BuSINESS

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2020:: LATIMES.COM/BUSINESS

C

DOW25,917.41▼785.91 S&P5003,003.37 86.86▼▼NASDAQ8,684.09 268.08 GOLD$1,642.10 49.80▲ OIL$47.18 0.43▲▲EURO$1.1176 .0013 U.S.T-NOTE(10-yr.)1.01% 0.07▼

WASHINGTON — The
Supreme Court appeared
uncertain Tuesday about
whether to give President
Trump and future presi-
dents more power to fire the
heads of semi-independent
agencies, including the Con-
sumer Financial Protection
Bureau, created in the wake
of the Great Recession.
The consumer agency
was created by the Demo-
cratic-controlled Congress
in 2010. To insulate it from
political pressure, the Dodd-
Frank Act said the director
would be appointed by the
president and confirmed by
the Senate to “serve for a
term of 5 years,” and would
be subject to “removal for
cause.” This meant the pres-
ident could “remove the di-
rector for inefficiency, ne-
glect of duty or malfeasance
in office,” but not for purely
political reasons.
The justices struggled
Tuesday with the question
of whether Congress has the
power to structure agencies
as it sees fit, or whether the
president, as head of the exe-
cutive branch, has the power
to exercise day-to-day con-
trol over the top officials of
all executive branch agen-
cies, including the ability to
fire them at will.
Although the court’s five
conservatives tend to favor
greater executive power, it
was not clear Tuesday
whether they agreed among
themselves on how to rule in
this case. Liberal justices are
expected to support Con-
gress’ ability to create semi-
independent agencies.
The dispute began three
years ago when a small Or-
ange County, Calif., law firm
came under scrutiny from
the CFPB on allegations of
charging consumers illegal
upfront fees for debt relief
services. Seila Law not only
disputed the allegation and
refused a demand for docu-
ments, but it also argued
that the consumer bureau it-
self was unconstitutional be-
cause its director was not
subject to control by the
president.
Judge Josephine Staton
in Santa Ana and the U.S.
9th Circuit Court of Appeals
sitting in Pasadena rejected
the constitutional challenge,

Justices

consider

boosting

executive

powers

Court weighs whether

agency officials must

all answer to president

or if some may be

shielded from politics.

By David G. Savage

[SeeSupreme Court,C3]

WASHINGTON — The

Federal Reserve, reacting

swiftly to the coronavirus’

damaging blows to the econ-

omy, announced a sizable in-

terest rate cut Tuesday —

the first such emergency

rate action since the Great

Recession more than a dec-

ade ago.

The Fed’s move — along

with a coordinated global

economic response reminis-

cent of the dark days of the

2007-08 financial crisis —

gave an initial boost to

stocks, with the Dow Jones

industrial average rising al-

most 700 points.

But it fell almost as

quickly, reflecting the depth

of concern about the virus’

potential reach and econo-

mic effect, as well as whether

lower interest rates or other

government actions can

help in the face of the myste-

rious and highly infectious

disease.

The Dow ended the day

down 786 points, a nearly 3%

drop and the ninth decline in

the last 10 trading sessions.

The Fed’s half-point rate

cut marked a dramatic

change from just a week ago,

when Fed officials seemed

content to take a wait-and-

see approach. But since

then, there has been mount-

ing angst in the United

States that the spreading

virus could do serious harm

to the U.S. economy, as it has

in China, where the out-

break began.

Rising numbers of co-

ronavirus cases — and the

first deaths — in the U.S.

have caused increasing

health concerns and deep-

ening pessimism about the

economy. A growing number

of U.S. companies have

warned of lower earnings be-

cause of their exposure to

China and disruptions to

global supply chains, as well

as a slowdown in travel and

tourism.

“We saw a risk to the out-

RATE

CUT

FAILS

TO EASE

FEARS

Market jitters over

virus continue as Fed

takes bold step to

stabilize economy and

prevent downturn.

By Don Lee

[SeeRates, C6]

As the coronavirus threatens to up-

end the travel industry, executives of ho-

tel, airline and cruise ship companies

have been forced to confront sensitive

questions of how to best protect their

customers and employees.

In the growing corner of the travel

world occupied by Airbnb, those issues

are being hashed out one home-rental

host and guest at a time.

On an online message board for hosts,

a man in Mumbai asked what he should

do when he received an inquiry from a

guest coming from China. “I am unsure if

I confirm or cancel the booking,” he

wrote.

A host from Tacoma, Wash., wrote on

the same board that she’s “wiping down

all door knobs, handles, light switches,

and anything else that may have been

touched by the previous guests.” In some

cases, travelers of Asian descent have re-

ported host cancellations they see as dis-

criminatory. And in one posting, a host in

Rome wrote that a guest checked out

“because next door there is a family from

Asia.”

“Two days

A WOMAN browses Airbnb. Guests and hosts are grappling with how to respond to the coronavirus,

prompting cancellations — some of which were discriminatory, some travelers of Asian descent say.

Javier SorianoAFP via Getty Images

As virus spreads, an

Airbnb conundrum

Hosts and guests sort it out one canceled visit at a time

AMID the outbreak, Airbnb says it has discussed best practices

with hosts in some countries. Above, guests in Washington, D.C.

T.J. KirkpatrickWashington Post

By Andrew Khouri

[SeeAirbnb,C5]

Disney faces

disability suits

People with cognitive

problems face long

waits for rides at the

company’s theme

parks, lawsuits say. C2

Telecommuting

to counter virus

JPMorgan Chase asks

thousands of staff to

work from home. It is

testing a possible

coronavirus policy. C2

Intuit deal may

face scrutiny

TurboTax parent’s

$7.1-billion offer to buy

rival Credit Karma

raises antitrust

concerns. C3

Stocks fall; rate

cut adds to fears

The Dow loses 785

points after the Fed’s

emergency action.

Bond yields also end

lower. C3

Until now,

President

Trump’s

approach to

healthcare

was alarm-

ing chiefly to

discrete

populations

such as

low-income families, immi-

grants, people with pre-

existing conditions and

seniors.

They were in the

crosshairs of initiatives to

hamstring Medicaid, pre-

vent undocumented resi-

dents from seeking medical

treatment, destroy the

Affordable Care Act and

raise the cost of Medicare.

But the world has been

changed by the novel co-

ronavirus. Now it’s clear

that all these initiatives

present a healthcare threat

to everyone.

They stand in the way of

comprehensive screening

and treatment for

COVID-19, the disease

caused by the virus.

Trump’s hostility to public

health programs blinds his

administration to how to

use the tools already at

hand to combat the threat.

Precedent exists for using

Medicare to bring expensive

medical services to Ameri-

cans — of any age, not just

65 and older — who can’t

access them any other way.

Will the Trump adminis-

tration get the message? It’s

doubtful.

The administration has

treated proposals for uni-

versal healthcare with unal-

loyed disdain, even though

any such system would give

the government the ability

to fight an emerging pan-

demic such as COVID-19 by

taking over the cost from

states and families. Instead,

officials such as Seema

Verma, director of the Cen-

ters for Medicare and Medi-

caid Services, has gone on

the road to attack proposals

such as “Medicare for all”

and the public option as

“radical socialist ideas.”

Medicaid is perhaps the

prime target of the Trump

healthcare wrecking crew.

The Trump administration

wants to hobble Medicaid

by converting it to a block-

Trump sets U.S. up to fail against virus

MICHAEL HILTZIK

SEEMA VERMA, head of Medicare and Medicaid, two keys to fighting corona-

virus, has attacked “Medicare for all” and called Medicaid “remote” to most of us.

Mandel NganAFP via Getty Images

[SeeHiltzik,C4]