Orbán’s next move: Overpowering the courts

Zeljko Jovanovic is director of the Roma Initiatives Office at the Open Society Foundations.

Viktor Orbán is taking his campaign for total control of Hungary to a new level.

The Hungarian prime minister announced last month that his government would block a court decision awarding compensation to Roma victims of school segregation in the town of Gyöngyöspata.

Hungarians, Orbán argued, “will never accept giving money for nothing.” The real victims, he has claimed, were the town’s non-Roma schoolchildren.

The implications of Orbán’s announcement goes far beyond the fate of the Roma, in Gyöngyöspata or the rest of Hungary.

Until now, Orbán and his ruling Fidesz party have been content to whip up opposition to manufactured external enemies — the European Union, George Soros, migrants — in order to tighten their grip on the levers of power. Now, they are manufacturing enemies from among the country’s own citizens — and stirring anti-Roma racism is perhaps the easiest method they could choose.

This shameful episode will be instructive in how far the regime will go to maintain its grip on Hungary. Orbán is saying, effectively, that whenever victims of illegal or criminal acts win in court, the government will determine whether the decision is right, if there should be compensation and how it should be delivered.

Once the regime creates a precedent for overpowering the courts, anyone who is not in good favor with those in power has no rights; those in good favor, even if they are criminals, will be protected.

Orbán has also announced plans to hold a “national consultation” on how the court’s compensation ruling — a tactic he’s employed before, when he mailed wildly misleading questionnaires about George Soros’ views on migration in an effort to discredit him.

In response to the move, Roma civic leaders mounted a peaceful protest, taking to the streets of Budapest calling on the government to respect Roma rights.

The regime’s moves are born of fear. Fidesz, wounded by the opposition’s victories in Budapest and other important places in recent elections, is now worried it could lose its hold on power.

After a decade under Orbán, Hungarian citizens are starting to ask questions the government would prefer not to answer: Why have a historically high number of Hungarians left the country? Why do Hungarians deserve rapidly worsening public health services? Why do Hungarian children deserve an education system that, in the last decade, has plummeted from 37th to 96th position out of 138 countries ranked by the World Economic Forum?

And so the regime is now taking a page from the playbook of Jobbik, the far-right Hungarian party that sought to build power by attacking the Roma.

Jobbik wrote that playbook roughly a decade ago, exploiting the anger and anxiety spawned by the financial crisis and scapegoating the Roma by tapping into entrenched stereotypes.

Those efforts sparked hatred against the Roma and led to uniformed paramilitaries marching through Roma communities. The far-right motivated killings of six Roma, including Robert Csorba, a young child, were tragic, yet caused no change in attitudes toward the Roma.

Orbán’s methods are all the more chilling given the far-right menace rising all around him. “Racism is a poison,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel rightly said after the latest far-right terrorist attack in her country, which killed 10 people in Hanau — several of whom were reportedly Roma.

And yet when it comes to Hungary, Merkel’s actions belie her words. The chancellor is the most powerful figure in Germany, her Christian Democratic Union and the center-right European People’s Party — all of which still work with Orbán and allow the EU to continue to finance a regime that plays with the same “poison” that led to the tragedy in Hanau.

This gives members of the German political and industrial elite incentives to work with and in Hungary — effectively enabling Orbán’s authoritarian campaign of hate.

Much can be done to change this while we still have the means. The first thing to do is to replace political hypocrisy with moral clarity. Both Viktor Orbán and far-right terrorists claim to be protecting a way of life — as does the new European Commission, which includes, for the first time, a commissioner for “promoting our European way of life.”

Europe’s leaders, including Merkel and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, must make clear that their definition of the European way of life is not the same as that promoted by Orbán and other like-minded politicians like Italian far-right leader Matteo Salvini. Hate has no place in the European way of life.

Political leaders must also respond to far-right terrorism with the same vigor and resolve they use in response to terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam.

It’s not enough, as the Council of the European Union has proposed, to “create a better situational overview” and “develop and share good practices.” Far-right terrorism has tripled in the last five years. EU policy debates must factor in the racist politics that are fueling terror.

Furthermore, the European People’s Party must cast Fidesz out of the family. Keeping the party within the fold of the largest pro-EU political force has not improved the state of Hungarian democracy.

The EU should also stop providing the funds that power Fidesz’s corrupt and racist machinery. Unless actions like these are taken, words will have no meaning when the next killings happen.

Fidesz has been breaking every social and institutional check on its power, and we all know where that leads. I grew up under Slobodan Milošević’s regime in Serbia, where the catastrophic consequences of that dictatorship will last for generations.

The window of opportunity may be closing for Hungary, but this is no time for defeatism. If the Roma could lead thousands of people to last Sunday’s protest, those with much more power can use it to help Hungary become a true democracy again.

'Coronavirus pandemic could cost clubs €1bn' – Tebas confirms talks over May return for La Liga

The Spanish football chief has outlined the possible financial repercussions of the Covid-19 crisis for clubs across the country

La Liga president Javier Tebas has predicted that clubs could miss out on €1 billion (£882m/$1.1bn) worth of revenue due to the coronavirus pandemic, while stating talks are being held over resuming the season as early as May 28.

Spain is currently in a state of emergency amid the ongoing battle to contain the spread of Covid-19, and football across all levels has been on hiatus for almost a month.

Government officials are due to lift lockdown measures on April 26, but no date has been set for sporting events to restart, with social distancing rules still likely to be enforced for at least a few more months.

More teams

La Liga clubs have been hit hard financially by the enforced break, with broadcasting deals and sponsorship agreements now up in the air and no form of matchday income to fall back on.

Atletico Madrid and Barcelona have both reached agreements with their respective squads to cut wages by 70 per cent and the remaining sides in the Spanish top-flight are expected to follow suit.

Even if the season does recommence next month, La Liga officials will still recommend a 15-day practice period before players get back out on the pitch, which means a significant loss of funds will continue for some time yet.

Click Here: geelong cats guernsey 2019

Tebas has now revealed exactly how much of a financial impact the coronavirus could end up having on La Liga, insisting €150 million (£132m/$164m) of damage has already been caused.

The 57-year-old said during an international media video call on Tuesday: “If we are looking at the economic impact, including the money we would get from European competitions, the revenue Spanish clubs would miss out on if we don’t get back playing again is €1bn.

“If we do get playing but without spectators, it would be €300m (£264m/$328m).

“Even if we get back to playing with spectators, the damage this situation has already caused would be €150m.”

Tebas went on to reveal that discussions over firm return dates for La Liga are ongoing, with it possible that supporters may have to wait until at least the end of June to see their teams play again.

He added: “Of all the different scenarios we have been looking at with UEFA to go back to competing, the most probable ones are 28 May, 6 June or 28 June.

“We can’t say an exact date. This will be given to us by the authorities in Spain. But we still have time to get back to training before that.”

House Republican pushes for bipartisan cooperation on elections during coronavirus crisis

Rep. Rodney DavisRodney Lee DavisHillicon Valley: Coronavirus tracking sparks surveillance concerns | Target delivery workers plan Tuesday walkout | Federal agency expedites mail-in voting funds to states | YouTube cracks down on 5G conspiracy videos House Republican pushes for bipartisan cooperation on elections during coronavirus crisis Trump says election proposals in coronavirus stimulus bill would hurt Republican chances MORE (R-Ill.) on Monday pushed for bipartisan cooperation around providing states with the resources they need to put on elections during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, as debate about moving to mail-in voting continues. 

Davis, who is the top Republican on the elections-focused House Administration Committee, sent a letter to committee Chairwoman Zoe LofgrenZoe Ellen LofgrenHillicon Valley: Coronavirus tracking sparks surveillance concerns | Target delivery workers plan Tuesday walkout | Federal agency expedites mail-in voting funds to states | YouTube cracks down on 5G conspiracy videos House Republican pushes for bipartisan cooperation on elections during coronavirus crisis Hillicon Valley: FCC chief proposes 0M telehealth program | Twitter takes down posts promoting anti-malaria drugs for coronavirus| Whole Foods workers plan Tuesday strike MORE (D-Calif.) urging her to work with him on providing states with election resources.

Davis specifically outlined concerns listed in a separate letter from the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) sent to the House Administration Committee last week. NASS asked Lofgren and Davis to make changes to current election mandates to help states put on elections during the coronavirus pandemic. 

ADVERTISEMENT

“I write to request that we work together to address the concerns outlined by these election officials, and that we do not implement a federalized approach that will hinder states from successfully executing our elections,” Davis wrote to Lofgren. 

The NASS officials, led by NASS President and Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate, took issue with language in the $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus bill signed into law by President TrumpDonald John TrumpOvernight Health Care: US hits 10,000 coronavirus deaths | Trump touts ‘friendly’ talk with Biden on response | Trump dismisses report on hospital shortages as ‘just wrong’ | Cuomo sees possible signs of curve flattening in NY We need to be ‘One America,’ the polling says — and the politicians should listen Barr tells prosecutors to consider coronavirus risk when determining bail: report MORE last month that included $400 million in election funding for states.

The bill required that states match the federal funds by 20 percent and spend the money prior to the end of the year. It also required that states submit reports to Congress on how they spent their portions of the funds within 20 days of the general election in November. 

Both of these time constraints were issues the secretaries of state saw as problems, and they asked Lofgren and Davis to remedy them in the next coronavirus stimulus package that Congress is expected to take up later this month. 

“I hope you understand our concerns and will address them with your colleagues,” Pate wrote. “Resolving these matters immediately will help all Chief Election Officials to receive the money as soon as possible so we can make urgent changes, obtain necessary resources and further prepare for ongoing and upcoming elections.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Davis noted in his letter to Lofgren that he supported the idea of reexamining the mandate for states to match the congressional funds. Davis previously applauded the inclusion of a state match as part of separate election security funds given to states in December. 

While both Lofgren and Davis have been supportive of addressing election security, they have butted heads over how to do so. 

Lofgren helped spearhead the election funds in the House version of the coronavirus stimulus package in March, which would have sent states $4 billion and mandated that they use the funds for issues such as boosting mail-in and absentee voting.

Davis opposed the mandates in the House version, saying they federalized elections. 

The House Administration Committee has zeroed in on election issues over the past year, approving the three major election security and voting reform bills passed along party lines in the House in 2019. 

In recent weeks, Senate Democrats have pushed for $1.6 billion more to support elections to be included in the next coronavirus stimulus bill. But many Republicans have pushed back against doing so with mandates for mail-in voting, including President Trump, who cited concerns that it would hurt Republicans’ chances in the general elections.

UN biodiversity chief calls for international ban of 'wet markets'

The United Nations’ acting head of biodiversity is calling for a global prohibition of so-called “wet markets” where live and dead wild animals are kept in cages and sold for human consumption. 

Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, the acting executive secretary of the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity, told The Guardian in an interview published Monday that “the message we are getting is if we don’t take care of nature, it will take care of us.” 

The comments came as officials around the world ramp up their calls for countries such as China to crack down on wildlife markets that are believed to play a leading role in the spread of infectious diseases. Experts believe the novel coronavirus first appeared in a wet market in Wuhan, China, known for selling exotic game alongside more common animals. 

ADVERTISEMENT

COVID-19, the illness caused by the virus, has since spread to dozens of countries and infected more than 1 million people, including more than 320,000 individuals in the U.S., according to a Johns Hopkins University database. 

Mrema cautioned that simply banning wet markets would not fully solve the problem, noting that many communities around the world are dependent on wild animals to sustain their livelihoods. 

“It would be good to ban the live animal markets as China has done and some countries. But we should also remember you have communities, particularly from low-income rural areas, particularly in Africa, which are dependent on wild animals to sustain the livelihoods of millions of people,” she said. 

Mrema added that a ban on these markets may help promote “illegal trade in wild animals” if no clear alternative is in place. 

“We need to look at how we balance that and really close the hole of illegal trade in the future,” she said. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Click Here: new zealand rugby team jerseys

In the U.S., Sen. Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamGraham asks colleagues to support call for China to close wet markets Justice IG pours fuel on looming fight over FISA court Trump says he’s considering restricting travel to coronavirus ‘hot spots’ MORE (R-S.C.) has led the calls for China to keep its wet markets closed. Earlier this month, he called on Senate lawmakers to sign onto a letter he sent to the Chinese ambassador to the U.S. “urging the immediate closure of these wet markets for the safety of the world at large.”

He argued in a series of tweets earlier this month that “bringing wild and exotic animals to open markets to interact with humans and other food supplies is both crazy and dangerous.”

Anthony FauciAnthony FauciTrump, officials describe ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ as cases mount Trump promotes use of drug for coronavirus: ‘I’m not a doctor. But I have common sense’ Fauci, Navarro got into heated argument over unproven COVID-19 treatment: report MORE, the U.S. government’s top infectious disease expert, echoed those comments, saying last week that the novel coronavirus was a “direct result” of unsanitary marketplaces. 

“It boggles my mind how when we have so many diseases that emanate out of that unusual human-animal interface, that we don’t just shut it down,” he said on “Fox & Friends.” “I don’t know what else has to happen to get us to appreciate that.”

Jinfeng Zhou, secretary general of the China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation, has also said that an international ban on wet markets would “help a lot on wildlife conservation and protection of ourselves from improper contacts with wildlife.”

House Armed Services chairman expresses confidence in Esper amid aircraft carrier coronavirus crisis

Click:1P 2 200kA Surge

The Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said Tuesday he still has confidence in Defense Secretary Mark EsperMark EsperOvernight Defense: Navy chief resigns over aircraft carrier controversy | Trump replaces Pentagon IG | Hospital ship crew member tests positive for coronavirus More than 200 sailors aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt test positive for coronavirus Navy chief resigns amid uproar over handling of aircraft carrier coronavirus crisis MORE amid fallout from the firestorm over a coronavirus outbreak aboard an aircraft carrier.

Rep. Adam SmithDavid (Adam) Adam SmithOvernight Defense: Navy chief resigns over aircraft carrier controversy | Trump replaces Pentagon IG | Hospital ship crew member tests positive for coronavirus President tightens grip on federal watchdogs Navy chief resigns amid uproar over handling of aircraft carrier coronavirus crisis MORE (D-Wash.) praised both Esper and acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly as “competent, capable people,” but expressed concerns both are facing undue pressure from the “creeping influence of [President] Trump’s approach undermining the decision making process” at the Pentagon.

Smith called for Modly’s removal Monday night after the acting secretary gave an inflammatory speech on board the USS Theodore Roosevelt defending his decision to fire the commander of the ship.

ADVERTISEMENT

Modly has since apologized, but Smith said Modly still needs to be removed because he likely lost the confidence of Navy rank and file.

“When I listened to the speech that acting Sec. Modly gave, it was almost like he was trying to do sort of a half-assed imitation of how Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpCDC updates website to remove dosage guidance on drug touted by Trump Trump says he’d like economy to reopen ‘with a big bang’ but acknowledges it may be limited Graham backs Trump, vows no money for WHO in next funding bill MORE would have given a speech,” Smith said in a response to a question from The Hill.

“It wasn’t what I would have expected from the Thomas Modly that I know,” Smith said. “And so now he’s trying to figure out — forgive me for this line but I’ll throw it out there — what would the narcissist do?”

Modly relieved Capt. Brett Crozier of his command of the Roosevelt last week after a letter the captain wrote pleading for help with the coronavirus outbreak on the ship leaked in the media.

Smith said he would have liked Esper to push back more when Modly told him he was going to fire Crozier, but that he still has confidence in Esper’s ability to be Defense secretary.

ADVERTISEMENT

“It should have been obvious that if they relieved the commander of the Roosevelt at that moment that the public blowback that happened was absolutely going to happen,” Smith said. “So I guess what I would say is I was disappointed in the decision. I was disappointed that they didn’t see the larger implications of that decision. But overall, I still have confidence in Sec. Esper’s leadership.”

Modly traveled to the Roosevelt on Monday to defend his decision, and a transcript and audio of his address over the ship’s PA system leaked in the media.

In the speech, Modly said that if Crozier didn’t think the letter would leak, he was “too naive or too stupid to be a commanding officer of a ship like this.”

Alternatively, Modly said, if Crozier leaked the letter on purpose, that would be a “serious violation” of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

He also called Crozier’s action a “betrayal” and warned sailors that there is “no situation” in which they should go to the media, alleging “the media has an agenda” that “depends on which side of the political aisle they sit.”

Modly at first said Monday afternoon he stands by “every word,” but by Monday night was apologizing.

“Let me be clear: I do not think Capt. Brett Crozier is naive or stupid,” Modly said in a statement. “I apologize for any confusion this choice of words may have caused.”

Smith said Tuesday the apology has not changed his mind about the need for Modly to lose his job because Modly is “going to have a heck of a time getting the confidence of the Navy back.”

“What really troubled me was, what on earth possessed the acting secretary to think that that speech was a good idea,” Smith said.

The “larger problem” causing that, Smith said, is Pentagon leaders “trying to figure out, how do I stay in the good graces of the tyrant across the river there who could potentially fire me tomorrow if I don’t.”

Smith added that he is still in touch with former Defense Secretary James MattisJames Norman MattisMattis defends Pentagon IG removed by Trump House Armed Services chairman expresses confidence in Esper amid aircraft carrier coronavirus crisis Is coronavirus the final Trump crisis? MORE and former acting Defense Secretary Patrick ShanahanPatrick Michael ShanahanHouse Armed Services chairman expresses confidence in Esper amid aircraft carrier coronavirus crisis Boeing pleads for bailout under weight of coronavirus, 737 fallout Esper’s chief of staff to depart at end of January MORE, both of whom he said “can go chapter and verse on what it’s like trying to work for this president.”

“I think it’s incredibly unfortunate that someone as capable as acting Sec. Modly wound up in this situation,” Smith said, “but after that speech on the carrier I just don’t see how he can lead the Navy.”

Jack Dorsey committing $1 billion to coronavirus relief efforts

Twitter founder Jack Dorsey announced Tuesday that he would transfer $1 billion of his equity in Square to a new foundation that will support coronavirus relief efforts before transitioning later to focus on other causes.

In a Twitter thread, the billionaire CEO explained that the newly founded Start Small Foundation would support “global COVID-19 relief” efforts before transitioning after the pandemic’s resolution to focus on supporting universal basic income (UBI) experiments as well as health and education efforts aimed at young women.

“After we disarm this pandemic, the focus will shift to girl’s health and education, and UBI,” Dorsey wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Why UBI and girl’s health and education? I believe they represent the best long-term solutions to the existential problems facing the world. UBI is a great idea needing experimentation. Girl’s health and education is critical to balance,” he added.

Universal basic income drew greater national prominence as the central tenet of entrepreneur Andrew YangAndrew YangJack Dorsey committing billion to coronavirus relief efforts Campaigns face attack ad dilemma amid coronavirus crisis Andrew Yang: Calling coronavirus ‘China virus’ only used to incite ‘hostility’ MORE‘s presidential campaign last year. The former Democratic contender thanked Dorsey on Tuesday for his investment.

Dorsey retained leadership of Twitter last month after a deal with activist investor firm Elliott Management allowed him to stay on as CEO despite reservations about his dual role as CEO for both Twitter and Square.

Click Here: new zealand rugby team jerseys

Graham backs Trump, vows no money for WHO in next funding bill

Sen. Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamGraham backs Trump, vows no money for WHO in next funding bill UN biodiversity chief calls for international ban of ‘wet markets’ Graham asks colleagues to support call for China to close wet markets MORE (R-S.C.) on Tuesday pledged to cut funding for the World Health Organization (WHO) in Congress’s next appropriations bill unless it makes changes to its leadership.

Graham said during an appearance on Fox News that he would use his position as chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee overseeing foreign operations to ensure the WHO did not get funding from the U.S.

“I’m not going to support funding the WHO under its current leadership,” Graham said. “They’ve been deceptive, they’ve been slow, and they’ve been Chinese apologists. I don’t think they’re a good investment under the current leadership for the United States, and until they change their behavior and get new leadership, I think it’s in America’s best interest to withhold funding because they have failed miserably when it comes to the coronavirus.”

Graham’s comments came as President TrumpDonald John TrumpCDC updates website to remove dosage guidance on drug touted by Trump Trump says he’d like economy to reopen ‘with a big bang’ but acknowledges it may be limited Graham backs Trump, vows no money for WHO in next funding bill MORE on Tuesday repeatedly threatened to cut funding for the WHO, a body of the United Nations responsible for international public health, citing its response to the global outbreak of the novel coronavirus.

ADVERTISEMENT

The president said during a White House coronavirus task force briefing that the organization deserves criticism over its handling of the coronavirus, claiming it seemed “very biased towards China,” where COVID-19 originated.

“We’re going to put a very powerful hold on it, and we’re going to see. It’s a great thing if it works, but when they call every shot wrong, that’s not good,” Trump said before backtracking and saying that he is still considering the move at this time. 

Graham said on Fox News that he would “take the burden off the president” by cutting funding to the WHO.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sen. Richard ShelbyRichard Craig ShelbyGraham backs Trump, vows no money for WHO in next funding bill Five things being discussed for a new coronavirus relief bill Infrastructure bill gains new steam as coronavirus worsens MORE (R-Ala.), the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Sen. Patrick LeahyPatrick Joseph LeahyGraham backs Trump, vows no money for WHO in next funding bill Justice IG pours fuel on looming fight over FISA court Democratic senators ask Pompeo to provide coronavirus aid to Palestinian territories MORE (D-Vt.), the vice chairman of the panel, did not immediately return requests for comment from The Hill. 

The U.S. is the biggest contributor to the WHO’s budget in the world. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget request proposed cutting funding $122 million to about $58 million.

The WHO has continually voiced warnings about the dangers of the novel coronavirus since it first appeared in Wuhan, China, last December. The organization declared that the virus’s outbreak was a public emergency of international concern in January and then declared it was a pandemic in mid-March. 

But the organization said in early February that widespread travel bans were not necessary to prevent the outbreak. Trump on Tuesday accused the WHO of disagreeing with his decision to enforce travel restrictions on incoming flights from China. 

His comments came as more Republican lawmakers argue that China and the WHO deserve much of the blame for the global spread of COVID-19.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sen. Martha McSallyMartha Elizabeth McSallyGraham backs Trump, vows no money for WHO in next funding bill Trump considering suspending funding to WHO Campaigns face attack ad dilemma amid coronavirus crisis MORE (R-Ariz.) last week called for WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus to resign, saying that the organization participated in a Chinese cover-up on coronavirus data. 

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) has also called for a congressional probe into the WHO, accusing it of “helping Communist China cover up” the full extent of the virus’s spread.

Trump has faced continued scrutiny over his initial skepticism about how dangerous the COVID-19 outbreak could be. Asked on Tuesday about remarks he made in February in which he suggested the virus would disappear on its own, Trump said, “Well, the cases really didn’t build up for a while.”

Click Here: Cardiff Blues Store

President tightens grip on federal watchdogs

President TrumpDonald John TrumpCDC updates website to remove dosage guidance on drug touted by Trump Trump says he’d like economy to reopen ‘with a big bang’ but acknowledges it may be limited Graham backs Trump, vows no money for WHO in next funding bill MORE is tightening his grip on federal watchdogs, even as the country reels from the coronavirus pandemic.

Trump has gone on the offensive over the past few days, suddenly removing or publicly berating three inspectors general. Trump’s actions and words have led to criticism from Democrats and others that he is purging officials whose chief responsibility is to protect the integrity of government institutions.

Acting Pentagon Inspector General Glenn Fine, who just a week ago was charged with overseeing the $2 trillion coronavirus relief package, was abruptly removed and replaced this week.

ADVERTISEMENT

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam SmithDavid (Adam) Adam SmithOvernight Defense: Navy chief resigns over aircraft carrier controversy | Trump replaces Pentagon IG | Hospital ship crew member tests positive for coronavirus President tightens grip on federal watchdogs Navy chief resigns amid uproar over handling of aircraft carrier coronavirus crisis MORE (D-Wash.) said Fine’s removal is the latest example of Trump replacing people who are not “sycophants.”

“What this leads to is basically another epidemic, and that epidemic is incompetence,” Smith told reporters on a conference call Tuesday. “What he cares about is people kissing his ass, whether or not the job gets done.”

Trump moved to replace Fine with another federal official — Sean O’Donnell, the Environmental Protection Agency’s inspector general, according to Dwrena Allen, spokeswoman at the Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General.

Fine had been selected by peers on the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to chair the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee.

Separately, Trump this week publicly berated Christi Grimm, the principal deputy inspector general who leads the inspector general’s office at the Department of Health and Human Services.

In a press conference Monday and on social media Tuesday, Trump attacked Grimm over a report released by her office that found “severe” shortages of coronavirus tests for hospitals to use and “widespread” shortfalls of protective equipment designed to protect health workers.

ADVERTISEMENT

Trump pointed to how Grimm — who joined the inspector general’s office in 1999 — had worked under former President Obama.

“Why didn’t the I.G., who spent 8 years with the Obama Administration (Did she Report on the failed H1N1 Swine Flu debacle where 17,000 people died?), want to talk to the Admirals, Generals, V.P. & others in charge, before doing her report,” the president tweeted.

The toll he attributed to the swine flu is more than 4,000 deaths higher than estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

He also dubbed the report as “another Fake Dossier,” referring to the compilation of memos by former MI6 spy Christopher Steele that made a series of allegations about Trump’s contacts with Russia during the 2016 presidential election. A federal investigation did not find that Trump or members of his campaign coordinated or conspired with Moscow.

Trump’s attacks on Grimm come as he is facing criticism over the handling of the outbreak, particularly over whether the administration moved quickly enough to prepare for the virus as it spread through China and then across the globe.

As of Tuesday, more than 12,000 people in the U.S. have died from the virus and at least 395,000 have contracted the disease, according to a New York Times database.

Trump has also ousted a top intelligence watchdog he’s partially blamed for his impeachment.

Late Friday night, Trump fired intelligence community watchdog Michael Atkinson, in what was seen as an effort to punish the inspector general for acting on a whistleblower complaint last year that first raised allegations of Trump’s improper contacts with Ukraine. The complaint and subsequent efforts by Trump administration officials to block the allegations from being disclosed to Congress ultimately sparked the House impeachment inquiry.

On Saturday, a day after firing Atkinson, Trump railed at a press conference, calling him a “disgrace” and arguing that he “did a terrible job.”

“He took a whistleblower report, which turned out to be a fake report — it was fake. It was totally wrong,” Trump said about the readout of his controversial call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. “He took a fake report and he brought it to Congress, with an emergency.”

While Trump has repeatedly dismissed the allegations in the complaint and characterized his call with Zelensky as “perfect,” much of the details in the whistleblower complaint were supported by witness testimony and other evidence gathered by House investigators.

The president also indicated over the weekend that he felt there was a lack of loyalty from Atkinson, describing him as “not a big Trump fan.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Oversight experts and lawmakers both note that it’s not the role of watchdogs to be loyal to the president. They are tasked with rooting out corruption, fraud and abuse.

Atkinson, in a lengthy statement issued to lawmakers and reporters Sunday, expressed disappointment about his firing while encouraging other government workers to speak out over wrongdoing.

“The American people deserve an honest and effective government,” he said, addressing government employees and contractors. “They are counting on you to use authorized channels to bravely speak up — there is no disgrace in doing so.”

Atkinson, who served at the Justice Department for more than a decade before his inspector general role, had been nominated by Trump to serve as his intelligence community inspector general.

Members of both parties voiced disapproval at Atkinson’s removal over the weekend.

“I believe Inspector General Atkinson served the intelligence community and the American people well, and his removal was not warranted,” Sen. Susan CollinsSusan Margaret CollinsPresident tightens grip on federal watchdogs The Hill’s 12:30 Report: Trump gets new press secretary in latest shake-up Trump takes heat for firing intel watchdog during pandemic MORE (R-Maine), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement over the weekend, while adding that the president acted within his authority.

ADVERTISEMENT

Republicans, however, have largely remained mum about the developments with Fine, the official Trump removed from overseeing the coronavirus relief package.

Sen. Chuck GrassleyCharles (Chuck) Ernest GrassleyPresident tightens grip on federal watchdogs Officials sound alarm over virus relief check scams Trump takes heat for firing intel watchdog during pandemic MORE (R-Iowa) in a statement avoided criticism of either Trump or Fine. He called on the White House to empower inspectors general, and thanked Fine for his service, adding that the role of the Pentagon watchdog is a difficult one that requires aggressive oversight. 

Democrats said Trump’s actions show he is determined to remove professionals who would hold him accountable.

“The sudden removal and replacement of Acting Inspector General Fine is part of a disturbing pattern of retaliation by the President against independent overseers fulfilling their statutory and patriotic duties to conduct oversight on behalf of the American people,” said Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiLawmakers outline proposals for virtual voting Mattis defends Pentagon IG removed by Trump Overnight Health Care: Trump calls report on hospital shortages ‘another fake dossier’ | Trump weighs freezing funding to WHO | NY sees another 731 deaths | States battle for supplies | McConnell, Schumer headed for clash MORE (D-Calif.) in a statement Tuesday.

Some have also criticized Trump for issuing a signing statement on the relief package indicating he would not bow to Democratic efforts to conduct oversight. The statement said his administration had the power to oversee reports to Congress from the Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery.

Separately, Trump is pushing forward an ally, Brian Miller, the senior associate counsel in the Office of White House Counsel, to be the new coronavirus inspector general. While some oversight experts praised Miller, Democrats voiced skepticism over Trump nominating a member of his staff for such a role.

“To nominate a member of the president’s own staff is exactly the wrong type of person to choose for this position,” said Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerHealth care workers account for 20 percent of Iowa coronavirus cases Pressure mounts on Congress for quick action with next coronavirus bill Schumer names coronavirus czar candidates in plea to White House MORE (D-N.Y.).

Rebecca Kheel contributed.

Trump rollback of Obama-era mileage standards faces challenges in courts

President TrumpDonald John TrumpCDC updates website to remove dosage guidance on drug touted by Trump Trump says he’d like economy to reopen ‘with a big bang’ but acknowledges it may be limited Graham backs Trump, vows no money for WHO in next funding bill MORE’s rollback of Obama-era mileage standards last week may prove to be one of the administration’s most vulnerable environmental overhauls as opponents prepare to challenge it in court.

The Trump rule dramatically scales back the year-over-year improvements automakers must make in fuel economy, leaving consumers spending more on cars and gas while spewing more pollution into the air.

Environmental and watchdog groups say the rule falls short of laws requiring the government to set ambitious fuel efficiency standards.

ADVERTISEMENT

They acknowledge the new rules will reduce the price of a new car for consumers and reduce costs for automakers. But they’ve also argued in their analysis that consumers would take a $13 billion hit in the next decade, in part due to spending more on gas because of lower fuel economy standards. They also estimate that increased pollution under the accompanying emissions regulations would cost taxpayers $22 billion over the next decade. 

“The [Obama-era] rule showed you can cut pollution significantly and save drivers billions of dollars, and in order to justify this rollback they’ve had to cut a lot of corners and skew their analysis,” said Ben Longstreth, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, arguing the rule violates the mandate of the Clean Air Act.  

“The result is a sloppy and extremely vulnerable rule.” 

Under the Obama rule, automakers would have had to produce fleets averaging nearly 55 mpg by 2025. The Trump rule gives them an extra year to produce a fleet that averages 40 mpg.

This is less ambitious than what the auto sector says it can deliver. 

Click Here: Cheap Chiefs Rugby Jersey 2019

While the Trump rule requires 1.5 percent year-over-year improvements in mileage — a figure they say is more attainable than the 5 percent required under the Obama rule — automakers said they could hit 2.4 percent without regulation. 

Several automakers have also signed a deal with California to produce fleets that average 50 mpg by 2026.

ADVERTISEMENT

Environmental groups have already pledged to sue over the rule, and automakers’ ability to meet more aggressive standards will likely be central to the case.

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which writes the rule alongside the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to set the maximum standard that’s feasible for automakers while being economically practicable to consumers.

“You’ve got four automakers who have already publicly stated they can do significantly more and data shows industry can improve the efficiency of vehicles at 2 percent per year, so the reality of the marketplace and what automakers have already said show this isn’t the maximum feasible,” said David Friedman with Consumer Reports, which has opposed the rule due to the costs for drivers.  

The NHTSA told The Hill the administration considered economic practicability, technological feasibility, the need for the nation to conserve energy as well as environmental laws before concluding its new policy “represented the best balance of the factors and therefore was [the] maximum feasible.” 

The Trump administration argues their weaker regulations will be better for consumers. Cheaper vehicles will prompt them to upgrade to newer cars that guzzle less gas than their current ride and come with better safety features. 

“The administration is making good on a promise three years ago to revisit the 2012 fuel economy standards that made erroneous assumptions and led to an unattainable set of rules that would have made new vehicles unaffordable and sharply reduce the ability for Americans to choose vehicles that best suit their families’ needs,” the NHTSA said in a statement.

Even when relying on the government’s own analysis, however, it may be difficult to make a case for the rule.

The Administrative Procedure Act requires sound reasoning to show that regulations have logical rather than just political backing — otherwise they risk being thrown out as arbitrary and capricious. 

“If they failed to do the math right, if they failed to do their analysis right, if they failed to produce a rule based on the literature and good sourcing, it’s likely to get thrown out in court, and what we certainly saw in the proposal is bad math, bad science, and bad economics,” Friedman said. 

“And as we dig into the rule itself, we’re seeing much of the same.” 

The government’s own analysis backing the rule shows it will cost consumers more than they will save. The regulations reduce the average price of a vehicle by $1,000 while raising the amount spent on gas by $1,400 — leaving consumers $400 worse off by model year 2030.

Averaged out across the more than 272 million cars in America, that becomes an extra $175 billion spent on gas and another 867 million metric tons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere through 2029.

That’s a sharp turnaround from the Obama-era standards, which have saved consumers $88 billion and avoided 459 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, according to the EPA.

The administration also believes the rule will save lives, a feature due not only to the new cars they’ll be driving but also because they will be driving them less often given the expense.

The analysis accompanying the rule predicts it will save about 700 lives, but elsewhere the rule shows anywhere from 440 to 1,000 premature deaths resulting from air pollution caused by the increase in smog and other pollution.

“They published 2,000 pages that actually don’t justify the rollback, it just says society will be worse off by $22 billion,” said Jeff Alson, who retired in 2018 from the EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality, which helps craft the standards. 

“People like me were just stunned.”

Think tanks say the impact will be even greater than the Trump administration has predicted. An analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund found there could be as many as 18,500 premature deaths from air pollution while costing Americans $244 billion more at the gas pump. Consumer Reports thinks the rule could cost consumers as much as $300 billion, an analysis that looks as far as 2035, rather than to 2029 like the Trump administration.

The administration’s cost-benefit analysis fails to show an overall benefit when using the standard 3 percent discount rate that accounts for economic growth and other factors. 

The NHTSA stressed the rule saves consumers money when using a 7 percent rate, but many economists advise against using the more favorable rate.

“Using a 7 percent discount rate is just a way to make things that will be really bad in the future look not as bad today,” said Chris Harto with Consumer Reports, who evaluated the rule.

ADVERTISEMENT

Experts say they have doubts about the ways the Trump administration calculated some of their costs and benefits, arguing the administration made a number of tweaks to make its policy appear more favorable. 

For instance, a $32 billion increase consumers will pay in gas taxes as they buy more gas to fill their tanks is counted as a benefit under the rule, rather than a cost. If shifted, that would bring the cost of the regulation to $45 billion.

“When you’re cooking your own book and still can’t make it look like a good idea, that’s a tough position to be in,” Harto said.

The administration paints a rosier picture of the effects, with a release boasting of how the rule will reduce emissions.

But that statement holds true only if the government took no action to improve vehicle emissions. 

“What allows them to sleep at night is if there were no standards, they’re doing a 1.5 percent increase, so that’s improvement,” said Chet France, who like Alson worked at the EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality, last working on the Obama-era standards.

“But that’s not the baseline. The baseline is the current standards, which they’re relaxing. Otherwise it’s a lie.”

Pelosi, Schumer want aid to states, hospitals in GOP small business bill

Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiLawmakers outline proposals for virtual voting Mattis defends Pentagon IG removed by Trump Overnight Health Care: Trump calls report on hospital shortages ‘another fake dossier’ | Trump weighs freezing funding to WHO | NY sees another 731 deaths | States battle for supplies | McConnell, Schumer headed for clash MORE (D-Calif.) and Senate Democratic Leader Charles SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerHealth care workers account for 20 percent of Iowa coronavirus cases Pressure mounts on Congress for quick action with next coronavirus bill Schumer names coronavirus czar candidates in plea to White House MORE (N.Y.) say a Republican request to funnel an additional $250 billion to a special small-business loan program for the coronavirus crisis must also include hundreds of billions of dollars for hospitals, state and local governments and food assistance.

“As Democrats have said since Day One, Congress must provide additional relief for small businesses and families, building on the strong down-payment made in the bipartisan CARES Act,” they said in a statement Wednesday morning.

The Democratic response comes a day after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellLawmakers outline proposals for virtual voting Overnight Health Care: Trump calls report on hospital shortages ‘another fake dossier’ | Trump weighs freezing funding to WHO | NY sees another 731 deaths | States battle for supplies | McConnell, Schumer headed for clash Phase-four virus relief hits a wall MORE (R-Ky.) said he would ask for unanimous consent on the Senate floor Thursday to approve an additional $250 billion in funding for the popular small-business “Paycheck Protection Program.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Click Here: United Kingdom Rugby Jerseys

Now the ball is in McConnell’s court. He must decide whether to agree to the Democratic demands or refuse, which could delay additional funding for small businesses until after Easter weekend.

The administration said Wednesday that banks have already processed $70 billion in federally backed loans for more than 200,000 small businesses. This has sparked concern the funds may run dry before Congress reconvenes the week of April 20 as many small businesses mare still waiting for aid.

Pelosi and Schumer say that half of the requested $250 billion in small-business assistance must be set aside for community-based financial institutions that serve minority-, women- and veteran-owned businesses as well as famers and non-profit groups in tribal, rural and urban communities.   

The Democrats say “improvements” must be made to the program to “ensure all eligible small businesses” can access funding.

Pelosi and Schumer also want an additional $100 billion for hospitals, community health centers and health systems and an additional $150 billion for state and local governments facing serious budgetary shortfalls.

ADVERTISEMENT

The CARES Act provided $117 billion for hospitals, according to the American Hospital Association, and $150 billion for state and local governments, much of which has yet to be distributed.

The Democratic leaders are also calling for a 15 percent increase to the maximum Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides food assistance to low-income families.

Pelosi attempted to secure more money for food and nutrition assistance in last month’s negotiations but fell short of her goal.  

Pelosi and Schumer argue the need for additional funds are so critical that they need to be included with the $250 billion infusion for the small business program that Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin asked for Tuesday.

They say other priorities can wait to be addressed in the phase-four coronavirus relief package Congress will negotiate when it reconvenes in Washington on April 20, or possibly even later depending on the intensity of coronavirus infections.

“After we pass this interim emergency legislation, Congress will move to pass a CARES 2 Act that will extend and expand the bipartisan CARES Act to meet the needs of the American people. CARES 2 must provide transformational relief as the American people weather this assault on their lives and livelihoods,” Pelosi and Schumer said in their statement.

“The American people need to know that their government is there for them in their time of great need,” they said.

The CARES Act, which became law on March 27, appropriated nearly $350 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program to provide eight weeks of cash-flow assistance to small businesses through federally guaranteed loans to businesses who keep their workers on payroll. The loans are forgiven if employers avoid layoffs.