Getting Personal About COVID19

What I discussed in last week’s Blog post is multiplying quickly.  The stakes have changed dramatically-- life and death are now overarching concerns.  The approach to this pandemic and its consequences is no longer a simple question of who did what when.  We already know that answer. In my mind, one of the overwhelming questions may now become: should those responsible for decisions resulting in death for tens of thousands of patients  -- who might have survived had they had an earlier test result or been provided with a ventilator -- be questioned and investigated for civil or criminal violations? 

To go a bit further: Is there any basis on which class action suits can be brought against federal officials (particularly the so-called President, Donald J. Trump) for violation of the public trust or of his constitutional obligations? 

I don’t know the definitive answer, but in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court ruled that “presidents are not liable for damages in civil lawsuits if the litigation concerns their official acts as president” (pbs.org).   However, the issue of civil suits brought in state courts has never been resolved but is likely, in my opinion, to follow the import of Nixon V. Fitzgerald.

Nonetheless, the lack of a national federal plan with strategic objectives is now a question of life or death, and those deaths may have been partially caused by people who have full responsibility for the general welfare of the people of this nation.  
Forgive me if I seem upset, but two members of my extended family are on the front line in a small city hospital that is treating COVID19 patients – a daughter is the head respiratory therapist responsible for originally intubating those patients and overseeing their respiratory care; her daughter (our granddaughter) is an RN in contact with those caring for these patients.  Protective supplies are running out.  We are all scared as HELL!  So, please forgive me if I sound angry or slightly vindictive and realize please that real fear, helplessness and rightful anger are at the core of my concern.

I have mentioned before (on 12/7/2015 and 02/20/2019) that elected officials have a certain responsibility to their constituents that can be considered a legal as well as ethical obligation. They have a fiduciary relationship which means they must provide their clients with the best possible services for the welfare and protection of those consumers/clients/constituents.    

 “A Fiduciary is an individual in whom another has placed the utmost trust and confidence to manage and protect property or money; usually, a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties (person or group of persons). Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or assets for another person.  A fiduciary relationship is one wherein one person has an obligation to act for another's benefit -- all actions are meant to be performed for the advantage of the beneficiary.  While the courts have not specifically defined the circumstances or restrictions on such a relationship, the courts stringently examine transactions between people involved in fiduciary relationships toward one another, placing particular scrutiny on any transaction by which a dominant individual obtains any advantage or profit at the expense of the party under his or her influence)(sources include: Wikipedia; legal dictionary; Oxford dictionary

 

In an article written for, Santa Clara University by one Hana Callaghan, we find some interesting thoughts about this form of ethical responsibility.

 

“The concept that government officials have special ethical obligations to the public is actually quite old.  In Ancient Greece Plato called for death for public officials who took bribes. (Laws, 12.955d) 
In 1215 King John of England signed Magna Carta, which promised among other things, “To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.” (Magna Carta, cl. 40) 
In 1254 King Louis the IX of France promulgated conflicts of interest rules for provincial governors in the Grande Ordonnance Pour la Réforme du Royaume. (Davies, Leventhal, & Mullaney, 2013)

In 1776, our Declaration of Independence acknowledged the concept of delegated authority,

‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (emphasis added.  U.S., 1776).

Moreover, she gives voice to both Hamilton and Jefferson who supported this concept in their writings:

‘Madison argued, for example, that senators ought to be guardians of justice and the general good, while Hamilton envisioned that members of the House of Representatives would be guardians of the “poorer orders.”  Natelson notes that the concepts of fiduciary government were also held by the states charged with ratifying the new constitution. Maryland representatives literally declared themselves to be the trustees of the public. (Natelson, 2013).’

Turning to present day scholars, she lays out the following simple list of ethical considerations involved in the fiduciary relationship between officeholders and the public.

‘As noted by legal scholars David Ponet and Ethan Lieb, “Because fiduciaries are difficult to monitor and have wide access to power over beneficiary resources and assets, fiduciaries are under rigorous obligations that ensure compliance with their role responsibilities.” (Ponet & Leib, 2011).   

So, what are those obligations in a governmental context?

• The duty of care;
• The duty of loyalty;
• The duty of impartiality;
• The duty of accountability (Ponet & Leib, 2011; Natelson, 2004); and
• The duty to preserve the public’s trust in government (Wechsler, 2013)’.”

 If we support this concept, we have to say that the President and many of his Republican members in his administration and in the Congress have deserted their fiduciary duty.  The dilemma is that neither Donald Trump nor the officeholders who support him (or the people who elected him) seem able to recognize their abandonment of these responsibilities in the face of this pandemic in January and February 2020, precisely when action was most needed. .A recent uptick in legislative action will hopefully help to mitigate the dangerous trajectory of their negative attitudes.

Instead of care, loyalty, impartiality, accountability and preservation of the public trust, here are some of what Trump and his "Trumpers" originally supported (even whileTrump’s favorable rating held at about 44-45% average):

v de-construction of essential units and agencies of national government leaving the inability to deal with a major crisis; dismantling of NSC group formed under Obama to deal with such global crises; eviscerated by Trump in 2017

v calling a dangerous pandemic, a “hoax”

v lying about the big “surprise” of this pandemic coming to our shores in 2020 when warnings had been given by the Obama administration in 2017 and Trump’s own intelligence council in 2019 along with notifications from the World Health Organization

v then saying it will go away “like a miracle”

v declaring everything is “fine” when it isn’t

v claiming that the “new system” for dealing with this threat is “working just fine” when ventilators and PPE are wanting everywhere

v treating business and the economy as top priority above assistance to people in need

v treating a health crisis as an economic crisis

v wanting people to return to work (exposing more people to the virus) by Easter (April 12, 2020) that scientists decry as opposite to the need to slow virus advance by continuing current stay-home and social-distance requirements

v forcing states to compete against each other for supplies and equipment as well as for unapproved medicine; failing to communicate with Democratic Governors who don’t show enough appreciation for what he has done

v passing the responsibility for purchasing, distribution and providing guidelines to the state and local governments rather than leading a national effort – especially when national shut-down and sheltering-in-place order is needed, along with basic equipment; instead proposes to institute an absurd regional “quarantine” of three states

v lack of consistent messages to the nation in daily briefings and ‘tweets’

v relying on voluntary involvement when national emergency demanded invoking of powers necessary to move the government (military) and private sector to mobilize to fight this health war (e.g., directing certain deployment of troops or directing certain manufacturers to produce ventilators)

Certain weaknesses of our governing system and our health care system are being exposed by this pandemic revealing that we are not the advanced society we thought we were.  Innocent people are dying because we have not been able to produce and distribute adequate equipment and personnel:

§  slow to act (until up against devastation of critical mass) partly because of

o   partisanship and ill-conceived ideologies

o   cumbersome rules of procedure in Congress and bureaucracy --‘red tape’

o   pressures from outside forces other than the crisis

§  confused purposes and aims

§  looming election promotes politicizing of crisis

§  President unable to handle crisis; unable to rise above self-aggrandizement, mythical ideology and fake conspiracies, unable to depend on science and the scientists

§  future planning for pandemic was almost non-existent in this administration

§  cutting back on previous administration legacy resulted in destruction of a task force and protocols for handling a pandemic crisis

§  health care supply sstem in tatters – no reserves; no beds; no PPEs. and non-coverage for at least 20k;

§  reserve stockpiles inadequate

§  business sector has no plan; can’t handle health crisis; raises prices to meet demand rather than re-tooling to produce what is needed; little commitment to community welfare

§  data gathering, analysis and communication poor

§  inadequate means of sharing best practices

§  lack of assessment and evaluation

§  people at the bottom of income scale always the last to be recognized, helped, supported or liberated; distribution of checks to them is far from guaranteed

§  members on the top of the income scale receive top priority attention and benefit

§  too many processes are inadequate or outmoded like the distribution system 

§  over-dependence on ideology rather than scientific and mathematical analysis

§  inability to hear and act on the voices, opinions, experiences and protests of the grass roots on a continuing influential and organized basis

At some point, we will have to look deep inside this crisis to see what can be learned from it,  applying such learnings to government and the larger society.  What follows are a few  beginning and tentative thoughts on that matter::

v we need more bi-partisan legislative task forces or action teams that will take one problem and work it through to solution(s)

v there ought to be a requirement to include grass-roots voices in all legislation that affects people’s lives; plus, a representative group of consumers affected by the legislation must have opportunity to comment on it

v paid lobbying forbidden

v input to legislation collected and analyzed from those most affected by it

v budget process of fitting money to actions; which involves goal setting, objective action steps and on-going assessment of successes and best practices

v upgrading of hardware and software that enables interagency communication, plus analysis of goals and processes;  known as "joining the 21^st century! " 

v every agency should be collecting and analyzing data that informs efforts to enhance lives and community well-being; we need predictive and tracking models for more than just viruses and natural disasters; we need analytical  models for tracking the needs and services for vulnerable populations; for tracking best practices in many areas; for projecting needs of certain populations such as those with auto-immune diseases, or those who are homeless

v to establish on-going methods and conduits for hearing the opinions and ideas from ordinary citizens and local leaders, many of whom have iniatiated and innovated actions that should be widely shared
v community service required as part of every public and private school curriculum; health care sector emphasized

v right to vote expanded and unfettered, such as universal automatic registration and mail-in balloting

v access to healthcare must be extended to all people and coverage under pandemics extended to cover all exigencies

v all elective and appointive offices need a job description that describes the responsibilities of the office and leads to specific qualifications and enhanced requirements for candidates, e.g. some form of community service; a goal plan; specific experience – age and citizenship are simply not adequate

v define the notion of representation and fiduciary responsibility and include these in job descriptions for congressmen, senators and President

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, we need this President to mobilize every agency of government, especially the military; every relevant private sector manufacturer, and every volunteer organization to get needed resources to our front line hospitals, medical professionals, caretakers, nursing homes, homeless shelters, everywhere there are vulnerable populations.  Further, widespread testing, possible medicines, and tests for antibodies are three areas that demand and deserve the full attention of government and the private sector. 

It is important to mention that today’s report from the President at his Task Force Report to the Press in the Rose Garden, he did declare progress on a new more rapid-result test, on efforts to use antibodies from survivors of the virus, and on vaccine development.  Unfortunately, we have been given no idea the exact status of each or a timeline for their development and distribution.  To hear CEOs who were present, you would think everything is working well with production and distribution of needed materials and equipment, despite the opposite feedback from the workers on site at points of actual testing and hospital care that they just don’t have what they desperately need.  Thank goodness for the extension of federal guidelines for mitigation until April 30^th. However, his exaggerated numbers for how many coud die without his interventions, and his undocumented accusation of NY state healthcare workers confiscating facemasks and selling them to vendors were completely destructive of possble achievements.  

Action and results – need not to be reactive, but proactive involving bold actions out ahead of the brunt of the ‘storm’.  When lives are hanging in the balance, bold national action is not only necessary, it is imperative!   

FOOTNOTE:  SO LET ME BE PERFECTLY CLEAR: I am of the unshakeable belief and opinion that The President of the United States, as well as his appointees to Executive Departments plus the congresspersons and senators from my state (and all states) have a personal responsibility to provide opportunities for health and well-being, let alone justice and basic rights, for all persons within the context of the constitution and the just laws of this nation.  

Those leaders hold substantial keys to the means by which my family and all families pursue their dreams of love, happiness, prosperity and success.  Life itself can hang in the balance of their decision-making on many matters of health, safety, justice and security.  They have a personal responsibility to protect me and my family -- and you and yours -- from local and global threats to those basic elements of life.  When they fail to carry out their fiduciary responsibility, they deserve no less than to be turned out-of-office.  But in my estimation, they also deserve to be held accountable for the damages they have caused when acting in a manner contrary to the protection and well-being of their constituents.  When their actions or lack of action result in unnecessary or preventable deaths, they should not escape the judgment of the courts for their actions.. 

One final comment:  any progress being made at this late date does not erase or excuse the fact that this administration did not act soon enough and strongly enough to save any of the thousands of people who have died and the thousands more who have suffered the worst of this sickness and may soon die. 
Nor does the new production of protective equipment and supplies -- still undelivered to the hospital where our daughter and granddaughter continue to be exposed to this deadly virus -- serve to reduce our great fear for their safety, and the safety of so very many in the health care professions.. 
Like it or not officeholders -- that concept of a personal responsibility for political and policy decisions that bring disastrous effects on the lives of millions of Americans is not going to quietly disappear -- it will endure in the lives of all those affected by the loss of (or harm to) a loved one in this war.
Talk is cheap; good results based on an organized national plan of action is what matters right now. 
  

The Stakes Have Changed (but deceptions remain) -- COVID19

On Wednesday night, March 18, 2020, Donald Trump spoke  to the American people from the Oval Office about the COVID-19 pandemic.  He announced that most air travel from Europe would be suspended for 30 days as well as all cargo shipments from Europe, and that health insurance companies would waive co-pays for all coronavirus treatments. These were attempts by the administration (and its Task Force) to deal with the lowering of the curve of active cases and to address some of the needs of people dealing with the coronavirus.

Unfortunately, although partially substantive, much of what the president said off-script simply wasn’t true or was self-aggrandizing. Trump’s team had to work hard the next day to roll-back the questionable verbiage uttered by their leader.

That was not the first time, nor the last, when Trump led the nation astray from the truth (and consequences) of the coronavirus (or some other glaring issue). Here is a brief look at some of the exaggerations and contradictions that have served no one but Donald Trump himself, and which tend to raise the stakes and push the rest of us toward disastrous outcomes. 

     1) His administration didn’t have enough early warning about the virus – mainly because, he claims, the Chinese did not share early information.  He has blamed China for the virus, calling it “the China Virus.” (To be fair: he has also talked about aid to China and other countries because, he says, “We’re all affected and one death anywhere is too much”).

 ON the OTHER HAND:

31 December 2019:  the World Health Organization (WHO) China Country Office was informed of cases of pneumonia with unknown cause detected in Wuhan City, Hubei Province of China. The Associated Press was one of the first English language news accounts to report that China was investigating an “outbreak of respiratory illness in the central city of Wuhan.”

January 11 & 12, 2020: WHO received detailed information from the Chinese authorities that identified a new type of coronavirus, which was isolated on 7 January 2020.

January 12, 2020: China shared the genetic sequence of the novel coronavirus for countries to use in developing specific diagnostic kits.

January 21, 2020:  first case confirmed in the USA

WHO sends update: “There is now more evidence that 2019-nCoV spreads from human- to- human and also across generations.”

On January 22, 2020:  TRUMP declares: “We have it totally under control.  It’s one person coming in from China.” He also says that “a plan is in effect” but does not offer specifics. 
January 24, 2020: Senior officials from the CDC brief senators about the virus. Later, Trump posts his first tweet about the coronavirus. praising the Chinese government for its “transparency” handling the outbreak and says, “it will all work out well.”

January 29, 2020:  Trump announces the creation of the President’s Coronavirus Task Force to lead the “United States government response to the novel 2019 coronavirus”

January 31, 2020:  The Trump administration suspends entry into the United States by foreign nationals who traveled to China within the last 14 days.

March 13^th – after two months go by, the Administration finally declares a National Emergency, in the face of:

  132,758 confirmed cases (7499 new) and 4955 deaths (342 new).  Global Risk: VERY HIGH with 123 countries affected (reported by the WHO).

     2)  The threat is low, and it will go away, perhaps like a miracle.  Throughout January and February and into March, Trump utters such sentiments, like on January 22 as quoted above, along with:

January 31^st: “we think it's going to have a very good ending for it…that I can assure you.”  

February 25: “CDC & my administration are doing a GREAT job of handling Coronavirus” “I think that’s a problem that’s going to go away.  They have studied it.  They know very much.”

February 26: “The 15 cases within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero”

February 27: “One day it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.”  And, as recently as

March 10: “It will go away.  Just stay calm. It will go away.”

ON the OTHER HAND:

By February 1, 2020:  WHO had by this date produced all manner of reports, protocols; public health measures in keeping with its Mission and Strategic Plans, to:

• Interrupt human-to-human transmission including reducing secondary infections among close contacts and health care workers, preventing transmission amplification events, and preventing further international spread*

[ *This can be achieved through a combination of public health measures, such as rapid identification, diagnosis and management of the cases, identification and follow up of the contacts, infection prevention and control in health care settings, implementation of health measures for travelers, awareness-raising in the population and risk communication.]

• Identify, isolate and care for patients early, including providing optimized care for infected patients

• Communicate critical risk and event information to all communities and counter misinformation

• Minimize social and economic impact through multisectoral partnerships.

Perhaps, had the Trump administration paid more attention to the planning and strategies of the World Health Organization, there could have been a much earlier and effective response to this pandemic and its consequences.     

    3) He inherited a “broken, ineffective system” and his “talented” administration had to start over and make a great new system

What system is he talking about?  The healthcare system?  That’s been broken for a long time and the Donald Trump administration has broken it further by destroying the ACA, cutting scientific research and generally denigrating scientific method and inquiry; as well as ignoring the closing of rural hospitals and the need for increasing professional and non-professional staff almost everywhere.

ON the OTHER HAND – the Obama administration -- having learned something valuable about pandemics with the Ebola scare – established a pandemic unit connected to the White House to deal with such threats under the umbrella of the National Security Council.   That unit had been warning about the next pandemic for years and criticized the Trump administration’s decision in 2018 to dismantle that NSC directorate charged with preparing for when, not if, another pandemic would hit the nation.

Not only was there a mechanism, but in 2017, the Obama administration offered training to incoming Trump administrators, holding a conference and simulation exercise that few Trump people bothered to attend.  Trump (plagued by inbred racism toward President Obama) under the guise of ‘efficiency’ got rid of that mechanism early on, called the pandemic idea a “Hoax” and didn’t come up with his own Task Force on this new virus until too late to deal effectively with its effects and its threat. 

The vast delay in obtaining and distributing effective test kits and safety gear (PPE) and ventilators out to the local medical establishment (now turned over to the states to manage) made this new (‘non-delivery’) system look like a joke.  But it’s no joke, because the disease will continue to spread and people will die because this administration did not (and does not) have the will or the organizing skills to get it done, putting everyone of us in danger.

    4) “Federal government is not a ‘delivery service’” – according to Trump, it is simply a “support” for states, regions and municipalities who are responsible for management of resources.  This trumped-up definition (and attitude) can and does lead to blaming those other entities if respirators and PPE are in short supply or remain undelivered.

ON the OTHER HAND – in a national emergency like this one, the federal government must lead: it must find resources and deliver supplies and equipment as well as extra funds. It must be totally committed to the business of taking care of people. The fabricated tripod of federal government giving ‘support’; local states and municipalities ‘managing’ and the people following necessary guidelines is nothing more than a way to get out of doing what the federal government must do in emergencies: it must act as the manager of the crisis and facilitator of responses; it must organize and support the local states and their populations and it must enlist, organize and utilize the local governments, the private sector, and people-power in every corner of this nation. 

One of the main reasons we have a strong central government is to provide a nationwide response when that is necessary. 

While Trump should be commended for caution in how government uses corporations and smaller businesses to aid in this crisis, for him to depend entirely on voluntary offers from public and private entities for beds, equipment and protective gear is probably going to prove not to be the best strategy because the need is so great and the situation so dire. 

The Emergency Powers Act of 1975 grants broad powers to the President to mobilize all sectors of society, including the business sector.  Use of the Defense Production Act will also be of great advantage in using military resources to fight this virus.  A crisis like this one demands that some such mobilization be carried out under national leadership and authority. Using FEMA as the central point of assistance to states, for example, is probably a helpful action as is use of the military in NYC to convert the Javits Center to accommodate hospital beds.

Of course, the states and municipalities must act at their level to use resources effectively, but we should not expect them to find all the resources they need on their own when what is needed is national purpose and implementation.  

However, independent and innovative action is what the capable Governors of New York and California have performed when they needed to fill the gaps of response from the federal government.  Kudos to Andrew Cuomo of New York and Gavin Newsom of California, as well as others like Inslee in Washington State, and those of other states who have made their constituents proud of their abilities and their humanity (not including the Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, who has expressed his perverse willingness to exchange a certain percent of lives for the rejuvenation of the business sector).

5)  Trump uses his power to blame others for any problems or errors --presenting the stark image of a team with one member who does little of the project work but takes all the credit for successful outcomes; or, the picture of a demoralizer who exacerbates the burden of anxiety and fear rather than helping to lift it off others.

The ‘buck stops here’ is pertinent to the way the Founders set up the office of the President.  After all, to  legitimately claim the title of Commander-in-Chief or President of the United States, or to effectively make use of the executive powers of the Office to the advantage and the welfare of the people, one cannot escape taking responsibility for presidential actions, or the lack thereof. 

Moreover, since the President has the solemn duty to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” he can distribute responsibilities to departments and other entities, but he cannot place the blame for his own missteps and errors on others who work for him or who act for him.  Such an attitude is always counterproductive because it makes people too timid and cautious (as well as intimidated and compliant), reducing their creativity, their objectivity, their honest opinions and their level of commitment.

This kind of national emergency requires a team leader who values all team members, who invites their opinions and information, and who provides constant recognition and positive (and honest) feedback to each member.  He accepts total responsibility for the efforts and welcomes the contributions of every member.  Such a leader does not relegate anyone of value to the trash heap just because they express views that disagree with his own (i.e. where was Dr. Tony Fauci at the last Task Force press briefing?). And why is Trump beginning to talk about “getting back to work” by Easter which will surely cause new cases to spike dramatically. It sounds suspiciously like the attitude of the Texas Governor willing to trade a certain number of lives to save the economy.  

Trump needs to stay away from those press briefings and let the scientists lead the presentations based on scientific facts and method. But mostly, he needs to focus his administration on the primary concern of protecting and saving lives by following the very guidelines from his Task Force, using  all the time it takes to lower the threat of this pandemic.

)     6) We must bail out Big Business (and small) in order to give them the boost needed to come back strong after this is over. The Party line is that we:

a.      can’t let them disband which would mean a much longer process of recovery

b.      can’t nationalize businesses now because might lead to national-run corporations after the pandemic is over

c.      workers will be all right if we cut their payroll taxes, increase time period for receiving unemployment and delay income tax submission

On the OTHER HAND:

Has anyone asked what the outcomes are that need to take priority in this emergency?  Exactly what problems most need to be resolved?  Where will government (taxpayer) money best be spent to bring about the best results for circumstances made unlivable or untenable by this health crisis? 

The point might be put this way:  contrary to that infamous SCOTUS decision in Citizens United, corporations are not individuals, and should not be treated as such – they don’t catch viruses.  This legislation should be all about the human victims of this virus, and that includes the employees of corporations and small businesses.   We need to protect them, and in protecting their health, realize that health can be affected by economic stress. 

The first two bills related to this virus, that originated in the Democratic House, have reasonable economic and humanitarian purposes. This third Republican-sponsored Senate bill appears to be serving as a safety net for the Republican party by enabling its candidates to provide monetary awards without strings to their sponsors who can then distribute that money as they see fit.  Here’s what I understand this 3^rd bill originally included:

·      small business retention loans at very low interest

·      $500 billion fund for businesses that would be under the control of Secretary Mnuchin

·      $1200 relief checks sent directly to citizens in need

However, even as I write, reports are that the bill is undergoing basic changes so the final product could end up to be much more acceptable.

Here’s a thought for consideration anyway: first, concentrate financial help on workers/employees –get relief checks to them through the payroll system and other payment systems that already exist. 

Second, treat businesses like any other group, organization or entity that wants to use federal taxpayer money to ‘bail them out’ or to ‘fund their enterprise.’  Treat corporations and businesses not as individuals, but as grant applicants. In a free market economy, it is not government’s business to bail out businesses. Not when we already agree with, and have in existence, the grant process.  Let’s use it, and apply what we ask of most federal grantees:

·      an application form that spells out the reasons for the grant and contains a pledge to operate the grant within specific guidelines and rules;

·      a Plan that details its use and expected outcomes

·      a Budget that shows how the Plan will be funded in order to accomplish the aims of the Plan

·      a brief plan for annual Assessment of program goals and outcomes, plus an Audit of spending of the grant

A SLUSH FUND for corporations and their Republican friends is totally UNACCEPTABLE. 

All efforts must KEEP FOCUSED on the needs and protection of front-line workers, wage earners, and vulnerable people. Continue to provide payments directly to workers to substitute for salary but under no circumstances should taxpayer money be given to corporations (or businesses) for bail-out without parameters for use and requirements for payback or giveback in the form of grantee benefits and outcomes that enhance their employees and/or communities, and help to mitigate this disease.

     7) The unspoken (but not hidden) truth:  It’s all about Donald Trump and his re-election.

Donald Trump should never be out front speaking for the Task Force

The scientists and experts should be the ones to answer reporter questions and to address the public.  Why?

Because Trump has no understanding of the depth of this disaster and cannot restrain from making statements that attempt to enhance his status rather than the welfare of those directly affected

Donald Trump is running for another term as POTUS; everything he says or does must be seen in that context

Moreover, he is afflicted with what is described in some psychiatric textbooks as a personality disorder: “Narcissistic personality disorder is a clinical mental illness characterized by clearly maladaptive patterns of narcissistic behavior, such as obsessional ego-centricity or total lack of empathetic behavior.”(yourdictionary.com)  This disorder untreated makes for behaviors that are not suited to a person with total responsibility for the welfare of millions of other people.  Vital decisions are apt to be made on the dangerous basis of what is beneficial to that one person’s status and needs.

Donald Trump is not only ill-prepared for his position and thus incompetent, he is mentally unfit and completely unable to carry out the responsibilities, the obligations and the duties of that office because he cannot put the needs of other individuals above his own.

In conclusion, then, I must assert that the stakes have changed.  This is no longer merely a question of delay or inadequate actions or lack of federal administrative planning and implementation.  This is now a matter of life or death. 

Each of us -- particularly those who are elderly with vulnerabilities – are now, because of the lack of supplies and equipment, subject to someone deciding who gets the benefits of a respirator and who doesn’t; of who gets a strong multi-use drug and who doesn’t; of whose life rates greater attention and whose doesn’t.  Without a universal vaccine – which is probably 1.5-2.5 years away – there will be a decision-making process that brutalizes us and threatens our lives. 

Donald Trump has not protected us and will not protect us if he continues his goal of getting people back to work by Easter.  He is too busy saving businesses, making sure he benefits, seeking re-election, and enhancing his status and power as President of these United States.  Which means that those who vote for him and support him monetarily are not only supporters of death by the flip of someone’s coin but are complicit in the neglect and loss of our safety, our rights, and our welfare.  Most of all, they are complicit in the actions of a man with a personality disorder that can lead to a disastrous consequences.

 

The stakes have changed.  We are approaching the point at which decisions about who lives and who dies may be forced upon us.  While Trump supporters are part and parcel of bringing this about, they are also potential victims who could be next on the gurney that gets shoved to the side where their lives will not be saved.

The number of victims is climbing, and the hospitals and medical front lines are screaming for help.  Approval of -- or Voting for -- Trump (and his minions) is a potential vote for death -- maybe that of a stranger, a friend, a neighbor, a loved one – or maybe your own! 

DON’T GAMBLE WITH YOUR LIFE – REJECT TRUMP!

SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT "PROCESS"

I don’t know about you, but I am becoming increasingly concerned over lack of attention to something called “process.” Way too many politicians talk forever about ideology or philosophy behind policies or programs, but rarely mention the politics of process because they have ignored the notion that often the process itself is the obstacle to implementing the policy in an effective, just and equal manner.

‘Process’ as a noun is defined as: “a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end." Or, in other words: “a particular method of doing something, generally involving a number of steps or operations.”

Some synonyms include procedure, operation, action, undertaking.

As a verb, ‘process’ means: “to get something done by a particular method or set of procedures.”

It seems that nothing could be simpler than getting things accomplished by action steps, procedures, directions, or similar methods.  We do it ourselves when we get a disassembled item from some vendor and must rely upon a set of directions to enable assembly and proper functioning!  

As simple as process could be, what do we find people complaining much about in daily living? -- long lines, long wait-time for appointments, wasted time, inconvenience of location, cost of getting to an event because of distance or lack of efficient transport, harried staff rushing us through a process -– it just goes on and on.  People in everyday life seem to complain more about the way things happen (or don't happn) than about the ideology or policy concepts that require the process in the first place (although oftentimes the policy itself is the cause of the flawed process).

Let’s take a look briefly at two important sides of the same coin (the right to vote and process of elections) as examples of this dilemma, and then proceed to look at two process issues that have tremendous implications for all of us – universal health care coverage and mitigating the coronavirus.

1)     The RIGHT to VOTE.  That supposedly inalienable right has been restricted, undermined and under attack throughout our existence as an independent Republic.  I have reviewed some of these problems in past postings (see 11/9/2018, 6/17/2019, 8/28/2019, 11/14/2016 and 1/27/2013) and will mention just a few items that have had lasting effects upon this sovereign right:

a.     the Electoral College

b.     Primary elections

c.      Jim Crow Era Laws and renewal of the intent of those laws in our modern era -- meant to separate out racial groups for targeted negative treatment, and to diminish or prevent minority voting

d.     Gerrymandering that has constructed districts that cluster favorable and unfavorable groups for easier manipulation

e.     Bureaucratic red tape and paperwork – including voter registration, voter records updates, numbers and locations of polls, long lines because of lack of machines and staff

The point being that it is the very processes put in place by legislators and other officeholders that have undermined the right to vote because those processes have been used intentionally (sometimes unwittingly) to advance the vote for one group over another.

It should be obvious, that in order to protect the right to vote, we must pay as much attention to the processes that affect the sacredness of the vote just as much as to the philosophy behind our inalienable right to vote.

The day on which I started this piece just happened to be the one-year anniversary of the passage on 03/08/2019 by the Democratic House of Representatives of HR #1 – The For the People ACT of 2019 – first introduced in the House on the very day (01/03/2019) that the new 116^th Congress was installed by taking the oath of office.

It would seem appropriate to attend to some of the provisions for reforming the processes of voter registration and elections that are prominent in this ACT, with the express purpose of informing you of the lack of concern that the Republican Senate has shown toward the immense importance of this piece of legislation.

 The Senate Republicans have allowed their leader, Mitch McConnell, to thwart any action on this Bill (along with 300 others) meaning that this group of GOP senators have thereby confirmed and accepted the processes of voting that are preventing free and fair elections. Any of those Senators up for re-election this year deserve nothing less than ejection from the Senate on Election Day in November 2020, including Mitch McConnell.

We can’t make real progress on broadening the right to vote until we address process questions and needs, like those clearly addressed by HR #1, such as:

a.     use of the internet for voter registration and updates
b.  voting by mail
c.     automatic voter registration with participation by states and other  agencies, implemented with portable records that are non-purgeable

d.      same day voter registration

e.     internal data-gathering and reporting of statistics and evaluation

f.     prohibition of interference by the states with voter registration and voter participation, with some appropriate penalties

There is always more that can be done, and perhaps one action to be taken is to bring pressure on leader McConnell to bring HR #1 to the floor of the Senate for a vote.  After all, the processes of voting and registering to vote are of great importance for November of this year, and immediate action is needed to reform those processes.

Also, here are a few of my thoughts/suggestion for further consideration:

g.       more substantive penalties for any voter restrictions proposed or implemented by states or local entities

h.      use of internet and the regular mail for voter enrollment and for voting; thus, reducing the need for more voting machines except those needed for persons with special needs and those who choose to vote at a polling place

i.     use of accurate software to oversee the processes and to enable voters to register and to vote; enable state and local registration agencies to transmit enrollments done at their sites

j.        reduction of lines or inconveniences in order to vote – e.g. check-in of IDs should not be burdensome if we use methods already being used in the cyber world: face recognition; fingerprint or eye recognition; driver’s license; bank card, involving check-in machines or card swipes at doors of poll locations

2)     Elections – must be made effective and efficient; inconvenience is counterproductive and arguably a tool for restricting and undermining the votes of certain groups.  HR #1 addresses this issue’s processes and provides some important process solutions and procedures:

a.     paper ballot back-ups in all states

b.     early voting

c.      voting by mail

d.     grants to states for poll worker recruitment and training

e.     tracking and confirmation by receipt of absentee ballots

f.       improvements in operation of the Election Assistance Commission

g.      grants to improve election activities and infrastructure and to undertake security and risk assessments, audits, tests of infrastructure

h.     election reforms such as small donor public financing, campaign finance transparency/Super PAC restrictions

i.        ban on foreign national contributions,

j.        penalties imposed for violations

Again, some additional thoughts/suggestions from this Blogger:

k.      require all primaries to conform to federal guidelines; but reject caucuses

l.        mail or email ballots to all eligible voters (just like absentee ballots!)

m.  set at least one month for return deadline by email, mail, or at polling place

n.     more attention needed to set up polling places at every community library; state and/or county office; utilize non-profit organizations, churches, synagogues, mosques and other community entities such as fire stations, and let those who choose to do so, register to vote there as well

o.     recruit enough volunteers to adequately staff all locations

p.     all boards of election employees should become enforcers of new procedures and protectors of voters’ right; their job is to record (enter data) and count votes within 1-2 days

With all this attention being paid to processes and procedures involved in voting, as well as in election campaigning, is it not appropriate to wonder why the federal government cannot seem to pull together the necessary steps and procedures for combating, or at least containing, the spread of the deadly coronavirus or CONVID 19?  

Instead, we are becoming victims of the patterns of an administration intent on placating and idolizing their leader.  We have been hearing more about placing blame, excusing incompetence, self-aggrandizement and politicizing sickness than we ever needed to endure.

Let the scientific and health professionals lead the procedures, involve the expert people and entities, and undertake the instructing and training that must be done.  Government should be the right-hand, cooperating and collaborating with those leaders, and with every entity – like the public health system and the private drug companies – that has a role in the approach to this pandemic.

There is nothing wrong with having a Task Force in the administration dedicated to this end; in fact, it is a necessary and responsible action.  But having a non-scientific coordinator is not a best practice. Pence should be there as the representative of the administration, putting the resources and the assets of the national government into the mix whenever a need is identified.  It should be Pence’s job to identify, activate, oversee and monitor the response of the national government, not to coordinate the plan or procedures for combatting the virus – that is the scientist’s job.

For instance, the administration needs to concentrate on how to bring government assets to meet the needs already identified by the experts --  the testing kits, the medicines to treat symptoms and a vaccine to slow and perhaps prevent the disease.  Calling a consultation with pharmaceutical and drug companies was a beginning but what was accomplished there for follow-up?  What are the next steps in the process?

Perhaps one follow-up step might be to fund and nurture the research and efforts of NIH to find a cure for this virus. 

And finally, information released to the public should be carried out not by the politicians, but by the scientists (or their spokespersons).  This is not the time for politicizing the problems and making them look smaller or less important or someone else’s fault.  It is time for truth, for instruction, for assurance, for direction from experts, not from propagandists.  For instance, Dr. Anthony Fauci’s guidance for older persons (with underlying conditions such as heart disease) on not taking planes or cruise ships right now was useful to all parties concerned.

 

 “Process” is not something that excites the general public – at least not until a poor process shows itself to waste our time, cost us money, or simply cause inconveniences that interrupt our “pursuit of happiness.”  Procedural steps for getting things done cannot easily be omitted, ignored or abandoned.  They are essential for accomplishing the good outcomes we seek in our lives.  Yet, human nature being what it is, we often balk at following the dictates of directions, rules, procedures, and action steps.

 We like short-cuts; we don’t even mind surrogates who take care of niggly “fixes” for complicated items.  And, too many of us don’t seem to mind the lack of competent processes that exist in government.  Many seem quite pleased when their president chooses to ignore, undermine, or de-construct certain necessary procedures, like being briefed on intelligence-gathering.   But then, a global crisis comes along (that is more perceivable than climate change) and we find that when necessary processes for combatting a pandemic are being ignored, delayed or criticized for their cost or their political consequences, we are the potential victims of a disease that could be devastating for ourselves and/or our loved ones. 

Suddenly, we become much more attuned to the steps that must be taken to protect ourselves and others from this scourge.  We then wonder why our government is not acting fast enough to rid us of this threat.  And we find to our dismay that the Executive of our government isn’t that concerned about the numbers for they are relatively small, but the scientists tell us there is more to the story than that and we must get busy if we are to avoid the deadly effects of this global disease which seems to be spreading quickly from country to country.  Luckily, Congress took this more seriously and appropriated an additional $8.3 billion package to address this crisis.

Take Medicare-for-all as another example of the need for effective process.  It sounds good.  It could solve many of our heath care and health insurance problems. Something like it works in other developed nations.  But it is now only a proposal here at home.  I want to know something about how it would work and what it would require in dollars and cents.  Don’t you?  I want to know the process by which it would be initiated and maintained.  I want to know who would run it and how it would be administered.  I want to know what would not be covered, about how much I would have to pay in premiums and co-pays and deductibles, and whether I could keep my current supplemental if everything would not be covered.  There is more I want to know, of course, but process-type information is not available to any satisfying degree. 

We need an action plan, and we need information that will inform that plan.  We have neither.  We have some opinions from agencies and office-holders and we have some spending estimates from non-partisan government agencies like the Congressional Budget Office, but we don’t have enough actual evidence from single-payer systems already in existence in Canada, UK, Australia and other developed countries.

 

In my estimation, it comes down to information and statistical gathering and analysis, planning step-by-step implementation, experimenting in certain states as laboratories to test parts that need testing, and then the formulation of a step-by step process.   An over-simplification perhaps, but a list of necessary basics.  Without such planning, a sudden changeover to Medicare-for-all could prove to be disastrous.

      

 It’s time for citizens to get serious about questioning how things are being done – questioning the processes and procedures involved in our daily lives, in both the public (government) and private sectors.  PROCESS is not an option.  It is a necessity that requires closer scrutiny.