Press "Enter" to skip to content

ResCon1

Trump Is Right About Cuomo’s Failure to Procure Ventilators, and the So-Called Fact Checkers Are Wrong

As we reported here at ResCon1, Tuesday, March 24, New York’s Democratic Governor, Andrew Cuomo, bears significant responsibility for his state’s lack of ventilators.

U.S. intelligence agencies and public health experts, we observed, warned Cuomo and other government officials years ago of likely pandemics that would overburden our hospitals and healthcare system.

A New York state task force, in fact, specifically warned Cuomo of the lack of ventilators during a pandemic. Cuomo, though, opted not to purchase the requisite number of ventilators.

These are all facts, not opinion or conjecture, and this a matter of public record.

What is a a matter of opinion is Cuomo’s assertion that Trump needs to “nationalize” the medical supply chain, because doing so would mean that 30,000 ventilators would suddenly be produced and descend upon New York State hospitals.

Trump, as we reported here at ResCon1, has wisely resisted Cuomo’s call to have the federal government take over the medical supply chain, because doing so would not solve anything.

Instead, nationalization would create more problems because the government is inept at running commercial businesses. That is simply not a public-sector comparative advantage. 

Trump, meanwhile, hit back against Cuomo in a Fox News virtual town hall:

This [article] says that New York Governor Cuomo rejected buying recommended 16,000 ventilators in 2015 for the pandemic—for a pandemic; established death panels and a lotteries instead.

So he had a chance to buy, in 2015, 16,000 ventilators at a very low price and he turned it down.

I’m not blaming him or anything else, but he shouldn’t be talking about us. He’s supposed to be buying his own ventilators. We’re going to help.

But, you know, if you think about—if you think about Governor Cuomo, we’re building him four hospitals. We’re building him four medical centers.

We’re working very, very hard for the people of New York. We’re working along with him, and then I watch him on the show, complaining. And he had 16,000 ventilators that he could have had at a great price and he didn’t buy them.

As a result of these comments, two news organizations, The Dispatch and FactCheck.Org, have published overly long, tendentious, and convoluted criticisms of Trump for allegedly not telling the truth about Cuomo and the ventilators. But their criticisms really miss the mark and are beside the point.

FactCheck.Org flags Trump for charging that, because New York failed to purchase more ventilators years ago, it would be forced to employ a “lottery system” and “death panels” to ration the use of available ventilators. This is “misleading,” they argue.

Moreover, says FactCheck.Org, the New York State task force that looked into the matter in 2015 “did not recommend whether the state should buy more ventilators (and hire the staff necessary to operate them).”

But this is splitting hairs. As Betsy McCaughey explains in the New York Post,

In 2015, that task force came up with rules that will be imposed when ventilators run short.

Patients assigned a red code will have highest access, and other ­patients will be assigned green, yellow or blue (the worst), ­depending on a “triage officer’s” decision.

In truth, a death officer. Let’s not sugar-coat it. It won’t be up to your own doctor.

Exactly. Let’s not sugar-coat it. As for the reference to a “lottery system,” that came from a Feb. 27, 2020, New York Times article:

The task force that issued the report devised a formula, relying partially on medical criteria, to help hospitals decide who would get ventilators and who would not.

It also envisioned a lottery system in some instances. And age could play a role, with children being given preference over adults.

Rationing. But the larger-scale point, which we made here at ResCon1 is this: without more ventilators soon, ventilators will have to be rationed, and that means deciding who will live and who will die.

Call it what you will, that is a problem—a big and serious problem. 

And whether the task force recommended that the state buy more ventilators is immaterial. The reality is that, as Governor of New York State, Cuomo has a responsibility to safeguard the health and safety of his people, the residents of New York. He failed.

He failed by not buying more ventilators—even though he had been warned of this problem, and even though he had been warned about the likelihood of a pandemic that would require many more ventilators. 

Maybe he failed for good reason: because the tradeoffs were too difficult and too stark. Still, he failed. As governor, the buck stops with him.

The Dispatch, meanwhile, complains that “Trump provided no evidence to support his claim that Cuomo could have had the ventilators ‘at a very low price’ in 2015, and that Cuomo ‘turned it down.’”

But cost, too, is really immaterial. When it comes to public health, government has an obligation to spend whatever it takes to protect the health and well-being of their people—us.

That is a fundamental and non-negotiable obligation of the state.If government officials think the cost of public health is too high or prohibitive, then they should say so, clearly and publicly.

That way, we can openly and rationally discuss and debate the tradeoffs involved, our public policy and spending priorities, and what level of risk we, as a society, are willing to assume.

In any case, Trump was echoing what McCaughey argued in her New York Post piece. “In 2015,” she wrote,

the state could have purchased the additional 16,000 needed ventilators for $36,000 a piece, or a total of $576 million. It’s a lot of money, but in hindsight, spending half a percent of the budget to prepare for a pandemic was the right thing to do.

The Dispatch also gets lost in the weeds on the origins of the New York State task force and its precise findings; but this is all background noise and beside the point.

The bottom line is this: Cuomo was warned of a problem and yet, he did not act.

But what’s done is done. What matters now is: where do we go from here? How do we ramp up production and delivery of ventilators to New York and other states that are suffering most from the coronavirus?

The most obvious place to begin is with the Strategic National Stockpile, “the government reserve meant to fortify overwhelmed hospitals in a crisis.” But that stockpile has only 16,600 ventilators, reports the Center for Public Integrity—far fewer than the 64,000 to 742,000 that might be needed.

In truth, only an unleashed and unchained private sector free to innovate can possibly produce the requisite number of ventilators quickly enough to meet the anticipated demand. Fortunately the Trump administration is relaxing the regulatory burden and companies are stepping up to produce.

A company called Prisma Health, for instance, is using 3D printing to manufacture a new ventilator model that can support up to four patients simultaneously.

The company says that it “has received emergency use authorization” from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and is working with “COVID-19 [treatment] teams who have no more ventilator capacity, and who can initiate emergency use of the prototype.”

The good news, reports the Wall Street Journal’s William McGurn, “is that players in the private sector… have already been in touch with one another to see how they might team up.”

For example, he writes, before the coronavirus hit, one company’s “peak output was roughly 150 ventilators a month.” However, within the next 90 days, they expect to increase that to 1,000 ventilators a month.

“It won’t be easy [nor will it happen] overnight,” says Chris Kiple, “but it can be done.”

Mr. Kiple is CEO of Seattle-based Ventec Life Systems. He says Ventec is one of about a dozen players in the global market for ventilators, only about half of which are U.S.-based companies.

“Ventec,” McGurn writes, recently

announced it will work in partnership with General Motors. The idea is to combine GM’s experience of mass-production manufacturing with Ventec’s technology.

Mr. Kiple says the partnership will mean getting “more ventilators to more hospitals much faster.” The president tweeted Sunday, [March 22, 2020]: “Go for it auto execs.”

Feature photo credit: NY1

J-L Cauvin Does the Greatest Impersonation of Donald Trump That You’ve Ever Seen—and Heard!

Thanks to Twitter, I stumbled upon this wonderfully entertaining and amazingly spot-on impersonation of Donald Trump. The gentleman’s name is

J-L Cauvin. As you can see, he is an extraordinary talent.

https://twitter.com/JLCauvin/status/1242515702688485376

What makes Cauvin’s impersonation of Trump so compelling, I think, are three things, three rare gifts that he has:

First, like all great impressionists, Cauvin captures his subject’s voice and inflections to a tee. Indeed, the timbre and intonation of his voice all truly sound like Trump’s. It is remarkable. Cauvin obviously has a great ear.

Second, Cauvin perfectly captures Trump’s facial expressions, contortions, and mannerisms. It is, amazingly, like watching The Donald.

Third, Cauvin is a great writer. He not only looks and sounds like Trump; he speaks like Trump! Thus he perfectly captures Trump’s rhetorical tics and unique style of speaking.

Cauvin’s satirical spoof on Trump’s Easter message (above) is pure brilliance and a joy to behold. In fact, Cauvin is so good that I cannot help but wonder: why has he not received greater national attention?

For example, why has he not been on Saturday Night Live? Cauvin is much more entertaining than Alec Baldwin, who does a very weak and decidedly unentertaining Donald Trump.

The reason may be that Cauvin is too good. He is laugh-aloud entertaining, and his impersonation has the effect of humanizing Trump. And humanizing Trump is the very last thing our progressive denizens of pop culture want to do.

Trump, to them, is a monster, and he must be depicted as such.

It’s too bad because wit and humor can help soften and leaven the political polarization that plagues our country.

But even were that not the case, there is intrinsic wisdom and beauty in great art that is worth contemplating for its own sake. And great art should be considered as such irrespective of the subject whom it depicts.

All of which is to say: Donald Trump may a less-than-admirable human being; but J-L Cauvin’s depiction of Trump is, nonetheless, admirable and impressive—and well worth the moments of levity that it engenders.

Only the Private Sector Can Deliver the Ventilators NY Gov. Cuomo Says He Needs to Combat the Coronavirus

The severe shortage of ventilators in the United States to cope with the anticipated wave of coronavirus patients who will require them illustrates what government can and cannot do—or at least should and should not do.

The government should plan and prepare for likely or predicted pandemics and other potential mass-scale medical emergencies by ensuring that hospitals and healthcare providers have the necessary supplies and equipment that they need to treat and care for patients.

I say likely or predicted pandemics because we obviously cannot anticipate every possible medical emergency. And it is not practical, feasible, or economical to prepare for everything that might happen, no matter how unlikely or remote.

But the truth is: the coronavirus is a pandemic that we were warned was coming, and which our elected representatives should have anticipated and prepared to combat. As NBC News’ Ken Dilanian reports:

For years, American intelligence agencies have been warning about the increasing risks of a global pandemic that could strain resources and damage the global economy, while observing that the frequency and diversity of global disease outbreaks has been rising.

In a worldwide threats assessment in 2018 and 2017, intelligence analysts even mentioned a close cousin of the current COVID-19 strain of coronavirus by name, saying it had “pandemic potential” if it were “to acquire efficient human-to-human transmissibility.”

For this reason, writes Betsy McCaughey in the New York Post, a New York State task force found, in 2015, that the state had “16,000 fewer ventilators than the 18,000 New Yorkers would need in a severe pandemic.”

Yet, state officials decided not to buy these 16,000 ventilators. The governor of New York at the time: Democrat Andrew Cuomo.

Ventilators. This is the same Andrew Cuomo who has been eloquent about his state’s need for 30,000 ventilators. Otherwise, he warns, hospitals in New York risk being overwhelmed with coronavirus patients.

And, if that happens (as it already has happened in Italy), hospitals and physicians will be forced to make heart-wrenching decisions about who gets a ventilator and who does not—meaning who gets to live and who does not.

Of course, it never should have come to this. State officials like Cuomo should have heeded the warnings of public health experts years ago and prepared for this foreseeable and predicted pandemic.

But we are where we are. What, then, is to be done?

Unfortunately, there are no quick and simple solutions. It takes time and money to manufacture ventilators, and, as Cuomo himself admits:

You can’t find available ventilators no matter how much you’re willing to pay right now, because there is literally a global run on ventilators.

For this reason, Cuomo and his left-wing allies in the media and in Congress want the federal government to provide the ventilators; and they fault Trump for allegedly not using the full powers of the presidency to make it happen.

They specifically fault Trump for supposedly failing to invoke the Defense Production Act to manufacture ventilators.

“I do not understand the reluctance to use the federal Defense Production Act to manufacture ventilators,” Cuomo tweeted. “If not now, when?”

But as the Wall Street Journal points out, Trump already has invoked the 1950 Defense Production Act

that lets a President, during a national emergency, order business to manufacture products for national defense, set wage and price controls, and allocate materials.

On Tuesday the Federal Emergency Management Agency used the Korean War-era law for the first time in this crisis to procure and distribute testing kits and face masks…

[But] businesses know their workforce capacities and supply chains better than the government—and how to retool them to maximize efficiency…

Ford said on Tuesday that it would start assembling plastic face shields and work with 3M and GE to make respirators and ventilators.

General Motors is also exploring how to use its global automotive supply chain to make ventilators.

Ford’s CEO said its ventilators could be available by June, and it isn’t obvious that a government takeover of manufacturing would speed this up,

In short, having the government order or mandate something doesn’t magically make it happen. If that were the case, the Soviet Union would have won the Cold War and we’d all be speaking Russian.

Private-sector companies and manufacturers, moreover, already are stepping up in a big way to provide ventilators, masks, gowns, nose swabs, and other critical health gear and equipment needed to combat the coronavirus. And the Trump administration is watching and prodding them as best it can.

Private Sector. Cuomo says that “only the federal government has the power to deliver” the ventilators. But this is nonsense and shows how little Cuomo knows. In truth, only the private sector has the power to deliver—and it will if the government lets it.

Indeed, contra Cuomo, what is needed is not nationalization of the medical supply chain, but rather deregulation of the medical supply chain. This so that private sector companies are free to innovate and rapidly produce the supplies and equipment that our healthcare professionals need.

And, on that score, there is some good news. Reason magazine’s Scott Shackford reports 

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is easing up on some regulations so that ventilators can be manufactured and implemented more quickly to respond to the spread of COVID-19.

In new guidance issued on Monday, the FDA said that it will practice “enforcement discretion” by allowing manufacturers of ventilators to allow for some modifications of hardware, software, and materials.

This allows manufacturers more flexibility in response to supply shortages that could keep them from ramping up production.

The new guidance will also allow for the quicker addition of new production lines and alternative production locations.

[In other words], if other companies that have space to install production lines of their own (GM, for example, has offered unused space in its shuttered plants) those companies are free to do so. 

In short, Cuomo has identified a real problem that he had it in his power to address years ago. However, he lacked the foresight and wisdom to do so. Thus he now urges the federal government to act. But he misdiagnoses the problem, and his recommend cure is no cure at all.

The best thing the government can do is to identify early on big issues and problems that need to be addressed, and then leave the private sector free to experiment and innovate its way toward a solution.

They know, far more than the state bureaucracy, what must be done to get us out of our logjam.

In the meantime, let us hope and pray that the entrepreneurs and the captains of industry can act quickly enough to ensure that, in the weeks and months to come, no American who needs a ventilator is denied a ventilator.

Feature photo credit: Associated Press via Salon.

Hugh Hewitt: the Pundit as Political Teammate and How This Distorts the News

“I believe, by the way, Donald Trump has become the president we need at exactly the moment that his skill set is most called for.”

—Hugh Hewitt, conservative radio host and highly sophisticated Trump apologist, Mar. 19, 2020

No, this is not a parody, and Hewitt wasn’t being sarcastic or snarky. He said this in all seriousness. The question is: why? Hewitt, after all, is not a stupid man. To the contrary: he’s very bright—and he may be the best talk radio host in America.

A Harvard grad, Hewitt is an attorney and a fairly prolific author. He surely understands that Trump is the most incapable and unfit president in all of American history.

In fact, during the 2016 Republican primary race, Hewitt exposed Trump’s utter ignorance with some very basic foreign policy questions that Trump simply could not answer.

Why, then, does Hewitt insist on being such a dishonest shill and apologist for Trump?

Conservative Policy Achievements. No doubt because, like me—and like many conservatives—he is grateful for much of what the Trump administration (as opposed to Trump himself) has done.

There are, after all, Trump’s two supreme court justices, the 44 Circuit Court judges, and 112 District Court judges—almost all of whom are solid, well-credentialed originalists vetted and approved by the Federalist Society. 

Given the outsized role that the courts and the judiciary regrettably now play in American life, this is a critical achievement, which will far outlive Trump and his administration. And it is something all conservatives deeply appreciate.

Then, too, there is corporate tax and regulatory reform, which, at least before the coronavirus, made American businesses far more competitive internationally, while fueling sustained economic growth and record-low unemployment.

Trump also ended sequestration, which had been devastating to U.S. military readiness. And he wisely withdrew from the Iranian nuclear deal, because it would have enabled Iran to become a nuclear-armed power. 

Of course, there are many things that Trump has done which, as a conservative, I do not like. His Syrian withdrawal and abandonment of the Kurds, for instance, was strategically unwise and morally reprehensible

His inability to build international alliances, likewise, has seriously handicapped our nation’s ability to shape the world order in ways that truly put America, and American interests, first

And Trump’s heavy-handed, bull-in-a-china-shop approach to trade and tariffs has been a self-inflicted wound that has weakened economic growth at home, while being mostly ineffective at bringing the Chinese to heel.

Still, I will acknowledge that Trump has done enough, arguably, to warrant conservative support. So I don’t begrudge or criticize Hewitt for supporting the president.

Instead, what I find quite objectionable is Hewitt’s dishonesty in supporting Trump.

Dishonesty. It is one thing, after all, to support Trump administration policies (as I largely do, albeit with some significant exceptions), while forthrightly and honestly acknowledging Trump’s myriad character flaws and objectionable behavior (as I also do).

It is another thing altogether, though, to support Trump administration policies while denying Trump’s obvious flaws and objectionable behavior, which is what Hewitt does.

And in fact, Hewitt does much worse than that. Not only does he refuse to acknowledge Trump’s all-too-egregious missteps and misdeeds; he also actually insists (as the aforementioned quote at the top of this posts indicates) that Trump is doing a great job!

This is simply dishonest, as Hewitt surely knows.

But Hewitt, like many pundits and commentators today, left and right, rationalizes his dishonesty because he views himself as a member of a team.

Political Teams. Hewitt sees himself as  a member of the center-right, GOP team. Therefore, in his mind, he must behave like a good trial attorney and mount a vigorous and unyielding defense of his “client”—Trump specifically and the GOP more generally.

Thus Hewitt doesn’t see himself as being dishonest. Instead, he sees himself as a good and loyal teammate putting forth the best defense that he possibly can for his client.

Unfortunately Hewitt is not alone.The way he sees himself is how a great many pundits and commentators today, left and right, see themselves: as coaches and teammates for whom team loyalty is the highest virtue.

That’s not how I see myself. And it is not the guiding inspiration behind this website, ResCon1. Although I am proudly and unabashedly conservative, I am not a member of any team.

Instead, I am an army of one. Thus I call it like it I see it, regardless of the political consequences, and let the chips fall where they may. 

I think the quality of our political commentary would improve immeasurably if that is how most pundits and commentators approached their work. At the very least, it would mean more honest and truthful political commentary.

But alas, we live in highly polarized times in which everyone feels a need to pick a side and fiercely defend their side—no matter what: because the other side is too dangerous to trust with the reins of political power.

Truth. I get it, but that still doesn’t make it right—or wise. “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free (John 8:32).” Good advice then; good advice today—for both readers and pundits.

In the meantime, consider the source, as they say. Consider the source of your news. Understand the biases and prejudices of reporters and pundits, and what motivates them.

Are they committed to the truth, to an ideological agenda, or to a political team? Are they politically and philosophically aware and informed? Or are they, instead, the product of a cloistered educational system that has shielded them from important schools of thought?

Because all of this matters, and in ways you might not fully realize. Just ask—or listen to—Hugh Hewitt.

Feature photo credit: NBC News via the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Trump’s Affinity for China’s Dictator, Xi Jinping, Made Him Blind to the Coronavirus

Much has been made of Trump’s affinity for foreign dictators and strong men—how Trump seems to like them personally and to view them as friends and kindred spirits with whom he has “a great relationship.”

We’ll leave it to the shrinks and psychiatrists to figure that one out. But whatever the motivation, Trump’s affinity for foreign dictators and strong men is a real problem: It perverts the policy-making process and makes him blind to real and pressing problems and gathering threats.

Unfortunately, the coronavirus is a case in point. The Washington Post reports that, in early January, U.S. intelligence agencies began warning Trump of the danger poised by the outbreak of the coronavirus in Wuhan, China.

Trump, though, didn’t want to hear it and dismissed the threat as exaggerated and misplaced.

The reason: his “friend,” Chinese dictator Xi Jinping, was telling him not to worry. And Trump seems to have placed greater stock in what Xi was telling him than in what he was hearing from U.S. intelligence agencies.

The Post’s Shane Harris, Greg Miller, Josh Dawsey, and Ellen Nakashima report:

[In early February], Robert Kadlec, the assistant secretary for preparedness and response—who was joined by intelligence officials, including from the CIA—told [Senate Intelligence] committee members that the virus posed a “serious” threat, one of those officials said.

Kadlec didn’t provide specific recommendations, but he said that to get ahead of the virus and blunt its effects, Americans would need to take actions that could disrupt their daily lives, the official said. “It was very alarming.”

Trump’s insistence on the contrary seemed to rest in his relationship with China’s President Xi Jinping, whom Trump believed was providing him with reliable information about how the virus was spreading in China—despite reports from intelligence agencies that Chinese officials were not being candid about the true scale of the crisis.

Some of Trump’s advisers told him that Beijing was not providing accurate numbers of people who were infected or who had died, according to administration officials. Rather than press China to be more forthcoming, Trump publicly praised its response.

“China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus,” Trump tweeted Jan. 24. “The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!”

Unfortunately, this was not the only instance of Trump broadcasting his cluelessness and gullibility for all the world to see. Here are some other gems:

Half Measures. Trump and his apologists make much of the fact that, on Jan. 31, he banned most foreigners who had recently visited China from entering the United States.

But in truth, this was a modest, half measure that did little to arrest the virus’ spread because of the lack of rapid and comprehensive testing to identify, isolate and contain the virus in the United States.

Why didn’t Trump push for rapid and comprehensive testing? The public record and reputable newspaper reporting all point to one reason: because Trump believed his “friend,” Xi: that it will all work out well.

And besides: Trump worried that focusing too much on the coronavirus would spook traders and cause a downturn in the stock market.

Yet, as recently as yesterday, during a press conference, Trump professed ignorance about what was happening inside of China— even though his own intelligence advisers had been telling him for weeks what was happening there.

Trump, moreover, was still sucking up to his “friend,” Xi:

I have great respect for China. I like China. I think the people of China are incredible. I have a tremendous relationship with Xi. I wish they could have told us earlier about what was happening inside. We didn’t know about it until it started coming out publicly.

Balderdash! Trump obviously knew about the coronavirus and its rapid spread in Wuhan, China . And if he didn’t know, it was only because he chose to ignore his own intelligence advisers and to remain willfully ignorant.

Either way, Trump has been derelict in his duty and is unfit to lead. If he were a better man, he long ago would have resigned in disgrace. The problem is that Trump knows no embarrassment and no shame.

Feature photo credit: Thomas Peter/Getty Images in Politico.