Category: reason

Pelosi’s $3 Trillion Coronavirus Relief Bill Includes $175 Billion in Homeowner, Renter Assistance, and Blanket Ban on Evictions

Democrats’ massive 1,900-page, $3 trillion coronavirus relief bill unveiled Tuesday includes a number of far-reaching policies designed to keep people in their homes during COVID-19.

The so-called Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act boosts spending on existing federal housing programs, creates two new ones to provide direct assistance to homeowners and renters, and protects those who can’t (or won’t) pay their bills with nationwide moratoriums on evictions and foreclosures.

These policies are all in line with what low-income housing advocates and liberal Democrats have been saying is necessary to prevent a full-on housing crisis during the current pandemic, although it falls short of incorporating more radical calls for rent and mortgage cancellation.

Free market housing wonks are balking at both the breadth of the bill and its price tag, arguing more temporary, targeted relief would do a better job of preserving the housing market during the current economic downturn.

Past relief bills’ provisions of “cash assistance directly to renters is why we haven’t faced the kind of crisis that we’ve feared,” says Michael Hendrix of the Manhattan Institute, noting that the number of tenants still paying at least some of their rent is only slightly below where it was at this point last year.

The HEROES Act, he tells Reason, “doesn’t build on what we know works from the prior coronavirus relief bills but instead heads into a completely new direction that doubles down on inflexible government support.”

That includes the bill’s blanket nationwide bans on evictions and foreclosures, which is a major expansion of Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act’s tenant and homeowner protections.

That bill, passed in late March, only suspended evictions for 120 days, and only for tenants receiving government housing aid, or living at properties that had a federally-backed mortgage. According to the Congressional Research Service, that covered only about 28 percent of renters. That bill also banned foreclosures of residential properties with federally-backed mortgages for 120 days.

The HEROES Act would extend these protections for a full year. The eviction moratorium would apply to all tenants. The foreclosure moratorium would cover all one- to four-unit residential properties.

“My worry is that it doesn’t give flexibility to property owners,” says Hendrix of the HEROES Act’s expansion of eviction moratorium. “By no means are they all large corporations. Many of them are small property owners or homeowners themselves renting out a basement apartment. This is another regulation they’ll have to navigate.”

The biggest piece of new housing spending in Democrats’ HEROES Act is a $100 billion in emergency assistance to renters, a policy Rep. Maxine Waters (D–Calif.) and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D–Ohio) had introduced earlier in the week.

That money would be funneled through the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) existing Emergency Solutions Grant program to states and local governments, who would then distribute it to renters directly, or through partnerships with other entities like public housing agencies.

Households making up to 120 percent of an area’s median income would be eligible for this aid, although at least 70 percent of it would have to be spent on households making less than 50 percent of area median income. (That’s about $56,000 for a family of four in New York City or $41,000 in Atlanta.)

Emily Hamilton, a researcher at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, said earlier this week—in response to Democrats’ initial unveiling of their $100 billion renters assistance proposal—that providing direct assistance to tenants was justified during the current pandemic, but that it should be targeted at the lowest income people making 30 percent of area median income.

Instead, the HEROES Act has the potential to spend a lot of money on middle-income renters. Its homeowner assistance is even less well-targeted.

The new $75 billion Homeowners Assistance Fund created by the bill would only have to spend 60 percent of its funding on people earning less than 80 percent of area median income. This fund would be run by the U.S. Treasury Department, which would distribute funding to state financing agencies. These financing agencies would then be responsible for passing on relief to homeowners.

This assistance would be in addition to the $1,200 cash payments individuals would be receiving under the HEROES Act. The bill would also increase spending for existing programs covering rural housing, public housing, and housing vouchers.

It’s unlikely that House Democrats’ legislation will be enacted as is anytime soon. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) has said now is too soon for another coronavirus relief bill.

That makes much of the HEROES Act, including its housing provisions, more of a messaging bill than a realistic policy proposal. Even so, Democrats missed a real opportunity to send a more constructive message, says Hendrix, about the overburdensome regulations on new construction that made housing costs unaffordable even before the crisis.

“There’s nothing in the Democrats’ bill that screams yes in my backyard,” he says, referring to the pro-development YIMBY movement that’s been trying to loosen zoning regulations in America’s most expensive cities.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/35TZOKa
via IFTTT

Pelosi’s $3 Trillion Coronavirus Relief Bill Includes $175 Billion in Homeowner, Renter Assistance, and Blanket Ban on Evictions

Democrats’ massive 1,900-page, $3 trillion coronavirus relief bill unveiled Tuesday includes a number of far-reaching policies designed to keep people in their homes during COVID-19.

The so-called Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act boosts spending on existing federal housing programs, creates two new ones to provide direct assistance to homeowners and renters, and protects those who can’t (or won’t) pay their bills with nationwide moratoriums on evictions and foreclosures.

These policies are all in line with what low-income housing advocates and liberal Democrats have been saying is necessary to prevent a full-on housing crisis during the current pandemic, although it falls short of incorporating more radical calls for rent and mortgage cancellation.

Free market housing wonks are balking at both the breadth of the bill and its price tag, arguing more temporary, targeted relief would do a better job of preserving the housing market during the current economic downturn.

Past relief bills’ provisions of “cash assistance directly to renters is why we haven’t faced the kind of crisis that we’ve feared,” says Michael Hendrix of the Manhattan Institute, noting that the number of tenants still paying at least some of their rent is only slightly below where it was at this point last year.

The HEROES Act, he tells Reason, “doesn’t build on what we know works from the prior coronavirus relief bills but instead heads into a completely new direction that doubles down on inflexible government support.”

That includes the bill’s blanket nationwide bans on evictions and foreclosures, which is a major expansion of Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act’s tenant and homeowner protections.

That bill, passed in late March, only suspended evictions for 120 days, and only for tenants receiving government housing aid, or living at properties that had a federally-backed mortgage. According to the Congressional Research Service, that covered only about 28 percent of renters. That bill also banned foreclosures of residential properties with federally-backed mortgages for 120 days.

The HEROES Act would extend these protections for a full year. The eviction moratorium would apply to all tenants. The foreclosure moratorium would cover all one- to four-unit residential properties.

“My worry is that it doesn’t give flexibility to property owners,” says Hendrix of the HEROES Act’s expansion of eviction moratorium. “By no means are they all large corporations. Many of them are small property owners or homeowners themselves renting out a basement apartment. This is another regulation they’ll have to navigate.”

The biggest piece of new housing spending in Democrats’ HEROES Act is a $100 billion in emergency assistance to renters, a policy Rep. Maxine Waters (D–Calif.) and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D–Ohio) had introduced earlier in the week.

That money would be funneled through the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) existing Emergency Solutions Grant program to states and local governments, who would then distribute it to renters directly, or through partnerships with other entities like public housing agencies.

Households making up to 120 percent of an area’s median income would be eligible for this aid, although at least 70 percent of it would have to be spent on households making less than 50 percent of area median income. (That’s about $56,000 for a family of four in New York City or $41,000 in Atlanta.)

Emily Hamilton, a researcher at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, said earlier this week—in response to Democrats’ initial unveiling of their $100 billion renters assistance proposal—that providing direct assistance to tenants was justified during the current pandemic, but that it should be targeted at the lowest income people making 30 percent of area median income.

Instead, the HEROES Act has the potential to spend a lot of money on middle-income renters. Its homeowner assistance is even less well-targeted.

The new $75 billion Homeowners Assistance Fund created by the bill would only have to spend 60 percent of its funding on people earning less than 80 percent of area median income. This fund would be run by the U.S. Treasury Department, which would distribute funding to state financing agencies. These financing agencies would then be responsible for passing on relief to homeowners.

This assistance would be in addition to the $1,200 cash payments individuals would be receiving under the HEROES Act. The bill would also increase spending for existing programs covering rural housing, public housing, and housing vouchers.

It’s unlikely that House Democrats’ legislation will be enacted as is anytime soon. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) has said now is too soon for another coronavirus relief bill.

That makes much of the HEROES Act, including its housing provisions, more of a messaging bill than a realistic policy proposal. Even so, Democrats missed a real opportunity to send a more constructive message, says Hendrix, about the overburdensome regulations on new construction that made housing costs unaffordable even before the crisis.

“There’s nothing in the Democrats’ bill that screams yes in my backyard,” he says, referring to the pro-development YIMBY movement that’s been trying to loosen zoning regulations in America’s most expensive cities.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/35TZOKa
via IFTTT

Fun Travel May Mean Road Trips for the Foreseeable Future

If you travel in the near future, you’re likely to be masked, restricted, and monitored very closely—and despite how that sounds, you probably won’t be locked in the trunk of a car. Actually, that’s how you’re likely to travel if you’re not in a car.

Based on regulatory guidance, industry recommendations, and company policies, the only way any of us are getting from Point A to Point B anytime soon without running a gauntlet of additional hassle and expense is to drive our own vehicles. And pick your destination carefully—hotels and tourist attractions may take a while to get back to normal, too.

For starters, if you’re like me and habitually chafe at intrusive post-9/11 security theater in airports, you might want to get yourself a tranquilizer prescription—or swear off flying for the time being. The old security screenings will likely be augmented by health checks, restricted service, and delays.

“Travellers at airports will find themselves tested before they fly and upon arrival at their destination airport. They can expect to see social distancing measures at the airport and during boarding, as well as wearing masks while onboard,” predicts the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC).

The World Economic Forum (WEF), the International Air Transport Association (IATA), and SimpliFlying, a consulting firm, all see the use of thermal scanners to detect fevers with only those deemed “fit to fly” allowed to proceed. On the same note, the use of symptom-tracking and contact-tracing apps may be mandatory for anybody planning to board a plane.

While acknowledging privacy concerns, WEF predicts the accelerated replacement of standard travel documents with biometrics “where your face and body are your passport” in order to minimize physical contact. Digital contact via biometrics with a vast database on our activities and movements can be assumed. In addition to the usual proof-of-identity, “immunity passports” may be required, limiting access to some destinations to travelers who have already had COVID-19 (assuming that actually conveys immunity).

Everybody expects masks to be required in airports and on flights, social distancing to be enforced, and procedures to take longer. Passengers and luggage alike will probably run through disinfection via fogging and/or ultraviolet light, which will add time and complexity to the process. SimpliFlying believes “people may be required to show up at least four hours prior to departure.” And who doesn’t want to spend more time in airports? Oh, wait…

In-flight, we can expect limited service even in First Class, additional confinement to our seats, and possibly empty middle seats to reduce the chance for contagion (though keeping that many seats deliberately unsold is controversial, as you might expect).

IATA foresees “more frequent and deeper cabin cleaning,” which SimpliFlying says means that “every aircraft, after every flight, will have to be deep-cleaned, fogged and perhaps even sterilised.”

All of that is going to mean fewer flights, higher costs, and—after the current bargains fade away—almost certainly more expensive fares as a result. We’ll pay through the nose for a sterile and monitored ordeal and may still be turned away from our destinations if we fail a health check.

If you’re looking for alternative mass transit, bus and train travel won’t feature the same hassles as air travel—implementing all of those screening and sterilization procedures at every bus depot and train station in the country would be impossible —but you can still expect some changes. Greyhound is requiring masks and encouraging social distancing. Amtrak also requires masks and is limiting bookings to 50 percent of available seats.

So, even once your intended destination is out of lockdown and there’s something to do upon arrival, you may want to focus your travel plans on road trips, for a while. Traveling in your own vehicle will largely eliminate the poking, prodding, and pure misery that air passengers are in for.

“The consumer mindset about vacations may take a longer-term shift in favor of the outdoors and trips that can be made with just the family or smaller groups of friends,” predicts The Motley Fool’s Jim Crumply. He sees a boom in demand for recreational vehicles and camping gear that can be used away from crowds.

The revival of the road trip may even kneecap efforts to discourage car ownership and reverse the trend away from driving among younger Americans. Famously resistant to the allure of the automobile, Millennials and Gen. Z haven’t even been eager to get driver’s licenses. But the annoyance of owning a vehicle is likely to pale in comparison to passing through increasingly intrusive security procedures in order to pay a premium for sterile service in traveling metal tubes. By contrast, owning and driving a car may be seen, as it was in the past, as liberating.

The situation at your destination is less predictable. Hotels and attractions are subject to local rules and conditions. Some will return to business as usual, while others will adopt new restrictions.

“There will be new protocols for check-in involving digital technology; hand sanitiser stations at frequent points including where luggage is stored; contactless payment instead of cash; using stairs more often than lifts where the 2 meter rule can be harder to maintain; and fitness equipment being moved for greater separation among other examples,” the WTTC predicts for hotels.

The organization developed protocols for the hospitality industry that include recommendations for the use of masks and gloves, possible health and temperature checks for guests, greater spacing in restaurants and meeting rooms, and more-frequent cleaning. All of that is meant to reassure travelers, but it could be a bit off-putting.

If all of this sounds to you like long-distance traveling is becoming more of a pain in the ass, we’re on the same page. I’d suspect that control-freak bureaucrats upset by a mobile population designed the “new normal” for air travel, in particular, to discourage us from going anywhere, except that it’s certain to push many of us to our cars. Travelers setting their own itineraries in their own vehicles are the hardest to track, and the most unpredictable.

But we can’t go everywhere by car. That means that long journeys—especially international travel across non-contiguous borders—is likely to take a hit for some time to come. Except for those of us who really need to visit foreign destinations, or who are especially dedicated to seeing the world and willing to run a gauntlet of hassles to do so, travel looks poised to become a more local activity than it’s been in decades.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2yJdZ92
via IFTTT

Fun Travel May Mean Road Trips for the Foreseeable Future

If you travel in the near future, you’re likely to be masked, restricted, and monitored very closely—and despite how that sounds, you probably won’t be locked in the trunk of a car. Actually, that’s how you’re likely to travel if you’re not in a car.

Based on regulatory guidance, industry recommendations, and company policies, the only way any of us are getting from Point A to Point B anytime soon without running a gauntlet of additional hassle and expense is to drive our own vehicles. And pick your destination carefully—hotels and tourist attractions may take a while to get back to normal, too.

For starters, if you’re like me and habitually chafe at intrusive post-9/11 security theater in airports, you might want to get yourself a tranquilizer prescription—or swear off flying for the time being. The old security screenings will likely be augmented by health checks, restricted service, and delays.

“Travellers at airports will find themselves tested before they fly and upon arrival at their destination airport. They can expect to see social distancing measures at the airport and during boarding, as well as wearing masks while onboard,” predicts the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC).

The World Economic Forum (WEF), the International Air Transport Association (IATA), and SimpliFlying, a consulting firm, all see the use of thermal scanners to detect fevers with only those deemed “fit to fly” allowed to proceed. On the same note, the use of symptom-tracking and contact-tracing apps may be mandatory for anybody planning to board a plane.

While acknowledging privacy concerns, WEF predicts the accelerated replacement of standard travel documents with biometrics “where your face and body are your passport” in order to minimize physical contact. Digital contact via biometrics with a vast database on our activities and movements can be assumed. In addition to the usual proof-of-identity, “immunity passports” may be required, limiting access to some destinations to travelers who have already had COVID-19 (assuming that actually conveys immunity).

Everybody expects masks to be required in airports and on flights, social distancing to be enforced, and procedures to take longer. Passengers and luggage alike will probably run through disinfection via fogging and/or ultraviolet light, which will add time and complexity to the process. SimpliFlying believes “people may be required to show up at least four hours prior to departure.” And who doesn’t want to spend more time in airports? Oh, wait…

In-flight, we can expect limited service even in First Class, additional confinement to our seats, and possibly empty middle seats to reduce the chance for contagion (though keeping that many seats deliberately unsold is controversial, as you might expect).

IATA foresees “more frequent and deeper cabin cleaning,” which SimpliFlying says means that “every aircraft, after every flight, will have to be deep-cleaned, fogged and perhaps even sterilised.”

All of that is going to mean fewer flights, higher costs, and—after the current bargains fade away—almost certainly more expensive fares as a result. We’ll pay through the nose for a sterile and monitored ordeal and may still be turned away from our destinations if we fail a health check.

If you’re looking for alternative mass transit, bus and train travel won’t feature the same hassles as air travel—implementing all of those screening and sterilization procedures at every bus depot and train station in the country would be impossible —but you can still expect some changes. Greyhound is requiring masks and encouraging social distancing. Amtrak also requires masks and is limiting bookings to 50 percent of available seats.

So, even once your intended destination is out of lockdown and there’s something to do upon arrival, you may want to focus your travel plans on road trips, for a while. Traveling in your own vehicle will largely eliminate the poking, prodding, and pure misery that air passengers are in for.

“The consumer mindset about vacations may take a longer-term shift in favor of the outdoors and trips that can be made with just the family or smaller groups of friends,” predicts The Motley Fool’s Jim Crumply. He sees a boom in demand for recreational vehicles and camping gear that can be used away from crowds.

The revival of the road trip may even kneecap efforts to discourage car ownership and reverse the trend away from driving among younger Americans. Famously resistant to the allure of the automobile, Millennials and Gen. Z haven’t even been eager to get driver’s licenses. But the annoyance of owning a vehicle is likely to pale in comparison to passing through increasingly intrusive security procedures in order to pay a premium for sterile service in traveling metal tubes. By contrast, owning and driving a car may be seen, as it was in the past, as liberating.

The situation at your destination is less predictable. Hotels and attractions are subject to local rules and conditions. Some will return to business as usual, while others will adopt new restrictions.

“There will be new protocols for check-in involving digital technology; hand sanitiser stations at frequent points including where luggage is stored; contactless payment instead of cash; using stairs more often than lifts where the 2 meter rule can be harder to maintain; and fitness equipment being moved for greater separation among other examples,” the WTTC predicts for hotels.

The organization developed protocols for the hospitality industry that include recommendations for the use of masks and gloves, possible health and temperature checks for guests, greater spacing in restaurants and meeting rooms, and more-frequent cleaning. All of that is meant to reassure travelers, but it could be a bit off-putting.

If all of this sounds to you like long-distance traveling is becoming more of a pain in the ass, we’re on the same page. I’d suspect that control-freak bureaucrats upset by a mobile population designed the “new normal” for air travel, in particular, to discourage us from going anywhere, except that it’s certain to push many of us to our cars. Travelers setting their own itineraries in their own vehicles are the hardest to track, and the most unpredictable.

But we can’t go everywhere by car. That means that long journeys—especially international travel across non-contiguous borders—is likely to take a hit for some time to come. Except for those of us who really need to visit foreign destinations, or who are especially dedicated to seeing the world and willing to run a gauntlet of hassles to do so, travel looks poised to become a more local activity than it’s been in decades.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2yJdZ92
via IFTTT

Rand Paul’s ‘Attack’ on Anthony Fauci Was Actually a Reasonable Point the Doctor Agreed With

Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) attracted national media attention yesterday after he posed a pointed question to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, about reopening schools.

Their exchange came during a Senate Health Committee hearing—attended virtually by Fauci—on whether states can and should begin to relax aggressive social distancing rules. Fauci urged caution, warning that reopening the economy too quickly risked spreading COVID-19.

Paul used his time to criticize the existing coronavirus modeling, which has been “more wrong than right.” He respectfully told Fauci, who, along with Dr. Deborah Birx, has been President Donald Trump’s top adviser on the science of the pandemic, that the doctor is not “the be-all [and] end-all,” in terms of decision making.” And he asserted that some schools should be allowed to reopen, depending on local conditions.

“I think the one-size-fits-all, that we’re going to have a national strategy and no one is going to go to school, is kind of ridiculous,” said Paul. “We really ought to be doing it school district by school district.”

“If we keep kids out of school for another year, what’s going to happen is the poor and underprivileged kids who don’t have a parent to teach them at home are not going to learn for a full year,” Paul continued.

Paul’s remarks earned him thunderous denunciation from a mainstream media that views impugning Fauci’s godlike status as blasphemy, and heaps of praise from right-wing pundits, who have largely decided that Fauci is some sort of anti-Trump operative. In reality, of course, Fauci is neither a god nor a member of the deep state: He’s a smart public servant whose guidance is one piece of information that policy makers should take seriously when deciding how to proceed. Indeed, that seems to be how Fauci sees himself: He has consistently stated that he is only qualified to advise the president on the science of the pandemic—in fact, he answered Paul’s question by confirming that he is not the “end-all”—and that final decisions will be made by the president, in consultation with other advisers who have expertise on other matters, like the effects of the lockdowns on the economy.

Fauci even appeared to agree with Paul’s underlying point, though he was more concerned about the possible negative effects on children’s health than the senator. Fauci eventually conceded that in a country as vast as the U.S., it would make sense to have a different policy in different areas.

The point is that Paul and Fauci did not actually engage in some huge clash of conflicting visions, but agenda-setters in the media need something to fight about. This dynamic has become all too common on social media, where #Resistance types routinely treat Birx as if she has sold her soul by refusing to sternly rebuke Trump at the press briefings, and MAGA types continuously call on Trump to #FireFauci for insubordination. Birx is pro-Trump and an enemy of liberals, while Fauci is anti-Trump and an enemy of conservatives; in reality, of course, there appears to be no major difference in the type of guidance given by Birx and Fauci.

In short, Paul’s point about allowing some schools to reopen was uncontroversial and reasonable, and Fauci even appeared to agree with it. Apologies to everyone who had wanted a fight.

QUICK HITS

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2WRNVQP
via IFTTT

Rand Paul’s ‘Attack’ on Anthony Fauci Was Actually a Reasonable Point the Doctor Agreed With

Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) attracted national media attention yesterday after he posed a pointed question to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, about reopening schools.

Their exchange came during a Senate Health Committee hearing—attended virtually by Fauci—on whether states can and should begin to relax aggressive social distancing rules. Fauci urged caution, warning that reopening the economy too quickly risked spreading COVID-19.

Paul used his time to criticize the existing coronavirus modeling, which has been “more wrong than right.” He respectfully told Fauci, who, along with Dr. Deborah Birx, has been President Donald Trump’s top adviser on the science of the pandemic, that the doctor is not “the be-all [and] end-all,” in terms of decision making.” And he asserted that some schools should be allowed to reopen, depending on local conditions.

“I think the one-size-fits-all, that we’re going to have a national strategy and no one is going to go to school, is kind of ridiculous,” said Paul. “We really ought to be doing it school district by school district.”

“If we keep kids out of school for another year, what’s going to happen is the poor and underprivileged kids who don’t have a parent to teach them at home are not going to learn for a full year,” Paul continued.

Paul’s remarks earned him thunderous denunciation from a mainstream media that views impugning Fauci’s godlike status as blasphemy, and heaps of praise from right-wing pundits, who have largely decided that Fauci is some sort of anti-Trump operative. In reality, of course, Fauci is neither a god nor a member of the deep state: He’s a smart public servant whose guidance is one piece of information that policy makers should take seriously when deciding how to proceed. Indeed, that seems to be how Fauci sees himself: He has consistently stated that he is only qualified to advise the president on the science of the pandemic—in fact, he answered Paul’s question by confirming that he is not the “end-all”—and that final decisions will be made by the president, in consultation with other advisers who have expertise on other matters, like the effects of the lockdowns on the economy.

Fauci even appeared to agree with Paul’s underlying point, though he was more concerned about the possible negative effects on children’s health than the senator. Fauci eventually conceded that in a country as vast as the U.S., it would make sense to have a different policy in different areas.

The point is that Paul and Fauci did not actually engage in some huge clash of conflicting visions, but agenda-setters in the media need something to fight about. This dynamic has become all too common on social media, where #Resistance types routinely treat Birx as if she has sold her soul by refusing to sternly rebuke Trump at the press briefings, and MAGA types continuously call on Trump to #FireFauci for insubordination. Birx is pro-Trump and an enemy of liberals, while Fauci is anti-Trump and an enemy of conservatives; in reality, of course, there appears to be no major difference in the type of guidance given by Birx and Fauci.

In short, Paul’s point about allowing some schools to reopen was uncontroversial and reasonable, and Fauci even appeared to agree with it. Apologies to everyone who had wanted a fight.

QUICK HITS

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2WRNVQP
via IFTTT

Brickbat: Hoarders

The Transportation Security Administration sat on more than 1.3 million N95 masks it did not need even as hospitals and the Department of Veterans Affairs were begging for them. TSA does not mandate that its screeners to wear the N95 masks, which require training and fitting to use. Instead, TSA employees typically use surgical masks, and some agency officials in April began to suggest they send the masks to places that could use them. In fact, that was the direction give to the agency by higher-ups in the Department of Homeland Security. Instead, the agency stockpiled many of the masks in a warehouse and sent the rest to airports, where very few people were flying.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2WV3iZ3
via IFTTT