The president is set to unveil his initiatives, which also include creating new federal testing sites and deploying federal vaccinators, in a speech on Tuesday.
President Biden will announce new steps on Tuesday to confront a staggering surge in coronavirus cases, including readying 1,000 military medical professionals to help at overburdened hospitals, setting up new federal testing sites, deploying hundreds of federal vaccinators and buying 500 million rapid tests to distribute free to the public. …
The president is set to unveil his initiatives, which also include creating new federal testing sites and deploying federal vaccinators, in a speech on Tuesday.
President Biden will announce new steps on Tuesday to confront a staggering surge in coronavirus cases, including readying 1,000 military medical professionals to help at overburdened hospitals, setting up new federal testing sites, deploying hundreds of federal vaccinators and buying 500 million rapid tests to distribute free to the public. …
… Mr. Biden will say that if people are vaccinated and follow other public health guidelines, including wearing masks in public places, “they should feel comfortable celebrating Christmas and the holidays” with their families, one of the officials said.
But beneath those notes of assurance from the president is deep concern among his advisers — and public health experts — about the ability of the nation’s hospitals, which are already under great strain, to withstand an Omicron surge. Even if the variant ends up causing less severe disease and a relatively low percentage of those infected need to be hospitalized, experts say, the explosion in cases means it is still possible that hospitals will become overwhelmed. …
Mr. Biden intends to direct his defense secretary, Lloyd J. Austin III, to “ready an additional 1,000 service members — military doctors, nurses, paramedics and other medical personnel — to deploy to hospitals during January and February, as needed,” according to a fact sheet prepared by the White House.
At the same time, Mr. Biden will announce that six federal emergency response teams, with more than 100 health professionals and paramedics, will deploy immediately to six states: Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Arizona, New Hampshire and Vermont. Already, 300 federal medical workers have been deployed since Omicron was discovered in late November.
Mr. Biden will also direct the Federal Emergency Management Agency to work with hospitals across the country to make plans to expand capacity. FEMA will also stand up new pop-up vaccination clinics, the officials said, to handle hundreds of additional vaccinations per week.
The government is also sending ventilators to the states — last week, officials said, it sent 330 — and will have hundreds of ambulances and emergency medical teams, overseen by FEMA, at the ready “so that if one hospital fills up, they can transport patients to open beds in other facilities,” according to the fact sheet. It was not clear who would staff those teams, but the fact sheet said that even now, “30 paramedics are heading to New Hampshire, 30 to Vermont and 20 to Arizona, and 30 ambulances are headed to New York and eight to Maine.” …
I want to highlight a fantastic website that is doing amazing work on the Universal Basic Income issue. Lots of interactive tools, such as “Mapping the impact of a $100 child allowance”.
the first US case of Omicron was found in Frisco on December 1st…by the week ending December 18th, it accounted for 73.2% of US cases…the visitors are still batting, & it’s still the top of the first…
I am not sure why people are so set on believing the lies of trump. Perhaps, they hold out hope for something better? People realized it was a mistake to vote for trump in 2016 by voting for the others. His malfeasant practices during his term still exists, dangerously came close to an overthrow of the government, and still threatens the nation. His head should roll for this.
AP – The number of Americans applying for unemployment benefits was unchanged last week, remaining at a historically low level that reflects the job market’s strong recovery from the coronavirus recession last year.
Jobless claims remained at 205,000. The four-week average, which smooths out week-to-week ups and downs, rose to just over 206,000. The numbers suggest that the spread of the Omicron variant did not immediately trigger a wave of layoffs.
Altogether, 1.9 million Americans were collecting traditional unemployment aid the week that ended Dec. 11.
The weekly claims numbers, a proxy for layoffs, have fallen steadily most of the year. Employers are reluctant to let workers go at a time when it’s so tough to find replacements. The United States had a near-record 11 million job openings in October, and 4.2 million Americans quit their jobs — just off September’s record 4.4 million — because there are so many opportunities. …
The job market has bounced back from last year’s brief but intense coronavirus recession. When COVID hit, governments ordered lockdowns, consumers hunkered down at home and many businesses closed or cut back hours. Employers slashed more than 22 million jobs in March and April 2020, and the unemployment rate rocketed to 14.8%.
But massive government spending — and eventually the rollout of vaccines — brought the economy back. Employers have added 18.5 million jobs since April 2020, still leaving the U.S. still 3.9 million jobs short of what it had before the pandemic. The unemployment rate has fallen to 4.2%, close to what economists consider full employment.
Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to block the release of White House records concerning the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, arguing that he had a constitutional right to shield the materials from Congress even though President Biden declined to invoke executive privilege over them. …
“The disagreement between an incumbent president and his predecessor from a rival political party is both novel and highlights the importance of executive privilege and the ability of presidents and their advisers to reliably make and receive full and frank advice, without concern that communications will be publicly released to meet a political objective,” Mr. Trump’s lawyers told the court.
The case raises novel constitutional questions about the separation of powers and the power of a president no longer in office. Mr. Trump’s lawyers asked the justices to block the release of the records while they decide whether to hear his appeal. …
If the court follows its usual practices, it will rule on Mr. Trump’s application in the coming weeks. A decision refusing to block release of the records would effectively end the case. Should the court agree to hear Mr. Trump’s appeal, the justices would probably hear arguments in the spring and issue a decision by late June.
Mr. Trump sued to block release of the documents, saying that the House committee had no valid legislative reason to seek them.
Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, of the Federal District Court in Washington, ruled against Mr. Trump. A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed that ruling.
Judge Patricia A. Millett, writing for the panel, acknowledged that former presidents have the right to invoke executive privilege. But she said the privilege is not absolute even when it asserted by a sitting president.
In 1974, for instance, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that President Richard M. Nixon had to comply with a trial subpoena seeking tapes of his conversations in the Oval Office, rejecting his claims of executive privilege.
Judge Millett wrote that several factors warranted disclosure of the documents notwithstanding Mr. Trump’s objections. …
… the House of Representatives is investigating the single most deadly attack on the Capitol by domestic forces in the history of the United States.”
“Both branches agree that there is a unique legislative need for these documents, and that they are directly relevant to the committee’s inquiry into an attack on the legislative branch and its constitutional role in the peaceful transfer of power,” she wrote.
“The events of Jan. 6, 2021, marked the most significant assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812,” she wrote. “The building was desecrated, blood was shed and several individuals lost their lives.”
Mr. Trump’s objections to the release of information concerning the rally, its aftermath and related activities, Judge Millett wrote, were vague and inadequate. …
Mr. Trump’s lawyers said he enjoyed a special status under a federal law governing the disclosure of presidential records.
“President Trump is more than an ordinary citizen,” they wrote. “He is one of only five living Americans who, as former presidents, are granted special authority to make determinations regarding the disclosure of records and communications created during their terms of office.” …
‘former presidents, are granted special authority to make determinations regarding the disclosure of records and communications created during their terms of office.’
This assertion by Trump’s lawyers is not supported by other legal authorities, who insist that the law actually permits the sitting president to do as he pleases about respecting a previous president’s confidentiality requests. Biden has chosen not to honor Trump’s request. The law does NOT grant a former president any power of non-disclosure of documents.
It should be interesting to see what is said by SCOTUS and whether they will look past precedent(?).
“Nixon lost in 1977 by a 7-2 vote. A threshold question for the justices in that case of Nixon v. Administrator of General Services was whether Nixon, as a former president, could assert executive privilege — a right intended to ensure a president confidentiality in his dealings with advisers and usually given significant protection.
In an earlier case, the 1974 United States v. Nixon, the court had said the privilege is not absolute, as it required Nixon to turn over Watergate tapes for a criminal investigation. (Nixon resigned soon after that decision.)”
Also in this article:
“Biden’s endorsement of the US House committee’s request for materials from January 6 eases the separation-of-powers concerns that traditionally loom when Congress seeks presidential materials.
In that regard, Chutkan’s opinion drew on the 2020 Trump v. Mazars case, in which the then-President had tried to prevent House Democrats from obtaining certain tax and other financial documents. Trump argued at the time that his role as president should shield him from investigation.
The Supreme Court rejected Trump’s broad claim that the House lacked power to subpoena the documents but returned the dispute to lower courts to weigh “special concerns” regarding the balance of powers among the branches and the House’s claim that its request flowed from a valid legislative purpose.
Chutkan said much of the Supreme Court apprehension in the 2020 document dispute would not apply to the current controversy because of Biden’s position. (Trump also lacks the personal-privacy grounds he raised in the Mazars financial-documents case.)
This article is from November. I wanted something less involved with trump’s latest move to SCOTUS. Maybe Jack will come by and add his legalese opinion?
To Fight Omicron, Biden Plans Aid From Military and 500 Million Tests
To Fight Omicron, Biden Plans Aid From Military and 500 Million Tests
“The government is also sending ventilators to the states”
I hope their use is restricted to people who are vaccinated.
Let the Uns die at home.
I hope their use is restricted to people who are vaccinated.
Let the Uns die at home.
[ This is precisely what fascism amounts to. Simply villainous. ]
Ooh, villainous. I like that appellation.
I want to highlight a fantastic website that is doing amazing work on the Universal Basic Income issue. Lots of interactive tools, such as “Mapping the impact of a $100 child allowance”.
UBI Center
the first US case of Omicron was found in Frisco on December 1st…by the week ending December 18th, it accounted for 73.2% of US cases…the visitors are still batting, & it’s still the top of the first…
Run,
Can you direct me to your posts about the increased Green Party votes in 2016 in MI, WI and PA?
Thanks.
Do you mean increased 2016 votes for president which were not trump or Clinton?
Yes.
2012-2016 MI, PA, and WI Vote. Pay attention to what is in the “Others (red)” column
Sent by email also.
Thanks, Run.
Also fascinating to see the 2020 results, where 3rd party votes went back to normal levels.
https://www.270towin.com/2020-election-results-live/
EM
I am not sure why people are so set on believing the lies of trump. Perhaps, they hold out hope for something better? People realized it was a mistake to vote for trump in 2016 by voting for the others. His malfeasant practices during his term still exists, dangerously came close to an overthrow of the government, and still threatens the nation. His head should roll for this.
US jobless claims unchanged at 205,000
Run,
It was the Susan Sarandons of the world that gave us trump.
In other news…
Trump Asks Supreme Court to Block Release of Jan. 6 Records
‘former presidents, are granted special authority to make determinations regarding the disclosure of records and communications created during their terms of office.’
This assertion by Trump’s lawyers is not supported by other legal authorities, who insist that the law actually permits the sitting president to do as he pleases about respecting a previous president’s confidentiality requests. Biden has chosen not to honor Trump’s request. The law does NOT grant a former president any power of non-disclosure of documents.
Trump’s lawyers lost their case before a Federal District Court.
They then lost before a Federal Court of Appeals.
They have now filed the case with the Supreme Court:
“EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF MANDATE PENDING THE DISPOSITION OF PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND INJUNCTION PENDING REVIEW”
presumably figuring that all those Trump-appointed justices must be good for something.
It should be interesting to see what is said by SCOTUS and whether they will look past precedent(?).
“Nixon lost in 1977 by a 7-2 vote. A threshold question for the justices in that case of Nixon v. Administrator of General Services was whether Nixon, as a former president, could assert executive privilege — a right intended to ensure a president confidentiality in his dealings with advisers and usually given significant protection.
In an earlier case, the 1974 United States v. Nixon, the court had said the privilege is not absolute, as it required Nixon to turn over Watergate tapes for a criminal investigation. (Nixon resigned soon after that decision.)”
Also in this article:
“Biden’s endorsement of the US House committee’s request for materials from January 6 eases the separation-of-powers concerns that traditionally loom when Congress seeks presidential materials.
In that regard, Chutkan’s opinion drew on the 2020 Trump v. Mazars case, in which the then-President had tried to prevent House Democrats from obtaining certain tax and other financial documents. Trump argued at the time that his role as president should shield him from investigation.
The Supreme Court rejected Trump’s broad claim that the House lacked power to subpoena the documents but returned the dispute to lower courts to weigh “special concerns” regarding the balance of powers among the branches and the House’s claim that its request flowed from a valid legislative purpose.
Chutkan said much of the Supreme Court apprehension in the 2020 document dispute would not apply to the current controversy because of Biden’s position. (Trump also lacks the personal-privacy grounds he raised in the Mazars financial-documents case.)
This article is from November. I wanted something less involved with trump’s latest move to SCOTUS. Maybe Jack will come by and add his legalese opinion?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/11/politics/trump-nixon-supreme-court-analysis-biskupic/index.html