Colleges Are Short With Money Even After Coronavirus Relief Bill

(A photo of a deserted campus at Fordham University in New York)

Link to article

            Congress has recently formed a bill, that has been passed by the Senate and will most likely be passed by the House on Friday, that provides $14 billion to colleges and universities. This will create a $30.75 billion education stabilization fund for all levels of education, but falls short of the $50 billion that many higher education leaders claim they need. This money would be used to help with the cost of student housing, as many students left their colleges to return home, technology for digital learning, and the salaries of the staff and faculty, some of which are out of jobs with the closure of the schools. Tens of millions of dollars have already been spent to deal with theses issues, also impacting college admissions as the cost for fall tuition at these colleges is unpredictable with the amount of changes. Not only is the stimulus bill critical for small, independent institutions who do not receive a lot of government support, but also the larger institutions who find it hard to charge $50,000 for tuition when the classes are online. Overall, the colleges and universities are struggling with having to increase expenditures on maintaining school life digitally, while at the same time having a drastic reduction in revenue.

            I believe the stimulus bill is a good start to helping fund the colleges and universities that are struggling with paying for the costs of maintaining the school, but I also find that it may not be enough. There are many employees who are now out of jobs with schooling being done online, and while I believe they should continue being paid as they may have no other source of income, I can see how this would put a large strain on the colleges' already thinning budget.

Questions:
1. Do you think Congress is providing enough aid to schools and/or other facilities affected by the virus?
2. How will the shortage of school funding affect seniors or others planning on going to college?
3. How do you see Congress reacting to institutions arguing they aren't getting enough funding? Do you believe they'll take further action to appease these views?

Spit On, Yelled At, Attacked: Chinese-Americans Fear for Their Safety

article link

Covid-19 is a threat to everyone’s health, but to Asian Americans, it poses a safety concern as well. Just earlier this month, Yuanyuan Zhu was walking to her local gym in San Francisco when a middle- aged man started shouting expletives about China at her, and then spit on her as she tried to remove herself from the situation. 

Much of this outright racism could be drawn back to President Trump. Unlike President George W. Bush urged tolerance of American Muslims in 2001, President Trump is calling the coronavirus “Chinese” which is likely provoking racist attacks. 

The article goes on to describe another racially motivated confrontation of Dr. Edward Chew, the head of the emergency department at a large Manhattan hospital who is on the front lines of fighting the coronavirus. When he went to Home Depot to buy protective gear, like goggles and face shields, for his staff in case his hospital runs out, he was harassed by three men in their 20s, who followed him into the parking lot.

Jiayang Fan, a writer for The New Yorker, was simply taking out her trash when she got cursed at for being Chinese by a random man walking by. “I’ve never felt like this in my 27 yrs in this country,” she wrote on Twitter on Tuesday. “I’ve never felt afraid to leave my home to take out the trash bc of my face.”

There have been many instances of physical attacks on Asian Americans as well, but it is the hate speech that has no clear consequences. Hate speech is technically protected under the First Amendment which states Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. And neither verbal abuse nor spitting on people fall under hate crimes because neither are a crime. 

With the government unable to do anything to address these perpetrators, it is up to Asian Americans to defend themselves. A friend of mine recently saw a caption on Instagram that blamed China for the virus using the term “kung flu,” which originated from an official in the Trump administration. My friend then attempted to politely let the person who posted it know that this caption was insensitive, but many people simply mocked her comment or ignored it. 

Questions:
What do you think can be done to protect Asian Americans, or any minorities facing any morally wrong but unprosecutable attacks? What do you think incites these attacks? How can these be prevented? Any other thoughts?

Senate Votes on $2 Trillion Stimulus Bill

CBS News  NY Times  Politico

Summary

With one out of every four Americans being told to stay home (except for essential workers), there has been an influx of workers being laid off across a multitude of industries, and requests for unemployment insurance have greatly increased. Because many businesses deemed "nonessential" have been forced to shut down, many have also been entreating for a government bailout in order to stay afloat during these dire and unprecedented times. In order to prevent a recession equal to or surpassing the scale of the 2008 recession, the government has been called upon to create a stimulus package that protects Americans and businesses who have been affected by the shelter in place ordered by over 21 states. Republicans initially drafted the stimulus bill with a $500 billion corporate bailout fund, which would be "guided" by the Federal Reserve and Steve Mnuchin, and would not provide transparency for who the funds went to until six months later. Many felt that this echoed one of the biggest flaws of the 2008 recession bank bailout, where Americans lost at the expense of rich corporations profit. Democrats opposed the bill because of this component; the bill has subsequently been amended to include an oversight committee for this fund, and no stock buyback for up to a year for companies who participate. Within the bill, there are also increases made to unemployment insurance, hospitals and small businesses would receive vital financial aid, and taxpayers would also receive a check in the mail for $1,200 if their annual income is below $75,000 (an additional $600 for every child dependent). The bill is now set to be voted on tonight, where it will then move on to the House. Democrats in the House had proposed a competing bill Monday night before amendments were made to the Senate bill, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently expressed she was "pleased" with the Senate bill after it was modified.

Reaction

While this has been a very polarizing bill, I am incredibly glad that it has gotten to the voting stage relatively quickly, as Americans are in dire need of government action. The bill has many promising components, and many of its questionable parts have since been amended due to negotiation. Before they amended the corporate bailout fund, some were concerned that Trump's administration had too much control over it, as they were able to delegate which businesses got what without any oversight or transparency. Some also expressed concern that Trump would be able to help his own businesses with the bill, but Democrats recently secured an amendment ensuring that high-level senior officials could not directly benefit from the corporate bailout fund. This eliminates the possibility that someone could disproportionately benefit because of their position, and it is also reassuring that there is now oversight for the $500 billion fund. While it is unprecedented that individual Americans are receiving direct aid from the government, there should also be additional provisions in place that make it illegal to cut off utilities or internet to those who cannot afford it, which could then be subsidized by the government as well. However, overall, I believe this bill will do a lot to help dampen the effects of a possible recession.

Questions

1. Do you believe that this stimulus bill could help prevent a large-scale recession?

2. With the House majority Democrat, do you believe this bill is enough of a compromise between the two parties for the bill to be passed in the House?

3. Do you think the corporate bailout fund was comparable to the 2008 bank bailout?

Russia’s Highest Court Opens Way for Putin to Rule Until 2036

article link

On Monday, Russia's highest court, the Constitutional Court, ruled that is was lawful for President Vladimir Putin to ignore term limits and stay in power through 2036, and possibly through life. The previous law had a two consecutive term limit with each term lasing 6 years. Putin has been in power since 2000 (President: 2000 - 2008, 2012 - Present, Prime Minister: 2008 - 2012) and the next election will be in 2024. The court had previously ruled in 1998 that their first democratically elected president Boris Yeltsin could not ignore term limits, yet are now allowing Putin to run for two more six year terms. This was passed despite thousands of Russians signing a petition urging judges to not pass this amendment. Both houses of parliament and regional parliament have quickly signed the new amendment. This ruling by the court has shown the power Putin has over the judicial system and Russia as a whole and greatly limits the freedom and democracy of Russian citizens.

Questions:
1. What is your reaction to Putin possibly being in power for the rest of his life?
2. What does this mean for democracy in Russia?
3. What affect do you think this move will have on Russia's foreign affairs?

In Rare Oval Office Speech, Trump Voices New Concerns and Old Themes

Trump Addresses Coronavirus Outbreak in an Oval Office Speech

Link to Article

On Wednesday night of March 11, 2020, President Trump made an announcement concerning the growing seriousness of the coronavirus in the Oval Office. Before the broadcasting of this speech on Wednesday night, President Trump related coronavirus to an everyday flu. Now that coronavirus is spreading quickly throughout the United States, President Trump has issued a new set of rules regarding the spread of the coronavirus within the country. Although in his address, he spoke highly of his administration who have handled the situation well, he also went on to suspend "all travel from Europe to the United States" except for the United Kingdom. This measure would prevent foreign citizens from entering the US, but not affect trade and cargo. In his speech, he blamed foreign countries for the spread of coronavirus in the US saying that "our nation's unprecedented response to the coronavirus outbreak that started in China and is now spreading throughout the world."

I think that the address from the Oval Office that Trump was a way to help relieve tensions concerning the coronavirus. Although not all the facts President Trump stated in his speech were accurate, he did press upon the urgency of this pandemic. Ultimately, this will build tension around Europe and the US regarding trade in any form since no foreign citizens are allowed in the US who come from European countries besides the United Kingdom.

Questions:

1. What was your reaction to President Trump's Oval Office Speech?

2. How will this affect relations with Europe?

3. What is your opinion of President Trump's new travel ban to contain the spread of coronavirus?

Coronavirus in NY: Ban on Large Gatherings as Cases Rise Sharply

The state canceled the St. Patrick's Day parade in New York and is banning all gatherings of more than 500 people

In efforts to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, the state of New York has been implementing strict measures within its cities. Today, many famed institutions such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Carnegie Hall, and the Metropolitan Opera have announced closings. Mayor Bill de Blasio had declared a state of emergency in the city which has nearly 100 reported cases of the virus. On Thursday, the mayor suggested that there would be 1,000 positive cases by the next week as testing increased. He stated, "we are going to lose some of our fellow New Yorkers...that, unfortunately, is inevitable." The emergency order that is being established will grant the mayor to take drastic measures such as an implemented curfew, limiting traffic to emergency vehicles or suspending certain laws. Restaurants and bars, in particular, were demanded to decrease their occupancy by half and all planned concertos will now be canceled. However, there has been a concern for Broadway, a billion-dollar industry at the heart of New York's tourist trade. All Broadway shows will be closed until April 12 unless the edict placed by the mayor has not yet been lifted. Blasio did acknowledge the toll these new measures would take on small businesses and restaurants however claimed that this was necessary for the safety of the people. The mayor of Jersey City, Steven Fulop, had announced that there would be a set curfew of 10 p.m. on bars and nightclubs. Additionally, in Newark, Mayor Ras Baraka advised that all "nonessential public gatherings: of more than 50 people should be canceled for the next 30 days. The city's annual St. Patrick's Day Parade, which typically draws two million, has been postponed for a later date at the moment. In the city of Westchester, National Guards have been delivering food and sanitizing buildings, even as 27 more cases were reported. 

The spread of the coronavirus has been an incredibly relevant global concern that many leaders are attempting to address. I believe that although these new mandated measures will significantly impact restaurants, hotels, and other various places in which people gather, these restrictions are necessary to at least attempt to contain and prevent the spread of the virus. The prediction given by the mayor that 1,000 cases would be reported within the next week reiterates the severity of the virus and the need to take action and as many precautions as possible. As the overall situation of the virus seems to be worsening as time passes, these restrictions should be in fact implemented until a viable cure or vaccine is publicized.   

Questions:

1) Do you agree with the new measures that have been implemented within New York?
2) What additional restrictions or concepts should be considered by leaders in effort to contain or prevent the virus from further exposure to citizens?

Trump pushes payroll tax cut and assistance for hourly workers in coronavirus economic response

CNN Article

As the coronavirus continues to spread panic and cause the stock market to drop, President Trump reported that he would press lawmakers to enact a payroll tax cut and ensure assistance is available to hourly workers. Trump will be meeting with Mitch McConnell to discuss some kind of tax relief. Many lawmakers have been pushing for paid time off to allow employees to stay home without additional financial hardship. Despite these actions, Trump has been downplaying the seriousness of this epidemic saying that the markets are overreacting and that "life and the economy go on." He compared this deadly virus to flu death tolls and blamed market losses on the media, Russia and Saudi Arabia. This outbreak has caused stock markets to halt and led governments to take drastic actions (e.g. lockdown in Italy) as it spreads across the globe. I think that Trump and his administration should instead work on getting people their tax refunds faster. He needs to acknowledge the extent of this virus and understand the fact that there is no vaccine, which is why everyone is on edge. Trump shouldn't fight a global crisis with financial easing; I don't think that monetary stimulus will help ease the economic hardships.

Questions:
1) Do you agree with President Trump's push for a payroll tax cut? How effective do you think it would be?
2) What else would you propose President Trump do to offset the coronavirus economic damage?

Silicon Valley’s two-tiered system for white-collar workers is under pressure as coronavirus spreads

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/03/09/tech-contractors-coronavirus/

With the spread of the Coronavirus in the Bay Area, many of the big tech companies, like Facebook and Google are starting to tell their employees to work from home to avoid spreading germs at the workplace. The only problem is that these contingency plans are a little unclear with who they apply to. There are two types of workers in these big companies: the full time employees and contractors. Contractors are hired from third party companies, so even though these people work for companies like Google, they still technically work for the third party company too. Because of this, there is a lot of confusion on whether the plans to work from home or stay home if sick apply to them. This is a problem because some of the contractor companies don't have the same benefits for paid sick leave as Google does. Additionally, this "stay home plan" doesn't work for all the contractors because, according to an interviewed contractor, some cannot access their Google email account remotely so they are not able to work from home. Many hope that this can be used as an opportunity to shed light on the health benefits and force the companies to review their plans to not make sick leave such a burden on the contractor.

Questions:
1. Do you think companies (and schools) are overreacting to the coronavirus outbreak by having people stay home, or are they doing the right thing?
2. How can big companies like Google ensure more equality between their full time employees and contractors?
3. Who do you think should have authority over the contractors, the big tech companies or the third party company?

Trump's re-election team turns its focus back to Joe Biden

Article

For most of 2019, Trump has launched many efforts to bring down his potential

general election opponent Joe Biden. In an attempt to pursue a scandal that could

destroy his political rival, Trump landed himself in a heap of trouble that resulted

in his impeachment. It has been seen that in the past few weeks that the Trump

team’s focus has shifted from Biden to Bernie Sanders, as Sanders has been racking

up victories while Biden’s support seemed to be dimming. However, Biden had an

impressive campaign revival, as seen from the results of Super Tuesday. The Trump

team again shifted their focus back to Biden. The president’s main argument against

Biden revolves around his lack of mental sharpness and physical health. Trump’s

campaign is also reviving the allegations against Hunter Biden, committing to making it

a larger issue in the coming months. The focal point of Trump’s campaign is capitalizing

on the divide between progressive and moderate Democrats, hoping to draw a wedge

between Sander and Biden supporters. 

1. How beneficial do you think bringing up the Hunter Biden scandal will be for Trump? 

2. Do you believe there is validity in Trump’s argument that Biden is physically and mentally

incapable of performing the duties of presidency? 

3. How do you think the divide between the progressive and moderate Democrats will affect the election?

Trump Signs $8.3 Billion bill to address COVID-19

Trump signs $8.3 billion deal to combat COVID-19
Jung Haye

Image: foxnews.com
In a reversal of previous cuts to the Center for Disease Control and other health programs, President Donald Trump has signed a large aid deal to combat coronavirus as U.S cases rise above 233 with 14 deaths. This comes after 22 states have reported a case of coronavirus and the University of Washington has cancelled classes for the rest of the winter term. The huge additional funding is planned to go towards disease prevention and developing a vaccine for the disease.
The bill moved quickly through a divided house and senate and includes aid to Washington state and California, which have held the majority of cases in the U.S. The bill comes with many legislators have introduced bills for extra paid sick leave.

Questions:
COVID-19 has had a drastic impact on the U.S and global economy so far, with the Dow Jones dropping thousands of points in the past few weeks. Do you think this economic downfall will lead to another recession, or will economies rebound as COVID-19 fades.

Do you think Trump's aid bill is well timed or should the virus have been better addressed earlier?

Do you think the stockpiling of food by many U.S citizens is justified and appropriate?

Source:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/06/trump-signs-8point3-billion-emergency-coronavirus-spending-package.html

OPEC Cuts Oil Supply In Response To Coronavirus

In response to the rapid spread of the coronavirus, there has been a sudden decrease in demand for oil. This is largely due to travel restrictions, as well as the decrease in the movement of goods and other supplies. As a result, the price of oil has fallen by almost a quarter since the virus initially began to spread internationally. In hopes of preventing any further decreases in prices, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has decided to cut the oil supply by 1.5 million barrels per day and is encouraging other non-OPEC countries to do the same, especially Russia who is producing more oil than any OPEC member. Despite agreeing to limit some oil production, OPEC is looking to continue cutting back production even more for a longer period of time. As of now, Russian officials are unwilling to commit to any more cuts.

If there are no additional cuts in production with the decreasing demand of oil, reversing the downward trend of oil prices will become increasingly difficult. There is also said to be a possibility that cutting back production by even larger amounts may be insufficient in keeping pace with the falling demand. 

Questions:

1. Do you believe that there is a possibility that the demand for oil will increase anytime soon?

2. Do you think this could possibly lead to an overall recession? Will this be damaging to the global economy? 

3. Seeing as OPEC only makes up a third of total global oil production, how do you think the others involved in oil production should respond to this? 

China Deploying Hi-Tech Equipment to Fight Coronavirus

Article

China's government has asked the tech industry in their country to step up and use their new technologies with helping cull and control the outbreak of corona virus. There have been technologies such as the use of drones and robots to detect if anyone has a fever, and upgrading the widespread facial recognition cameras to also detect fevers, and people not wearing masks. Temperature detection software usage has also been increasing, as one company, SenseTime says they have had their software deployed at many public locations. There have also been some phone applications that apparently can identify potential virus carriers and WeChat also has the functionality to tell if the user has been in close contact with a virus carrier. This has brought up some issues of privacy, as it allows China to fix the holes in their already widespread surveillance of their population. Personal health data has been reported to have been leaked, and people fear these apps and technologies could cause more widespread fear and discrimination.

However, this also leads to opportunity for both outside and chinese companies to help develop devices similar to these as the market will inevitably grow with the spread of coronavirus to other countries. We still need to wait and see whether these technologies are effective in containing the spread of coronavirus and whether they can be implemented elsewhere to also help combat the spread.

Questions for discussion:
1. Do you think the technology implemented will be effective?
2. Is the issue of privacy something that the Chinese should be concerned about?
3. What are the implications of such technology outside of detection for this outbreak?

Pete Buttigieg Drops Out of Democratic Primary Race

Pete Buttigieg, the first openly gay major presidential candidate

Pete Buttigieg announced on Sunday evening, just two days before Super Tuesday, that he would be dropping out of the democratic primary race. This decision came following his poor performance in the South Carolina democratic primary, indicating his lack of popularity with African American voters.

Buttigieg said that it was "the right thing to do" and that he was concerned about the impact he would have on the race if he had not chosen to suspend his campaign. He stated that the democratic party needed to produce "the right kind of nominee" to run against Mr. Trump. 

1. Do you agree with Buttigieg that dropping out of the race was "the right thing to do"? Why?

2. What are the main concerns for the Democratic Party at the moment? What traits should their nominee embody if they want to win the 2020 election against incumbent president Trump?

3. How will Buttigieg's withdrawal from the race affect future primary/caucus outcomes?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-drops-out.html