Do You Trust Washington With Your Family's Well-Being?

Nabilah Islam, pictured above, is the most progressive candidate running for the open seat in the GA-07 seat in the suburbs and small towns north of Atlanta. This morning she shared an observation with us: "The House and Senate have had four opportunities to do what is right by the American people. At this point, I have faith in very few members in either chamber to put the American people first. We are on the brink of another great depression. We have 33 million Americans out of work. 90 million Americans uninsured or underinsured and those in the halls of Congress are debating on whether or not to expand COBRA. I've been saying for some time now that we need to be looking at policy proposals like FDR's New Deal. More immediately, we need emergency UBI, rent and mortgage cancellation, student debt cancellation, etc. Long term this is a great opportunity to implement a Green New Deal. It would create jobs with a federal jobs guarantee. Allow us to invest in ourselves and create an opportunity for working people to thrive not just survive. My biggest fear is ushering in the 117th Congress with people who would rather make austerity cuts that take on corporate special interests. That is why we need to fight to elect people like myself and other progressive candidates around the country who are committed to putting Americans first."

If he was a reader, I bet Catherine Rampell would trigger Trump every time the Washington Post published one of her columns. I'm sure that's already the case with Mitch McConnell. Yesterday's, Washington Shows Just Why The Country Shouldn’t Depend On It For Stimulus would have sent him into a screaming tirade. "Washington’s very Washingtonian behavior," she wrote, "has just underscored why a stimulus should not depend on Washington." Like many members of Congress, she thinks automatic economic triggers should determine aid to citizens, not DC finagling.

Last week, on the day the unemployment rate hot 14.7%, Don Beyer (D-VA), vice chair of Congress' Joint Economic Committee, issued a statement:

We have not seen horrible, history-making numbers like these since the Great Depression.

“In two months, almost a decade’s worth of job growth has been wiped out, the unemployment rate has more than quadrupled, and more than 75,000 Americans have died because President Trump did not take seriously multiple early warnings about the global threat of the coronavirus and failed to lead a competent fight against it. This is President Trump’s economic legacy-- cracks in the economy as a result of his trade wars and tax cuts have now split wide open as a result of his ignorance and incompetence.

It could be months before the tens of millions of Americans who have lost their jobs are able to return to work. If we expect them to stay home to stop the spread of the virus, then we need to make sure they can take care of themselves and their loved ones for as long as the public health and economic crises last.

A legislative proposal I introduced this week with Senators Reed and Bennet would extend unemployment benefits until states’ unemployment rates drop to acceptable levels. We should not penalize people for not having a job when there are no jobs to be had. I hope the legislation is included in the next coronavirus relief package.


In her column, Rampell went right to another statement on that same day, one from the White House-- "that those hoping for more help from the feds shouldn’t hold their breath. 'We're in no rush, we're in no rush,' President Trump said Friday. His economic advisers and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) echoed this message. In other words, don’t plan on more aid to states, which are already so strapped for cash that they’re cutting Medicaid during a pandemic. Don’t expect extensions of financial lifelines for jobless workers."



She's speculated that "this is a negotiating ploy to extract concessions from Democrats-- even though red states would suffer from delaying federal aid, too. Whatever the reason, GOP dawdling is the latest reminder that Congress should stop leaving the fate of the economy to the whims of callous, dithering, dilettantish, hostage-taking charlatans, who see every crisis as an opportunity for a shakedown. Instead, build a stimulus system that triggers on (and off) automatically-- based on whatever the economy actually needs, using metrics agreed to in advance."



Economists are generally fans of policies known as “automatic stabilizers,” or programs that ramp up automatically when the economy tanks. For example, as people lose jobs, they become eligible for food stamps or unemployment benefits.



These forms of stimulus kick in without politicians having to debate, and they have huge bang for their buck. Both are useful features in a dysfunctional political system, especially when the country is struck by an unusually bad shock in which a speedy fiscal response is critical.



Unfortunately, our automatic stabilizers were never robust enough. Worse, the Trump administration and state governments have made automatic stabilizers much less automatic and stabilizing by adding red tape and reducing programs’ generosity in recent years.



This has left the country unusually reliant on Washington to devise a rescue program ad hoc during the worst economic crisis in nearly a century.



Congress has passed several rounds of relief, but more is undoubtedly necessary. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that without further stimulus, unemployment will be 9.5 percent at the end of 2021. Goldman Sachs estimates that even with another half-trillion dollars in yet-to-be-proposed fiscal stimulus, unemployment will average “only” 7.2 percent next year.



For now, most of Congress's existing measures are poised to sunset based on somewhat arbitrary deadlines unrelated to economic conditions. Enhanced unemployment benefits, for example, are set to expire July 31, even though the CBO expects the unemployment rate to average 16 percent that quarter.



Of course, nothing would stop Congress from renewing these emergency programs-- except, that is, Congress.

Each time measures come up for renewal, prolonged negotiation is more likely, with politicians exploiting “must-pass” legislation to make crazy, controversial demands. This already happens during debt-ceiling showdowns, the more common congressionally created opportunity for unnecessary crises.



If Trump’s “no rush” comments weren’t sufficient evidence of this risk now, recall that in the aftermath of the Great Recession, authorization for extended unemployment benefits lapsed five times. More recently, the small-business loan program ran out of funds for more than a week. And that was for a program virtually everyone supports, almost immediately after it began.



The next round of stimulus negotiations will be difficult and high-stakes. But it must include relief measures automatically linking stimulus to economic conditions, so that further rounds of negotiations can have lower stakes. Some Democratic lawmakers have proposed plans that would do this. Rep. Don Beyer (VA) and Senators Michael Bennet (CO) and Jack Reed (RI) recently offered a framework for linking enhanced jobless benefits to (duh) the joblessness rate. So did Sen. Ron Wyden (OR).

In these proposals, benefit extensions would automatically turn on while the economy is bad, and-- perhaps as important, at least to budget hawks-- automatically trigger “off” as the economy heals. Lawmakers, of course, can override their “autopilot” settings if they later change their minds.



Fair warning: Trigger-based programs are likely to have big up-front price tags. But they are no more expensive than the cumulative cost of multiple program extensions, such as those enacted after the Great Recession.


They could actually be less expensive, because they’d prevent costly program lapses and restarts. And they’d give states greater certainty around budgeting, and households greater confidence in their ability to pay bills. (Remember when Republicans used to complain about policy uncertainty?)



Most important, we need to minimize the number of desperate American families either party might take hostage. Especially when at least one party appears more than willing to actually destroy those hostages.

One senior Democratic congressman told me that he thinks Rampell's got it wrong. "If the GOP is going to act like callous jackasses," he said, "then you make them pay the price for it, just as Trump/McConnell tried to do with the Payroll Protection Program funding. Also, the trigger concept doesn’t really work here, because this may well be a once-in-a-century depression, not an unpleasant point in the business cycle. It also assumes that the Government has a limitless supply of funds, and in fact it doesn’t. Last month’s federal deficit is more than the annual GDP of Switzerland. Triggers make sense when you have only a demand problem; this is both a demand and a supply problem. Wendy’s is not running out of hamburgers because of a lack of demand, I assure you. At this point, even Keynes would not be a Keynesian. I’m not saying that I would vote against it, but I certainly don’t think that it’s a great idea."

Tom Guild is running for the Oklahoma City district, currently held by GOP-lite Blue Dog Kendra Horn. "No rush is the operative phrase with too many members of the permanent political class in Washington, DC. It took a month for me to receive my stimulus check. If my rent or house payment or my need to buy food had been dependent on receipt of that money, I would have been a prime candidate for eviction or foreclosure and a casualty of nutrition deprivation syndrome. Many people I visit with on social media and otherwise are still waiting for their stimulus payment. They needed their money to survive and keep their financial heads above water. No rush. How asinine. Oklahoma’s unemployment compensation system has been fairly roasted for having an unduly complicated filing system and many intentional roadblocks to delay or deny claims for desperate Sooners. They may soon seek shelter with other homeless Okies or stand on the side of the road pleading for money to help themselves and their desperate loved ones. As Marie Antoinette coldly proclaimed before being beheaded by French revolutionaries, 'Let them (the hungry and desperate if bread was unavailable to them) eat cake!' No hurry. How barbaric. The national government has been an epic failure in addressing the desperation in America during these terrible dark days. The Reed/Bennet/Beyer proposal to extend unemployment benefits until states’ unemployment rates drop to acceptable levels is a sensible idea. As they indicate, 'We should not penalize people for not having a job when there are no jobs to be had.' This practical idea should be considered and included in the next coronavirus relief package. The Trump tax cuts for the wealthy, Wall Street, and big corporations moved through Congress and was signed into law in short order. Bailing out the wealthy and the big corporations among the political ruling class always takes priority over the lives of ordinary hard working and beautiful yet beleaguered Americans. The greed of some very BIG small businesses in snapping up forgivable loans authorized and funded by Congress, before the real small businesses, who lacked connections with the well-heeled and the big banks, had a chance to participate before the money set aside for them was gone, is despicable. When I taught a course called Contemporary Workplace Issues that I pioneered at the University of Central Oklahoma, I used a book to enhance discussion of white collar crime in the business world. The book is entitled The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison. Graft, corporate welfare, and grifting has become a way of life for some privileged and entitled corporate citizens here in our country. Wealth and income inequality have reached critical mass and become one of the most serious systemic problems facing our country. The failure of the national government and many state governments to put the least among us first makes a tragic situation that much more horrific and intractable. No rush indeed. We better start addressing issues of poverty, privilege, inequality, and government incompetence now. The future viability and health of our republic hang in the balance."

Eva Putzova is the progressive running in AZ-01. The incumbent, a lifelong conservative Republican pretending to be an equally conservative Blue Dog, guarantees that voters have to real choice. Eva is ending that. "The failure of Congress and the White House to address the deteriorating conditions faced by American families," she told us this morning, "is disgraceful. I agree that there should be automatic triggers that guarantee increased unemployment benefits, food stamps and healthcoverage, until the economy recovers to full employment. However, that is not enough. With or without this current economic/public health crisis, we need universal healthcare, i.e, Medicare for All, a Green New Deal to completely retool the economy and invest in underserved areas, strong labor law reform and protections for workers rights to organize unions, a jobs guarantee, and much, much more. The Republican Party and its President are criminally negligent in failing to address the Covid-19 crisis as well the coming economic depression. But too many Democrats are willing to accept half-measures that don't address the social and economic problems that have gotten worse over the past 50 years-- well before Donald Trump became President."

Robin Wilt is a fully dedicated progressive running against a garden variety New Dem in Rochester, New York. She'll make a much better representative of Monroe County's working families, although not as much of a fighter to put corporate interests first, the way her opponent is! "Throughout March and April 2020, the U.S. government passed three main relief packages, and one supplemental one, totaling nearly $2.8 trillion. The overwhelming majority of that money-- over $2 trillion-- went directly to Wall Street. I want that to sink in. In the middle of a pandemic, the main spending priority of the Federal government was not to ramp up infectious disease testing, increase manufacturing of needed medical goods and PPE, or to provide health care coverage or a basic income for the tens of millions of people who would eventually be unemployed as a result of the health crisis. Once again, the first priority of those in Washington was to bail out Wall Street, not Main Street.

"The first COVID-19 relief bill passed on March 6, 2020, and rightfully went to response efforts to fund research for a vaccine and provide money to help with efforts to fight the spread of the virus. It totaled only $8.3 billion. On March 12, 2020, however, the Fed enormously expanded its repo operations to banks by a whopping $1.5 trillion dollars, then adding another $500 billion on March 16, 'to ensure there was enough liquidity in the money markets.' Yes, you read that correctly. That’s $2 trillion to banks within ten days of the initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic, while only some $8 billion went to fighting the health crisis.

"Meanwhile, the second relief package for people-- the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (which, ironically, came after the Wall Street bail out packages)-- passed on March 18, and again, in comparison to the spending on the financial sector, allocated a paltry $3.4 Billion to: 1) provide money for families who rely on free school lunches in light of widespread school closures; 2) mandate companies with fewer than 500 employees provide paid sick leave for these suffering from COVID-19, as well as providing a tax credit to help employers cover those costs; 3) nearly $1 billion in additional unemployment insurance money for states, as well as loans to states to fund unemployment insurance; 4) Funding and cost waivers to make COVID-19 testing free for all.

"It was not until almost a month later, on April 9, 2020, that the Federal government got around to passing any direct aid to families in the form of cash payments through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.

"I am fond of the saying: Don’t tell me what your priorities are. Show me your budget. Our representatives who demonstrate that their priorities and loyalties are first and foremost to the financial sector-- as opposed to the people who are the engines of it-- should be voted out. We need new, bold, representatives who are not afraid to truly put people first in their spending priorities."

3 Governors Who Want To Kill Their Own Citizens

There are three governors who have been judged so dangerously incompetent that none can be singled out as the worst pandemic governor in America and all three share the spot: Kristi Noem of South Dakota, Ron DeSantis of Florida and Brian Kemp of Georgia. Because all have opposed sane social distancing policies, thousands of their states' citizens have been infected. California now has 865 confirmed COVID-19 cases per one million in the population. South Dakota-- compliments of Noem-- has 2,031 cases per million (up from 1,950 yesterday). Florida has 1,335 cases/million (up from 1,314 yesterday) and Georgia has 1,931 cases per million (up from 1,884). The governors of these three states have implemented policies that will absolutely steepen the curve instead of flatten it. It's as if Noem, DeSantis and Kemp were all homicidal maniacs intent on causing their own populations to become infected.

As Georgia hurtles towards the 20,000 cases mark-- another 482 confirmed infections and 24 more deaths yesterday-- Kemp has decided to re-open restaurants, movie theaters, hair salons, barber shops, tattoo parlors and gyms as well as other businesses in his state. He's using Georgians as an experiment in curve-steepening (and as a test of Darwin's "survival of the fittest" law).




Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms told ABC News that she's "extremely concerned about the announcement the governor made. I hope that he's right and I'm wrong because if he's wrong then more people will die." Watch her short interview above with CNN's Chris Cuomo yesterday. Cuomo mentioned that the curve seems to be starting to flatten in Atlanta. She noted that "If we're in a better position, it's because we have been aggressive in asking people to stay home... As I look at the data and as I talk with our public health officials, I don't see that it's based on anything logical."

Even the crazy right-wing senator next door, Lindsey Graham (R-SC), is hissing that Kemp is opening up too much and too soon, worried that the contagion from Georgia will engulf his ownstate.

Nabilah Islam, the hands down best of the dozen candidates running for the open 7th congressional district seat in the suburbs north of Atlanta, wasn't exactly thrilled with Kemp's latest stunt. "For someone who claims to be pro-life," she told me last night, "Kemp's decision to begin to reopening Georgia after only recently finding out that asymptomatic people can spread the novel Coronavirus is anything but. Governor Kemp was one of the last to issue a shelter in place and is one of the first to open. To no one's surprise, the businesses he's choosing to open first are traditionally minority-owned businesses-- barbershops, nail salons being predominantly owned by populations of the electorate that voted against him in 2018. He has no desire to protect lives. His only desire is profit as with the rest of the Republican Party. Putting people first is not on their list of prerogatives."

Fiends of mine in Texas have asked me not to leave out their state, where the Governor is a complete dolt. True, but the Lt. Governor, Dan Patrick, has more power and is an even bigger dolt. He was on Fox's Tucker Carlson Tonight Monday babbling away like an imbecile that "there are more important things than living." Money.





In at least one state, though, an increase in infections can't be blamed on the governor. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, though hampered by a legislature firmly controlled by the Republican Party Death Cult, moved to flatten the curve with regulations and tried to prevent in-person voting. The legislature took the case in favor of infecting the citizens of the state to the state and national Supreme Court-- each controlled by the Republican Party Death Cult-- and each court, by narrow party-line votes, ruled in favor of the pandemic.

The April 7 primary was on a day when infections were dropping because of social distancing policies (138 new cases that day, down from 173 new cases the day before). The governor's executive order helped bring the rate of infection down to just 87 new cases on April 12. A week after the forced in-person election, the infection rate began spiking-- back up to 166 per day. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Milwaukee Health Commissioner Jeanette Kowalik has said that so far 7 new cases in the city have been traced to the forced election-- six voters and one poll worker.

"As you recall, there were people that were in line for a very long time to get their vote in, so if you figure out around a range of time when someone was there or in the polling sites or in the line, connect to someone who was an actual case, that's when we would do notifications," she said.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said about 3,500 voters came to each of the city's five voting sites and dozens of workers were there as well.

"This will tell you why we were so adamant about trying to not have this occur," he said, referring calls to cancel in-person voting.

Yesterday, the Washington Post released a new poll it did in conjunction with the University of Maryland. Scott Clement and Dan Balz reported that the poll shows governors winning "praise across the political spectrum for their leadership, which has sometimes put them sharply at odds with Trump and his administration."

I wish it broke that praise down by state. It's hard to imagine that incompetents like Kemp, Noem and DeSantis could be winning much praise for their pandemic skills. This seemed to be borne out by most Americans-- 54%-- giving Señor Trumpanzee negative marks for his handling of the pandemic. By contrast, 72 percent of Americans give positive ratings to the governors of their states for the way they have dealt with the crisis.

Personal health concerns are widespread, with 57 percent saying they are “very” or “somewhat” worried about becoming infected and seriously ill from the coronavirus, including at least 40 percent of people in every major demographic and political group. For those most concerned, the fear was enough to override partisanship when it comes to the safety of public gatherings, particularly for Republicans.

...[I]n contrast with that overt pressure to reopen the country, the poll finds a clear majority of Americans expect social distancing practices will be necessary until at least the beginning of the summer.

Asked when people expect the outbreak to be controlled enough that people can safely attend gatherings of 10 or more people, just 10 percent predict such gatherings would be safe by the end of April or earlier, while another 21 percent expect them to be safe by the end of May. More than twice as many-- 65 percent-- say it may take until June or later for people to safely gather in groups of 10 or more.

Partisans divide on this question, with 77 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents saying they expect public gatherings will not be safe until June or later, compared with 51 percent of Republicans and Republican leaners who say the same. Yet Republicans split depending on personal health concerns.

Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who are less worried about becoming infected and seriously ill from the coronavirus, 60 percent expect public gatherings will be safe by the end of May or earlier. But among Republicans who are at least somewhat concerned about becoming seriously sick, 66 percent say this will take until June, not far from the share of all Democrats who anticipate such a delay.

Americans are also pessimistic about how quickly the economy will recover after the outbreak is under control. A 63 percent majority expect the economy will recover slowly, while 37 percent think it will recover quickly. Trump has predicted a rapid recovery once businesses reopen, and his optimism is shared by 55 percent of Republicans. Most independents and Democrats expect a slow recovery.

In the meantime, Americans are actively taking part in measures meant to stem the spread of the virus. Most-- 65 percent-- report wearing a mask or a face covering when leaving home in the past week. Another 17 percent say they did not leave home at all. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say they had worn a mask or not left home at all.

The Republican Party-- even at a grassroots level-- is a death cult and is driven towards steepening the curve. If 82% of Americans say they wear a mask in public or don't leave their houses at all, that still leaves almost 20% of the population willing to risk death, risk infecting their loved ones, risk keeping the pandemic growing. They are a real danger. I was happy this week to see Louisiana psychopath-pastor Tony Spell arrested again. Hopefully this time they'll throw away the key instead of letting him out like they did last time. Unlike earlier reports that said he was arrested for encouraging large gatherings at his church so he could continue to fleece his flock, the money-hungry right-wing pastor was actually arrested for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for attempting to back a bus into a protester.

Transpartisan Failure

Our political leadership-- and not just Trump-- has failed us... dismally so. Even blue state governors like Andrew Cuomo (New York), Phil Murphy (New Jersey) and Gavin Newsom (California) have been taking ineffective baby steps that have already been proven to only make the pandemic worse. Like Trump, they are more afraid to be blamed for an economic turn-down than to watch thousands and perhaps millions of Americans die. Despite bad examples of behavior with resultant calamity in Italy, Spain and Holland and good examples with quicker resolution in Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea, they have all been masters of "too little too late," thereby putting us all at risk-- and showing how utterly worthless they are as political "leaders." The American people are savvier about the pandemic then our political leaders are. A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll by Hart Research.

Although most Americans report that they have not changed their behavior in ways that could slow down the pandemic, most still recognize that Trump has failed in protecting the country:

47% of respondents say they have either stopping attending large public gatherings like movies, concerts or sporting events or plan to, while 49% have neither stopped nor intend to stop. It gets worse when asked about canceling travel plans and eating in restaurants. Just 36% have canceled or rescheduled travel plans-- as opposed to 58% who have not or don't plan to-- and just 26% have stopped eating in restaurants, as opposed to 69% who have not stopped eating in restaurants. Americans are worried-- but not worried enough to act on those worries. One of my sisters-- the Trumpier one-- refused to cancel plans for a cruise. The cruise company canceled it. She also planned to see a Michael Bublé concert in Atlantic City last week and much to her chagrin-- she insists this is all "media hype"-- the concert was canceled. Last week I stopped wearing my hospital masks and started wearing a heavy duty N-99 Base Camp mask with exhalation valves whenever I go out. I noticed that when I wore it to the grocery store over tiger weekend, I was the only one in the entire (huge) store with any kind of a mask and that everyone looked at me as though I had the plague and moved quickly away from my vicinity-- a bonus as far as I was concerned.

Excursion to the grocery store for more daikon root

At every step of the way, conservative politicians have prioritized the economy over health. Kara Eastman, the Omaha progressive running against one of those conservative politicians, Donald Bacon (R), told me yesterday that "Our fractured and inefficient collection of private and public health programs leaves millions of Americans out in the cold during a crisis like COVD-19. A well-designed national health program would cover every U.S. resident and would ensure timely care for those who need it most. The fact is that millions of American citizens in our growing gig-economy are at risk and single payer can greatly mitigate that risk." Jim Harper, the progressive candidate for the open blue seat in northwest Indiana. He had a similar perspective. "Every day," he told me, "I meet Hoosiers who are terrified about their ability to access healthcare during this public health crisis. They know that our healthcare system is broken and that the inability of some to access care puts everyone at risk during this public health crisis. Medicare for All would ensure universal healthcare was important before this pandemic. But the current public health crisis shows how serious the issue is and how Medicare for All would protect all Americans."

Trumpist Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin was on This Week yesterday when Jonathan Karl asked him if the pandemic would cause a recession, which every credible economist is predicting. Being part of the Trump Regime requires lying... so he did. "I don't think so. The real issue is not the economic situation today… This is a unique situation. We are going to have a slowdown. Later in the year economic activity will pick up as we confront this virus." Except the U.S. isn't even close to adequately confronting the pandemic so it will only get worse and the chances of escaping a humongous recession will diminish. Larry Elliott reported for The Guardian that travel bans, prohibitions on mass gatherings like sporting events and concerts, stock markets in freefall, deserted shopping malls (and the coming closures of restaurants, bars, schools, most service jobs and pretty much anything other than grocery stores and pharmacies), we need to prepare for a global recession.

If history is any guide, the global economy will eventually recover from the Covid-19 pandemic, but the idea that this is going to be a V-shaped recession in the first half of 2020 followed by a recovery in the second half of the year looks absurd after the tumultuous events of the past week.

What’s more, policymakers know as much. The Federal Reserve-- the US central bank-- does not need to be told by Donald Trump that it needs to cut interest rates and resume large-scale asset purchases known as quantitative easing. Wall Street is looking to the Fed to pull out all the stops when it meets on Wednesday and the world’s most powerful central bank cannot afford to disappoint.

In the UK the coordinated response by the Bank of England and the Treasury last week was seen as a textbook example of how policymakers ought to respond to the crisis. It was, though, only the start. Airline companies will quickly go bust unless they receive financial assistance. The same goes for retailers, many of them hanging on by their fingertips even before Covid-19. Britain has a new chancellor of the exchequer in Rishi Sunak and, from Monday, a new governor of the Bank of England in Andrew Bailey, and they will both be aware that the risks of doing too little too late are far greater than those of doing too much too soon.

So, in the coming weeks the Bank can be expected to cut interest rates to 0.1%-- the lowest they have ever been-- and to resume its QE programme. Sunak will have to add to the £12bn he has set aside to deal with Covid-19.

As in 2008-09, the authorities in the eurozone have been slowest to act but there have been welcome signs in recent days-- from Germany, most significantly-- of the need for governments to spend, and spend big.

The perfect time to implement Medicare-for-All.

Mark Levine is a City Councilman and chair of the City Council Health Committee in hard-hit NYC. On Sunday he came clean with his constituents: "Our city is facing a mounting threat in the coronavirus epidemic. We must move aggressively-- now-- to slow the outbreak in New York City. This is going to require extreme measures to ensure that the public avoids crowded places to the maximum extent possible. That is why I support the closure of all non-essential services, including schools, bars, restaurants, gyms, movie theaters, and courthouses."

Moments later it was announced that all NYC schools would close "until April 20," a silly aspirational random date.

New Yorkers shouldn’t wait for such an order to take responsibility for their own actions. I urge everyone to avoid any and all social gatherings if at all possible. We all need to adhere to aggressive social distancing, slow the spread, of the virus to protect the vulnerable, and prevent our health system from becoming overwhelmed.

Those who can work from home should. Families who are able to keep their children home from school should. If you must travel to work and are able to walk or bike you should.

And if you are feeling ill, it is imperative that you stay home. You should not go to work, you should not be in public.

And here’s the hardest part: if you are only mildly ill with COVID-19 symptoms (fever, dry cough) and do not have other health complications, you should not go to the hospital. You should rest at home and have a phone by your side to call for a doctor if your condition worsens. These extraordinary recommendations are necessary because we must preserve every element of our healthcare system for the seriously ill, as the number of coronavirus cases continues to rise.

These coming weeks and months will be a time of unprecedented challenges for our city.

Our world; and, possibly, our species.

It has been clear from the start that Covid-19 affects both sides of the economy: supply and demand. The supply of goods and services is impaired because factories and offices are shut and output falls as a result. But demand also falls because consumers stay at home and stop spending, and businesses mothball investment.

Conventional policy measures-- such as cutting the cost of borrowing or reducing taxes-- tend to work better when there is a demand shock. There is a limit to what they can do in the event of a combined supply and demand shock.

...[T]he economic disruption caused by Covid-19 is enormous. Entire countries-- Italy and Spain-- are in lockdown. The problems facing airline companies are symptomatic of a crisis facing the global travel industry, from cruise companies to hotels that cater for tourists. Discretionary spending by consumers appears to have collapsed in recent days.

Despite globalisation, much economic activity remains local but here, too, there will be an impact as people cancel appointments at the dentist, put off having their hair cut and wait to put their house on the market.

Paul Dales, the chief UK economist at Capital Economics, has estimated that output in Britain will shrink by 2.5% in the second quarter but says a 5% fall is possible. The more pessimistic estimate looks quite plausible.

What’s more, in a service-sector dominated economy much of the lost output is never going to be recovered. If people do not go out to their weekly meal at their favourite local restaurant for the next two months they are not going to eat out four times a week when the fear of infection has been lifted.

It also seems likely that the economic pain will go on for longer than originally estimated. Having imposed bans and restrictions, governments and private-sector bodies will be cautious about removing them. Countries such as Italy will be wary of opening their borders while there is a fear of reinfection. The idea that Premier League football will be back by early April is fanciful.

There is also a question of how long it will take consumer and business confidence to recover. Policy action by central banks and finance ministries can help in this respect but only so much. The chances are that the imminent recession will be U-shaped: a steep decline followed by a period of bumping along the bottom. There will be recovery but it will take time and only after much damage has been caused.

People who tell you schools will reopen later in the month or next month or that "postponed" events will be rescheduled soon are either stupid or deceitful. Our politicians need to do two things immediately:

• remote voting for Congress and state legislatures
• removing voting for primaries and the 2020 general election

Immediately means now. Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf did the right thing by ordering a total lockdown for Bucks and Chester counties but the Speaker of the state House, Michael Turzai (R), is refusing to postpone the election, knowing it is the only chance the GOP has to hold onto the seat.

Jay Ponti wrote over the weekend that words like "reckless," "criminal," and "villainous" only begin to describe the Democratic Party’s "willingness to threaten the lives of voters by not postponing voting at the polls" due to the pandemic.

The NHL, NBA and MLS have shut down.

Italy’s government imposed the closure of restaurants, bars and almost all shops except food stores and pharmacies. Three weeks ago Italian citizens were going about their day, business as usual, and today the country is in chaos.

Given the alarming rate of contagion, our country may be on the verge of the worst health catastrophe in modern U.S. history.

World leaders. A-list Hollywood actors. Members of Congress have tested positive for Covid-19. Not even POTUS was able to avoid being exposed to the virus that is ten times deadlier than the flu.

The difference between them and millions of poor people is that they have access to the best health care and will be at low risk to die from exposure.

Major museums, schools, and Universities. All closed.

Fucking Disney World.

Why? Because lives are at stake.

AEG has canceled Coachella and all North American concerted tours, but the democratic party is determined to put thousands of lives at risk just so it can push through their establishment candidate, Joe Biden.

The extent to which the virus is contained depends entirely on how the country responds to the crisis. Singapore and Taiwan are the gold standards in Coronavirus containment.

“While other countries waffled on acknowledging the danger of the outbreak, Taiwan took action immediately under the guidance of its National Health Command Center, which the country established after the deadly SARS outbreak in 2003 that killed 73 people there.”

Anywhere there are crowds of people in public is an unacceptable risk.

It is not overstating to say that holding primaries in the middle of a global pandemic is state-sanctioned genocide. To continue down this path following the fiascos in California and Texas that witnessed voters in line for up to 2–4 hours. Who were these people who stood in line for hours, refusing to be denied their sacred franchise?

Poor and working black and Latino voters.

These will be the ones to suffer the worst impact.

The effects won’t stop there. We need to understand that it is not just those who are infected in public spaces. It will affect the loved ones at home and everyone else that each infected person comes into contact with. Elders are the highest risk. Approximately 70–80% of senior citizens in other countries contracted the virus from a family member.

The only way to “flatten the curve” of Coronavirus is through quarantine. Global supply chains have been disrupted due to Trump’s trade war. Critical supplies for citizens and health workers like n95 respirator masks are all running out. The administration has forced the CDC to cut spending.

We are at a watershed moment.

The shelves of supermarkets are already being stripped bare, but we have not begun to see the worst.

We are in the moment when the shoreline is receding before the tipping point when the tsunami hits. The administration has been aware of this virus since December and has done nothing about it. Are we to believe that no one in the democratic leadership has been aware of this or the decimation of the CDC? Did anyone raise the alarm? Where was our media?

Failed leadership. Our institutions continue to fail us.

Liam O'Mara is the progressive Democrat and history professor running for the Riverside County congressional seat held by corrupt and incompetent Trump stooge Ken Calvert. O'Mara, however, knows that the incompetence isn't partisan and that there are Democrats every bit as bad as Republicans. This morning je told me that "Recently John Delaney tweeted that during a pandemic was a bad time to be discussing Medicare for all. With all due respect, it is the best time to be discussing it, since if we had done it decades ago we would be in far better shape to face a pandemic. Better late than never, though, and we need to be looking at how to prepare America for health care emergencies. Outbreaks like this are as inevitable as the sunrise-- they have recurred throughout history, and the best we can do is to be ready for them. Medicare helps to accomplish that, so here are a few points to consider:

Recently John Delaney tweeted that during a pandemic was a bad time to be discussing Medicare for all. With all due respect, it's a great time, since if we'd done it decades ago we would be in far better shape to face a pandemic. Better late than never-- we need to prepare America for health care emergencies. Outbreaks are as inevitable as the sunrise; they've recurred throughout history, and the best we can do is to be ready. Medicare helps to accomplish that, so here are a few points to consider:

1. 28 million Americans are uninsured, and tens of millions more are under-insured, with large co-pays and deductibles. People cannot afford to seek treatment and have been conditioned by experience not to try. It doesn't matter if the gov. says, "come on and get tested, it's free"-- lots of people won't hear it and a lot more won't believe it. (In fact, they should not, since our leaders have already lied about what they are providing in the way of emergency relief. Consider the sick-pay issue and the exemptions offered to so many businesses.) People who seek treatment for COVID-19 can get stuck with huge bills they cannot afford, raising again the spectre of ruined lives. We are the only rich country in the world where people declare bankruptcy over illnesses.

2. Without actual coverage, many Americans will be forced into emergency rooms when their symptoms get too bad to ignore. This can swiftly overwhelm capacity, since the need for profit slows investment in hospital capacity. We do not have existing capacity to treat a major pandemic regardless-- look back to the Spanish Flu of 1918, and at what China did in Wuhan, for an example of what is needed to manage a large-scale outbreak. But emergency rooms are especially costly and easily overrun by high demand, and the lack of regular coverage makes them the only option for many. This is a problem unique in the rich world, and makes no logical sense.

3. Cost considerations have compromised our readiness in other ways-- health care centres nationwide are short of equipment needed to treat a pandemic, from masks and sterilizing agents on down to beds and staff. As it is, rural America is chronically short of health care providers. The need to make a profit from health care leads to very different calculations than a simple emphasis on the public good.

4. Regular check-ups and preventive care also increase the resilience of a population. We are the 35th healthiest population in the world, despite extraordinary spending on health care, so we are getting poor value for our money. With universal health care, Americans would be healthier overall, and we would not have a large pool of citizens & residents who never see a provider and may be at higher risk due to untreated chronic heart & lung illnesses.

5. And again, lack of coverage means that by the time many seek treatment, their condition will be quite bad, and they'll have exposed more people, both at the medical facility and in their daily lives and workplaces. 44% of Americans report they do not seek treatment when sick due to cost. The outrageous cost of health care in the US puts us all at far greater risk. This is inexcusable. It's time for Medicare for all.

Nabilah Islam doesn't agree with John Delaney's position any more than Liam is. She's running for an open suburban seat north of Atlanta and a few hours ago she told us that "There is nothing I have more confidence in than the American people and our ability to persevere. I know that like we have in the past so many times, we will too overcome the coronavirus. What we CANNOT do is wait for the next pandemic to fight and pass Medicare for All. While the costs of testing are being waived, what about the cost of treatment? Without a centralized system, we will have a hard time streamlining supply orders. By states and hospitals estimating bed counts by the insured instead of populations, we will not have the capacity needed. If the coronavirus has shown us anything, we need Medicare for All Now."

Montana state Rep and congressional candidate Tom Winter reminded us that "It shouldn't have taken a global pandemic for us to finally realize our government and healthcare system does not work for America's working families. I've been working as a state legislator throughout this crisis to connect public health and healthcare professionals with our state and local government to help with triage plans and general preparedness. What immediately jumped out to me was how little capacity our hospitals and healthcare providers have to deal with an influx of patients. If the other wealthy countries of the world that have single payer healthcare systems-- and much greater capacity than us-- are bending to their breaking points as this pandemic reaches new levels, then I worry our system is woefully unprepared for the approaching storm. In the meantime, our politics is finally catching up on certain baseline policies like guaranteeing paid sick leave, waiving out-of-pocket expenses for life-saving testing and care, lowering drug costs, and countless other commonsense things that already exist in single payer systems. When we get through this crisis I think Americans will have a much greater appreciation for the security a single payer healthcare system could provide for their family's health. Not to mention the blowback that will happen when we all realize the ridiculousness that all of these life-saving policies were only temporary. Healthcare is a right for all, whether we are in a pandemic or not."

Four Great Congressional Candidates-- No Deadlines

Blue America is trying something new today. Usually when we write to our members, we're asking everyone to consider one candidate, most often one we just endorsed. Thing is, we've been vetting a large number of congressional candidates for the last few months and this past week we endorsed 4 of them, Robin Wilt in the Rochester, New York area, Nabilah Islam in the suburbs north of Atlanta, Tomas Ramos in the Bronx and Jim Harper in northwest Indiana. Each of the 4 is the most progressive candidate running in their race. Robin, Tomas and Jim are in safe blue districts. Nabilah is running in a swing district from which the Republican incumbent is retiring.

Let's start with Nabilah. "My mother worked for years at a warehouse picking up boxes and putting them on trucks," she told me. "Her low wages forced her to work longer hours. Those long hours eventually took a toll on her body, a toll so grave that she ended up herniating two discs in her back, a toll that nearly took her out of the workforce. Much worse than that, her employer and insurer at the time, decided they did not want to pay for one of her surgeries after it was already performed, leaving my family in a financial situation so dire that we were forced to sue the insurance company in order for the procedure to be paid for. Had that lawsuit not been successful, who knows where my family and I would be today."

No person, no family, should be put in a situation like that. America is the wealthiest country in the world and health care is a basic human right. We need to do more than fix the broken ACA that’s been gutted by Donald Trump and the GOP and we must do more than expand Medicaid. Individuals should never fall between the coverage gap and income should not preclude you from quality care. We need a universal healthcare system that affords every single American basic, comprehensive, quality coverage. Regardless of age, gender, or whether you have a pre-existing condition or not. Only sick people profit off of sick people. Healthcare, or the lack thereof, is such a deeply personal issue to me. When I am elected to be the next congresswoman from Georgia's 7th district, I vow to work tirelessly, to make sure every single person in this district, across Georgia and across the country has healthcare through a Medicare for all single payer system.

Tomas Ramos, the progressive running in the Bronx district right next to AOC's, also spoke with us about his mother. "I grew up seeing my mother struggle to pay for me to get a quality education so I know that education is out of reach if you cannot pay for it. That is why I am running-- to alleviate student debt for millions of Americans and to bring trade schools back to our communities. I saw my father deported and the toll that took on my family. That is why I am running. To reform our horrific immigration policies that have torn our families apart. I’m running to end the school to prison pipeline, fully fund our public education and fight for medicare for all."





Robin Wilt was a DNC Bernie delegate and was elected to the Brighton town council. She told us that she's "running to bring sweeping progressive change to not only the people of Rochester and Monroe County, but to the entire country. One of my biggest concerns that I plan to address in Congress is health care in America."

Health care is a human right. I have been active in the fight for universal, single-payer healthcare since observing how the Army’s single-payer system made it possible for my brother to recover and thrive after being severely injured in Iraq. For over a decade, I worked hard with other single-payer activists to encourage Louise Slaughter to co-sponsor Medicare for All. When my opponent took over Louise’s seat, our district lost a co-sponsor of Medicare for All. We must take this seat back and get our district back on track with its progressive values. When I am elected to Congress, I will immediately sign on as a co-sponsor of H.R. 1384, Expanded and Improved Medicare For All. Besides making every American eligible for Medicare, H.R. 1384 would expand Medicare to cover dental and vision services, mental health, and substance abuse treatment, and long term care.

Indiana's first district is more like an extension of Chicago than a part of Penceland. The district has been the domain of centrist Democrat Pete Viscolsky, who's retiring. Obama won the district with over 60% both times he ran and even Hillary beat Trump 54.1% to 41.5%. Over a dozen Democrats are running but Jim Harper, who ran a credible race for Secretary of State in 2018-- and won decisively in all three counties that make up IN-01, Lake, Porter and LaPorte counties-- is the most progressive as well as the most electable.


He told us that "as a public defender, I am committed to criminal justice reform. I have seen how the war on drugs has ravaged communities and disproportionately impacted communities of color. During my time in the New Orleans public defender’s office, for instance, one client was sentenced to twenty years in prison simply for possessing a small amount of marijuana. Instead of continuing to support his family, my client was forced to spend years in prison for activity that is legal in many states. In Congress, I will fight to legalize marijuana, abolish the death penalty, and end private prisons. But these reforms are just the beginning. Despite attempts to reform our sentencing laws, the United States still has the highest incarceration rate in the world. This is both immoral and counterproductive. I will work to reform our sentencing laws to decrease our record-high incarceration rate in the world and prioritize treatment and alternatives to incarceration. I will also support increased funding for public defender systems to ensure that the right to counsel applies to everyone."





So four really excellent candidates this week. Is there one of them who you really connect with and want to help get elected to Congress? Give at the link just below. Alternatively, you can also split your contribution-- evenly or otherwise-- between all four candidates at the Blue America 2020 congressional ActBlue page. We need more members of Congress like these four, not more Blue Dogs and New Dems. Here's an example of why that's so, so important for all of us, no matter what state or district we live in:

Do You Think Congress Needs More Working Class Members? Or Should It Just Be A Playground For The Wealthy?

At the end of the week, a non-political source, Teen Vogue, featured Nabilah Islam's proposal on behalf of working class candidates. It's something we discussed with Nabilah earlier as part of the Blue America endorsement process. A dedicated advocate for Medicare-for-All, his advocacy for health care for candidates is related but different. The idea is to help elect more working class candidates who, in turn, will advocate more working family-friendly policies. That's not going to happen if only relatively wealthy people can run for Congress. Her idea is pretty simple: allow candidates to use their campaign contributions for health insurance.

She wrote OpEds for both Teen Vogue and Vox. She began her piece for Vox with an all-to-familiar statement: "About four months ago, I canceled my health care plan. A couple of months before that, I put my student loans-- of which I still owe $30,000-- into forbearance. My story isn’t unique among working-class millennials in the country. But what sets me apart is that I had to do all of this because I decided to run for Congress... I’m here to tell you what I’ve learned: Political campaigns are often a pastime for the wealthy, meaning they’re off-limits for working-class people with backgrounds like mine. Let’s start with the fact that it’s nearly impossible to run for Congress while holding down a job. Campaigning is a full-time endeavor that requires having enough money to live without a salary for months on end. It also usually means paying out of pocket for health insurance, forgoing money that could have been put toward a retirement account, buying a house, or caring for loved ones.

All of this might be fine if you’re independently wealthy, but that’s not me. I grew up in Gwinnett County as the daughter of Bangladeshi immigrants, attending Gwinnett public schools. My father was a file clerk with the IRS for nearly 30 years, and my mother has worked multiple low-wage jobs all my life. I worked odd jobs as a teenager and in college, putting myself through school and helping my family make ends meet.

I never thought I was electable. But 2018, the year we elected the most diverse Congress in history, showed me that “electability” is a myth. So I came back home and worked really hard to put together a grassroots campaign.

And yet, hard work isn’t enough. People like me can do everything in their power to cut costs and climb the ladder, and still find themselves at the bottom financially.

I thought I would be able to hold down a part-time job waitressing or driving for Uber while campaigning, but the demands-- calling and meeting with voters, attending events across my community, pursuing endorsements-- became too high. For a while, I was paying out of pocket for a junk health care plan. It was unfortunately the only plan I could afford, especially since Georgia has refused to expand Medicaid. I knew the plan wouldn’t do much for me if I got sick or got hurt on the trail, so eventually, I canceled it. Having no income also means I’ve eaten enough packets of dollar ramen to last a lifetime.

My situation is difficult, but it’s not unique. Working-class people don’t usually run for Congress, and when they do, they often find themselves struggling like I am. It’s hard to build up independent wealth if you aren’t paid fairly, and women and people of color are disproportionately impacted by the wage gap. I’m struggling to support just myself, and I know it would be nearly impossible for me to continue my bid for Congress if I had a family to care for too. It’s no wonder nearly 40 percent of Congress members are millionaires. Three of my competitors in this race have spent more than $250,000 to self-fund their campaigns.

If we don’t eliminate barriers that prevent candidates from supporting themselves while running for federal office, we’ll continue to see a Congress that’s largely composed of wealthy, older white men. Americans will be deprived of representation by people who understand their lived experiences, and will continue to struggle under mounting student and medical debt.

The Federal Election Commission currently doesn’t allow candidates to use campaign funds for health care. I’m challenging the FEC to change its rules and to explicitly allow working-class candidates to use campaign funds to pay for health care, so at least one hurdle to running for Congress is eliminated for the non-wealthy.

I have hope that the FEC’s position will change. Liuba Grechen Shirley, an activist and founder of Vote Mama, successfully petitioned the FEC to use campaign funding for child care costs in 2018 while running for Congress, and it’s why I’m hoping to change the face of health care funding for candidates for years to come.

Running for Congress has taught me that the process is not designed for the working class. It’s also taught me that voices like my own are badly needed in the House of Representatives. And that starts with creating a system where people like me can run in the first place.

She's been reaching out to progressive members of Congress for advice and support. Today Ro Khanna announced his endorsement for her campaign. Iron worker and former congressional candidate Randy Bryce told me yesterday that "It’s tough enough finding an everyday working person willing to put their life on pause for a while in order to run for Congress but most of us can agree that we need more working people to be elected to Congress. There are already quite a few hurdles. Money is probably the biggest. Not only do we need it to fund a campaign but we need it to pay our bills and it needs to come from a different source. Too many live paycheck to paycheck. One of the biggest worries is health care. Imagine having an amazing campaign that comes screeching to a halt because the candidate can’t afford to go to the doctor? Until we have Medicare for all this is going to be an issue. Appears most of those running for office who would benefit from being covered the most have a M4A platform to make sure all of us have health care. It says a lot to oppose a candidate being allowed to cover their health insurance while expecting them to take care of their staff. We can take care of everyone and we should be looking for ways to remove the hurdles if we really want to see people like us representing people like us. If we don’t we’ll keep having people elected who just view us as money farms.And we still won’t be able to afford to see a doctor ourselves."

I asked some of the other Blue-America endorsed candidates what they think about Nabilah's proposal. Kara Eastman is running for the second time in the Omaha swing district (NE-02) and she's experienced this already. "When I decided to run," she told me, "people told me to pull out my 'Rolodex' and call my friends and ask them for money. As a nonprofit CEO, I asked 2 questions. 'What is a Rolodex?' And 'how will I fund my race with the $50 each one of my nonprofit friends and colleagues can afford to give me?' As a mom, and the primary breadwinner in my family, running is and has been a sacrifice. The system is set up for wealthy people to run since the average net worth of a sitting congressperson is $1 million. Before we finally get around to getting money out of politics, we need to make running more attainable for regular working people. Allowing candidates to use funds for healthcare and childcare would certainly help."

This is Robin Wilt's first congressional campaign, but not the first time she's run for office. "Today, the majority of members of Congress are millionaires," she reminded me, "and the typical congressional representative has an estimated net worth of over $500,000-- roughy fives times the median US household net worth. At the same time we are more likely to be represented by a member of the financially elite, running a Congressional campaign has become increasingly costly. If we don’t want running for and serving in Congress to be exclusively the province of the wealthy-- those who don’t have to pay a mortgage, college tuition or student loans, or other every day real-life expenses-- we need the campaign finance rules that allow fundraising to relieve some of the burdens that are associated with running for office. If more people like Nabilah ran for office, we would have more representatives that share our priorities-- like Medicare for All and legislation to remove money from politics. That’s why we need more people like Nabilah in Congress that share the average Americans experience!"

California Central Valley progressive Kim Williams told us last night that she "grew up in Nabilah’s home county, and I’m behind her 100%. She is spot on when she says that the candidates we need are hampered by a system that supports the candidates we don’t. Like her, I’ve had to make hard choices. I’m a single mom, and I’ve had to maintain my full-time job to support my child. This means I start my day at 4:00 a.m. to get a jump on my day before work and then I drive to events all over the district in the evenings and on weekends. But I have great hope that the system will change, and I know every working class candidate that makes it into office will fight to make sure those behind them have a fair shot. It's why I back Nabilah’s proposal and why I support publicly funded elections."

Rachel Ventura, the Will County reformer running for Congress against New Dem multimillionaire Bill Foster: "I certainly agree with Nabilah that we need to allow candidates to use campaign funds to pay for healthcare. In my first two campaigns I went without insurance and it was unsettling. Working people have it much harder than the 40% of Congress that fall into the millionaire category. The only way we are going to take our democracy back is to build a powerful grassroots movement that can propel working people into the halls of power without corporate campaign contributions. I look forward to fighting alongside Nabilah to pass a Medicare for All system and transform our political system to being one that serves all Americans."

"Running a campaign while working full time," said Arizona progressive and labor activist Eva Putzova, "is almost unheard of and even that is a privilege most people don't have-- they don't have an understanding employer that allows a candidate to flex their time to run. We need a complete overhaul of the campaign finance law and we need campaigns to be publicly funded-- to ensure that it's not just rich and corrupted to have a chance to represent us in Congress. Until we have such system, the campaign finance law should allow candidates to raise money to reasonably replace their income and non-wage benefits, including healthcare."