Wednesday, March 18, 2020

It’s Time to Nationalize the Airlines

If we are going to give them 50 Billion, shouldn't we, the taxpayers, get a stake?

It's Time to Nationalize the Airlines

BY 

 

MARCH 18, 2020

  

In a world free of coronavirus, today might have been a day like any other for the airlines. It may well have been a good day—the past ten years have been full of them. Indeed, American carriers have posted record profits for multiple years running, while boasting sky-high stock prices. Things have been so good, in fact, that in 2017, American Airlines CEO Doug Parker put it succinctly: "I don't think we're ever going to lose money again."

The 2010s were prosperous times for the domestic airline industry thanks in large part to merger-driven consolidation and the sheer innovative force of baggage fees. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation's most recent airline baggage fee report, domestic carriers bloated their profit margins with nearly $5 billion in baggage fees in 2018, up from $4.5 billion in 2017, and a mere $1.1 billion a decade ago. American Airlines set the pace with $1.2 billion in baggage fees alone, followed closely by United, with $889 million. They also increased fees for changing one's flight, got rid of meals and seat-back entertainment systems, and created a new class of ticket, the universally reviled "basic economy" seat.

Meanwhile, in just over a decade the number of large and midsize U.S. carriers shrank from 18 to 10, as American bought US Airways, Continental merged with United, and Northwest merged with Delta. Today, the four largest airlines control about 80 percent of total domestic passenger traffic. (In many cities, it's even more extreme: At 93 of the top 100 airports, one or two airlines control a majority of the seats for sale.)

More from Alexander Sammon

One might think, with all that extra profit wrung out of thin air and little competition to speak of, the airlines would be in strong shape to weather an exogenous crisis, something like a global pandemic that zaps travel and forces temporary cutbacks in seat purchases and flights. But that is not what has happened. Between 2014 and 2020, in an attempt to boost its earnings per share, American spent more than $15 billion buying back its own stock. The company managed not only to spend down its cash reserves in a stock-buying spree, but it simultaneously engorged itself on cheap loans. It now has debt obligations of nearly $30 billion, almost five times its current market value. And while American was the most egregious of the airline behemoths, it certainly wasn't the only one: Over the past ten years, the biggest U.S. airlines spent an unfathomable 96 percent of free cash flow on buying back their own shares.

Like what you're reading? Chip in...

SUPPORT THE PROSPECT

Of course, shareholders saw no problem when the airlines were funneling money back to them at breakneck speed, goosing the stock price to the detriment of investments in equipment, worker pay, and passenger comfort. But now that the full economic impact of the coronavirus has begun to reveal the extreme folly of that approach, the airlines have stuck their hands out for an unprecedented bailout of at least $58 billion. That figure is more than three times the size of the industry's bailout after the September 11 attacks. The bill has come due for the shareholder frenzy, and those same shareholders expect to avoid a bludgeoning with the help of taxpayer dollars.

The economic headwinds facing the industry are certainly significant. United announced it would cut its flights by at least half in April and May, and is currently in talks with its unions about steps that could include furloughs, pay cuts, and more. American and Delta, too, have announced severe cuts in flying, hiring freezes, and voluntary unpaid leave for employees. But to simply bail out the airlines would represent a grave missed opportunity to reverse four decades of catastrophic consolidation and help mitigate the climate crisis on a crucial front. It's time to nationalize the airlines.

The airline industry has become another cautionary tale of the pitfalls of deregulation, the result of extremely misguided policy set loose over decades. Air travel wasn't always like that. In its early days, between 1937 and 1978, air travel was treated as a public utility. The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) managed domestic flights and was responsible for establishing schedules, fares, and routes. But in 1978, under the guidance of the Jimmy Carter administration, the industry was deregulated, in the name of increasing competition and driving down prices.

What claim do the airlines have to public assistance? If they are going to be on the receiving end of a massive public bailout, it's time first to admit that deregulation has been a colossal failure.

Initially, that decision was ballyhooed as a free-market triumph, a true success story that made the case for deregulation and privatization. A smattering of startup airlines joined the skies; the price of a plane ticket fell; the number of fares sold increased dramatically.

But quickly, the airlines began to merge, and the industry became an oligopoly (if you're feeling charitable) or a cartel. The airlines dropped unprofitable routes, many of them direct flights, and went to work upping bag fees and cutting back on meals, entertainment, and the size of their seats in coach, infuriating consumers while racking up massive profits. Study after study began to find that airfares had actually fallen more rapidly before Carter's Airline Deregulation Act, and that, if the CAB had been allowed to continue enforcing its long-standing formulas for setting maximum fares, prices would have been considerably less than the free-market offering. As a result, U.S. airlines currently pull in net profit margins of 7.5 percent, which is twice the average for airline companies internationally. Meanwhile, the U.S. hasn't seen a new scheduled passenger airline come into existence since 2007.

Like what you're reading? Chip in...

SUPPORT THE PROSPECT

So what claim do those airlines have to public assistance? If they are going to be on the receiving end of a massive public bailout, it's time first to admit that deregulation has been a colossal failure and begin to reverse its course. And if the federal government is going to assume financial responsibility, it should do so only on the grounds that the airlines will be again treated as public utilities, providing a narrowly defined public service that society needs to function.

That could take a number of different forms. The government could set the stock price at zero, while assuming the operations and the debt obligations of the major carriers. Such a decision might make investors howl, but they have little claim to being made whole: They reaped massive financial benefit, in the form of dividends and escalating stock prices, from a risky, self-sabotaging management scheme that they could have sold out of at any time. Already, they benefit from massive public investments in air travel infrastructure and lax environmental standards, and could not exist without them. A refusal to pay them off would help discourage the runaway financialization that has wreaked havoc in the U.S. economy. But even a more generous package—a financial bailout package that results in the public holding a majority of shares—could have a similar salubrious effect on air travel in America.

Such a move would allow the government to rein in an industry that is already abhorred by consumers nationwide, while also, simultaneously, affording the American public a head start on tackling the exorbitant environmental impact of the airline companies, which are some of the most flagrant polluters on the planet. The United Nations has forecasted that greenhouse gas emissions from airplanes would triple by 2050, a figure that recent estimates say is an undercount. The International Council on Clean Transportation found in September that emissions from global air travel may be increasing more than 1.5 times as fast as the U.N.'s estimate. By one count, aviation could take up a quarter of the world's carbon budget by 2050.

Not only does the U.S. airline industry deliver miserable customer service, but it is also a unique environmental hazard. Last year, flights from airports in the United States were responsible for almost one quarter of global passenger flight–related carbon dioxide emissions. On this metric, we're number one, above China and Japan.

The nationalization of the American airline industry could not only deliver travelers from the horrors of air travel, but it could also forge a path out of our 2008-grade thinking when it comes to public intervention in the market. The airlines now present an opportunity to remedy some of the most misguided policy decisions, not just of the past decade, but the past 40 years. And instead of wasting our time with marginal environmental improvements like carbon offsets and tighter emissions standards, returning the airlines to public-utility status could set the tone for decarbonization in other industries as well, including the energy system, where it's sorely needed. As the climate crisis becomes increasingly urgent, these sorts of steps have become essential. It might even bring the end of the basic economy seat.


--

U.S. Stocks Tumble With Stimulus Details Uncertain: Markets Wrap


U.S. Stocks Tumble With Stimulus Details Uncertain: Markets Wrap

Financial markets spasmed, sending U.S. stocks down to levels in December 2018 and Bloomberg's dollar index to a record, as the economic fallout from the pandemic outpaced the massive response from governments and central banks.

The S&P 500 fell more than 7%, triggering a 15-minute pause, with stocks adding to losses when trading resumed. The next halt would occur at a 13% decline. The Dow Jones Industrial Average wiped out all the gains logged since Donald Trump's inauguration, dropping as much as 10%, with investors craving more government spending to offset the impact from the virus.

Bonds tumbled around the world a day after Treasuries notched biggest yield jump since 1982, while municipal bonds extended the deepest rout since 1987 as markets braced for the potential flood of spending. Oil dropped to an 18-year low. The dollar strengthened a seventh straight day, while the pound hit its lowest level against the greenback since 1985.

Global equities remain more than 25% off highs as rallies quickly fade

Trump offered few details at a press briefing on the details his Treasury secretary is discussing with Congress. The Federal Reserve dusted off crisis-era programs to stabilize financial markets.

Governments have pledged or are considering massive fiscal support to offset the economic shock from the pandemic, with the Trump administration moving toward a big package, but the virus continues to spread at a pace that is forcing massive shutdowns across the globe.

relates to U.S. Stocks Tumble With Stimulus Details Uncertain: Markets Wrap

"The missing fundamental ingredient for a sustainable recovery in risk appetite is some evidence that the growth of global Covid-19 infection rates is peaking," said Paul O'Connor, head of multi-asset at Janus Henderson Investors. "Clearly, we are not there yet."

The planned U.S. stimulus could amount to $1.2 trillionaiming to stave off the worst impact of a crisis that already looks set to plunge many of the world's economies into recession. Meantime, the Federal Reserve reintroduced additional crisis-era tools to stabilize financial markets. Those responses came after stresses appeared in the short-term funding markets.

"I don't think we're out of the woods yet in terms of liquidity," Mark Konyn, chief investment officer at AIA Group in Hong Kong, told Bloomberg TV. "It's a question of when the fiscal measures will have the most efficacy."

In Germany, Angela Merkel said the government will not rule out joint European Union debt issuance to help contain the impact.

    READ MORE
    Travel Curbs Extend With Cases Exceeding 193,000: Virus Update
    Trump Told Mnuchin to Go Big, and a $1 Trillion Stimulus Emerged
    Global Bonds Plunge on Fear of Debt Deluge From Pandemic Defense

    Elsewhere, Bloomberg's industrial-metals index dropped for a third day, with copper, nickel and aluminum among the biggest losers. Gold resumed losses as traders sold the metal to cover margin calls in other markets.

    These are the main moves in markets:

    Stocks

    • The S&P 500 Index fell 8.1% to 2,326 as of 1:35 p.m. New York time.
    • The Dow Jones Industrial Average decreased 8.6% to 19,383, the lowest in more than three years.
    • The Nasdaq Composite Index dipped 7% to 6,793.
    • The MSCI All-Country World Index declined 7% to the lowest in more than three years.
    • Currencies

    • The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index gained 2.1%, hitting the highest in more than three years with its seventh straight advance and the largest rise in almost four years.
    • The Japanese yen depreciated 0.7% to 108.43 per dollar, the weakest in more than two weeks.
    • The euro declined 1.5% to $1.0836, the weakest in more than three weeks.
    • The British pound decreased 4.1% to $1.1561, reaching the weakest on record with its seventh consecutive decline.

    Bonds

    • The yield on 10-year Treasuries rose seven basis point to 1.15%.
    • Britain's 10-year yield increased 20 basis points to 0.756%, the highest in almost 10 weeks on the biggest climb in more than six years.
    • Germany's 10-year yield advanced 16 basis points to -0.27%, hitting the highest in eight weeks with its seventh straight advance.
    • Ireland's 10-year yield gained 15 basis points to 0.499%, reaching the highest in about 10 months on its fifth consecutive advance.

    Commodities

    • West Texas Intermediate crude fell 13.2% to $23.39 a barrel, the lowest on record with the largest fall in more than a week.
    • Gold depreciated 1.8% to $1,501.13 an ounce, the weakest in 12 weeks.

    --

    Tuesday, March 17, 2020

    Tim Taylor: Federal Debt in a Time of Pandemic [feedly]

    Federal Debt in a Time of Pandemic
    http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2020/03/federal-debt-in-time-of-pandemic.html

    In the midst of 1,001 ways that the government could increase spending or reduce taxes to blunt the immediate economic effect of the coronavirus pandemic, spare a moment for the existing level and trend of federal debt. The Congressional Budget Office has issued "Federal Debt:A Primer" (March 2020).

    Here's the ratio of federal debt held by the public to GDP, going back to 1790. The "held by the public" means that when one part of the federal government loans money to another part of the federal government--like when the Social Security Trust Fund invests in US Treasury debt--this doesn't require the federal government to borrow from outside the government, and thus isn't counted in the total.
    The historical spikes in the debt/GDP ratio are named easily enough. You can point out the rising levels of debt for the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War I, the Great Depression, World War II, the tax cuts and defense build-up of the 1980s, and the Great Recession. The current debt/GDP ratio is second-highest in US history, and trending toward highest.  

    Much of the report focuses on the specific financial instruments that the Treasury uses to borrow:  short-term Treasury "bills" that are repaid in periods from one month up to one year; Treasury "notes" that are repaid over periods from two to 10 years; long-term Treasury "bond" repaid over 30 years; Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) where the principal value of the borrowing is adjusted for inflation twice a year; and Floating Rate Notes (FRNs) where the interest rate adjusts up and down based on the interest rate for 13-week Treasury bills. The report notes:
    Since the late 1990s, Treasury notes typically have accounted for more than half of all outstanding marketable securities, peaking at 67 percent in 2013 . Treasury bills made up between 20 percent and 30 percent of marketable debt until 2010, when the Treasury began to issue fewer short-term instruments. Those securities declined to just 11 percent of marketable debt in 2015 before rising back to 15 percent in 2019. By the end of 2019, bonds accounted for 14 percent of the Treasury's outstanding marketable debt, in line with their typical share since the end of the 1990s. TIPS were first issued in 1997 and—after an initial growth phase through 2004—have represented between 7 percent and 10 percent of outstanding marketable debt since then. By the end of 2019, the share of debt taken up by FRNs, which were introduced in 2014, was just 3 percent. ...

    Offerings that best meet investors' needs typically will lower the Treasury's overall cost of borrowing. Short-term instruments generally have lower interest costs, but they expose the government to the risk of paying higher interest rates when it refinances the issues. Conversely, long-term securities typically involve higher rates but provide more certainty about the future costs of interest payments because they require less frequent financing.
    Putting all of these together, the average time to maturity for federal borrowing hasn't changed much in the last two decades: as the figure shows, it got a little shorter during the Great Recession, but now it's back to roughly the same level as 2001.
    How much of the Treasury borrowing has come from domestic sources and how much from foreign sources? About half comes from abroad, much of that from China and Japan.
    One interesting point I had not considered before is the how higher student debt has played a role in raising federal debt. The CBO explains:
    In 2011, the federal student loan program stopped providing loan guarantees to banks and instead began lending to borrowers directly, with the result that the magnitude of federal holdings of financial assets began to increase markedly. In total, at the end of 2019, the government's financial assets—loans as well as cash—had an estimated value of nearly $1.8 trillion. Subtracting that amount from the $16.8 trillion in debt held by the public leaves about $15.0 trillion in debt held by the public net of financial assets. Debt held by the public at the end of 2019 was equal to about 79 percent of gross domestic
    product; debt net of financial assets was about 71 percent of GDP.
    The CBO report is focused on laying out trends and patterns, not on ringing the gong about possible dangers. However, there's a brief discussion of risks and effects at the end of the report.

    1) "If federal debt as a percentage of GDP continues to rise at the pace of CBO's current-law projections, the economy would be affected in two significant ways: Growth in the nation's debt would dampen economic output over time, and higher interest costs would increase payments to foreign debt holders and thus reduce the income of U.S. households by rising amounts."

    2) "The increases in debt that CBO projects would also pose significant risks to the fiscal and economic outlook, although those risks are not currently apparent in financial markets. ... High and rising federal debt increases the likelihood of a fiscal crisis because it erodes investors' confidence in the government's fiscal position and could result in a sharp reduction in their valuation of Treasury
    securities, which would drive up interest rates on federal debt because investors would demand higher yields to purchase Treasury securities. However, the debt-to-GDP ratio has no identifiable tipping point because the risk of a crisis is influenced by other factors, including the long-term budget outlook, near-term borrowing needs, and the health of the economy. Moreover, because the United States currently benefits from the dollar's position as the world's reserve currency and because the federal government borrows in dollars, a financial crisis—similar to those that befell Argentina, Greece, or Ireland—is less likely in the United States. Although no one can predict whether or when a fiscal crisis might occur or how it would unfold, the risk is almost certainly increased by high and rising federal debt."

    3) "Not all effects of the projected path of debt are negative, however. In addition to allowing policymakers to maintain current-law spending and revenue policies, that path would cause underlying interest rates to be higher than they otherwise would be, giving the Federal Reserve more flexibility in implementing monetary policy."

    4) At the current moment, I'd emphasize one other reason mentioned briefly: "In addition, high debt might cause policymakers to feel constrained from implementing deficit-financed fiscal policy to respond to unforeseen events ..."  The enormous and fundamentally healthy US economy can take on more debt in response to the coronavirus. But it's just a fact that if you have already loaded up on borrowing, and your future tax and spending plans already have you locked into pattern of additional borrowing, then your flexibility is lower. The idea of taking steps to hold down the rise in federal borrowing is never going to be  popular. It feels as if it's all discipline and no benefit--right up to when a situation arises when you would like to be able to borrow with confidence in an unconstrained way to meet the challenge of a pandemic. 

     -- via my feedly newsfeed

    The coronavirus pandemic requires state and local policymakers to act, in addition to demanding a strong federal response [feedly]

    The coronavirus pandemic requires state and local policymakers to act, in addition to demanding a strong federal response
    https://www.epi.org/blog/the-coronavirus-pandemic-requires-state-and-local-policymakers-to-act-in-addition-to-demanding-a-strong-federal-response/

    Federal lawmakers seem poised to enact legislation that would help combat some of the public health and economic dangers posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this initial legislation is not sufficient to fully address the problems created by the crisis, and even with additional federal action, there are still steps that state and local policymakers must take—both to slow the spread of the virus and mitigate the economic toll that the crisis will take on state and local economies. Here are some of the critical steps that state and local officials should consider, including many good ideas that are circulating and some of the positive steps already being taken:

    Protect public health

    1. The foremost action for state policymakers and community leaders is to do everything they can to slow the spread of the virus. Though it will be disruptive in the short-run, leaders need to strongly encourage social distancing. In many communities, this may require closing schools, libraries, and other community centers; cancelling events; requiring telework where possible; ordering retail shops, restaurants, and bars to close or shift to delivery service only; and setting strict limits on public gatherings.
    2. Expand access to testing and treatment by bolstering state and local healthcare systems with emergency funding and, to the extent possible, removing any financial barriers for people seeking care. Good examples can be seen in Washington, where Governor Inslee used his emergency powers to require state healthcare insurers to waive all copays and coinsurance for all coronavirus testing. Similar actions have been taken in CaliforniaColoradoMassachusettsNew Jersey, and New York. But states should commit to not only covering the cost of coronavirus testing, but treatment as well. Federal lawmakers are considering a 6.2% increase in the share of Medicaid costs covered by the federal government to help relieve the strain on state budgets caused by the virus. Such an increase should hopefully be enough to cover the vast majority of COVID-19-related care.
    3. Expand healthcare coverage through Medicaid and the exchanges, and protect coverage for those with employer-based plans. As the Century Foundation discusses, states should request emergency waivers to quickly expand eligibility for Medicaid, especially in those states that did not adopt the Affordable Care Act (ACA) expansion. States that run their own health insurance exchanges can also declare the COVID-19 outbreak as a special enrollment period that allows people to sign up for coverage outside the standard open enrollment period. Governors should also use emergency authority to require employers to maintain insurance coverage for employees whose work hours fall below the ACA's 30-hour threshold for employer provision of insurance.
    4. Enact emergency paid sick leave programs that cover all workers in businesses of all sizes in those states where such systems do not already exist. The federal COVID-19 response bill that is moving through Congress takes an important step in the right direction, but does not provide the comprehensive access to paid leave that this moment demands (and should really be available in non-pandemic times anyway.) Giving workers the ability to take time off when they or a family member are sick protects public health. It eliminates the need to work when they're ill or must provide care for a sick family member, thereby reducing the risk of disease transmission. Studies have shown that paid leave programs measurably reduce virus transmission. In states that have paid leave programs, lawmakers should mandate that businesses provide at least 14 days of leave, regardless of workers' accrued leave time.
    5. Create clear, accessible systems for communicating information about the virus and resources for the public. This can include hotlines and online resource pages. It may also require larger public education efforts—public service announcements, social media campaigns—and resources to expand online access for low-income communities and make content available in multiple languages.

    Mitigate economic harm for workers and businesses

    1. Bolster and reform state unemployment insurance (UI) systems to quickly protect workers who lose their jobs, and those whose hours are reduced. As the National Employment Law Project points out, UI systems will need increased funding to support additional demand even without greatly needed reforms. Current UI programs only provide support to workers who have lost a job and are actively seeking a new one. To protect working families' well-being and help prevent deeper economic decline, states should immediately expand UI protections to workers who have been idled, waive job-seeking requirements, and eliminate all waiting periods for delivery of benefits (as some states, such as Californiaand Ohio, have already done.)
    2. Expand "work sharing" programs that allow workers who lose hours, but still remain employed, to receive compensation from state UI systems in order to offset their lost wages. A number of states already have such programs and state agencies should broadly publicize them as they can offer a straightforward alternative for employers who might otherwise be considering layoffs.
    3. Ensure that healthcare professionals and first responders are protected from harm, both physically and economically, as a result of their response to the pandemic. States will likely need to allocate additional funding to municipalities so that firefighters and paramedics have all the protective gear they need to respond to emergency calls safely and effectively. They also need to financially support first responders who may be exposed to the virus in the line of duty. For example, in Washington, the state is allowing health care workers and first responders to receive benefits from the state workers' compensation system if they're quarantined due to work exposure (even if they, themselves, are not sick.) In Maryland, the state is providing childcare for personnel responding to the outbreak. Though these measures may not be possible in all states, policymakers should investigate how existing state systems can be used to provide economic support for impacted workers.
    4. Expand workers' access to child care and provide additional support to child care providers who are likely seeing increased demand. As the Center for Law and Social Policy explains, current federal law allows states to make adjustments to their state child care programs that would reduce the strain on children, families, and child care providers. These include adjusting state payments to providers based upon enrollment rather than attendance; waiving eligibility requirements for children based upon attendance and temporarily suspending family eligibility redeterminations; and using additional state or federal funding to waive co-pays, adjust reimbursement rates, and supply centers with any needed products to ensure safety and hygiene.
    5. Communicate clearly to workers who may have been misclassified as independent contractors that they may apply for unemployment insurance and the state—not their employer—will make the ultimate decision regarding eligibility. Make sure that economic support programs are available to genuine independent contractors; for example, Massachusetts' paid family and medical leave program covers independent contractors. States should look for other ways to ensure nontraditional workers can access programs being made available to standard W-2 employees.
    6. Consider providing special lending programs and allowing deferralof certain tax payments to help small businesses cope with any sharp declines in revenue as consumers are forced to stay home. Declaring a state of emergency may also allow businesses to tap into the Small Business Administration's disaster loan assistance program. States should also be sure to make the process for receiving state funding for "worksharing" and any other "advanced UI" programs as simple and accessible as possible.

    Protect vulnerable households and communities

    1. States should look for ways to expand direct income support programs for people and families in need. They should increase benefit amounts for the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families(TANF), and the Special Supplemental Nutrition for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) while also relaxing eligibility requirements, especially counterproductive work requirements (if such requirements are not already suspended in any federal response legislation.) Local governments and school districts should try to ensure families with children who depend on free or reduced school lunches can still receive a meal.
    2. Lawmakers should provide emergency funding to social service providers—such as food banks, homeless shelters, and senior centers—that can support increased services to counter greater economic distress, and implement better disease-fighting measures (e.g., hand sanitizer, regular cleaning, face masks). This should also include increased resources for medical teams and health workers serving jails, prisons, and halfway houses.
    3. Governors and local executives should use their emergency powers to protect vulnerable households that might be put at further risk from an economic downturn. They should adopt moratoriums on evictionshalt all utility shut-offs including internet and cell service, and suspend collection on medical and court debt until the crisis has subsided.

    Address additional equity concerns while also mitigating the spread of the virus

    1. Many of the responses discussed above must also be further targeted to address the needs of workers and communities at the frontlines of the crisis. For example, public education and access to care must combat racialized discrimination and stigmatization of specific communities, such as LGBTQ communities and Asian American and Pacific Islander communities. Xenophobia has led to decreased business among Asian American small businesses and restaurants in major citiesFederal resources for small business are available in the form of low-interest disaster assistance loans and some cities are also making additional short-term emergency loans available as well. Communications and public education about the virus should accurately describe how the virus spreads and protect people of Asian descent from harassment and discrimination
    2. People who are incarcerated in jails, prisons, and detention centers face greater health risks from COVID-19. State policymakers should ensure all people have access to necessary screening and quality health care regardless of incarceration or detention. They should also try to reduce the number of people who are incarcerated through monitored release programs, medical furlough, and early parole. Courts should also consider postponing any nonessential proceedings.
    3. Ensure that immigrant communities are aware of the public resources available to them, and have access to screening and quality health care without fear of harassment, deportation, or impact on their immigration status. Communities are put at risk if undocumented individuals who fall ill avoid seeking treatment out of fear of immigration consequences. State and local governments should call on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to suspend immigration enforcement near health care facilities to ensure immigrants get the medical care they need if they become sick.

    Strengthen democracy while protecting voter health

    1. With the 2020 elections already underway, it is essential that states take action to provide safe means for all eligible voters to exercise their right to vote. State policymakers should adopt voting options that facilitate social distancing—such as vote by mail programs and no-excuse absentee voting—and measures that reduce crowds at polling locations, such as expanding early voting, adding additional polling sites, and extending voting hours.
    2. Finally, the 2020 Census has begun, and the spread of COVID-19 raises concerns both about impact on participation in the Census and the health of census workers. This once a decade count is used to determine the number of seats each state has in the House of Representatives, adjust or redraw congressional and state legislative districts based on population changes, and guide decisions to allocate hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funding to communities for disaster recovery, housing, food assistance, Head Start, and more. In a recent statement, the Census Bureau noted that, if needed, it would adjust the July 31, 2020 completion deadline to ensure an accurate count. State and local policymakers and public officials can support public education efforts through advertising and encouraging residents to participate by mail, phone, and online.
    VISIT WEBSITE
     -- via my feedly newsfeed