L ATIMES.COM/OPINION MONDAY, APRIL 6, 2020A
I
t was obvious even before Donald
Trump became president that he dis-
dained cooperation with other na-
tions, including traditional allies, and
that he had little interest in shoring up
international institutions that the United
States helped to create.
As president, he has made good — or
rather, bad — on his campaign promise to
put “America first,” which in practice has
often meant “America alone.” He has under-
mined U.S. influence at the United Nations,
questionedthe foundations of NATO and
made this country less secure as well as less
influential by repudiating international
agreements.
This is old news. What is new is that
Trump’s insular approach to foreign policy
— coupled with his early attempts to
minimizethe threat posed by COVID-19 — is
undermining U.S. leadership in rallying the
world to deal cooperatively with the pan-
demic. Such global coordination isvitally
necessary to replace the current patchwork
of national and regionalefforts, some of
them sorely inadequate.
As Nicholas Burns, the veteran diplomat
who served in both Republican and Demo-
cratic administrations, put it in a March 25
article in Foreign Affairs: “Unfortunately,
President Donald Trump has spent the last
three years demeaning and degrading” the
institutions of U.S. foreign policy “and deni-
grating the kind of U.S. leadership and glob-
al collective action they promote — which is
one reason for the world’s inadequate re-
sponse to the coronavirus pandemic thus
far.” Burns is an advisor to former Vice Pres-
ident Joe Biden’s campaign, but his view is
widely shared among foreign policy experts.
Obviously, any president’s first duty dur-
ing this public health crisis is to protect the
people of the United States. No one is sug-
gesting that Trump embrace a sentimental
one-worldism. But because of the global na-
ture of this menace, American lives are
threatened by a failure of this administra-
tion to galvanize international support for a
strategy to control a pandemic that knows
no borders.
American influence in the world argu-
ably had been ebbing even before Trump
was elected, and there were tensions be-
tween the U.S. and its NATO allies over de-
fense spending by European nations during
the George W. Bush and Obama
administrations.But Trump has dramati-
cally increased the estrangement with allies
by, among other things, pulling the U.S. out
of the Paris accord on climate change and
the international agreement to forestall
Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.
Given the president’s cranky aversion to
internationalism, it’s not surprising that the
administration hasn’t made maximum use
of the U.N. to address the pandemic, for ex-
ample by securing the adoption of a Securi-
ty Council resolution similar to the one
passed in 2014 during the Ebola crisis. Such
a resolution would declare that COVID-
constitutes a threat to international peace
and security and create a mechanism for co-
ordinating assistance to its victims.
Because both the U.S. and China exer-
cise a veto in the Security Council, adoption
of such a resolution would require co-
operation between the two countries. Lately
the president has moderated his harsh
languageabout China, avoiding the term
“Chinese virus” and praising Chinese Presi-
dent Xi Jinping. But it’s not clear that he’s
willing to join hands with China on an inter-
national approach to dealing with the out-
break. That, rather than competition with
China for preeminence, should be the goal.
To be fair, the U.S. has engaged with
other nations on some issues related to the
pandemic. For example, Secretary of the
TreasurySteven T. Mnuchin and Federal
Reserve Chairman Jerome H. Powell have
joined with other finance ministers and cen-
tral bank officials in seeking to ameliorate
the economic effects of the contagion.
But the president is the most important
voice of the executive branch. The question
is whether this emergency can impel Trump
to reverse course in foreign policy the way he
did in domestic policy when he signed a $2-
trillion coronavirus stimulus package and
invoked the Defense Production Act to
boost the supply of ventilators and protec-
tive masks. A nation traumatized by this
pandemic can only hope that that the an-
swer is yes.
The need for a
global answer
to COVID-
President Trump’s ‘America first’
approach to the world is stunting
efforts to contain the pandemic.
M
ore than 10 mil-
lion Americans
filed for unem-
ployment insur-
ance in March as
businesses shut their doors in
response to the COVID-19 pan-
demic. The stay-at-home or-
ders now covering most of the
country could, economists proj-
ect, idle 20% or more of the
workforce in the weeks ahead.
Washington responded to
this catastrophe with a $2-tril-
lion stimulus packagethat in-
cluded expanding unemploy-
ment benefits. The problem is,
the antiquated unemployment
insurance program is full of
gaps and rules that could still
leave unemployed people out in
the cold.
In normal times, only about
28% of unemployed Americans
receive unemployment benefits
—either because they quit their
job (and aren’t eligible) or they
don’t apply. That rate ticks up
during recessions, when more
eligible, laid-off workers apply.
Yet only about 40% got benefits
at the peak of the 2008-09 reces-
sion.
The new stimulus package
expandsunemployment insur-
ance to cover workers not nor-
mally eligible, such as gig work-
ers and freelancers, as well as
individuals who are not able to
work due to COVID-19. It pro-
vides an additional $600 a week
for four months to supplement
state unemployment checks
and extends the duration of
benefits by 13 weeks from the
typical 26 weeks.
These are welcome mea-
sures to tide people over, but
they’re temporary fixes that
don’t address the structural
problems that will continue to
plague unemployment benefit
programs after the infusion of
cash runs out.
Unemployment insurance is
funded by each state through
employer taxes that are set
aside in a trust fund. Workers
are eligible for benefits only if
they meet minimum require-
ments for length of employ-
ment and earnings, lost their
job through no fault of their own
(they didn’t quit or get fired for
cause) and are currently look-
ing for work. An eligible worker
can receive checks for up to half
their former wages for as long as
26 weeks, paid out from the
trust fund.
This sounds straightfor-
ward enough. But in fact, states
and employers have incentiveto prevent laid-off workers from
receiving unemployment ben-
efits. The tax on employers is
paid on each worker. The tax is
also “experience rated,” mean-
ing that a company with a lot of
layoffs ends up paying a higher
tax to cover its remaining em-
ployees. And if a lot of workers in
a state seek unemployment in-
surance all at once, and the
trust fund runs dry, then taxes
on all employers can increase
during a recession — clearly a
bad outcome.
While the stimulus package
increases benefits, it left many
crucial questions about eligibil-
ity — which are determined by
the states — unanswered. For
example, can workers who have
to drop down to part time to
take care of children whose
schools have closed receive ben-efits? If a worker is sick but can’t
get tested to confirm the illness
is COVID-19, would that person
receive benefits? States are
likely to answer differently, re-
sulting in very different access
to, or levels of, benefits depend-
ing on where you live.
It’s already clear that these
state programs are unprepared
to process benefit claimsfrom
the huge flood of workers now
affected by coronavirus-related
shutdowns. Websites for appli-
cations crashed in several
states, including Michigan,
Florida, Ohio, New York, New
Jersey and Washington, D.C.
This current crisis will force
state administrators to update
their systems simply to get the
money through the pipeline.
But it should spur state and fed-
eral leaders to move toward
comprehensive reforms that
would benefit both workers and
businesses.
At a minimum, the program
needs to be federalized into a
single unemployment system.
This would remove the state
variations in eligibility and ben-
efits, stop penalizing workers
who move across states, and
end the race to the bottom
among states to have lower tax
rates.
Bold reform would include
broader use of “work-sharing”
assistance. Under this concept,businesses struggling finan-
cially can apply for assistance
from the unemployment trust
fund to temporarily cover a por-
tion of payroll costs.
Evidence from the few firms
in the U.S. that use it show that
this approach is both effective
in preventing layoffs and popu-
lar among employers. (If a busi-
ness closes or carries out lay-
offs, then workers get the job-
less benefits directly.) At the
moment, only 28 states have
any type of work-sharing pro-
gram.
Since its creation in 1935, un-
employment insurance has
been neglected to the point of
obsolescence. There has been
no federal reform of the pro-
gram since 1976, most unem-
ployed people do not receive
benefits, the generosity of ben-
efits has eroded over time, and
trust funds have not kept up
with need.
The COVID-19 pandemic
shows why it’s crucial to
strengthen this program so it
can help businesses and work-
ers ride out economic shocks
beyond their control.Kathryn A. Edwardsis an
associate economist at the
nonprofit, nonpartisan Rand
Corp. Her research focuses
on education, labor and
unemployment.The broken benefits system
APPLICATIONSfor unemployment benefits are soaring as the coronavirus pandemic
forces business closures, with most of the country now under stay-at-home orders.John MinchilloAssociated PressBy Kathryn A. EdwardsThe stimulus
package temporarily
increases jobless
benefits. But
obsolete state rules
could still leave
many workers out
in the cold.
V
alentina Sedeno
is adamant that it
is never a burden to
stay in touch with
her brother. He has
been incarcerated off and on for
years in San Francisco and the
Bay Area. “It’s a responsibility
I’ve taken on for my family,” she
said.
But Sedeno’s loyalty has
been expensive. She has paid
charges that could amount to
more than $1,500 over a year, or
$300 over an average 70-day jail
stay. Until recently, such fees,
paid to GTL, the communica-
tions company that contracts
with many California counties
to provide phone services, were
required to cover two 15-minute
phone calls a day in San Fran-
cisco’s jail.
Sometimes, Sedeno has had
to choose between paying for
groceries and paying her GTL
bill. “My mom has at times owed
alot of money to GTL and
struggled to pay it,” she said.
And that’s not the whole of
what supporting her brother
has cost. Sedeno’s family has
also put money on the jail books
so that her brother could buy
basic food and hygiene items
from the jail commissary, at
prices that would outrage the
average consumer.
Charging exorbitant fees for
jail phone calls and commissary
goods is common across the
country. The practice generatesfunds for essential county jail
operations and big profits for
the billion-dollar businesses
the jails contract with. It’s to be
expected that the contractors
will make a profit, but counties
should get out of this revenue-
producing game altogether. Jail
operations — such things as in-
mate education and reentry
services — shouldn’t depend on
fining the incarcerated above
and beyond their sentences, or
on gouging their families.
In San Francisco, in large
part because of the efforts of
Sedeno and other activists, the
city and county budget has
been altered: The jail will no
longer generate revenue for jail
operations from phone calls or
commissary markups. As of
April 1, the prices of commis-
sary items dropped an average
of 43%, which was the jail’s pre-
vious cut of the profits.
This summer, when the
county’s contract with GTL is
up, all phone calls will officially
be free. In the meantime, with
visiting hours canceled during
the coronavirus crisis, San
Francisco is already providing
75 minutes of free phone calls a
week for inmates.
It can’t come too soon for the
families of the incarcerated,
most often their sisters, moth-
ers and grandmothers.
According to a reportby the
Ella Baker Center, 83% of those
responsible for paying bail,
court fines and fees are women,
and mostly low-income womenof color. The extra costs of their
loved ones’ incarceration aver-
age about $13,000 nationwide.
Men do the time, but women
pay the fine.
How the costs add up vary
county to county, but it’s easy to
see how they can add up to unaf-
fordable amounts over the
course of a jail sentence.
A 15-minute call from jail in
Lassen County cost $17.80in
2018, according to the Prison
Policy Initiative. When a com-
parison was done by activists in
Santa Clara County, in 2016,
Nissin Chili Lime Ramen cost
99 cents in the jail; at Target it
was 39 cents. A box of 16 Stay
Free Maxi Pads with wings was
$9.69 in the jail; at Ralphs, it was
$2.99.
Sedeno and other activists
from the Young Women’s Free-
dom Center made the case to
San Francisco Mayor London
Breed and the county sheriff
that the higher the phone
charges, the harder it is for in-
carcerated people to stay in
touch with family and friends —
the lifelines they’ll need to rely
on when they get out.
Studiesshow that inmates
who maintain contact with
their families are more likely to
succeed after they are released
and less likely to be reincarcer-
ated. That’s important given
that almost half of people who
get out of San Francisco jails
are rearrested within three
years.
San Francisco’s local re-forms are gaining momentum.
The California Women’s Policy
Institute, working with Califor-
nia state Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-
Los Angeles), is putting for-
ward SB 555, which would per-
manently lower jail phone rates
and markups in jail commis-
saries throughout the state.
And activists everywhere are
calling for jail phone calls to be
free during the pandemic.
Jacking up prices for phone
calls and jail store items raises
revenue, but the practice costs
our state in the long run. We
need to do everything we can to
make it easier — not harder —
for incarcerated people to stay
in touch with their families.
When we drain the bank ac-
counts of incarcerated people’s
families, we’re punishing people
who have committed no crime,
other than supporting their
loved ones. That should be cele-
brated, not penalized.Anne Stuhldreher directs
the Financial Justice Projectin
the treasurer’s office of the city
and county of San Francisco.
She is also a senior fellow with
the Aspen Institute’s Financial
Security Program.Dial back fees for prison services
By Anne Stuhldreherlatimes.com/opinion
ENTER THE FRAY BLOG
Arkansas, Iowa, South Carolina! What are you
thinking? Shut down now!Mitch McConnell tries to weasel his way back
into Trump’s good graces.If you’re “essential” enough to work through
a pandemic, you’re essential enough to be paid
a living wage.ENTER THE FRAY
Visit latimes.com/
topic/enter-the-fray.STAY CONNECTED
8 facebook.com/
latimesopinion
8 twitter.com/
latimesopinionHOW TO WRITE TO US
Please send letters to [email protected]. For
submission guidelines, see latimes.com/
lettersor call 1-800-LA TIMES, ext. 74511.
EXECUTIVECHAIRMANDr. Patrick Soon-Shiong
EXECUTIVEEDITORNorman Pearlstine
MANAGINGEDITORS
Scott Kraft, Kimi Yoshino
DEPUTYMANAGINGEDITORS
Shelby Grad, Shani O. Hilton,
Julia Turner
EXECUTIVESPORTSEDITOR
Christian Stone
ASSISTANTMANAGINGEDITORS
John Canalis, Len De Groot, Amy King,
Loree Matsui, Angel Rodriguez
Opinion
Sewell Chan EDITOR OF THEEDITORIALPAGES
F OUNDED DECEMBER 4, 1881 Sue Horton OP-ED ANDSUNDAYOPINIONEDITOROPINION
EDITORIALS
OP-ED
HOW TO WRITE TO US
Please send letters to
[email protected]. For
submission guidelines, see
latimes.com/letters or call
1-800-LA TIMES, ext. 74511.