States fight coronavirus on their own, revealing partisan split

Gordon L. Weil

On April 2, Gov. Janet Mills put a Maine stay-at-home order into effect, joining in the third wave of states issuing such orders to limit the spread of Covid-19.

States had begun acting when New Jersey made such an order on March 21. The states sought to keep ahead of the spread, after trying to avoid limiting the freedom of movement valued by most people as their right.

Mills' order recognized the right of each state to protect public health and safety within its borders, especially needed in the absence of a coordinated national response to what was obviously a world-wide crisis.

Covid-19, the illness caused by a new coronavirus, had begun in Wuhan, a city in China unknown to most Americans. Yet, in less than three months, it had spread from Wuhan to Maine.

Despite this fact, American policy treated the virus as if it recognized borders. By the time President Trump declared a national emergency a few days ago, five states had still not yet ordered people to stay home and three more had only limited restrictions.

Much attention has been focused on determining when the U.S. knew that action was needed and began preparing for the invasion of the virus. Whatever the answer to those issues, it is evident that much of the initiative in handling it was left to the states.

There is no medication known to reverse Covid-19 and no vaccine. On the front lines, states needed to acquire the equipment to deal with caring for those who took ill and order changes in human activity that would limit the spread of the virus.

Some did better than others. The first state to be hit hard was Washington, and it was in the first wave of states to issue stay-at-home orders. It was joined by Oregon and California, covering the entire West Coast. It may have paid off. Los Angeles has experienced a lower per capita impact than Boston.

The problem in leaving the fight against the worldwide spread of a virus to the states was the shortage of the equipment needed to fight the spread : masks, personal protective gear, tests and ventilators. Inevitably that meant the states would compete to obtain the supplies they needed. Competition was not the best way to allocate scarce resources nationally.

Also, if governors had spare equipment, how likely would they be to send it out of state when they might need it later? Some sharing took place, but it was politically risky.

The states had expected a federal back-up existed and could be deployed as needed across the country. Instead the federal stockpile was both inadequate and kept in federal hands. The federal government competed with the states in seeking supplies from private manufacturers.

The response in states was uneven, despite the threat being national. Mills has issued clear directives. Maine data has been provided daily, though it has fallen short in some details that other states publish. Maine CDC is the source, and it appears not to be politically influenced. It is probably not possible to collect hard data on compliance.

One characteristic of state responses stands out. States with Democratic governors were the most active in responding early, while most GOP governors hung back.

In the first wave of nine state stay-at-home orders, only one governor was a Republican. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine took the threat seriously, listened to his science advisors and has been criticized by fellow Republicans. One leader reported that his “friends” find that DeWine is “overreaching and ruining the economy.”

Like Mills, the states that have taken the most organized action against the virus are relying on the advice of scientists who serve no matter what party is in power. All of the lagging states have Republican governors seeking to support Trump's attempts to minimize the threat and “reopen” the economy by accepting some casualties.

The split among states is clear evidence of how the response to Covid-19 has been politically partisan. Trump supporters claim that shutting down parts of the economy is more harmful than Covid-19 itself. Opponents, including all Democratic leaders, focus more on health than economic activity.

Now, three states on the West Coast, called the Western States Pact, and seven states in the East, including New York, are working on joint plans for recovery. All are headed by governors who reject Trump's claim to call all the shots. Some states, going it alone, try to track Trump's policies.

Trump attacks states and governors. He assigns much of the blame for an insufficient response to them. If the economy only can open slowly, governors face charges of foot-dragging and inadequate loyalty to the president.

States may not forget their experience in this crisis. When it has passed, the federal-state relationship could be changed for good.

Covid-19 models miss the point: “It's not over until it's over”

Gordon L. Weil

People are fascinated by numbers.

Not surprisingly, the Covid-19 pandemic has become entangled with statistics. The problem may be that people focus on those numbers, so they lose sight of the real problem.

How many cases have there been in China or Italy or the U.S.? Where is the pandemic “epicenter” based on the case count? What's the number of ventilators, face masks, or protective gear?

Experts have been busy building models to create forecasts of the possible number of new cases, recoveries and deaths. Daily press briefings are mainly about the latest counts and the expected shortfalls in equipment generated by models. Models seem to be used to frighten people.

Suddenly, we are expected to understand enough math to know that an important goal is to “flatten the curve.” The models produce a curve. What curve? What does flattening do? Whatever, let's just do it.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo heroically fights the country's toughest challenge, but he seems to believe he can scare people into reducing the spread by citing forecasts. In Washington, the federal government publicly revealed a controversial forecast showing a stunning quarter of a million dead.

Dr. Nirav Shah, the Maine CDC head, says he uses the models not to produce forecasts as their main purpose, but to plan for a range of possible health challenges. He understands that the models tell him that what might happen depends on what people do to reduce the spread.

That's why he reluctantly released model results. People are likely to believe models yield reliable forecasts, when they are really only a tool.

The most important data from a Covid-19 model is how many cases can be expected. Differing assumptions about people's behavior produce a wide range of results, but no single, reliable forecast. People influence the model not the other way around.

Social distancing, using face masks and hand washing matter more than models.

The simple lesson of the models is that more spread means more illness. That hardly requires a lot of detail about the numbers. And knowing the exact number of people who will be affected is impossible.

Shah makes one mistake when he says the Covid-19 forecasts are like weather forecasts. Weather forecasts are famously inaccurate, because conditions beyond our control continually change. But people can control Covid-19 models by cutting down on current cases. In fact, right now, that's about all that can.

People would be unwise to take comfort from models or even from the belief that “flattening of the curve” is the goal. We simply know too little and numbers produced by models may tempt people to believe their hopes.

Flattening the curve does not necessarily mean that fewer people will get Covid-19. It means that the number will be spread over a longer period, which will stress hospitals less and provide time to find a helpful medication or vaccine. That could save some lives.

“It's not over, until it's over,” said Yogi Berra, the philosopher-baseball player.

With stay-at-home orders to fight the spread, the economy loses both producers and consumers. It slows down. The government keeps it alive by pouring out money to people and companies.

President Trump and others see the stock market as an indicator of the health of the economy. Investors have extreme reactions to each day's model numbers and data reports, which they treat as a daily forecast. The market swings wildly.

Trump's re-election is reportedly dependent on the state of the economy. Like everybody else for their own reasons, he wishes for a speedy economic recovery.

Falling stock market indexes – numbers, again – cause some policy makers to press for an early finding that there is a cure for the virus and that the crisis is ending, freeing people from protecting themselves so they can get back to work.

Peter Navarro, a presidential advisor, says his economics doctorate makes him as much an expert on the virus models as the medical doctors. He asserts the crisis is not so bad as they say, so we should test and simply declare, “It's over.” He admits that some people will die. Economic recovery is apparently worth lives.

“Dr.” Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, claims that some sketchy data is enough to show an unproven drug is the Covid-19 cure, though scientists are still far from that conclusion. Fall ill, take the drug, and go back to work.

Navarro is flat wrong. Giuliani is dangerous. The health of the economy depends on the health of people.

The health of people depends on their protecting themselves and others and, in the end, on science, not math.

Coronavirus kills one branch of government

Electronic legislative proceedings would revive 'checks and balances'

Gordon L. Weil

We have three branches of government – legislative, executive and judicial.

Except we don't. The coronavirus killed one.

The executive branch is fully in charge of the government. The courts are open to deal with the most urgent matters. Congress and the Legislature are shut tight.

While all three branches are equal and can keep a check on one another, constitutions assign the leading role to legislative bodies. They make the laws, setting the agenda and terms of government for the other two branches. They represent the people and can prevent any excesses of the executive. But not now.

The president and key executive personnel are at work. So is the governor and her officials. Federal and state courts are open and can operate. Federal courts have moved to “video teleconferencing” for many matters. Meanwhile, legislators are at home and the legislative halls are almost empty.

The reason is the national Covid-19 crisis, demanding rapid government action. The executive branch is compact, with most key players in a single location. It can react quickly. Though the courts usually do not need to act as rapidly, they can function when necessary, because most courts consist of a single judge.

To deal with the emergency, legislative bodies cede their oversight powers to the executive branch. They write blank checks.

At the the federal level, Congress authorized emergency moves to fund essential services and rescue the economy. At the state level, the Maine Legislature gave the governor what might seem, at other times, like near-dictatorial powers.

By these actions, the legislative bodies gave up any pretense of checking the conduct of the executive, much less limiting it. In a major emergency, it seems that “checks and balances” are among the victims.

To be sure, we cannot expect hundreds of legislators to “shelter in place” in capitol cities so they can promptly go into session. Nor can we expect them to crowd into legislative chambers, where physical separation is not possible, placing themselves in direct danger.

But neutering legislative oversight in time of crisis comes to modern America right out of the 18^th Century, when the Constitution was written on the understanding that the federal government would take a multi-month break every year. Obviously, that is no longer true.

If we have come to understand that legislative bodies need to meet almost year round, why can't that thinking also apply to emergencies? For much of history, there has been no practical way to do it.

But now there is. The internet was invented in the U.S. with Department of Defense funding. It opened the way to a new world of communications. Why can't the U.S. again lead the world by developing its use for legislative purposes?

Legislative bodies could meet using electronic means. All members can see and hear one another, whether in a legislative committee or the full body. Though it is not the time for routine legislation, committees could exercise oversight and consider emergency measures. Electronic voting is easy and can be kept secure.

In the 21^st Century, that would not be a “virtual” meeting, it would be the real thing. It's time to drop “virtual.” (Aside: It is also time to drop saying that the broad and rapid transmission of a single item means it is going “viral.”)

Critics could claim that there would be no real debate among members when they were voting from distant locations. It is difficult for anybody to keep a straight face in saying that. Just watch C-SPAN.

There is no debate, at least in Congress. Not a single member is swayed by what is said during floor debate. It's all stagecraft, designed to create content for the media back home. If anybody is swayed, it's when a member talks with a lobbyist. Or their staff assistant. Or through bilateral contact with a legislative ally.

In the era of extreme partisanship, most members follow the party line. That's what gives leaders so much power. And with well-defined ideologies, members know almost reflexively how to vote.

The development of the electronic legislature should be a product of the current crisis. Now, here's a suggestion that might validly come from Al Gore, burdened with the false charge that he claimed to have invented the internet. He was a House and Senate member and winner of the Nobel Prize.

Congress and the Legislature could elect a small, representative group of their members to remain in session. Instead of having a blank check, the president or governor would have to report to this group before taking extraordinary action. The group could either assent, negotiate or call the legislative body back into electronic session.

These changes can be accomplished through the rules legislative bodies adopt. It's time to update how legislatures do their business.

Partisanship, hoarding undermine unity in crisis

Gordon L. Weil

Americans like to believe we all unite to fight an external threat.

But it's not true in the COVID-19 crisis.

Start with the inexplicable absence of toilet paper in the supermarket. Because almost all of it is manufactured in the U.S., there's no shortage. But the shelves were swept clear of it.

That's hoarding. By buying far more than you need, so you will have more of a product much later, you deprive a neighbor who needs some now. Supermarkets have imposed rationing.

Some suppliers, even of medical supplies, engage in price gouging.

Or what about young people who crowded together in Spring break revelry? They mistakenly believed either they wouldn't get COVID-19 or their case would be mild. They have shown no concern for older and vulnerable people who may pick up the virus from them with dire consequences.

What about the mindless naysayers? They remind us that many people die from automobile accidents or the annual flu, so we should not get upset about COVID-19, which has until now claimed many fewer victims, though there is no known limit to the losses. Don't worry about its deaths.

There are good people. Bad behavior should not obscure the selfless acts by many people to help others. Health care providers accept enormous personal risk in around-the-clock battles to save lives. Many people shop for the elderly and check on the condition of the most vulnerable. That's the spirit needed in this situation.

In a crisis of this scale, the people turn to their governments. The time comes when elected leaders must step beyond everyday partisan politics to provide not only material leadership but encouragement and hope for all.

Not this time. Perhaps for the first time in memory, leadership that rallies all people has been absent.

Takes the CARES Act, the $2 trillion piece of federal legislation that is designed to rescue workers, companies and the economy from the threat of a major recession. Except for one member of Congress, it was passed unanimously by both houses.

CARES is basically a big government spending bill, the necessary bookend to the Federal Reserve's action to cut interest rates. The GOP had to go along with the essentially Democratic concept, because the economy demanded government support. Some Republicans disliked expanding the national debt by big outlays, but had no choice.

The bill was negotiated by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, on behalf of President Trump, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, on behalf of the Democrats. Each side had to make unpleasant sacrifices to strike the necessary deal. If you want bipartisanship, this is what it looks like.

But when the bill, fully supported by both parties, was signed by the president, the only people surrounding him were Republicans. That amounts to trying to steal the credit for the compromise. Americans united to meet a national challenge? Hardly.

If there's one thing the former reality show host knows, it's how to steal scenes. His daily media briefings, even when he reads dryly from a prepared script, give him good television ratings, which he brags about. He wants to be seen as supreme crisis manager to boost his re-election campaign.

The Democrats allow a partisan Trump to dominate the media. If Joe Biden expects to be the Democratic candidate, where is he now? Or former President Obama, who could call for public action in response to the virus. Are Mike Bloomberg's billions only for his political campaign or could he help? At least Speaker Pelosi has reached out publicly.

Replacing the silent Democrats, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, not an immensely popular leader but one whose state is the hardest hit, holds an excellent daily briefing, which receives national coverage. Increasingly, he looks like the kind of competent, strong-willed person who could be the candidate called for by the times.

Aside from the domestic situation, it is evident that, without the U.S. as the leader of the world's response to COVID-19, there is no available alternative. But Secretary of State Pompeo spurned cooperation with what used to be America's closest allies, because he insisted they must agree to name the virus after China.

The result is that not only do the president and his aides fail to lead a unified America, but the U.S. fails to lead a unified international response.

The coronavirus and its effect on the economy are a costly tragedy. But so is the failure of the federal government to rally the American public and lead the world.

COVID-19 reaction boosts state government's role

States may rely less on federal government for public health, other policies

Gordon L. Weil

Dealing with the corona virus may be causing a political revolution.

The federal government cannot deal with the required all-out effort to combat the virus. It depends on state governments. When the crisis has passed, it's likely the country will find that the power of states has increased.

The states have always had the prime responsibility for public health and safety. But they have become dependent on the central supply of services and the greater funding found in Washington. Even now, many are virtually begging for federally supplied ventilators and emergency funding.

At the same time, governors are making their own decisions about meeting the crisis. State legislatures, included Maine's, have given governors almost dictatorial powers to take swift and broad action to allocate resources and mandate closures.

There really was no choice. Given the size of the country, the requirements for preserving health and safety must respond to local circumstances. A crisis may not be the same everywhere at the same time. Management is left to the elected leaders closer to threats.

Also, responding to health and safety emergencies requires armies of personnel – doctors, nurses and other hospital personnel, law enforcement, crisis managers. The federal government could never have been expected to maintain such staffs.

In this crisis, where the federal government might have been expected to supply masks, gowns, respirators and other critical supplies, it has failed. Instead, it has told the states that procurement is up to them with whatever help the federal agencies can provide.

More important than these issues is the obvious tension between President Trump and some of the states.

Until quite recently, Trump had continually tried to minimize the corona crisis. The health problems had led to economic setbacks, undermining the main support for his reelection effort. If people could see the Covid-19 situation as a mere passing flare-up, the economy could quickly recover.

The president tried to convince people that many die from the annual flu or auto accidents without disrupting the country and its economy. The fact that both could be controlled and limited make them sharply different from a virus that is uncontrolled and whose fatal spread is worldwide.

But governors are on the front lines. Some have seen cases mounting rapidly, including deaths. They could not obtain, either from the federal government or through their own efforts, enough tests, masks and ventilators to stop the increase. Maine gets 5 percent of what it requests.

The Maine CDC reports daily with hard data on medical and social measures relating to Covid-19. A federally endorsed model, said to be close to the one the White House is using, differs considerably from Maine's current baseline. That could call the federal forecast into serious doubt.

The fight against Covid-19 promises to be a long one, no matter how much people would like to believe that Trump's hopes and expectations can be achieved.

When the worst of the crisis has passed, it is likely that states will not fade back into purely subordinate roles to the federal government. The virus may have inoculated many states against excessive dependence on the federal government.

Beyond that, governors have had the experience of partisanship coming ahead of dealing with the crisis as one country. Washington was the first state hit hard by the virus. Speaking of Gov. Jay Inslee, who had sought the Democratic presidential nomination, Trump said, “ He's a failed presidential candidate. He's a nasty person. I don't like the governor of Washington,” so he had Vice President Pence talk with him.

Of the nation's governors, Trump said, “I want them to be appreciative.” It seemed like the federal government was doing them a favor in providing assistance instead of helping them take care of their state in the national emergency that he had declared.

The states' relationship with the federal government is coming up short. In part, that's because the states have allowed some of their powers, safeguarded in the Constitution, to slip to the federal government. The reason is simple: money.

The federal government can borrow and create money, neither which can be done at the state level. Politically, states have found it easier to depend on funds from the growing federal debt than on paying their own way to protect public health and safety. States have turned to the federal government for almost everything.

The Covid-19 crisis has shown states the consequences of excessive dependence on a federal government with different priorities than meeting their basic needs.

Congress could come up with more money to help states to deal with Covid-19. But that aid may not lead states to overcome their doubts about relying on the federal government.

COVID-19 Act unity hides deep partisan divide

Gordon L. Weil

Earlier this week, the Senate opened a session with a foul blast of partisanship.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell discussed the day's schedule and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer responded. Next came a short break when no senator may speak. Sen. Susan Collins asked for agreement of all senators present, called “unanimous consent,” so that she could make a speech.

Schumer objected. Collins exclaimed, “This is unbelievable.” Another GOP senator furiously blurted out that what Schumer did was “b--- s--t.”

Schumer said he had thought the arrangement between the leaders was to proceed first with two routine voice votes, before any speeches. McConnell proceeded, and the votes were taken. Collins then spoke, blasting the Democratic position on the coronavirus recovery bill.

The rest of the day, one GOP senator after another shed sham tears about Schumer's alleged mistreatment of Collins, proclaimed to be the mild and moderate senator from Maine. Their comments reflected the extravagant partisanship that continued for days.

To top it off, one Maine news report later implied that Collins' statement was a comment on the process having bogged down in partisan bickering on the Covid-19 rescue bill, when it was about her having to wait five minutes to speak.

Given the seriousness of the coronavirus crisis, voters might expect that Republicans and Democrats would try to work together rapidly on a compromise. This was the time for expressions of bipartisan resolve.

Instead, senators staged their remarks for later partisan use. The Senate battles were really skirmishes in the presidential election. Each side was trying either to get its policies adopted or to create a platform for themselves and their presidential candidate to use later this year.

At the same time, senators were fearful of ignoring the pressing public panic and the need to protect the incomes of working people and struggling companies. While the White House, Treasury and Senate Democrats negotiated, others postured.

To end debate on a bill, 60 votes are required. That super-majority would mean that, on this legislation at least, bipartisan support would have to be achieved.

But from the outside, the negotiations on the legislation looked almost purely partisan. Based on a meaningless House bill, with the House out of session, the Republicans charged Senate Democrats with seeking wild add-ons in return for their votes. The Democrats charged the GOP with seeking to give a blank check to big business.

Any weapon to belittle the other side would do. Hence, the florid GOP defense of Collins over what was truly a minor matter.

The real reason why the Senate wasted valuable time in coming up with the needed help for the economy is that it is broken.

The Republicans hold the White House and are the Senate majority. The Democrats are the House majority and have enough votes to block Senate action on major bills. There is no center in national politics. Moderate politics seems to be dead.

The Covid-19 crisis has huge implications for public health and the economy. It requires joint action of the parties and clear, strong national leadership. Only the scope of the crisis has brought some limited cooperation. Given the political posturing, it's not likely to last.

Too much power is given to both parties' Majority Leader. Fortunately excluded from the negotiations, McConnell stirred panic, trying to get the Democrats to drop their demands for spending safeguards. An urgent response was more important to him than good public policy, even when spending $2 trillion was at stake.

The dictatorship of the Majority Leader could end any time a majority of senators decided they should share in control. Maine's bipartisan Legislative Council, which controls the state's House business, is a good alternative model.

Senators need to see themselves as equal members of a deliberative body and not simply as partisan soldiers whose main goal is re-election. Any 51 senators could seize power and set the Senate rules. Right now, it is erroneously believed that this option is available only to the Majority Leader.

The CARES Act on Covid-19 is not the last word. Congress must accommodate and manage basic changes to health care and the economy caused by the pandemic.

Despite the forced Covid-19 bipartisanship, divided government is proving to be unworkable. If the senators cannot play their role as the wiser heads in government, the solution may be left to the voters.

If the federal government continues to falter, the elections would need to provide a clear result. That's what happened in the most recent British elections when the Conservatives won a stunning victory, enabling them to act decisively.

With compromise almost impossible, whichever party wins in November needs to win big.

Census: Its links to Covid-19, seats in Congress, Maine statehood

Gordon L. Weil

Next week, we may find one small benefit in Covid-19.

On April 1, the nation's census is to be taken, and more people are likely to be staying home than would be normal. Because people are supposed to be counted by where they live, that could make the census more accurate.

The number people in the country are counted, as required by the Constitution, so that seats in the House of Representatives can be distributed fairly among the states. As the population shifts, states may gain or lose seats, though no state may have less than one.

The constitutional rule is that the census counts all the people, not only citizens or voters. The most obvious reason for this rule is that government affects everybody, whether or not they can vote for members of the House.

At the time the Constitution was drafted, women, children, and almost all people of African descent did not have the right to vote. But they were counted, though a slave counted then as only a fraction of a free person. Indians on reservations were not counted.

Today's census counts everybody, including foreigners, legal or otherwise, unless they are diplomats. The Constitution covers the rights of people, not citizens, so laws apply to everybody. Beyond that, the census influences federal government financial aid to states based on the number of inhabitants.

Every state wants as much influence as it can gain in the federal government, so the census, taken every ten years, is critically important. The House members elected in 2022 will be allocated according to the population counted next Wednesday. That allocation will last until 2032. Maine wants you to be counted.

How big is the congressional pie that will be divided? When the Constitution was drafted, George Washington insisted that districts should be as small as possible. He wanted to keep government close to the people.

There are now 435 seats in the House, a number that has not changed in a century. Meanwhile the population of the country has almost tripled according to the 2010 census.

Congress can change the number of House members, but it has refused to act. Some small states would lose influence in an enlarged House, so they resist change. Some worry that, if the House grew larger, it would be unmanageable. Added cost is a relatively small worry, because the cost of Congress is a microscopic part of the federal budget.

Each of the smallest states gets a guaranteed House seat. Because districts do not cross state lines, the allocation of seats among states must be rounded off. The result of both these factors is that some districts are far more populous than others. Right now, the Montana, with a single district, has close to twice as many people as one of the Rhode Island districts.

The problem could be greatly reduced, though not completely resolved, by a simple act of Congress. Each district could be made to have the same population as the population of the single-district state with the smallest population. In effect, that would eliminate the special weight given to the smallest states. The equal representation of states in the Senate would remain.

In that case, the House would increase in size by only about 110 members. Rounding would remain, but its impact would be reduced. A voter in Montana would count more nearly as much as a voter in Rhode Island.

State districts must meet the requirement of “one person, one vote.” Each state district has the same population. Enlarging the size of the House would ensure that rule was also applied to the country as a whole to the fullest extent possible.

The two most obvious results would be greater fairness and a lot of new faces in Congress. And enlarging the House would be a useful step in keeping Congress closer to the people.

The first census was directly relevant to Maine statehood, now celebrating its 200^th anniversary.

At the 1788 Massachusetts convention to ratify the Constitution, leaders worried that Maine delegates would reject the draft because it required a state's consent to the loss of any of its territory to create a new state. If Mainers opposed the Constitution on this point, Massachusetts might not have had enough votes for ratification. A majority of Maine delegates voted in favor.

That concern was a strong indication that all knew that Maine was on track to become an independent state.

Just two years later, in the 1790 census, Maine was counted separately from the rest of Massachusetts. Vermont and Kentucky, also census districts but not states, were similarly counted separately. All three became states.

It was up to Maine and Massachusetts to make the split. Maine decided to leave the Bay State after Massachusetts failed to help against the British invasion in the War of 1812. Massachusetts was willing to see Democratic Maine depart, reducing the threat to Federalist Party rule in the Commonwealth. In 1820, Congress used Maine, a free state, to balance Missouri, a slave state, in enlarging the Union.

The census plays a central role in America's history and government. It's important for you to be counted so you will count in that history.