The Washington Post - 13.03.2020

friday, march 13 , 2020. the washington post eZ re a25

A

v irus that is deadly and little

understood. An administra-

tion in deep denial. Anthony

S. Fauci has been here before.

As the coronavirus epidemic esca-

lates, the director of the National Insti-

tute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

(NIAID) has become a familiar media

presence.

Fauci’s expertise and credibility

shine against the contradictory and

false messages coming from President

Trump. The administration has at

times sounded more concerned with

protecting the president politically

than stopping the spread of a potential-

ly lethal disease.

While Trump tries to play down the

severity of a public health crisis that

might affect his reelection prospects,

Fauci has laid out the best assessment

of the true danger in stark terms.

I n testimony Wednesday on Capitol

Hill, he warned that the coronavirus

has a mortality rate 10 times as great as

that of the flu, and refuted Trump’s r osy

promise that a vaccine will be ready “in

a fairly quick manner.” Fauci also said

flatly that the government is “failing”

when it comes to the urgent imperative

of making widespread testing

a vailable.

After federal officials gave lawmak-

ers a briefing on Thursday, a frustrated

Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.) told me:

“Everything was wrapped in confusion.

The only one who answers the ques-

tions — he not only gives the science,

but then he says, let me explain this in

pedestrian language — is Dr. Fauci.”

Then again, this is not the first time

Fauci has found himself in the position

of having to navigate a public health

crisis fraught with political land mines.

A renowned international expert on

the immune system, Fauci took over

NIAID in 1984, barely a year and a half

after scientists had identified a myste-

rious retrovirus that was killing thou-

sands of people.

It would be nearly another year be-

fore President Ronald Reagan would

publicly utter the name of the disease it

produced: AIDS. Reagan’s sluggish

handling of the epidemic left o ne of the

deepest scars on his legacy.

In 1986, Reagan’s surgeon general,

C. Everett K oop, produced a report that

described in graphic terms the poten-

tial toll of AIDS, projecting that

270,000 Americans might contract it by

1991. The report used explicit language,
      explaining that the disease was trans-
      mitted through “semen and vaginal
      fluids” and during “oral, anal and vagi-
      nal intercourse.”
      Conservatives approved of some of
      what was in Koop’s document: It

warned against “freewheeling casual

sex” a nd asserted that the surest means

of preventing AIDS were through absti-

nence and monogamy. B ut they weren’t

so happy with the surgeon general’s

recommendation that condoms be

used as a fallback.

Koop was concerned that his find-

ings were being buried by the Reagan

administration, so two years later, he

and Fauci cooked up a bold idea: mail-

ing an abridged version of his report to

every single one of the 107 million

households and postal boxes in the

country.

The problem, however, was that the

surgeon general lacked the budget to

do it. As Fauci recounted to me during a

2018 interview, he told Koop: “You

know, there is a mechanism called an

interagency transfer.” Fauci had the

authority to provide funds to get the

project off the ground, because combat-

ing AIDS related to his own agency’s

core mission.

Congress picked up the idea and

ordered the largest mass mailing in

U.S. history. It also stipulated that the

seven-page brochure be “distributed

without necessary clearance of the con-

tent by any official, organization or

office” — in other words, that it not be

edited to suit anyone’s p olitical agenda.

I n addition to being printed in Eng-

lish and Spanish, “Understanding

AIDS” went out in Chinese, Portuguese,

Haitian-Creole, Vietnamese, Laotian,

Cambodian and Braille. It debunked

many myths about the disease, for in-

stance stating unequivocally that AIDS

is not spread by mosquitoes, and could

not be caught through casual contact

with saliva, sweat or toilet seats.

Subsequent surveys found that near-

ly 87 million adults perused part or all

of the booklet — making it the most

widely read publication in the country

in July 1988, with Reader’s Digest com-

ing in a distant second with 48.5 mil-

lion readers.

Of course, there are many differenc-

es in scale and severity between the

AIDS epidemic and the coronavirus

threat. While most who contract coro-

navirus will recover, AIDS during the

1980s was a death sentence wrapped in

stigma.

But as Fauci well understands, all

infectious diseases have something in

common: Accurate information is one

of the most powerful weapons for fight-

ing them.

Fauci has already shown how impor-

tant it is to hit a microscopic enemy

with a sledgehammer of truth. A yet-

untold number of Americans will be

betting their lives on him to do it again.

[email protected]

Karen tumulty

He’s been

here before

A

s businesses and schools shutter

and entire industries implode, the

United States may be hurtling

toward recession.

If so, we are woefully unprepared for it.

That’s because both the Trump adminis-

tration and state-level officials have spent

the past few years dismantling the very

programs that would normally cushion

the blow.

Usually, when the economy falters,

some anti-recession measures kick in

without politicians having to lift a finger.

As people lose jobs and income, they start

to automatically qualify for existing

s afety-net programs.

Or, as President Trump’s National Eco-

nomic Council director, Larry Kudlow, put

it last week, while batting away calls for

major fiscal intervention: “Let’s not forget,

we have automatic stabilizers in the bud-

get, okay?” If the unemployment rate rises,

he noted, then “unemployment insurance,

food stamps, various welfare-related pro-

grams, those are automatic. You don’t h ave

to go for additional appropriation.”

What Kudlow failed to mention is that

this administration has been steadily

working to make those “automatic stabi-

lizers” much less automatic and much less

stabilizing.

In just over two weeks, for instance, the

Trump administration will start enforcing

a new rule making it harder for Americans

to get food stamps if they can’t find work.

Which is presumably the time when food

assistance might be most helpful.

To be clear, food stamp work require-

ments have long been on the books for

certain recipients. But federal law also

allows states to get temporary waivers for

these requirements, for areas where un-

employment is high.

The new Trump rule makes it much

more difficult for states to respond quickly

to a sudden spike in joblessness — such as,

say, if a city completely shuts down be-

cause of a pandemic.

As o f April 1, states will be able to qualify

for waivers only if their average unemploy-

ment rate over the preceding 2 4 months is

not only 20 percent above the national

average but also at least 6 percent.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration

is crafting two other rules that would

dramatically restrict eligibility for food

stamp (and free school lunch) enrollment.

Such policies are not only callous.

They’re also economic self-sabotage. Food

assistance offers a huge bang for the buck

during a recession: Every additional dollar

the government spends on food stamps

boosts overall economic activity by about

$1.50, according to Agriculture Depart-

ment research.

Public health insurance is another tra-

ditional automatic stabilizer, and one that

seems especially critical during a pandem-

ic. Trump has been working to shred this

part of the safety net too, by adding red

tape and cutting funding.

In 2018, the administration began

working with states to create Medicaid

work requirements. These onerous new

requirements for beneficiaries to docu-

ment their work hours caused even gain-

fully employed people to lose their health

coverage. (A federal appeals court unani-

mously struck down the policy last

month.)

Elsewhere, the administration has been

demanding states add additional paper-

work requirements for enrollment in both

Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insur-

ance Program, causing eligible families to

lose coverage.

The administration also recently an-

nounced a proposal to convert part of

Medicaid to block grants. This would

mean states would get a capped annual

amount of federal dollars for the program.

It would also limit states’ ability to expand

enrollment during a downturn.

Then finally there’s the unemployment

insurance program, yet another policy

designed to serve as a safety net both for

individual families and the macroecono-

my as a whole. In theory, it allows jobless

people to keep paying bills and patroniz-

ing local businesses.

To day, however, that system is a shadow

of its former self. Only about a quarter of

unemployed workers actually receive ben-

efits, according to a forthcoming report

from the Center on Budget and Policy

Priorities. In four states, fewer than

1 0 percent of unemployed workers receive

benefits.

Why? Among other things, states ex-

hausted their unemployment insurance

trust funds during and after the Great

Recession, which began in 2007; rather

than raise taxes to replenish these coffers,

states ratcheted down benefits.

This problem clearly pre-dates Trump.

Even so, his administration has since

encouraged states to add more bureau-

cratic hurdles — including by doing more

widespread drug testing as a condition of

benefit receipt. This appears to be a

solution in search of a problem, based on

the handful of states that have experi-

mented with similar programs before. It’s

also expensive, and it slows down benefit

receipt.

There are useful, bipartisan economic

proposals on the table to address the

economic fallout of the current pandemic,

including many that plug holes in the

programs above I genuinely hope they

pass, and fast. But I also wish the last

economic crisis had taught government

officials that we needed to have critical

benefits that trigger on their own —

without Americans needing to plead for

them.

[email protected]

catherine rampell

Woefully

unprepared

for a recession

P

resident Trump’s nationally tele-

vised state of the coronavirus

address was an opportunity to

encourage orderly urgency, to

confront current challenges squarely, to

call the country to larger purposes and

to prepare Americans for what lies

ahead.

What came out of the president’s

mouth was a speech of monumental

smallness.

There was heavy-handed political

damage control: Trump’s delayed, dis-

missive initial reaction was self-

d escribed as an “unprecedented re-

sponse” a nd an “aggressive and compre-

hensive effort,” conducted with “great

speed and professionalism,” involving

“early, intense action” and featuring “a

lifesaving move” t hanks to “early action.”

These are the protests of a leader caught

entirely unprepared, trying to leave the

illusion of proactivity after a largely

squandered month and a half.

There was the requisite xenophobia:

We are facing a “foreign virus,” which is

evidently far more sinister than our

wholesome, responsible, best-in-the-

world domestic viruses. The outbreak

“started in China.” ( Presidential thought

bubble: Should we charge the Chinese

for the economic costs their virus impos-

es on us?) The virus spread because the

“European Union failed to take the same

precautions” that Trump did, resulting

in U.S. disease clusters “seeded by travel-

ers from Europe.” The real problem,

evidently, is not community transmis-

sion but roaming Europeans.

And there was Trump’s attempt to

calm capital markets, which are only

politically useful when exuberant: “This

is not a financial crisis, this is just a

temporary moment of time.” Without

claiming to be a financial expert, I know

exactly what would pacify markets. They

would like to see a U.S. president with

even an inkling of his public duties at

this particular moment.

Amid all the self-praise and scape-

goating, Trump made room for a few

sentences on the steps — wash your

hands, cover your cough, stay home if

you are sick — that would actually help

slow down a pandemic. I suppose we

should be grateful. But we are facing a

national crisis with a president who is

utterly incapable of mature and inspir-

ing presidential communication.

During his speech, Trump managed to

skirt around three of the most pressing

issues facing the country. First, how and

when will gaps in testing for the corona-

virus be filled? (Here the president said

only that “testing capabilities are ex-

panding rapidly.”) Why can’t the United

States produce and process enough tests

to actually determine the prevalence

and fatality rate of this disease? What is

wrong in processes at t he Food and Drug

Administration and at the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention that led

to this astonishing debacle? What does it

mean to put “A merica first,” as the

president promised, when America still

can’t determine how sick it is?

Second, if the disease hits hard — like

it has in Italy — what is being done to

prepare hospital surge capacity, p articu-

larly when it comes to protective gear

and respirators? Will health profession-

als be forced to make impossible deci-

sions about prioritizing care because of

tragically limited medical resources?

Will health systems be suddenly

swamped by ill, angry and anxious citi-

zens? The president did not even touch

on this topic.

Third, how will Trump confront coro-

navirus denialism on the right? This is a

problem the president helped create, by

making light of the virus as the function-

al equivalent of the flu and blaming

“fake news” and the Democrats for feed-

ing hysteria. As a result, it is now

evidence of Republican loyalty to treat a

deadly disease as a joke. Twice as many

Republicans as Democrats regard the

risk of the virus as “exaggerated.” Future

generations will look back in horrified

wonder that covid-19 became a culture

war debate.

Some in the right-wing media are

telling lies that put the lives of their

audience at risk. A few presidential

appearances on Fox News affirming sci-

entific facts might do more real good for

the country than a self-serving, immedi-

ately forgettable address to the country.

But does the president really believe

those facts? Even after his speech, this

remains an open question. Trump’s con-

version to unfavorable reality is often

partial and temporary.

Leading in this crisis would be a

difficult rhetorical task for anyone. It

demands a careful balance of urgency

and reassurance. It calls for sacrifices

from all Americans, even though the risk

falls heaviest on the ill and elderly.

Fighting a pandemic requires an atmo-

sphere of confidence and trust and

involves the suspension of deep differ-

ences in pursuit of the common good.

Leaders are rising to that challenge in

every corner of the country.

And the work of all of those leaders

might benefit from the president’s

s ilence.

[email protected]

michael Gerson

It would’ve been better if

Trump hadn’t spoken at all

BY NATHAN ROBINSON

J

ust a few weeks ago, Sen. Bernie

Sanders (I-Vt.) was being declared

almost unstoppable. Now, the la-

bel appears more appropriately

applied to former vice president

Joe Biden. The Democratic primary isn’t

over, but the path to a Sanders victory is

narrow.

So should Sanders give up and go

home? No, he needs to keep up the fight.

Sanders has never been running just

to win. He’s also running to drag the

Democratic Party to the left, to forcefully

confront the party establishment about

its failures to address working people’s

issues, and to raise people’s awareness

about the possibilities for progressive

social change. Staying in the race allows

him to continue doing these things and

more.

Even though Sanders lost back in

2016, in an important way, he still won.

The party realized that Sanders voters

represented a substantial portion of the

electorate, and because Hillary Clinton

needed their support in November,

Clinton’s w ing of the party w as forced to

the negotiating table. As Jeff Stein

noted in Vox, Sanders “won a string of

concessions on the Democratic Party

platform, pulling the party t o the left o n

the m inimum w age, environmental r eg-

ulation, marijuana legalization, and the

war on drugs.” The party’s official plat-

form changed directly as a result of

Sanders’s success, with once-radical

policies such as a $15 minimum wage

becoming part of the Democratic

a genda.

In 2020, Sanders might be able to do

the same with his signature policy,

M edicare-for-all. Even in states that

Sanders has been losing badly, single-

payer health insurance has been popu-

lar among the majority of Democratic

voters — thanks in part to Sanders’s

years-long effort to build support for

overhauling the insurance industry. T he

coronavirus crisis has exposed the cata-

strophic failings of the U.S. health-care

system and the social safety net. Staying

in the race gives Sanders the opportuni-

ty to explain how progressive social

policy can mitigate these disasters.

In 2016, Sanders succeeded at bring-

ing the Democratic Party around on

crucial issues because he posed a threat

to those who hold power within it. The

more strength Sanders and his support-

ers show at the polls in 2020, the less

tenable a moderate Democratic position

will be. After all, if Biden is to have any

hope of beating President Trump in

November, he will need to get Sanders

voters to support him — and that’s not

going to be easy. A show of strength from

the Sanders base of young progressives

and independents could push Biden to

make serious concessions: commit to

passing signature progressive policies

such as Medicare-for-all, a Green New

Deal, free universal college tuition, and

paid family and sick leave.

Critics say Sanders staying in the race

will weaken Biden in the general elec-

tion, and that Democrats need to unify

immediately against Trump. But the

more Sanders can put pressure on Biden

to accommodate progressives, the more

“unity” will ultimately be achieved. We

all want to beat Trump. But if Sanders’s

supporters are left bitter because Biden

disregards their agenda, they are unlike-

ly to pull together to “vote blue no

matter who.”

This is another reason to stay in the

fight. Sanders needs to amass as many

votes as possible to make clear the

number of people who might stay home

in November unless the Democratic

Party shows it cares about them. If

voters simply line up behind Biden in

the remaining states, there will be no

reason for Biden to endorse progressive

policies. And all voters deserve a choice;

it shouldn’t just be those in early states

who have the option of stating their

desire for a social democratic agenda.

Everyone deserves a chance to weigh in,

which they won’t get if Sanders quits

and leaves the race.

But finally, and most important,

Sanders should stay in as much for

principle as for pragmatism. He n eeds to

keep fighting as long as he can because

others have fought for him as long as

they could.

There was Al Johnson, who made

hundreds of calls for Sanders while

dying in his hospital bed, and there is

James Williams, who spends “every

breath I have left” working for Sanders,

because he wants to make sure others

have the kind of low-cost, high-quality

health care that he himself never had.

Millions of people have devoted them-

selves to Sanders because they feel seen

by him in a way they have never felt seen

by a politician before. They have put

their faith in him, and he has made

them believe that a better and fairer

world is possible. He would be letting

them down if he didn’t keep up that

fight until the end.

Nathan robinson is the editor of Current

affairs magazine and the author of “Why You

should be a socialist.”

Why Bernie Sanders

should keep fighting

Joshua roberts/reuters

Anthony S. Fauci on Capitol Hill on Thursday.

JenniFer ruBin

excerpted from washingtonpost.com/people/jennifer-rubin

What a president

should sound like

Speaking from Wilmington, Del., without

an audience, former vice president Joe

Biden demonstrated what a president

should sound like in the midst of a

pandemic. He was calm, forceful and

direct. He h ad a detailed plan to offer. And

most of all, he showed compassion for

those afflicted and made clear we are all in

this together. “It will infect Republicans,

independents and Democrats alike,”

Biden said. “It will touch people in posi-

tions in power, as well as the most vulner-

able in our society.” He added, “The coro-

navirus does not discriminate based on

national origin, race, gender or Zip code.”

The contrast with President Trump’s

inept performance Wednesday night was

breathtaking. Biden rebuked Trump for

xenophobia and blame-casting. “Neither

should we panic or fall back on xenopho-

bia,” he said. “Labeling covid-19 a ‘foreign

virus’ does not displace accountability for

the misjudgments that have been taken

thus far by the Trump administration.”

Most important, he laid out a detailed

plan displaying a mastery of the topic and

of government light-years beyond any-

thing the White House has devised, in-

cluding free testing for all Americans,

guaranteed sick leave, expanded unem-

ployment benefits, reimbursement for

employers whose employees must be

quarantined, support to schools for re-

mote learning, aid to states and localities

to cover expenses associated with the

pandemic and mortgage/rent relief.

Unlike Trump, who is warring with

allies, Biden recommends a Global Health

Emergency Board to “harmonize crisis

response for vulnerable communities.” He

also said he would fully staff all govern-

ment agencies and entities r esponsible for

global health. He told the audience he

could not understand why Trump deacti-

vated the position on the National Securi-

ty C ouncil responsible for p andemics. “We

will lead by science,” he said.

Seeing what presidential behavior

looks like is enough to bring tears to one’s

eyes. The basics of leadership — master-

ing the facts that give one authority,

displaying empathy, being honest about

the extent of the crisis without fomenting

panic — are entirely beyond Trump’s

reach. To see them on display was like

finding a precious family heirloom you

had misplaced.

Biden closed with a series of promises

that stand out as a bright light at the end

of our dark Trumpian tunnel: “No presi-

dent can promise to prevent future out-

breaks. But I can promise you that when

I’m president, we will prepare better,

respond better and recover better.... And

I will always, always tell you the truth.”

Biden had a rare opportunity to show

how he would do the job. He and his

top-notch staff who helped put together

the plan hit it out of the ballpark. Novem-

ber cannot come soon enough.

UPLOADED BY "What's News" vk.com/wsnws TELEGRAM: t.me/whatsnws