RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: For Top Democrats, Joe Biden Is No Al Franken Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=43875"><span class="small">Branko Marcetic, Jacobin</span></a>   
Thursday, 02 April 2020 11:12

Marcetic writes: "Two years after forcing Al Franken's resignation from the Senate over sexual misconduct allegations, prominent Democrats now have to decide whether to stand on principle or keep silent about the latest assault accusations against Joe Biden. We asked them - and so far, most are choosing to keep silent."

Vice President Joseph Biden (second from right) stands with the family of US senator Al Franken (D-MN) (second from left) during a swearing reenactment ceremony on Capitol Hill on July 6, 2009 in Washington, DC. (photo: Mark Wilson/Getty)
Vice President Joseph Biden (second from right) stands with the family of US senator Al Franken (D-MN) (second from left) during a swearing reenactment ceremony on Capitol Hill on July 6, 2009 in Washington, DC. (photo: Mark Wilson/Getty)


For Top Democrats, Joe Biden Is No Al Franken

By Branko Marcetic, Jacobin

02 April 20


Two years after forcing Al Franken’s resignation from the Senate over sexual misconduct allegations, prominent Democrats now have to decide whether to stand on principle or keep silent about the latest assault accusations against Joe Biden. We asked them — and so far, most are choosing to keep silent.

n 2017, the resignation of Senator Al Franken (D-MN) over a series of allegations that he had groped or kissed women without their consent was viewed as a pivotal moment in the long history of sexual abuse on Capitol Hill. As the allegations mounted, thirty senators from his own party, joined by two independents, placed what he later called a “tremendous amount of pressure” on Franken to resign, which he did.

Now, as a sexual assault allegation against Democratic front-runner and former vice president Joe Biden trickles from the world of online news into the mainstream media, all but one of those thirty-two senators are staying silent.

Last week, Tara Reade, a former staffer of Biden’s, alleged that in 1993, he had pushed her up against the wall and groped and penetrated her with his hands, telling her afterward, “You mean nothing to me.” Although Jacobin was unable to reach Reade and has not independently corroborated her story, the Intercept’s Ryan Grim, who originally broke the story, spoke to Reade’s brother and friend, who recounted hearing the story from her at the time. Grim had originally also broken the story about then–Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford.

Biden has previously said that “for a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real.” His senior adviser, Symone Sanders, whose personal website describes her as “a champion for women,” had said in 2018 she believed Ford’s allegation, stressing that she didn’t “think anyone that has ever done that, whether it was once in their life or fifty times, deserves to sit at the highest precipice of power.” Biden’s campaign has called Reade’s allegation “false.”

Jacobin reached out to the twenty-nine Democratic and independent senators who had called for Franken’s resignation three years ago and are still in office, in some cases leaving multiple voicemails and emails, and sometimes speaking directly with staffers. Some of those senators have since endorsed Biden for president, including Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Kamala Harris (D-CA), and Cory Booker (D-NJ). Of those twenty-nine, only one — Ohio’s Sherrod Brown — offered a statement in response:

“Every woman has a right to be heard without fear of intimidation or retribution, and I will always fight for that right.”

Perhaps the most surprising silence came from Senator Gillibrand, who has carved out a profile as a champion of women and sexual assault victims. Gillibrand has fought for years to ensure accusers in the military can be heard and see justice, and she was the first senator to call for Franken’s resignation in 2017, without an investigation into the allegations first.

“We must not lose sight that this watershed moment is bigger than any one industry, any one party, or any one person,” she wrote in a Facebook post at the time. “We have to rise to the occasion, and not shrink away from it, even when it’s hard, especially when it’s hard.”

Gillibrand later said that Franken, someone she considered a personal friend and an effective legislator, “wasn’t entitled to me carrying his water, and defending him with my silence.” Though she suffered political backlash for the decision, with major Democratic donors and bundlers vowing never to back her again, Gillibrand stressed she had “no regrets” and, if she could go back and change anything, she “might have done it sooner.”

Gillibrand endorsed Biden a little over a week ago, saying he would “be a champion for women.” The senator’s team did not appear to be aware of the sexual assault allegation when Jacobin reached out late last week, her press assistant welcoming an offer to share Reade’s recent interviews. Though Jacobin was told Gillibrand’s team would see if they could provide a statement by Monday, and despite multiple phone calls and emails, Gillibrand’s office has not yet offered a response, nor did they reply when asked if the senator was standing by her endorsement of Biden.

According to the New Yorker, Gillibrand was one of seven female Democratic senators who confronted Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer on December 1, 2017 about the Franken allegations, leading to his eventual resignation. The magazine reported that the group grew only more determined when they learned of a seventh accuser — one who, like Reade, was a former Senate staffer. None of the five other members of the group who are still in Congress — Kamala Harris (D-CA), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Patty Murray (D-WA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) — offered a response to Reade’s allegation.

Cortez Masto never publicly called for Franken’s resignation, but she did say at the time that she was “disappointed & disgusted with the allegations” against him and that “he should be held accountable.” After he resigned, she put out a statement declaring that “we must create an environment where every woman or man feels empowered to come forward.”

Though Cortez Masto has not weighed in on the ongoing Democratic contest, Hassan and Harris have, endorsing Biden for president, and both Harris and Cortez Masto are reportedly on Biden’s short list for the vice presidency. Sources told Mediaite the latter is one of Biden’s “top three” for the position, while Harris is one of a number of names being urged by Biden’s wealthy donors, according to CNBC. In calling for Franken to step down at the time, Harris said that “sexual harassment and misconduct should not be allowed by anyone and should not occur anywhere.”

In all, eleven of the thirty-two Democratic and independent senators who called for Franken’s resignation have formally endorsed Biden, with two of them now gone from Congress. One endorser is New Jersey senator Cory Booker, who has said Biden would “restore honor to the Oval Office,” and had earlier praised Franken for doing “the honorable thing” and resigning, calling for Donald Trump to “do the same thing,” owing to the “more serious allegations against him.” Another is California’s Dianne Feinstein, who had said about the Franken allegations that “the American people don’t look lightly on these kinds of actions, no matter who they’re committed by.” Still another is Tom Carper, Biden’s Delaware colleague for seven years, who had found the allegations against Franken “deeply troubling.”

One notable silence came from Senator Elizabeth Warren, whose coveted endorsement continues to elude both Democratic candidates left in the race. Though Warren had lagged behind other Democratic woman senators to call for Franken’s resignation, an aide told the Boston Globe she had personally phoned him to urge him to resign, and she made the issue of gender discrimination a cornerstone of her presidential campaign in 2020.

Warren received plaudits for her takedown of billionaire Michael Bloomberg in the Democratic debates over his long history of misogyny, at one point confronting the former New York City mayor over his alleged instruction to a pregnant employee to “kill it,” referring to her pregnancy. When asked by a debate moderator what her evidence was for the charge, Warren replied, “Her own words.” She repeated that point in a testy post-debate exchange with former MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews, telling him, “I believe the woman, which means he’s not telling the truth.” She later told Rachel Maddow the attacks were aimed at bringing down Bloomberg’s campaign, because he was “the riskiest candidate,” as his “history with women,” among other things, meant “he could never launch any of those attacks against Donald Trump.”

In an interview with Hill.TV’s Rising, Reade alleged that when news outlets ignored her, she went to senators Harris and Warren with her story. She got no response from Harris’s office, she said, while Warren’s office sent her a contact form letter telling her to get in touch with her local representative. Despite multiple requests for comment, Warren has not yet issued a response to Reade’s allegation, nor commented on this particular charge.

Also silent has been Bernie Sanders, the only one of Biden’s challengers left in the Democratic contest. In the midst of the Franken allegations, Sanders had initially put out a statement calling sexual harassment “completely unacceptable” and calling for an Ethics Committee investigation into the first accusation against Franken. As the number of allegations piled up, he called on Franken to do “the right thing” and resign, and later said Trump should “think about doing the same thing” due to the assault allegations against him. Sanders’s DC office declined to respond to questions about Reade’s allegation, saying all questions about Biden should be directed to the campaign, which hasn’t responded to multiple enquiries.

Others who are silent now may have reconsidered the notion of automatically believing the stories of sexual assault accusers since pushing Franken to leave the Senate. Last year, seven of those senators expressed regret for having called for Franken’s resignation, including Tom Udall (D-NM) and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), both of whom have endorsed Biden, and Vermont senator Patrick Leahy, who called it “one of the biggest mistakes I’ve made.”

Even so, Leahy has expressed sympathy with women on the other side of sexual misconduct in recent times, saying more senators “should have believed” Anita Hill when she came forward with sexual harassment charges against now–Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, and calling for delaying Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote, as “we cannot brush aside these extraordinarily serious allegations in an unseemly rush.” Yet Leahy’s office did not appear to take the allegation against Biden seriously, his spokesperson asking if Jacobin was “a right-wing screed” before saying Leahy was busy with Appropriations Committee business all weekend and there was little chance he would have a statement by today. An email forwarding an interview with Reade and recent mainstream news coverage of her allegation went unreturned.

The response from Leahy’s office may reflect the dynamics of media coverage of the race. While Reade’s allegation was the talk of social media and some left-wing outlets, like many real but unflattering stories about Biden, it has primarily been covered by the right-wing media sphere, going almost completely unmentioned in most mainstream reporting on the race, including during Biden’s Friday town hall on CNN and his Sunday appearance on Meet the Press. Krystal Ball, who interviewed Reade on Rising, has said she offered Reade’s story to reporters in the mainstream press, but “heard back crickets.”

Biden has a fraught history on gender issues. He’s been on the receiving end of decades of feminist criticism for his support for abortion restrictions, and he has long tried to shake off the stain of his handling of Anita Hill’s sexual harassment allegations, where he didn’t believe Hill’s story, blocked witnesses from corroborating it under oath, and generally assisted Republicans in neutering the effectiveness of her testimony. Upon launching his campaign last year, a series of women came forward to accuse Biden of inappropriately touching them, including Reade herself, who now says she wasn’t ready to tell her full story at the time.

As Reade’s allegation slowly filters to the mainstream press, Democrats are in a tricky position. On the one hand, Biden is the overwhelming favorite to clinch the Democratic nomination, and speaking out against him, particularly in an election year, means not just facing the wrath of powerful Democratic donors and party leaders, but potentially alienating the next president.

On the other hand, since 2016 — driven by the deep, bipartisan outrage at Trump’s own history of sexual assault and misogyny, and the #MeToo moment in late 2017 — the Democratic Party has rebranded as the party of women and believing survivors, accompanied by a genuine realignment that has seen women voters increasingly flock to the party. Democrats have made winning over the kinds of conservative suburban women disgusted by Trump a key part of their electoral strategy. They have done so by taking well-publicized stands against Republicans accused of sexual misconduct, including alleged pedophile Roy Moore, Brett Kavanaugh, and Trump himself, but they have also earned themselves credibility by forcing Franken’s resignation, showing that not even high-profile Democrats could get away with such behavior.

If the party elects not to speak out on an identical allegation facing the Democratic front-runner, or even chooses to stand by him and dismiss the story out of hand, they risk not only damaging that credibility, but undermining the ability of any future accuser, whether victimized by a Democrat or Republican, to have their stories heard and be believed. Democrats face a choice between principle and partisan hypocrisy. We may be watching them make their choice in real time.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Bailing Out the Bailout Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51548"><span class="small">Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone</span></a>   
Thursday, 02 April 2020 08:18

Taibbi writes: "'I've never signed anything with a 'T' before,' Donald Trump quipped at the signing of the $2 trillion CARES Act. He reportedly wants his signature on coronavirus relief checks, as if they were Trump Plaza casino chips."

New York Stock Exchange building. (photo: Tayfun Coskun/Getty)
New York Stock Exchange building. (photo: Tayfun Coskun/Getty)


Bailing Out the Bailout

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

02 April 20


It will take years to sort through the details, but Trump’s $2 trillion COVID-19 response looks like a double-down on the last disaster

’ve never signed anything with a ‘T’ before,” Donald Trump quipped at the signing of the $2 trillion CARES Act. He reportedly wants his signature on coronavirus relief checks, as if they were Trump Plaza casino chips. This might be a fitting metaphor for America’s post-virus economic future.

The new bailout bill, which combined with a series of Federal Reserve interventions is more like a $6 trillion rescue, is a massive double-down on the 2008 rescue efforts. This bailout of the last bailout sets the stage for permanent state sponsorship of America’s overheated financial markets.

Like 2008, only more so, the new mega-rescue is a bipartisan effort. Lawmakers sold this as a good thing.

“This is a 9/11 moment,” said Republican congressman Dan Newhouse of Washington state. “A time to put partisan differences aside.”

“We have our differences, but we also know what is important to us,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “America’s families are important to us.”

Congress needed a year of intense infighting to approve a $4.7 trillion budget, but just a single week to draft this $2 trillion deal. Although members quibbled over numbers before the vote — Bernie Sanders insisted on more unemployment insurance, while others worried about creating a “slush fund” for airlines and other industries — the bill ultimately cruised through, passing in a voice vote in the House and 96-0 in the Senate.

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the only comparable “We need a gazillion dollars in 10 minutes” legislation in recent history, passed after a bitter battle, with 63 House Democrats and 91 House Republicans opposing.

Analysts and politicians insisted the new bailout, in the broad strokes, was uncontroversial, a fire hose of money for virus-ravaged hospitals, workers, and small businesses. Even critics of Wall Street agreed that this one isn’t a complete washout compared with the last disaster, when the taxpayer was asked to bail out the very people who’d caused the crisis.

“At least this bailout has a Main Street component,” says Dennis Kelleher of Better Markets, a financial watchdog group.

There are serious logistical questions about how money is supposed to get to Main Street — like, for instance, the use of the tiny Small Business Administration to push $377 billion in emergency loans out the door — but the larger problem has to do with the meat of the bill: the backstopping of the financial sector.

As happened in the run-up to September 2008, Wall Street in recent weeks warned of Armageddon if the Fed did not immediately start spending billions per minute to buy every conceivable kind of financial product.

The Fed responded by dusting off emergency lending facilities like the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, the Commercial Paper Funding Facility, the Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility, the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, the Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility, and the Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility, all of which saw action after the crash of 2008. Each would be used to step in and buy financial products in the various markets frozen due to virus panic.

The Fed furthermore announced that on March 23rd it would begin buying $50 billion in government-backed mortgage securities, in addition to $75 billion in Treasury bills, every day.

They’ve since lowered those numbers, but the scale of these interventions dwarfs any of the Fed’s actions post-2008. A $50 billion buying spree roughly represents as much Fed support of mortgage markets in one day as was done across a month at the peak of the last round of Quantitative Easing. Taken in conjunction with the CARES Act, the Fed and the Treasury were now positioned to become a major ongoing buyer of everything from mortgages to U.S. government debt to exchange-traded funds  to corporate bonds to money-market funds.

The problem? A lot of these markets were already overinflated thanks to post-2008 bailouts and interventions like Quantitative Easing. We’re about to find out that the American economy has been living off dying, dysfunctional, or hyper-leveraged markets for more than a decade. The Trump administration just bought this undead economy at retail prices and committed the Fed and the Treasury to sustaining it.

A major issue with the post-2008 bailout programs is that they tended to increase rather than decrease the risk in the system. A decade-plus of zero-to-low interest rates and massive central-bank buying programs like QE made traditional safe havens unattractive and pushed investors to chase returns in a variety of not-so-healthy ways.

A few years ago, for instance, the infamous junk-bond ghoul Mike Milken — the same one recently pardoned by Trump in a macabre symbolic show of solidarity for the bullshit debt economy — gushed to Bloomberg that America was in a “golden age” for private-equity takeovers.

“This is their golden age. You can leverage, you can borrow without covenants, and so for equity holders it affords you a very unusual rate of return.”

Milken was pointing out that investors were so desperate to find higher rates of return that they were lining up to back the modern Gordon Gekkos — private-equity titans like Bain, Blackstone, KKR, and Apollo — as they searched for companies to take over. At the time Milken gave this interview in Singapore in 2017, investors were sitting on some $963 billion in “dry powder,” money raised but not yet spent.

In their haste to get that money out the door (stop me if this sounds familiar), investors were relaxing demands for underwriting standards and other protections. This is what Milken meant by “buying without covenants.”

This dynamic spurred a boom in securitized commercial loans not totally unlike the boom in securitized mortgages pre-2008. An explosion of financing for private-equity deals meant an economic landscape dotted with newly conquered companies that now owed an array of fees and “special dividends” to their Wall Street masters.

Easy financing spurred investors to plunge money into junk- or near-junk-rated corporate bonds, allowing firms that were already swimming in debt to leverage up even more.

“Corporate debt since the bailout has grown to $10 trillion,” says Kelleher. “Of that, $3 trillion is a notch above junk level, what I’d call on the bubble of junk.”

It’s been estimated, for instance, that as many as 16% of American companies are “zombie companies,” i.e., they don’t have enough revenue to even pay interest on their debt. As Kelleher points out, many of these firms might not have survived even a mild economic downturn. Propping up this freak show, even if indirectly, is now going to become part of the War on the Virus.

Additionally, many financial markets that have been marketed as conservative and liquid actually depended all along on the presumption that these instruments could always be easily sold into a constant stream of easy money.

Money-market funds, for instance, are supposed to be a safe, banklike product. In 2008, however, panic after the collapse of Lehman Brothers forced the Treasury under George W. Bush to guarantee the entire $3.4 trillion market, to prevent a run of redemptions.

This triggered calls for reform, with many advocating the introduction of capital buffers to reduce or eliminate systemic risk. This was never done, and despite some changes, money-market funds remained, in reality, an investment product, backed more by faith in market demand (and the promise of future bailouts) than by real value.

As a result, this supposedly safe market just had to be backstopped by the Fed again. “It’s just frustrating that we never really fixed this stuff to begin with,” said former FDIC chief Sheila Bair.

The notion that the Fed can endlessly pump new money into the economy once inspired fears of inflation, but the COVID-era mantra is that “Unlimited QE” or “QE infinity” no longer carries such dangers.

“Markets will have learned well from the 2008 experience that this increase in balance-sheet size is not inflationary in any near-term sense,” Citigroup economist Andrew Hollenhorst said last week.

Translation: Keep the money coming. This is what Wall Street was saying even before the passage of the CARES bill. The new mandate is that the bank will keep buying all of this stuff, endlessly, until — well, we’ll find out when we get there.

The Fed “balance sheet” as of Friday was already at $5.3 trillion, nearly $800 billion higher than its previous peak in May 2016. Wall Street analysts are predicting this number will eventually reach $10 trillion, and why not? Fed chief Jerome Powell signaled that assistance would be unlimited when he said the central bank “would not run out of ammunition.”

As with 2008, the emergency support is supposed to be temporary, but there’s less belief that this is even ostensibly true this time around. There will be a lot of howling over the irony: Trump when he ran for president in 2016 said then-Fed chief Janet Yellen should be “ashamed” of creating a “false stock market” for Barack Obama. Our future will be a parody of the Yellen economy.

Short-term loans to make payroll and keep tenants in storefronts are only a part of the rescue. The coronavirus emergency is probably temporary. The bailout looks like forever.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
How to Prepare for the Trump Recession Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=39255"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Website</span></a>   
Wednesday, 01 April 2020 12:59

Reich writes: "The global coronavirus pandemic has put our economy in free-fall."

Robert Reich. (photo: Getty)
Robert Reich. (photo: Getty)


How to Prepare for the Trump Recession

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Website

01 April 20

 

he global coronavirus pandemic has put our economy in free-fall.

Even through Donald Trump’s reckless economic policies, like his pointless trade war with China or his deficit-busting tax cuts for his billionaire donors, the economy has somehow managed to keep chugging along — until now. 

All of the stock market gains from Trump’s time in office have been wiped out, and over the course of just over one week in March the Dow Jones Industrial Average experienced its five largest drops in history. 

Worse than a plummeting stock market, businesses and major industries have been forced to shutter their windows to help combat the rapid spread of the virus, putting hundreds of thousands of workers’ paychecks at risk. 

A recession is inevitable at this point. Here are 3 things we can do to prepare.  

Number one: We need to reform unemployment insurance so it reflects the needs of today’s economy. 

When it was first created in 1935, unemployment insurance was designed to help full-time workers weather downturns until they got their old jobs back. But there are fewer full-time jobs in today’s economy, and fewer people who are laid off get their old jobs back again. 

As a result, only 27% of unemployed workers receive benefits today, compared to 49% of workers in the 1950s. We need to expand unemployment coverage so that everyone is protected.

Number two: We need to strengthen Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, also known as  public assistance. 

Since its creation in 1996, the number of families receiving cash assistance has declined dramatically – and not because they’re doing well. Between 2006 and 2018, just 13% of families were lifted out of poverty, while the number of families receiving public assistance fell by 39%.

Already weak, the program didn’t hold up well during the Great Recession. Funding doesn’t automatically expand during economic downturns – meaning the more families are in need, the less money there is to help them. The program also has strict work requirements, which can’t be fulfilled in a deep recession. Worse yet, many individuals in need have already exhausted their five years of lifetime eligibility for assistance.

We need to reform the public assistance program so that more families in need are eligible. It should be easier to waive the strict work eligibility requirements during the economic downturn, and the lifetime five-year limit should be suspended.

Number three: We need to protect the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP or food stamps. 

Unlike public assistance, SNAP responded well during the Great Recession. Its requirements are designed to expand during economic downturns or recessions.

Waiving work requirements during the Great Recession made thousands of people in need eligible for the program who otherwise wouldn’t have been. Between December 2007 and December 2009, the number of SNAP participants rose by 45%. The program helped keep an estimated 3.8 million families out of poverty in 2009.

But that might not be an option this time around, as SNAP has come under attack from the Trump administration, which is trying to enact a draconian rule change that would kick an estimated 700,000 of our most vulnerable citizens off of the program. Luckily, a judge blocked the rule from going into effect, but the administration is still fighting to enforce it — even in the middle of a global pandemic. We need to make sure SNAP’s flexibility and ability to respond to economic downturns is protected before the next recession hits.

Stronger safety nets are not only good for individuals and families in need. They will also prevent the looming recession from becoming an even deeper and longer economic crisis. 

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
How South Korea Solved Its Face Mask Shortage Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=53873"><span class="small">E. Tammy Kim, The New York Times</span></a>   
Wednesday, 01 April 2020 12:59

Kim writes: "The coronavirus erupted in South Korea in late January, six months into Yoo Yoon-sook's new job."

A street in Seoul, South Korea, last week. Initially in short supply, face masks became more widely available after the government purchased a substantial proportion of national production. (photo: Ed Jones/Getty)
A street in Seoul, South Korea, last week. Initially in short supply, face masks became more widely available after the government purchased a substantial proportion of national production. (photo: Ed Jones/Getty)


How South Korea Solved Its Face Mask Shortage

By E. Tammy Kim, The New York Times

01 April 20


Neighborhood pharmacists and government intervention were the secret weapons.

he coronavirus erupted in South Korea in late January, six months into Yoo Yoon-sook’s new job. She had just moved from Seoul, where she spent three decades working in the same pharmacy, to open the Hankyeol (“Steadfast”) Pharmacy in the city of Incheon, near the international airport. Ms. Yoo hadn’t really gotten a sense of the neighborhood around her new pharmacy “before this all happened,” she told me. It became all coronavirus, all the time.

Incheon’s 1,100 pharmacies, including Ms. Yoo’s, began to sell out of KF-94 face masks, the equivalent of the American N95. So did corner stores and large retail chains like E-Mart. As Koreans learned of the scale and aggressiveness of Covid-19, first from Chinese reports, then from a surge of cases at home, the mask with the weave and construction that proved most effective against the virus could not be found, except at exorbitant prices online. Customers grew angry waiting outside stores. One Incheon pharmacy posted a sign saying, “Regarding masks: Threats, physical violence and insults against employees are punishable under criminal law.”

Such was the extent of the “mask crisis” when the central government decided to intervene in production and distribution. At the end of February, it announced that it would purchase 50 percent of KF-94 masks from the nation’s 130 or so manufacturers. The government began to ship these masks, at a discounted price of 1,500 won each (about $1.23), to some 23,000 pharmacies, in cooperation with the Korean Pharmaceutical Association.

READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump Administration Invoked Defense Protection Act All the Time, but Stalled for the Coronavirus Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=49824"><span class="small">Matt Stieb, New York Magazine</span></a>   
Wednesday, 01 April 2020 12:59

Stieb writes: "One of the many oddities of the president's response to the coronavirus was the reluctance of the 'wartime president' to invoke the Defense Production Act, allowing the administration to prioritize contracts with private manufacturers to quickly produce goods deemed necessary for the national interest."

A technician testing ventilators at Bloom Energy, a fuel cell company in California that has transitioned to refurbishing ventilators.(photo: Beth Laberge)
A technician testing ventilators at Bloom Energy, a fuel cell company in California that has transitioned to refurbishing ventilators.(photo: Beth Laberge)


Trump Administration Invoked Defense Protection Act All the Time, but Stalled for the Coronavirus

By Matt Stieb, New York Magazine

01 April 20

 

ne of the many oddities of the president’s response to the coronavirus was the reluctance of the “wartime president” to invoke the Defense Production Act, allowing the administration to prioritize contracts with private manufacturers to quickly produce goods deemed necessary for the national interest. Despite calls from governors to do so from the outset of the crisis, Trump only invoked the act on Friday — by which point 100,000 were infected and 1,500 had died from COVID-19 — when he ordered General Motors to begin making ventilators. (It’s unclear how productive that directive was, as GM already announced it would work with a medical supplies company to produce the machines.)

The delay in activating the Korean War-era power is made even more perplexing by a New York Times analysis that found that the Trump administration has used the Defense Production Act reflexively over the past three years to prioritize orders it deemed necessary for national security, from rare earth metals to build lasers to body armor for Border Patrol agents. The Defense Department alone estimates that it uses the law’s powers around 300,000 times every year, while the Department of Homeland Security prioritized 1,000 orders in 2018 for disaster response efforts.

Already, there is one damaging answer explaining Trump’s current reluctance — because the relevant corporations don’t want him to override their business. According to a Times report from last week, “The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the heads of major corporations have lobbied the administration against using the act. They say the move could prove counterproductive, imposing red tape on companies precisely when they need flexibility to deal with closed borders and shuttered factories.” The argument appealed not only to Trump, but to his braintrust of Jared Kushner and Larry “pretty close to airtight” Kudlow.

In the new Times report, there are more concerning justifications for the delay: Sources close to Trump said he considers the law “anti-American” and that invoking the DPA would “make it clear that the government is in charge.” While it may be too late to distance the coronavirus from his administration’s lackluster response, so far the president’s crunch-time stalling hasn’t negatively impacted his approval rating. Trump’s approval is actually up five points, though that’s a blip compared to other leaders navigating economic and public health crises.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 Next > End >>

Page 536 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN