Mediaboss Marketing

The coronavirus outbreak has already had effects that go far beyond public health issues.It has impacted Washingtons relations with numerous countries, adversaries and allies alike.

Nowhere is that more evident than in the Trump administrations policies toward North Korea and Iran.Interestingly, though, the administrations treatment of those two countries is a study in contrasts.

As my Cato Institute colleague Doug Bandow notes, the pandemic has totally eclipsed Washingtons usual concerns about North Koreas behavior. U.S. policymakers have obsessed about Pyongyangs nuclear and missile programs and ambitions for decades, but their attention is now, understandably, focused elsewhere.President Trump has not entirely ignored Pyongyang during this crisis, however. He sent a letter directly to North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un offering U.S. aid in combatting the epidemic.

One analyst dismissed that overture as pen-pal diplomacy, but Trumps letter was a significant initiative to revive the moribund dialogue with Kim that had begun with such promise at the Singapore summit nearly two years earlier.Although Trump did not explicitly offer to ease U.S. sanctions, his latest missive suggested a wish to use bilateral cooperation on the coronavirus crisis to advance that dialogue and perhaps facilitate cooperation on other issues.That approach should be applauded, not dismissed or ridiculed. It was notable that although the DPRK government declined the offer, it apparently did so through a reasonably polite, personal letter from Kims sister, widely viewed as perhaps his most important adviser.

Unfortunately, Trumps behavior toward Iran in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic is a depressing contrast to his relatively conciliatory approach toward North Korea.Although Washington made a perfunctory offer of humanitarian medical assistance to Tehran, that gesture was more than offset by the ostentatious continuation of hostile, debilitating measures.The United States and the United Arab Emirates even conducted war games explicitly directed against Iran on March 23.The Pentagon went ahead with that full-scale exercise, even as it was canceling or scaling back similar exercises in other parts of the world.

There were no indications of a willingness to ease other components of Washingtons unrelentingly hostile policy toward Iran either. Sanctions that Trump imposed earlier had severely limited Irans access to medicines and medical supplies, asHuman Rights Watchnoted. Yet, when the coronavirus outbreak exploded in Iran, the president showed no inclination whatever to suspend or even modify those punishing restrictions.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani pointed out the hypocrisy. The United States should lift sanctions if Washington truly wanted to help Iran to contain the outbreak, Rouhani said on March 23, adding that Iran had no intention of accepting Washington's offer of humanitarian assistance. "American leaders are lying, he charged in a televised speech to the Iranian people, adding If they want to help Iran, all they need to do is to lift sanctions .... Then we can deal with the coronavirus outbreak."

Rouhanis rejection of even limited humanitarian aid can legitimately be condemned as short-sighted, but given the context of Washingtons vague offer, it was understandable.At the time Rouhani spoke, Iran was one of the countries hardest hit by the pandemic, with more than 26,000 cases and more than 1,700 deaths. Just four days later, the totals were up to 29,406 cases and 2,234 deaths. Yet Washington steadfastly adheres to its sanctions policy. Indeed, the administration imposed fresh sanctions on March 17, in an effort to compel the regime to release detained Americans.

Its a policy that is both cruel and tone-deaf.Trump and his advisers are ignoring growing calls at home and abroad to lift at least some of the sanctions.Even Washingtons closest allies in Europe are spurning U.S. warnings to maintain a hard line toward Tehran.The European Union now is openly defying U.S. policy, announcing a 20 million euro aid package for Iran.

U.S. policy toward both North Korea and Iran leaves great room for improvement.Trumps outreach to Pyongyang was a constructive gesture, but it needs to be accompanied by the easing of sanctions.Washingtons entire attitude toward Tehran is even worse.The hostility that U.S. leaders display is downright toxic. Maintaining sanctions, much less imposing new ones, in the midst of a pandemic is an act of cruelty that should shame all Americans.As respected scholars have shown, sanctions have a long history of inflicting harm on innocent populations in target countries while generally failing to compel the regimes to capitulate on key issues.The strategy is harmful even in normal times, it is an abomination during a massive public health crisis.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at the National Interest, is the author of 12 books and more than 850 articles on international affairs.

Continued here:
Donald Trump Offered to Help North Korea on Coronavirus. Why Not Iran? - The National Interest

BEREA, Ohio - President Donald Trump is narrowly ahead in Ohio in his re-election bid and getting positive marks on coronavirus and the economy in new polling released Thursday. But more decisive is what the poll said about the lifestyle restrictions Gov. Mike DeWine has imposed to combat COVID-19.

Huge majorities of Ohioans support closing K-12 schools (87.7% to 6.7%), limiting public gatherings (86.2% to 7.8%), closing daycare centers (81.5% to 9%), closing restaurants and bars (76.5% to 14.3%), and changing the primary election date (70.6% to 16.1%), the Great Lakes Poll found.

And when it comes to DeWine, a national leader in imposing such restrictions, 79.9% say they approve of the job he is doing during the crisis.

Researchers at Baldwin Wallace University, Ohio Northern University and Oakland University near Detroit polled 3,817 registered voters in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin from Friday through Wednesday for the second of their planned four Great Lakes polls this year. The margins of error range from 3.3 percentage points plus or minus in Ohio to 3.9. in Pennsylvania.

On the political front, the polling showed Trump ahead in Ohio - a state he won in 2016 by 8.1 percentage points. But against an unspecified Democratic challenger, Trump trails in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, states he also won in 2016 but by much closer margins.

Asked if the election were held today," Trump led the unspecified Democratic candidate in the Buckeye State, 44.6% to 43.1%, with the rest unsure.

Elsewhere, the Democratic candidates lead over Trump is 47.4% to 38.2% in Michigan, 44.5% to 44.1% in Pennsylvania and 44.5% to 41.8% in Wisconsin, according to the poll. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Ohio all are within the polls margin of error.

Baldwin Wallace University's Great Lakes Poll found Donald Trump leading an unspecified Democrat in Ohio, but losing in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.Rich Exner, cleveland.com

Head-to-head, Trump leads former Vice President Joe Biden in Ohio by 4.3 percentage points, and leads Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders by 5.4 points.

Somewhat oddly, however, adding an opponents name to the mix flipped Pennsylvania in favor of Trump - by 2 points against Biden and 5.5 points against Sanders.

Yet the polling indicates that a big unknown when it comes the general election could be how the coronavirus pandemic unfolds over the next several weeks and months.

Large majorities of Ohioans say they are concerned about the impact of the coronavirus on the economy in general (88.6%) and their personal finances (76%). Plus, most are worried that a family member will contract the virus (68.8%), according to the Great Lakes poll.

It broke down this way:

Baldwin Wallace University's Great Lakes Poll found financial concerns among Ohio voters because of coronavirus.Rich Exner, cleveland.com

In each state, those polled said the top single issue they care about in voting for president is health care (ranging from 32.4% to 37.4%, depending on the state), followed by the economy (ranging from 30.2% to 31.8%, depending on the state).

So far, majorities in each of the four states approve of the way Trump has handled the coronavirus crisis and the economy (much stronger so in Ohio) - ranging from 50.5% to 58.1% by state.

Interestingly, we are seeing President Trumps job approval ratings improve at the same time that people are worried about the economy, said Lauren Copeland, associate director of of Baldwin Wallaces Community Research Institute.

This may reflect a rally around the flag effect that is common during national crises.

But Trumps handling of health care issues receives poor grades in all four states - with more disapproving on Trumps work on this issue than approving in each state.

Only in Ohio was it close (46.7% disapproving to 45.1% approving). In the other states, the disapproval against Trump on health care ranged from margins of 9.8 points to 12.8 points.

DeWines approval rating of 79.9% on the coronavirus is especially strong in comparison to governors of the other states polled.

On the same question, 69% of those polled in Michigan approved of the work of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, 69.4% in Pennsylvania approved of Gov. Tom Wolfs job on the issue, and 67.7% in Wisconsin gave approval to Gov. Tony Evers on coronavirus issues.

Some people were polled before DeWine on Sunday announced his stay-at-home order, which was instituted at 11:59 p.m. Monday. But most of his other actions, including closing schools, prohibiting large gatherings and banning dine-in eating at restaurants, came earlier.

Although President Trump is seeing some improvement in his favorability ratings in the Great Lakes, his performance pales in comparison to governors in these states, said Robert Alexander, a political science professor at Ohio Northern.

The lengthy poll covered a variety of topics. Among the findings for Ohioans:

Rich Exner, data analysis editor for cleveland.com, writes about numbers on a variety of topics. Follow on Twitter @RichExner. See other data-related stories at cleveland.com/datacentral.

Cleveland.com on Thursday will publish several stories digging deeper into the Great Lakes Poll results. Those stories will appear at this link.

Read related politics and coronavirus coverage

Poll shows Donald Trump ahead in Ohio, competitive in three other Great Lakes states as coronavirus pandemic disrupts election

Mapping Ohios 704 coronavirus cases, and daily trend

Minister advising President Trump blames coronavirus pandemic on gays, environmentalists

Cleveland notified of 8 new cases of COVID-19 coronavirus, bringing citys total to 50

Can you have coronavirus without knowing it? Absolutely

7 interesting things about Ohio presidential primaries past and present; results and more

Early voting historically is used little in Ohio primaries

5 numbers that say a lot about presidential politics in Ohio

See the original post:
Ohio voters strongly back coronavirus lifestyle restrictions, and majority support Donald Trumps re-election - cleveland.com

The emergency coronavirus legislation that the Senate agreed to on Tuesday can only be described as an outrage. It is not an economic rescue package, but a sentence of unprecedented economic inequality and corporate control over our politics that will resonate for a generation.

It represents a transfer of wealth and power to the super rich from the rest of us, with the support of both political parties a damning statement about the condition of American democracy.

Final text of the bill has not been released, but according to a legislative draft, the new law would establish a $4.5 trillion corporate bailout fund overseen by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, with few substantive constraints. Some outlets are reporting this as a $500 billion fund, but $425 billion of that can be leveraged 10 times over by the Federal Reserve, resulting in a multi-trillion-dollar program.

The bill permits bailed out companies to lay off up to 10% of their workforce over the next six months, with no restrictions thereafter. Mnuchin would have authority to waive any upside for the public in its new investments, and the bills restrictions on stock buybacks at bailed-out firms are too temporary to be significant. Bailed out companies could even pay dividends to their shareholders.

Bailout money will flow to the shareholders of large corporations, otherwise known as rich people. The oversight terms that Democrats secured are purely cosmetic, replicating the toothless provisions of the 2008 bank bailout that enabled watchdogs to report abuse but not actually prevent or rectify it.

If you give vast amounts of public money to a single person with no real accountability, you wont like what happens next, Damon Silvers, the deputy chair of the oversight panel for the bank bailout, wrote on Tuesday.

In exchange for this takeover, Democrats got four months of more generous unemployment benefits for the millions who will be laid off and a one-time check of $1,200 per adult, eliminating a Republican restriction that would have limited poor people to just $600 and phasing out payments for six-figure incomes. These are not bad provisions, but they pale in comparison to the handout offered to the rich.

$1,200 isnt enough, the Economic Security Project, a liberal think tank, tweetedon Wednesday. By agreeing to the deal, Senate Democrats in effect accept a horrendous future in exchange for a somewhat less burdensome present.

It is a panicked and reckless legislative response, Sarah Miller, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, an anti-monopoly advocacy group,saidin a statementon Wednesday. Its one that will repeat most of the mistakes made in the 2008-2010 bailouts and fundamentally transform the American economy, she added.

There is, in fact, an economic emergency right now just not for the super rich or massive conglomerates. On Monday, the Federal Reserve announced essentially unlimited support for the banking sector and, for the first time, used its authority to directly finance corporate debt. Large corporations can get money, as Boeing CEO David Calhoun made clear on Tuesday when he said his company would just look at all the other options, and weve got plenty of them, if Congress were to demand an equity stake in the companies it assists. Bailouts will eventually be necessary, but Congress has plenty of time to craft serious programs designed to save industry, not merely people who own stock in industry.

Unnecessary Corporate Welfare

Working people, by contrast, do not have time to wait. The coronavirus layoffs have already begun, and when official numbers begin rolling in on Thursday, they will be shocking. Democrats and Republicans have essentially decided to hold a pittance of relief for the people hit hardest hostage to the most reckless and, at the moment, unnecessary corporate welfare program ever conceived.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) boasted that the package is a wartime level of investment into our nation. But nothing about the legislation resembles the way a nation prepares for an ambitious military operation. The legislation provides nothing of substance to address the coronavirus pandemic itself. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) has already said the package will do next to nothing to assuage the disaster unfolding in his state. It mobilizes no new resources, organizes no production, improves no medical supply delivery and trains no new nurses. Instead, it moves an enormous amount of money around and puts the Trump administration in charge of its movement.

The dissonance between the actions of Senate Democrats today and those from just a few short months ago is mortifying. In December, House Democrats voted to impeach President Donald Trump for withholding congressionally mandated aid to a national ally, arguing persuasively that Trumps actions were designed to undermine his political rival for the presidency, Joe Biden. Democrats literally tried to remove Trump from office for abusing the public purse for personal political gain. On Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and every Senate Democrat were preparing to authorize more than $4 trillion for Trumps top lieutenants to pass around.

For too long, Democrats have ignored the suffering and dysfunction caused by structural problems with the American economy, trusting that social welfare payments will be sufficient to counter the power disparity between the rich and the rest of us. They are wrong to accept such a bargain now.

We live in an era in which the wealthy and the well-connected dominate almost every aspect of our society. The rich not only live different lives than the rest of us they live significantly longer lives, a trend that is likely to be exacerbated as the medical system cracks under the pressure of the incoming coronavirus caseloads and as working people lose access to basic care.

A Warning From 2008

The financial crisis of 2008 and the bank bailouts it inspired did long-term damage to the American social fabric. The financial sector essentially became a criminal syndicate, as fraud settlements became a simple cost of doing business for bailed-out banks like Wells Fargo. The governments unheard-of largesse for wealthy bankers made an infuriating contrast with the unemployment lines and foreclosure signs that became commonplace across the country, and our politics were transformed as a result.

The campaigns of both Donald Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) largely grew out of the anger and resentment that the bank bailouts and the outrageous inequality of both the crash and the recovery inspired.

We are about to replay this nightmare with a more frightening cast of demons. The small business relief the Senate has agreed to authorize on Wednesday will be too little to stem the tide of failures, and will arrive too late to help too many firms that will go under, while the biggest companies in America feast on the fruits of the bailout.

We will be lucky if most small businesses see any assistance in less than two months, law professors Adam Levitin and Satyam Khanna wrote in a New York Times op-ed on Tuesday. That is time they and their employees do not have. As with the bank bailouts, big companies will grow larger and more profitable and demand further control over the way what we still call a democracy is organized.

But these horrors will only be realized if the House of Representatives approves this monstrosity. The House voted down the first bank bailout bill in 2008. It could do so again, and demand instead a simple relief bill for people who really need it working families and emergency measures to actually fight the coronavirus pandemic.

Democrats control the House. They can pass any bill they like and dare Senate Republicans and the president to oppose a serious bill for a serious problem.

Or they can rubber-stamp the Senate bill and help Donald Trump foreclose on the next generation of American democracy.

Zach Carter is the author of The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy, and the Life of John Maynard Keynes,available now for pre-order from Random House.

Calling all HuffPost superfans!

Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter

Go here to see the original:
Democrats Are Handing Donald Trump The Keys To The Country - HuffPost

In recent days, President Donald Trump has repeatedly defended his administration against the suggestion that the government is failing to secure enough ventilators, medical devices that help Covid-19 patients breathe and can save the lives of those suffering serious respiratory distress.

We have tremendous numbers of ventilators, but theres never been an instance like this where no matter what you have, its not enough, Trump said on March 18. It sounds like a lot, but this is a very unforeseen thing. Nobody ever thought of these numbers. A day later, he doubled down, noting that nobody in their wildest dreams would have ever thought that wed need tens of thousands of ventilators.

Except, of course, somebody did think that. A lot of somebodies, actually, and for a very long time. Almost every federal agency you can imagine has, in fact, warned about shortages and some have offered specific and sobering estimates of need for the better part of two decades.

Almost 15 years ago, for example, the Department of Health and Human Services published a 400-page Pandemic Influenza Plan that was nothing if not explicit. Analyzing models based on flu pandemics in 1957 and 1968, which suggested that there could be more than 900,000 hospitalizations under a similar scenario, HHS determined that demand for inpatient and intensive-care unit (ICU) beds and assisted ventilation services could increase by more than 25%. If that happened, the department predicted, mechanical ventilation would be needed in as many as 64,875 instances. A more severe pandemic like the flu of 1918-19 could result in ventilator shortages which, in turn, could lead to difficult questions about rationing. How many ventilators might be needed to stave that off? A staggering 742,500.

That startling report was just one of many to sound the alarm. Most were written in the wake of 2003 SARS outbreak or the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic.

A May 2003 report by the Government Accountability Office noted that few hospitals have adequate medical equipment, such as the ventilators that are often needed for respiratory infections to handle the large increases in the number of patients that may result.

Another GAO report issued a few months later similarly warned that few hospitals reported having the equipment and supplies needed to handle a large-scale infectious disease outbreak. Half of the 2,000 hospitals surveyed by the GAO had for every 100 staffed beds, fewer than 6 ventilators.

A 2005 Congressional Research Service report echoed those concerns in relation to H1N1 avian flu. If this strain were to launch a pandemic large numbers of victims may require intensive care and ventilatory support, likely exceeding national capacity to provide this level of care, the report said.

A July 2006 Congressional Budget Office report warned that the United States had only about 100,000 ventilators, with three-quarters of them in use on any given day. That number may have remained stable for the last 14 years, according to Vice President Mike Pence, who referenced the more than 100,000 ventilators that are in health care facilities and hospitals around America today in a briefing on Saturday. (The New York Times puts the number of hospital ventilators at about 160,000.) Meanwhile, according to the 2006 CBO report, HHS had calculated that a severe influenza pandemic like the one in 1918 would require 750,000 ventilators to treat victims.

In August 2006, the Defense Department rolled out its Implementation Plan for Pandemic Influenza, offering both a prescient prediction and important advice: Considerable demand for ventilators is likely, especially in the event that the pandemic occurs before a vaccine is available. Where feasible, consideration should be given to stockpiling instead of just-in-time acquisition of adequate numbers of ventilators.

A year later, President George W. Bushs White House warned that a severe influenza pandemic would place a tremendous burden on the U.S. healthcare system and that the projected demand for inpatient and intensive care unit beds and mechanical ventilation services would overwhelm the health care system. In November 2007, the Interior Department issued a Pandemic Influenza Plan, noting that a pandemic could lead to a shortage of ventilators.

The list of overlooked warnings from federal agencies goes on: A 2009 report by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which predicted that, in the event of a pandemic, healthcare facilities can be overwhelmed, creating a shortage of hospital staff, beds, ventilators and other supplies. A report by President Barack Obamas Council of Advisors on Science and Technology about the H1N1 flu, pointed out that [d]uring the peak, 1 or 2 out of every 2,000 Americans might be hospitalized, and that patients requiring mechanical ventilation could reach 10 to 25 per 100,000 population, requiring 50 to 100 percent or more of the total ICU capacity available in the United States and placing great stress on a system that normally operates at 80 percent of capacity.

More recently, Trump reportedly ignored increasingly alarming updates from the U.S. intelligence community about the danger and spread of Covid-19.

Trumps falsehoods about coronavirus preparedness arent confined to his contention that nobody has ever heard of a thing like this, of course. He has also claimed that automakers including Ford, GM, and Tesla are lending a hand to produce ventilators fast to make up the shortfall. It just isnt true. And ventilators are just the start. Trump has responded similarly to criticism about the alarming shortage of specialized N95 masks needed by health care workers on the front lines of the pandemic.

When asked how doctors in a country as wealthy and powerful as the United States could be left without crucial masks, he resorted to his go-to defense: This is unprecedented or just about unprecedented. As time goes by, were seeing its really at a level that nobody wouldve believed. We started with very few masks. And now were making tens of millions of masks and other things.

But the need for large stockpiles of masks, like the need for ventilators, has been no secret. As occurred during the SARS outbreak in Canada, hospitals would especially need N95 particulate respirators to protect medical staff against infection, according to the 2006 CBO report. Widely adopted just-in-time practices leave too small an inventory margin to accommodate the increased demand for supplies that would accompany an influenza pandemic.

Here is the original post:
Trump's Claim That Ventilator Shortage Was Unforeseen Is False - The Intercept

The president said former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions did not have wisdom or courage hours after voters determined Sessions will likely compete in a runoff for his old Senate seat.

Sessions will likely have to compete against former Auburn University head football coach Tommy Tuberville for the seat. With 96.93% of precincts counted, Tuberville narrowly led with 32.24% percent of the vote, compared to Sessions 31.15%. Neither man was near the 50% needed to avoid a runoff.

U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne was in third place, with 26.76% of the vote. Former Alabama State Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, the Republican nominee during the 2017 special Senate election, held onto just 6.98%.

President Donald Trump tweeted early Wednesday morning about the race. "This is what happens to someone who loyally gets appointed Attorney General of the United States & then doesnt have the wisdom or courage to stare down & end the phony Russia Witch Hunt," he tweeted. "Recuses himself on FIRST DAY in office, and the Mueller Scam begins!"

Trump attached a tweet from Politico about the likely runoff.

Tuesday night, Trump retweeted the results of the race.

Sessions served as Alabamas junior senator for 20 years before resigning in 2017 to become the countrys 84th Attorney General under Trump. Tuberville, who coached the Tigers from 1999 to 2008, spoke during his election night speech about Sessions strained relationship with Trump.

And I know somebody that knows how to win in overtime, the former coach said. Were going to finish what President Trump started when he looked at Jeff Sessions from across the table and said, Youre fired."

Go here to see the original:
Donald Trump tweets about Jeff Sessions runoff: This is what happens - AL.com