did

Department of Justice Reaches Agreement with the Louisiana Supreme Court to Protect Bar Candidates with Disabilities

The Justice Department announced today that it has entered into a settlement agreement with the Louisiana Supreme Court that will resolve the department’s investigation of the court’s policies, practices and procedures for evaluating bar applicants with mental health disabilities. The department’s investigation found that during the Louisiana bar admissions process licensing entities based recommendations about bar admission on mental health diagnosis and treatment rather than conduct that would warrant denial of admission to the bar



  • OPA Press Releases

did

Vir Biotechnology, Alnylam Identify VIR-2703 Candidate For Treatment Of COVID-19

Vir Biotechnology, Inc. (VIR) and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ALNY) announced Monday that they have selected a development candidate (DC) for VIR-2703 (ALN-COV), an investigational RNAi therapeutic targeting the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) genome.




did

These Workers Packed Lip Gloss and Pandora Charm Bracelets. They Were Labeled “Essential” but Didn’t Feel Safe.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

This article was produced in partnership with MLK50, which is a member of the ProPublica Local Reporting Network.

MEMPHIS, Tenn. — On her first day at her new warehouse job, Daria Meeks assumed the business would provide face coverings. It didn’t.

She assumed her fellow workers would be spread out to account for the new coronavirus. They weren’t.

There wasn’t even soap in the bathroom.

Instead, on March 28, her first day at PFS, which packages and ships makeup and jewelry, Meeks found herself standing alongside four other new workers at a station the size of a card table as a trainer showed them how to properly tuck tissue paper into gift boxes.

The following day, Meeks, 29, was just two hours into her shift when she heard that a worker had thrown up.

“They said her blood pressure had went up and she was just nauseated, but when we turned around, everybody who was permanent that worked for PFS had on gloves and masks,” Meeks said.

Temporary workers like her weren’t offered either.

Since then, workers have been told twice that coworkers have tested positive for the coronavirus. The first time was April 10 at a warehouse just across the state line in Southaven, Mississippi. The next was April 16 at the warehouse in southeast Memphis where Meeks worked, several temporary and permanent workers told MLK50: Justice Through Journalism and ProPublica.

In interviews, the workers complained of a crowded environment where they shared devices and weren’t provided personal protective equipment. The company has about 500 employees at its four Memphis-area locations, according to the Memphis Business Journal.

In right-to-work states such as Tennessee and Mississippi, where union membership is low, manual laborers have long said they are vulnerable, and workers’ rights advocates say the global pandemic has underscored just how few protections they have.

A spokesman for Tennessee’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration confirmed that the department received an anonymous complaint about PFS in April.

“A few of (sic) people have tested positive for Covid-19 and the company has not taken precaution to prevent employees from contracting the coronavirus,” the complainant wrote. “As of today (04/13/2020) no one have (sic) come to clean or sanitize the building.”

In response, the spokesman said TOSHA sent the company a letter “informing them of measures they may take to help prevent the spread of COVID-19.”

PFS did not answer specific questions about the number of workers infected at its facilities or about specific precautions it takes. Instead the company released a short statement that said PFS “is committed to the safety and well-being of its employees.” It also said it performs temperature checks at the door and supplies workers with masks, gloves and face shields.

But workers said none of these measures were in effect as late as the middle of April, when Shelby County, Tennessee, and DeSoto County, Mississippi, each home to two PFS facilities, were reporting more than 1,600 coronavirus infections and 30 deaths. (As of Friday, there are more than 2,750 infections and 50 deaths in the two counties.) A current employee said the company now provides gloves and masks, but they’re optional, as are the temperature checks.

When Meeks started at PFS, cases in the county were still at a trickle. But she didn’t stick around long.

On her third day at work, workers were split into two groups for lunch, but the break room was still full. “You could barely pull out a chair, that’s how crowded it was,” she said. “Everybody was shoulder to shoulder.”

Meeks said she asked the security guard at the front desk if she could eat her lunch in the empty lobby but was told no.

“I said, this is just not going to work,” said Meeks, who was paid $9 an hour. “You got different people coughing, sneezing, allergies — you never know what’s going on with a person.”

She left during her break and didn’t come back.

Economy Dominated by Low-Wage Industry, Jobs

In cities across the country, workers at Amazon facilities and other warehouses have been infected with COVID-19, as have workers at meatpacking plants nationwide.

What makes Memphis different is the outsized share of the workforce in the logistics industry, which includes warehouses and distribution centers.

The Greater Memphis Chamber of Commerce boasts on its website that the logistics industry employs 1 in 6 workers in the Memphis metro area, a higher share than anywhere else in the country.

The high concentration of these low-wage jobs is a testament to the city’s decades-old campaign to brand itself as “America’s Distribution Center.” Memphis is home to FedEx’s headquarters and its world distribution hub, which is undergoing a $1.5 billion expansion, as well as to Nike’s largest global distribution center, a sprawling 2.8 million-square-foot facility.

According to 2019 data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 58,000 workers in the Memphis metro area fill and stock orders, package materials and move materials by hand.

In Memphis, workers at distribution centers for FedEx, Nike and Kroger have tested positive for the coronavirus. The Shelby County Health Department received 64 complaints about businesses between April 1 and April 29, but could not say how many were about warehouses.

Interim guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls for employers to notify workers of positive cases. But it is voluntary. The federal OSHA has no such requirement, and neither does Tennessee’s OSHA.

Although Congress passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which provides two weeks paid sick leave for coronavirus-affected or infected workers, it doesn’t apply to many warehouse and temporary employees, said Laura Padin, senior staff attorney at the Washington-based National Employment Law Project, which advocates for better public policy for workers, particularly low-wage workers.

“The big issue is that it exempts so many employers, especially employers with over 500 employees,” Padin said. “And the vast majority of temp workers and many warehouse workers work for employers with more than 500 employees.”

The coronavirus has disproportionately affected people of color, the very group that makes up the bulk of the warehouse and temporary workforce.

“Black workers make up 12% of the workforce but 26% of temp workers, and Latino workers make up 16% of the workforce but 25% of temp workers,” said Padin, citing Bureau of Labor Statistics data released in 2018.

Add to that the yawning racial wealth gap and low-wage workers like Meeks are in an untenable situation, Padin said.

“They either stay home and they risk their financial security,” Padin said, “or they go to work and risk their lives.”

“You Can Always Go Back”

PFS, a distribution center whose clients include the jewelry brand Pandora, was initially exempt from Memphis’ “Safer At Home” executive order. (Brandon Dill for ProPublica)

With 1.45 million square feet of warehouse space among its four area locations, PFS is the ninth-largest third-party distribution operation in the metro area, according to the Memphis Business Journal’s 2020 Book of Lists. PFS doesn’t sell products under its own name but rather fulfills orders for better-known companies.

Pandora, which is perhaps best known for its charm bracelets, is one of PFS’s clients. “Each item shipped for PANDORA is wrapped in customized, branded, and sometimes seasonal packing materials, making every purchase a gift,” PFS’s website says.

Meeks’ favorite part of her job was taking each customer’s personal message, tucking it into a tiny envelope and then into the gift package.

“When we were sending out these Pandora bracelets and these Chanel gifts, I sat there and read all my cards,” said Meeks, who like all of the workers interviewed for this story, is black. “They were so cute.”

One Pandora customer sent a note to “beloved mother,” Meeks said, and another seemed to be from someone in a long-distance relationship.

“He was like: Even though I’m miles and miles away, I always think about you,” Meeks said. He wrote that he hoped the jewelry would “glitter in your eyes, or something like that.”

The day Meeks quit PFS, she said she called Prestigious Placement, the temporary agency that sent her there, asking for another job.

The temporary agency representative “was like, ‘Well, you can always go back to PFS until we get something else,’ and I was like, ‘No.’”

“She said, ‘Well, we haven’t had anyone to get sick,’” Meeks recalled.

Meeks said she tried to explain that regardless of whether some workers had tested positive, the company wasn’t taking enough steps, in her opinion, to keep current workers safe.

The representative said she’d ask the agency’s on-site manager about Meeks’ concerns, but Meeks said that there was no on-site manager present on her second or third day.

Prestigious Placement did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this story.

A local labor leader said Meeks’ experience illustrates the tough situation for temporary workers at warehouses.

“They tend not to have benefits, sick time and insurance and all the things that allow us to keep our whole community safe during a pandemic,” said Jeffrey Lichtenstein, executive secretary of the Memphis Labor Council, a federation of around 40 union locals.

Unlike companies such as Nike and FedEx, which have reputations to protect, the general public doesn’t know who PFS is or what it does, he said. “They have no brand vulnerability,” he said.

With little leverage to exert on businesses, these workers are up against a regional business model that mires them in dead-end, low-wage jobs, Lichtenstein said.

The city’s power brokers, he said, “have a couple of main tenets of their economic philosophy. One, logistics is really, really important, and two, cheap labor is very, very important.”

“Nothing Essential About It”

Memphis Mayor Jim Strickland issued a “Safer At Home” executive order on March 23, mirroring those put in place elsewhere. But the order specifically exempted warehouses and distribution centers from COVID-19 restrictions.

PFS gave workers a letter that cited Strickland’s order and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s guidance that “transportation and logistics are deemed a critical infrastructure that must be maintained during the COVID-19 crisis,” according to a copy reviewed by MLK50.

If they were stopped by authorities on the way to work, employees were told, this letter would ease their passage.

PFS told employees that if they were stopped by authorities on their way to work, this letter would ease their passage. The employee’s name has been redacted. (Obtained by ProPublica and MLK50)

Some workers questioned whether the distribution center should be open at all.

“I don’t see nothing essential about it,” said one employee who asked to remain anonymous for fear she’d be fired for talking to a journalist. “It don’t got nothing to do with nurses or health.”

When a worker tested positive at a PFS distribution center in southeast Memphis, the employee, who worked at a Southaven, Mississippi, location about eight miles away, worried that the virus could spread if workers were shuffled between sites.

A manager assured her that workers would stay put, the employee said. But on April 16, a supervisor told workers that two Memphis workers, who had been brought in to the employee’s Southaven facility, had tested positive for the coronavirus.

“I said, ‘Well, since y’all got everybody in here messed up, can’t you call and get everyone in there a COVID-19 test?’” she remembered. “They said if you don’t feel safe, you can go home.”

She can’t risk taking the virus home to a relative, who has chronic illnesses, and she can’t afford not to work. “I’m concerned for my health,” she said. “I don’t want to die.”

Padin, who works with workers’ rights centers across the country, said she’s not aware of much being done by advocates to narrow the list of businesses considered essential. “I do think some of these essential worker orders are quite broad,” she said. “Our sense is that it’s a little arbitrary and just seems to be a result of lobbying.”

She pointed to the success of meat processing plants, which were declared “critical infrastructure” by President Donald Trump despite coronavirus outbreaks that sickened thousands and killed dozens.

Days before Trump’s declaration, meatpacking giant Tyson ran a full-page ad in The New York Times saying “The food supply chain is breaking.”

In Memphis, an amended executive order, signed by the mayor April 21, clarified which distribution centers and warehouses could remain in operation, including ones that handle medical supplies, food and hygiene products.

The order would seem to exclude facilities such as PFS. “Products and services for and in industries that are not otherwise identified in this provision constitute non-essential goods and services,” reads the order, which is set to expire at midnight Tuesday. On Monday, Memphis will move into the first phase of its “Back to Business” plan, which means nonessential businesses can operate with face masks, social distancing in the workplace, and symptom checks.

“No Social Distancing”

Because the turnover in warehouses like PFS is high, the need for a steady flow of labor is paramount. And temp agencies are a major source of employees.

One Memphis mother saw a job posting on Facebook for PFS. A family member’s workplace had closed because of the coronavirus, so the woman rushed to find work to make up for the lost household income. She was hired in late March by Paramount Staffing and sent to a warehouse in Southaven, Mississippi. She wanted to remain anonymous for fear of job retaliation.

From the moment workers entered the building, she said, they were close together. A single-file line funneled workers past several time clocks, one for PFS’s permanent workers and one for each staffing agency with temporary workers there.

“Some people have masks on, some don’t,” said the worker, who earned $9 an hour. Workers weren’t provided any personal protective equipment.

She opted to be a packer, a mostly stationary job, but she had to use a shared tape dispenser to seal boxes and her co-workers were within arm’s reach.

Her other job option was as a picker, but they’re in motion most of the shift, selecting products for individual orders from totes and using a shared scan gun. Pickers send the completed orders to packers.

“It’s basically no social distancing at that warehouse,” she said. “They’re gonna have to work on that.”

About two hours before her shift ended April 10, a manager huddled workers in her area together for an announcement.

“He said, ‘Well, we’re just letting y’all know that we have an employee here who tested positive and we are asking everyone here to leave the building immediately and we will clock y’all out,’” the worker recalled.

The manager instructed them not to touch anything as they left, “just go straight out the door and we will let y’all know when to return,” she recalled.

The warehouse was closed for the next day and reopened the following day.

“It makes me nervous because my health is important to me, but at the same time, it’s like that’s the only thing I can do right now,” she said.

She’s grateful for the job but insists she won’t be there long. “I’m going to try to get in a couple more checks and then I’m going to quit.”

She left about a week ago, but hasn’t found another job yet.

Paramount Staffing, which sent the worker to PFS, relies on the client to provide personal protective equipment to workers, said company president Matthew Schubert.

“My understanding is that they’ve been taking temperatures as employees walk in,” Schubert said, plus performing more frequent cleanings and coaching the workers on social distancing, but he acknowledged he didn’t know when any of those measures began.

“What we want to make sure is that they’re doing everything in their power to follow the CDC guidelines,” said Schubert, who estimates Paramount has 75 to 80 workers at PFS’s area warehouses.

“We’re limited as to what we can and cannot do, because it’s not our facility.”

Both Lichtenstein and Padin say it’s the worksite employer’s responsibility to provide personal protective equipment.

A Perfect Combination: Higher Pay and Less Risk

Just days after Meeks quit PFS, she turned to a different agency and was sent to a Memphis warehouse that labels and ships cleaning products.

Her first day was April 17, and she was impressed by the precautions the employer takes.

Before workers enter the building, Meeks said, their temperatures are taken in a white tent outside. If they don’t have a fever, they get a wristband that is a different color each day.

The company provides masks, gloves and goggles, she said, and there are even kickstands on the bathroom doors, so they can be opened by foot.

Working the third shift means fewer people, Meeks said. “We’re not working close to each other.”

Meeks said she wouldn’t put a price on her health, but at her new job, the risks are lower and the pay higher — up from $9 to $11.50 an hour.

Wendi C. Thomas is the editor of MLK50: Justice Through Journalism. Email her at wendicthomas@mlk50.com and follow her on Twitter at @wendi_c_thomas.

Do you work at a warehouse or distribution center in the Memphis area? MLK50 and ProPublica want to hear from you.





did

Did Your Company Get Bailout Money? Are the Employees Benefiting From It?

Through programs like the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program and the Federal Reserve’s Main Street Lending Program, the federal government is deploying hundreds of billions of dollars in grants, loans and bond purchases to help businesses amid the coronavirus-sparked economic crisis. Each program comes with different strings, but their basic purpose is to keep workers on the payroll.

We want to know what this means for your workplace. How has your company treated its workers during the crisis? Have you or your colleagues been laid off, furloughed or otherwise affected? Have you seen money used in surprising ways? What do you think we should be reporting on?

We are the only ones reading what you submit. If you would prefer to use an encrypted app, here is what we suggest. Send questions to bailout@propublica.org.

')
This form requires JavaScript to complete.
Powered by CityBase.




did

On the Same Day Sen. Richard Burr Dumped Stock, So Did His Brother-in-Law. Then the Market Crashed.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Sen. Richard Burr was not the only member of his family to sell off a significant portion of his stock holdings in February, ahead of the market crash spurred by coronavirus fears. On the same day Burr sold, his brother-in-law also dumped tens of thousands of dollars worth of shares. The market fell by more than 30% in the subsequent month.

Burr’s brother-in-law, Gerald Fauth, who has a post on the National Mediation Board, sold between $97,000 and $280,000 worth of shares in six companies — including several that have been hit particularly hard in the market swoon and economic downturn.

A person who picked up Fauth’s phone on Wednesday hung up when asked if Fauth and Burr had discussed the sales in advance.

In 2017, President Donald Trump appointed Fauth to the three-person board of the National Mediation Board, a federal agency that facilitates labor-management relations within the nation’s railroad and airline industries. He was previously a lobbyist and president of his own transportation economic consulting firm, G.W. Fauth & Associates.

Burr came under scrutiny after ProPublica reported that he sold off a significant percentage of his stocks shortly before the market tanked, unloading between $628,000 and $1.72 million of his holdings on Feb. 13 in 33 separate transactions. As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a member of the health committee, Burr had access to the government’s most highly classified information about threats to America’s security and public health concerns.

Before his sell-off, Burr had assured the public that the federal government was well-prepared to handle the virus. In a Feb. 7 op-ed that he co-authored with another senator, he said “the United States today is better prepared than ever before to face emerging public health threats, like the coronavirus.”

That month however, according to a recording obtained by NPR, Burr had given a VIP group at an exclusive social club a much more dire preview of the economic impact of the the coronavirus, warning it could curtail business travel, cause schools to be closed and result in the military mobilizing to compensate for overwhelmed hospitals.

The timing of Burr’s stock sales drew widespread outrage, allegations of insider trading, calls for his resignation and an FBI investigation.

Gerald Fauth, Burr’s brother-in-law, was appointed by Trump to the National Mediation Board in 2017. (National Mediation Board via Wikipedia)

Burr defended his actions, saying he relied solely on public information, including CNBC reports, to inform his trades and did not rely on information he obtained as a senator.

Fauth avoided between $37,000 and $118,000 in losses by selling off when he did, considering how steeply the companies’ shares fell in recent weeks, according to an analysis by Luke Brindle-Khym, a partner and general counsel of Manhattan-based investigative firm QRI. Brindle-Khym obtained Fauth’s financial disclosure from the Office of Government Ethics and shared it with ProPublica. Government forms only require that the value of stock trades be disclosed in ranges. After the February sales, the total value of Fauth’s individual stock holdings appears to be between $680,000 and $2 million.

Alice Fisher, Burr’s attorney, told ProPublica that “Sen. Burr participated in the stock market based on public information and he did not coordinate his decision to trade on Feb. 13 with Mr. Fauth.”

She did not respond to a question about whether Burr discussed anything he learned as a senator with Fauth or any other relatives.

A review of Fauth’s financial disclosure forms since 2017 show that he is not a frequent stock trader, but that he also had a major day of sales in August 2019.

On Feb. 13, Fauth or his spouse sold between $15,001 and $50,000 of Altria, the tobacco company; between $50,001 and $100,000 of snack food maker Mondelez International; and between $1,001 and $15,000 of home furnishings retailer Williams-Sonoma. He also sold stakes in several oil companies, which have been hit particularly hard, including between $15,001 and $50,000 of Chevron; between $1,001 and $15,000 of BP and between $15,001 and $50,000 of Royal Dutch Shell.

The finances of the Burrs and Fauths have intersected before. Federal Election Commission records show that Burr’s leadership PAC, Next Century Fund, has paid $120,348 since 2002 to his sister-in-law, Mary Fauth, Gerald’s wife, who serves as treasurer. The PAC has also paid $104,850 in rent and utilities over the same period to 116 S. Royal St. Partners, in which Gerald Fauth is a partner.

Do you have access to information about stock trading by Trump administration officials or members of Congress that should be public? Email robert.faturechi@propublica.org or reach him on Signal/WhatsApp at 213-271-7217. Here’s how to send tips and documents to ProPublica securely.

Update, May 6, 2020: This story was updated with new comment from Sen. Richard Burr’s attorney.





did

COVID-19 Took Black Lives First. It Didn’t Have To.

ProPublica Illinois is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Larry Arnold lived less than a mile from a hospital but, stepping out of his South Side apartment with a 103-degree fever, he told the Uber driver to take him to another 30 minutes away.

Charles Miles’ breathing was so labored when a friend called to check on him that the friend called an ambulance. Still, Miles, a retired respiratory therapist, was reluctant to leave his home.

Close family support had helped Rosa Lynn Franklin recover from a stroke several years ago, but when she was admitted to the hospital in late March, her daughter could do little more than pat her on the back and say goodbye.

All three were among the first people to die of COVID-19 in Chicago, and all three were African American. Their deaths reflect the stunning racial disparity in the initial toll of the virus. Of the city’s first 100 recorded victims, 70 were black.

As the pandemic has spread, that gap has narrowed, and Latinos now make up the largest portion of any reported demographic of confirmed cases across Illinois, state data shows. But the disparity in black deaths persists. As of early May, African Americans, who make up just 30% of Chicago’s population, are about half of its more than 1,000 coronavirus deaths.

It has been well established that African Americans are dying of COVID-19 at a disproportionate rate in cities across America. ProPublica sought to explore the problem by examining the first 100 recorded deaths in Chicago, a city with a rich and often troubled history on issues of race.

Using a database obtained from the Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office that listed the names, health and location information of all COVID-19-related deaths, reporters reached out to the families and friends of each person who died. Reporters ultimately spoke with those who knew 22 of the victims; gleaned details about the lives of many others from obituaries and social media posts; and interviewed experts, medical professionals and government officials to understand how and why those first 100 died.

The racial disparities in coronavirus deaths have largely been attributed to endemic and entrenched inequalities in Chicago — decades of disinvestment in the predominantly black neighborhoods on the South and West sides that have left residents with fewer jobs, poorer health and diminished opportunities. Those forces often are portrayed as intractable and, during a pandemic, nearly impossible to fix.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot acknowledged the challenge when she spoke publicly about the disparities last month and announced a plan to address them.

“We’re not going to reverse this in a moment, overnight, but we have to say it for what it is and move forward decisively as a city, and that’s what we will do,” she said. “This is about health care accessibility, life expectancy, joblessness and hunger.”

While all this is true, ProPublica’s reporting also revealed other patterns, factors that could — and should — have been addressed and which almost certainly exist in other communities experiencing similar disparities. Even though many of these victims had medical conditions that made them particularly susceptible to the virus, they didn’t always get clear or appropriate guidance about seeking treatment. They lived near hospitals that they didn’t trust and that weren’t adequately prepared to treat COVID-19 cases. And perhaps most poignantly, the social connections that gave their lives richness and meaning — and that played a vital role in helping them to navigate this segregated city that can at times feel hostile to black residents — made them more likely to be exposed to the virus before its deadly power became apparent.

Many of the first 100 recorded Chicago COVID-19 victims led lives threaded through with community and civic involvement, powerfully connected to their city, to friends and family. Some had led careers of service, like Patricia Frieson, a retired nurse, and Rhoda Hatch, a former teacher, and Carl Redd, a U.S. Army veteran. Their small businesses helped shape their corners of the city; Hardwell Smith, 85, arrived in Chicago as part of the Great Migration from the Jim Crow South and established gas stations and auto repair shops on the South Side. They were church deacons and musicians; doting uncles like 32-year-old Carl White and nurturing mothers like Juliet Davis, who, despite her limited means, fed the homeless who lived under a neighborhood viaduct.

Most of the first 100 lived in majority-black neighborhoods, according to an analysis of medical examiner data; hardest hit were South Shore, Auburn Gresham and Austin, where the median income for 40% or more of the residents in each community is less than $25,000.

Many were already sick, with underlying health conditions. Seventy-eight of them had hypertension and 53 had diabetes. Just 12 had one health condition, and only five people had no comorbidities. James Brooks, a 27-year-old black man, was the youngest to die.

“I’m not surprised because every natural disaster will peel back the day-to-day covers over society and reveal the social fault lines that decide in some ways who gets to live and who gets to die,” said Dr. David Ansell, senior vice president for community health equity at Rush University Medical Center. “And in the United States, those vulnerabilities are often at the intersection of race and health.”

Ansell, who wrote “The Death Gap: How Inequality Kills,” has spent decades documenting the life expectancy gap between black and white Chicagoans, which is the largest in the country. Structural racism, concentrated poverty, economic exploitation and chronic stress cause what’s known as biological weathering, Ansell said, where the body ages prematurely and results in earlier death.

Who dies first is different for each pandemic, said Dr. Howard Markel, director of the Center for the History of Medicine at the University of Michigan. The coronavirus’s earliest victims, he said, were the most vulnerable.

“They’re not quite forgotten, but we don’t pay close enough attention to the health and well-being of this segment of the population,” he said. “Then a microscopic organism comes and topples them over.”

They were vulnerable, but their deaths cannot be dismissed as inevitable.


One-Size-Fits-All Guidance

Phillip Thomas, 48, started to feel sick while working a day shift at the Walmart in Evergreen Park. A diabetic, he was cautious about his health, and he reached out to a doctor, who told him to stay home and self-quarantine in case he had the coronavirus.

About a week into his bedrest, Thomas told his sister Angela McMiller that he was having a hard time standing up and was vomiting, no longer able to keep anything down. She encouraged him to go to the emergency room, but he didn’t immediately go, citing the doctor’s advice to stay home.

Within a couple of days, he called an ambulance, which took him to Jackson Park Hospital, where he was intubated. Two days later, on March 29, he died, in the hospital where he was born.

When McMiller next saw her brother, it was at his funeral, which only 10 people could attend because of social distancing requirements. “It was devastating,” said McMiller. “My mother fell down, my brothers cried.”

McMiller is upset that her brother was told to stay home when he was sick, particularly considering the additional risks posed by his health history.

“It shocked me,” she said. “He was diabetic.”

Since the earliest days of the pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidelines have emphasized staying home when symptoms are mild. “Most people with COVID-19 have mild illness and can recover at home without medical care,” the CDC says on its website. It recommends people call a doctor before going to get care in person, unless experiencing emergency signs like trouble breathing, blue lips or chest pain.

But experts told ProPublica that this one-size-fits-all advice does not account for the fact that African Americans are not only more likely to have preexisting conditions that increase their chances of bad outcomes, but also have a long-standing wariness of the health care system.

“There is this distrust between black communities and health care systems based on this fraught history of how health care systems have exploited and abused black people,” said Dr. Uché Blackstock, an emergency medicine physician in Brooklyn and the founder and CEO of Advancing Health Equity. “What happens as a result of that is that patients don’t want to interface with the health care system.”

In addition, doctors said patients may delay seeking care out of a fear of the medical bills, lack of insurance or transportation barriers — all of which underscores the need for targeted guidance. So instead of encouraging staying at home, these doctors want guidance to encourage African American patients to proactively seek care before symptoms get out of hand.

Dr. Mira Iliescu-Levine, a pulmonary critical care doctor at The Loretto Hospital on Chicago’s West Side, is concerned that African American and Latino patients are waiting to come to the hospital after their symptoms become too severe.

“You end up with an overwhelming clinical picture, almost like a tornado, that’s very hard to stop,” she said.

She said she wants patients, especially her African American patients with diabetes, obesity and other comorbidities, to seek care when they have “innocent symptoms” like a cough, runny nose, itchy eyes or low-grade fever.

Earlier treatment does not guarantee a better outcome, she said, but it can give the patient a fighting chance.

“Reach out,” she said. “Don’t wait.”

Asked whether the CDC would consider tailoring its recommendations to reflect the underlying health conditions and barriers to care in African American communities, a spokesperson said the “CDC is collecting data to monitor and track disparities among racial and ethnic groups … to help inform decisions on how to effectively address observed disparities. … We will continue to update our recommendations as we learn more.”

The CDC spokesperson said the agency has increased “engagement with organizations and other partners representing and serving racial and ethnic minority groups to identify gaps in the current response efforts,” and that people should “never avoid emergency rooms or wait to see a doctor if you feel your symptoms are serious.”

On the first day, Willie Flake, a 72-year-old mechanic, lost his ability to taste. Then, he lost his appetite. With each new coronavirus symptom he experienced, his sister Betty and her daughter Yolanda pushed him to go to the hospital.

But Flake, who had diabetes, stayed home because he thought his symptoms were not severe enough to go to the emergency room. He soon developed a fever. By the fourth day, he had trouble breathing.

Flake took an ambulance to Rush University Medical Center on March 27, where his condition appeared to stabilize before worsening again.

“They say, ‘Don’t come in until your fever is high and you can’t breathe,’” Yolanda Flake said. “That’s the part where I feel like they failed him. He waited until he couldn’t breathe and it was too late.”

In the early hours of April 1, his sister and niece put on masks and gloves and looked through the glass window of his hospital room. He had been like a father to Yolanda, attended every graduation, from kindergarten through college, and had recently accompanied her to buy a car for her daughter, his 23-year-old grandniece, LaSeanda.

Yolanda said she wished she could have been with him inside the room, regardless of the risks.

“I wanted to touch him,” she said. “I wanted to talk to him before he took his last breath. I couldn’t say it through the glass door.”

And then, his heart stopped.

“He waited at home,” Yolanda said, “and he was dying already.”


Struggling Hospitals

Larry Arnold also waited, not because he was instructed to, but because he didn’t trust his neighborhood hospitals.

Two — Jackson Park Hospital and South Shore Hospital — sit within five minutes of his home. Both are century-old nonprofit facilities that serve majority low-income and uninsured patients on the South Side. When Arnold started to feel sick in mid-March, he worried that if he called an ambulance, it would take him to one or the other. He didn’t want to go to either.

“What upsets me is that we don’t have adequate medical facilities where we can go to and feel like we’ll be cared for,” his niece Angelyn Vanderbilt said. “I’m sure they’re very good people … but the consensus in the community is that those hospitals are inadequate and they have been for years.”

After his fever didn’t subside for a few days, Arnold, who was 70 and had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD, knew he couldn’t wait any longer, his family said. He got into an Uber with a temperature of 103 and told the driver to take him to Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn, some 30 minutes away.

On March 31, 16 days after he was admitted, the nurse put the phone to Arnold’s ear one last time.

“We told him to be strong and to continue to fight,” Vanderbilt said.

He died about an hour later.

People who live on Chicago’s South and West sides are often at a geographic disadvantage during medical crises because the hospitals that are closest to them frequently are those with fewer resources.

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker acknowledged the hardships at a press briefing last month. “The safety-net hospitals are challenged in our state, and the availability of health care in communities of color has been at a lower quality or lower availability than in other communities,” he said.

The city’s safety-net hospitals, facilities that serve a large portion of low-income and uninsured patients regardless of their ability to pay, don’t have the private-insurance patient base or the cash reserves to fall back on during a pandemic that many larger hospitals have, said Larry Singer, associate professor at the Beazley Institute for Health Law and Policy at Loyola University Chicago School of Law. Some are millions of dollars in the red and housed in aging buildings. And while their mission is a valiant one, he said, they have not been able to respond to the coronavirus as quickly or with the same equipment and staffing.

“They’re trying to fight the same fight as everybody else with one arm tied behind their back,” Singer said. “They deserve the resources to do an even better job. I’m truly impressed by what they are trying to achieve during a time of crisis.”

Tim Caveney, president and CEO of South Shore Hospital, said that limited resources is one reason safety-net hospitals have struggled to earn the trust of the communities they serve. “Safety net [hospitals] have gotten a bad beat because we don’t have much money. It’s a funding issue,” he said, adding that the pandemic has aggravated South Shore’s financial issues. Not only have lucrative elective surgeries been postponed, but COVID-19 patients often require complex and lengthy care, which can be expensive.

Dr. Khalilah Gates, an African American pulmonary and critical care specialist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital who has family on the South Side, said she is painfully aware that some black patients may prefer to “wait it out” or travel to distant hospitals.

“Both of those are very common phenomenons,” she said. “Not all community hospitals, but many of the community hospitals in those communities lack the resources that offer security to the residents in those areas.”

ProPublica spoke with several families who said their loved ones either delayed care because they didn’t want to go to neighborhood hospitals or ultimately wound up in those hospitals as a last resort.

Miles, the retired respiratory therapist, had worked for about 40 years at Northwestern Memorial Hospital providing breathing treatments for patients there. When he started feeling sick in mid-March, he knew what resources he might need.

A friend called him on March 22 and heard his labored breathing. He told Miles that he was calling an ambulance, but Miles resisted, in part, because he didn’t want to be taken to Jackson Park, the nearest hospital.

“He should’ve been in there a week before that,” said his sister Roselle Jones. “But he was insistent on not going.”

The paramedics said that they had to take him to Jackson Park because it was the closest hospital. Miles’ family asked that he be transferred to another hospital, but once he tested positive for the coronavirus, a doctor told the family that Miles couldn’t be moved, Jones said.

By the end of the week, Miles had been sedated and placed on a ventilator. He died on April 3.

“We wanted him out of there. We wanted him somewhere he could get some good care,” Jones said. “The doors should be closed, and the building torn down.”

Philman Williams’ family also said they tried in vain to get him transferred out of Jackson Park after an ambulance took him there. Williams, 70, worked as a doorman at a luxury high-rise where residents dubbed him the “Mayor of Michigan Avenue” for his charm and good humor. Not only was his doctor at another hospital, but the family worried about the quality of care he would receive.

A day after he was admitted, their concerns were amplified by a news story detailing reports from employees that the hospital did not have enough personal protective equipment, prompting nurses to avoid entering patient rooms.

Nurses who were sick and those afraid to come to work because they had elderly relatives at home have led to staffing shortages, said Kindra Perkins, a representative with National Nurses United, the union that represents nurses at Jackson Park. One day, an ambulance couldn’t drop off a patient because there were only two nurses working in the emergency room, she said.

“The nurses deserve to have the resources that they need to provide the quality care in that community, and the people in that community are just as important as the folks on the North Side of Chicago,” Perkins said.

Margo Brooks-Pugh, a vice president of development at Jackson Park Hospital, did not answer specific questions, but she wrote in an email that the hospital takes patient and staff safety seriously.

“Jackson Park Hospital follows all guidelines and standards as related to patient care and safety,” she wrote.

Austin, on the West Side, is one of the city’s largest and most chronically underserved areas. It has become a hot spot for COVID-19 cases. The Loretto Hospital, a small nonprofit that has been an anchor in the community for more than 90 years, is the primary provider in the area. Like many of the safety-net hospitals in Chicago, it has struggled financially for years.

When Asberry Stoudemire Jr., a 54-year-old diabetic, got a runny nose, then felt his blood sugar levels begin to fall, his family knew he needed to get care quickly. He also had a history of congestive heart failure, which had forced the avid stepper and musician to retire early from his job as a certified nursing assistant. The Loretto Hospital wasn’t their first choice — or their second. But it was the closest. Within hours of arriving at Loretto, his condition deteriorated so rapidly that he was sedated and intubated.

His daughter Miranda Stoudemire said she had trouble getting a clear sense of what was going on in the 10 days her father spent in the hospital’s recently reopened 15-bed ICU. Loretto couldn’t afford to keep the unit up and running before the pandemic, a fate hospital administrators said they fear could be repeated without an infusion of cash as the pandemic continues.

“He was saying, ‘I know one thing, I’m not going to Loretto,’” she said. But he did, and she is resolute in her belief that her father would have lived longer had he been at a better resourced hospital. His family tried having him transferred but said they were told he was too critical to be moved.

“I feel like he didn’t even have a chance to fight,” she said.

He died March 29.

Mark A. Walker, spokesman for The Loretto Hospital, said that the hospital has the capacity to care for its patients and is doing its best to communicate with families.

“This hospital has gone through hard times,” he said. “We’re doing everything we can. We’re learning along with everybody else. But better resourced communities don’t have to fight for the same divvy of health care resources that we do.”

Although L.B. Perry was 78 and suffered from hypertension and diabetes, nothing usually kept him in bed. So when he didn’t wake at 6:30 for his morning oatmeal and coffee, his family began to worry.

As he grew weaker and needed help walking to the bathroom, his family urged him to go to the hospital. After a few days, he relented and went to Holy Cross Hospital in Chicago Lawn on the South Side, but he was sent home, his daughter Vernice Perry said.

“That’s why I’m so upset,” she said. “He was in the age bracket, and he has all these health conditions, and he had some of the symptoms.”

His condition worsened at home, and his daughter said she begged him to let her drive him to another hospital. Four days later, his wife called an ambulance in the early morning of March 30, and he returned to Holy Cross Hospital. He died on April 2.

Dan Regan, a spokesperson for Sinai Health System, did not answer questions about specific patients, citing privacy restrictions. He said that its hospitals, including Holy Cross, are “thoroughly prepared for handling the COVID-19 pandemic,” having created dedicated COVID-19 teams, using mobile triage trailers outside facilities to handle sick patients, and isolating COVID-19 patients in specialized rooms.

“It is worth noting though that the challenging nature of COVID-19 is that patients can look fine at one point and be discharged home with monitoring and follow-up, only to deteriorate and have to return to the hospital,” said Regan. “This has been seen in many cases nationwide.”

At least 110 patients from community hospitals, including Holy Cross, have been transferred to Rush University Medical Center, a large, well-equipped facility that has been touted as having been “built for a pandemic.”

“They’re really patients that otherwise, in all likelihood, would not survive at those hospitals,” said Dr. Paul Casey, Rush’s acting chief medical officer. “The resources just aren’t the same. Nor is the ability within critical care to provide a lot of the life-saving therapies.”


The City’s Response

On April 6, when Mayor Lightfoot publicly announced that the coronavirus was disproportionately affecting the city’s black residents, the virus had been in Chicago at least since January, and more than 100 people were dead. The majority were black.

“When we talk about equity and inclusion, they’re not just nice notions,” Lightfoot said at the time. “They are an imperative that we must embrace as a city. And we see this even more urgently when we look at these numbers and this disparity. It’s unacceptable. No one should think that this is OK.”

That day, the city announced the Racial Equity Rapid Response Team in partnership with West Side United, with a goal to “bring a hyper local public health strategy to targeted communities.” In the weeks since, the team has held tele-town halls, delivered thousands of door hangers and postcards with targeted information, and distributed 60,000 masks for residents in the predominantly black communities of Austin, Auburn Gresham and South Shore.

Dr. Allison Arwady, the city’s public health commissioner said in an interview that officials had worked behind the scenes to combat rumors that black people couldn’t contract the coronavirus, reaching out to community and faith leaders on the South and West sides in February and March to let them know the city was seeing cases across all races.

Arwady said the department at first hoped to contain the spread. It had tracked the cases for weeks as the virus crept through the city, and then exploded. By the end of March, more than 40 Chicagoans had died from the virus, according to the county medical examiner data, though the city said its tally of deaths was less than half of that.

For the most part, Lightfoot has received plaudits for her handling of the pandemic. Illinois was one of the first states in the country to release statistics on COVID-19 deaths by race. Lightfoot herself has even become something of a national political star, with viral videos and memes of her urging residents to stay home. She also gave several high-profile interviews discussing the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on black communities and emphasizing the importance of tracking demographic data.

The city also encountered some challenges. Early on, it found that up to 30% of the testing data it collected didn’t list race. At the April 6 press conference, which came one day after a WBEZ news report detailed the death disparities, the city released a detailed race analysis. The city also issued a public health order mandating demographic data of COVID-19 cases be reported in hopes of being better able to track and assist individuals and communities falling victim to the coronavirus.

Still, to some in the community, the city appeared a step behind. Niketa Brar, co-founder and executive director at Chicago United for Equity, which advocates for racial equity in the city, said officials didn’t do enough to engage the communities they knew would be hardest hit. As soon as the virus entered Chicago, she said, the city should have used racial, health and economic data to predict where it would take hold and then begin working with residents in those communities on how best to protect and support them. The Racial Equity Rapid Response Team was dispatched much later, she said.

“We’ve seen enough maps to know what the next map is going to look like,” Brar said. “And yet we consistently fail to engage those who are closest to the harm time and time again.”

Lightfoot said in an interview Friday she believes the city responded robustly to the virus from the start.

“I feel pretty good about where we are,” she said. “Has it been perfect? Has any of this been perfect? No, because you’re not going to be able to undo literally 100-plus years of racial disparities across black and brown Chicago. But I’m going to be a champion for people in my city, and particularly people who look like me and who grew up in circumstances like mine.”


The Perils of Connection

It made sense that they were out on Election Day — Revall Burke, a 60-year-old city worker, who served as an election judge for the March 17 primary, and John J. Hill Jr., 53, who was campaigning for a friend outside of City Hall, handing out masks and shaking hands.

Their community connections had shaped their lives. Both grew up in public housing. Burke went on to help form a building committee to give back to the neighborhood, including organizing picnics where he would give away school supplies. Hill, who built a successful business and counted among his proudest moments catering a campaign event for Barack Obama, met his wife at the iconic Rock ‘N’ Roll McDonald’s where she worked as a teenager. He came in to buy ice cream nearly every day; when she was sick, he got her a “get well soon” card signed “the ice cream man,” sparking a 40-year romance and two sons.

For black residents in a city as segregated as Chicago, connections to family, church and community can be a vital resource. During the 1995 Chicago heat wave, connectedness sometimes meant the difference between life and death: Sociologists found that compared with more affluent neighborhoods, Auburn Gresham had fewer deaths, in part because residents knew their neighbors and checked on one another during the extreme temperatures, just as they did every day.

Yet those deep connections put black Chicagoans in harm’s way as the novel coronavirus spread largely undetected, said Jaime Slaughter-Acey, a social epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota who did her doctoral work in Chicago. “What we’re seeing in the time of COVID is that this virus has taken this really important, health-promoting resource [of social connectivity] that we’ve created and used it against communities of color.”

Both men died on April 1, two weeks after the election.

The Chicago Department of Public Health and the CDC mapped one cluster of 16 known or suspected infections — and three deaths — dramatically illustrating the path the virus tore through families and friends who attended an intimate dinner, a funeral, a birthday celebration or a church service. Jennifer Layden, the department’s deputy commissioner, said the case study shows how insidious the virus could be in social settings — even a gathering of just three loved ones could be deadly.

Eboney Harrell was aware of the risk and barred all visitors from stopping by after her daughter SaDariah brought home her newborn baby. A single mother, Harrell was an anchor for SaDariah, rarely leaving her side after she learned her daughter became pregnant. Harrell went to the doctors’ appointments and hosted a circus-themed baby shower with custom T-shirts; hers read “Grandma.” After her grandson was born at the University of Chicago Medical Center on March 19, she took every opportunity to hold him.

Her friends believe she may have gotten the virus at the hospital.

When it came time for Harrell to be the patient, nobody was allowed to be by her side. She died on April 4, alone.

A bedside advocate is important for anyone in the medical system but especially the seriously ill. Sociologists say that, though critical, barring visitors during the pandemic to contain the virus may inadvertently magnify its deadly impact.

Human connections had fueled Rosa Lynn Franklin’s recovery after she suffered a stroke several years ago. Though Franklin had to retire from her longtime career as a social worker in her native Alabama, she filled her days with family, friendships and prayer. She moved to Chicago last year to be near her only child, finding a new community in extended family and a church down the street.

As COVID-19 encroached, Franklin, 64, became homebound, worried about how the virus might affect her fragile health. Despite all her precautions, she got sick, and by March 24, she was having such difficulty breathing that her daughter took her to the emergency room at University of Illinois Hospital.

“Because of social distancing, you can’t really do a lot of touching,” her daughter Jimeria Williams said, “so I just kind of patted her on the back and said, ‘I love you, I’ll see you.’”

Franklin was intubated the day after she was admitted, and while Williams was able to talk with the doctors, she could not communicate with her mother, not even by phone. It was the opposite of what had happened after the stroke, when Williams was a constant presence at her mother’s bedside.

“I couldn’t be there to hold her hand. I know she knew that, even though she was unconscious,” she said. “I think that had a metaphysical impact on her health.”

In the early evening of April 3, the hospital was able to connect Williams with her mother through FaceTime. A few minutes after hearing her daughter’s voice, Franklin died.





did

All 10 family members in this house got COVID-19. Their patriarch didn't survive

The Ramirezes never thought the coronavirus would get them. They took every precaution, but the virus still found its way into their home. Over the course of days, each member of the 10-person household became infected. Three were hospitalized. And one, the family patriarch, died.




did

Did coronavirus spread through a nail salon? Newsom said so, and now owners fear for their business

Did community spread of the coronavirus start at a nail salon? Governor said so, and now immigrant owners worry about getting business.




did

Nomination of Candidates for Director and Audit & Supervisory Board Member (PDF: 163KB/3P)




did

Nomination of Candidates for Director and Audit & Supervisory Board Member (PDF: 163KB/3P)




did

Combining clinical and candidate gene data into a risk score for azathioprine-associated leukopenia in routine clinical practice




did

'Some people in Pak feel China still thinks like it did in '60s, '70s. It has moved on... In recent years, it has only advised good ties with India''

Pakistan's ex-Ambassador to US Husain Haqqani speaks about the battle for Pakistan.




did

I have had 95 partners. I didn't choose all of them: Leander Paes

Leander Paes on how he keeps himself fit at 40, and his interest in films.




did

The World Didn't Change Much in 2019. That's Bad News for 2020

Stephen Walt writes that several important events occurred in 2019, but few did anything to significantly alter global trends.




did

The World Didn't Change Much in 2019. That's Bad News for 2020

Stephen Walt writes that several important events occurred in 2019, but few did anything to significantly alter global trends.




did

Jihadists from Ex-Soviet Central Asia: Where Are They? Why Did They Radicalize? What Next?

Thousands of radicals from formerly Soviet Central Asia have traveled to fight alongside IS in Syria and Iraq; hundreds more are in Afghanistan. Not counting the fighting in those three war-torn countries, nationals of Central Asia have been responsible for nearly 100 deaths in terrorist attacks outside their home region in the past five years. But many important aspects of the phenomenon need more in-depth study.

This research paper attempts to answer four basic sets of questions: (1) Is Central Asia becoming a new source of violent extremism that transcends borders, and possibly continents? (2) If so, why? What causes nationals of Central Asia to take up arms and participate in political violence? (3) As IS has been all but defeated in Iraq and Syria, what will Central Asian extremists who have thrown in their lot with the terrorist group do next? And (4) do jihadists from Central Asia aspire to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction? If so, how significant a threat do they pose and who would be its likeliest targets?




    did

    Strategy did not cost me win - Hamilton

    Lewis Hamilton doubts Mercedes could have beaten Ferrari's Sebastian Vettel even if it had matched the German driver's two-stop strategy in Malaysia




    did

    How did COVID-19 disrupt the market for U.S. Treasury debt?

    The COVID-19 pandemic—in addition to posing a severe threat to public health—has disrupted the economy and financial markets, and prompted a strong desire among investors for safe and liquid securities. In that environment, one might expect U.S. Treasury securities to be the investment of choice, but for a while in March, the $18 trillion market…

           




    did

    Life expectancy and the Republican candidates' Social Security proposals


    In last Thursday’s GOP debate, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie managed to avoid mentioning their common proposal to “reform entitlements” by raising the Social Security retirement age from 67 to 70. That was probably a good idea. Their proposal only demonstrates their lack of understanding about the demographics of older Americans, especially the dramatic disparities in their life expectancy associated with education and race. Recent research on life expectancy indicates that their proposed change would effectively nullify Social Security for millions of Americans and sharply limit benefits for many millions more.. While many people in their 30s and 40s today can look forward to living into their 80s, the average life expectancy for the majority of Americans who do not hold a college degree hovers closer to 70, or the average life expectancy for all Americans in 1950.

    The Widening Inequalities in the Life Spans of Americans

    This research, summarized recently in a study published in Health Affairs, found that life expectancy for various age cohorts of Americans is closely associated with both educational achievement and race. For example, the average life expectancy for college-educated American men who were age 25 in 2008, or age 33 today, is 81.7 years for whites and 78.2 years for blacks. (Table 1, below) By contrast, the projected, average life span of high-school educated males, also age 25 in 2008 or 33 today, is 73.2 years for whites and 69.3 years for blacks. Women on average live longer than men; but similar disparities based on education and race are evident. The average life expectancy of women age 25 in 2008, or 33 years old today, was 79 years for whites and 75.4 years for blacks for those with a high school diploma, and 84.7 years for whites and 81.6 years for blacks with college degrees. Most disturbing, the average life expectancy of Americans age 25 in 2008 without a high school diploma is just 68.6 years for white men, 68.2 years for black men, 74.2 years for white women, and 74.9 years for black women. Surprisingly, the researchers found that Hispanics in this age group have the longest life expectancies, even though they also have the lowest average levels of education. Since these data are anomalous and may reflect sampling problems, we will focus mainly on the life-expectancy gaps between African American and white Americans.

    Tallying How Many People Are Adversely Affected

    Census data on the distribution by education of people age 25 to 34 in 2010 (ages 30 to 39 in 2015) provide a good estimate of how many Americans are adversely affected by these growing differences. Overall, 56.3 percent of all Americans currently in their 30s fall are high school graduates or left school without a high school diploma, educational groups with much lower average life expectancies. (Table 2, below) More precisely, 10.1 percent or almost 4.8 million Americans in their 30s today lack a high school diploma, and 46.2 percent or 18.9 million thirty-somethings have high school diplomas and no further degrees. All told, they account for 23,702,000 Americans in their 30s; and among older Americans, the numbers and percentages are even higher.

    Since race as well as education are major factors associated with differences in life expectancy, we turn next to education by race (Table 3, below). The totals differ modestly from Table 2, because Census data on education by race cover ages 30-39 in 2014, while Table 2 covers age 30-39 in 2015 (ages 25-34 in 2010).

    • Among people in their 30s today, 45.4 percent of whites or 10,613,000 Americans have a high school degree or less – and their average life expectancy is 9.4 years less than whites in their 30s with a college or associate degree.
    • Among people in their 30s todays, 64.4 percent of blacks or 3,436,000 Americans have a high school degree or less – and their life expectancy is 8.6 years less than blacks in their 30s with an B.A. or associate degree, and 11.6 years less than whites with a college or associate degree..
    • Among people in their 30s today, 75.6 percent of Hispanics or 6,243,000 Americans have a high school degree or less – and their life expectancy is 5.0 years less than Hispanics in their 30s with a college or associate degree.

    As a policy matter, these data tell us that across all communities—white, black, Hispanic—improvements in secondary education to prepare everyone for higher education, and lower-cost access to higher education, can add years to the lives of millions of Americans.

    Preserving Meaningful Access to Social Security Benefits

    The widening inequalities in average life expectancy associated with race and education have more direct policy implications for Social Security, because the number of years that people can claim its benefits depends on their life spans. The growing inequalities in life expectancy translate directly into growing disparities in the years people can claim Social Security benefits, based on their education and race. Assuming that Americans in their 30s today retire at age 67 (the age for full benefits for this age group), they can expect to claim retirement benefits, on average, ranging from 1.2 years to 19.3 years, based on their education and race. (Table 4, below)

    The most pressing issues of life expectancy and Social Security involve white males, black males, and black females without college degrees: Among Americans age 33 today, white and black men without high school diplomas and black males with high school degrees, on average, can expect to live long enough to collect benefits for less than three years. Similarly, white and black women without high school diplomas and black women with high school degrees, on average, can expect to collect benefits for less than eight years. Together, they account for 25.2 percent of whites and 64.4 percent of blacks in their 30s today. By contrast, male and female white college graduates age 33 today, on average, can expect to collect Social Security for between 14.7 and 17.7 years, respectively; and 33-year old black men and women with college degrees, on average, will claim benefits for 11.2 to 14.6 years, respectively.

    These findings dictate that proposals to raise the Social Security retirement age should be rejected as a matter of basic fairness. Among this year’s presidential hopefuls, as noted earlier, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie all have called for raising the retirement age to 70 years. Under this policy, black men in their 30s today without a college degree and white men now in their 30s without a high school diploma, on average, would not live long enough to collect any Social Security. The change would reduce the average number of years of Social Security for Americans in their 30s today,

    • From 1.6 years to -1.4 years for white men with no high school diploma,
    • From 1.2 years to -1.8 years for black men with no high school diploma, and
    • From 2.3 years to – 0.7 years for black, male high-school graduates.

    Furthermore, among Americans in their 30s today, white and black women without a high school diploma, white male high school graduates, and black female high school graduates, would live long enough, on average, to collect Social Security for just 3.2 to 5.4 years. The GOP change reduce the average number of years of Social Security for Americans in their 30s today,

    • From 6.2 years to 3.2 years for white, male high school graduates,
    • From 7.2 years to 4.2 years for white women with no high school diploma,
    • From 7.9 years to 4.9 years for black women with no high school diploma, and
    • From 8.4 years to 5.4 years for black, female high-school graduates.

    All told, proposals to raise the retirement age to 70 years old would mean, based on the average life expectancy of Americans in their 30s today, that 25.2 percent of whites in their 30s and 64.4 percent of blacks of comparable age, after working for 35 years or more, would receive Social Security benefits for 5.4 years or less.

    Authors

    • Robert Shapiro
    Image Source: © Jim Young / Reuters
         
     
     




    did

    What did ASEAN meetings reveal about US engagement in Southeast Asia?

    Just back from Southeast Asia, Senior Fellow Jonathan Stromseth reports on the outcomes from the annual ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) summit, including the continued delay of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, China's economic influence in the region, and how the Trump administration's rhetoric and actions are being perceived in the region. http://directory.libsyn.com/episode/index/id/11923064 Related…

           




    did

    Did the 2017 tax cut—the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act—pay for itself?

    The Vitals Before and after passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), several prominent conservatives, including Republicans in the House and Senate, former Reagan economist Art Laffer, and members of the Trump administration, claimed that the act would either increase revenues or at least pay for itself. In principle, a tax cut could…

           




    did

    Hillary Clinton's advice that every Republican candidate should embrace


    Hillary Clinton isn’t often in the business of offering unsolicited advice to her Republican—or even Democratic—rivals in the presidential race. However, in a CNN interview with Alisyn Camerota on January 12, 2015, Hillary Clinton did just that. She did something quite taboo. She talked about the presidential transition.

    Her comments did not flow from confidence that she would be elected president—a confidence she may indeed have. Her words came from experience, pragmatism and reality. They were words that did not simply reflect her own approach to a candidacy or a prospective administration. It was advice to everyone running for president about the right thing to do—not for themselves, but for the American public.

    Clinton said:

    I want to think hard—if I do get the nomination, right then and there—how we organize the White House, how we organize the Cabinet, what’s the legislative agenda. You know, the time between an election and an inauguration is short. You can’t wait. I mean, you can’t take anything for granted; you need to keep working as hard as you possibly can. But I think it’s important to start planning because we know what happens if you get behind in getting your agenda out, in getting your appointments made. You lose time, and you’re not doing the work the American people elected you to do.

    Presidential candidates almost never speak of a transition until they are declared the president-elect in the late hours of the Tuesday following the first Monday in November. Candidates fear being accused of taking the election for granted, or “measuring the drapes.” They worry such planning will signal to voters an off-putting overconfidence.

    Those fears may be legitimate, but acting on those concerns can be dangerous. If a voter believes a candidate should not prepare for a new administration until they are officially elected, that leaves the president-elect about 11 weeks to ready themselves for the busiest, most complicated, most important job in the world. In those 11 weeks, a president-elect would need to think not just about the 15 Cabinet secretaries who serve as the most visible political appointees in government, but literally hundreds and thousands of other posts. (One dirty little secret is that the President of the United States appoints over 3,000 people to his or her administration.)

    Presidents have to think about the structure, order, and sequence of their legislative agenda. They need to communicate their intentions and plans to congressional leadership. They need to think about organizing a White House. The truth is from president to president, the White House looks the same from the outside, but is structured and functions dramatically differently on the inside. Presidents have myriad important decisions to make that will set the tone and agenda for the following four years and will affect every American in some way. Eleven weeks is not enough time. Clinton acknowledges this.

    Clinton’s “bold” statement actually reflects a reality in American politics. As soon as an individual accepts his or her party’s presidential nomination, they are entitled to funding, office space, and government email and technology as part of the transition process. The Office of Personnel Management is involved, as is (of late) the Office of Presidential Personnel for the outgoing administration. The presidential transition is an essential part of democracy, policymaking, administration, and the continuity of government. Every four years, the government supports two transitions—one that comes to be and one that closes up shop.

    In one way however, Hillary Clinton is entirely wrong. Waiting until you receive the nomination is too late to begin thinking about the transition. As I have written before, every presidential candidate should start thinking about a transition as soon as they announce their candidacy. They don’t need a full Cabinet chosen on Day 1 of the campaign, but they should designate one or two close advisers to organize for the process, begin considering names for posts, think through the types of policies to propose in the first 100 days, and begin what is one of the most complicated managerial tasks in the world.

    Hillary Clinton is right “it is important to start planning,” and it’s also never too early to do so. I hope Clinton’s claim that one should start upon securing the nomination is a reflection of that fear of the “drape measuring” accusation. I hope she is planning her transition now. I hope Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz and Donald Trump and John Kasich and everyone else is planning their transition right now. It’s essential. Clinton knows the challenges of setting up a White House and the complications that early disorganization can cause; she saw that dysfunction first hand in 1993. But most candidates have also worked in or around the White House or have been in politics long enough to know the importance of an effective transition. And candidates who haven’t, like Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina, should be more inclined to set up a transition early, as they have more managerial experience than anyone else in the race.

    To this end, I have a modest proposal. It probably won’t happen. It’s likely one that candidates would fear, and it would likely only be effective if everyone is on board. Every current presidential candidate should sign a pledge committing to two things. First, by February 1, 2016, they will designate at least one staffer, adviser or confidante as a transition director.  Second, they will not publicly criticize another candidate—of either party—for having a transition staffer or team in place. Call it a “Transition Truce.” But the reality is that such a pledge—and the actions behind it—are essential for a better functioning, better prepared, more effective administration, no matter who it is who swears the oath exactly one year from today.

    Authors

    Image Source: © Rick Wilking / Reuters
           




    did

    How did COVID-19 disrupt the market for U.S. Treasury debt?

    The COVID-19 pandemic—in addition to posing a severe threat to public health—has disrupted the economy and financial markets, and prompted a strong desire among investors for safe and liquid securities. In that environment, one might expect U.S. Treasury securities to be the investment of choice, but for a while in March, the $18 trillion market…

           




    did

    Campaign 2020: What candidates are saying on climate change

    Climate change is becoming a top-tier issue in the Democratic primary season — rising alongside the economy, healthcare, and immigration — as a major topic debated among candidates. This marks a notable shift from the 2016 presidential election cycle when the issue was little discussed. President Trump’s rollbacks of climate and environmental regulations, and intention…

           




    did

    Democracy in Hong Kong: Might 'none-of-these-candidates' break the deadlock?


    Midway through Hong Kong’s second public consultation on the method of electing the next chief executive (CE), both pro-democracy “pan-democrat” legislators and the Hong Kong government and Chinese Central government are still holding their cards close. Following the current public consultation, members of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council (LegCo) will cast an historic vote on political reform. Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law, states that “the ultimate aim is the selection of the CE by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures” (Basic Law Art. 45). Pan-democrat LegCo members currently plan to vote against the eventual resolution on political reform, given their dissatisfaction with the reform process to date. Observers predict that passage of a resolution will happen only if the Hong Kong and Central governments can swing a few pan-democrats over to their side in the final hour.

    The problem is a prickly one: Is it possible to design an electoral system that is sufficiently open and democratic in the eyes of the Hong Kong people and, at the same time, that guarantees to the Central Government that the elected leader of this special administrative region accepts the supremacy of the Chinese Communist Party? Even as politicians on each side reiterate the near “impossibility” of changing their positions (see e.g., RTHK Backchat discussion with Justice Secretary Rimsky Yuen at 4:25), thought-leaders from Hong Kong’s universities are inventing creative proposals with the potential to break the deadlock.

    The Ground Rules

    A 2004 decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC), China’s national legislature, interpreted the Basic Law to require a “Five-Step Process” in order to amend the selection method for the CE. Hong Kong is now between Steps 2 and 3.

    • Step 1: The current CE must submit a report to the NPCSC on the need to amend the electoral system. That submission took place on July 15, 2014 after a five-month initial public consultation process. The CE’s report faced heavy criticism in Hong Kong for not accurately reflecting public opinion.
    • Step 2: The NPCSC must issue a decision affirming the need for the amendment. The NPCSC announced that decision on August 31, 2014. It endorsed a system by which citizens may directly vote for the CE but imposed restrictive conditions on the nomination procedure of eligible candidates. The decision triggered 79 days of protest and civil disobedience – what activists and the media have referred to as the “Umbrella Movement.”
    • Step 3: The Hong Kong government must introduce the political reform bill in LegCo, and two-thirds of legislators must endorse it. The vote in LegCo is scheduled to take place during the first half of 2015, although a precise date has not been set. The purpose of the second-round public consultation is to forge consensus behind political reform within the parameters set out in the August 31 NPCSC decision.
    • Steps 4 and 5: In the event that LegCo endorses the bill, the CE must provide his consent and report the amendment to the NPCSC for its final approval.

    If the bill does not receive two-thirds endorsement of LegCo (or if it does, but the NPCSC does not approve) then political reform would fail. Hong Kong would be left with the status quo, and Hong Kong people would lose the opportunity to vote for their chief executive for at least the next seven years.

    Limited Room for Negotiation

    The terms set out by the August 31 NPCSC decision limit the range of possible political reform options. For that reason, one of the core demands of the Umbrella Movement was to scrap the decision and re-start the Five-Step Process; that didn’t happen, however. In January 2015, the Hong Kong government issued a public consultation document framing the discussion in the lead up to the vote in LegCo. The consultation document hews closely to the NPCSC decision:

    • The Nominating Committee (NC) will resemble the previous committee that elected the CE with the same number of members (1,200) belonging to the same limited number of subsectors (38). The Wall Street Journal recently described that committee as “a hodgepodge of special interests.” During the consultation, citizens may discuss adding new subsectors to make the committee more inclusive and representative (such as adding new subsectors to represent the interests of women or young voters), but restructuring will necessarily mean disrupting and eliminating the positions of existing subsectors or committee members. Therefore, the consultation document suggests these changes are unlikely to be achieved (Consultation Document, Chapter 3, Sec. 3.08 p. 10).
    • The NC will nominate two to three candidates, and each candidate will require endorsement from at least half of the NC membership. (Given the difficulty of restructuring the subsectors or their electoral bases, these terms would effectively exclude any pan-democrats from nomination.) In order to make this more palatable, the consultation document proposes that citizens discuss a two-stage nomination process. In the first stage, a quorum of 100-150 committee members would “recommend” individuals for nomination. The committee would then elect the nominees from this recommended group (Consultation Document, Chapter 4, Sec. 4.09 p. 14). In theory, the meetings when recommendation and nomination votes take place could be staggered in order to allow campaigning and public debate. The idea is that NC members would take public opinion into consideration before casting their second vote.
    • On the voting arrangements, citizens may discuss a “first-past-the-post” arrangement with either a single-round, two-round, or instant runoff vote systems (Consultation Document, Chapter 5, Sec. 5.06 p. 17-19).

    Both sides in this negotiation have fired shots across the bow. At the launch of the second public consultation on January 7, Chief Secretary Carrie Lam remarked, “there is no room for any concessions or promises to be made in order to win over support from the pan-democratic members.” For their part, the pan-democrats vowed to boycott the public consultation and veto a resolution that conforms to these terms. They argue that the proposed method of electing the chief executive does not improve upon the status quo.

    Most pan-democrat legislators are directly elected from geographical constituencies, and public opinion could provide legitimate grounds for shifting their position. According to polling by the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme last month, a plurality of respondents view the Hong Kong government’s proposal as neither a step forward nor a step backward for democracy. If the government were to commit to making the electoral system more democratic in the next CE election in 2022, a clear majority of respondents would then support the government’s plan.

    Inventing Options and Finding Common Ground

    The two-stage nomination mechanism in the government’s proposal is an acknowledgement that the NC ought to be responsive to public opinion. But without additional tinkering, this procedure does not materially change the incentives of NC members. What if the public had the power to reject the slate of candidates nominated by the committee?

    Since the first public consultation, a few academics, including Simon Young at Hong Kong University (HKU), have considered at least two ways this could happen. An “active” approach would allow Hong Kong voters to cast blank votes and require a minimum percentage of affirmative votes for the winning candidate. A “passive” approach would require a minimum voter turnout rate for a valid election. NC members might then have to take public opinion into account.

    Early last month, Albert Chen, also a professor at HKU and a legal advisor of the NPCSC, began to advocate publicly for a proposal that employs a ballot with a none-of-these-candidates option (see RTHK Jan. 13 edition of The Pulse). Under his proposal, if a majority of people vote for “none-of-these-candidates,” the slate of candidates put forward by the NC will be voided. When the public votes down the candidates, the NC could revert back to an election committee and choose a provisional CE. Alternatively, the Chief Secretary could assume CE duties during a six-month interim period prior to a new election (drawing upon Basic Law Art. 53). Chen argues that his proposal would give the Hong Kong people—not pan-democrat politicians—decision-making power to accept the new NC and its slate of candidates or to revert back to the status quo.

    More recently, Johannes Chan, HKU professor and human rights advocate, floated a competing proposal that would provide voters with the option for negative voting. A 20 percent “no” vote for an otherwise leading candidate would trigger a re-vote. Between the first and second elections, the candidates would have additional time to campaign. If after the second election, still 20 percent of voters oppose the leading candidate, the candidate would be disqualified, and the NC would nominate new candidates. Given Hong Kong’s governance problems and increasing public polarization, the 20 percent veto ensures that no CE will be saddled with a substantial block of Hong Kong society affirmatively opposed to him or her from day one.

    Albert Chen’s proposal received a tepid if supportive response in pro-Beijing quarters. Jasper Tsang, the Speaker of LegCo and member of the largest pro-establishment political party, and Rita Fan, a member of the NPCSC, affirmed their view that the none-of-these-candidates mechanism does not violate the Basic Law. While the government’s consultation document does not expressly mention the none-of-these-candidates concept, Hong Kong’s Justice Secretary indicated that the proposal should be considered. Starry Lee, another leader of the biggest pro-establishment party in LegCo, countered that technical difficulties and limited time for discussion would pose obstacles to the none-of-these-candidates ballot proposal.

    Pan-democrats so far have tended to rebuff government overtures to engage on the topic. A few legislators, such as the Civic Party’s Ronny Tong, have been willing to engage (with Albert Chen on the Jan. 13 edition of The Pulse) but have reservations about what happens after a voided election, and feel that the threshold for public veto is too high. Law Chi-kwong, a founding member of Hong Kong’s Democratic Party and also a member of the HKU faculty, suggested that the winning candidate ought to receive an absolute majority of votes with blank votes counted. (E.g., when one candidate receives 45 percent, another receives 35 percent, and none-of-these-candidates receives 20 percent, that would lead to a void election.) However, other scholars associated with the Democratic Party have distanced themselves from the blank vote debate and Law’s statements.

    The Merits of Blank Voting

    The debate over blank and negative voting in Hong Kong unfolds in a global context where none-of-these-candidates has become an increasingly common political choice. Several democracies have institutionalized the practice. Proponents cite instrumental rationales, such as improved accountability and transparency. However, these benefits are not necessarily guaranteed. More broadly, people recognize the inherent value of the “no” vote as a form of political expression.

    In the U.S. state of Nevada, for example, a none-of-these-candidates option has appeared on the ballot for all statewide and national elections since 1975. During the 2012 presidential cycle, the Secretary of State of Nevada argued that removing a none-of-these-candidates option would harm Nevada voters by taking away a “legitimate and meaningful ballot choice.” There is precedent for none-of-these-candidates winning a plurality of votes in a congressional primary; in that case, Republican Walden Earnhart finished behind the none-of-these-candidates option but still “won” the primary and got the nomination. More typically, the ballot option plays a “spoiler role.” In the 1998 Senate race, for example, 8,125 votes for none-of-these-candidates dwarfed the 395-vote margin between Harry Reid and John Ensign. This allowed Reid, the incumbent, to be re-elected.

    It is hard to find examples where none-of-these-candidates has won a majority of the popular vote. Hong Kong’s pan-democrats may be right to question whether this possibility would meaningfully affect the calculus of the NC. Colombia is one of the few jurisdictions where blank votes can have institutional consequences. The right of citizens to cast a blank vote was established by the Colombian Constitution in 1991, and later codified in political reform statutes in 2003 and 2009. Similar to Albert Chen’s proposal in Hong Kong, if the number of blank votes equals a majority of the total number of votes cast, the election must be repeated. The original candidates cannot participate in the second election.

    The Colombian experience suggests that the blank vote is more consequential in races with fewer candidates. Colombian voters have never nullified a slate of candidates at the national-level, where the field is crowded. In the city of Bello, however, the blank vote won the mayoral election in 2011. In that case, the electoral authority disqualified the one opposition candidate. This led to a one-man race and united all opposition forces around the blank vote in order to reject the establishment Conservative Party candidate. In the second round election, the replacement Conservative Party candidate (Carlos Alirio Muñoz López) won 59 percent of the vote. In the end, his party benefited with a resounding popular mandate. By this logic, the blank vote could matter in the two- to three-candidate race contemplated for Hong Kong.

    Empirical evidence also suggests that local conditions in Hong Kong could support a relatively high turnout for none-of-these-candidates. Based on data from Spain and Italy, Chiara Superti at Harvard finds that blank voting is a sophisticated political choice, more likely to take place in municipalities with highly educated and politically engaged electorates. Hong Kong would qualify.

    Beyond candidate selection, voting is a highly expressive act. A citizen’s vote is an expression of identity as well as a channel for protest. Echoing this view, the Supreme Court of India recently held that the country’s constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and expression confer on Indian citizens a right to reject all candidates and to exercise their right to affirmatively vote for none-of-these-candidates in secrecy. As a people who define themselves by “core values,” including freedom of expression, this resonates with Hongkongers. More fundamentally, the ballot serves a powerful safety-valve function. At the time universal suffrage was introduced in England and France, the vote was presented as a way to channel political turmoil into more moderate political expression—and this, too, resonates in Hong Kong today.

    Views expressed in the article are the author's personal views.

    Authors

    • David Caragliano
    Image Source: Reuters
           




    did

    Why the internet didn’t break

    Working, studying, and playing at home during the COVID-19 pandemic has meant that residential internet usage has soared. According to one set of industry analytics, between January 29 (shortly after COVID-19 appeared in the U.S.) and March 26 there was a 105% spike in people active online at home between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.…

           




    did

    Did ‘elites’ get the 2016 US election wrong?

    In a recent speech to the Sydney Institute, Australian Ambassador to the US Joe Hockey said that, just before last November's presidential election, he 'simply could not shake the feeling that the signs were pointing to an outcome that was...in no way ordinary.' My congratulations to Ambassador Hockey for his prescience in anticipating the election…

          
     
     




    did

    Which city economies did COVID-19 damage first?

    Since the United States first witnessed significant community spread of the coronavirus in March, each week has brought a fresh round of devastating economic news. From skyrocketing unemployment claims to new estimates of contracting GDP in the first quarter of 2020, there has been little respite from the growing awareness that COVID-19 is exacting unprecedented…

           




    did

    How Much Did Your Vote Cost? Spending Per Voter in the 2014 Senate Races


    Totaling more than $111,000,000.00, the 2014 North Carolina Senate contest between Kay Hagan and Thom Tillis is the most expensive Senate election in the nation’s history (not adjusted for inflation). As we investigated earlier this week, outside money has been flowing into American politics in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010.

    When candidate and independent spending are combined, 2014 ranks among the most expensive, if not the most expensive, in history. However, understanding campaign spending takes more than a simple examination of total dollars. Spending differences across states can occur for a variety of reasons, including geographic size, population size, and the expense of media markets.

    As a result, a more useful metric for understanding the magnitude of campaign activity is spending per voter, and 2014 offers an interesting case: Alaska. This year, Alaska saw a highly competitive Senate race in which both outside groups and candidates spend substantial amounts of money. Alaska ranks 47th in population with just over 700,000 residents and an estimated 503,000 eligible voters. After adjusting spending (both candidate and independent expenditures) for each state's estimated voting eligible population, Alaska's 2014 Senate race, unsurprisingly, ranks as the most expensive in US history.

    Alaska originally ranked 6th most expensive in 2014, with about $60 million spent total. But it jumps to first place in dollars spent per voter. Candidates and outside groups spent roughly $120 per voter in Alaska this year, about double the next most-expensive race, Montana 2012, where candidates and outside groups spent $66.5 per voter. By comparison, the $111 million Senate race in North Carolina—with a voting-eligible population of about 6,826,610—equaled only $16.25 per voter. That’s still far above the median spending per race for all three cycles ($7.3 per voter) but certainly serves to put the spending in context.

    Relative to 2012 and 2014, in terms of both combined and per-voter spending, 2010 could be considered one of the cheaper cycles for Senate races thus far.

    These data lend some support to the observation that, since Citizens (and more recently McCutcheon v. FEC) independent expenditures are quickly outpacing contributions to candidates. But given changes in reporting requirements and limited data, there is still a lot about outside spending we still don’t know.

    All in all, candidate and outside group spending totaled just over a billion dollars in Senate races in 2014. The fact that North Carolina alone accounted for more than ten percent of that spending is astonishing, but no less remarkable is the intensity of spending per voter in Alaska. But if spending continues to grow as it has the last three election cycles, both of those records will likely be shattered in 2016.

    Authors

    Image Source: © Matt Sullivan / Reuters
         
     
     




    did

    Missouri Candidates Should Get Real

    *A slightly modified version of this commentary appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on October 19, 2004.

    So it looks like Missouri's gubernatorial race will turn on "character" issues.

    GOP consultant Paul Zemitzsch predicts Secretary of State Matt Blunt will portray Claire McCaskill, the Democratic state auditor, as "an extra-liberal female candidate" and "waffler" when things get ugly. McCaskill, for her part, has already countered one attack on her "hypocrisy" with her own attack on Blunt's veracity.

    Look for more talk about character as Election Day approaches.

    Yet that would be too bad.

    Missouri needs to talk about some other things this fall.

    In a recent statewide report, "Growth in the Heartland: Challenges and Opportunities for Missouri," for example, we argued that Missouri faces a land-use and competitive crisis that demands serious attention.

    The crisis is not new—we described it two years ago—but the fact remains that Missouri's chaotic style of low-density development is defacing the state's rural heritage, gutting towns and cities, and exacting a heavy toll on Missourians' pocketbooks and quality of life just when the state needs to compete at a higher level on those factors.

    Just look around:

    Strip malls and home sites chewed across nearly 350 square miles of Missouri prairie and fields in the 1990s as sprawl engulfed rural Missouri and the state continued to develop land almost four times as fast as it's been adding population.

    Cities are struggling, as fast exurban growth either outstrips city and town growth or, in the case of St. Louis, drains the center-city of vibrancy.

    And recently decline has spread beyond the state's big urban centers into numerous older suburbs, so that inner-ring municipalities like Wellston and Rock Hill in the St. Louis area, or Raytown and Grandview near Kansas City, now suffer from population losses.

    Why do these trends matter? For some the concern is cultural. They fear the state is losing its rural ambiance. For others the threat is environmental. They know scattershot development is tainting the Ozark lakes and degrading Missouri's natural areas.

    However, for us the concern is mostly economic: By remaining virtually laissez faire on growth and development issues, we fear the Show Me State is undercutting its ability to parlay its very real assets in the life sciences and other high-value industries into a broader prosperity.

    On the one hand, Missouri's dispersed development adds to the size of the state's enormous—and crumbling—highway system. Already Missouri taxpayers struggle with a maintenance backlog that will require half a billion dollars a year over the next 10 years—$200 million more than current finding will provide.

    On the other, we suspect that the state's spread-out, low-quality development diminishes Missouri's appeal to the educated workers necessary to prosper in biotech, medical instruments, and infomatics. Educated workers gravitate to vibrant urban centers with plenty of amenities. Missouri's sprawl, by contrast, drives them away by draining the state's downtowns and Main Streets of life and variety.

    And so we say it again: Missouri and the gubernatorial candidates need to face up to some tough realities this fall:

    • Missouri can't afford to keep sprawling, even with tax revenues stronger this year. Blunt and McCaskill need to tell Missourians how they will foster more efficient, less chaotic growth that doesn't break the bank

     

  • Ditto the highway issue: Notwithstanding rural pleas, Missouri can't afford to keep building new roads until it contends with the maintenance hole it's paved itself into. The candidates absolutely must explain how they will modernize the state's deteriorating transportation system while aligning it with the principles of sound land-use and fiscal sanity
  •  

  • And what about the whole connection of economic vitality to strong cities and higher education? Growth now depends on brainpower and quality of life. Therefore, the candidates owe it to Missourians to detail how they will bolster the quality and affordability of Missouri's colleges and universities. They also must explain how they plan to bolster the state's flagging town and city centers to attract and retain the best and the brightest
    • In sum, the Show Me State stands at a crossroads.

      With huge issues about their state's future livability and prosperity in the balance, Missourians shouldn't buy into a campaign focused on character issues and divisive wedge issues.

      Instead, they should insist candidates Blunt and McCaskill address the state's problems head on and get to work.

       

      Publication: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
           
       
       




      did

      If Missouri Has Transportation Needs, Where Did Amendment 7 Go Wrong?


      Earlier this month, Missouri voters overwhelmingly rejected a 10-year, 3/4 cent sales tax increase to boost statewide transportation investment. With local referendums an increasingly popular method to raise transportation funding in an era of federal uncertainty, the result has lessons for Missouri’s transportation interests and the country as a whole.

      Like many states, Missouri has a clear infrastructure deficit. A legislatively-mandated citizens committee found the state needs an additional $600 million to $1 billion in investment per year. The problem is finding the money. Outside of federal funds, the state primarily relies on a 17.3 cent gasoline tax and local property taxes to fund transportation projects, plus location-specific revenue streams like a half-cent sales tax in St. Louis city and county. Yet with Missouri residents driving less in recent years—down 5 percent per capita between 2000 and 2012-—there is less money available to fund critical projects.

      This vote offered one remedy. The statewide bump in sales tax would’ve generated upwards of $5 billion over the ten-year period. The new monies would go to 800 projects across Missouri, primarily for roadways. The governance was a similarly unequal split, with the state department of transportation directly controlling all but 10 percent of the new revenue.

      And this is where the referendum’s problems become clear. While each of the state’s seven transportation districts managed their own project list, there was no guarantee local sales taxes would be spent on local projects. There were also legitimate questions whether a heightened focus on roadways made sense in the face of falling statewide driving. This was at the heart of the opposition argument, led by Missourians for Better Transportation Solutions.

      In many ways, the Missouri results reflect what happened in a failed 2012 Atlanta referendum. That transportation package contained a hodgepodge of road and rail projects, barely increased connectivity across the sprawling metro region and couldn’t align local interest groups. Much like Missouri, Atlanta has clear transportation needs—but voters sensed the current plan wouldn’t do enough to adequately improve their commutes and livability.

      As Missouri’s transportation leaders regroup, they’d be wise to follow the “economy-first” lesson of successful referendums in places like Los Angeles, Denver and Oklahoma City. The common thread in all three was a great job proving the need for greater infrastructure investment. But as my colleagues outlined in a recent report, they also captured how transportation could support industrial growth and metro-wide economic health. Americans have proven time and again they’ll pay for transportation projects, but they want to know what they’re getting and how it will benefit their communities.

      In this sense, I’m heartened by a recent Kansas City Star editorial related to their failed streetcar vote the same day. Even with a failed vote, the metro area still needs a better infrastructure network. The key is for public, private and civic leaders to continue working with the public to determine which transportation investments will best support regional economic growth for decades to come.

      Ballot measures may fail, but they’ll always provide lessons to improve the plans that will pass.

      Authors

      Image Source: © Jim Young / Reuters
            
       
       




      did

      Which city economies did COVID-19 damage first?

      Since the United States first witnessed significant community spread of the coronavirus in March, each week has brought a fresh round of devastating economic news. From skyrocketing unemployment claims to new estimates of contracting GDP in the first quarter of 2020, there has been little respite from the growing awareness that COVID-19 is exacting unprecedented…

             




      did

      The presidential candidates’ views on energy and climate

      Now that there are presumptive nominees for both major political parties, it’s an important moment to outline, in broad strokes, the positions of Secretary Hillary Clinton and businessman Donald Trump on energy and climate.

            
       
       




      did

      The presidential candidates’ views on energy and climate


      This election cycle, what will separate Democrats from Republicans on energy policy and their approach to climate change? Republicans tend to be fairly strong supporters of the fossil fuel industry, and to various degrees deny that climate change is occurring. Democratic candidates emphasize the importance of further expanding the share of renewable energy at the expense of fossil fuels, and agree that climate change is a real problem—with some saying the challenge trumps most, if not all, other U.S. security concerns.

      Now that there are presumptive nominees for both major political parties, it’s an important moment to outline, in broad strokes, the positions of Secretary Hillary Clinton and businessman Donald Trump. We realize that Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has not dropped out of the race, but note that it is fairly unlikely at this point that he would clinch the nomination.

      Clinton: Building on the Obama legacy 

      Secretary Clinton has laid out the most comprehensive and detailed energy and climate policy proposals of the candidates to date. They are in essence a continuation, and in some cases a further expansion, of existing White House policies under President Obama. The Secretary has stated that she wants the United States to be the “clean energy superpower of the 21st century.”

      This starts with the notion that climate change is an existential threat, which the global community has to address as soon as possible. In order to do that, in her view, the United States needs to continue to show leadership on the international stage, as the Obama administration sought to do surrounding the Paris agreement in December 2015. This will require substantial reforms to expand low-carbon options, including nuclear energy to some degree, while tightly regulating fossil fuels (and gradually phasing them out). 

      [S]he wants the United States to be the “clean energy superpower of the 21st century.”

      The first casualty of this transformation is the coal industry, which Clinton has explicitly acknowledged. She presented a $30 billion plan to revitalize communities where coal production is currently an important industry and job creator, for example, and has campaigned with this message in various state primaries. Implicitly, Secretary Clinton does not seem to believe in the economic viability of carbon capture and sequestration in the United States—this is despite the fact that most analyses, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), suggest that this technology could be a cost-efficient tool in a wider carbon emission mitigation portfolio. 

      Clinton sees natural gas as a bridge fuel, though at this point it’s not clear how long that bridge is. Questions remain about the role that natural gas can play in scenarios of deep decarbonization in 2030 and beyond. At the moment, the gas industry is rather nervous of the Secretary’s statement that she’d increase regulations on, in particular, the fracking industry—if her conditions came to fruition, there would very few places where fracking would continue

      Secretary Clinton believes that oil consumption has to be cut substantially in the coming years, and she has suggested that new drilling in places like the Arctic, off the Atlantic Coast, and on federal lands would be discouraged or banned. She has previously opposed crude oil exports, though we would not anticipate a roll-back of existing policies (in December 2015, the Obama administration lifted the decades-old ban). 

      Clinton foresees a new energy economy built on rapidly increasing shares of renewable energy, which should comprise 25 percent of the U.S. fuel mix by 2025 according to her plan (solar energy would be a key focus, with half a billion panels to be installed by the end of her first term). To facilitate this transition, she presented an elaborate energy infrastructure plan to modernize the U.S. grid and improve efficiency in reviewing and approving projects. 

      Tax credits to support renewables would be continued under a Clinton White House, whereas fossil fuel subsidies would be phased out. Increased energy efficiency, including harmonization of vehicle efficiency and fuel standards, are high on her agenda as well. The Secretary also supports the Clean Power Plan that the Environmental Protection Agency under the Obama administration has launched, and which is currently on hold in the Supreme Court. 

      On the international stage, Clinton supports the Paris agreement on climate change. Should she win the presidency in November, she would make an effort to take this Treaty to the next step, thus continuing U.S. leadership. That would mean reinforcing U.S. leadership along the lines described above, while helping address current uncertainties about finance, transparency, and accountability, to name only a few challenges that remain.

      Trump: Drill, baby, drill

      Although Donald Trump’s candidacy remains highly controversial, he is now the presumptive Republican nominee for president. To the extent that we know any detailed plans, quod non, it is safe to say that his views on energy and climate change are diametrically opposed to most of Clinton’s. Broadly speaking, Mr. Trump has come out as a fervent supporter of the fossil fuel industry, and has expressed skepticism about the economic viability of renewable energy.

      Mr. Trump’s views start with the belief that climate change is not man-made. In the past, the controversial businessman has suggested that climate change might be a hoax invention from China, in order to undermine U.S. industrial interests and job creation. This starting point allows Mr. Trump to be extremely supportive of existing industrial interests (if carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions are not a problem, the thinking goes, then business as usual is the way to go). 

      In a speech in North Dakota in late May, Mr. Trump laid out some broad initial ideas for his energy policy. He declared that under his presidency the United States would “accomplish complete American energy independence,” leaving unaddressed arguments about what that would mean for existing international energy trade. 

      It is probably safe to say that Mr. Trump would like to further expand oil, gas, and coal production in the country. The latter, in particular, is remarkable: even coal executives have declared that market forces (particularly very competitive natural gas) have been the primary threat to the coal industry. Since Mr. Trump is also a strong supporter of the natural gas industry—and considering the challenges of building new bulk terminals for exports—it is unclear how a revitalization of the coal industry would occur. 

      If climate change is a hoax, it will come as no surprise that Mr. Trump will not support efforts to mitigate carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions.

      Contrary to his opponent, Mr. Trump would also like to revoke restrictions on drilling for oil and gas, and would permit production on federal lands. He also supports further expansion of energy infrastructure, and would, if elected, ask Trans Canada to resubmit a permit application for the Keystone pipeline, which he’d approve. He has caveated his support for projects like these by demanding that a portion of the revenues from oil and gas flows be redistributed to local communities, to compensate them for intrusion on their private property. Mr. Trump has also indicated that he wants to use revenues from oil and gas production to rebuild U.S. infrastructure more broadly.

      If climate change is a hoax, it will come as no surprise that Mr. Trump will not support efforts to mitigate carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. The candidate has called the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan “stupid,” and when asked what he would do about the Paris agreement on climate change, he said he’d cancel it

      Though Trump says the United States must pursue all forms of energy—including renewables—he has expressed skepticism about their economic viability, calling solar energy “very expensive.” Wind energy received similar pejorative feedback, since Trump says it kills eagles and is noisy. During one of the few debates about renewable energy during the Iowa primary, he voiced his support for blending biofuels in vehicles. 

      To the polls

      The 2016 U.S. presidential election will have a profound impact on global affairs. Not only will it affect a range of security and economic issues in important ways, it also means a lot for global energy and climate policy. Will the United States continue on the trajectory that President Obama has started and continue a major energy transition strategy? Or will it shift course, potentially undermining existing domestic policies and investments, as well as international obligations? In November 2016, the American people will decide.

      Authors

            
       
       




      did

      Did Media Coverage Enhance or Threaten the Viability of the G-20 Summit?

      Editor’s Note: The National Perspectives on Global Leadership (NPGL) project reports on public perceptions of national leaders’ performance at important international events. This fifth installation of the NPGL Soundings provides insight on the issues facing leaders at the Seoul G-20 Summit and the coverage they received in their respective national media. Read the other commentary »

      The week before the Seoul G-20 Summit was one in which the main newspapers read in Washington (The New York Times, The Washington Post and Financial Times) all focused their primary attention on the “currency war,” global imbalances, the debate on quantitative easing (QE 2), the struggle over whether there would be numerate current account targets or only words, and the US-China relationship. As early as Wednesday, November 10, The Washington Post front-page headline read: “Fed move at home trails U.S. to Seoul; Backlash from Europe; Obstacles emerge for key goals at G-20 economic summit.” By Thursday, November 11, things had gotten worse. “Deep fractures hit hopes of breakthrough; governments are unlikely to agree on a strategy to tackle economic imbalances” read the Financial Times headline on Alan Beattie’s article from Seoul. Friday, November 12, The New York Times front-page headline declared: “Obama’s Economic View is Rejected on World Stage; China, Britain and Germany Challenge U.S.; Trade Talks with Seoul Fail, Too.” By Saturday, the Financial Times concluded in its lead editorial: “G-20 show how not to run the world.”

      From these reports, headlines and editorials it is clear that conflicts over policy once again dwarfed the progress on other issues and the geopolitical jockeying over the currency and imbalances issues took centre stage, weakening G-20 summits rather than strengthening them. Obama was painted as losing ground, supposedly reflecting lessening U.S. influence and failing to deliver concrete results. China, Germany and Brazil were seen to beat back the U.S. initiative to quantify targets on external imbalances. Given the effort that Korean leaders had put into achieving positive results and “consolidating” G-20 summits, it was, from this optical vantage point, disappointing, to say the least.

      How was the Rebalancing Issue Dealt With?

      At lower levels of visibility and intensity, however, things looked a bit different and more positive. Howard Schneider and Scott Wilson in Saturday’s edition of The Washington Post (November 13) gave a more balanced view of the outcomes. Their headline read: “G-20 nations agree to agree; Pledge to heed common rules; but economic standards have yet to be set.” They discerned progress toward new terrain that went beyond the agreement among G-20 finance ministers in October at Gyeongju, which other writers missed.

      “By agreeing to set economic standards, the G-20 leaders moved into uncharted waters,” they wrote. “The deal rests on the premise that countries will take steps, possibly against their own short-term interests, if their economic policies are at odds with the wider well-being of the world economy. And leaders are committing to take such steps even before there’s an agreement on what criteria would be used to evaluate their policies.”

      They continued: “In most general of terms, the statement adopted by the G-20 countries says that if the eventual guidelines identify a problem, this would ‘warrant an assessment of their nature and the root causes’ and should push countries to ‘preventive and corrective actions.’”

      The Schneider-Wilson rendering went beyond the words of the communiqué to an understanding of what was going on in official channels over time to push this agenda forward in real policy, rather than declarative terms. As the Saturday, November 13, Financial Times’ editorial put it, “below the headline issues, however, the G-20 grouping is not completely impotent,” listing a number of other issues on which progress was made including International Monetary Fund (IMF) reform which the Financial Times thought might actually feed back into a stronger capacity to deal with “managing the global macroeconomy.”

      The Role of President Barack Obama

      Without doubt, the easy, simple, big-picture message coming out of Seoul was that Obama and the United States took a drubbing. And this did not help the G-20 either. The seeming inability of the U.S. to lead the other G-20 leaders toward an agreement in Seoul on global imbalances, the criticism of U.S. monetary easing and then, on top of it all, the inability to consummate a US-Korea trade deal, made it seem as if Obama went down swinging.

      But again, below the surface of the simple, one got a different picture. Obama himself did not seem shaken or isolated at the Seoul summit by the swirl of forces around him. At his press conference, he spoke clearly and convincingly of the complexity of the task of policy coordination and the time it would take to work out the policies and the politics of adjustment.

      “Naturally there’s an instinct to focus on the disagreements, otherwise these summits might not be very exciting,” he said. “In each of these successive summits we’ve made real progress,” he concluded. Tom Gjeltin, from NPR news, on the Gwen Ifyl Weekly News Roundup commented Saturday evening that the G-20 summits are different and that there is a “new pattern of leadership” emerging that is not quite there yet. Obama seems more aware of that and the time it takes for new leadership and new patterns of mutual adjustment to emerge. He may have taken a short-run hit, but he seems to have the vision it takes to connect this moment to the long-run trajectory.

      Reflections on the Role of South Korea

      From a U.S. vantage point, Seoul was one more stop in Asia as the president moved from India to Indonesia to Korea to Japan. It stood out, perhaps, in higher profile more as the locus of the most downbeat moments in the Asia tour, because of the combination of the apparent lack of decisive progress at the G-20 along with the needless circumstance of two presidents failing to find a path forward on something they both wanted.

      From a Korean vantage point, the summit itself was an event of immense importance for Korea’s emergence on the world stage as an industrial democracy that had engineered a massive social and economic transformation in the last 50 years, culminating in being the first non-G8 country to chair the G-20 summit. No one can fault Korea’s efforts to reach significant results. However, the fact is that the Seoul Summit’s achievements, which even in the rebalancing arena were more significant than they appeared to most (see Schneider and Wilson), but included substantial progress on financial regulatory reform, international institutional reform (specifically on the IMF), on development and on global financial safety nets, were seen to be less than hoped for. This was not the legacy the Koreans were looking for, unfortunately.

      Conflicts among the major players on what came to be seen as the major issue all but wiped out the serious workmanlike progress in policy channels. The leaders level interactions at G-20 summits has yet to catch up to the highly significant degree of systemic institutionalization of the policy process of the G-20 among ministers of finance, presidents of central banks, G-20 deputies and Sherpas, where the policy work really goes on. On its watch, Korea moved the agenda in the policy track forward in a myriad of significant ways. It will be left to the French and French President Nicolas Sarkozy to see if they can bring the leaders into the positive-sum game arrangements that are going on in the policy channels and raise the game level of leaders to that of G-20 senior officials.

      Publication: NPGL Soundings, November 2010
           
       
       




      did

      Which city economies did COVID-19 damage first?

      Since the United States first witnessed significant community spread of the coronavirus in March, each week has brought a fresh round of devastating economic news. From skyrocketing unemployment claims to new estimates of contracting GDP in the first quarter of 2020, there has been little respite from the growing awareness that COVID-19 is exacting unprecedented…

             




      did

      Did Zelenskiy give in to Moscow? It’s too early to tell

      For more than five years, Russia has used its military and proxy forces to wage a low-intensity but still very real war in eastern Ukraine. Newly-elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy would like to end that conflict. On October 1, he announced an agreement based on the “Steinmeier Formula” to advance a settlement. Angry crowds took…

             




      did

      Disrupting the cycle of gun violence: A candid discussion with young Chicago residents

      Watch a video of the event on CSPAN.org » The lives of young people are disrupted, traumatized, and cut short by gun violence every single day in the United States. Despite progress being made in some cities to reduce gun violence, communities in Chicago have recently endured record numbers of homicides and shootings. Over 71 percent…

             




      did

      How did COVID-19 disrupt the market for U.S. Treasury debt?

      The COVID-19 pandemic—in addition to posing a severe threat to public health—has disrupted the economy and financial markets, and prompted a strong desire among investors for safe and liquid securities. In that environment, one might expect U.S. Treasury securities to be the investment of choice, but for a while in March, the $18 trillion market…

             




      did

      Candidates, Parties Fine-Tune Spending Strategies

      There's a little more than a week to go before the Democratic National Convention begins in Boston. Senator John Kerry is both raising and spending money at a furious pace. The Kerry campaign raised about $182 million from March through June. Senator Kerry also outspent President George Bush in advertising throughout most of the summer. But the president still has more cash on hand, reportedly $63 million at the end of May. That's the latest figure available. The president also has more time to spend that money before accepting his Republican nomination on September 2. Anthony Corrado is an expert on campaign finance.

      Listen to the entire interview

      Authors

      Publication: NPR's Weekend Edition
           
       
       




      did

      Collapsible Candidates from Iowa to New Hampshire

      After his first place finish in Iowa, which was supposed to propel him to a New Hampshire victory, “change” is probably a word Barack Obama does not like as much anymore. But, his support did not really change much between these two elections. He won 38 percent of Iowa’s delegates and 36 percent of New Hampshire’s vote. It was Hillary Clinton and John McCain who were the big change candidates.

      What happens when a presidential candidate that does well in a primary or caucus state, does not do so well in the next? The dynamic of the presidential election can swiftly and stunningly change, as it did in New Hampshire on Tuesday.

      How Barack Obama wishes John Edwards showed up in New Hampshire.

      Edwards was awarded 30 percent of Iowa’s delegates, barely denying Clinton a second place finish. He finished a distant third in New Hampshire, receiving only 17 percent of the vote. There are strong indications that a shift among his supporters helped propel Hillary Clinton to her New Hampshire victory.

      According to the exit polls, Edwards did 8 percentage points worse in New Hampshire among women, while Clinton did 16 percent better. Obama’s support was virtually identical, dropping a statistically insignificant 1 percentage point.

      Obama’s support among young people remained strong, if slightly increasing among 18-24 and 30-39 year olds. Clinton’s support remained strong and slightly increased among those 65 and older. Edwards won Iowa’s middle-aged voters, age 40-64, but it was Clinton who decisively won this coveted age demographic in New Hampshire. And where these people were 38 percent Iowa caucus attendees, they were 54 percent of New Hampshire voters. (To understand why their turnout increased, see my analysis of Iowa’s turnout .)

      Moving forward, the generational war is still a strong dynamic in the Democratic race, as evident in the candidates’ speech styles following the election results. In Iowa, Clinton was flanked by the ghosts of the Clinton administration. In New Hampshire, she shared the stage with a sea of young voters. In Iowa, Obama spoke of change, a message that resonates with younger people who are not part of the establishment. In New Hampshire his slogan was a message that echoes the can-do spirit of the greatest generation, “Yes, we can!”

      In the days between Iowa and New Hampshire, Edwards spoke about how he wanted the election to become a two-way race. One should be careful with what one wishes for. Edwards and Clinton are vying for the same support base, that when united can defeat Obama, at least in New Hampshire. In the short-term, Obama most needs Edwards to do better so that support can continue to be divided.

      Among Republicans, John McCain recreated his magic of eight years ago and bounced back strong from a poor Iowa showing to win New Hampshire.

      The Iowa and New Hampshire electorates are so different it is difficult to compare them. In Iowa, Evangelical Christians were 60 percent of the electorate, while in New Hampshire, they were only 23 percent. Mike Huckabee’s move from first in Iowa to third in New Hampshire can be clearly attributed to the shrinking of his base. His collapse paved the way for a new winner to emerge.

      It is thus tempting to attribute McCain’s victory solely to the different electorates, but he still had to defeat Mitt Romney to win New Hampshire.

      According to the exit polls, the battle between McCain and Romney is a referendum on the Bush administration. Surprisingly, McCain, who has tried to rebuild bridges with the Bush establishment since his defeat in the 2000 presidential election, is still seen as the outsider and agent of change by voters participating in the Republican nomination process.

      In both Iowa and New Hampshire, McCain drew his support from those who said they are angry or dissatisfied with the Bush administration. Romney drew his support from those who said they are enthusiastic or satisfied. Not surprisingly, McCain is also drawing more support from self-described Independents and Romney from Republicans.

      The candidates seem to understand this dynamic, too, as they gave their speeches following the election results. In a contrived bit of acting, Romney showed up on stage without a podium and shoved a prepared speech back into his pocket (if he had needed a podium, his advance team would have provided it). He appeared relaxed, delivering his speech in a personable style reminiscent of Huckabee, who is competing with Romney for those who support Bush. But he also seemed to be reaching out to Independents with a message of change. In stark contrast, McCain delivered a carefully written, almost sedate speech designed to reassure Republicans of his conservative credentials.

      This three-way dynamic between Huckabee, McCain, and Romney should prove fascinating as the Republican nomination process moves forward. Where Evangelicals are strong, Huckabee should do well. Where they are not, the rules governing if Independents can or cannot participate will dictate how McCain and Romney do. And we have yet to see regional candidates like Fred Thompson have their day in the sun. And then there is Rudy Giuliani, who is lying in wait in the larger states where his name recognition should give him a significant boost over the other candidates. All of this points to an extended campaign among Republicans.

      Michael P. McDonald is an Associate Professor at George Mason University and a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He studies voter turnout and is a consultant to the national exit poll organization.

           
       
       




      did

      Why did Egyptian democratization fail?

             




      did

      The presidential candidates’ views on energy and climate

      This election cycle, what will separate Democrats from Republicans on energy policy and their approach to climate change? Republicans tend to be fairly strong supporters of the fossil fuel industry, and to various degrees deny that climate change is occurring. Democratic candidates emphasize the importance of further expanding the share of renewable energy at the…

             




      did

      John Mackey Steps Down As Chairman of Whole Foods: Did He Jump or Was He Pushed?

      On Christmas Eve, John Mackey announced that he is stepping down as Chairman of the Board of Whole Foods.




      did

      Did the "Organic Elite" Sell Out to Monsanto?

      By now, most of us have read the miscellaneous (numerous) statements from companies like Whole Foods, Organic Valley, Stonyfield, and the Non-GMO Project in defense of their participation in the




      did

      Utensilmate is a great candidate for the Wrongest Product Award

      I can't decide if this is just what I always needed or the worst product ever put on Kickstarter.




      did

      Europe bans two cosmetic ingredients you didn't know are hazardous

      The chemicals that make your personal products silky smooth are banned from all cosmetics that are washed off after use.




      did

      Adidas knit these shoes from illegal fishing nets

      A running shoe made from garbage may not sound like must-have sports equipment, but Adidas wants to illustrate how ocean trash can be turned into something new.




      did

      Adidas' new shoes will dissolve in your sink

      In an attempt to close the loop on production, Adidas has invented a shoe made from biodegradable artificial spider silk that will melt away when you're done with them.




      did

      Adidas sold 1 million pairs of shoes made from ocean plastic last year

      Finally, green shoe design is reaching mainstream levels.