Expanding Postal Voting to Preserve Democratic Institutions During the COVID-19 Crisis

Expanding Postal Voting to Preserve Democratic Institutions During the COVID-19 Crisis

The recent outbreak of COVID-19 in the United States has caused an untold amount of economic, political and social disruption. Trillions of dollars in economic activity has been lost, and in the first week of the crisis 3.3 million workers reported being laid off1. These reported numbers are only expected to increase in the coming days, weeks and months. This is because social distancing remains the primary strategy to prevent the spread of the virus, keeping economic activity depressed as a result. While policymakers and society at large have accepted the tradeoff – forsaking the economy for the sake of public health – the effects of social distancing are far broader than just the economic effects. Democratic institutions themselves are also threatened.

The United States is currently amid “primary season” where every state and territory in the United States holds elections to allow voters to choose the presidential candidate for their respective party. Some states hold local elections on the ballot during this time as well. However, these elections have been thrown into doubt as COVID-19 continues to spread throughout the United States. There is good reason to be worried; these elections represent a unique threat to public health. However, action needs to be taken to ensure that the legitimacy of these elections is not jeopardized. 

Public Health

The United States’ primary elections present a significant public health risk for several reasons. Polling places are often crowded well-above the current Center for Disease Control (CDC) guidance to limit social gatherings to no more than 10 people at a time2. In addition, polling machines are a clear transmission vector for the virus, unless they are thoroughly cleaned and disinfected after each use.

Most stark are the public health risks the inherent demographics of primary elections present. COVID-19 has a case fatality rate of 3.6% for those aged 60-69, 8.0% for those between 70-79 and 14.8% for those 80 or older3. These case fatality rates are relevant because primary voters skew far older than the general population: 24% of the primary electorate up until this point in the primary season has been age 65 or older4. For comparison, that age group represents only 15% of the total population of the United States5. Officials also commonly locate public polling places within nursing homes. In Ohio alone, more than 140 polling places were in nursing homes before the primary was rescheduled6. This mix of elderly turnout, polling location placement and the case fatality rate amongst the elderly should raise concern with election officials and lawmakers.  

Democratic Illegitimacy

Despite the public health risk, preserving democratic institutions is an important part of the response to the coronavirus pandemic. The two facets of this crisis – public health and the economic aspects – both rely on a high degree of trust between the government and private actors to coordinate an effective response. When the government issues stay-at-home orders, as many states already have, business owners and individuals must (1) trust that the government has the authority to carry out said orders and (2) be assured that the government will provide some level of economic support to reduce the harm caused by these measures. Spoiling election integrity during this crisis would be detrimental to the fragile coordination required to carry-out these important measures.

Cancelling the primary elections outright may be tempting, especially if a clear frontrunner emerges. However, cancelling these primary elections would forever brand the eventual nominee, and possibly the next President of the United States, as being the product of a tainted electoral process. Strong, respected authority is needed to maintain the fragile coordination the government is undertaking with private actors. It is unlikely that a year from now that the United States will be completely recovered from COVID-19 and the recession that has accompanied it. Respected leadership and strong institutions are necessary to continue to lead the country out of this crisis.

What we should do

Voting during the COVID-19 pandemic represents a two-pronged issue: carrying out elections could result in a spike of cases of COVID-19 and cause subsequent fatalities; cancelling elections, however, is not the appropriate response. The health and trustworthiness of our democratic institutions could not be valuable than it is now. This is where postal voting (also known as vote-by-mail) presents states with a novel solution to solve both problems. 

Postal voting is the concept of mailing election ballots to voters rather than requiring voters to be physically present at an official polling place in order to cast their votes. With postal voting, voters can request a ballot, often available online, from election officials who then mail a ballot to those who request one. Voters then have up until a predetermined date to mail their filled-in ballot back to election officials or place it in a secured drop-off location. Both methods greatly minimize human contact that comes along with traditional voting measures. 

Expanding postal voting to all Americans is no small task. Only five states – Washington, Oregon, Utah, Hawaii and Colorado – currently have the proven capacity to allow all their citizens to vote by mail. The remaining 45 states and territories have postal voting laws that vary wildly, ranging from opt-in provisions that allow some counties to administer election by mail, to other states that bar postal voting except for in the most extreme circumstances7.

Building out the capacity to move the remainder of the primary election process, and potentially the 2020 general election process, to postal voting will require the coordination of officials from the local level all the way up to the federal level. Luckily, several states have already begun to roll out initiatives due to the COVID-19 pandemic. After delaying their March 24th primary, Georgia announced plans to mail absentee ballot request forms to all registered voters ahead of the rescheduled May 19th primary8. Ohio cancelled its March 17th primary and will give registered voters until April 28th to request an absentee ballot and mail it in9. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), including financing to carry out measures like these. The CARES Act includes $400 million dollars in election grants assisting states to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus.”10

The CARES Act does not specify how exactly the election security grants should be spent to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus.” However, states would be best advised to use the grants to implement postal voting for this election cycle. The funding provided by the CARES Act will go a long way in helping implement this policy, but it will not fulfill the entire budgetary need for the program. Based on estimates from the Brennan Center for Justice, the cost of expanding postal voting to all Americans runs from $982 million to $1.4 billion11. To offset these costs, states should redirect existing election appropriations to implementing postal voting that otherwise would have been used to run in-person election this cycle. In addition, Congress should include additional election security grants in the fourth stimulus bill that is widely expected to be introduced. Congress should specify that these election security grants be used only to implement postal voting. 

States will also have to revise their voter registration rules to accommodate the shift to postal voting. Currently, 39 states and the District of Columbia have implemented online voter registration12. Of the remaining 11 states, potential voters must request a voter registration form be mailed to them or visit a government office in-person in order to register to vote. Based on Brennan Center estimates, implementing online voter registration for the remaining 11 states will cost just $3.7 million13. 

While the short-run will require significant cooperation and investment in order to move the entire electoral system from in-person to postal voting, large long-run benefits should be anticipated from this policy. Research has shown that postal voting reduces the administrative costs related to running elections by 40%14.

Some officials and organizations have warned that postal is more vulnerable to fraud than in-person voting, the evidence makes it clear that is not true15. The decentralized nature of postal voting means that widespread fraud would require infiltrating the postal system itself, while in-person voter fraud requires only the infiltration of a singular machine or ballot box within a centralized network. The track record of states with postal voting proves this point: Oregon, for example, had only 10 instances of voter fraud during the 2016 Presidential election16.

If there was ever a time to move the nation’s voting process from in-person to mail-in, it would be now. A democratic and public health need for such a process is clear, and the financing and political will are available to execute such policy. 

Conclusion

COVID-19 is an unprecedented risk to the public health, economy and democratic institutions of the United States. The usual approach is no longer applicable, and novel solutions must be created in order to ensure that our recovery from this crisis is swift. The health of the electoral system is one of those prerequisites to recovery, and postal voting presents a solution to an impending problem for state lawmakers. 

 

SOURCES:

  1. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/26/upshot/coronavirus-millions-unemployment-claims.html
  2. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/large-events/index.html
  3. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/
  4. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/3/4/21164479/super-tuesday-results-exit-polls-turnout-patterns
  5. https://acl.gov/sites/default/files/Aging%20and%20Disability%20in%20America/2017OlderAmericansProfile.pdf
  6. https://apnews.com/daf7c44adcbf7b11c7d69d4d07fa2d08
  7. https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/all-mail-elections.aspx
  8. https://www.ajc.com/news/state–regional-govt–politics/georgia-mail-absentee-ballot-request-forms-all-active-voters/s1ZcJ57g8qqIwyG6LNWfIM/
  9. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/25/ohio-vote-by-mail-primary-election-149012
  10. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/cares-act-is-just-a-first-step-in-preparing-for-november-elections/
  11. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/estimated-costs-covid-19-election-resiliency-measures
  12. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/estimated-costs-covid-19-election-resiliency-measures
  13. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/estimated-costs-covid-19-election-resiliency-measures
  14. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2016/03/colorado-voting-reforms-early-results
  15. https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/avenues-voter-fraud-have-no-place-coronavirus-bill
  16. https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2019/04/10-oregon-voters-plea-guilty-to-voter-fraud-in-2016-presidential-election.html

The Moment of Truth for Walmart, Amazon and the Rest of the Food Supply Chain

In our previous blog post, we wrote about the importance of keeping the food/essentials supply chains open. With hundreds of millions of Americans stuck at home, having a dependable source of food is essential to avoid panic and to stay the course on social distancing. That’s not optional.

We equally stressed the importance of the health and safety of the workers in the food supply chain.  That’s also not optional.  And it’s not just Walmart, or Amazon, or Kroger–it’s every company in the food supply chain that faces the same problem of workers in distribution centers or stores getting infected and potentially spreading it to their coworkers and customers.

Walmart and Amazon are understandably bearing the brunt of criticism, because of their size and their sophistication.  Both companies are putting into place similar measures. Amazon is ramping up to do temperature checks of every employee at their entire U.S. and European operations network and Whole Foods Market stores by next week, and distributing millions of masks.  Walmart is doing roughly the same thing, with the roll-out of fever checks taking somewhat longer.

But this is the moment of truth for Walmart, Amazon, and the rest of the food supply chain. As more is learned about the virus, the standard of care will evolve. These companies must move pro-actively as that happens, including reorganizing tasks to increase distance between workers and tightening screening of potentially ill workers.

Moreover, workers need to be compensated for their risk. Amazon says that  “…we expect to go well beyond our initial $350 million investment in additional pay, and we will do so happily.”

The food supply chains must remain open. Workers must be protected and compensated. It’s not a choice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

America Needs to Mobilize its Medical Production

In order to save lives and mitigate the impacts of the economic shutdown, there is an acute need for national direction to orchestrate and coordinate medical supply production — and it needs to happen quickly.

When the U.S.N.S. Comfort sailed past the Statue of Liberty most Americans felt something — whether it be pride or hope — there is no denying that people felt emotional to a large scale, coordinated response to help a city ravaged by COVID-19.

As this pandemic worsens, state and hospital leaders have been asking for help: they are in desperate need for personal protective equipment (PPE) for health care workers and ventilators to treat sick patients. If the United States is going to protect the health care workforce and return to normal activity, there needs to be huge increases in PPE production and distribution.

In order to save lives and mitigate the impacts of the economic shutdown, there is an acute need for national direction to orchestrate and coordinate medical supply production — and it needs to happen quickly.

Read the full piece here.

The Warehouse Safety Conundrum

This very unique crisis is creating very unique problems. One is how to get food and other essentials from warehouses all over the country into stores and delivered to people’s homes. This is not optional. The supply chain cannot shut down.

Americans are confined to their homes, watching the rising tide of deaths. It’s an existential moment unlike any other in recent history.

What’s keeping Americans from panicking is the knowledge that the lights remain on, the water still flows, and that food and other essentials continue to arrive.

To keep the food/essentials supply chain open,  companies like Walmart, Amazon, CVS, and Lowe’s are hiring in droves. Walmart has announced that it is hiring 150,000 workers for its stores and distribution centers. Amazon is hiring 100,000 workers. CVS is hiring  50,000 store associates, home delivery drivers, distribution center employees and customer service representatives. Lowe’s is hiring 30,000 workers.

In many ways this hiring is giving us a glimpse into the post-pandemic future. Jobs that are disappearing in one sector of the economy are being partly made up in another sector, often at a higher wage.  That part of the economy is still functioning.

On the other hand, the food/essentials supply chain was never set up for social distancing or the current circumstances. It’s not surprising that warehouse and store workers are demanding higher pay, virus-related sick time and safer working conditions, all of which they deserve. They are on the front lines of the war against COVID-19 at a critical moment that no one expected.

It’s essential to keep workers safe and compensate them, but equally essential to keep feeding vulnerable Americans who are waiting out the virus. It’s a tough but necessary balancing act.

 

Blog: Let’s Flatten the Curve on Anti-Charter Politics

Lest anyone still thinks the teachers union in Los Angeles cares a whit about school children, its president, Alex Caputo-Pearl, has again demanded that L.A. Unified School District block any expansion of charter schools. These schools educate almost a quarter of Los Angeles County’s public school students—and do it far more effectively than district-operated schools.

In a letter to Superintendent Austin Beutner and the school board, Caputo-Pearl used the COVID-19 health crisis as his excuse this time. He demanded that the board not approve any new charter schools this spring, since board meetings will probably take place by audio or video conference. Conveniently, he seems to believe the public could not submit comments in such a format. 

Caputo-Pearl also said the board should not make any new decisions to allow charters to share space with district-operated schools—something charters have a right to do under state law. Any new sharing would not begin until next fall, but Caputo-Pearl apparently believes the health crisis will still be underway then.

Or perhaps Caputo-Pearl just wants to make life as difficult as possible for the thousands of children on charter school waiting lists.

Charters are free public schools, operated by nonprofit organizations, that cannot select their students. In today’s world, the majority of publicly funded services are delivered by private organizations—in health care, in transportation, in almost everything the public sector does. Charter schools are the manifestation of this trend in education. 

Because they have freedom from most bureaucratic rules and are closed if they perform poorly, they produce better results than schools operated by district bureaucracies. In Los Angeles they produce higher test scores, graduation rates, and college preparedness than district-operated schools. 

The most detailed study of test scores was done by Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes, an organization embraced by the teachers unions after its first charter school report, more than a decade ago.  Its 2014 report on Los Angeles found that charter students in L.A. gained months of learning every year, compared to demographically similar students with similar past test scores in district schools.

But the teachers unions hate charters, because most of their teachers choose not to unionize. Hence as the number of charter school children grows, the unions shrink. 

During a strike last year, Caputo-Pearl and UTLA demanded a moratorium on charters and broadcast the false claim that charters were responsible for the district’s financial woes. 

Clearly, Caputo-Pearl and United Teachers of Los Angeles don’t care about students’ test scores, graduation rates, or preparation for college or careers. If they did, they would support the expansion of charter schools. They care only about keeping their coffers full of union dues.

While we all do our parts to flatten the coronavirus curve, is it asking too much for teachers unions to flatten the curve on their anti-charter lies? Our crisis today calls for truth and unity, not propaganda and division.

#

David Osborne, author of Reinventing America’s Schools: Creating a 21st Century Education System, directs the education work of the Progressive Policy Institute.

What’s Next: Breathtaking Deflation, Stunning Inflation or Both?

Get ready for the biggest economic and financial roller coaster of all time.  Policymakers in the United States and around the world are opening up the monetary spigots full bore and limbering up spending packages on an unimaginable scale. This comes after more than a decade of low interest rates. In the United States,  Congress has passed a $2.2 trillion pandemic package.

Let’s assume for the moment that progress is made on the health front against COVID-19, since the alternative is too horrifying to think about.  If we look out ahead, are Americans moving into an era of amazing deflation, stunning inflation, or both?

In the short run,  the sheer disruption of the sudden lockdown advocated by the health experts is going to send both demand and prices plunging. Goldman Sachs is forecasting a 24% plunge in GDP in the second quarter.  Domestic demand for non-food, non-health goods will collapse,  export demand will fall, factories will close. It will be a moment of supreme deflation, combined with an overwhelming–and deeply saddening–surge in virus-related deaths.

But then, like a tsunami wave, trillions of dollars of Federal Reserve funding and Treasury payments to individuals and businesses will finally come roaring onto shore. Demand should soar for all sorts of goods and services that the global economy is too disrupted to provide in quantity.  The most likely outcome: A new era of rising prices like we have not seen since the 1970s.

That surge of inflation, if it happens,  will present policymakers with a very tough choice–tighten up monetary and fiscal policy and potentially send the economy back into recession, or accept the inflation surge. The choice won’t be a choice–higher inflation will seem infinitely preferable to another downturn.

Instead, if we’re lucky, we’ll see a slow 3-5 year withdrawal of fiscal and monetary stimulus, as government loans are paid back, budget deficits are reduced, interest rates are raised, and excess funds are withdrawn from the financial system. Eventually the global economy comes back to normal–whatever normal will be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

America Is On Track For A $4 Trillion Deficit In 2020. Should It Matter?

Washington is finally responding with force to the coronavirus outbreak. This week, Congress agreed to the largest economic relief package in U.S. history to support families and businesses whose finances have been devastated by the crisis. These measures and more are essential for supporting public health efforts to contain the virus and preventing long-term damage to the American economy. But how much will they cost? Although price tags shouldn’t prevent policymakers and their constituents from taking any action necessary to combat the worst pandemic of our lifetimes, they can help prepare everyone for the hard choices we will have to face when this crisis is over.

Read the full piece here.

Blog: Finally, It’s the Right Time for Infrastructure Week

As Congress passes its historic multi-trillion spending package, people across the country, as well as investors in our beleaguered financial markets, will breathe a sigh of relief. But the truth is, this “Phase 3” response to the pandemic-induced economic shutdown may just be the beginning of what we need to avert a savage recession or even depression.

Some experts, including St. Louis Federal Reserve President James Bullard warned that the nation’s GDP could fall by upwards of 50 percent in the second quarter alone. The first numbers showcasing the fallout dropped this week, with historic unemployment claims more than doubling economist’s worst fears at 3.3 million for the week.

Although it’s called a “stimulus” bill, the package is actually aimed at several urgent goals: Expanding the nation’s medical capacity to fight the contagion and treat its victims, putting money in Americans’ pockets and keeping businesses small and large from going under.

That’s essential, but we also need more of the traditional kind of stimulus intended to juice the economy. What comes next is for Congress and the Trump administration to address real stimulus- actions that use policy to activate increased economic activity.

For that -there is no better, more popular and bipartisan use of taxpayer funds than upgrading the nation’s transportation, communications and other infrastructure. And now, with unemployment spiking, it’s the right time to act at last on all those calls we hear every year during “Infrastructure Week” for a massive surge in public investment in our economy’s backbone.

Infrastructure Week has become a bad joke in Washington. It comes with great fanfare, wins praise from a bipartisan chorus of lawmakers and labor as well as business leaders — and then passes without anything changing. Perhaps now, with interest rates at nearly zero and lawmakers committed to spending whatever it takes to keep our economy afloat, infrastructure’s moment has finally come. And we should think big- upwards of one trillion dollars big.

Why? Because infrastructure investment yields the biggest bang for your buck when you have a higher jobless rate. The reason is what economists call the “multiplier effect,” which is basically a measure of how big a boost in economic output we get from each dollar spent. Creating new jobs and putting unemployed people back to work produces the strongest multiplier effect.

For example, take these estimates of multiplier effects from an economic scenario from S&P Global in 2016 on infrastructure investment (full disclosure- I was a co-author of the paper with Chief U.S. Economist Dr. Beth Ann Bovino):

“…an additional $150 billion in spending (spread evenly over eight quarters) would be fully returned to the economy within the first two years… and at least $189.5 billion to GDP in just the first few years. Additionally, this injection of funds would create roughly 307,000 infrastructure-related jobs in the first two years. Aside from the near-term boost, the country’s productive capacity and output would also likely increase once the infrastructure is built and absorbed into the economy-which means the investment would likely add jobs long after the initial effects have subsided…”

So what can numbers like this tell us about what would happen if we invest today, under the extraordinary circumstances of escalating unemployment? Well, in general, we can reasonably expect the unemployment rate to soon be higher than the 4.9% rate when the paper was written (October 2016), and general economic conditions to be softer. So those GDP returns and job estimates (proportional to the amount invested) could be on the lower end from what we might expect looking forward.

In a low unemployment scenario, which was the reality until the coronavirus hit, there’s too little slack in labor markets to generate high multiplier effects. In this scenario, you have lower overall output because you are essentially moving workers to infrastructure jobs from other jobs, as opposed to creating brand new ones and moving workers from unemployed to being employed.

Some immediate logistical problems come with quick action; for instance, can we even invest now at a time when most folks are forbidden from going to work? The answer is obviously no, but with a caveat. Infrastructure projects tend to have very long, multi-year lifecycles, with planning from engineers, environmental impact studies and permit bottlenecks, before the first shovel can even hit the ground. Additionally, it will take a long time- perhaps years- to work off the significant economic damage that is coming our way.

With even some of the longer estimates for how long it will take for life to return to “normal” running over 3 months, passing a trillion-dollar investment package soon still makes sense.

When looking for economic silver linings in a time of dour forecasts, and multiple trillion-dollar spending barely raises an eyebrow, it seems as good a time as any for a legitimate “Infrastructure Week”.

What’s In The Record-Breaking $2 Trillion Stimulus Package?

After several days of negotiations, the U.S. Senate is voting tonight on a third bill to combat the coronavirus crisis. Whereas the first two bills focused on funding medical research and providing economic support to victims of the virus, the “Phase 3” stimulus bill is a massive rescue package for the broader American economy. It would cost over $2 trillion – more than ten times the amount spent on the first two coronavirus bills combined, and more than double the cost of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which was the largest stimulus bill enacted following the 2008 financial crisis.

So how does Congress propose to allocate the most-expensive economic rescue package in American history? Here are the key provisions, published on Forbes.

Blog: Corporate Citizens in a Time of Crisis

For parents struggling with the uncertainty of employment while also dealing with a global pandemic, paying for an internet connection may be the last thing on their minds. But with the closure of nearly every public and private school in America, many school systems are relying on the internet to make sure their students can keep learning. 

Even in the days before COVID 19, a strong and reliable internet connection was integral to functioning in our information age. During this time of social distancing and self-quarantine, a strong internet connection is essential. 

Unfortunately, far too many students lack access to a reliable internet connection. According to a Pew Research Study, 44% of households with incomes below $30,000 don’t have broadband. And while many Americans rely on smartphones for internet access, 29% of lower-income people don’t even have smartphones. 

For parents struggling to make ends meet, the costs of groceries could take precedent overpaying for the internet.

In a time like this, school system leaders cannot shy away from the mission of providing equitable access to education for all students. Fortunately, corporate citizens like Comcast, Charter Communications, and AT&T are stepping up to help school systems provide internet access. For Comcast President Dave Watson, “It is vital that as many Americans as possible stay connected to the Internet – for education, work, and personal health reasons.” 

On March 12th, as school closures began, Comcast announced a number of initiatives to help our nation’s students:

  • All Xfinity Wifi hotspots in businesses and outdoor locations are available to anyone for free.
  • All Comcast customers receive unlimited data for 60 days for no additional charge.
  • Internet Essentials, a service for low-income households that normally costs $9.95 a month, is free for new customers for 60 days.
  • New educational content for all grade levels is available to customers, in partnership with Common Sense Media.

Charter Communications announced that its Spectrum service would install both broadband and Wifi for K-12 and college students for free for 60 days, while also opening its Wifi hotspots to the public.

Comcast’s and Charter’s response came in advance of the Federal Communication Commission’s March 24th challenge to providers to take the “Keep America Connected Pledge.” The pledge is for the next 60 days to (1) not terminate service to any residential or business customer unable to pay, (2) waive late fees for any residential or business customer, and (3) open Wifi hotspots to any American who needs them. 

On March 24, AT&T announced that it would offer schools activating new lines free wireless data service for 60 days and expand access to its $10/month Access from AT&T service to any household receiving free or reduced-price lunch or Head Start, beginning with two months of free service.

And smaller, regional internet providers have announced similar initiatives.

For large school districts like Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) in Maryland, ensuring that 135,000 students continue their education is a top priority. With over 60% qualifying for free or reduced lunch, reliable, low-cost, internet is essential.

When asked about the impact of Comcast’s support, PGCPS CEO Dr. Monica Goldson said, “For some of our students, lack of equal access to Wi-Fi hotspots, connected devices, and mobile broadband internet will make continuing their education nearly impossible. It is not because they are unwilling, but these students simply are unable to get online at a time when they have no choice. Public spaces are closed and the economy is sputtering, leaving many to cut back on expenses.”

Schools in many states will likely be closed for at least another month. As parents around the country try to create a sense of normalcy for their kids, it is reassuring to know corporate citizens such as Comcast, Charter, and AT&T are stepping up in a major way. 

Statement: The Senate Flubs the Stimulus Package

STATEMENT: Confirmed coronavirus cases roughly doubled over the weekend, doctors and hospitals are running out of personal protective equipment and supplies, and unemployment cases are expected to increase eightfold this week. The nation’s governors are issuing urgent pleas to the federal government to use its powers to ramp up production of protective gear and tests.

Yet Senate Republicans and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell apparently haven’t been listening. Over the weekend they produced a partisan stimulus package that fails to achieve the nation’s overriding priority: Giving America’s health care professionals and workers the resources they need to contain the pandemic so that we can better target social distancing and keep it from tanking our economy. 

Instead, the Senate bill authorized only $75 billion for health care providers while giving the Trump administration a $500 billion blank check to bail out businesses with no public disclosure for up to six months.

Democrats were right to reject the Senate bill. The action now shifts to the House, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pledged to dramatically boost spending to fuel a surge of protection equipment and tests, and to screen everyone.   

The key to ending a period of prolonged and general social distancing, which could plunge the country into a depression, is to dramatically expand our capacity to screen people for the virus. That will enable us to prescribe social distancing only to those infected and those at greatest risk — older Americans and people with severe medical conditions — while allowing people who test negative to start returning to work. Protective equipment will also help reduce transmissions. It should go first to health and emergency workers, then to people working in grocery stores, the police, and other essential public services. Eventually, everyone should get protective gear.  

House Democrats should direct at least $500 billion to personal protective equipment, ventilators, expanded testing, and ensuring everyone is covered for both testing and treatment of COVID symptoms and related complications. That’s the right order of magnitude for now, though policymakers should not hesitate to spend even more on these critical functions should it become necessary. Without supporting the health care workforce, soon too many physicians and nurses will get the virus and the health care system will be unable to adequately address the greatest public health challenge in modern history.

 The second priority for a stimulus package must be direct payments and a big increase in social insurance programs to protect the most economically vulnerable Americans. Increasing funding for and reversing Trump administration efforts to limit eligibility for SNAP benefits, unemployment insurance, and low-income support programs will help millions of Americans put food on their tables and ride out the recession. Although the Senate’s proposal to send $500 billion in direct cash assistance to low- and middle-income Americans would help ensure that no one falls through the cracks, it should abandon a front-end means test that could delay payments and instead “claw back” payments in next year’s tax returns from households lucky enough to skate through the inevitable recession financially unscathed. This framework would allow even more resources to be redirected to those most in need.

 The third priority should be helping private companies stay afloat until more targeted social distancing allows more Americans to return to work. For small and medium-sized businesses, Congress should offer at least $500 billion in emergency loans —- with proper accountability and oversight —- to enable businesses to maintain payrolls and other fixed expenses, such as rent and health care for workers. If necessary, debts for businesses that can’t repay them should be forgiven so long as their workers continue to be paid throughout the crisis. All businesses should be incentivized to keep their workers on payroll (and off taxpayers’ dime) knowing that they will make it to the other side of this crisis in a financially viable state.

In addition, we also need a Core Protection Fund of $500 billion specially targeted to keep afloat core systems that are essential to the national economy. That includes power, transportation, communications, and key manufacturing operations in areas from food production to aerospace manufacturing, which is essential for the national defense in an increasingly unstable world. 

For the Core Protection Fund, the government would be a funder of last resort for financially pressed companies in core sectors and take stock or stock warrants in exchange, which would pay off big if the economy rebounds. If more was needed, the model would be the GM rescue plan during the 2008-09 financial crisis, which was highly successful. Most workers should be kept on payroll, buybacks should be banned, and executive compensation should be limited. These funds should be monitored by an oversight board. If these core companies are not kept in operation, then Americans will suffer even more and restarting the economy will become immensely harder.  

PPI recognizes that speed is of the essence. But the right approach should align our efforts to slow the spread of coronavirus to our need to avoid long-term structural damage to our economy. Though this will likely be an unprecedented amount of money, every dollar must go where it will make the most difference – health care, unemployment insurance, and to American businesses – big and small. We may only have one chance to get this right. 

###

Op-Ed: “Why Klobuchar should be Biden’s vice presidential pick”

After Joe Biden’s strong debate performance on March 15 and third straight huge primary night two days later, it is increasingly obvious he will be the Democratic nominee. Even without the Ohio vote, the March 17 primaries all but sealed the deal, with sweeping wins in Florida, Illinois and Arizona giving Biden a 300 delegate lead, ending any reasonable chance for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to catch up.

Biden’s bombshell pronouncement in the debate that he will choose a woman as running mate, while unprecedented, is less surprising than it may initially look — given the pressure he was under to pick a woman. There remains huge demand for a woman on the ticket among many Democrats bitterly disappointed with the 2016 outcome, as evidenced by a recent letter to the Democratic National Committee from top officials at EMILY’s List, the American Federation of Teachers, and other groups.

In fact, more than 56 percent of all women registered voters affiliate with or lean toward Democrats. Driving high turnout among suburban women outraged by Trump’s presidency is one key to a Biden victory.

Read the full piece here.

Op-Ed: Winning where it matters: Joe Biden’s task in the fall campaign

Sen. Bernie Sanders has signaled his imminent departure from the nomination contest. His sooner-than-expected exit frees presumptive nominee Joe Biden to fire up his general election campaign to defeat President Trump in November.

Except that the coronavirus pandemic has put presidential politics in suspended animation, along with the economy and almost every other aspect of normal life. We don’t even know if the remaining primaries will happen, or whether it will be safe for delegates to assemble at a national convention this summer.

There will be a presidential election, however, and at this point it seems likely to unfold in only a handful of closely contested states: Florida, Ohio and the three rustbelt states that put Trump over the top in the Electoral College, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. New Hampshire, Arizona and North Carolina, also look to be in play.

With actual campaigning on hold, Biden strategists should be thinking geographically and crafting a message for winning where it matters.

Because of their pivotal status, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) recently commissioned an in-depth survey of voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, which had been considered part of the Democrats’ “blue wall” until Trump flipped them. We also zeroed in on swing voters, especially those who backed Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016.

Read the full piece here.

Op-Ed: Timeline: The Regulations-and Regulators-That Delayed Coronavirus Testing

Addressing the media alongside the coronavirus task force on Thursday, Donald Trump said he would “slash red tape like nobody has even done it before” to get approval for coronavirus treatments.

That would be a welcome development indeed. What’s unfortunate is that there was no similar push at the beginning of the crisis to expedite coronavirus testing. The U.S. response to the pandemic has been hampered at every level due to insufficient testing capacity.

The first coronavirus case in the U.S. and South Korea was detected on January 21. Since then, South Korea has effectively contained the coronavirus without shutting down its economy or quarantining tens of millions of people. Instead, the Korean government has pursued a “trace, test, and treat” strategy that identifies and isolates those infected with the coronavirus while allowing healthy people to go about their normal lives. Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan have also managed to contain the virus via a combination of travel restrictions, social distancing, and heightened hygiene.

Unfortunately, the United States has not made testing widely available and now various regions are being forced to impose severe economic and social lockdowns. As of March 17, the U.S. had tested only about 125 people per million. South Korea had tested more than 5,000 people per million. Between early February and mid-March, the U.S. lost six crucial weeks because regulators stuck to rigid regulations instead of adapting as new information came in. While these rules might have made sense in normal times, they proved disastrous in a pandemic.

Read the full piece here.

Op-Ed: Why Experience, Not Funding, Matters More In New Bill To Help Startups

Small businesses are hurting everywhere and the pain is only going to intensify. What about new businesses? Will anyone start a new company during the COVID-19 crisis and emerging recession?

History says yes: several years ago we did an analysis at the Kauffman Foundation that found that over half the companies on the Fortune 500 list had been founded during a recession or bear market. We updated those numbers a few times and the finding was consistent.

There’s a caveat, of course: with one exception, those prior recessions and bear markets didn’t occur during a pandemic. (There was a recession from August 1918 to March 1919, overlapping with the Spanish flu.) So maybe this time is different.

Read the full piece here.

Blog: Connectivity is Everything

All the Distance Learning Tools in the World Don’t Matter if Kids Can’t Get Online

Now that distance learning is virtually the only learning happening, all levels of government must shift into high gear to ensure that every child in America who needs Internet connectivity has it.

School districts and charter schools across the country are doing their best to distribute laptops and Chromebooks to millions of students forced out of class by the coronavirus. But 14 percent of children have no internet access at home, including nearly 20 percent of black and Latinxstudents and 37 percent of Native American students.

A recent Microsoft survey found that three-quarters of a million Montana households lack Internet access. On American Indian reservations or tribal lands, just over half of Native Americans have access to high-speed internet service–compared to 82 percent of households nationally.

Census data shows that 29 percent of Cleveland households have no internet access. Pew Researchers found in a 2018 survey of 13- to 17-year-olds, one in fiveteens said they often or sometimes can’t complete assignments because they don’t have reliable access to the internet or a computer.

Predictably, some school districts are holding back from providing any distance learning because they can’t ensure that every child has access to it—a decision the New York Post has already labeled “progressive lunacy.”

For instance, Philadelphia’s superintendent told his teachers they could not require students to log on and could not grade work done online or by phone because they “cannot ensure students equal access to technology.” One wonders what this means for high school students who need course credits and GPA scores for college admission.

An affluent suburban Seattle district invested in Wi-Fi “hotspots” to loan to students without internet at home, then halted the effort for similar reasons.

In Montgomery County, Maryland, a public elementary school foundation planned to give money to every family at its school and a neighboring school that needed it for Wi-Fi access, a laptop, or food. The school district would not allow it.

We have to agree with the Post: This is lunacy. We should be rolling out connectivity for all as we begin distance learning, not giving up.

The federal and state departments of education need to make clear to every district in America that they don’t have to deny education to every child just because they can’t provide it equally to all. Then they should start funding a massive effort tomake it universal. After urging from Democratic Senators Michael Bennet, Edward Markey, Brian Schatz and others, the Federal Communications Commissionon Wednesday announced a waiver of federal E-rate rules. Under the E-rate program, until September 30th service providers can give free equipment and services—such as mobile hotspots, improved connections, and connected devices—to schools.

In addition, Comcast–and other providers–are giving free Wi-Fi and the modems and routers needed to access it to low-income families in its service areas for the next 60 days.

​Congress and the states should add more funding. Districts are scrambling to design and deploy distance learning programs, while simultaneously ensuringthat children who depend on school for nutrition don’t go hungry.

​With state and federal aid, they should go into overdrive to ensure that every child can log on, at adequate speed.

For those outside of areas where free Wi-Fi is on offer, it is time to get creative. As far back as 2014, one district outfitted school buses with Wi-Fi routers and deployed them after hours to park in remote neighborhoods. In this way, California’s Coachella Valley Unified School District–one of the nation’s poorest, spanning 1,200 miles of mountains and valleys–was able to get all of its students online outside of school.

Some rural districts, like Santa Fe, already have Wi-Fi on school buses that make long drives to transport rural students, so the kids can do homework while making the long commute. The U.S. currently has about 480,000 school buses–more than enough to bring Wi-Fi to all 21.3 million offline Americans. And it has almost as many bus drivers—now sitting home with little to do— who could help.

In 2014, the driver of one of Coachella’s buses, Darryl Adams told the Hechinger Report, “Come on! We can do better than this as a nation, especially for our low-income families and our disadvantaged families.’’ 

Surely, in this most extraordinary of times, we not only can do better–we must.

Tressa Pankovits is Associate director at Reinventing America’s Schools project at Progressive Policy Institute