vox--2020-11-16--America needs to close down

America needs to close down

The past few months have been an American experiment with Covid-19 : Can the country keep bars , restaurants , gyms , and other businesses open while fighting the virus with milder measures , including some social distancing and widespread masking ?
Six months after spring shutdowns ended , the answer is clear : The milder approach isn ’ t working .
The US surpassed 100,000 daily new coronavirus cases on November 4 , and it ’ s gone on to regularly break new records for coronavirus cases since then — with the most recent high exceeding 180,000 on Friday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ level of the pandemic , leaving a growing number of hospitals around the US , from Arizona and Texas to Ohio and Tennessee , nearing or at capacity .
And deaths are climbing : now above 1,000 a day once again , with a growing likelihood that the country will surpass 2,000 or even 3,000 a day in the coming weeks and months — on top of the more than 246,000 Covid-19 deaths that America has seen so far .
Unlike the spring outbreak , the current disaster isn ’ t isolated to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few other states .
It ’ s truly national : Every state now has more than four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people , the standard for having Covid-19 under control .
And some states now breach 100 daily new cases per 100,000 — which was unthinkable months ago .
That ’ ll make it much harder to respond to outbreaks , as states dealing with their own crises won ’ t be able to , as they did in the spring and summer , send reinforcements of doctors and nurses to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the worst we ’ ve seen it , ” Saskia Popescu , an infectious disease epidemiologist , told me .
The coronavirus ’ s explosive growth has occurred before Thanksgiving , Christmas , and New Year ’ s are set to bring friends and family together in large gatherings that could turn into superspreading events .
It ’ s also largely before colder weather in most of the US pushes people into poorly ventilated indoor spaces where the virus has an easier time spreading .
The country is hitting records before experts believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further .
With the milder measures failing us , it ’ s clear what needs to happen : To avert possibly hundreds of thousands of deaths in the months before a vaccine becomes widely available , the US needs to close down once again .
That means temporarily shuttering in-person , indoor services at nonessential businesses , particularly bars and restaurants ; restricting larger gatherings , including in private homes ; and encouraging , or outright mandating , people to stay home as much as possible — only going out for food , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other basics needs — and limit their social interactions to their own households .
Some places are already taking steps in this direction , like New Mexico , Oregon , Chicago , and El Paso , Texas .
But for this to work , it has to be much more common — so it becomes more likely the entire country can stop the spread .
This doesn ’ t mean locking down in the same way many places did in the spring .
Since then , we ’ ve learned a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and can apply those lessons accordingly — keeping outdoor spaces like parks open , for example .
It also shouldn ’ t mean simply abandoning individuals and businesses hurt by closing down .
In the spring , Congress passed economic aid for workers and businesses to ease the suffering that a lockdown involved .
Experts widely agree that , if closing down is necessary again , Congress should make similar moves — from boosting unemployment insurance to offering financial aid , even a bailout , to the businesses most affected .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s economic suffering but also make closing down more bearable and , as a result , more sustainable .
No one wants this to be true .
I don ’ t want this to be true .
The experts I spoke to were divided on whether such aggressive restrictions are necessary .
Jen Kates , director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation , echoed others who argued the US could still do a much better job with testing , tracing , and masking .
“ I think there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without having to go to a lockdown , Kates said .
But we ’ ve now seen again and again what happens when countries try to keep indoor businesses in particular open as cases remain elevated or go up .
Unlike many countries in Europe , Asia , and Oceania , the US never truly suppressed cases , outside of a handful of states , largely because it moved to reopen so quickly .
That ’ s left the country in a vulnerable position as we barrel to what may be the worst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Time is running out .
With the coronavirus , the infections that are happening right now take weeks to show up in hospitals or morgues .
That means that the horrifying numbers we see right now are actually signals from the past , like data that took time to reach our eyes .
The present reality is likely much worse , and we ’ ll see it in record hospitalizations and deaths in the coming weeks .
That makes the problem all the more urgent , forcing us to race to avert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have expected .
The flip side is the finish line for this pandemic has never been clearer .
This month , we saw reports that we really might have a highly effective vaccine coming soon .
Mass distribution is still likely months away — possibly the spring of 2021 or later — but finally , we have some idea of how and when this all might end .
First , though , the US has to get through a fall and winter that could be the worst of Covid-19 .
Closing down again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensure more of us make it through that finish line .
Closing down can stop the spread In March through May , much of America , under federal guidance to do so , locked down .
That led both cities and states to impose variations of stay-at-home orders , which closed down public locations and businesses — except those deemed “ essential , ” such as grocery stores and pharmacies .
People were advised or mandated to stay home , not socialize with people in other households , and avoid large gatherings .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ found government-imposed social distancing measures reduced the growth rate of coronavirus cases , particularly the longer measures remained in place .
A study in The Lancet produced similar results .
A study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of Delaware found its lockdown , paired with contact tracing and a mask mandate , contributed to 80-plus percent drops in coronavirus cases , hospitalizations , and deaths by the summer .
A more pessimistic working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that , while lockdowns reduced Covid-19 cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because people were already voluntarily staying home at the time .
But that still means the concept of people social distancing and limiting their interactions is effective .
( That differs from the situation today , where increasingly fewer people are voluntarily distancing . )
Lockdowns have also clearly worked in places that have seen resurgences of Covid-19 .
In September , Israel suffered what was the worst Covid-19 outbreak in the world at the time .
The country first tried milder , more targeted measures — and , after they failed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public opposition , it worked to massively reduce cases from October to this month .
Notably , more European countries , including France , Germany , and the UK , have also closed down again in recent weeks after trying milder measures , which failed to stop massive spikes in cases over the past couple of months .
The European efforts have already seen some success , with cases starting to drop or at least grow more slowly with the new restrictions in place .
There ’ s a historical example that applies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1918 flu pandemic , many places shut down certain indoor venues and large gatherings to constrain the disease .
Deaths plummeted .
When the measures were lifted , deaths increased again , and only came down once the measures were reimposed .
Take the experience of St. Louis : In this chart , the dotted lines represent excess flu deaths and the black and gray bars show when social distancing measures were in place .
The peak came after the measures were lifted , and the death rate fell only after they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is essentially in that in-between space .
The vast majority of states have reopened , at least partially , or are reopening right now , even as cases continue to increase .
Most states , even those hit very hard in the spring like New York , now let people gather in indoor spaces , such as restaurants , bars , and places of worship , in which the coronavirus can spread easily due to poor ventilation and close contact with others .
As states have reopened , officials across the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ physical distancing , masking , and aggressive testing and tracing , can keep coronavirus cases down .
It ’ s true all these measures work to reduce coronavirus cases , based on a growing body of research and real-world evidence .
But these approaches don ’ t seem to be working as well as many hoped .
Part of it is an adherence problem , in which people simply aren ’ t social distancing and masking .
In some states , an increase in larger gatherings , such as house parties , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of masking in public can drop below 75 or even 70 percent in some states , and the real rates are likely lower since people may not be honest with survey takers about their mask use .
Fifteen states still don ’ t have mask mandates at all .
There ’ s also some natural tension between reopening and measures like social distancing and masking .
People who work in retail and other service industries , for example , may not always be able to social distance from people , or avoid interacting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks — issues that these workers may have little control over if they want to keep their jobs .
In some settings , masking and social distancing are in practice impossible , like in restaurants and bars where people are often cramped for hours and have to take off masks to eat or drink .
The other problem is the milder approaches don ’ t seem to work well enough when cases are already high or rising .
Consider contact tracing : The idea is “ disease detectives ” can contact people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to isolate , find out their close contacts , and get those close contacts to quarantine .
But that is simply much harder when there are more than 100,000 new cases a day — it requires much more staff , time , and resources .
Even the best teams may not be able to keep up with exponential spread .
Crystal Watson , a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security , estimated that contact tracing becomes difficult at 10 daily new cases per 100,000 people .
The US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , and some states are past 10 or even 15 times that threshold .
New York has a lot of testing , a contact tracing program , and a mask mandate , and strongly recommends social distancing .
But it ’ s still seen its cases spiral as it ’ s reopened more and more .
Since the state allowed indoor dining to reopen in New York City in September , with parts of the state reopening before that , cases have spiked from a weekly average of 800 a day to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t explain the whole increase , but it ’ s reflective of a wider reopening that measures like masking simply haven ’ t been able to keep up with .
All of that suggests that social distancing , masking , testing , and tracing can keep cases low , at least for a time .
But to get Covid-19 cases down , the country simply needs to close down .
We need to do more than close down Ashish Jha , dean of the Brown University School of Public Health , recalled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about controlling the coronavirus .
When Jha suggested closing down indoor dining , the governor immediately responded : “ What else do you have ?
” The recommendation wasn ’ t even worth considering .
“ This is where states are , ” Jha said .
“ I just don ’ t see any political appetite for a lockdown.
” If anything , the country is by and large moving in the opposite direction .
Many people are preparing to celebrate Thanksgiving , Christmas , and New Year ’ s with family and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Labor Day and Halloween , in large gatherings .
There are reports of people refusing to get tested so they don ’ t have to call off work if they test positive .
States are , again , continuing to reopen or letting places stay open , including risky indoor spaces like bars and restaurants .
The federal government has even allowed cruise ships to start up again , after they became big hotspots for the coronavirus in the spring .
Adherence to existing mandates and guidelines , meanwhile , is spotty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t get people to mask up , can we really get them to close down ?
“ I could describe it as a fantasy , ” Kumi Smith , an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota , told me .
“ I don ’ t know what political and cultural stars would have to align for , really , Americans everywhere to appreciate the gravity of the situation and make a lot of personal sacrifices.
” But this could also be flipped into an argument for another stay-at-home order : If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social distance and make sacrifices , the government could try to force their hand .
There are real downsides to closing down .
Throughout the pandemic , people have reported more mental health problems , and drug overdose deaths have increased .
There are massive economic problems , with the spring lockdown producing record-shattering unemployment filings ( in the millions ) and likely increases in poverty only averted by the CARES Act passed by Congress .
The effects of the lockdown were also unequal .
While wealthier people in office jobs could largely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers either lost their jobs as their employers shut down or were effectively forced to work in “ essential ” workplaces .
A Nature study , looking at cellphone data , found that mobility during the spring lockdown dropped significantly more in higher-income communities than in their lower-income counterparts .
“ It just doesn ’ t feel equitable to me , ” Stefan Baral , a physician epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University , told me .
“ There ’ s a tremendous number of interventions we could be doing to break transmission chains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” — without , he argued , closing down and all the negative consequences that could produce .
But many of these problems could be mitigated with more action by Congress .
Just like the CARES Act made the spring lockdown more bearable for many , more economic aid could in the coming months , too .
Experts have many ideas for how this could work .
Some of that could simply mean a repeat or extension of the CARES Act , like the unemployment benefits that have expired or are set to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Another round of stimulus , including paychecks to Americans , could make potentially losing sources of income more tolerable .
Businesses that are forced to close , such as bars and restaurants , and their employees could be made whole with a bailout or another form of financial aid .
If people lose health insurance as they lose jobs , Congress could boost support for safety net programs like Medicaid or COBRA .
Many of these programs could help or even explicitly target lower-income communities to ease economic disparities , too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy and people ’ s financial well-being , but for slowing the spread of the coronavirus as well .
People are more likely to follow orders or guidance to stay home and not reopen businesses if they can actually afford it — and the country needs people adhering to rules and recommendations for any of this to work .
And closing down again doesn ’ t have to mean a full-on lockdown like many countries did in the spring .
Since then , we ’ ve learned some places , particularly the outdoors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of those venues as possible open could , at least in warmer climates , help ease people ’ s pain as other places close .
Admittedly , this will be less helpful in the northern parts of the country , though the option of a park in the cold weather is better than nothing at all .
A key mistake made during the spring lockdown is that the US didn ’ t use the time it bought productively .
Instead of building a national testing and tracing system , President Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the states .
Congress and state officials should take steps to ensure things go differently this time around — building up testing and tracing regimes , and full cooperation between states ’ systems , to keep the US safe as cases are , hopefully , suppressed closer to zero .
In addition , all levels of government could use the time to prepare for widespread vaccine distribution .
With some data showing we might get a highly effective vaccine soon , now is the time more than ever to make sure that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will get vaccinated .
That means setting up distribution networks , including dealing with likely transportation hurdles if vaccines require extremely cold temperatures to store .
It means making sure that Americans are persuaded to get a vaccine , given polling showing half of US adults , or more , are currently skeptical of getting one .
Crucially , the bulk of this work must come from Congress and the White House .
A big reason that states aren ’ t closing down right now is because they simply don ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they deal with an economic downturn , to offer enough financial support to individuals and businesses hurt by new restrictions .
The federal government does .
The good news : If the country does this right , it could come out of widespread closures later in the winter or spring with a visible finish line to the pandemic .
If coronavirus cases are successfully suppressed , a test-and-trace system keeps new cases low , and vaccine distribution is ready to go , we could be looking at a much better , more normal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To put it another way : As painful as closing down again might be , it may only have to last a few months at most — to carry as many Americans as possible through the finish line , and end this pandemic with more lives saved .
The alternative , at the current rates of spread , is we go through the winter and into the spring with a widespread scourge that kills possibly hundreds of thousands of Americans and , ironically , impedes our ability to reopen more of the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of going out while cases are high and it takes months to roll out a vaccine .
( There ’ s historical evidence for this : A preliminary study of the 1918 flu pandemic found the US cities that took stronger measures against outbreaks saw quicker economic recoveries . )
Everyone wants to go back to normal .
As unpopular as closing down may be right now , it ’ s how we can do it sooner rather than later .

The past few months have been an American experiment with Covid-19: Can the country keep bars, restaurants, gyms, and other businesses open while fighting the virus with milder measures, including some social distancing and widespread masking?
Six months after spring shutdowns ended, the answer is clear: The milder approach isn’t working.
The US surpassed 100,000 daily new coronavirus cases on November 4, and it’s gone on to regularly break new records for coronavirus cases since then — with the most recent high exceeding 180,000 on Friday. Hospitalizations have skyrocketed to their highest level of the pandemic, leaving a growing number of hospitals around the US, from Arizona and Texas to Ohio and Tennessee, nearing or at capacity. And deaths are climbing: now above 1,000 a day once again, with a growing likelihood that the country will surpass 2,000 or even 3,000 a day in the coming weeks and months — on top of the more than 246,000 Covid-19 deaths that America has seen so far.
Unlike the spring outbreak, the current disaster isn’t isolated to the New York City area and a few other states. It’s truly national: Every state now has more than four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people, the standard for having Covid-19 under control. And some states now breach 100 daily new cases per 100,000 — which was unthinkable months ago. That’ll make it much harder to respond to outbreaks, as states dealing with their own crises won’t be able to, as they did in the spring and summer, send reinforcements of doctors and nurses to support other places.
“This is the worst we’ve seen it,” Saskia Popescu, an infectious disease epidemiologist, told me.
The coronavirus’s explosive growth has occurred before Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s are set to bring friends and family together in large gatherings that could turn into superspreading events. It’s also largely before colder weather in most of the US pushes people into poorly ventilated indoor spaces where the virus has an easier time spreading. The country is hitting records before experts believe Covid-19 cases stand to shoot up even further.
With the milder measures failing us, it’s clear what needs to happen: To avert possibly hundreds of thousands of deaths in the months before a vaccine becomes widely available, the US needs to close down once again. That means temporarily shuttering in-person, indoor services at nonessential businesses, particularly bars and restaurants; restricting larger gatherings, including in private homes; and encouraging, or outright mandating, people to stay home as much as possible — only going out for food, work, exercise, health care, and other basics needs — and limit their social interactions to their own households.
Some places are already taking steps in this direction, like New Mexico, Oregon, Chicago, and El Paso, Texas. But for this to work, it has to be much more common — so it becomes more likely the entire country can stop the spread.
This doesn’t mean locking down in the same way many places did in the spring. Since then, we’ve learned a lot about what works and doesn’t, and can apply those lessons accordingly — keeping outdoor spaces like parks open, for example.
It also shouldn’t mean simply abandoning individuals and businesses hurt by closing down. In the spring, Congress passed economic aid for workers and businesses to ease the suffering that a lockdown involved. Experts widely agree that, if closing down is necessary again, Congress should make similar moves — from boosting unemployment insurance to offering financial aid, even a bailout, to the businesses most affected. This wouldn’t just ease people’s economic suffering but also make closing down more bearable and, as a result, more sustainable.
No one wants this to be true. I don’t want this to be true. The experts I spoke to were divided on whether such aggressive restrictions are necessary. Jen Kates, director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, echoed others who argued the US could still do a much better job with testing, tracing, and masking. “I think there are other ways to accomplish this” without having to go to a lockdown, Kates said.
But we’ve now seen again and again what happens when countries try to keep indoor businesses in particular open as cases remain elevated or go up. Unlike many countries in Europe, Asia, and Oceania, the US never truly suppressed cases, outside of a handful of states, largely because it moved to reopen so quickly. That’s left the country in a vulnerable position as we barrel to what may be the worst Covid-19 outbreak the country will ever see.
Time is running out. With the coronavirus, the infections that are happening right now take weeks to show up in hospitals or morgues. That means that the horrifying numbers we see right now are actually signals from the past, like data that took time to reach our eyes. The present reality is likely much worse, and we’ll see it in record hospitalizations and deaths in the coming weeks. That makes the problem all the more urgent, forcing us to race to avert an even worse future than we might have expected.
The flip side is the finish line for this pandemic has never been clearer. This month, we saw reports that we really might have a highly effective vaccine coming soon. Mass distribution is still likely months away — possibly the spring of 2021 or later — but finally, we have some idea of how and when this all might end.
First, though, the US has to get through a fall and winter that could be the worst of Covid-19. Closing down again increasingly seems like the best way to ensure more of us make it through that finish line.
Closing down can stop the spread
In March through May, much of America, under federal guidance to do so, locked down. That led both cities and states to impose variations of stay-at-home orders, which closed down public locations and businesses — except those deemed “essential,” such as grocery stores and pharmacies. People were advised or mandated to stay home, not socialize with people in other households, and avoid large gatherings.
It worked. A Health Affairs study found government-imposed social distancing measures reduced the growth rate of coronavirus cases, particularly the longer measures remained in place. A study in The Lancet produced similar results. A study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of Delaware found its lockdown, paired with contact tracing and a mask mandate, contributed to 80-plus percent drops in coronavirus cases, hospitalizations, and deaths by the summer.
A more pessimistic working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that, while lockdowns reduced Covid-19 cases, their effect might have been limited because people were already voluntarily staying home at the time. But that still means the concept of people social distancing and limiting their interactions is effective. (That differs from the situation today, where increasingly fewer people are voluntarily distancing.)
Lockdowns have also clearly worked in places that have seen resurgences of Covid-19. In September, Israel suffered what was the worst Covid-19 outbreak in the world at the time. The country first tried milder, more targeted measures — and, after they failed, imposed a lockdown. And despite some public opposition, it worked to massively reduce cases from October to this month.
Notably, more European countries, including France, Germany, and the UK, have also closed down again in recent weeks after trying milder measures, which failed to stop massive spikes in cases over the past couple of months. The European efforts have already seen some success, with cases starting to drop or at least grow more slowly with the new restrictions in place.
There’s a historical example that applies to the US, too: During the 1918 flu pandemic, many places shut down certain indoor venues and large gatherings to constrain the disease. Deaths plummeted. When the measures were lifted, deaths increased again, and only came down once the measures were reimposed.
Take the experience of St. Louis: In this chart, the dotted lines represent excess flu deaths and the black and gray bars show when social distancing measures were in place. The peak came after the measures were lifted, and the death rate fell only after they were reinstated.
America, right now, is essentially in that in-between space. The vast majority of states have reopened, at least partially, or are reopening right now, even as cases continue to increase. Most states, even those hit very hard in the spring like New York, now let people gather in indoor spaces, such as restaurants, bars, and places of worship, in which the coronavirus can spread easily due to poor ventilation and close contact with others.
As states have reopened, officials across the country have argued that other measures, like physical distancing, masking, and aggressive testing and tracing, can keep coronavirus cases down.
It’s true all these measures work to reduce coronavirus cases, based on a growing body of research and real-world evidence. But these approaches don’t seem to be working as well as many hoped.
Part of it is an adherence problem, in which people simply aren’t social distancing and masking. In some states, an increase in larger gatherings, such as house parties, has led to more Covid-19 cases. Rates of masking in public can drop below 75 or even 70 percent in some states, and the real rates are likely lower since people may not be honest with survey takers about their mask use. Fifteen states still don’t have mask mandates at all.
There’s also some natural tension between reopening and measures like social distancing and masking. People who work in retail and other service industries, for example, may not always be able to social distance from people, or avoid interacting with people who aren’t wearing masks — issues that these workers may have little control over if they want to keep their jobs. In some settings, masking and social distancing are in practice impossible, like in restaurants and bars where people are often cramped for hours and have to take off masks to eat or drink.
The other problem is the milder approaches don’t seem to work well enough when cases are already high or rising. Consider contact tracing: The idea is “disease detectives” can contact people who are positive for the coronavirus to get them to isolate, find out their close contacts, and get those close contacts to quarantine. But that is simply much harder when there are more than 100,000 new cases a day — it requires much more staff, time, and resources. Even the best teams may not be able to keep up with exponential spread.
Crystal Watson, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, estimated that contact tracing becomes difficult at 10 daily new cases per 100,000 people. The US is now at more than four times that, and some states are past 10 or even 15 times that threshold.
New York has a lot of testing, a contact tracing program, and a mask mandate, and strongly recommends social distancing. But it’s still seen its cases spiral as it’s reopened more and more. Since the state allowed indoor dining to reopen in New York City in September, with parts of the state reopening before that, cases have spiked from a weekly average of 800 a day to more than 4,400. Indoor dining doesn’t explain the whole increase, but it’s reflective of a wider reopening that measures like masking simply haven’t been able to keep up with.
All of that suggests that social distancing, masking, testing, and tracing can keep cases low, at least for a time. But to get Covid-19 cases down, the country simply needs to close down.
We need to do more than close down
Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, recalled a recent conversation with a Democratic governor about controlling the coronavirus. When Jha suggested closing down indoor dining, the governor immediately responded: “What else do you have?” The recommendation wasn’t even worth considering.
“This is where states are,” Jha said. “I just don’t see any political appetite for a lockdown.”
If anything, the country is by and large moving in the opposite direction. Many people are preparing to celebrate Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s with family and friends — after celebrating other holidays, like Labor Day and Halloween, in large gatherings. There are reports of people refusing to get tested so they don’t have to call off work if they test positive. States are, again, continuing to reopen or letting places stay open, including risky indoor spaces like bars and restaurants. The federal government has even allowed cruise ships to start up again, after they became big hotspots for the coronavirus in the spring.
Adherence to existing mandates and guidelines, meanwhile, is spotty. Some experts argued: If we can’t get people to mask up, can we really get them to close down? “I could describe it as a fantasy,” Kumi Smith, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota, told me. “I don’t know what political and cultural stars would have to align for, really, Americans everywhere to appreciate the gravity of the situation and make a lot of personal sacrifices.”
But this could also be flipped into an argument for another stay-at-home order: If people aren’t going to voluntarily social distance and make sacrifices, the government could try to force their hand.
There are real downsides to closing down. Throughout the pandemic, people have reported more mental health problems, and drug overdose deaths have increased. There are massive economic problems, with the spring lockdown producing record-shattering unemployment filings (in the millions) and likely increases in poverty only averted by the CARES Act passed by Congress.
The effects of the lockdown were also unequal. While wealthier people in office jobs could largely transition to working from home, lower-income workers either lost their jobs as their employers shut down or were effectively forced to work in “essential” workplaces. A Nature study, looking at cellphone data, found that mobility during the spring lockdown dropped significantly more in higher-income communities than in their lower-income counterparts.
“It just doesn’t feel equitable to me,” Stefan Baral, a physician epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, told me. “There’s a tremendous number of interventions we could be doing to break transmission chains and to support people and empower them” — without, he argued, closing down and all the negative consequences that could produce.
But many of these problems could be mitigated with more action by Congress. Just like the CARES Act made the spring lockdown more bearable for many, more economic aid could in the coming months, too.
Experts have many ideas for how this could work. Some of that could simply mean a repeat or extension of the CARES Act, like the unemployment benefits that have expired or are set to expire at the end of the year. Another round of stimulus, including paychecks to Americans, could make potentially losing sources of income more tolerable. Businesses that are forced to close, such as bars and restaurants, and their employees could be made whole with a bailout or another form of financial aid. If people lose health insurance as they lose jobs, Congress could boost support for safety net programs like Medicaid or COBRA.
Many of these programs could help or even explicitly target lower-income communities to ease economic disparities, too.
This is not only important for the economy and people’s financial well-being, but for slowing the spread of the coronavirus as well. People are more likely to follow orders or guidance to stay home and not reopen businesses if they can actually afford it — and the country needs people adhering to rules and recommendations for any of this to work.
And closing down again doesn’t have to mean a full-on lockdown like many countries did in the spring. Since then, we’ve learned some places, particularly the outdoors, are fairly safe. Keeping as many of those venues as possible open could, at least in warmer climates, help ease people’s pain as other places close. Admittedly, this will be less helpful in the northern parts of the country, though the option of a park in the cold weather is better than nothing at all.
A key mistake made during the spring lockdown is that the US didn’t use the time it bought productively. Instead of building a national testing and tracing system, President Donald Trump’s administration punted the issue down to the states. Congress and state officials should take steps to ensure things go differently this time around — building up testing and tracing regimes, and full cooperation between states’ systems, to keep the US safe as cases are, hopefully, suppressed closer to zero.
In addition, all levels of government could use the time to prepare for widespread vaccine distribution. With some data showing we might get a highly effective vaccine soon, now is the time more than ever to make sure that hundreds of millions of Americans can and will get vaccinated. That means setting up distribution networks, including dealing with likely transportation hurdles if vaccines require extremely cold temperatures to store. It means making sure that Americans are persuaded to get a vaccine, given polling showing half of US adults, or more, are currently skeptical of getting one.
Crucially, the bulk of this work must come from Congress and the White House. A big reason that states aren’t closing down right now is because they simply don’t have the resources or reach, especially as they deal with an economic downturn, to offer enough financial support to individuals and businesses hurt by new restrictions. The federal government does.
The good news: If the country does this right, it could come out of widespread closures later in the winter or spring with a visible finish line to the pandemic. If coronavirus cases are successfully suppressed, a test-and-trace system keeps new cases low, and vaccine distribution is ready to go, we could be looking at a much better, more normal spring than we saw in 2020.
To put it another way: As painful as closing down again might be, it may only have to last a few months at most — to carry as many Americans as possible through the finish line, and end this pandemic with more lives saved.
The alternative, at the current rates of spread, is we go through the winter and into the spring with a widespread scourge that kills possibly hundreds of thousands of Americans and, ironically, impedes our ability to reopen more of the economy as much of the public remains terrified of going out while cases are high and it takes months to roll out a vaccine. (There’s historical evidence for this: A preliminary study of the 1918 flu pandemic found the US cities that took stronger measures against outbreaks saw quicker economic recoveries.)
Everyone wants to go back to normal. As unpopular as closing down may be right now, it’s how we can do it sooner rather than later.


vox--2020-11-17--Why Trump and Mitch McConnell are pushing through Fed nominee Judy Shelton

Back in 2017 , Judy Shelton said she would “ love ” to be chair of the Federal Reserve but recognized it was unlikely given she was “ sort of tagged with this gold bug idea.
” Three years later , Shelton isn ’ t headed for the chairmanship , but she is poised to potentially join the Fed ’ s seven-member board of governors .
Turns out Republicans might not have as many reservations about Shelton as she does herself .
Well , at least not all of them .
President Donald Trump has nominated Shelton , who advised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as United States director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development , to one of two open spots on the Fed ’ s governing board .
The Senate Banking Committee approved her nomination in July by a narrow margin , alongside that of Christopher Waller , from the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis .
While Waller is a pretty traditional pick , Shelton is not — in fact , until earlier this month , she was basically considered a no-go in terms of actually being able to get through a full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks like she is on her way to a confirmation vote in the Senate as early as this week .
The vote is expected to be a tight one , as three Republican senators have now said they won ’ t support Shelton , and a Covid-19 scare has put a fourth GOP senator in quarantine this week .
There ’ s a chance Vice President Mike Pence will ultimately have to break a tied vote .
The Waller vote still isn ’ t scheduled .
Shelton ’ s pick is an unconventional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a proponent of some pretty unorthodox views , including returning the US to the gold standard — a theory out of step with mainstream economics .
During the Obama years , Shelton was a fierce critic of the Fed for keeping interest rates low , but under Trump , she has changed her tune to align with the president .
Back in 2019 , she made a habit of giving interviews from the Trump International Hotel in Washington , DC — not exactly a sign of independence .
“ Her views seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either to get a nomination from Trump or because she was nominated by Trump , but it ’ s a little hard to know , ” said Sarah Binder , a senior fellow of governance studies at the Brookings Institution and political science professor at George Washington University .
“ The issue is which Judy Shelton would show up at the Fed ?
” To be sure , Shelton will be just one of seven members of the Fed ’ s board of governors and one of 12 members of the Federal Open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in charge of interest-rate setting .
And unless she can convince her colleagues to get on board with her , it ’ s unclear how much power she ’ ll actually have .
There was speculation Trump might try to appoint her Fed chair if he won a second term , but he lost .
Still , many experts , economists , and politicians say her presence is concerning , even if she ’ s not running the show .
“ We clearly need diverse voices at the Fed , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law and finance at the University of Pennsylvania .
“ [ But ] this kind of diversity is just diversity of bad and poorly informed economic thought that is not going to be valuable in any real or meaningful way and is honestly just dangerous , mostly dangerous to the legitimacy of the Fed.
” What ’ s up with Judy Shelton and the gold standard Shelton , 66 , has been a fixture in conservative politics and economics for quite some time , which means that a lot of things she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are now being scrutinized .
That ’ s been part of the issue with her nomination .
Many of Shelton ’ s critics have focused in on her years-long advocacy for the US to return to the gold standard or something like it .
That policy would mean that the value of the dollar would be linked to a set physical amount of gold , silver , or some other marker instead of being a “ floating currency , ” meaning its value fluctuates according to foreign exchange markets , as it does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gold standard in the late 19th century but began to abandon it during the Great Depression — for good reason .
Most mainstream economic thinking today rejects returning to the gold standard , which many experts say actually did harm during the Great Depression , because people hoarded gold after the 1929 stock market crash .
“ The gold standard is a bad means to a bad end , ” wrote former Fed vice chairman Alan Blinder in a Wall Street Journal op-ed in 2019 .
President Richard Nixon officially closed the door @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shelton , however , has said , “ let ’ s go back.
” “ Under a gold standard , if people think the paper money printed by government is losing value , they have to switch to gold , ” she wrote in a 2009 WSJ op-ed .
The same year , Shelton wrote Money Meltdown , which advocated for a unified international monetary regime to return to the gold standard to combat inflation .
In 2012 , she joined TheGoldStandardNow.org , a website dedicated to the issue .
In her confirmation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ February , Shelton was circumspect on her position , saying that she does not advocate “ going back to a prior historical monetary arrangement ” and insisting instead she had simply looked at “ historical systems ” to gain “ valuable insights ” to inform policy now .
During the hearing , Shelton also sought to distance herself from past suggestions that the FDIC , which insures bank deposits , encourages risky behavior from banks , and from times she had questioned whether the Fed should act independently from the White House and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US would go back to the gold standard or that Shelton would be able to change thinking on it at the Fed , but the situation is emblematic of many of the concerns about her nomination in the first place : it ’ s not really clear which version of Shelton , the pre-Trump one or the post-Trump one , is up for a vote .
Which Shelton would be headed to the Fed ?
While Shelton ’ s unconventional positioning on gold and some other issues make her a bit of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more awkward is how she seems to have contorted her opinions post-Trump compared to pre-Trump .
When President Barack Obama was in office , she , like Trump , was critical of the Fed for keeping interests rate low and doing too much to help the economy .
Now that Trump is in the White House , she ’ s had a change of heart .
In 2019 , she told the Washington Post she would “ lower rates as fast , as efficiently , as expeditiously as possible.
” To be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit , inducing a recession .
It was a position in line with Trump ’ s , who around the same time suggested he might try to get rid of Fed Chair Jerome Powell and often complained that Powell ’ s decisions were not to his liking .
The Post interview , like an interview Shelton did with the Financial Times weeks earlier , took place at the president ’ s Washington , DC , hotel .
During the FT interview , she also suggested she ’ d like to host a conference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Mar-A-Lago .
In other words , she is quite cozy with the president and a loyalist .
If Shelton does wind up on the Fed ’ s board of governors , one big question is what she would advocate for and what she actually believes .
The cynical ( and perhaps likeliest ) read here is that Shelton believes what she has for most of her career — that the gold standard is good , the Fed is often not , and higher interest rates are often better .
Is it possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rates and a more accommodative approach from the central bank ?
Sure .
Or she ’ s just gotten religion on Trump .
“ It ’ s up to her which Judy Shelton shows up to the Fed and how she uses her position , ” said Binder , of the Brookings Institution .
“ Is it a soapbox for her old position , or is she a true believer in low rates to [ stimulate ] an economy when an economy is under stress ?
” Shelton did not return a request @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House declined to comment on the record .
Why Trump did this makes sense .
Senate Republicans , not so much .
President Trump has had a rough go with some of his attempted Fed picks , namely , the ones who have been a little off the beaten path .
He appointed Powell , who most economists and experts agree has done a good job in his post , even though Trump complains about him a lot .
But Trump also attempted to get Herman Cain , the now-deceased former businessman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stephen Moore on the Fed ’ s board of governors in the past .
As my former colleague Matt Yglesias explained , those two didn ’ t make it through confirmation : If Shelton is confirmed and , eventually , the more conventional Waller , Trump will have filled all of the open seats on the Fed ’ s board of governors , leaving none left for President-elect Joe Biden to fill himself .
Lael Brainard would remain the only governor appointed by a Democrat , though she is considered a frontrunner to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would open up her seat .
Prior to the election , there was speculation that Trump , if reelected , would seek to oust Powell as Fed chair and put Shelton in his place , the idea being she was probably pretty likely to bend to the president ’ s wishes .
Now that Trump has lost , her power within the Fed will likely be quite diminished .
She ’ ll only be one voice — and vote — of many .
What ’ s a little murky is why so many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They could easily confirm Trump ’ s more conventional nominee , Waller , and give the president time to nominate someone else who doesn ’ t hold such extreme views .
Republican Sens .
Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah said they planned to vote against Shelton ’ s nomination over the summer , but Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska last week said she ’ ll support her , which seemingly precipitated Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s ( R-KY ) announcement that he would set a vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday , Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-TN ) decided he wouldn ’ t support Shelton after all .
“ I am not convinced that she supports the independence of the Federal Reserve Board as much as I believe the Board of Governors should .
I don ’ t want to turn over management of the money supply to a Congress and a president who can ’ t balance the federal budget , ” he said in a statement .
That means the vote is going to be a tight one .
Sen. Rick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Covid-19 exposure .
The vote could very well end up tied , which would leave it up to Vice President Pence to cast the tie-breaker .
The GOP doesn ’ t have a ton of time to push this one through , because in early December , Democrat Mark Kelly will take over Republican Sen. Martha McSally ’ s seat in Arizona .
“ Coronavirus is resurging , the economy is suffering , and rather than putting out the fire Republicans are fanning the flames with their nominee , ” said Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ member of the Senate Banking Committee , in a statement .
“ The American people sent a clear message with this election they voted for a stable , and competent economic policy , not fringe theories , and a return to the gold standard .
Judy Shelton is not fit for the Federal Reserve ’ s Board of Governors and her nomination must be rejected immediately.
” Judy Shelton is slated to be a governor , not the queen If Trump were sailing to reelection , Shelton ’ s nomination could be quite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be independent from political whims , and Shelton appears anything but .
( To be fair , Trump isn ’ t the only president to try to lean on the Fed , though he ’ s done so much more publicly than his predecessors . )
With Biden in office , her position may not be ideal , but it ’ s not the end-all , be-all , either .
“ Shelton ’ s impact on Fed policy-making almost surely won ’ t match the attention her nomination has received .
She can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will produce headlines and occasionally rankle Fed colleagues , ” wrote Ian Katz , director at Capital Alpha Partners , in a recent note .
“ But as one vote among what would be seven Fed governors , Shelton ’ s influence will be limited .
Even if she gains a cult following outside the Fed — something we wouldn ’ t rule out — it won ’ t move the other Fed governors.
” “ Absent allies , there ’ s a limit to the impact of any given governor , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meant to take over expires in early 2024 , meaning her term will be up before the next presidential election .
Still , critics continue to express deep concerns over Shelton .
In January , Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) sent Shelton a six-page letter asking her to explain her “ radical ” views and her “ history of forming views on policy based on political loyalties.
” “ One of the very important elements is that where the Fed derives a lot of both respect and importance as an agent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that it is fundamentally independent of political considerations , ” Sarin , the law and finance professor , said .
“ You need smart , qualified people who understand how the financial system works in the real world and are going to be thoughtful about the kinds of interventions that are going to be valuable to help the economy , and I don ’ t need to know anything more about her to understand that she is not that person.
” It ’ s easy to question why Shelton , who in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bank is needed , even really wants the post in the first place .
I spoke with Shelton for TheStreet in 2017 about the president ’ s considerations for choosing the next chair of the Federal Reserve , and some of the questions she saw around the issue then are the same ones at issue with her nomination as a governor now .
She talked about her reputation as a “ gold bug ” as well as the Fed ’ s independence and concerns about the president picking someone too close to him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Fed chairman is seen to be someone who works for the president , I don ’ t know if that ’ s generally a good thing , so that might be a reservation , ” Shelton said .
She also said that she would like to see “ someone who is not afraid to challenge the conventional wisdom ” at the Fed .
Now , it looks like that person might be her .

Back in 2017, Judy Shelton said she would “love” to be chair of the Federal Reserve but recognized it was unlikely given she was “sort of tagged with this gold bug idea.” Three years later, that gold bug idea is stymying her nomination not to the chairmanship but to the Fed’s seven-member board of governors.
On Tuesday, the Senate voted to block Shelton’s nomination by a 47-50 margin. It could be brought to the floor again, though it’s unclear whether that will happen. While President Donald Trump may have thought his former campaign adviser would be a good fit for the central bank, it turns out at least three Republicans had reservations about Shelton. That, plus a Covid-19 scare that put two more GOP senators in quarantine this week, doomed the hastily scheduled vote.
Trump has nominated Shelton, who advised his 2016 campaign and most recently served as United States director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, to one of two open spots on the Fed’s governing board. The Senate Banking Committee approved her nomination in July by a narrow margin, alongside that of Christopher Waller, from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. While Waller is a pretty traditional pick, Shelton is not — in fact, until recently, she was basically considered a no-go to get through a full Senate vote.
Shelton has a long history as a proponent of some pretty unorthodox views, including returning the US to the gold standard, a theory out of step with mainstream economics. During the Obama years, she was a fierce critic of the Fed for keeping interest rates low, but under Trump, she has changed her tune to align with the president. In 2019, she made a habit of giving interviews from the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC — not exactly a sign of independence.
“Her views seem to have turned on a dime, either to get a nomination from Trump or because she was nominated by Trump, but it’s a little hard to know,” said Sarah Binder, a senior fellow of governance studies at the Brookings Institution and political science professor at George Washington University. “The issue is which Judy Shelton would show up at the Fed?”
To be sure, Shelton would be just one of seven members of the Fed’s board of governors and one of 12 members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which is in charge of interest rate setting. And unless she can convince her colleagues to get on board with her, it’s unclear how much power she would actually have. There was speculation Trump might try to appoint her as Fed chair if he won a second term, but he lost.
Still, many experts, economists, and politicians say her presence is concerning, even if she’s not running the show.
“We clearly need diverse voices at the Fed,” said Natasha Sarin, an assistant professor of law and finance at the University of Pennsylvania. “[But] this kind of diversity is just diversity of bad and poorly informed economic thought that is not going to be valuable in any real or meaningful way and is honestly just dangerous, mostly dangerous to the legitimacy of the Fed.”
What’s up with Judy Shelton and the gold standard
Shelton, 66, has been a fixture in conservative politics and economics for quite some time, which means that a lot of things she’s written, said, and done are now being scrutinized. That’s been part of the issue with her nomination.
Many of Shelton’s critics have focused on her years-long advocacy for the US to return to the gold standard or something like it. That policy would mean that the value of the dollar would be linked to a set physical amount of gold, silver, or some other marker instead of being a “floating currency,” meaning its value fluctuates according to foreign exchange markets, as it does now. The US abided by the gold standard in the late 19th century but began to abandon it during the Great Depression — for good reason.
Most mainstream economic thinking today rejects returning to the gold standard, which many experts say actually did harm during the Great Depression, because people hoarded gold after the 1929 stock market crash. “The gold standard is a bad means to a bad end,” wrote former Fed Vice Chair Alan Blinder in a Wall Street Journal op-ed in 2019.
President Richard Nixon officially closed the door on the gold standard in 1971. Shelton, however, has said, “let’s go back.”
“Under a gold standard, if people think the paper money printed by government is losing value, they have to switch to gold,” she wrote in a 2009 WSJ op-ed. The same year, Shelton wrote Money Meltdown, which advocated for a unified international monetary regime to return to the gold standard to combat inflation. In 2012, she joined TheGoldStandardNow.org, a website dedicated to the issue.
In her confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee in February, Shelton was circumspect on her position, saying that she does not advocate “going back to a prior historical monetary arrangement” and insisting instead she had simply looked at “historical systems” to gain “valuable insights” to inform policy now.
During the hearing, Shelton also sought to distance herself from past suggestions that the FDIC, which insures bank deposits, encourages risky behavior from banks, and from times she had questioned whether the Fed should act independently from the White House and Congress.
It’s highly unlikely the US would go back to the gold standard or that Shelton would be able to change thinking on it at the Fed, but the situation is emblematic of many of the concerns about her nomination in the first place: It’s not really clear which version of Shelton, the pre-Trump one or the post-Trump one, is up for a vote.
Which Shelton would be headed to the Fed?
While Shelton’s unconventional positioning on gold and some other issues make her a bit of an awkward fit at the Fed, even more awkward is how she seems to have contorted her opinions post-Trump compared to pre-Trump. When Barack Obama was president, she, like Trump, was critical of the Fed for keeping interests rate low and doing too much to help the economy. Now that Trump is in the White House, she’s had a change of heart. In 2019, she told the Washington Post she would “lower rates as fast, as efficiently, as expeditiously as possible.” To be clear, this was well before Covid-19 hit, inducing a recession.
It was a position in line with Trump’s, who around the same time suggested he might try to get rid of Fed Chair Jerome Powell and often complained that Powell’s decisions were not to his liking.
The Post interview, like an interview Shelton did with the Financial Times weeks earlier, took place at the president’s DC hotel. During the interview, she also suggested she’d like to host a conference on the gold standard at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago. In other words, she is quite cozy with the president.
If Shelton does wind up on the Fed’s board of governors, one big question is what she would advocate for and what she actually believes. The cynical (and perhaps likeliest) read here is that Shelton believes what she has for most of her career — that the gold standard is good, the Fed is often not, and higher interest rates are often better. Is it possible she’s gotten religion on interest rates and a more accommodative approach from the central bank? Sure. Or she’s just gotten religion on Trump.
“It’s up to her which Judy Shelton shows up to the Fed and how she uses her position,” said Binder, of the Brookings Institution. “Is it a soapbox for her old position, or is she a true believer in low rates to [stimulate] an economy when an economy is under stress?”
Shelton did not return a request for comment for this story. The White House declined to comment on the record.
Trump backing Shelton makes sense. Senate Republicans, not so much.
President Trump has had a rough go with some of his attempted Fed picks, namely, the ones who have been a little off the beaten path. He appointed Powell, who most economists and experts agree has done a good job in his post, even though Trump complains about him a lot.
But Trump also attempted to get Herman Cain, the now-deceased former businessman and Tea Partier, and right-wing economist Stephen Moore on the Fed’s board of governors in the past. As Matt Yglesias explained for Vox, those two didn’t make it through confirmation:
Cain was a plainly unqualified pick with little relevant experience and a scandal-plagued past. He took himself out of the running a couple of weeks after the story of his potential nomination broke, citing the idea that he could earn more money — and skip the “cumbersome” vetting process — by avoiding government service. That left Moore, whose nomination collapsed after the revelation of a long series of misogynistic writings offered a plausible pretext for Senate Republicans to spike him.
If Shelton is confirmed and, eventually, the more conventional Waller, Trump will have filled all of the open seats on the Fed’s board of governors, leaving none left for President-elect Joe Biden to fill himself. Lael Brainard would remain the only governor appointed by a Democrat, though she is considered a frontrunner to be the next treasury secretary, which would open up her seat.
Before the election, there was speculation that Trump, if reelected, would seek to oust Powell as Fed chair and put Shelton in his place, the idea being she was probably pretty likely to bend to the president’s wishes. Now that Trump has lost, her power within the Fed would likely be quite diminished. She’d only be one voice — and vote — of many.
What’s a little murky is why so many Senate Republicans were on board with this. They could easily confirm Trump’s more conventional nominee, Waller, and give the president time to nominate someone else who doesn’t hold such extreme views. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah said they planned to vote against Shelton’s nomination over the summer, but Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska last week said she’ll support her, which seemingly precipitated Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s announcement that he would set a vote on the Senate floor.
But even with Murkowski’s yes, it wasn’t enough to get Shelton over the top, at least not yet.
On Monday, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) decided he wouldn’t support Shelton after all. “I am not convinced that she supports the independence of the Federal Reserve Board as much as I believe the Board of Governors should. I don’t want to turn over management of the money supply to a Congress and a president who can’t balance the federal budget,” he said in a statement.
Sens. Rick Scott (R-FL) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) are quarantining because of Covid-19 exposure, taking two more Republican votes out of the mix, and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), the vice president-elect, traveled to Washington to vote.
McConnell could bring a vote on Shelton to the floor again, but the GOP doesn’t have a ton of time to push this one through. In early December, Democrat Mark Kelly will take over Republican Sen. Martha McSally’s seat in Arizona after winning a special election.
“Coronavirus is resurging, the economy is suffering, and rather than putting out the fire Republicans are fanning the flames with their nominee,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, in a statement. “The American people sent a clear message with this election they voted for a stable, and competent economic policy, not fringe theories, and a return to the gold standard. Judy Shelton is not fit for the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors and her nomination must be rejected immediately.”
Judy Shelton is slated to be a governor, not the queen
If Trump were sailing to reelection, Shelton’s nomination could be quite worrisome. The Fed is supposed to be independent from political whims, and Shelton appears anything but. (To be fair, Trump isn’t the only president to try to lean on the Fed, though he’s done so much more publicly than his predecessors.) With Biden in office, her position may not be ideal, but it’s not the end-all, be-all, either.
“Shelton’s impact on Fed policy-making almost surely won’t match the attention her nomination has received. She can make speeches and give media interviews that will produce headlines and occasionally rankle Fed colleagues,” wrote Ian Katz, director at Capital Alpha Partners, in a recent note. “But as one vote among what would be seven Fed governors, Shelton’s influence will be limited. Even if she gains a cult following outside the Fed — something we wouldn’t rule out — it won’t move the other Fed governors.”
“Absent allies, there’s a limit to the impact of any given governor,” Binder said.
The term Shelton is meant to take over expires in early 2024, meaning her term would be up before the next presidential election.
Still, critics continue to express deep concerns over Shelton. In January, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) sent Shelton a six-page letter asking her to explain her “radical” views and her “history of forming views on policy based on political loyalties.”
“One of the very important elements is that where the Fed derives a lot of both respect and importance as an agent of monetary policy has to do with the fact that it is fundamentally independent of political considerations,” Sarin, the law and finance professor, said. “You need smart, qualified people who understand how the financial system works in the real world and are going to be thoughtful about the kinds of interventions that are going to be valuable to help the economy, and I don’t need to know anything more about her to understand that she is not that person.”
It’s easy to question why Shelton, who in the past has questioned whether a central bank is needed, even really wants the post in the first place.
I spoke with Shelton for TheStreet in 2017 about the president’s considerations for choosing the next chair of the Federal Reserve, and some of the questions she saw around the issue then are the same ones at issue with her nomination as a governor now.
She talked about her reputation as a “gold bug” as well as the Fed’s independence and concerns about the president picking someone too close to him. “There are always issues if the Fed chairman is seen to be someone who works for the president, I don’t know if that’s generally a good thing, so that might be a reservation,” Shelton said.
She also said that she would like to see “someone who is not afraid to challenge the conventional wisdom” at the Fed. Now, it looks like that person might be her.