Mediaboss Marketing

The downloads folder on my computer is jammed full right now with endless charts depicting data and analysis of both the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic shocks rolling across the world, and naturally they can tell a widely varying story depending on the data quality and, most crucial of all, the assumptions that go into any model that generates projections about the futureeven the near future. Experts and models disagree! Whod a thunk it?

More importantly, what is a responsible president or prime minister to do? President Trump is naturally taking fire for not following the experts, even though it is a simple matter to point out that the experts (including even the sainted Dr. Fauci) were downplaying the risks of the Coronavirus as late as the end of January, when liberals, the media, and some health experts howled at the moon when Trump imposed the travel ban on China. All the while, the experts at the CDC were botching the rollout of a reliable COVID-19 test.

More broadly, though, it is worth lingering for a moment on the fetish for expertise, which runs especially strong among progressives ever since Woodrow Wilson at least. No one is against specialized expertise as such. After all, when you want heart surgery or a complex legal transaction processed, you will naturally turn to an expert surgeon or lawyer. (Or auto mechanic if you need your car fixed, etc.) But as you move beyond this kind of common sense specialized expertise to a more general style of expertise as applied to complex social and political phenomena, the scene changes.

The great examination of this issue is Philip Tetlocks 2005 book Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? The answer to his first subtitleHow Good Is It?is, not very. In fact, rather terrible. He begins the book by pointing out the massive failure of nearly all the experts to foresee the decline and collapse of the Soviet Union. I couldin fact have, in my two Reagan booksgo much further than Tetlock on this question, pointing out for example how bad the CIAs analysis of the Soviet Union was right up to the very end. I dont mean just off by 50 percent, but often completely wrong in the opposite direction. And yet liberals seemed shocked that the CIA didnt have much of a handle on bin Laden or Iraq back in 2001 and 2002.

While it is perfectly sensible to seek improvements in technical expertise and its integration into decision making by our political leaders, this misses the main point. For a century now, progressives have representedexpertiseas a distinct claim to rightful rule, akin to the classical claims on behalf of democracy and aristocracy. You can see this at work right now in the deep thinkers who are saying that Joe Biden ought to pick Bill Gates as his running mate, or that Dr. Fauci should be made president by acclamation.The progressive conceit of expertise lies at the heart of a lot of the progressive contempt for the non-credentialled deplorables of flyover country who, progressives think, dont deserve self-government.

Whenever a progressive says we should follow the evidence because we must have evidence-based policy-making, you should reach for your wallet (for starters). Because today we all too often have the opposite: policy-based evidence-making. This is especially true in the whole climate change circus, but it is also quite evident now in the virus crisis. Remember that Imperial College London model that predicted 250,000 deaths in the UK, subsequently scaled back to 20,000? The person behind that model, Neil Ferguson, gave an interview to the Financial Times today that includes this shocking admission that his model was a clear instance of policy-based evidence making:

The paper came out that day partly because there was pressure on government to be showing the modelling informing policymaking, so we worked very hard to get that paper out at that time.

To which the Financial Times comments:

The above implies the government was aware of the potential death toll or the one being projected by the scientists on their advisory committee, anyway but had not considered a drastic lockdown strategy until it became clear that the likely number of deaths from any other strategy would not be seen as politically acceptable. It seems, therefore, that the paper was published at that time partly to help justify a change in the messaging. AU-turn doesnt seem like quite the right term, therefore, for what happened.

It is possible that when the dust settles months from now, a careful review of everything from the evidence, data handling, bureaucratic miasma, practical decisions, and economic consequences might reveal not merely mistakes and failures but possibly mistakes and failures on a scandalous scale.

The point is: It is not anti-science to be skeptical of claims to expertise in social and political matters. In fact I wouldnt much trust a leader who wasnt skeptical.

Excerpt from:
Experts, Pseudo-Experts, and Other Progressive Conceits - Power Line

(PPStock / Shutterstock)

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Some days it may feel like were in apocalyptic times, but in the midst of the chaos and fear, there is reason for hope. The virus has made the ideological debates of the primaries ever more real and strengthens the case for government and the need for solidarity and imagination as we step into the future.Ad Policy

I dont want to be a Pollyanna, especially when so little is known about what happens next with the coronavirus pandemic, but its important now to hold onto hope. So here are a few things progressives should feel proud aboutand that Ive been focusing on.

If the coronavirus teaches us anything, it is that we are interconnected, and while we each have a responsibility to care for ourselves, we also bear a responsibility to the whole. We are in this together. Justice, we see, is not a moral but an existential issue. People should never have been packed into jails, immigration detention centers, or homeless camps, but at this moment, we do not have the option of looking away. In a global pandemic, our fates are intertwined.

There couldnt be a better argument for why government and social services matter, for everyone. As social distancing has become required to quell the virus, policies like paid sick leave become no-brainers. Access to free health care becomes less of an abstraction to people in power and more urgent than ever. And relief for students and debtors who cant work to pay off their loans becomes a duty. Bernie Sanders may or may not be our next president, but his ideas could deeply shape our response to this moment.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected in 1932, the country was still struggling through the Great Depression. In 1934, Roosevelt pulled together a Committee on Economic Security and passed the National Social Security Act in August of 1935. It didnt achieve everything hoped forand it was added onto over the yearsbut its worth remembering that this program, which is now a pillar of American society, was established in a moment of turmoil.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

In last Sundays debate, we saw different approaches taken by the two Democratic nominees. While Biden agreed that we can take bold and temporary actions to address the coronavirus pandemic, Sanders made the point that weve been in a public health crisis of a different kind for a long time. It is likely that we will get some temporary relief for families, but the question that requires hope is how we ensure were making meaningful and lasting changes.

Having lived together through the crash and bailout of 2008, electeds and the public are more aware that a stimulus cannot simply benefit corporations; it must also benefit the broader public. The 2011 popular uprising Occupy Wall Street was in response to the inequitable bailout, which saved the banks that then continued to foreclose on families. There were too few constraints and strings attached to the stimulus. This time we can do things differently.

This time, no one should lose their home; this time, new affordable housing must be built. Social Security should be increased and student debts should be canceled. Elizabeth Warren has laid out how she would do a stimulus at this moment, putting the grassroots first. Andrew Yangs advocacy for a universal basic income is being met with bipartisan support and we may soon see a cash transfer to individuals. Movement and advocacy organizations are already geared up and fighting to make sure that this bailout is not a corporate payday.

There was a striking moment in Sundays debate when we moved from a conversation about the coronavirus to one about the climate crisis. For a moment, the word crisis held renewed force. A crisis is a time when the government can take big actions, mobilize all its resources, and create massive changes in our social structures. If we acknowledge that the climate crisis is indeed a crisisone that is greater than the pandemic we face todaywe can expand our imagination around what is collectively possible.Progressivism

The conversation around a Green New Deal has already created a new vision for how we can mobilize the economy in ways that transform our energy systems and reduce carbon emissions. While it has not yet been crystallized into legislation, the Green New Deal resolution provides a guide for how we might rethink the way we tackle a global problem at the scale required.

These are hard times, times when we need to be kind, caring, and generous to one another. These are times when we must develop our empathy and recognize that our neighbors may be losing family and friends. But exactly for that reason, these are also times when we must be visionary and expansive. We must be firm and unrelenting in the fight to ensure that this moment is a transformative one, that this moment doesnt leave anyone behind. In the midst of our isolation, this is the time when we must come together.

See the original post:
Progressives, There's Reason to Hope. Really! - The Nation

WASHINGTON The coronavirus pandemic is worsening across the United States, with some states limiting bars and restaurants to carry-out only and forcing gyms and other businesses to close.

Early Saturday morning, the House passed legislation to enact paid sick leave for some people affected by the coronavirus, increase food assistance to students and families, and provide free testing for the disease.

It's about putting families first, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last Thursday at her weekly press conference.

But its also an opportunity, congressional progressives have said, to prove that their policies work at a time when theyre consistently under attack for being too expensive or unrealistic.

I really think that our push for Medicare for All is being highlighted or the need for a system like that is being highlighted right now with this, Congressional Progressive Caucus cochair Rep. Pramila Jayapal said in an interview with BuzzFeed News Thursday. You can see we're having to waive costs of tests we're waiving the costs of other barriers that would prevent people from seeking medical care. And all of you know, a lot of those things would be a) so much easier and b) wouldn't be an issue if we have Medicare for All.

Jayapals home state of Washington has been hit particularly hard by the coronavirus. The state had 769 confirmed cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, and 42 deaths, according to the most recent data from Johns Hopkins University researchers.

Theres a lot we still dont know about the coronavirus outbreak. Our newsletter, Outbreak Today, will do its best to put everything we do know in one place you can sign up here. Do you have questions you want answered? You can always get in touch. And if you're someone who is seeing the impact of this firsthand, wed also love to hear from you (you can reach out to us via one of our tip line channels).

As of last Thursday, about a dozen people in nursing homes in the state had tested positive, including one person in Jayapals own district, she said, a development thats highly concerning due to the fact that older people are at the most risk should they contract the disease.

The coronavirus response package that passed the House requires some employers to provide full-time employees with up to 10 days of paid leave. Jayapal said she believes it could be a rare test run for progressive policies.

We are clairvoyant, Jayapal said, referring to the inclusion of many progressive policies in the Democratic response to coronavirus. Its not only an opportunity to prove their priorities will work, she said, but also that they are necessary for the rest of the economy to survive.

A lot of times what happens is, you know, these things get pitted against some other cost, she said. They're said to be too expensive or impractical or not necessary. And what a crisis like this shows in a time like this shows is that they are actually all of those things. They're practical, they're necessary, and we can afford them because the cost of not doing them is way more unaffordable.

But its not a perfect test for Jayapal. After BuzzFeed News spoke with the Democrat, the bills paid sick leave policy was altered to exempt large companies with more than 500 employees.

The legislation, which also includes increased food security benefits, is still the subject of intense negotiation on Capitol Hill. It still needs to pass the Senate and President Donald Trump is pushing for a payroll tax cut and federal assistance for the oil and gas industry in response to the pandemic.

Not only is he trying to focus on corporations and, really, corporate interests, but also doing things that are illogical, like trying to bail out [the] oil industry that you know are completely unrelated Rep. Mark Pocan, who serves as Jayapals cochair on the Progressive Caucus, said in an interview with BuzzFeed News Thursday.

Trumps bailout plan is similar to the response to the 2008 financial crisis, Pocan said, and he thinks its misguided.

We gave money to Wall Street, we gave money to the auto industry, we gave it to big companies or big industries, he said. This time, Nancy [Pelosi] has been very, very clear that this is something that's family-focused first.

Republicans on Capitol Hill have balked at Trumps payroll tax cut proposal, and though they have resisted House Democrats plan, Jayapal said Thursday she believed it was possible to pick up some Republican votes on the package, particularly because the proposals are temporary and tied to the virus.

I've never believed that these ideas are partisan. I believe that they would bring enormous comfort to and support to everybody across the country, whether you're in a red district or a blue district, she said especially, now, she added, because the cost is death.

Earlier Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that the Democrats proposal as currently drafted was dead on arrival in the Senate and merely left-wing political messaging. But Friday afternoon, House Democrats and the White House struck a deal, which passed the House last week and is set to pass the Senate early this week.

Read more here:
Medicare For All And Paid Sick Leave Are Often Dismissed As Impractical. Progressives Say The Coronavirus Proves Theyre Not. - BuzzFeed News

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Tuesday that he and PresidentTrump supported sending $1,000 checks straight to the American people as tens of millions face furloughs, layoffsand financial uncertainty as the coronavirus outbreak spreads a major shift of the Overton window regarding direct cash assistance for Americans amid the pandemic.

"We are looking at sending checks to Americans immediately," Mnuchintoldthe press. "Americans need to get cash now and the president wants to get cash now, and I mean now in the next two weeks."

Mnuchin reportedly said the administration "likes the idea of $1,000" for the checks, but declined to give an exact number in a press briefing or to say whetherthe proposal would be free of restrictions that could leave out people who receive other government benefits. He alsosuggestedthe program could be means-tested, telling reporters, "We don't need to send people who make a million dollars a year checks."

Still, the notion of direct cash assistance from the Trump administration would have been "inconceivable" just days ago,Washington Posteconomics reporter Jeffrey Steintweeted.

"Ifthe cash is genuinely unrestricted, it would be a historic move. While Americans received checks as part of the response to recessions in2001and2008, those were sent out as rebates or refunds to taxpayers,"wroteDylan Matthews at Vox.com. "Never before have all Americans, regardless of income, and including the poorest citizens who do not earn enough money to have positive income tax burdens, gotten checks."

Advertisement:

Mnuchin's statement followed intense criticism of the administration's previous economic stimulus proposal to offer apayroll tax cutto companies a plan which would not help Americans in the immediate term and would carry no benefit for people who lose their jobs as a result of the public health crisis.

The suggestion that the federal government could send checks to tens of millions of Americans came a day after Republican Sens. Mitt Romney of Utahand Tom Cotton of Arkansascriticizedan economic relief package from House Democrats for failing to deliver fast enough assistance to American workers. The bill left most workers out of its plan for paid sick leave, and the legislation wasscaled back even furtherlate Monday, limiting the benefit for the next 10weeks to people who are out of work because they need to care for children.

The scaling back of the House bill and the administration's potential offer of assistance, as well as the proposals put forward by Republican senators, has effectively placed Democrats to the right of the GOP regarding coronavirus aid,HuffPostreporter Zach Cartertweeted.

"A handful of Republicans are outflanking Democrats on coronavirus aid," he wrote, sharing the plan of Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo.,to send checks for several thousand dollars to families. "If Republicans move in this direction and Democrats keep insisting on narrowly targeted means-tested plans with a zillion carve outs for particular businesses, it will be a catastrophe for the Democratic Party."

Following the push on Monday from Romney, Cotton and Hawley, some Senate Democrats also began pushing for direct cash assistance. On Tuesday, Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., Michael Bennet, D-Colo., and Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio,proposed immediate payments of $2,000 for every American adult and child, followed by additional payments later this year.

"The 'send people money' bids are ramping up in the Senate,"New York Timesreporter Jim Tankersleytweeted.

Last week, before the House passed its relief bill, Reps. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.,and Tim Ryan, D-Ohio,proposedsending checks of up to $6,000 to every American earning less than $65,000. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.,alsoannouncedTuesday on Twitter that she was planning to introduce legislation to offer $1,000 to every adult and $500 to every child in the country, with "no exceptions," as well as direct stimulus to any small business that doesn't lay off its workers during the crisis.

Other progressives in Congress applauded the Trump administration for considering direct cash payments and pushed the president to move forward with other proposals for assistance to Americans.

Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.,and Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass.,both called on Mnuchin and Trump to suspend student loan payments or cancel student debt.

Read the original post:
Now Trump and Mnuchin want to send us money: Progressives wonder who will qualify - Salon

Photo: Jonathan Bachman/Getty Images

One of the more confusing questions pollsters have asked Democratic voters to answer this year is whether they would prefer their candidate return to Obamas policies versus pursuing a more liberal (or conservative) course. A modest plurality picked the Obama option. You couldnt find a bigger believer in Obamas legacy than me I literally wrote a book touting it and Im not even sure how Id answer that question. Obama policies could mean any one of the following:

1) The policy status quo as of January 20, 20172) The policies Obama implemented plus the policies he proposed but were blocked by Congress or overturned by conservative courts3) The policies Obama would be proposing if he were running for president now

The ambiguity about this question reflects the larger confusion about Biden and the return to normalcy he promises. Bidens rhetorical emphasis seems to imply his plan is no more than the first definition of Obama-ism, winding the clock back to the moment before Donald Trump took the oath of office. But the truth is that Biden has a domestic agenda that, while nowhere near as radical as the Bernie Sanders platform, is almost certainly to the left of anything even a Democratic-run Congress would pass.

Last summer, Biden assured a group of donors that nothing fundamental will change in their lives under his plan. Outraged progressives seized on the words, often skipping right over the fundamental, reimagining the line as a promise that nothing would change for the rich:

Biden was not saying that. His point was that he was asking them to take a hit to their after-tax income in return for buying social peace, but that the sacrifice would be finite he would not confiscate their homes or end their livelihoods. Indeed, last week the Tax Policy Center published its analysis of Bidens plan to increase taxes on the rich. The plan would raise $4 trillion over a decade, making it if enacted one of the largest wealth transfers in American history.

TPCs has a chart illustrating the effect on after-tax income. One-percenters would see their annual income drop by 10-15 percent:

Now, as Biden promised, that still wouldnt be a fundamental change in their lives. They would still have a lot of money more, in most cases, than they enjoyed a decade ago. But it is still a very sizable change, one that would likely meet with bitter and even hysterical resistance from the rich when introduced in Congress.

There is plenty more liberal meat on the bones of Bidens program. He is proposing more generous subsidies and medicaid funding along with a public option in order to achieve universal health care; a combination of $17 trillion in clean energy investment and a suite of tighter regulation to bring emissions to zero by 2050; a combined $2 trillion in new spending on early education, post-secondary education, and housing, a $1.3 trillion infrastructure plan, and a $15 minimum wage.

There is more Biden could be proposing to advance the liberal agenda. Ive argued he should adopt some of Elizabeth Warrens anti-corruption and financial regulation plans, including a financial transaction tax. Eric Levitz has some ideas of his own, including marijuana legalization. If he can carry a Democratic majority into the Senate, a lot of possibilities will open. Campaign proposals only go so far, though. The limits of his legislation will be set by the 50th Senator, and the limits of his executive action will be set by the fifth Supreme Court justice. That would have been true under a Sanders or Warren administration, too.

Obama effected a great deal of progress, especially in the first two years, before Republicans took back Congress and blockaded major legislation. The slow-paced last six years of Obamas presidency helped spur the Bernie movement, with its ambition of summoning a mass army of non-voters that would force the likes of Mitch McConnell to open the way to left-wing reforms.

The failure of the Sanders campaign to inspire anything like such a voter uprising, and the all but certain end his campaign is facing, should bring the left back to reality. But reality doesnt mean nothing. It means that, with the possibility of full control of government comes the opportunity for meaningful progress again. Biden mostly casts himself as a return to normalcy. But what he is promising as well is a continuation of the liberal tradition of Roosevelt, Johnson, and Obama.

Analysis and commentary on the latest political news from New York columnist Jonathan Chait.

The rest is here:
Joe Bidens Platform Is More Progressive Than You Think - New York Magazine