How Congressional Offices Are Handling COVID-19

While Louie Gohmert takes people on tours of the Capitol and spreads coronavirus far and wide-- note to people in Lufkin, Longview, Nacogdoches and Tyler: keep at least 6 feet away from this crazy version of Typhoid Mary-- other members of Congress have wisely decided to run their offices based on good practices suggested by the CDC. That notice above is on Ted Lieu's door. I believe Mark Takano is also taking the same precautions.

As you probably know, one of the staffers in Senator Maria Cantwell's office, has tested positive for coronavirus. Cantwell's DC office is closed. I asked several offices what they're doing about the pandemic. The best response, predictably, came from Ted Lieu's chief of staff, Marc Cevasco. "Congress," he said, "is obviously a large organization, with thousands of direct and indirect employees, but office policies and staffing are left up to each individual Member of Congress. House offices are relatively small. I manage an office of 10 people in Washington and an office of 8 in L.A. From the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, Congressman Lieu has taken the threat seriously and our office has instituted policies to mitigate risk as the situation has evolved."

First and foremost, we have reinforced public health best practices for our staff (this is important all the time, but especially important during a pandemic). Basic best practices include things like washing hands regularly, avoiding touching your face, covering mouth and nose when you cough or sneeze, and disinfecting workspaces frequently. We also have a generous sick leave policy, which encourages people to stay home from work when they are not feeling well.

Social distancing is the buzzword of the hour-- it basically means you try to limit human contact as much as possible to prevent (or at least slow) the spread of the virus. Last week we limited in-person meetings for the Congressman and staff and had a "no contact" policy for the office (no handshakes etc). We also allowed for flexible arrival and departure times for staff so that we didn’t necessarily have to commute with everyone else on mass transit.

As the situation grew in severity this week, we have moved to 100% teleconference or video conference meetings for our Washington DC office and I have half of our staff working remotely from home. Interns are rotating so we only have one in the office at any one time.

During the upcoming district work period when the House is in recess (and Members are back home working from their districts) the entire Washington office will work remotely. In the district we will have two people manning the phones and everyone else will work remotely. We also will not have district staff attending large community events and meetings (for those few that haven’t already prudently been postponed) for the time being.

I am reminding my staff that this isn’t about them necessarily (most congressional staffers are in their 20s) it is about taking every precaution to prevent the spread of the virus to our older or sicker neighbors. Even delaying the spread of the virus can save lives as it prevents a spike in cases from overwhelming our medical system.

And then this was issued by the House Sergeant at Arms yesterday-- no more tours, Congressman Gohmert. And stop spreading disease, you asshole. Go quarantine yourself.

I asked some of the candidates for Congress how they've changed how they're interacting with staffers and voters and others. Yesterday Omaha progressive Kara Eastman told me that her campaign "has several workers who are paid hourly. I have told them today that if they are sick that they should not come in but they will still get paid for the time they would have worked. We are taking the novel Coronavirus seriously and want to make sure that people are safe and don't have to choose between their health and paying their bills." That's good practice that every campaign should adopt. Later Kara released a public statement that went further: "A comprehensive assessment of currently available data and public health warnings suggest we should avoid events and gatherings. We believe in putting the health and safety of our team, our supporters, and our community first. Therefore, until further notice, the Eastman Campaign will no longer schedule, attend, or engage in any public events."

Furthermore, we’ve taken the step of ensuring that our staff do not feel the need of choosing to work when sick by paying all hourly workers for their shifts if they need to stay home for themselves or a loved one. It is absolutely essential that we put the financial and health needs of our staff and community over other concerns.

We believe and support the excellent work done by local public health officials. It is a true testament to their work that the current number of cases of the novel Coronavirus in Nebraska is relatively limited.

We have decided therefore to continue our door-to-door canvassing. We should note that we have come close to making our first full pass in the district so we are in a position to pivot to phone calls only if need be and we will still be on track with our field goals. We prefer to be guided by science and data, and not fear. It is our policy, however, to wait until schools and other institutions close/convert to online services, to reconsider our canvassing method.

We join with other Democrats in pushing for free and accessible testing for this and all other pandemic conditions.

In conclusion, we will employ all available technological tools to continue to engage with NE-02 voters. Any voters who wish to converse with me should call me at (402) 200-3020.

This morning, Kara added that she's employing "a wide range of innovative technological tools to continue to reach voters and to be a part of the public health conversation." Her 6-point plan for the Corona Virus for NE-02:

• Free testing for all
• Stimulus package for temporary, part-time and full-time employees
• Move to all-mail primary voting
• No-cost loans to small businesses
• Paid sick leave for all workers
• Payment deferment of student loans and student loan interest

Also yesterday, Riverside County, CA progressive congressional candidate Liam O'Mara told us that "Both my campaign and my professional life have been affected. My campuses are closed so that students are not in close contact. Several party events have been cancelled, including the state's eBoard meeting, all the local Dem club meetings, and both a campaign fundraiser and a volunteer appreciation event. Unlike the incumbent, who called this a Democratic hoax in January and okayed the routing of people back from China through a local airport, we take the science seriously, and will follow all precautions from experts." He ws referring to Ken Calvert, who has put his own constituents in jeopardy with his shameful and, as always, fully partisan approach to the pandemic.

Eva Putzova is the progressive candidate running for the Arizona congressional seat occupied by "ex"-Republican Blue Dog Tom O'Halleran. Yesterday she updated her supporters on how her campaign is coping with the pandemic: "Because of the COVID-19 virus outbreak, we have paused all door-to-door canvassing and in-person events until the CDC advises otherwise. Up until now, our strength as a campaign has been in energizing people and engaging with voters one-on-one. We have a small army of volunteers across this vast district, but this will mean nothing if the coronavirus crisis lasts for a sustained period. We want to make sure we are doing everything we can to ensure the health and safety of our volunteers and every person in our district. So instead of meeting people at their front doors, we are going to execute a broader digital strategy to get onto people’s computers screens and in their mailboxes."

Jennifer Christie, campaigning for an open seat in the suburbs north of Indianapolis told us that her campaign has "changed the way we canvass. We no longer shake hands at the door; instead we have a conversation and engage with voters with a Star Trek/Spock greeting, a 'Namaste,' or a wave. Voters have been receptive, and I think appreciate the conscientiousness."

Robin Wilt explained how her campaign is making the best of a bad situation-- and making it work for herself. "In NY-25, our Monroe County health officials have stressed the importance of 'flattening the curve' of the spread of the virus through social distancing. While the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in our campaign no longer participating in parades, rallies, or other events that bring more than 50 persons together, it has allowed us to reinforce our core strategy-- which is to meet individual voters where they are. We have pivoted to investing more effort in our ground game: knocking on doors and attending smaller community gatherings where we can intimately connect to voters. In essence, we have returned to our roots-- our grassroots, that is."

This morning the progressive running for the Colorado Senate seat, Andrew Romanoff, informed his supporters that he's changing the way he campaigns. "The coronavirus is forcing all of us to change our habits. Our campaign is no exception. Over the last 13 months, we’ve been crisscrossing the state, meeting tens of thousands of Coloradans in backyards and living rooms, coffee shops and brewpubs. That strategy yielded an enormous victory in last weekend’s precinct caucuses; we earned more votes than all the other Democratic candidates combined. But now we’re shifting course. In order to minimize health risks, we’ve decided to virtualize our operations. That means engaging supporters electronically, not in large events.

I Doubt Historians Will Debate Who Was Worst-- Trump Or Barr

Last week, Ron Reagan, Jr. said that his father would have seen Trump as a "traitorous president who is betraying his country. The Republican party at this point, for a whole host of reasons to do with Donald Trump, is an entirely illegitimate political party just made up of a bunch of sycophantic traitors mouthing Kremlin propaganda to defend this squalid little man who is occupying the White House..." As I mentioned yesterday, one good thing about the impeachment trial is that millions of Americans now know that there are 53 senators who need to be defeated for reelection-- 19 of them this coming November. Adam Schiff is doing a good job in laying out the parameters of the impeachment case, but the impeachment case only goes an inch deep into the sewer that is Donald J. Trump. As Charles Fried, one of the quintessential Reaganites-- and about a million degrees to the right of Ron Reagan, Jr.-- said this week in an interview for Newsweek, Trump is "perhaps the most dishonest person to sit in the Oval Office... capable of doing serious damage." That said, Fried identifies someone at least as dangerous to America-- Bill Barr (the Attorney General whose confirmation was guaranteed when Trump-leaning Democraps Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Doug Jones (AL) and Joe Manchin (WV) crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans--and when Maine Republican Susan Collins forgot she's supposed to be pretending she's a moderate).

Fried was Reagan's solicitor general from 1985 to 1989, urging the Supreme Court "to overturn the reigning liberal orthodoxies of his day-- on abortion, civil rights, executive power and constitutional interpretation. But the Trump Revolution has proven a bridge too far... Fried has broken ranks." Contrasting one of his mentors, former SCOTUS justice John Harlan with Trump, Fried said "[I]t's unimaginable to think of him speaking the way that this hoodlum speaks. This is not conservatism."

Newsweek reporter Roger Parloff continued: "As disgusted as he is by President Donald Trump, Fried is, if possible, even more dismayed by William Barr, Trump's current attorney general, for having stepped up as Trump's chief apologist. Fried says of Barr. 'His reputation is gone.'" Here are some excerpts from that interview, beginning with an intro by Fried, explaining why people are right to think of Trump as a fascist:

Charles Fried: The first thing, which sets the context, is the rhetoric of the president, both when he was running and ever since. The famous statement that he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and get away with it. The assumption he makes is that by virtue of the November election of 2016, he has a mandate to be the leader of the country. The commander in chief of the country. The German word is fuhrer. The Italian word is duce.

He talks about loyalty. He asks for loyalty. To what? To him personally. Not to the law, which he is supposed to be faithfully executing. This comes up over and over again. Where an official-- for instance, the whistleblower-- following the law, performing a legally defined duty, following a chain of command, does something that undermines Trump's personal situation, he defines it as espionage, as sabotage. He looks back to the days when people could get shot for doing that...

Newsweek: Amazon Web Services alleges in a recent lawsuit that it lost a $10 billion defense contract because the president interfered with the impartial bidding process. It alleges he did that to punish Amazon's CEO, Jeff Bezos, who owns The Washington Post, whose political coverage he hasn't liked. The government denies the allegations, but assuming for the sake of argument that Trump really did that, would Trump, as the unitary executive, be beyond sanction, because he's the head of the Department of Defense and Department of Justice.

Fried: There are laws about this. The laws are meant to prevent what happens in Third World countries and in gangster regimes, where contracts are given to your friends and denied to your enemies. That's what competitive bidding is for. Interference with that is unlawful. In any case, to do that for political punishment is, again, corruption and, again, impeachable.

Newsweek: Do you know Bill Barr?

Fried: No, I think I met him in the corridor once.

Newsweek: Did you support him for attorney general this time?

Fried: No, I did not.

Newsweek: Why?

Fried: Because I'd heard things that led me to believe his principal concern is power.

Newsweek: Executive power or personal power?

Fried: Both. But to read this-- [pointing to the text, lying on his desk, of the keynote speech Barr gave before the Federalist Society in November]-- is shocking. Let me just give you a few examples. He says that "immediately after President Trump won election, [opponents] inaugurated what they called 'The Resistance,'" instead of the "loyal opposition, as opposing parties have done in the past." [Barr said this was "very dangerous-- indeed incendiary. ... They essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government. ... In waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of 'Resistance' against this Administration, it is the Left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law."]

He seems to have forgotten that it's [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell who said [in 2010] "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President [Barack] Obama to be a one-term President." At another point in this speech he said that, yes, the Senate has the power of advice and consent [on presidential nominees], but they shouldn't be obstructing the process. But look at what McConnell did with [Supreme Court nominee] Merrick Garland.

Barr knows all of this. And he's supposed to be a very moral man, and so on and so forth. But to be the apologist for perhaps the most dishonest person to ever sit in the White House? I mean, dishonest in the sense that he lies the way other people breathe. You would think that the project of protecting presidential powers would provide a worthier subject than that, particularly for a supposedly honorable man. But the fact is, all the honorable people in the Cabinet have left. And what you have left is people who are willing to say anything, as Barr is. And you saw the way he treated the Mueller Report, which he misrepresented, because that is what his boss would have wanted.

You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. His reputation is gone.

Newsweek: Barr argued in his Federalist Society speech that courts have been encroaching on executive powers. He asserted that courts should not even be reviewing the president's refusals to comply with Congressional subpoenas. "How is a court supposed to decide," he said, "whether Congress's power to collect information in pursuit of its legislative function overrides the president's power to receive confidential advice in pursuit of his executive function? Nothing in the Constitution provides a manageable standard for resolving such a question."

Fried: Does that mean the president is supposed to say what the law is? In Marbury v. Madison [in 1803], Chief Justice [John] Marshall said, "It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." This is a rant. This is not a reasoned statement. And Barr knows all this. He's a very intelligent man, who's willing to say anything.

Newsweek: One remaining question about Barr. It's been reported that federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York are criminally investigating Rudolph Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer. Almost any scrutiny of Giuliani will draw into scrutiny of Trump's conduct, too. Are you confident in Barr's willingness to let the prosecutors go wherever the facts lead them?

Fried: I don't think he would dare to interfere. I'm sure he would dearly love to. But I don't think he would dare to. He's a smart man...

Newsweek: I assume you think it was right to impeach Trump.

Fried: Indeed.

Newsweek: And that he should be removed?

Fried: Indeed.

Newsweek: Some people argue that we're near an election. Maybe we should let the electoral process take its course.

Fried: First of all, every day that a corrupt president sits, he is capable of doing serious damage. The other thing is: now that the House has issued-- to my mind-- correctly formulated articles of impeachment, the Senate's duty is to try that. Trial means fair consideration of whether the charges are justified and, if so, so to state. Whether it's January 2020, or November 2020, or, indeed, December 2020.

Newsweek: Some argue that the current impeachment articles against Trump are insufficient because they don't specifically allege a crime. What would your response be?

Fried: The [Constitutional] text is too general and the precedents too few to permit a confident answer. I don't believe the Constitution requires the charge of a specified federal crime, of which, at the time of the framing there were very few. What Trump is charged with is analogous to bribery-- extortion, if not technically so. Here again is Jackson in the Steel Seizure Case: "Just what our forefathers did envision, or would have envisioned had they foreseen modern conditions, must be divined from materials almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for Pharaoh. A century and a half of partisan debate and scholarly speculation yields no net result, but only supplies more or less apt quotations from respected sources on each side of any question. They largely cancel each other."

Newsweek: Some argue that the current impeachment allegations against Trump don't "rise to the level" of an impeachable offense. Your view?

Fried: I don't agree. They argue a serious, concerted and corrupt use of presidential power for personal political gain.

Newsweek: Some argue the allegations haven't been adequately proven.

Fried: I don't understand how much more proof you want. But, in any event, additional proof is available. It's just that the president will not supply it. That is an additional grounds for impeachment. He has issued blanket orders not to cooperate in any respect by anyone. Now there are all kinds of valid privileges. And those could be invoked. But a blanket privilege because this is an "illegitimate process"? Well, he doesn't get to say that. That blanket order is itself an impeachable abuse of power.

Caveat: #NeverTrump conservatives like Charles Fried are doing the country a service by speaking out against Trumpism and against Barr and Trump. But that doesn't mean they should get a role in picking the Democratic nominees. All of them want Biden because Biden is the most conservative Democrat they could hope for and the most in alignment with their views. What about former Ron Paul supporters? Do they get a role?

Stephanie Kelton On The Economics of Bernie's Platform

Economics isn't easy for many voters to understand. Stephanie Kelton is one of the top economists in the world-- as well as Bernie's chief economic advisor-- and teaches economics at Stony Brook. She's been helping Blue America congressional candidates understand some of the trickier bits of economics behind policy solutions like Medicare-For-All, the Green New Deal, free public college, raising the minimum wage to a living wage, cancelling student loan debt...

In the video above she was interviewed by Bloomberg News yesterday. You may get something out of it; I hope so, because it isn't anything Trump or Status Quo Joe is ever going to comprehend, nor will any of it be reflected in the extremely conservative-- or neo-liberal, to be more precise-- policy agendas. Let me add a few bits and pieces-- four-- from things Kelton has said and written recently:

• "The federal government is nothing like a household. In order for households or private businesses to be able to spend, they've got to come up with the money, right? And the federal government doesn't have to behave like a household. In fact, it becomes really destructive for the economy if the government tries to behave like a household. You and I are using the U.S. dollar. States and municipalities-- the state of Kansas or Detroit-- they're also using the U.S. dollar. Private businesses are using the dollar. The federal government of the United States is issuing our currency, and so we have a very different relationship to the currency. That means that in order to spend, the government doesn't have to do what a household or a private business has to do: find the money. The government can simply spend the money into the economy and when it does, the rest of us end up receiving that spending as part of our income."

• "The conventional thinking about budget deficits, I think, tends to be that people look at a deficit and they think that it's evidence of overspending. They think it's evidence the government is mismanaging its books. That it's done something wrong. [But] evidence of overspending is inflation. So what is the budget deficit? I like to do this by using an example. I think it helps people. If you think of the government deficit as the difference between what the government spends into the economy and what it taxes back out, then imagine a government that spends $100 into the U.S. economy but it only taxes $90 back out. We label that a government deficit and we record that on the government's books. But what we forget to do, is pay attention to the fact that there's now $10 somewhere in the economy that wouldn't have been there otherwise, that is put there by the government's deficit. In other words, their deficits become our surpluses. So when we talk about the government having all this red ink, we have to remind ourselves that their red ink becomes our black ink, and their deficits are our surpluses."




• "People tend to hear deficit and think it's something that we should strive to eliminate, that we shouldn't be running budget deficits. That there's evidence of fiscal irresponsibility. And the truth is the deficit can be too big. Evidence of a deficit that's too big would be inflation. But the deficit can also be too small. It can be too small to support demand in the economy and evidence of a deficit that is too small is unemployment. So, deficits can be too big, but they can also be too small. And the right level of the deficit is the one that gets you a balanced overall economy. The one that allows you to achieve high levels of employment and low inflation."

• "We could add $1.5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years, as we just did with tax cuts that go disproportionately to people in the top-income distribution, and we could have done, for instance, student debt cancellation at virtually the same price tag. We could have done massive infrastructure investment, or R&D investment. You can have the same budgetary outcome, but very different economic outcomes, in terms of the potential to boost long-term growth and productivity, impacts on the distribution of income, and so forth. Every economy has its own internal speed limit. You can only absorb so much additional spending at any point in time, given the slack that the economy has at that moment. So can the deficit be too big? Of course! But can it be too small? Yes. And that’s something you rarely hear people say. Or complain about it."

This is a really excellent long-form Bernie interview with Joe Rogan from yesterday. I'm swooning; it's so enlightening and so powerful. Early this morning, 1.7 million people had watched it on YouTube and now over 2.8 million have watched. Take a look; it's really excellent: