‘Not a single cent ever should be spent making rich universities even richer. They do enough harm to this country…’
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said he planned to offer legislation that would block the Education Department from offering bailouts to wealthy universities until after they had dug into their own resources.
I’m tired of hearing from university execs that “it wouldn’t be prudent” to tap their endowments in this crisis. Fine. But don’t come begging federal taxpayers for money while you sit on billions in endowment funds and students suffer
The $14 billion in higher-ed relief provided under a $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief bill was designated to cover costs of the changes in delivery of educational services, as well as providing student assistance.
Hawley said that before becoming eligible, those with endowments larger than $10 billion should first have to spend 10 times the amount appropriated to them for the same education-related purposes.
The freshman Missouri senator’s proposal immediately drew the interest of Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who said he would work on companion legislation in the House of Representatives.
Hawley’s announcement followed a controversial bid by Harvard University—among the wealthiest schools in the world—to claim $9 million of the Higher Education Emergency Relief Funds earmarked in the emergency funding bill.
The Ivy League school announced on Wednesday that it would not accept the funds, but only after facing criticism from several Republican leaders, including Harvard alumna Sen. Martha McSally, R-Ariz., who called the move “disgusting.”
President Donald Trump also promised to make up the difference by finding other ways to take it out on Harvard.
“I want Harvard to pay the money back, OK?” Trump said during a press briefing Tuesday. “I don’t like it. This is meant for workers—this isn’t meant for one of the richest institutions.”
Although some elite schools, including fellow Ivy Leaguer Princeton and California’s Stanford University, announced they would not claim the funds, several others saw dollar signs.
In an opinion piece for Fox News, the network’s own Tucker Carlson called out a few of the well-endowed opportunists:
New York’s Columbia University laid claim to $12.8 million in bailout money, despite having an $11 billion endowment. Columbia President Lee Bollinger makes more than $2 million dollars a year.
University of Pennsylvania, another Ivy Leaguer with a $14.7 billion endowment, received $9.9 million. UPenn President Amy Gutmann makes nearly $3 million—about a third of the entire bailout.
University of Michigan, a public school with more than $12 billion in the bank, claimed $25 million despite spending $8 million on football coach Jim Harbaugh.
Ohio State—Michigan’s longtime athletic rival—got $45 million in bailout money while paying its coaching staff $11 million with untested new head coach Ryan Day.
New York’s Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute claimed $4.8 million dollars in bailout money, which is less than University President Shirley Ann Jackson receives in salary.
Carlson noted that the tax subsidies come in spite of a growing public distrust with higher-education institutions.
Many universities have emphasized left-wing political agendas, indoctrination and influence-peddling over education fundamentals, while already gouging tuition costs to cover their inflating budgets of nanny-state social programming.
“[I]t shouldn’t take shame for Harvard to do the right thing. They should be decent enough to do it,” Carlson said.
“That’s a pipe dream; they’re not even close to decent,” he continued. “But in the absence of their decency, we need better laws. Not a single cent ever should be spent making rich universities even richer. They do enough harm to this country.”
‘There will be a woman of color on the Supreme Court—that doesn’t mean there won’t be a vice president, as well…’
Joe Biden / IMAGE: MSNBC
(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) White Democrats are more likely than minority voters to be bothered by the fact that presidential candidate Joe Biden is an older white male, according to a recent Pew survey.
Nearly 50 percent of white registered Democrats said they disliked that Biden, who is now the presumptive Democratic nominee, is “a white man in his 70s,” while just 30 percent of Hispanic Democrats and 28 percent of black Democrats felt the same.
Younger Democrats were also more likely (54 percent) to find Biden’s age and race troubling, whereas six in 10 Democratic voters 40 years and older say it does not bother them that Biden is a white man in his 70s.
“Democratic voters who are bothered that the likely nominee is an older white man are more liberal, more educated, younger and more likely to be white than those who are not bothered,” Pew Research reported.
This survey makes sense considering Biden’s support within the African–American community has remained strong throughout his presidential campaign. The other Democratic candidates had a difficult time competing with Biden’s minority advantage, which is part of the reason why Biden’s campaign made a sudden comeback after South Carolina’s primary election.
To boost his support among minority groups, Biden has promised to appoint a black female to the Supreme Court, and he is also considering choosing a black female as his running mate. Failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, California Sen. Kamala Harris and Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms are all potential picks, according to sources close to Biden’s campaign.
Biden has pledged to pick a woman as his running mate; however, he would not commit to choosing a female vice president of color with several Caucasian prospects in the mix including controversial Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
“I’ll commit that it will be a woman because it is very important that my administration look like the public, look like the nation,” Biden said earlier this week. “And there will be a woman of color on the Supreme Court—that doesn’t mean there won’t be a vice president, as well.”
‘This is meant for workers—this isn’t meant for one of the richest institutions…’
(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) After facing heavy criticism from Republican leaders, Harvard University agreed Wednesday not to accept the $9 million it received from Congress’s $2.2 trillion relief package, the Boston Herald reported.
Republican lawmakers had demanded that the high-dollar, Ivy League institution, which has the largest endowment of any university in the world, make the funds available to schools that needed it more.
The fact that Harvard hadn’t willingly returned the money was “disgusting,” said Sen. Martha McSally, R-Ariz.
“I got a master’s from Harvard, but they need to give that money back,” McSally told Fox News. “It came from another pot of money but still they have a $40 billion dollar endowment. They should help struggling students with that.”
The CARES Act allocated funding for universities and colleges and did not include means testing. As a result, schools like Harvard, with its $40.9 billion endowment, were able to receive federal assistance.
Other elite schools, including Stanford and Princeton universities, refused the funds.
On Tuesday, President Donald Trump weighed in during his daily press briefing, saying if Harvard refused he would find other ways to reclaim the loss.
“I want Harvard to pay the money back, OK?” Trump said. “I don’t like it. This is meant for workers—this isn’t meant for one of the richest institutions.”
However, Harvard initially said it has no intention of returning the $9 million and will instead allocate that funding to its financial-aid department.
(4/5) Harvard has committed that 100% of these emergency higher education funds will be used to provide direct assistance to students facing urgent financial needs due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., said he already had asked the Trump administration to rescind billions of dollars from Harvard and other wealthy institutions that do not need further assistance.
“The university whose mission is to educate the ‘citizen-leaders for our society’ should show some leadership of their own and return this money,” Scott said in a statement.
“If they continue to refuse to do so, I’m urging the President to immediately submit the rescission request to Congress that I called for two weeks ago so we can rescind the funding to Harvard and other wealthy higher education institutions,” he said.
‘The Permit was filed as a courtesy to not ruffle feathers…’
Tony Evers/Photo by Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism (CC)
(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) Citizens protesting Wisconsin’s shelter-in-place order vowed to continue protesting even though the state government refused to give the group an official permit.
Wisconsin requires protesters to acquire permits before organized events, but a spokeswoman for Wisconsin’s Department of Administration told Madison365 that it will be rejecting all permit applications as long as Democrat Gov. Tony Evers’s shelter-in-place order remains in effect.
Last week, Evers extended the shelter-in-place order until May 26.
“DOA will deny permit requests for events that violate the ‘Safer at Home’ order,” DOA representative Molly Vidal told the news outlet. “DOA will also exercise its authority to deny a permit if the event poses a hazard to the safety of the public.”
Madison Elmer, who has helped organize the “Reopen Wisconsin” protest, said the event will continue regardless.
“The Permit was filed as a courtesy to not ruffle feathers. The Rally is still happening,” she posted on the group’s Facebook page.
The protest will take place on Friday at 1 p.m., according to Elmer, and more than 3,000 people are expected to attend. Another 12,000 said they were interested.
The rally will be peaceful and will respect the federal government’s social-distancing guidelines, according to Elmer.
Unlike other recent protests, “Reopen Wisconsin” is encouraging protesters not to clog the roads so they do not inadvertently block emergency vehicles.
“I personally don’t support the ‘stay-in-your-car’ to protest,” Elmer said. “It’s an inconvenience to other people who actually have somewhere to be. What if an emergency vehicle needs to get through to someone at the rally?”
Regardless, Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes accused the group of jeopardizing the “safety” of “front-line individuals,” such as healthcare workers.
“We understand people’s frustration,” Barnes told Madison365, adding, “But we also have our front line workers who are still going to work every day, despite the challenges. What they are calling for is the compromised safety of those front-line individuals.”
‘The state’s procurement rules do not require a competitive bidding process during a state of emergency…’
Gretchen Whitmer/Photo by University of Michigan’s Ford School (CC)
(Joshua Paladino, Liberty Headlines) As Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer imposes perhaps the most arbitrary and restrictive lockdown measures in the country, she was caught trying to funnel taxpayer money to a Democratic political consulting and technology corporation.
Whitmer’s administration hired Every Action VAN, which manages voter-contact software platforms, to organize a contact tracing system for the coronavirus pandemic, the Detroit News reported.
Every Action’s website brags that its services are “trusted by” radical left-wing organizations, including Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, NextGen Climate, and the LGBT-activist Equality Federation.
Every Action is a division of NGP VAN, which brands itself as “the leading technology provider to Democratic and progressive campaigns and organizations.”
No other companies were allowed to bid on the contract.
Every Action’s system would monitor people who have tested positive for the coronavirus as well as people who have come into contact with them.
Then, these people would be watched, interviewed and quarantined.
Not only would Every Action have access to Michigan citizens’ health information, in potential violation of HIPPA laws, but the information may have gone into Democratic campaign databases.
Michigan Republicans noticed Whitmer’s decision to hire Democratic operatives to lead the state’s citizen tracking initiative.
“In addition to the fact that a partisan company should not be handling a public health crisis, the Michigan Republican Party is extremely concerned with how this data will be used,” said Laura Cox, chairwoman for the Michigan Republican Party. “The fact that there is now the possibility that it will be utilized for partisan ends is deeply troubling.”
Lynn Sutfin, spokeswoman for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, claimed citizens’ information would not have been abused because the state has “a strict data use agreement that only allows the data collected to be used for this contact tracing project.”
She said the state did not need to consider multiple bids for the software services since “the state’s procurement rules do not require a competitive bidding process during a state of emergency.”
Under normal procedures, the contract should have been approved by the State Emergency Operations Center.
SEOC did not approve it, yet the center issued a press release to announce the contract.
Whitmer’s administration did not grant the contract directly to Every Action.
Instead, the state health department signed the contract with Great Lakes Community Engagement, a Democratic nonprofit firm run by Michael Kolehouse, Fox News reported.
Kolehouse recently wrote on Facebook that someone should “do the country a favor and cough on that man,” referring to President Donald Trump, who he said should “get Coronavirus ASAP.”
After pushback, Whitmer canceled the contract on Tuesday, a day after announcing it.
Republican state Rep. Shane Hernandez, chairman of the Michigan House Appropriations Committee, said Whitmer “must answer the question of how this could happen in the first place,” Newsweek reported.
“I can’t believe this is the only instance where this administration has made questionable decisions about awarding contracts that may be political in nature during this time of unprecedented executive power,” Hernandez said.
Although the state did not sign the contract with Great Lakes Community Engagement until Monday, the work state date was set as April 1.
Whitmer’s administration was planning to pay GLCE $82,000 on May 1 for its work in April. An additional $112,250 payment would have been set on June 1.
Last Thursday, Whitmer’s administration said that the state had not officially selected a software company to develop the coronavirus contact-tracing system.
That statement appears misleading, since the state knew that Every Action was set to begin work on the software on April 1.
Whitmer’s recent rise to national prominence “coincides with the hiring of Chris Meagher, who served most recently as press secretary for Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign,” Ingrid Jacques wrote in the Detroit News.
She walked into the national spotlight in February with her response to Trump’s State of the Union address.
Since the coronavirus hysteria began, she has appeared on national news stations about 30 times.
“I’m not thinking about politics,” Whitmer said about her response to the coronavirus.
Meagher works directly for the governor and the state health department.
Whitmer spokeswoman Tiffany Brown said the state hired Meagher “as a temporary (1099) employee to assist us with national press and work with MDHHS on messaging” because the state was “getting slammed” for its response to the coronavirus.
Meagher’s compensation could not be determined because the governor’s office is exempt from FOIA requests and lawsuits.
“The real question for Michigan taxpayers who are footing the bill is whether Meagher is on board to serve their interests or the governor’s political ambitions,” Jacques wrote.
‘We have real concerns about giving away leverage now without getting some of the priorities we need…’
(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) Leftist Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., admitted that she and her Democratic colleagues blocked legislation that would have increased funding for small businesses because they were afraid of losing political “leverage.”
One leading House Democrat came right out and said they’ve been blocking urgent money for workers’ paychecks because they don’t want to give up political leverage. Think about that: Democrats would rather use workers as partisan leverage than actually help them. pic.twitter.com/1Lve1xutb2
— Senate Republican Communications Center (@SRCC) April 21, 2020
“We don’t know what’s in the package yet, we only know what’s been reported,” Jayapal said during a virtual news conference on Tuesday hosted by several liberal lawmakers, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio–Cortez, D-N.Y., and the other “Squad” members.
“But I think what you’re hearing from all of us on the call is that we have real concerns about giving away leverage now without getting some of the priorities we need,” Japayal said.
Pramila Jayapal (screen shot: MSNBC/Youtube)
Republicans have been trying to fast-track additional funding for the Small Business Administration over the past 12 days, but Democrats have blocked the funding, demanding that Republicans include funding for “unrelated” demands, as well.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., finally walked back those demands this week, according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
A $482-billion relief bill—the fourth of its kind during the coronavirus crisis—passed in the Senate on Tuesday and was expected to clear the House, allowing Congress to provide more than $320 billion in additional funding for the SBA’s Paycheck Protection Program.
McConnell indirectly criticized Jayapal in a statement shortly after the funding passed.
“In my view, it’s indefensible that Main Street small businesses and their workers had their assistance for partisan ‘leverage,'” McConnell said.
“That was the word of choice for one leading House Democrat: leverage,” he continued. “The American people cannot be political leverage.”
‘It’s clear that any plan for mass voting by mail must first include strict enforcement of laws requiring accurate voter lists…’
Alex Padilla/Photo by Gage Skidmore (CC)
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Nationwide, opportunistic Democrats are attempting to press a campaign for mail-in-only ballots, claiming coronavirus fears will either suppress turnout or put public health at risk.
But the proposals have been widely dismissed due to evidence of rampant voter fraud involving absentee ballots.
Now, California, regarded by the Left as a shining beacon of socially advanced progressivism, has helped underscore those concerns following an audit of its March primary.
A watchdog organization—the Election Integrity Project, California—said a sampling of official data had revealed at least 15 duplicate votes in which voters registered under two different names had received—and returned—to separate ballots.
California Secretary of State Alex Padilla admitted in a letter responding to EIPCa Chief Analyst Ellen Swensen that it had referred the cases to local elections officials.
“Following receipt of your letter, we conducted a detailed analysis of the data … and have confirmed that all referenced instances are being properly handled and/or have already been resolved by county elections officials,” Padilla wrote.
The EIPCa said that after sending its findings to Padilla for further investigation, it had uncovered 75 additional suspected duplicate voters, which the state was currently in the process of confirming.
“We are thankful to the Secretary for recognizing the seriousness of our report and for taking action,” said EIPCa President Linda Paine in a press release.
“As California, and the nation, weighs Coronavirus-related proposals to mail ballots to all registrants for the November Presidential election, it’s clear that any plan for mass voting by mail must first include strict enforcement of laws requiring accurate voter lists,” she said.
Padilla, in his letter, attempted to downplay the issue by claiming it was a mere “snapshot” in time and suggesting that many of the issues—which EIPCa said may have been the result of typographical errors—would eventually have been caught.
“At any point in time, counties may have a number of these list maintenance activities in progress or in various states of verification and validation prior to completion,” he said.
But far from offering reassurance, it suggested that even more errors were likely to surface before the state finalized its primary numbers, which was expected to happen on April 24, nearly two months after the votes were cast.
The March 3 primary was a watershed moment for Bernie Sanders, with post-primary analysis focusing on the fact that his win in the state was by a smaller-than-expected margin.
After losing much of his early momentum, Sanders eventually dropped out and endorsed presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden.
But the EIPCa audit shows that the presence of widespread vote-casting irregularities, paired with the extensive lag time, could be tremendous factors in swaying the eventual winner.
Republicans in the state have noted as much.
In the aftermath of the 2018 midterm election, at least seven GOP victors in tight congressional races saw the outcomes reversed as a result of late returns in the state, which permits the controversial practice of ballot-harvesting, allowing a third party to collect and return absentee votes.
Then-House Speaker Paul Ryan raised questions about the murky and dubious process, but he was quickly dismissed by Padilla, who insisted there was nothing to see there.
.@SpeakerRyan, in California we make sure every ballot is properly counted and accounted for. That’s not “bizarre,” that’s DEMOCRACY.https://t.co/zBXiAscmRK
California’s defiance of federal requirements that it update its voter rolls regularly have also prompted some to doubt that the far-left state was acting in good faith.
After discovering that Los Angeles County‘s voter rolls contained 112 percent of its adult population, Judicial Watch sued, forcing L.A. officials to clean up their act in a January 2019 settlement that involved purging 1.5 million inactive voters.
But as recently as last year, an independent audit revealed more than 83,000 duplicate records in the state and more than 170,000 that contained errors among the roughly 3 million that were reviewed.
Many on the Left have sought to invalidate President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential victory by claiming that Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton won the popular vote nationwide by about 2.8 million ballots.
Some are now calling for a new national referendum that would force electors to support the popular-vote winner, effectively eradicating the Electoral College.
That would mean the questionable practices in places like California could undo the will of the voters in every other state that agrees to participate and likely result in permanent left-wing majorities.
‘I think it’s time to consider … that this lockdown—as opposed to the more moderate mitigation efforts—is a colossal public policy calamity…’
Jody Hice/Photo by Gage Skidmore
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Amid growing unrest from the Right over the country’s highly restrictive stay-at-home orders, some conservative leaders said it was now time to reassess the fearmongering claims that resulted in a vast overreaction to the coronavirus.
“It is time to begin examining what we have done and whether, with the benefit of hindsight, we were right to do it,” wrote Rep. Jody Hice, R-Ga., in an opinion piece published by Townhall. “As I reflect, I come to an inescapable conclusion: Someone must be held accountable.”
Although Hice—whose home state of Georgia is set to begin reopening this week—mourned the severe losses in areas like New York that have been decimated by the outbreak, he said the unprecedented national lock-down was entirely disproportionate to the overall threat.
“Based on the word of our experts, we shut down the United States on a previously unimaginable scale,” he wrote. “Public health experts, scientists, and government officials all warned that millions would die unless strict measures were put in place.”
A Devastating Impact
Some, in the outbreak’s early days, urged a more measured response—pointing to the possibility of misleading arithmetic or sensationalist reporting—but their voices were drowned out, if not dismissively attacked for showing a lack of empathy.
“We were cautioned that, even with our extraordinary efforts, hundreds of thousands of Americans would likely die,” Hice wrote. “So, we willingly took unprecedented steps to save the most vulnerable among us, even at the cost of wreaking unparalleled economic damage.”
In the ensuing panic, at least 20 million have been left jobless and trillions added to the ballooning U.S. debt.
As Fox News analyst Brit Hume told anchor Shannon Bream on Monday, the economic impact is devastating after what had been one of the most robust and optimistic periods of prosperity in U.S. history.
“I think it’s time to consider the possibility, Shannon, that this lockdown—as opposed to the more moderate mitigation efforts—is a colossal public policy calamity,” Hume said.
Brit Hume / IMAGE: Screenshot via Fox News
“That the damage to the economy—businesses that I see, businesses are closing,” he continued. “Many may not reopen. Those jobs will be lost. Those businesses will be lost. Those incomes will be lost.”
The untold fallout—including the long-term closures of schools, rising eviction rates, depleted savings and retirement accounts, and even the release of thousands of incarcerated criminals—will continue to bring pain and uncertainty even after the recovery process starts.
Hume noted that the harm to children, in particular, will likely result in enduring psychological damage.
“They don’t have school. They can’t play with their friends, even outdoors. All these things are accumulating,” he said.
“They’re not going to get better, Shannon. They’re going to get worse with time,” Hume continued. “And, as I say, we may not recover from many of these losses for a very long time if ever.”
Reassessing the Numbers
As of April 22, an estimated 45,000 Americans had perished, with the data likely factoring in “probable” coronavirus deaths according to guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Recent projections from the White House said the final toll from the outbreak was currently estimated at 50,000 to 60,000, as President Donald Trump noted in his daily briefing Monday.
That would put the coronavirus outbreak in the same range as the annual death rate for flu and pneumonia, according to CDC data—although the timeline is far more compressed with the new virus due to its rapid spread.
It would likely rank 7th or 8th on the list of top U.S. killers based on 2017 data (the most recent available), with heart disease and cancer topping the chart. Americans are 10 times more likely to die from either of those than coronavirus.
They also are roughly three times more likely to die as the result of unintentional injuries sustained from accidents—the third leading cause of death in the U.S.
However, the COVID-19 numbers are not far off from the 10th deadliest cause—intentional harm or suicide, which claimed more than 47,000 lives in 2017.
Anthony Fauci / IMAGE: Face the Nation via Youtube
The current estimate, if correct, reflects a drastic downward revision since the start of April, when Coronavirus Task Force experts Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx placed the projection at 100,000 to 240,000 deaths even with mitigation efforts in place.
And that, itself, was a significant downward revision from one of the most notorious but highly reported early figures: a March 16 study from the Imperial College London, co-authored by the World Health Organization, that claimed the U.S. toll would reach 2.2. million, peaking in mid-June.
“The global impact of COVID-19 has been profound, and the public health threat it represents is the most serious seen in a respiratory virus since the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic,” said the researchers at the time.
That was one of many dire comparisons with the so-called Spanish flu of 1918, which infected a third of the world population—around 500 million people—and killed approximately 10 percent of those who caught it, or more than 3 percent of the global population (including 675,000 Americans).
By contrast, the novel coronavirus has thus far infected slightly more than 2.5 million people and killed an estimated 180,000.
Even with the massive loss of life, accounts of the 1918 pandemic note that the mitigation measures were nothing like the current ones.
Most restaurants, for example, were deemed “essential” and remained open, despite taking certain precautionary measures. Theaters also remained open in many places.
In far-left San Francisco—one of the first U.S. locations recently to issue austere shelter-in-place orders over the coronavirus—the courts in 1918 not only continued to conduct business but did so in the open air.
According to History.com, after peaking in the U.S. in October 1918 with just shy of 200,000 deaths that month, “the Spanish flu dissipated as quickly as it had arrived,” with a brief resurgence during the November celebrations marking the end of World War I.
WHO Is Responsible?
Finger-pointing has abounded during the health crisis.
Much of the Left’s energy—and that of its media allies—has focused on President Donald Trump’s response, which they claim was too little, too late.
Trump has continued to push back and counter the misleading media narrative, offering fact-based timelines while using his critics’ own words against them.
Trump also has been sharp in his criticism of China, which covered up the early threat and continues to suppress information about the virus’s origin while denying all responsibility.
Likewise, the United Nations-backed WHO was complicit in the Chinese propaganda campaign, first downplaying the risk and then over-hyping it. Trump has since cut off funding until the globalist authority is held accountable.
Tedros Ghebreyesus / IMAGE: Guardian News via Youtube
Hice said more of those who were guilty of hiding behind flawed models to spread misinformation at a critical moment should face the music.
He singled out Neil Ferguson, the lead researcher in the Imperial College London study, who “has dramatically changed his tone, saying he is now ‘reasonably confident’ that the medical systems can manage the flood of coronavirus patients.”
Yet, Ferguson conveniently credited the draconian mitigation measures he promoted as having substantially reduced the outlandish toll.
As Hice noted, we are now stuck with the equally brutal consequences of his proposed policies.
Likewise, the congressman called out the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, on which the White House relied for its slightly-less-egregious early-April projections. Those also have been continually revised downward.
Astoundingly, Hice noted, many in the liberal mainstream media continue to sing the praises of IHME researchers, sometimes going out of their way to assert the institute’s credibility and downplay the model’s unreliable track record.
Instead, “[w]e need to examine how it is possible for such an instrument to be so inaccurate,” Hice said. “We should expect models to be updated to reflect new information and trends, but these extreme revisions have yet to be explained.”
‘These are very, very burdensome impingements on liberty’…
William Barr / IMAGE: Fox News via YouTube
(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) Attorney General William Barr said the Justice Department would consider taking action against states that take shelter-in-place orders too far.
“To the extent that governors don’t and impinge on either civil rights or on the national commerce … then we’ll have to address that,” Barr told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. “The idea that you have to stay in your house is disturbingly close to house arrest. I’m not saying it wasn’t justified. I’m not saying in some places it might still be justified. But it’s very onerous, as is shutting down your livelihood.”
Barr added that he’s speaking only of “hypothetical” situations. But the Justice Department has already intervened in at least one case, in Greenville, Mississippi, where the mayor had unlawfully banned drive-in church services.
Greenville Mayor Errick Simmons refused to allow churches to hold drive-in services, even if these services followed the federal government’s social distancing guidelines. Meanwhile, drive-through restaurants were allowed to remain open.
Several churches challenged Simmons’s order and Barr sided with them, arguing the mayor’s ban “strongly suggests that the city’s actions target religious conduct.”
Simmons then backed down.
The Justice Department is willing to take similar action in other states that violate citizens’ rights, Barr told Hewitt. If a state has gone “too far,” the Justice Department will “try to jawbone” governors into rolling back restrictions, he said.
If that doesn’t work, federal prosecutors will file “statements of interest and side with the plaintiffs” if citizens take their governments to court, as the Justice Department did in Greenville.
Barr also noted that November’s elections will be an even “greater check” on state officials’ authority.
“The first line of defense for people is the political process in their states,” he said.
It is obvious, Barr said, that as the country begins to reopen, the states will need to adopt a more “targeted” approach instead of blanket-banning certain liberties.
“These are very, very burdensome impingements on liberty,” Barr said. But these impingements were always supposed to be “limited,” not “comprehensive,” he added.
“Now is the time that we have to start looking ahead and adjusting to more targeted therapies,” Barr said.
The bottom line is that the burden of proof lies with the state governments, not with the citizens, Barr said. It is not the citizen’s responsibility to prove that his rights are being infringed upon. It is the government’s responsibility to prove that that infringement is necessary. And in many cases, it is not necessary, Barr said.
The state governments “can impose certain limitations,” Barr said earlier this month, but that doesn’t mean our leaders have a license to abuse their emergency powers.
“I’m very concerned about the slippery slope in terms of continuing encroachments on personal liberty,” he said.
‘Visas exist because companies have succeeded in creating this narrative that there are a shortage of workers…’
Foreign workers in the technology sector benefit from H-1B worker visas. / IMAGE: CGTN America via Youtube
(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) President Donald Trump’s announcement that he would temporarily suspend immigration during the coronavirus pandemic may be a step in the right direction, but according to a leading immigration-enforcement watchdog, a more long-term solution may be in order.
To help American workers recover from the economic shutdown that has accompanied the coronavirus pandemic, the U.S. government should curb legal and illegal immigration to provide additional jobs, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.
Millions of Americans are out of work as a result of the recent business closures and shelter-in-place orders, and the federal government has a responsibility to see them re-employed, said Jessica Vaughan, CIS’s director of policy studies, during a panel on Tuesday.
One way to provide incentives for re-hiring is to remove other incentives that currently encourage Americans to hire cheaper, foreign labor, she said.
There are four streams of workers to which American companies currently look, Vaughan explained: The first is through legal immigration, which brings nearly 1 million people to the U.S. every year. The second stream is illegal immigration, which brings several hundred thousands more. The last two streams depend on temporary visas and permits that eventually become permanent.
The U.S. government might not be able to control legal and illegal immigration, but it does have the ability to slow down the latter two programs, Vaughan said.
“If these programs were curbed, it would almost instantaneously create tens of thousands of jobs for Americans,” she said.
Those who argue Americans wouldn’t be willing to do those jobs aren’t arguing in “good faith,” according to David North, a CIS fellow.
American workers were already willing to do manual labor jobs, and now that the coronavirus has left many of them unemployed, they will be even more eager to get back to work—regardless of what that work might be, North said during Tuesday’s panel.
“Visas exist because companies have succeeded in creating this narrative that there are a shortage of workers and they need to reach abroad to fill these spots. They’re just trying to get cheap labor for white collar jobs,” Vaughan added. “This result has been a de facto settlement, which has displaced American workers and contributed to the stagnation of wages in American industries.”
The Trump administration could also eliminate the Optional Practical Training program, which encourages American companies to hire foreign college graduates instead of American college graduates.
“The employer is very likely to tilt to the foreign worker because the OPT program is subsidized and it will likely save them some money,” North explained. “This was a problem before the virus, and it will likely be even worse now.”
Because the executive branch created the OPT program under former President George W. Bush’s administration, the executive branch under Trump could just as easily dismantle or slow down this program, North said.
“It’s very easy to put the brakes on if our government decided that it wants to do something about this program and the way it has affected Americans,” Vaughan added. “So we need a conceptual overhaul for why we have these programs in the first place.”
