Who’d a thunk it? Democratic federalists and a Republican central planner. Getting us back to work!
Democratic governors are developing regional plans to get back to work while our Republican president at first claimed that only he could give the order. The irony in that political role reversal is delicious. But since it’s all politics, I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised.
Democratic governors in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Delaware formed a committee to address getting back to work. Ditto for the Democratic governors of California, Oregon, and Washington.
Regional rather than national restart plans make sense for both the economy and politics. The liberal media has vigorously supported a long business lockdown: better to let Trump take the hit if restarting the economy backfires. So there’s safety in numbers for Democratic governors who risk media wrath by even mentioning getting back to work.
After backing down on his claim that only he could order the country back to work, Trump unveiled the administration’s “Opening Up America Again” guidelines on Thursday. The recommendations were approved by the administration’s public health advisers including Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Importantly, the guidelines are data-driven and put decision-making responsibility on governors where it belongs. As expected, the elderly and those with underlying medical conditions are advised to stay at home during the first two of each state or region’s three phases and to continue social distancing during the third.
This approach will likely be adopted by governors and is what the Southwest Utah Public Health Department has been advocating all along. I got a firestorm of criticism for advocating this common-sense approach in my April 5th column.
The federal Centers for Disease Control director said governors of as many as 20 states with limited impact – read “Utah” – could reopen their states by May 1st. Utah Governor Herbert released his “Utah Leads Together” plan in response.
I oppose a one-size-fits-all national plan to reopen the economy just as I opposed a national minimum wage law in a previous column. Why? Regional differences and even differences within states are just too great.
For example, Utah’s Beaver County had no COVID-19 cases as of this last Friday. Should a Milford convenience store be governed by public health directives issued from inside the Beltway?
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act was passed quickly by Congress in response to the unfolding medical crisis. But ominously, by temporarily expanding the reach of the federal government, it opened the door to a dramatic expansion of the welfare state as a replacement for productive employment.
Case in point: The act’s generous unemployment benefits exceed the wages of many workers, destroying any incentive to return to work. As the health crisis fades, Democrats will exploit lingering unemployment as a rationale to continue excessive benefits, in effect permanently “locking down” recipients as wards of the state.
With both the federal and state governments expanding their reach into the economy, competing for advantage in the market economy is replaced by seeking special favors from the government.
For example, California’s list of “Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers” includes “workers supporting cannabis retail.” No, I’m not kidding; in California, recreational marijuana is deemed essential and critical.
I argue instead that every job is essential to the person holding that job. It pays the rent and puts food on the table. For the government to designate some jobs as nonessential is insensitive and arrogant. Let employers and employees make their own decisions.
Business lockdowns and stay-in-place orders were implemented to prevent peak medical staff and hospital overload. No one expected the orders to end the pandemic, only to “flatten the peak.” That is, infections were expected to continue as illustrated in this graph. Since we passed the COVID-19 peak nationally in early April, lockdowns have accomplished their original purpose.
Illness and some deaths will follow the end of any lockdown, no matter its length. And with a vaccine likely a year away, there’s a good chance that most of us will be exposed to COVID-19, just later rather than sooner. Holding any elected leader responsible for post-lockdown deaths defies common sense.
With that in mind, I end with some questions for serious readers:
How much of our “curve flattening” has been due to individuals taking responsible precautions rather than heavy-handed government lockdowns?
Why should economically vulnerable younger workers continue to be punished to protect those who ought to be protecting themselves?
At what point does the increase in alcohol and illegal drug use, the increase in domestic violence, the increase in anxiety, depression, and suicide outweigh saving an unknown number of post-lockdown lives?
With lockdown street protests growing around the country, and here in southern Utah, how long will it be until government directives will be widely ignored by the public?
Viewpoints and perspectives expressed throughout The Independent are those of the individual contributors. They do not necessarily reflect those held by the staff of The Independent or our advertising sponsors. Your comments, rebuttals, and contributions are welcome in accordance with our Terms of Service. Please be respectful and abide by our Community Rules. If you have privacy concerns you can view our Privacy Policy here. Thank you!
Click here to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or a Letter to the Editor
