March 19, 2020
Permission to republish original opeds and cartoons granted.
Will Trump get a rally around the flag effect by fighting Chinese coronavirus? Ask seniors.
President Donald Trump, the
federal and state governments are leading an unprecedented nationwide response
to the Chinese coronavirus outbreak, shutting down vast portions of the U.S.
economy, closing schools and government offices, all to save the lives of
seniors and those with underlying conditions who are the most endangered by the
virus. More than 52 million Americans are aged 65-years-old-and-older. Of
those, 21 million are 75-years-old-and-older, and 12.6 million are
80-years-old-and-older. The fatality rates reported out of South Korea suggest
a 4 percent fatality rate for those 65-years-old-and-older infected with the
coronavirus, versus about 0.9 percent fatality rate for the seasonal flu. The
fatality rate rises to 15 percent for those 80-years-old-and-older. If everyone
got sick, that suggests more than 2 million might perish as hospitals, doctors
and nurses were suddenly overwhelmed. To prevent that, tens of millions
Americans are uniting and mobilizing for one purpose in order to save the lives
of as many as possible and to salvage as much of the economy as can be from the
fallout. Sometimes, such a prolonged crisis politically can result in a rally
around the flag effect for the incumbent. The idea is that in a time of
national crisis, the American people will rally to the President regardless of
party. The overall political outcome will likely depend on how seniors respond
to the crisis. All these sacrifices are being made to protect the most
vulnerable, and so do they feel protected? For Trump’s war on the virus to
victorious, he needs older Americans to fully opt in. Do you support the
President's plan to save the lives of potentially millions of older Americans?
Video: When the coronavirus ends, everyone needs to get back to work or we'll have a deep, long recession
If the government
provides enough of an incentive for people to stay home, millions Americans
will respond by ceasing labor participation. And if too many give into this
mindset, when the pandemic is over it has the potential to utterly devastate
the U.S. economy, with reverberations felt for a generation just like the
financial crisis. Back then, Congress kept on readily extending unemployment
benefits for up to 99 weeks. Remember? Do we want to do that again? That is why
as soon as the virus passes, the unemployment assistance should automatically
transform into a rehiring tax credit for employers to quickly get back up and
running. For essentially the same price as the unemployment assistance being
dispensed, the government could provide tax credits to businesses to bring back
and rehire everyone they put on unpaid sick leave at the beginning of the
shutdown. In principle, that would shorten the duration of expanded government
assistance, hopefully saving taxpayers billions and ensure that when this over,
the nation can get back on its feet as quickly as possible.
President Trump praised for nomination of Russ Vought to head OMB
Americans for Limited Government
President Rick Manning: “President Trump got it exactly right by nominating
Russ Vought to become the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Vought has proven himself to be an
outstanding steward of the OMB during Director Mick Mulvaney’s stints as head
of the Consumer Finance Protection Board and White House Chief of Staff. Our
nation faces a perilous time with previously unseen levels of emergency
spending to meet the Chinese virus crisis and its impacts on the economy. Vought understands where this money is going
and will help the President ensure that it is properly spent. What’s more, there is no better person to
prepare the way out of the economic disaster left in the wake of the Chinese
virus, which has shuttered many American businesses in an attempt to contain
it. With Vought at the helm, America can
be sure that a plan to achieve fiscal sanity will be in place when the threat
subsides. I am also heartened by the fact that the lesser known part of the
OMB’s functions, reviewing regulations, will continue under Vought’s steady
hand. To meet the Chinese virus
challenge and come out the other end with a restored and robust economic
rebound requires someone who truly understands the connection between the
federal regulatory regime and economic growth.
In short, the President could not have appointed someone more qualified
to meet our nation’s fiscal and regulatory challenges than Russ Vought.”
Letter: Conservative groups urge no government rate setting for out-of-network visits
“As you debate and consider a
legislative response for those affected by COVID-19, the undersigned groups
representing millions of taxpayers and consumers urge you to reject any attempt
to include any language that would seek to address surprise medical billing by
creating a government-mandated benchmark (i.e. rate-setting) to determine
out-of-network rates for physicians. Government price controls for medical
bills would be particularly devastating at a time of great stress for our
nation’s patients and healthcare providers.Doctors and hospitals are on the
front line of treating and fighting this disease. Mandating in-network rates
would result in direct government price controls that would artificially
suppress rates for providers offering out-of-network care, resulting in
enormous financial losses that would be shifted to local hospitals and
emergency rooms.”
Will Trump get a rally around the flag effect by fighting Chinese coronavirus? Ask seniors.
By Robert Romano
President Donald Trump, the federal and state governments are leading an unprecedented nationwide response to the Chinese coronavirus outbreak, shutting down vast portions of the U.S. economy, closing schools and government offices, all to save the lives of seniors and those with underlying conditions who are the most endangered by the virus.
More than 52 million Americans are aged 65-years-old-and-older. Of those, 21 million are 75-years-old-and-older, and 12.6 million are 80-years-old-and-older.
The fatality rates reported out of South Korea suggest a 4 percent fatality rate for those 65-years-old-and-older infected with the coronavirus, versus about 0.9 percent fatality rate for the seasonal flu. The fatality rate rises to 15 percent for those 80-years-old-and-older.
If everyone got sick, that suggests more than 2 million might perish as hospitals, doctors and nurses were suddenly overwhelmed. A national catastrophe. But a preventable one if we stay away from one another.
To avert the worst case scenario, the government is sacrificing the economy and most probably causing a major recession while tens of millions of Americans are being temporarily furloughed and placed on paid and unpaid sick and family medical leave. A national emergency has been called, and the President is invoking several provisions of federal statute to suspend regulations to get a vaccine developed and testing across the country, build hospitals and manufacture needed medical supplies. International travel has been mostly suspended.
It is a nationwide mobilization akin to wartime, necessitating tens of millions Americans to unite for one purpose in order to save the lives of as many as possible and to salvage as much of the economy as can be from the fallout.
Sometimes, such a prolonged crisis politically can result in a rally around the flag effect for the incumbent. This was the case for Franklin Roosevelt with the Great Depression and World War II, and George W. Bush following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The idea is that in a time of national crisis, the American people will rally to the President regardless of party. The cases mentioned, the Great Depression and World War II, truly were national efforts where Americans united with common cause to rebuild the nation shattered by deep economic recession and monetary deflation, and then to defeat fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and imperial Japan.
Arguably, Lindon Johnson in 1964 had a similar effect following the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963, as did George H.W. Bush following the Persian Gulf War in 1991, albeit short-lived as he went on to lose his reelection bid in 1992 to Bill Clinton.
Conversely, Herbert Hoover in 1932 with the Great Depression, Jimmy Carter in 1980 with the Iran hostage crisis and the aforementioned elder Bush in 1992 with a recession show presidents who didn’t make the cut when it came to addressing a national crisis when they faced voters for a second time.
This is why we elect presidents, to deal with crises. Some succeed, and others fail.
So, which will happen for Trump? Certainly, he gets credit for trying, taking unprecedented emergency actions to contain a deadly virus, and one can argue that the nation has already rallied to the cause, working together across party lines. Governors Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) and Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) have praised the administration’s response to provide assistance to New York, California and other states hit hard by the virus.
But the overall political outcome will likely depend on how successful the coronavirus public policy response is at convincing Americans to engage in social distancing, thereby reducing the number of cases and saving lives. And on how well the government deals with the certain economic fallout of millions of Americans being temporarily out of work.
And, perhaps most importantly, on how seniors respond to the crisis. All these sacrifices are being made to protect the most vulnerable, and so do they feel protected? For Trump’s war on the virus to victorious, he needs older Americans to fully opt in.
Early indicators in Florida — which has among the highest percentage populations of seniors — show President Trump faring pretty well in match-ups against former Vice President Joe Biden. For example, a March 6-12 Univision poll shows Trump leading Florida 48 percent to 45 percent, and 51 percent to 44 percent among those older than 50.
53 percent say the government is doing enough to contain the virus, including 56 percent of those older than 50. That’s about as well as Trump did nationally in 2016, when he beat Hillary Clinton among seniors in the CNN exit poll nationally and in Florida. Watch for that number to rise significantly over the coming days and weeks once the de facto national lockdown is taken into account.
So, if Trump does experience a surge, particularly among older Americans across party lines most concerned about the virus and favoring his aggressive approach to containing it, it has the significant possibility of tilting the election in his favor come November. It is hard to imagine Trump wining without seniors.
Or it could be Trump wins the war against the virus, but the economy and the election are among the casualties.
Perhaps rationally we should all hope Trump is rewarded politically for acting so boldly. Next time, a virus might target children or young adults. In order for such a response to be replicated in the future, it must be sustainable politically.
If the President’s efforts are in vain, the next time we have a crisis like this, the government might just let the vulnerable die out of economic and downstream political concerns. One thing the Trump administration can absolutely say is that it is prioritizing the lives of Americans, particularly seniors, over any political advantage or economic concerns.
The thing to watch in the coming days will be the number of new cases, now increasing as nationwide testing proliferates.
It’s risky, particularly with the economic turmoil but that fallout may very well have been unavoidable whether the government proclaimed a shutdown or it didn’t. Europe resisted a lockdown until the situation was untenable in Italy and it was forced on them. Likely businesses and states would have shut down either way even if Trump had preferred a laisse faire approach. Trump chose early on to get ahead of the curve, sealed the border with China and has been ramping up every since.
The question now is will Trump’s approach, including by banning overseas travel and encouraging businesses and schools to close, help to bend that curve downward? If it does, when the number of new cases are dropping, Trump will be able to campaign in November on having saved the lives of potentially millions of seniors, who may thank him by reelecting him President.
Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government.
Video: When the coronavirus ends, everyone needs to get back to work or we'll have a deep, long recession
To view online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JcY1iu8mug
President Trump praised for nomination of Russ Vought to head OMB
March 18, 2020, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement praising President Donald Trump’s nomination to head the White House Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought:
“President Trump got it exactly right by nominating Russ Vought to become the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Vought has proven himself to be an outstanding steward of the OMB during Director Mick Mulvaney’s stints as head of the Consumer Finance Protection Board and White House Chief of Staff.
“Our nation faces a perilous time with previously unseen levels of emergency spending to meet the Chinese virus crisis and its impacts on the economy. Vought understands where this money is going and will help the President ensure that it is properly spent. What’s more, there is no better person to prepare the way out of the economic disaster left in the wake of the Chinese virus, which has shuttered many American businesses in an attempt to contain it. With Vought at the helm, America can be sure that a plan to achieve fiscal sanity will be in place when the threat subsides.
“I am also heartened by the fact that the lesser known part of the OMB’s functions, reviewing regulations, will continue under Vought’s steady hand. To meet the Chinese virus challenge and come out the other end with a restored and robust economic rebound requires someone who truly understands the connection between the federal regulatory regime and economic growth. In short, the President could not have appointed someone more qualified to meet our nation’s fiscal and regulatory challenges than Russ Vought.”
To view online: https://getliberty.org/2020/03/president-trump-praised-for-nomination-of-russ-vought-to-head-omb/
Letter: Conservative groups urge no government rate setting for out-of-network visits
As you debate and consider a legislative response for those affected by COVID-19, the undersigned groups representing millions of taxpayers and consumers urge you to reject any attempt to include any language that would seek to address surprise medical billing by creating a government-mandated benchmark (i.e. rate-setting) to determine out-of-network rates for physicians. Government price controls for medical bills would be particularly devastating at a time of great stress for our nation’s patients and healthcare providers.
Doctors and hospitals are on the front line of treating and fighting this disease. Mandating in-network rates would result in direct government price controls that would artificially suppress rates for providers offering out-of-network care, resulting in enormous financial losses that would be shifted to local hospitals and emergency rooms.
Many of these facilities — particularly the ones serving rural, hard-to-reach communities across the nation — are already operating under razor-thin profit margins, if they are even profitable at all. Further compounding their financial woes could exacerbate a growing doctor shortage and lead to an increase in rural provider consolidation or even closure. The net result of any of these outcomes would be fewer options and higher costs for already at-risk patients.
Lawmakers in California enacted a flawed approach called “benchmarking” In 2017 and patients across the state are suffering from the consequences. Benchmarking at the federal level would give the government authority to set arbitrarily low rates for physicians providing out-of-network care by tying payments to insurers’ deeply discounted in-network averages. This harmful rate-setting approach is included in legislation advanced by the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, the House Energy & Commerce Committee, and the House Education & Labor Committee.
It is critical that at a time of a national emergency you focus on the needs of the country and not use the pandemic as an opportunity to enact government rate-setting that would harm our patients and our healthcare system.
To view online: https://getliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/SurpriseMedicalBillingLetter3-18-20.pdf
