors identified by name only one country , Sri Lanka , for which Zuberi had illegally lobbied .
But in a new filing Tuesday that argues for Zuberi to receive significant prison time , prosecutors detailed his secret work for Turkey , Libyan officials , a businessman from Bahrain , and Dmitry Firtash—a Ukrainian oligarch who was deeply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Prosecutors say Zuberi ’ s activities show that the widespread public concern about foreign influence in US elections is warranted .
“ The Zuberi case explicitly verifies through evidentiary proof pervasive , corrupt foreign interference with our elections and policy-making processes , ” prosecutors write , using italics for emphasis .
From 2011 to 2017 , Zuberi lavished more than $ 3 million in campaign contributions on lawmakers in both parties .
He supported the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton , as well as Sens .
Lindsey Graham ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , Tom Cotton ( R-Ark . )
, Mark Warner ( D-Va. ) , and Tim Kaine ( D-Va. ) ; and Reps. Brad Sherman ( D-Calif. ) , Debbie Wasserman Shultz ( D-Fla. ) , Ted Lieu ( D-Calif. ) , and others .
In 2015 , he made donations backing Reps. Ed Royce ( R-Calif. ) and Eliot Engel ( D-N.Y. ) , then the chairman and ranking member , respectively , of the House Foreign Affairs Committee , a panel from which Zuberi sought various favors .
( Engel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retired from Congress . )
Prosecutors say much of the money Zuberi used for donations came from foreign sources from whom he had solicited these funds—along with millions of dollars in fees—while promising to influence lawmakers on their behalf .
There is no evidence members of Congress knew that Zuberi was using foreign funds to make donations .
A big unanswered question in the Zuberi case is the where the $ 900,000 he gave to Trump ’ s inaugural came from .
Federal prosecutors are investigating that and , reportedly , other suspected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the inaugural committee .
In January , Zuberi was charged in New York with obstructing justice by deleting pertinent emails , including correspondence with an unnamed foreign national .
A charging document says that person “ transferred approximately $ 5.8 million to the account that Zuberi used to fund [ his inaugural ] donation at and around the time the donation was made.
” Zuberi is expected to plead guilty to that charge , which was added this month to the case against him in California .
It is likely that as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will reveal to prosecutors details of the inaugural gift .
Around the time of his donation to the inaugural committee , Zuberi was working to help officials from Qatar develop ties with the new Trump administration .
Court filings in his case do not mention Qatar , though they do describe his earlier , frenetic efforts to assist other foreign entities .
Prosecutors revealed Tuesday that Zuberi had received $ 1 million in 2015 from Firtash for acting as an unregistered lobbyist for the Ukrainian gas mogul .
Zuberi worked to line up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Ukraine development fund ” that Firtash ’ s company could exploit in the wake of the ouster of the pro-Russian former government in the country .
Prosecutors say that Zuberi secured for Firtash ’ s representatives a dinner meeting about the fund with five US senators and a House member during a security conference in Munich in February 2015 .
Firtash also wanted help fighting bribery charges filed against him in 2013 by federal prosecutors in Chicago .
The oligarch is in a protracted court fight to avoid extradition to the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s filing , Zuberi helped Firtash lobby Congress by claiming that the legal case against him was politically motivated .
Last year , Firtash hired two lawyers with close ties to Trump , Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing , for a similar task .
Firtash told the New York Times last year he hired the duo , a husband-and-wife team with deep ties to Washington conservatives , to directly press Attorney General William Barr to reconsider the bribery case .
Toensing and diGenova met with Barr last August , though it is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steps to help Firtash .
( A Justice Department spokesperson told the Washington Post last year that the case against Firtash “ has the support of the department leadership.
” ) Joseph Bondy , a lawyer for Lev Parnas , an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani , has claimed that Toensing and diGenova offered to press Firtash ’ s case with Barr if Firtash helped them find dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden in Ukraine—allegedly as part of the scheme that resulted in Trump ’ s impeachment .
Zuberi ’ s work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance in which Zuberi seems to have used his status as a generous campaign donor in an attempt influence members of Congress .
For example , he managed to get lawmakers to pressure the government of Bahrain in 2013 and 2014 to help a client he had there .
“ Zuberi concocted a scheme to fool members of Congress into believing that he had invested millions of dollars in a Bahraini development project and that he had been unfairly harassed by the Bahraini government in such a way that Congress should intervene , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to court filings , gave $ 225,000 to 11 lawmakers and to the national campaign committees of both parties as part of this effort .
Of that , $ 78,000 was illegally contributed in the names of straw donors , prosecutors charge .
Zuberi then convinced those 11 lawmakers—as well as a senator to whom he had previously given $ 26,000 in donations—to write letters urging Bahrain to stop interfering with a US investor doing business there .
Zuberi in reality had not invested in the project but wanted to help advance his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the prosecutors .
In 2015 , Zuberi helped Turkey lobby against a House resolution “ urging respect for freedom of expression in Turkey ” and condemning Turkish media repression , prosecutors say .
Zuberi told a Turkish official that his pressure had caused the measure to be set aside in the House .
“ [ Two Members of Congress ] told me this will be delayed by a week 99 % because they control the Foreign Affairs Committee .
You…push me so hard I pushed…harder than I have ever pushed them for anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2015 .
“ Both asked me why I am pushing this hard for Turkey.
” The lawmakers aren ’ t named in the filing .
The Turkish official , in response , said : “ You can rest assured that this will be the first step towards a mutually beneficial relationship.
” In 2015 and 2016 , Zuberi allegedly concocted a scheme to try to help members of Libya ’ s divided government , along with an unnamed citizen of the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia , obtain billions of dollars in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other countries .
Prosecutors say Zuberi routed “ $ 3 to $ 5 million in foreign money into US lobbying campaigns , illegal campaign donations , and donations to quasi-political entities , and exert [ ed ] his influence with the highest elected officials of the United States.
” In return , he sought a commission from the Libyans via payments to an offshore corporation .
Prosecutors say that between March and October 2015 , Zuberi “ orchestrated a series of contributions totaling $ 232,300 that appear linked to the Libya lobbying effort.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s campaign and to congressional campaign committees in both parties .
Of that , $ 120,250 came from foreign sources , prosecutors say .
Zuberi later had a financial dispute with his Libyan clients .
“ Maybe you and [ Person A ] don ’ t know how things work in America [ and ] this is why you guys keep asking me to do something which I can ’ t do without everyone contributing , ” Zuberi said in a May 10 , 2015 , message .
“ This is how America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day .
“ How Washington work .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles this week described a dizzying array of secret foreign lobbying by a major donor to both political parties—a new twist in a case that could reveal whether there were foreign efforts to funnel money to President Donald Trump’s 2017 inaugural committee.
“The Zuberi case explicitly verifies through evidentiary proof pervasive, corrupt foreign interference with our elections and policy-making processes.”
The donor, Imaad Zuberi, is a longtime Democratic backer who began lavishing funds on Republicans after Trump’s surprise 2016 electoral victory. His largesse included a $900,000 contribution to Trump’s inaugural committee. Zuberi agreed in October to plead guilty to tax evasion, to filing phony foreign agent registration materials, and to making almost $1 million in illegal campaign contributions, much of it secretly put up by foreign entities and people hoping to influence US politics. In their initial filings, prosecutors identified by name only one country, Sri Lanka, for which Zuberi had illegally lobbied. But in a new filing Tuesday that argues for Zuberi to receive significant prison time, prosecutors detailed his secret work for Turkey, Libyan officials, a businessman from Bahrain, and Dmitry Firtash—a Ukrainian oligarch who was deeply involved in Trump’s Ukraine scandal.
Prosecutors say Zuberi’s activities show that the widespread public concern about foreign influence in US elections is warranted. “The Zuberi case explicitly verifies through evidentiary proof pervasive, corrupt foreign interference with our elections and policy-making processes,” prosecutors write, using italics for emphasis.
From 2011 to 2017, Zuberi lavished more than $3 million in campaign contributions on lawmakers in both parties. He supported the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, as well as Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), and Tim Kaine (D-Va.); and Reps. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), Debbie Wasserman Shultz (D-Fla.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), and others. In 2015, he made donations backing Reps. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) and Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), then the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a panel from which Zuberi sought various favors. (Engel now chairs the committee; Royce has retired from Congress.) Prosecutors say much of the money Zuberi used for donations came from foreign sources from whom he had solicited these funds—along with millions of dollars in fees—while promising to influence lawmakers on their behalf. There is no evidence members of Congress knew that Zuberi was using foreign funds to make donations.
A big unanswered question in the Zuberi case is where the $900,000 he gave to Trump’s inaugural came from. Federal prosecutors are investigating that and, reportedly, other suspected foreign efforts to win influence by donating to the inaugural committee. In January, Zuberi was charged in New York with obstructing justice by deleting pertinent emails, including correspondence with an unnamed foreign national. A charging document says that person “transferred approximately $5.8 million to the account that Zuberi used to fund [his inaugural] donation at and around the time the donation was made.” Zuberi is expected to plead guilty to that charge, which was added this month to the case against him in California. It is likely that as part of his plea deal, he will reveal to prosecutors details of the inaugural gift.
Around the time of his donation to the inaugural committee, Zuberi was working to help officials from Qatar develop ties with the new Trump administration. Court filings in his case do not mention Qatar, though they do describe his earlier, frenetic efforts to assist other foreign entities.
Prosecutors revealed Tuesday that Zuberi had received $1 million in 2015 from Firtash for acting as an unregistered lobbyist for the Ukrainian gas mogul. Zuberi worked to line up US congressional support for a privately funded “Ukraine development fund” that Firtash’s company could exploit in the wake of the ouster of the pro-Russian former government in the country. Prosecutors say that Zuberi secured for Firtash’s representatives a dinner meeting about the fund with five US senators and a House member during a security conference in Munich in February 2015. Firtash also wanted help fighting bribery charges filed against him in 2013 by federal prosecutors in Chicago. The oligarch is in a protracted court fight to avoid extradition to the US from Austria. According to Tuesday’s filing, Zuberi helped Firtash lobby Congress by claiming that the legal case against him was politically motivated.
Last year, Firtash hired two lawyers with close ties to Trump, Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing, for a similar task. Firtash told the New York Times last year he hired the duo, a husband-and-wife team with deep ties to Washington conservatives, to directly press Attorney General William Barr to reconsider the bribery case. Toensing and diGenova met with Barr last August, though it is not clear if he agreed to take any steps to help Firtash. (A Justice Department spokesperson told the Washington Post last year that the case against Firtash “has the support of the department leadership.”) Joseph Bondy, a lawyer for Lev Parnas, an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani, has claimed that Toensing and diGenova offered to press Firtash’s case with Barr if Firtash helped them find dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden in Ukraine—allegedly as part of the scheme that resulted in Trump’s impeachment.
Zuberi’s work for Firtash wasn’t the only instance in which Zuberi seems to have used his status as a generous campaign donor in an attempt influence members of Congress. For example, he managed to get lawmakers to pressure the government of Bahrain in 2013 and 2014 to help a client he had there. “Zuberi concocted a scheme to fool members of Congress into believing that he had invested millions of dollars in a Bahraini development project and that he had been unfairly harassed by the Bahraini government in such a way that Congress should intervene,” prosecutors say. Zuberi, according to court filings, gave $225,000 to 11 lawmakers and to the national campaign committees of both parties as part of this effort. Of that, $78,000 was illegally contributed in the names of straw donors, prosecutors charge. Zuberi then convinced those 11 lawmakers—as well as a senator to whom he had previously given $26,000 in donations—to write letters urging Bahrain to stop interfering with a US investor doing business there. Zuberi in reality had not invested in the project but wanted to help advance his client’s project, according to the prosecutors.
In 2015, Zuberi helped Turkey lobby against a House resolution “urging respect for freedom of expression in Turkey” and condemning Turkish media repression, prosecutors say. Zuberi told a Turkish official that his pressure had caused the measure to be set aside in the House. “[Two Members of Congress] told me this will be delayed by a week 99% because they control the Foreign Affairs Committee. You…push me so hard I pushed…harder than I have ever pushed them for anything,” he wrote on June 1, 2015. “Both asked me why I am pushing this hard for Turkey.” The lawmakers aren’t named in the filing.
The Turkish official, in response, said: “You can rest assured that this will be the first step towards a mutually beneficial relationship.”
In 2015 and 2016, Zuberi allegedly devised a scheme to try to help members of Libya’s divided government, along with an unnamed citizen of the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia, obtain billions of dollars in Libyan assets frozen by the US and other countries. Prosecutors say Zuberi routed “$3 to $5 million in foreign money into US lobbying campaigns, illegal campaign donations, and donations to quasi-political entities, and exert[ed] his influence with the highest elected officials of the United States.” In return, he sought a commission from the Libyans via payments to an offshore corporation. Prosecutors say that between March and October 2015, Zuberi “orchestrated a series of contributions totaling $232,300 that appear linked to the Libya lobbying effort.” This included donations to Clinton’s campaign and to congressional campaign committees in both parties. Of that, $120,250 came from foreign sources, prosecutors say.
Zuberi later had a financial dispute with his Libyan clients. “Maybe you and [Person A] don’t know how things work in America [and] this is why you guys keep asking me to do something which I can’t do without everyone contributing,” Zuberi said in a May 10, 2015, message.
“This is how America work,” he wrote the next day. “How Washington work.”


motherjones--2020-03-19--Donald Trump Just Adopted One of Progressives’ Biggest Demands for the Bailouts

During a Wednesday press conference , Donald Trump made a surprising admission : He didn ’ t want to see companies that receive any federal bailout money spend it on stock buybacks—a potential restriction that , so far , has mainly be advocated by the most liberal members of Congress .
A reporter asked the president if he would guarantee that the “ hundreds of billions of dollars ” that will potentially go to failing industries “ will not go to executive bonuses or to stock buybacks.
” “ Well , I don ’ t want that , ” Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies , as you know , did stock buybacks and I was never happy with that.
” Trump added that companies who had participated in buybacks “ could have waited a long time , and they would have been much better off if they didn ’ t. ” It was a surprising stance from president who essentially enabled those buybacks to happen .
The 2017 Republican tax bill , touted as the Trump administration ’ s crowning achievement , left American corporations flush with cash .
Those companies immediately funneled the money into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 , an act that served executives and wealthy investors and depleted cash reserves .
The airline industry , which has suffered heavily from canceled travel in the midst of the pandemic , spent a whopping 96 percent of their cash profits on stock buybacks , according to Bloomberg .
Liberal lawmakers have been pressuring the administration and their GOP colleagues to include a ban on stock buybacks in any industry bailouts , which are being heavily considered by the White House as the airline , travel , and related industry suffer demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spread of COVID-19 .
As I wrote earlier today , Congress ’ response to the 2008 economic crisis—which benefited the C-suite over workers —has served as a cautionary tale for those who see a similar pattern emerging as industry CEOs plead for rescue funds .
Any taxpayer money for bailouts , progressives argue , should include strings attached , including a ban on stock buybacks , dividends , and executive bonuses , as well as promises that that the money will be spent on employee salaries .
Trump ’ s declaration was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the White House that signaled an openness to an agenda favored by the country ’ s liberal lawmakers for responding to the crisis .
On Wednesday , Trump announced that he would invoke the Defense Production Act , a Korean War-era law that allows the government to mobilize military resources on behalf of civilian disaster .
But the Trump administration has yet to execute on that course of action .
Trump told reporters today that he was only preparing to do so , but hoped it wouldn ’ t come to that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar ambivalence about enforcing any government-mandated ban on the buybacks .
“ It ’ s very hard to tell them not to , but I would tell them not to , ” Trump said .
When a reporter followed up to say that Trump could make the aid conditional on a ban , Trump made no promises .
“ It takes many , many people in this case to tango , ” he said , “ but as far as I ’ m concerned , conditions like that would be okay with me @ @

During a Wednesday press conference, Donald Trump made a surprising admission: He didn’t want to see companies that receive any federal bailout money spend it on stock buybacks—a potential restriction that, so far, has mainly be advocated by the most liberal members of Congress.
A reporter asked the president if he would guarantee that the “hundreds of billions of dollars” that will potentially go to failing industries “will not go to executive bonuses or to stock buybacks.”
“Well, I don’t want that,” Trump replied. “In fact, some companies, as you know, did stock buybacks and I was never happy with that.” Trump added that companies who had participated in buybacks “could have waited a long time, and they would have been much better off if they didn’t.”
It was a surprising stance from president who essentially enabled those buybacks to happen. The 2017 Republican tax bill, touted as the Trump administration’s crowning achievement, left American corporations flush with cash. Those companies immediately funneled the money into a record number of stock buybacks in 2018, an act that served executives and wealthy investors and depleted cash reserves. The airline industry, which has suffered heavily from canceled travel in the midst of the pandemic, spent a whopping 96 percent of their cash profits on stock buybacks, according to Bloomberg.
Liberal lawmakers have been pressuring the administration and their GOP colleagues to include a ban on stock buybacks in any industry bailouts, which are being heavily considered by the White House as the airline, travel, and related industry suffer demand shock from the practices encouraged to slow the spread of COVID-19. As I wrote earlier today, Congress’ response to the 2008 economic crisis—which benefited the C-suite over workers —has served as a cautionary tale for those who see a similar pattern emerging as industry CEOs plead for rescue funds. Any taxpayer money for bailouts, progressives argue, should include strings attached, including a ban on stock buybacks, dividends, and executive bonuses, as well as promises that that the money will be spent on employee salaries.
96% of airline profits over the last decade went to buying up their own stocks to juice the price – not raising wages or other investments. If there is so much as a DIME of corporate bailout money in the next relief package, it should include a reinstated ban on stock buybacks. — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) March 17, 2020
Trump’s declaration was the latest in a week of moves from the White House that signaled an openness to an agenda favored by the country’s liberal lawmakers for responding to the crisis. On Wednesday, Trump announced that he would invoke the Defense Production Act, a Korean War-era law that allows the government to mobilize military resources on behalf of civilian disaster.
But the Trump administration has yet to execute on that course of action. Trump told reporters today that he was only preparing to do so, but hoped it wouldn’t come to that. And he seemed to signal a similar ambivalence about enforcing any government-mandated ban on the buybacks. “It’s very hard to tell them not to, but I would tell them not to,” Trump said.
When a reporter followed up to say that Trump could make the aid conditional on a ban, Trump made no promises. “It takes many, many people in this case to tango,” he said, “but as far as I’m concerned, conditions like that would be okay with me.”


motherjones--2020-03-19--Why Coronavirus Misinformation Is Out of Control

Unsubstantiated and outright false information about the coronavirus has been ripping across the internet .
Posts and text and email chains spreading misinformation have gone so viral that local law enforcement and federal agencies have had to issue public responses .
In normal times , news events are often interpreted differently by different political ideologies , with the bulk of misinformation siloed on one side of the political spectrum .
In the fall of 2018 , when a large group of immigrants , dubbed the migrant caravan , was traveling through Central America to the southern U.S. border , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the migrants , baselessly claiming that they were being funded by liberal megadonor George Soros and that they were carrying dangerous diseases .
Hoax theories about bomb scares targeting liberals , smears about Rep. Ilhan Omar marrying her brother , and baseless conspiracies about liberal elites involving Pizzagate and QAnon have also abounded on the right .
Misinformation can also happen on the left , but is usually contained within sub-factions .
Last month , a misinformed theory spread that Lis Smith , a spokesperson and top advisor on Pete Buttigieg ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pro-Buttigieg Nigerian burner account on Twitter .
The theory , which ended up being incorrect , largely spread in leftist and socialist circles .
But the coronavirus is creating a new , broader misinformation environment .
While news about the virus has played out differently along ideological lines , every ideology has fallen victim to or peddled misinformation .
On the right , the Fox News ecosystem and its digital adjuncts have peddled bad-faith disinformation underplaying the severity of the coronavirus and misrepresenting the Trump administration ’ s slow response .
Misinformation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as people with the best intentions share unsubstituted , misleading , or outright false information .
Hoaxes have spread about the New York Police Department locking down New York City and misinformation about humidity stymying the spread of coronavirus .
My own friends who tend to diligently follow the news and check their sources are joining in , and sharing misinformation with me .
On Monday night my roommate asserted that drinking water every 15 minutes would help slow the spread of the coronavirus—something that my Mother Jones colleague Abigail Weinberg debunked five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friend in New York confidently told me by phone that his sister had a buddy who worked in the NYPD , and had passed on word that police would shut down roads and transportation in the city that weekend .
It ended up being incorrect information from a viral hoax text chain .
Even journalists have succumbed to spreading information about the virus that they later regretted .
The Atlantic ’ s Alexis Madrigal shared a tweet linking notes an audience member made at a discussion about the virus involving staff from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but took it down after pushback questioning whether the information had been presented with adequate context .
Other journalists shared the notes on Twitter as well .
“ When a tweet goes that viral , the burden on it to be the best available source of information goes up , ” Madrigal wrote after deleting it .
Social media and disinformation researchers think that the coronavirus fears are blowing misinformation out to new levels , because of something of a perfect storm : More people are online than ever before , looking for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and lacking clear authoritative sources .
“ There ’ s an unprecedented amount of people searching for the same thing and posting about the same thing , ” Joan Donovan , director of the Harvard Shorenstein Center ’ s Technology and Social Change Research Project , told me over the phone .
“ When everyone is looking at the results of an NBA game , you have ways to see if that info is true or not true ; you can check NBA.com for the score .
Now we lack authority providing information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internet connection posting info and their fears .
This presents an incredible opportunity for foreign interference and grifters and misinformation.
” Indeed , nation-states , grifters , and misinformation have all thrived in this atmosphere .
Kate Starbird , a professor of human centered design and engineering at the University of Washington offered a similar analysis on Twitter .
“ This challenge [ of preventing misinformation ] becomes compounded when we lose trust in ‘ official ’ sources—e.g .
government agencies charged with managing the response , ” Starbird wrote in a tweet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dubious info and contradict their own agencies and scientists , this foments distrust and diminishes our collective ability to find the best information at this time—increasing uncertainty and anxiety , and even causing people to take the wrong actions.
” Part of the problem is that while the most prominent mouthpiece of the federal government—President Trump—has proven to be an unreliable narrator for a lot of information about the outbreak , he still is a major source of information that people pay attention to , even if they ’ re skeptical about him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a source who is known to have a fast and loose relationship with facts is pouring information out to the public with few filters .
“ This idea of gate crashing , that institutions can carry its message to the public without the press—that didn ’ t exist before , ” says Jennifer Grygiel , a communications professor at Syracuse University who specializes in social media and memes , explained to me .
Under Trump , other arms of the federal government have been reluctant to produce or pass on worthwhile information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the fact that people are anxious and desperate for any information , and you get a situation where people are willing to share almost anything , correct or not , that helps them make sense of what ’ s happening .
It ’ s something that human beings are more or less wired to do .
Drawing from research on the sociology of disaster , Kate Starbird describes this as “ collective sensemaking.
” “ In this crisis and others , sharing what we ’ ve heard is how we process traumatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assistant professor of communication and rhetorical studies at Syracuse University , wrote in a story for Wired .
“ It ’ s also a way to help those around us—at least , it ’ s a way to feel like we ’ re helping.
” When the information is correct , it does help .
But right now a lot of what ’ s spreading around is not .

Unsubstantiated and outright false information about the coronavirus has been ripping across the internet. Posts and text and email chains spreading misinformation have gone so viral that local law enforcement and federal agencies have had to issue public responses.
In normal times, news events are often interpreted differently by different political ideologies, with the bulk of misinformation siloed on one side of the political spectrum. In the fall of 2018, when a large group of immigrants, dubbed the migrant caravan, was traveling through Central America to the southern U.S. border, a slew of conservatives spread misinformation and disinformation about the migrants, baselessly claiming that they were being funded by liberal megadonor George Soros and that they were carrying dangerous diseases. Hoax theories about bomb scares targeting liberals, smears about Rep. Ilhan Omar marrying her brother, and baseless conspiracies about liberal elites involving Pizzagate and QAnon have also abounded on the right.
More people are online than ever before, looking for information on exactly the same thing.
Misinformation can also happen on the left, but is usually contained within sub-factions. Last month, a misinformed theory spread that Lis Smith, a spokesperson and top advisor on Pete Buttigieg’s 2020 presidential campaign, was running a pro-Buttigieg Nigerian burner account on Twitter. The theory, which ended up being incorrect, largely spread in leftist and socialist circles.
But the coronavirus is creating a new, broader misinformation environment. While news about the virus has played out differently along ideological lines, every ideology has fallen victim to or peddled misinformation.
On the right, the Fox News ecosystem and its digital adjuncts have peddled bad-faith disinformation underplaying the severity of the coronavirus and misrepresenting the Trump administration’s slow response. Misinformation has also hit left-wing and apolitical circles as people with the best intentions share unsubstantiated, misleading, or outright false information. Hoaxes have spread about the New York Police Department locking down New York City and misinformation about humidity stymying the spread of coronavirus.
My own friends who tend to diligently follow the news and check their sources are joining in, and sharing misinformation with me. On Monday night my roommate asserted that drinking water every 15 minutes would help slow the spread of the coronavirus—something that my Mother Jones colleague Abigail Weinberg debunked five days before. On Saturday, a friend in New York confidently told me by phone that his sister had a buddy who worked in the NYPD, and had passed on word that police would shut down roads and transportation in the city that weekend. It ended up being incorrect information from a viral hoax text chain.
Even journalists have succumbed to spreading information about the virus that they later regretted. The Atlantic’s Alexis Madrigal shared a tweet linking notes an audience member made at a discussion about the virus involving staff from the University of California at San Francisco, but took it down after pushback questioning whether the information had been presented with adequate context. Other journalists shared the notes on Twitter as well. “When a tweet goes that viral, the burden on it to be the best available source of information goes up,” Madrigal wrote after deleting it.
Social media and disinformation researchers think that the coronavirus fears are blowing misinformation out to new levels, because of something of a perfect storm: More people are online than ever before, looking for information on exactly the same thing, and lacking clear authoritative sources.
President Trump—who has proven to be an unreliable narrator—is still a major source of information.
“There’s an unprecedented amount of people searching for the same thing and posting about the same thing,” Joan Donovan, director of the Harvard Shorenstein Center’s Technology and Social Change Research Project, told me over the phone. “When everyone is looking at the results of an NBA game, you have ways to see if that info is true or not true; you can check NBA.com for the score. Now we lack authority providing information, and you have everyone with an internet connection posting info and their fears. This presents an incredible opportunity for foreign interference and grifters and misinformation.” Indeed, nation-states, grifters, and misinformation have all thrived in this atmosphere.
Kate Starbird, a professor of human centered design and engineering at the University of Washington offered a similar analysis on Twitter.
“This challenge [of preventing misinformation] becomes compounded when we lose trust in ‘official’ sources—e.g. government agencies charged with managing the response,” Starbird wrote in a tweet thread. “When elected leaders share dubious info and contradict their own agencies and scientists, this foments distrust and diminishes our collective ability to find the best information at this time—increasing uncertainty and anxiety, and even causing people to take the wrong actions.”
Part of the problem is that while the most prominent mouthpiece of the federal government—President Trump—has proven to be an unreliable narrator for a lot of information about the outbreak, he still is a major source of information that people pay attention to, even if they’re skeptical about him and his pronouncements. When he speaks, a source who is known to have a fast and loose relationship with facts is pouring information out to the public with few filters.
“This idea of gate crashing, that institutions can carry its message to the public without the press—that didn’t exist before,” says Jennifer Grygiel, a communications professor at Syracuse University who specializes in social media and memes, explained to me.
Under Trump, other arms of the federal government have been reluctant to produce or pass on worthwhile information. Add the lack of authoritative information to the fact that people are anxious and desperate for any information, and you get a situation where people are willing to share almost anything, correct or not, that helps them make sense of what’s happening.
It’s something that human beings are more or less wired to do. Drawing from research on the sociology of disaster, Kate Starbird describes this as “collective sensemaking.”
“In this crisis and others, sharing what we’ve heard is how we process traumatic events,” Whitney Phillips, an assistant professor of communication and rhetorical studies at Syracuse University, wrote in a story for Wired. “It’s also a way to help those around us—at least, it’s a way to feel like we’re helping.”
When the information is correct, it does help. But right now a lot of what’s spreading around is not.


motherjones--2020-03-19--Congress Is Gearing up to Give Corporations a Ton of Bailout Cash. Progressives Hope They Learned Le

Congress Is Gearing up to Give Corporations a Ton of Bailout Cash. Progressives Hope They Learned Lessons from the Last Time.

When I reached Sara Nelson on Wednesday morning , there was an anxious sharpness to her usual no-nonsense delivery .
The president of the Association of Flight Attendants—a major figure in organized labor , who is expected by many to someday helm the AFL-CIO—has been living with the gravity of a global pandemic for much longer than most Americans .
“ We started working on this issue in January , ” Nelson tells me , explaining that airlines ’ pulldown of Asia-bound flights during that time immediately slowed her industry ’ s cash flow .
“ If we don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the airlines are going to run out of the ability to provide payroll in two months , if not sooner.
” Now , Nelson is seeking a bailout for the airline industry .
But don ’ t call it that , she says , and if she gets her way it wouldn ’ t follow any of the contours of what banks and other industries received in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis .
She wants federal relief for the airline industry to go directly into the pockets of its employees ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on stock buybacks , dividends , and executive bonuses , as well as strengthened union protections that don ’ t allow corporations to use any government money to “ limp along until they file for bankruptcy.
” Nelson has been in close contact with fellow union leaders in the retail and hospitality industries who are hopeful that her union ’ s asks can be a model for other sectors that find themselves similarly cash-strapped during the pandemic .
“ We have experienced a crisis like this before , and we know that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make a crisis work for them , ” she says .
“ If you keep the paychecks going for workers , they can help themselves.
” For the last week , industry CEOs and their lobbying arms have been parading in and out of the Oval Office to express worry about what the sudden demand shock of the COVID-19 crisis has done to their bottom lines .
Airports have asked for $ 10 billion , and public transportation officials estimate they ’ ll need $ 13 billion .
The hotel industry seeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the head of the US Travel Association thinks the travel industry as a whole needs $ 100 billion on top of that .
On Wednesday , the Washington Post reported that the Treasury Department was eyeing an estimated $ 200 billion to prop up the airlines and various sectors of the travel industry .
These recent scenes at the White House bear heavy similarity to the wake of the 2008 financial collapse , when the banks received massive sums of taxpayer-funded rescue money , and have already drawn the watchful eye of progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) tweeted that “ [ i ] f there is so much as a DIME of corporate bailout money in the next relief package , it should include a reinstated ban on stock buybacks , ” the practice of using a company ’ s liquid cash to repurchase shares , which typically benefits executives and wealthy investors .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
told her Twitter followers that Congress is “ not writing blank checks to giant corporations ” and shared a list of demands for any company that receives federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a requirement to keep employees on payroll and the need for a congressional oversight body modeled on the panel she served on in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis .
If progressives can ’ t stop history from rhyming , they ’ re determined to stop it from repeating : If there will be money given to save industries , it will have strings attached .
“ People need to be prepared to learn the lessons of the past to resist these bailouts , ” says Andy Green , the managing director at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who worked as a staffer on the Senate Banking committee during the 2009 recovery .
The downsides to the last major bailout were already in the news this year thanks to the 2020 Democratic primary .
Warren premised much of her campaign on that point ; she said “ Washington has showered big banks with favors ” and released regulatory proposals that made banks fear her candidacy .
In nearly every stump speech , Bernie Sanders offered a variation on this theme : “ The American people bailed out Wall Street .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come to the aid of the middle class.
” And last week , when rumors percolated that the Trump administration would seek a cash infusion for the oil industry to compensate for market downturns , progressives preemptively objected .
“ Not only is he trying to focus on corporations and , really , corporate interests , but also doing things that are illogical , like trying to bail out [ the ] oil industry that you know are completely unrelated , ” Rep. Mark Pocan ( D-Wisc . )
, a co-chair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buzzfeed , comparing the idea to the 2008 crisis .
It wasn ’ t necessarily that simple .
The banks truly were too big to fail , says Amanda Fischer , the policy director for the Washington Center for Equitable Growth , a progressive think tank , who also worked for the House ’ s Financial Services committee during the ‘ 08 crisis .
Their failure could have deepened the recession , and rescuing them was the only thing to do .
“ What I think is wrong is how we did it—how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead of immediately helping families , ” Fischer tells me .
“ And we did not accomplish enough structural reform to address root causes like inequality , so we walk into the next recession having repeated the same mistakes.
” Fischer says that the lack of structural reforms is what ’ s at the root of the economic woes the pandemic has brought upon travel- and transportation-heavy industries .
She points to a May 2019 credit analysis of American Airlines—the most recent one available—that calls the airline “ one of the highest-leveraged…because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its shares.
” The analysis notes a company policy of repurchasing shares when its cash on hand reaches $ 7 billion , leaving American a small cushion to deal with hard times .
The practice is industry-wide : US airlines spent 96 percent of their cash profits on stock buybacks , according to Bloomberg .
Thanks to the Trump tax cuts , which left businesses flush with cash , corporate buybacks across the US economy reached a record high in 2018 .
“ The private sector received a massive bailout in the form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deserve zero of a bailout right now , ” Green says .
“ American Airlines isn ’ t to blame for the pandemic , but the fact that they have been looting the company with buybacks and now have a weaker cushion against loss—the blame ’ s on them for that , ” Fischer says .
“ There has to be a better way than draining the company of its money in good times , but asking the taxpayer for money in hard times.
” ( In addition to federal assistance , American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a year-long , multi-billion-dollar loan . )
This isn ’ t to say that money shouldn ’ t go directly to the companies themselves .
The progressive economists , experts , and activists I spoke with are skeptical of the one-time payments of $ 1,000 or more that the White House and lawmakers of both parties have proposed .
AFA ’ s Nelson argues that the practice would increase inequity between salaried and hourly wage people , and that it would be better to maintain the income people already receive .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gives them health care , ” she adds , “ and the government then reduces the number of people it would otherwise have to care for in another way.
” So they argue that money should be funneled to industries—but it should go directly to help workers whose incomes are now in jeopardy .
CAP ’ s Green says there are some decent takeaways from the 2008 bailout of the American automotive industry , which included provisions that strengthened union protections .
He adds that there should be strict limits on “ golden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporate executives in the case of company mergers or takeovers—and executive bonuses .
Fischer says it ’ s also the time to make those structural changes the pandemic has revealed .
At a House Democratic caucus meeting last week , her colleagues Jason Furman and Claudia Sahm* presented lawmakers with a series of recession-ready “ automatic stabilizer ” reforms that would inject money into the economy in a downturn and withdraw it once it stabilizes .
There ’ s no guarantee that anything too bold will make its way to the president ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spend money must originate in the House , where the ruling Democratic Party has shown little appetite to repeat mistakes from 2008 .
A spokesperson for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Politico that “ protecting workers ’ paychecks and benefits ” has been her top priority in negotiations she ’ s had with Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin .
At the same time , the desire to make grand structural changes beyond the scope of emergency relief money seems limited to the House ’ s most progressive members , who do not have powerful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisions are being made .
And , of course , anything would also have to pass the GOP-held Senate and get the White House ’ s approval .
*This story has been corrected to reflect the fact that Claudia Sahm , Washington Center for Equitable Growth ’ s director of macroeconomic policy—not Fischer—presented at the House Democratic caucus meeting last week .

When I reached Sara Nelson on Wednesday morning, there was an anxious sharpness to her usual no-nonsense delivery. The president of the Association of Flight Attendants—a major figure in organized labor, who is expected by many to someday helm the AFL-CIO—has been living with the gravity of a global pandemic for much longer than most Americans. “We started working on this issue in January,” Nelson tells me, explaining that airlines’ pulldown of Asia-bound flights during that time immediately slowed her industry’s cash flow. “If we don’t get this relief right now, the airlines are going to run out of the ability to provide payroll in two months, if not sooner.”
Now, Nelson is seeking a bailout for the airline industry. But don’t call it that, she says, and if she gets her way it wouldn’t follow any of the contours of what banks and other industries received in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. She wants federal relief for the airline industry to go directly into the pockets of its employees; alongside it, she wants a ban on stock buybacks, dividends, and executive bonuses, as well as strengthened union protections that don’t allow corporations to use any government money to “limp along until they file for bankruptcy.”
Nelson has been in close contact with fellow union leaders in the retail and hospitality industries who are hopeful that her union’s asks can be a model for other sectors that find themselves similarly cash-strapped during the pandemic. “We have experienced a crisis like this before, and we know that the people with money in control will try to make a crisis work for them,” she says. “If you keep the paychecks going for workers, they can help themselves.”
For the last week, industry CEOs and their lobbying arms have been parading in and out of the Oval Office to express worry about what the sudden demand shock of the COVID-19 crisis has done to their bottom lines. Airports have asked for $10 billion, and public transportation officials estimate they’ll need $13 billion. The hotel industry seeks a whopping $150 billion, and the head of the US Travel Association thinks the travel industry as a whole needs $100 billion on top of that. On Wednesday, the Washington Post reported that the Treasury Department was eyeing an estimated $200 billion to prop up the airlines and various sectors of the travel industry.
“We have experienced a crisis like this before, and we know that the people with money in control will try to make a crisis work for them.”
These recent scenes at the White House bear heavy similarity to the wake of the 2008 financial collapse, when the banks received massive sums of taxpayer-funded rescue money, and have already drawn the watchful eye of progressive lawmakers. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) tweeted that “[i]f there is so much as a DIME of corporate bailout money in the next relief package, it should include a reinstated ban on stock buybacks,” the practice of using a company’s liquid cash to repurchase shares, which typically benefits executives and wealthy investors. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told her Twitter followers that Congress is “not writing blank checks to giant corporations” and shared a list of demands for any company that receives federal money in the coming weeks, including a requirement to keep employees on payroll and the need for a congressional oversight body modeled on the panel she served on in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis.
If progressives can’t stop history from rhyming, they’re determined to stop it from repeating: If there will be money given to save industries, it will have strings attached. “People need to be prepared to learn the lessons of the past to resist these bailouts,” says Andy Green, the managing director at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, who worked as a staffer on the Senate Banking committee during the 2009 recovery.
The downsides to the last major bailout were already in the news this year thanks to the 2020 Democratic primary. Warren premised much of her campaign on that point; she said “Washington has showered big banks with favors” and released regulatory proposals that made banks fear her candidacy. In nearly every stump speech, Bernie Sanders offered a variation on this theme: “The American people bailed out Wall Street. Now, it is time for Wall Street to come to the aid of the middle class.” And last week, when rumors percolated that the Trump administration would seek a cash infusion for the oil industry to compensate for market downturns, progressives preemptively objected. “Not only is he trying to focus on corporations and, really, corporate interests, but also doing things that are illogical, like trying to bail out [the] oil industry that you know are completely unrelated,” Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.), a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told Buzzfeed, comparing the idea to the 2008 crisis.
It wasn’t necessarily that simple. The banks truly were too big to fail, says Amanda Fischer, the policy director for the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, a progressive think tank, who also worked for the House’s Financial Services committee during the ‘08 crisis. Their failure could have deepened the recession, and rescuing them was the only thing to do. “What I think is wrong is how we did it—how we mediated the aid through the banks instead of immediately helping families,” Fischer tells me. “And we did not accomplish enough structural reform to address root causes like inequality, so we walk into the next recession having repeated the same mistakes.”
“There has to be a better way than draining the company of its money in good times, but asking the taxpayer for money in hard times.”
Fischer says that the lack of structural reforms is what’s at the root of the economic woes the pandemic has brought upon travel- and transportation-heavy industries. She points to a May 2019 credit analysis of American Airlines—the most recent one available—that calls the airline “one of the highest-leveraged…because of its heavy reliance on debt for repurchasing its shares.” The analysis notes a company policy of repurchasing shares when its cash on hand reaches $7 billion, leaving American a small cushion to deal with hard times.
The practice is industry-wide: US airlines spent 96 percent of their cash profits on stock buybacks, according to Bloomberg. Thanks to the Trump tax cuts, which left businesses flush with cash, corporate buybacks across the US economy reached a record high in 2018. “The private sector received a massive bailout in the form of Trump tax cuts in 2017 and deserve zero of a bailout right now,” Green says.
“American Airlines isn’t to blame for the pandemic, but the fact that they have been looting the company with buybacks and now have a weaker cushion against loss—the blame’s on them for that,” Fischer says. “There has to be a better way than draining the company of its money in good times, but asking the taxpayer for money in hard times.” (In addition to federal assistance, American American airlines is also currently asking banks for a year-long, multi-billion-dollar loan.)
This isn’t to say that money shouldn’t go directly to the companies themselves. The progressive economists, experts, and activists I spoke with are skeptical of the one-time payments of $1,000 or more that the White House and lawmakers of both parties have proposed. AFA’s Nelson argues that the practice would increase inequity between salaried and hourly wage people, and that it would be better to maintain the income people already receive. “When people have jobs, that also gives them health care,” she adds, “and the government then reduces the number of people it would otherwise have to care for in another way.”
So they argue that money should be funneled to industries—but it should go directly to help workers whose incomes are now in jeopardy. CAP’s Green says there are some decent takeaways from the 2008 bailout of the American automotive industry, which included provisions that strengthened union protections. He adds that there should be strict limits on “golden parachutes”—the cushy packages given to corporate executives in the case of company mergers or takeovers—and executive bonuses. Fischer says it’s also the time to make those structural changes the pandemic has revealed. At a House Democratic caucus meeting last week, her colleagues Jason Furman and Claudia Sahm* presented lawmakers with a series of recession-ready “automatic stabilizer” reforms that would inject money into the economy in a downturn and withdraw it once it stabilizes.
There’s no guarantee that anything too bold will make its way to the president’s desk, however. Bills to spend money must originate in the House, where the ruling Democratic Party has shown little appetite to repeat mistakes from 2008. A spokesperson for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Politico that “protecting workers’ paychecks and benefits” has been her top priority in negotiations she’s had with Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. At the same time, the desire to make grand structural changes beyond the scope of emergency relief money seems limited to the House’s most progressive members, who do not have powerful leadership positions, where many of these decisions are being made. And, of course, anything would also have to pass the GOP-held Senate and get the White House’s approval.
*This story has been corrected to reflect the fact that Claudia Sahm, Washington Center for Equitable Growth’s director of macroeconomic policy—not Fischer—presented at the House Democratic caucus meeting last week.


motherjones--2020-03-20--Will Donald Trump Bail Out His Coronavirus-Battered Company?

On Tuesday afternoon , Donald Trump sat down with hotel executives who pleaded with the president to assist the beleaguered hospitality industry with a multibillion-dollar bailout .
The meeting , also attended by Vice President Mike Pence and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross , highlighted a massive conflict of interest : Trump derives much of his fortune from hotels and golf clubs , and his properties have been battered by the coronavirus outbreak .
If he bails out the hotel industry , he will also be bailing out himself .
Trump has made money many different ways over the years—or tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and resorts have been the mainstay of his personal wealth .
Though Trump made big bucks in the last decade selling condos and other properties , that business has almost entirely dried up since he became president .
His once-lucrative reality TV career is also on hold .
But Trump ’ s 11 hotels and 16 golf resorts have continued to produce revenue in recent years .
Of the $ 434 million in revenue the president disclosed in 2018 , at least $ 336 million came from his hotels , resorts , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too early in the year for the full impact of the coronavirus on the golf industry to be determined .
A number of Trump courses are located in areas where the golf season hasn ’ t even started .
But according to the hotel industry leaders who met with Trump , their properties are already being decimated by the crisis .
In the meeting , the hotel execs asked for a $ 150 billion bailout .
Christopher Nassetta , chief executive officer of Hilton Worldwide , one of the world ’ s largest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his company planned to close , at least temporarily , almost all of its operations in major cities .
“ Hilton ’ s been around 100 years—we ’ ve never closed a hotel that wasn ’ t going to be demolished or rebuilding , ” Nassetta said .
“ The bulk of our hotels in the major cities are closing as we speak.
” Nassetta estimated that occupancy rates for hotels globally could fall to 10 to 15 percent .
To put that in context , Jan A. deRoos , a professor emeritus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cornell University , told Mother Jones that high-end hotels ( like those the Trump Organization operates ) require somewhere around a 60 percent occupancy rate to break even .
The sunk costs of running a hotel are huge , he explained .
They include keeping the building open and employing housekeeping and maintenance staff , whether rooms are full or not .
If a hotel maintains a good occupancy rate , it can be extremely profitable .
If it doesn ’ t , deRoos said , it can go downhill fast .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And many weren ’ t faring too well already .
Business at the Trump Doral golf resort in Florida slumped 18 percent between 2015 and 2017 , for instance .
But the pandemic is now slamming some of Trump ’ s most reliable moneymakers .
That includes Trump ’ s luxury hotel in DC , which earned $ 40.2 million in revenue in 2018 .
That figure includes sales at the hotel ’ s popular steakhouse and its Benjamin Bar & Lounge , a pricey hangout popular with Beltway conservatives , lobbyists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hotel is still open for business , but DC Mayor Muriel Bowser has ordered that all restaurants and bars close through the end of the month ( except for takeout or delivery ) , effectively shuttering this conservative clubhouse .
Trump ’ s Mar-a-Lago resort has been another stalwart in his portfolio .
In 2018 , it earned $ 22.6 million in revenue , in no small part because of the president ’ s habit of visiting it nearly every weekend throughout the winter .
But Trump ’ s insistence on using Mar-a-Lago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also brought coronavirus right to his door .
Last week , Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro visited Mar-a-Lago accompanied by three people who later tested positive for the virus .
As a result , Trump was tested for the virus .
( He was negative , according to the White House doctor . )
The club closed on Monday for a deep clean .
On Wednesday , it told members it would temporarily close its main dining services , spa , gym , and guest rooms .
Other parts of the club will remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its capacity .
The club ’ s lucrative sideline as a location for galas and large events also seems to be on pause ( the Trump Organization did not respond to requests for comment ) .
A fundraiser scheduled for this weekend ( and described as the largest daytime event the club hosts each year ) was postponed indefinitely .
And the president himself has said that Americans should limit gatherings to no more than 10 people .
On Tuesday , the general manager of Trump ’ s Bedminster , New Jersey , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to spend many of his summer weekends , announced it would close its facilities with the exception of one its golf courses—which can be utilized only if players walk the course ( instead of using shared golf carts ) and carry their own bags .
“ These are unusual times , stay safe , and we will update you as events develop .
If we can do anything for you please let us know .
Wash your hands !
” wrote David Schutzenhofer , the club ’ s manager .
Mother Jones contacted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see whether Trump ’ s company would participate in any potential hotel industry bailout and whether Trump was taking any steps to deal with this potential conflict of interest .
Neither responded .

On Tuesday afternoon, Donald Trump sat down with hotel executives who pleaded with the president to assist the beleaguered hospitality industry with a multibillion-dollar bailout. The meeting, also attended by Vice President Mike Pence and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, highlighted a massive conflict of interest: Trump derives much of his fortune from hotels and golf clubs, and his properties have been battered by the coronavirus outbreak. If he bails out the hotel industry, he will also be bailing out himself.
Trump has made money many different ways over the years—or tried to—but since taking office, his hotels and resorts have been the mainstay of his personal wealth. Though Trump made big bucks in the last decade selling condos and other properties, that business has almost entirely dried up since he became president. His once-lucrative reality TV career is also on hold. But Trump’s 11 hotels and 16 golf resorts have continued to produce revenue in recent years. Of the $434 million in revenue the president disclosed in 2018, at least $336 million came from his hotels, resorts, and golf clubs.
It’s still too early in the year for the full impact of the coronavirus on the golf industry to be determined. A number of Trump courses are located in areas where the golf season hasn’t even started. But according to the hotel industry leaders who met with Trump, their properties are already being decimated by the crisis. In the meeting, the hotel execs asked for a $150 billion bailout.
Christopher Nassetta, chief executive officer of Hilton Worldwide, one of the world’s largest hotel chains, told the president that his company planned to close, at least temporarily, almost all of its operations in major cities. “Hilton’s been around 100 years—we’ve never closed a hotel that wasn’t going to be demolished or rebuilding,” Nassetta said. “The bulk of our hotels in the major cities are closing as we speak.” Nassetta estimated that occupancy rates for hotels globally could fall to 10 to 15 percent.
To put that in context, Jan A. deRoos, a professor emeritus of hotel finance and real estate at Cornell University, told Mother Jones that high-end hotels (like those the Trump Organization operates) require somewhere around a 60 percent occupancy rate to break even. The sunk costs of running a hotel are huge, he explained. They include keeping the building open and employing housekeeping and maintenance staff ,whether rooms are full or not. If a hotel maintains a good occupancy rate, it can be extremely profitable. If it doesn’t, deRoos said, it can go downhill fast.
The outbreak is already hitting Trump properties—and hard. And many weren’t faring too well already. Business at the Trump Doral golf resort in Florida slumped 18 percent between 2015 and 2017, for instance. But the pandemic is now slamming some of Trump’s most reliable moneymakers. That includes Trump’s luxury hotel in DC, which earned $40.2 million in revenue in 2018. That figure includes sales at the hotel’s popular steakhouse and its Benjamin Bar & Lounge, a pricey hangout popular with Beltway conservatives, lobbyists, and various Trumpworld figures. The hotel is still open for business, but DC Mayor Muriel Bowser has ordered that all restaurants and bars close through the end of the month (except for takeout or delivery), effectively shuttering this conservative clubhouse.
Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort has been another stalwart in his portfolio. In 2018, it earned $22.6 million in revenue, in no small part because of the president’s habit of visiting it nearly every weekend throughout the winter. But Trump’s insistence on using Mar-a-Lago as the “Winter White House” also brought coronavirus right to his door. Last week, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro visited Mar-a-Lago accompanied by three people who later tested positive for the virus. As a result, Trump was tested for the virus. (He was negative, according to the White House doctor.) The club closed on Monday for a deep clean. On Wednesday, it told members it would temporarily close its main dining services, spa, gym, and guest rooms. Other parts of the club will remain open, but under state restrictions limiting its capacity.
The club’s lucrative sideline as a location for galas and large events also seems to be on pause (the Trump Organization did not respond to requests for comment). A fundraiser scheduled for this weekend (and described as the largest daytime event the club hosts each year) was postponed indefinitely. And the president himself has said that Americans should limit gatherings to no more than 10 people.
On Tuesday, the general manager of Trump’s Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club, where the president likes to spend many of his summer weekends, announced it would close its facilities with the exception of one its golf courses—which can be utilized only if players walk the course (instead of using shared golf carts) and carry their own bags.
“These are unusual times, stay safe, and we will update you as events develop. If we can do anything for you please let us know. Wash your hands!” wrote David Schutzenhofer, the club’s manager.
Mother Jones contacted the White House and the Trump Organization to see whether Trump’s company would participate in any potential hotel industry bailout and whether Trump was taking any steps to deal with this potential conflict of interest. Neither responded.


motherjones--2020-03-20--The Coronavirus Outbreak Could Be a Disaster for the Census

Counting every person in the United States is usually a social endeavor .
Grassroots organizers and civic leaders canvass their neighborhoods to encourage people to respond to the once-every-10-years census .
A fleet of door-knockers , known as enumerators , hired by the Census Bureau visits the homes of people in hard-to-count communities .
Other Census Bureau employees count people living on the streets or in homeless shelters in an undertaking that requires constant face-to-face interaction with vulnerable populations .
The entire operation , which determines the allotment of congressional seats , Electoral College votes , and about $ 1.5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 years , has come under threat with the spread of the novel coronavirus .
The original plan for this year ’ s constitutionally mandated headcount went something like this : In mid-March , the Census Bureau sends mailers to people ’ s homes encouraging them to take the census online .
( This is the first year the census has been offered digitally . )
On March 30 and April 1 , the Census Bureau works with community-based organizations to count people experiencing homelessness .
On April 9 , early nonresponse followup @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respond to the census at their school-year residences—where they live most of the time—before they move elsewhere for the summer .
And , in mid-May , door-knocking begins in force to ensure that every person living in the United States is counted by the July 31 census deadline .
But that timeline , 10 years in the making , just happens to overlap with a pandemic that has affected every aspect of American society and whose end date is unknown .
The Census Bureau is encouraging everyone to participate online if possible while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect public health amid execution of a public good .
On Wednesday , the Census Bureau announced that it would suspend field operations until April 1 , amid the coronavirus outbreak .
This will predominantly impact two efforts , according to the New York Times : outreach to 6.2 million households with unconventional addresses , including Native American reservations , and the national homelessness count .
Counting each of these populations requires just the sort of in-person contact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are discouraging—and , as NPR points out , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to recruit are members of the group most at risk from the coronavirus : retirees over age 60 .
In 2010 , 72 percent of households responded to the census before April 27 , leaving census takers to visit more than a quarter of residences .
In New York City , the self-response rate was less than 62 percent .
The early nonresponse followup has been delayed from April 9 to April 23 , but it ’ s unclear when the homelessness count will take place .
“ The Bureau has the ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the crisis , ” explains Beth Lynk , the director of the Census Counts campaign at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights .
“ We are monitoring that and educating communities when things are shifting , and making sure that folks have the information that they need to participate.
” That means , for example , telling college students who may have been sent home from campus that they should still report their address as their college dorm , the place they spend most of the year and where they would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Census Bureau said in a press release earlier this week that it was asking schools to remind students to respond .
Educating communities also means intensive outreach through phone calls and advertising to urge historically undercounted populations , including Black and Brown people , the LGBTQ community , and people who don ’ t speak English as a first language , to self-report the census .
“ The reality is , we know that there is an undercount among particular communities every census , Lynk says , “ and so we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ census outreach often means community engagement on a scale that simply can ’ t happen during a pandemic .
In New York ’ s Jackson Heights neighborhood , for example , dozens of volunteers gathered in a public school cafeteria last week to plan how they would encourage their neighbors to participate .
People crowded around blown-up maps of each neighborhood , identifying houses of worship , banks , and markets where they could set up Mobile Questionnaire Assistance booths to help people navigate the technology needed to respond to the census online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Out The Count ” parties on March 22 where groups of friends gathered to send the online census form to hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers using a peer-to-peer texting app .
On April 18 , the city had planned a Day of Action when New Yorkers would canvass their neighborhoods to get people counted and lighten the burden of the federal volunteers .
A week later , all of these plans have fallen apart .
“ As a Mayoral Initiative , NYC Census 2020 will follow the directives and guidelines of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Center for Disease Control , ” says Julie Menin , the NYC Census director .
“ This means we will not be holding any in-person gatherings or street canvassing .
Our town halls , teach-ins , and phone- and text-banking will all be held remotely , through video conferencing whenever possible.
” Marc Morial , the president of the National Urban League and former mayor of New Orleans , worries that the current chaos could result in an undercount .
“ The hard-to-count , which in too many instances waits on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he says .
“ The door-knocker program is scheduled to begin in May .
They ’ re doing hiring now , training now .
All of that is going to be negatively affected by the pandemic and the states of emergency.
” Morial , along with several Democratic members of Congress , including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-N.Y. ) , has suggested that the Census Bureau take the unprecedented step of extending the deadline past July 31 .
“ It ’ s not going to be fair to people , and fair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that program off after this period of time , ” Morial says .
“ It ’ s not difficult for the census to extend the time period that people have to respond.
” But Lynk says that while the Census Bureau ’ s operations may shift slightly to adapt to the pandemic , extending the census deadline would require an act of Congress .
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights outlines a number of challenges to extending the census , beyond the difficulty of meeting the December 1 deadline for reporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from April 1 someone reports , the less accurate his or her recall is likely to be ; major weather events like hurricanes , which could disrupt enumeration , tend to take place in the later months ; data collection should be consistent across the country ; and a delay might make it harder to count mobile populations like migrant farmworkers .
The challenges , it seems , are endless .
Census advocates all agree on one thing : the safest , most accurate way for people to be counted is to self-report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re really doubling down on elevating the importance of the fact that everyone ’ s responding to the 2020 census on their own , online , by phone , or with the paper questionnaire , ” Lynk says .
And in New York City , where 3,615 people have tested positive for the virus , and gatherings of more than 50 people have been banned , the message is the same .
“ The census is how we invest in our communities ’ health .
For example , census data determines allocations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health insurance for children ) and hospitals , ” says Menin .
“ What ’ s more , it ’ s how we get the foundational data that public health experts use to plan for and manage situations like COVID-19 .
”

Counting every person in the United States is usually a social endeavor.
Grassroots organizers and civic leaders canvass their neighborhoods to encourage people to respond to the once-every-10-years census. A fleet of door-knockers, known as enumerators, hired by the Census Bureau visits the homes of people in hard-to-count communities. Other Census Bureau employees count people living on the streets or in homeless shelters in an undertaking that requires constant face-to-face interaction with vulnerable populations.
The entire operation, which determines the allotment of congressional seats, Electoral College votes, and about $1.5 trillion in federal funding for the next 10 years, has come under threat with the spread of the novel coronavirus.
The original plan for this year’s constitutionally mandated headcount went something like this: In mid-March, the Census Bureau sends mailers to people’s homes encouraging them to take the census online. (This is the first year the census has been offered digitally.) On March 30 and April 1, the Census Bureau works with community-based organizations to count people experiencing homelessness. On April 9, early nonresponse followup targets college students who are required to respond to the census at their school-year residences—where they live most of the time—before they move elsewhere for the summer. And, in mid-May, door-knocking begins in force to ensure that every person living in the United States is counted by the July 31 census deadline.
But that timeline, 10 years in the making, just happens to overlap with a pandemic that has affected every aspect of American society and whose end date is unknown. The Census Bureau is encouraging everyone to participate online if possible while scrambling internally to adjust its operations to protect public health amid execution of a public good.
On Wednesday, the Census Bureau announced that it would suspend field operations until April 1, amid the coronavirus outbreak. This will predominantly impact two efforts, according to the New York Times: outreach to 6.2 million households with unconventional addresses, including Native American reservations, and the national homelessness count. Counting each of these populations requires just the sort of in-person contact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are discouraging—and, as NPR points out, the volunteers that the Census Bureau tends to recruit are members of the group most at risk from the coronavirus: retirees over age 60.
“The census is how we invest in our communities’ health.”
In 2010, 72 percent of households responded to the census before April 27, leaving census takers to visit more than a quarter of residences. In New York City, the self-response rate was less than 62 percent.
The early nonresponse followup has been delayed from April 9 to April 23, but it’s unclear when the homelessness count will take place.
“The Bureau has the ability to shift operations in the wake of the crisis,” explains Beth Lynk, the director of the Census Counts campaign at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “We are monitoring that and educating communities when things are shifting, and making sure that folks have the information that they need to participate.”
That means, for example, telling college students who may have been sent home from campus that they should still report their address as their college dorm, the place they spend most of the year and where they would normally reside on April 1. The Census Bureau said in a press release earlier this week that it was asking schools to remind students to respond. Educating communities also means intensive outreach through phone calls and advertising to urge historically undercounted populations, including Black and Brown people, the LGBTQ community, and people who don’t speak English as a first language, to self-report the census.
“The reality is, we know that there is an undercount among particular communities every census, Lynk says, “and so we’re already fighting an uphill battle.”
Effective census outreach often means community engagement on a scale that simply can’t happen during a pandemic. In New York’s Jackson Heights neighborhood, for example, dozens of volunteers gathered in a public school cafeteria last week to plan how they would encourage their neighbors to participate. People crowded around blown-up maps of each neighborhood, identifying houses of worship, banks, and markets where they could set up Mobile Questionnaire Assistance booths to help people navigate the technology needed to respond to the census online. There were to be “Text Out the Count” parties on March 22 where groups of friends gathered to send the online census form to hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers using a peer-to-peer texting app. On April 18, the city had planned a Day of Action when New Yorkers would canvass their neighborhoods to get people counted and lighten the burden of the federal volunteers.
A week later, these plans have mostly fallen apart. “As a Mayoral Initiative, NYC Census 2020 will follow the directives and guidelines of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the Center for Disease Control,” says Julie Menin, the NYC Census director. “This means we will not be holding any in-person gatherings or street canvassing. Our town halls, teach-ins, and phone- and text-banking will all be held remotely, through video conferencing whenever possible.”
Marc Morial, the president of the National Urban League and former mayor of New Orleans, worries that the current chaos could result in an undercount. “The hard-to-count, which in too many instances waits on the door-knocker, could be left out,” he says. “The door-knocker program is scheduled to begin in May. They’re doing hiring now, training now. All of that is going to be negatively affected by the pandemic and the states of emergency.”
Morial, along with several Democratic members of Congress, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), has suggested that the Census Bureau take the unprecedented step of extending the deadline past July 31. “It’s not going to be fair to people, and fair to the hard-to-count, if they cut that program off after this period of time,” Morial says. “It’s not difficult for the census to extend the time period that people have to respond.”
But Lynk says that while the Census Bureau’s operations may shift the July 31 self-response and nonresponse followup deadline past July 31 to adapt to the pandemic, extending the statutory deadlines—December 1, 2020 for apportioning congressional seats and April 1, 2021 for redistricting data files—deadline would require an act of Congress. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights outlines a number of additional challenges to extending the July 31 census, beyond the difficulty of meeting the statutory deadlines: the farther from April 1 someone reports, the less accurate his or her recall is likely to be; major weather events like hurricanes, which could disrupt enumeration, tend to take place in the later months; data collection should be consistent across the country; and a delay might make it harder to count mobile populations like migrant farmworkers. The challenges, it seems, are endless.
Census advocates all agree on one thing: the safest, most accurate way for people to be counted is to self-report from their own homes. “We’re really doubling down on elevating the importance of the fact that everyone’s responding to the 2020 census on their own, online, by phone, or with the paper questionnaire,” Lynk says.
And in New York City, where 3,615 people have tested positive for the virus, and gatherings of more than 50 people have been banned, the message is the same. “The census is how we invest in our communities’ health. For example, census data determines allocations for funding for CHIP (low cost health insurance for children) and hospitals,” says Menin. “What’s more, it’s how we get the foundational data that public health experts use to plan for and manage situations like COVID-19.”
Correction: An earlier version of this story misstated which census deadlines would require an act of Congress to change. The December 31, 2020 and April 1, 2021 statutory deadlines, not the July 31, 2020 self-reporting deadline, would require congressional approval.