More stories

  • in

    The Year in Charts

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyThe Year in ChartsA tour of the major trends, from Covid-19 spread to political polarization, that affected Americans this year.Mr. Rattner served as counselor to the Treasury secretary in the Obama administration. Lalena Fisher is a graphics editor for The Times.Dec. 31, 2020, 5:00 a.m. ETCredit…Daniel Roland/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIf 2019 was the Year of Trump, then 2020 was the Year of Covid-19 and Trump. Only the most devastating pandemic in a century could have bumped our loudmouthed president into second place. That is, until Joe Biden also took him down a peg, in a free and fair election with an unambiguous result — except in the world of Trump. And oh yes, all of this occurred during the biggest recession since the Great Depression.Not all of this year’s ugliness can be charted. In particular, the death of George Floyd certainly should be high on the list of what made 2020 so awful, and so should how President Trump abetted the tensions that have divided America. But that still leaves plenty of material for this, my ninth annual year in charts.As early as January, experts at the World Health Organization told us the virus was coming. That was followed in March by eruptions in Italy, Spain and elsewhere. Yet we did little under the leadership of a president who kept telling us it would “go away.” Even after the coronavirus nearly brought the New York City area to its knees, the Trump administration responded feebly. Many parts of the country — particularly places where Mr. Trump remained popular — refused to take simple precautions like wearing masks.By fall, the greatest country on earth led the developed world in total cases. More than 340,000 Americans have died, more than the number killed in combat in World War II. More

  • in

    Hawley Answers Trump’s Call for Election Challenge

    @media (pointer: coarse) {
    .nytslm_outerContainer {
    overflow-x: scroll;
    -webkit-overflow-scrolling: touch;
    }
    }

    .nytslm_outerContainer {
    display: flex;
    align-items: center;
    /* Fixes IE */
    overflow-x: auto;
    box-shadow: -6px 0 white, 6px 0 white, 1px 3px 6px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.15);
    padding: 10px 1.25em 10px;
    transition: all 250ms;
    -ms-overflow-style: none;
    /* IE 10+ */
    scrollbar-width: none;
    /* Firefox */
    background: white;
    margin-bottom: 20px;
    z-index: 1000;
    }

    @media (min-width: 1024px) {
    .nytslm_outerContainer {
    margin-bottom: 0px;
    padding: 13px 1.25em 10px;
    }
    }

    .nytslm::-webkit-scrollbar {
    display: none;
    /* Safari and Chrome */
    }

    .nytslm_innerContainer {
    margin: unset;
    display: flex;
    align-items: center;
    }

    @media (min-width: 600px) {
    .nytslm_innerContainer {
    margin: auto;
    min-width: 600px;
    }
    }

    .nytslm_title {
    padding-right: 1em;
    border-right: 1px solid #ccc;
    }

    @media (min-width: 740px) {
    .nytslm_title {
    max-width: none;
    font-size: 1.0625rem;
    line-height: 1.25rem;
    }
    }

    .nytslm_spacer {
    width: 0;
    border-right: 1px solid #E2E2E2;
    height: 45px;
    margin: 0 1.4em;
    }

    .nytslm_list {
    font-family: nyt-franklin, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
    display: flex;
    width: auto;
    list-style: none;
    padding-left: 1em;
    flex-shrink: 0;
    align-items: baseline;
    justify-content: center;
    }

    .nytslm_li {
    margin-right: 1.4em;
    flex-shrink: 0;
    font-size: 0.8125rem;
    line-height: 0.8125rem;
    font-weight: 600;
    padding: 1em 0;
    }

    #nytslm .nytslm_li a {
    color: #121212;
    text-decoration: none;
    }

    #nytslm .nytsmenu_li_current,
    #nytslm .nytslm_li a:hover,
    #nytslm .nytslm_li a:active,
    #nytslm .nytslm_li a:focus {
    color: #121212;
    border-bottom: 2px solid #121212;
    padding-bottom: 2px;
    }

    .nytslm_li_live_loud:after {
    content: ‘LIVE’
    }

    .nytslm_li_live_loud {
    background-color: #d0021b;
    color: white;
    border-radius: 3px;
    padding: 4px 6px 2px 6px;
    margin-right: 2px;
    display: inline-block;
    letter-spacing: 0.03rem;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    .nytslm_li_upcoming_loud {
    border: 1px solid #d0021b;
    color: #d0021b;
    border-radius: 3px;
    padding: 4px 6px 2px 6px;
    margin-right: 2px;
    display: inline-block;
    letter-spacing: 0.03rem;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    .nytslm_li_upcoming_loud:before {
    content: ‘Upcoming’
    }

    .nytslm_li_loud a:hover,
    .nytslm_li_loud a:active,
    .nytslm_li_loud a:focus {
    border-bottom: 2px solid;
    padding-bottom: 2px;
    }

    .nytslm_li_updated {
    color: #777;
    }

    #masthead-bar-one {
    display: none;
    }

    .electionNavbar__logoSvg {
    width: 80px;
    align-self: center;
    display: flex;
    }

    @media(min-width: 600px) {
    .electionNavbar__logoSvg {
    width: 100px;
    }
    }

    .nytslm_notification {
    border-left: 1px solid #ccc;
    font-family: nyt-franklin, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
    padding-left: 1em;
    }

    .nytslm_notification_label {
    color: #D0021B;
    text-transform: uppercase;
    font-weight: 700;
    font-size: 0.6875rem;
    margin-bottom: 0.2em;
    letter-spacing: 0.02em;
    }

    .nytslm_notification_link {
    font-weight: 600;
    color: #121212;
    display: flex;
    align-items: center;
    }

    .nytslm_notification_headline {
    font-size: 0.875rem;
    line-height: 1.0625rem;
    }

    .nytslm_notification_image_wrapper {
    position: relative;
    max-width: 75px;
    margin-left: 10px;
    flex-shrink: 0;
    }

    .nytslm_notification_image {
    max-width: 100%;
    }

    .nytslm_notification_image_live_bug {
    position: absolute;
    text-transform: uppercase;
    bottom: 7px;
    left: 2px;

    font-size: 0.5rem;
    background-color: #d0021b;
    color: white;
    border-radius: 3px;
    padding: 4px 4px 2px 4px;
    font-weight: 700;
    margin-right: 2px;
    letter-spacing: 0.03rem;
    }

    /* No hover state on in app */
    .Hybrid .nytslm_li a:hover,
    .Hybrid .nytslm_li_loud a:hover {
    border-bottom: none;
    padding-bottom: 0;
    }

    .Hybrid #TOP_BANNER_REGION {
    display: none;
    }

    .nytslm_st0 {
    fill: #f4564a;
    }

    .nytslm_st1 {
    fill: #ffffff;
    }

    .nytslm_st2 {
    fill: #2b8ad8;
    }

    Electoral College Results

    Election Disinformation

    Full Results

    Biden Transition Updates

    “),e+=””+b+””,e+=””,d&&(e+=””,e+=””,e+=”Live”,e+=””),e+=””,e}function getVariant(){var a=window.NYTD&&window.NYTD.Abra&&window.NYTD.Abra.getAbraSync&&window.NYTD.Abra.getAbraSync(“STYLN_elections_notifications”);// Only actually have control situation in prd and stg
    return[“www.nytimes.com”,”www.stg.nytimes.com”].includes(window.location.hostname)||(a=”STYLN_elections_notifications”),a||”0_control”}function reportData(){if(window.dataLayer){var a;try{a=dataLayer.find(function(a){return!!a.user}).user}catch(a){}var b={abtest:{test:”styln-elections-notifications”,variant:getVariant()},module:{name:”styln-elections-notifications”,label:getVariant(),region:”TOP_BANNER”},user:a};window.dataLayer.push(Object.assign({},b,{event:”ab-alloc”})),window.dataLayer.push(Object.assign({},b,{event:”ab-expose”})),window.dataLayer.push(Object.assign({},b,{event:”impression”}))}}function insertNotification(a,b){// Bail here if the user is in control
    if(reportData(),”0_control”!==getVariant()){// Remove menu bar items or previous notification
    var c=document.querySelector(“.nytslm_innerContainer”);if(c&&1 30 * 60 * 1000) return restoreMenuIfNecessary();
    // Do not update DOM if the content won’t change
    if(currentNotificationContents!==a.text&&window.localStorage.getItem(“stylnelecs”)!==a.timestamp)// Do not show if user has interacted with this link
    // if (Cookie.get(‘stylnelecs’) === data.timestamp) return;
    {expireLocalStorage(“stylnelecs”),currentNotificationContents=a.text;// Construct URL for tracking
    var b=a.link.split(“#”),c=b[0]+”?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-elections-notifications&variant=1_election_notifications&region=TOP_BANNER&context=Menu#”+b[1],d=formatNotification(c,a.text,a.kicker,a.image);insertNotification(d,function(){var b=document.querySelector(“.nytslm_notification_link”);return b?void(b.onclick=function(){window.localStorage.setItem(“stylnelecs”,a.timestamp)}):null})}})}(function(){navigator.userAgent.includes(“nytios”)||navigator.userAgent.includes(“nyt_android”)||window.stylnelecsHasLoaded||(// setInterval(getUpdate, 5000);
    window.stylnelecsHasLoaded=!0)})(),function(){try{if(navigator.userAgent.includes(“nytios”)||navigator.userAgent.includes(“nyt_android”)){var a=document.getElementsByClassName(“nytslm_title”)[0];a.style.pointerEvents=”none”}}catch(a){}}(); More

  • in

    ‘Let’s Talk About “Personal Responsibility”’: A Year of Tough Conversations in the Comments

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main story‘Let’s Talk About “Personal Responsibility”’: A Year of Tough Conversations in the CommentsOpinion writers reflect on what readers had to say in 2020.Dec. 30, 2020, 5:26 a.m. ETCredit…Matt ChaseThis has been a tumultuous 12 months, a harrowing ride through the pandemic and elections, racial injustices and civic turmoil. Through it all, in your comments, you’ve shared your fears, frustrations and anger, but also hope, humor and much wisdom. In the process, you helped document this extraordinary year.We took a look at some of our most popular and moving pieces of 2020 and asked the authors to pick just one comment that resonated with them (not an easy task, given the quality of your contributions) and respond to it. Some chose comments that sparked deeper debate or helped hone perspective; others chose one that evoked a visceral response — in a few cases, even tears.Your voices are a vital part of our community at Opinion. Thank you for a year of thoughtful, engaging conversation. We look forward to more in 2021.‘It was an act of kindness to tell me this’ — Jennifer SeniorMary in Dallas on “Happiness Won’t Save You” (Nov. 24):My 47 year old son died of suicide a few weeks ago. I think about it for the majority of my waking hours, and I often dream about it. I read everything I can find to try to understand it enough to forgive him and myself. Reading this article, and many of the comments added by readers, is like getting a message from my son. I am very grateful.Jennifer: Thank you for this beautiful note, which made me cry when I read it. It was an act of kindness to tell me this. It let me know my work has meaning, and I don’t always feel that way. And it was an act of generosity, too, letting those who are quietly suffering know that they are by no means alone in their grief.I received many letters after this piece appeared. The most common, by far, was from people whose loved ones had died by suicide. At first, I was surprised. But in hindsight, I should not have been: As I wrote in the story, the irremediable pain of the suicidal is all too frequently passed along to those they leave behind. Writing, commenting, talking — these are some of the only ways survivors have to work their tortured emotions through. I can only hope that, as Roxane Cohen Silver’s work has shown, you will one day come to terms with your loss, even if you can’t make sense of it.I am so, so sorry about your son, Mary.‘By all means, let’s talk about “personal responsibility”’ — Nicholas KristofCarol in Berkeley, Calif., on “Who Killed the Knapp Family?” (Jan. 9):So long as poverty is seen as an individual or cultural failing (e.g. the culture of poverty which was linked to race, even though the evidence was nonexistent) we will not treat this with the seriousness it deserves. Yes, every individual has responsibility for their lives. But pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps, after we take away not only your boots but your capacity to buy or make boots is unfair and is also emblematic of how poverty is understood. We need to understand that collectively this costs us all — both morally and financially. The solution is collective. It is jobs that pay a living wage, it is opportunities for upward mobility for oneself and one’s children, it is training for these jobs and it is a real safety net. Will some people still be poor? Will they self destruct? Of course. But the numbers will be far smaller. And we will be far richer as a society.Nick: This observation by Carol struck me as exactly right. One of America’s mistakes over the last half century was to go too far down the track of extolling “personal responsibility” and haranguing people to lift themselves up by their bootstraps. When an infant in three counties in the United States has a shorter life expectancy than an infant in Bangladesh, that’s not because the American newborn is making “bad choices”; it’s because we as a country are. So by all means, let’s talk about “personal responsibility” — it’s real — but also about our collective responsibility to help America’s children and give them a fighting chance to succeed.‘America’s daughters — my own teenager among them — received quite a political education’ — Michelle CottleWoman in Iowa on “Elizabeth Warren Had a Good Run. Maybe Next Time, Ladies.” (March 4):I have no idea how to face my 7-yr-old daughter tonight who keeps asking if Warren won. She watched me caucus for Warren in Iowa and is highly curious why we don’t have many female leaders in our country. It doesn’t help that she knows about female political leaders and activists from India, my birth country, including her great-grandmother who was an activist herself.I am personally devastated that after all the women’s marches and pink hats and what not, the “liberal” party comes up with two bitter bickering old white men, both of whom have personally mansplained to Warren at different times in her career.Michelle: I heard this kind of heartbreak and frustration from more than one reader, and it got me every time. America’s daughters — my own teenager among them — received quite a political education these past four years, much of it dismaying. But witnessing the up-and-coming generations of kick-ass women demand better and push for progress offered both reassurance and inspiration. And while Joe Biden certainly isn’t changing the face of the presidency, his choice of Kamala Harris as a running mate means there will be a Madame Vice President for the first time ever. This is another step forward. Our daughters are watching.‘We have to acknowledge and confront these existing problems’ — Wajahat Ali8theist in Stowe, Vt., on “What Makes You Think 2021 Will Be Better?” (Dec. 16):I think you’re missing a key story here. We are all driven by some variable sense of hope or doom relative to what’s to come. The on-the-ground things won’t change much. In fact with climate change raging and right wing bubbles getting tighter and the economy worsening from Covid fall out, things will actually get worse. But to know that we are no longer at the will and whim of a terrible leader, that our global allies are back in the trenches with us, and to know the man and woman running the country are genuinely trying to make this county better. That hope helps me sleep, plan, spend and invest with more confidence.Wajahat: I agree that the Biden-Harris administration will bring forth principled, experienced leadership that replaces the corrupt cruelty and buffoonery of Trump’s presidency, which has revealed and exalted the worst demons of our country. I refuse to be a cynic, and remain hopeful. However, to ensure that we move this country toward progress and success, we have to acknowledge and confront these existing problems with fierce dedication and resolve. We can and should exhale; we’ve earned it. But there’s no rest for me yet. Much work must be done.‘Let me challenge you on the subject of unemployment’ — Bret StephensBruce L in Sharon, Mass., on “Groupthink Has Left the Left Blind” (Nov. 17):One can’t keep trying to rationalize Trump or Trumpism by pointing to the fact that unemployment was low — it is not like under a Democrat the rate would have been much different. Trump is unworthy of the office and trying to conceive of a rationale as to why he gets out the vote other than the love of a pseudo macho man who spews hate (“he tells it like it is”) is plain wrong — if I can be so black and white.Bret: Thanks for this note, Bruce. I agree completely with your broad point about Trump’s unfitness for office. But let me challenge you on the subject of unemployment. If, as many prominent economists predicted in 2016, the U.S. economy had taken a nosedive in Trump’s first years in office, would his critics, including you, not have blamed him? I doubt it. I don’t think it’s fair to have it both ways: Blaming Trump when things go wrong, while refusing to give him credit when things go right. Trump inherited a reasonably good economy, but — until the pandemic — it got better in nearly every respect, including wage growth for the bottom half. That’s a fact that needs to be acknowledged for the sake of intellectual honesty.In my five-plus years of covering Trump as a columnist, I’ve tried to give him credit where I think it’s due. I feel I owe that to every politician I’ve ever covered. I hope that makes my overall verdict about his presidency — the most disastrous in U.S. history since James Buchanan’s — that much more stinging.‘Our own innocence isn’t the point.’ — Margaret RenklJRC in N.Y.C. on “An Open Letter to My Fellow White Christians” (June 8):Not buying it at all. I was born white into a Christian family. Didn’t do it on purpose. And feel no guilt for it. I’ve never oppressed anyone. Or abused anyone. My faith? Just means I treat everyone I meet with love and respect. I’m not responsible for what Christians did three or four hundred years ago, for goodness sake. All any of us can be responsible for is how we wake up in the morning every day and treat people with loving kindness. That is what being a white Christian is. And a black Christian is. And an Asian and Latin American Christian is.Margaret: I understand why people who have done no harm and feel no malice bristle when grouped with those who cause enormous harm and who feel actual malice. But implicating Christianity in white supremacy is not the same thing as implicating every white Christian, and that’s why the column mentions by name many who are working for positive change.I chose this comment because the writer lives in New York, not in the South, but the argument here echoes what Southerners often say in the context of race generally: I didn’t own slaves. I didn’t make anyone sit at the back of the bus. Why should I feel guilty for atrocities committed by earlier generations?My response to that question is the same as my response to this commenter: Our own innocence isn’t the point. We live in a culture that remains saturated with racism, and so we are morally obliged to recognize the ways in which we have benefited from that system and to work passionately for its reform. It’s true that Christians should treat everyone we meet with love and respect, as this commenter does. But surely that’s not enough in a country where these senseless murders keep playing out right in front of our eyes. I’m convinced it would not be enough for Jesus Christ. Why is it enough for so many of my fellow white Christians?‘As if we have nothing to learn from the rest of the world’ — Paul KrugmanHolly in Canada on “The Cult of Selfishness Is Killing America” (July 27):Here’s the thing: We are in the middle of a global pandemic, not an American pandemic, so the U.S. has the world to look to for examples on how to best control this virus if necessary. In Canada, we were given guidance based on science, advancing stages based on rates of infection in each province so we could safely reopen our economy. The difference is trust, trust that our governments, both federal and provincial, will protect us over petty politics. We have a duty to one another and we are reminded of that duty by our leaders. If you are not willing to do what it takes to protect your entire community, not just your tribe, then you are destined to fail.Paul: This gets at one of my enduring gripes about the way we discuss policy in America — namely, as if we have nothing to learn from the rest of the world. It’s not just the presumption of American superiority — I still run into people who are sure that we have the world’s highest life expectancy, when we actually die a lot younger than people in other rich countries. It’s the way we don’t learn from policy successes abroad. It’s not just the pandemic: Every other advanced country has universal health care, yet we talk as if that’s an unattainable goal. These days, nations are the laboratories of democracy, but we’re too insular to learn from their experience.‘Was it possible to cover this territory without making readers want to throw themselves out a window?’ — Gail CollinsScott O’Pottamus in Right Here On The Left on “Vote for Trump’s Worst!” (Aug. 5):Ms. Collins,How dare you make light of the tragedy that is our Trump Administration! It is offensive that you find humor in a situation that is devoid of both light and humor. Why can’t you just write a column telling us how awful this so-called President Trump is? Why must you search for a light moment when you could instead choose to dwell on the darkness, rot, slime, and stench of this awful Administration?Stop being funny, Madame! Be morose, please! Dagnabbit!Gail: I get a lot of letters along your line, Scott, so I appreciate the chance to comment. It goes back to a time when I was working for one of the New York tabloids as a city politics columnist. At that time, said politics were really, really bad and involved a lot of indictments. One day as I was posting another enraged column, I wondered, was it possible to cover this territory without making readers want to throw themselves out a window? That’s sorta been my mission ever since, and Trump has made it pretty easy.‘I’m always worried about my role as an amplifier’ — Charlie WarzelLindaP in Boston on “Protesting for the Freedom to Catch the Coronavirus” (April 19):Why the outsized coverage? Why have I — and I’m sure many like me, who follow the news rabidly — felt these protests were a wave across the country? They have not been presented as large rallies, true. Nor have they been reported as “at most, hundreds.” Seems to me this entire nonsensical, dangerous movement would have been best left ignored. How many more now have doubt in the science, in what is safe, where doubt did not exist before because of the media coverage? This is almost as disturbing as the protests.Charlie: I really appreciate this type of criticism from readers as it is the kind that sharpens my own thinking on what I choose to write about and how I frame it. As somebody who covers a lot of fringe-y subjects, I’m always worried about my role as an amplifier. I think that — broadly speaking — the press is pretty uncritical about what we deem newsworthy when, in reality, it is all a choice.For this particular column, I actually agonized a bit over whether to give this protest movement the oxygen it was looking for. Ultimately, I saw the group’s tactics as important and felt that, even though the protests were small, they were indicative of something larger in American political culture that deserves understanding. My hope was, with the right context, that exploration would be useful. But I really appreciate that readers are asking these hard questions and challenging me on it. Frequently, they bring up something that I hadn’t considered and that informs how I tackle similar subjects on the next go-round.‘Sometimes I think religion must be the last remaining taboo’— Linda GreenhouseJM in Palm Springs, Fla., on “Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Choice” (Dec. 3):I’ve been waiting for you to weigh in on this. I say if churches want to disregard our laws go ahead and do so, but not with exemption from federal taxes. Why should we, the taxpayers, subsidize the overtly political actions of thousands of religious groups? Republicans have effectively ended I.R.S. oversight and prosecution through intimidation and loss of funding. This nation needs to decide if we are a secular society in which one is free to practice whatever faith one chooses or a religious state which imposes its notions on our laws and their faithful execution. As you suggest, this insignificant action is freighted with dire implications for the future. We ignore it at our peril.Linda: I’m always heartened — who wouldn’t be? — by a reader who says, “I’ve been waiting to hear what you think.” JM clearly knows I’ve been writing a lot about the Supreme Court’s religion cases and understands why I’m concerned about the court’s increasing deference to religion above all else, such as the right not to be discriminated against. I don’t think this trend gets enough attention — sometimes I think religion must be the last remaining taboo — so I plan to keep at it.‘I completely sympathize with your situation’ — David BrooksMark in Missouri on “No, Not Sanders, Not Ever” (Feb. 28):As a member of Gen Z, the points Brooks makes are exactly why I and many of my generation support Bernie and his cause. I don’t want to implement communism, I just want to be able to get a job that actually pays me enough to pay off my student loans, not have 50 percent of my income go toward rent, and be able to retire. I don’t care about keeping my doctor or having to wait in lines to see one, I just don’t want to pay $1,500 plus for an X-ray.But please, continue to tell us that we don’t know what we want, sabotage who we support, and continue to marginalize us. Keep alienating the soon-to-be largest voting block in the U.S. while you’re starting to retire and depend on the social systems; I’m sure that will end great for you.David: Mark, I completely sympathize with your situation. Millennial and Gen Z workers are getting hammered by high housing, school and health care costs. I just think you’re more likely to get relief under a Biden presidency than you would if Sanders had won the nomination. In the first place, it’s highly unlikely Sanders would have been elected. Democrats were beaten in 2020 in congressional and state legislative races across the country. The only Democrat who could have won the presidency was Biden, in my view, precisely because he overperformed among suburban moderates who’d given Trump a chance in 2016. Beating Trump was Job 1, and Sanders was ill suited to that task.Second, even if Sanders had been elected, passing bills requires the ability to compromise. In his decades in Congress, he has not been a productive legislator because of his unwillingness to do that. He never would have won over even moderate Democrats like Joe Manchin, let alone the bipartisan group we just saw write the Covid relief compromise. My column started from the assumption that we live in an evenly divided, pluralistic society. We need leaders who can flourish within that complex system, not leaders who undermine the legitimacy of that system or overturn it through some imaginary mass uprising that will never come.Thanks so much for taking the time to respond.‘What’s so gutting is the element of random chance in our downfall.’ — Michelle GoldbergDupuis in Paris on “Can Mitch McConnell Be Stopped?” (Sept. 19):The old Republican world is actually the one dying. Justice Ginsburg’s ideals will prevail sooner or later. Be confident that the U.S. some day will become again a country the world envies. It might take time and patience but compassion and understanding will survive and thrive again. U.S. citizens will find the peaceful means to resist and win the battle for a better country.Michelle: I think I used to believe this — that, as Martin Luther King Jr. said, the “arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I don’t think I do anymore. I certainly don’t think the United States will ever again be the envy of the world; I’m not even sure how it survives as a functioning democracy. And part of what’s so gutting is the element of random chance in our downfall. Yes, our current predicament is the culmination of long-term structural forces. But had 80,000 votes in three states gone the other way in 2016, the Supreme Court would be a force for justice rather than reaction for the foreseeable future. Had Ginsburg lived a little longer, we could have saved Roe v. Wade and many other laws protecting civil rights, workers’ rights and the environment. But she died, and so, I suspect, did the America I once expected my children to inherit.‘It is to appreciate the magnitude of relief we’re experiencing’ — Frank BruniAllison in Colorado on “After That Fiasco, Biden Should Refuse to Debate Trump Again” (Sept. 30):Last night, I think I was too gobsmacked by the spectacle to form coherent thoughts about the debate, but this morning I feel overwhelmed with grief. Tears are welling in my eyes as I fathom another four years of Trump in the White House. It is, quite simply, unbearable even to imagine.Frank: To read this now is to be reacquainted, in the most poignant way, with how titanically much this election meant to the tens of millions of Americans who, like me, felt that Trump was a very grave danger and, almost minute by minute, a soul-corroding insult to basic American decency. It is to appreciate the magnitude of relief we’re experiencing at the end of this terrifying and tumultuous year. It is to be grateful: Sometimes, at a crucial time, we get the second chance we so acutely need.‘I am used to being on the receiving end of harsh words’ — Jennifer Finney BoylanNorma Manna Blum in Washington, D.C., on “Time Won’t Let Me Wait That Long” (Dec. 9):Beautiful Boylan:I love it when I don’t quite understand what moves me so in the shared experiences of a stranger. Ergo, today’s column which made, willy nilly, the tears to flow. And then, I went out into the nearly deserted streets of East Hollywood and walked about trying to make sense of who we are in our present isolation and incomprehension.And then to home to wrap my old Timex watch in a copy of your column and bury the small parcel in my garden. Perhaps one day someone will find my gift and understand that what I was trying, dying, to say is “I was here. And I tried. And I am still trying.”Jenny: It may be that I am used to being on the receiving end of harsh words, especially when I mention trans issues. Or maybe I just like making people cry. But every last comment on this column about my visit to a clock-repair store was generous and sweet. I wonder if the topic — the way time has frozen in 2020, and our yearning for our clocks to start ticking again — just hit a nerve. Or maybe people are more sentimental than I thought. In this comment, Norma Blum spoke of burying her watch, wrapped in this column, in her garden. In response, it was my turn to get all teary for a change.I am so grateful for my readers at Times Opinion, and look forward to hearing more of their reactions in 2021.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    How Trump's Attack on Relief Bill Has Divided GOP

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesThe Stimulus DealThe Latest Vaccine InformationF.A.Q.AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyTrump’s Attack on Coronavirus Relief Divides G.O.P. and Threatens RecoveryFrom the campaign trail in Georgia to Capitol Hill, President Trump’s demand for changes to the $900 billion pandemic relief plan upended political and economic calculations.President Trump posted a video on Tuesday night demanding significant changes to the pandemic relief bill and larger direct stimulus checks to Americans.Credit…Oliver Contreras for The New York TimesLuke Broadwater, Emily Cochrane, Astead W. Herndon and Dec. 23, 2020WASHINGTON — President Trump’s denunciation of the $900 billion coronavirus relief deal drove a wedge through the Republican Party on Wednesday, drawing harsh criticism from House Republicans and threatening the delivery of unemployment checks, a reprieve on evictions and direct payments to struggling Americans.His four-minute video on Tuesday night demanding significant changes to the bill and larger direct stimulus checks also complicated his party’s push to hold the Senate with victories in two runoff races in Georgia next month. The Republican candidates he pledged to support went from campaigning on their triumphant votes for the relief bill to facing questions on Mr. Trump’s view that the measure was a “disgrace.”Their Democratic rivals appeared to turn a liability into a political advantage 13 days before the election on Jan. 5, agreeing with the president’s demand for $2,000 direct payment checks and calling for Republicans to accede to his wish. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and top Democrats prepared to move forward on Thursday with new legislation that would provide the $2,000 checks, daring Republicans to break with the president and block passage of the bill in the House.But the effect on struggling Americans was perhaps the most profound: With no deal signed by the president, some unemployment programs are set to run out this week, and several other critical provisions are to end this month. The uncertainty that Mr. Trump injected into the process came at a perilous moment for the economy, as consumer spending and personal incomes resumed their slides.“Does the president realize that unemployment benefits expire the day after Christmas?” an exasperated Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia and one of the key negotiators of the package, wrote on Twitter.It is not clear whether Mr. Trump, who is furious at congressional Republicans who have acknowledged his defeat, would actually veto the package. But given how late it is in the 116th Congress, even refusing to sign it could ensure that the bill dies with the Congress on Jan. 3 and must be taken up all over again next year.The 5,593-page spending package would not only provide relief but also fund the government through September. With his threat, the president raised the prospects of a government shutdown beyond Monday and also jeopardized a promise of swift relief to millions of struggling Americans and businesses.Mr. Trump on Wednesday also made good on his promise to veto a major defense policy bill, in part because it directed the military to strip the names of Confederate generals from bases. That sets up a showdown for next week; when the House returns on Monday for the override vote, it could also vote on another stopgap spending bill to prevent government funding from lapsing.Before the turmoil, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin had promised that $600 direct payments from the pandemic relief bill could be distributed as early as next week; that is an untenable timeline without Mr. Trump’s signature. The end to two expanded unemployment programs the day after Christmas could push nearly five million people into poverty virtually overnight, according to an estimate from researchers at Columbia University.Some state labor departments — which administer both state and federal unemployment benefits — are already preparing for the end of the programs because of the delay in reaching an agreement, meaning some jobless workers may temporarily lose their benefits all the same because many states will not be able to reverse course in time to avoid a lapse in payments.Frustration with Mr. Trump boiled over on Wednesday during a private conference call of House Republicans who had loyally stood by the president; many of them had joined a baseless lawsuit to try to overturn the results of the election. Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader, told members that he had spoken to the president and that he had not yet committed to a veto of the bill.But Mr. McCarthy conceded, “This bill has been tainted,” according to one person on the call.“The bill has been tainted,” Representative Kevin McCarthy of California told House Republicans on a private conference call on Wednesday.Credit…Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesIn his videotaped statement on Tuesday, Mr. Trump accused lawmakers of putting aid for foreign governments before the needs of the American people.Some lawmakers on the call complained about the pork projects in the spending measure; others chimed in to challenge the characterization of the projects as pork, and one longtime House Republican vented generally about voter perceptions of the package after Mr. Trump’s scathing critique.“I don’t know if we recover from this,” said Representative Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, according to three officials on the call. “We will have a hell of a time getting this out of people’s head.”The Coronavirus Outbreak More

  • in

    Trump’s Attack on Coronavirus Relief Divides G.O.P. and Threatens Recovery

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesThe Stimulus DealThe Latest Vaccine InformationF.A.Q.AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyTrump’s Attack on Coronavirus Relief Divides G.O.P. and Threatens RecoveryFrom the campaign trail in Georgia to Capitol Hill, President Trump’s demand for changes to the $900 billion pandemic relief plan upended political and economic calculations.President Trump posted a video on Tuesday night demanding significant changes to the pandemic relief bill and larger direct stimulus checks to Americans.Credit…Oliver Contreras for The New York TimesLuke Broadwater, Emily Cochrane, Astead W. Herndon and Dec. 23, 2020Updated 9:55 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — President Trump’s denunciation of the $900 billion coronavirus relief deal drove a wedge through the Republican Party on Wednesday, drawing harsh criticism from House Republicans and threatening the delivery of unemployment checks, a reprieve on evictions and direct payments to struggling Americans.His four-minute video on Tuesday night demanding significant changes to the bill and larger direct stimulus checks also complicated his party’s push to hold the Senate with victories in two runoff races in Georgia next month. The Republican candidates he pledged to support went from campaigning on their triumphant votes for the relief bill to facing questions on Mr. Trump’s view that the measure was a “disgrace.”Their Democratic rivals appeared to turn a liability into a political advantage 13 days before the election on Jan. 5, agreeing with the president’s demand for $2,000 direct payment checks and calling for Republicans to accede to his wish. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and top Democrats prepared to move forward on Thursday with new legislation that would provide the $2,000 checks, daring Republicans to break with the president and block passage of the bill in the House.But the effect on struggling Americans was perhaps the most profound: With no deal signed by the president, some unemployment programs are set to run out this week, and several other critical provisions are to end this month. The uncertainty that Mr. Trump injected into the process came at a perilous moment for the economy, as consumer spending and personal incomes resumed their slides.“Does the president realize that unemployment benefits expire the day after Christmas?” an exasperated Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia and one of the key negotiators of the package, wrote on Twitter.It is not clear whether Mr. Trump, who is furious at congressional Republicans who have acknowledged his defeat, would actually veto the package. But given how late it is in the 116th Congress, even refusing to sign it could ensure that the bill dies with the Congress on Jan. 3 and must be taken up all over again next year.The 5,593-page spending package would not only provide relief but also fund the government through September. With his threat, the president raised the prospects of a government shutdown beyond Monday and also jeopardized a promise of swift relief to millions of struggling Americans and businesses.Mr. Trump on Wednesday also made good on his promise to veto a major defense policy bill, in part because it directed the military to strip the names of Confederate generals from bases. That sets up a showdown for next week; when the House returns on Monday for the override vote, it could also vote on another stopgap spending bill to prevent government funding from lapsing.Before the turmoil, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin had promised that $600 direct payments from the pandemic relief bill could be distributed as early as next week; that is an untenable timeline without Mr. Trump’s signature. The end to two expanded unemployment programs the day after Christmas could push nearly five million people into poverty virtually overnight, according to an estimate from researchers at Columbia University.Some state labor departments — which administer both state and federal unemployment benefits — are already preparing for the end of the programs because of the delay in reaching an agreement, meaning some jobless workers may temporarily lose their benefits all the same because many states will not be able to reverse course in time to avoid a lapse in payments.Frustration with Mr. Trump boiled over on Wednesday during a private conference call of House Republicans who had loyally stood by the president; many of them had joined a baseless lawsuit to try to overturn the results of election. Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader, told members that he had spoken to the president and that he had not yet committed to a veto of the bill.But Mr. McCarthy conceded, “This bill has been tainted,” according to one person on the call.“The bill has been tainted,” Representative Kevin McCarthy of California told House Republicans on a private conference call on Wednesday.Credit…Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesIn his videotaped statement on Tuesday, Mr. Trump accused lawmakers of putting aid for foreign governments before the needs of the American people.Some lawmakers on the call complained about the pork projects in the spending measure; others chimed in to challenge the characterization of the projects as pork, and one longtime House Republican vented generally about voter perceptions of the package after Mr. Trump’s scathing critique.“I don’t know if we recover from this,” said Representative Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, according to three officials on the call. “We will have a hell of a time getting this out of people’s head.”The Coronavirus Outbreak More

  • in

    Congress Rushes to Pass Huge Coronavirus Relief Bill

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesThe Stimulus DealThe Latest Vaccine InformationF.A.Q.AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyCongress Rushes to Pass Huge Coronavirus Relief BillThe House approved a $900 billion pandemic aid bill on Monday night, with the Senate poised to follow shortly after. The bill provides a $600 payment for most Americans.Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday in the Capitol. After months of gridlock and debate, the House and Senate are expected to approve the spending measure.Credit…Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesDec. 21, 2020Updated 9:39 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — The House on Monday night approved a $900 billion stimulus package that would send billions of dollars to American households and businesses grappling with the economic and health toll of the pandemic. The Senate was expected to do the same within hours.Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said hundreds of dollars in direct payments could begin reaching individual Americans as early as next week.The long-sought relief package was part of a $2.3 trillion catchall package that included $1.4 trillion to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. It included the extension of routine tax provisions, a tax deduction for corporate meals, the establishment of two Smithsonian museums, a ban on surprise medical bills and a restoration of Pell grants for incarcerated students, among hundreds of other measures.Though the $900 billion stimulus package is half the size of the $2.2 trillion stimulus law passed in March that provided the core of its legislative provisions, it remains one of the largest relief packages in modern American history. It will revive a supplemental unemployment benefit for millions of unemployed Americans at $300 a week for 11 weeks and provide for another round of $600 direct payments to adults and children.“I expect we’ll get the money out by the beginning of next week — $2,400 for a family of four — so much needed relief just in time for the holidays,” Mr. Mnuchin said on CNBC. “I think this will take us through the recovery.”President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., who received a coronavirus vaccine on Monday with television cameras rolling, has insisted that this bill is only the beginning, and that more relief, especially to state and local governments, will be coming after his inauguration next month.Lawmakers hustled on Monday to pass the bill, nearly 5,600 pages long, less than 24 hours after its completion and before virtually anyone had read it. At one point, aides struggled simply to put the measure online because of a corrupted computer file. The legislative text is likely to be one of the longest ever, and it became available only a few hours before the House approved it. Once the Senate passes the bill, it will go to President Trump for his signature.But with as many as 12 million Americans set to lose access to expanded and extended unemployment benefits days after Christmas, passage was not in doubt. A number of other pandemic relief provisions are set to expire at the end of the year, and lawmakers in both chambers agreed that the approval of the $900 billion relief package was shamefully overdue.Senator Mitch McConnell on Monday at the Russell Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill.Credit…Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesOver the summer, Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Mr. Mnuchin inched toward a relief package of nearly $1.8 trillion. But after a significant infusion of federal relief in April, Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, and several Senate Republicans initially balked at the prospect of another sweeping spending package. With Republicans reluctant to spend substantial taxpayer funds and mindful of remaining united before the November election, Mr. McConnell refused to indulge anything more than a narrow, $500 billion package.Ms. Pelosi and top Democrats, for their part, refused to entertain the targeted packages Republicans eventually put forward, and pushed to go as big as possible in a divided government. The election hung over all of the talks, with both sides not wanting to deliver the other party a victory that could buoy their chances.And Mr. Trump, fixating first on his campaign, then his effort to reverse the election’s results, did little to corral Congress toward an agreement.In the end, congressional leaders agreed to punt the thorniest policy issues that had long impaired a final agreement — a direct stream of funding for state and local government, a Democratic priority, and a broad liability shield that Mr. McConnell had long fought for.“A few days ago, with a new president-elect of their own party, everything changed,” Mr. McConnell said on Monday. “Democrats suddenly came around to our position that we should find consensus, make law where we agree, and get urgent help out the door.”As the negotiations dragged on, millions of Americans slipped into poverty, thousands of small businesses closed their doors and coronavirus infections and deaths rose to devastating levels across the country.But Ms. Pelosi vowed that with Mr. Biden in office, Congress would revisit the unresolved debates and push for even more relief to support the country’s economic recovery.“It’s a whole different world when you have the presidency because you do have the attention of the public,” Ms. Pelosi said in an interview. “I’m very optimistic about that because the public wants us to work together.”The Coronavirus Outbreak More

  • in

    Coronavirus Stimulus Bolsters Biden, Shows Potential Path for Agenda

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesThe Stimulus DealThe Latest Vaccine InformationF.A.Q.AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyNEWS AnalysisPandemic Aid Bolsters Biden and Shows Potential Path for His Agenda in CongressWorking together with the president-elect, bipartisan groups in the Senate and House helped push feuding leaders to compromise. It could be a template for the future.Rather than face an immediate and dire need to act on a pandemic package, President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his team can take time to try to fashion a more far-reaching recovery program next month.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesDec. 21, 2020Updated 7:10 p.m. ETProducing it was a torturous, time-consuming affair that did nothing to improve Congress’s reputation for dysfunction. But the agreement on a new pandemic aid package showed the ascendance of moderates as a new force in a divided Senate and validated President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s belief that it is still possible to make deals on Capitol Hill.Along with struggling Americans and businesses, the new president was a major beneficiary of the $900 billion pandemic stimulus measure that Congress haltingly but finally produced on Sunday and was on track to approve late Monday, which will give him some breathing room when he enters the White House next month. Rather than face an immediate and dire need to act on an emergency economic aid package, Mr. Biden and his team can instead take a moment to try to fashion a more far-reaching recovery program and begin to tackle other issues.“President-elect Biden is going to have an economy that is healthier,” said Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia and one of the chief players in a breakaway effort by centrists in the Senate and House that led to the compromise. “This is a significant financial injection into the economy at a time that is critical.”The group of moderates was essential to the outcome, pushing Senate and House leaders of both parties into direct personal negotiations that they had avoided for months, and demonstrating how crucial they are likely to be to Mr. Biden. “I’m glad we forced the issue,” said Senator Susan Collins, the Maine Republican who, along with Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, were leaders of a monthslong effort to break the impasse over pandemic aid even as the virus exacted a growing economic and health toll on the country.Given the slender partisan divides that will exist in both the Senate and House next year, the approach could provide a road map for the Biden administration if it hopes to break through congressional paralysis, especially in the Senate, and pass additional legislation. Mr. Biden has said another economic relief plan will be an early priority.“I believe it is going to be the only way we are going to accomplish the president-elect’s agenda in the next two years,” said Representative Josh Gottheimer, Democrat of New Jersey and a leader of the 50-member bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus that took part in forging the compromise. “In the long run, this is the way to govern.”But the extraordinarily difficult time Congress had in coming to agreement over pandemic legislation again showed the difficulty of the task Mr. Biden faces. Almost every influential member of the House and Senate acknowledged that the relief was sorely needed, but it was impeded in part by last-minute Republican attempts to undercut Mr. Biden’s future authority. Some Republicans are already suggesting that the latest package should tide over the nation for an extended period, with no additional relief necessary for some time.Senators Mark Warner of Virginia, left, Susan Collins of Maine and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia were part of a moderate bipartisan group that helped negotiate the legislation.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesMr. Biden on Sunday applauded the willingness of lawmakers to “reach across the aisle” and called the effort a “model for the challenging work ahead for our nation.” He was also not an idle bystander in the negotiations.With Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate far apart on how much they were willing to accept in new pandemic spending, Mr. Biden on Dec. 2 threw his support behind the $900 billion plan being pushed by the centrist group. The total was less than half of the $2 trillion that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, had been insisting on.The Coronavirus Outbreak More

  • in

    What Is 13-3? Why a Debate Over the Fed Is Holding Up Stimulus Talks

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyWhat Is 13-3? Why a Debate Over the Fed Is Holding Up Stimulus TalksThe Fed’s emergency lending authorities are a key part of its job. Republicans want to curb them. Democrats are pushing back.Senate Republicans are trying to make sure that emergency programs backed by the Federal Reserve cannot be restarted after they expire on December 31.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesDec. 18, 2020Updated 7:49 p.m. ETAs markets melted down in March, the Federal Reserve unveiled novel programs meant to keep credit flowing to states, medium-sized businesses and big companies — and Congress handed Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin $454 billion to back up the effort.Nine months later, Senate Republicans are trying to make sure that those same programs cannot be restarted after Mr. Mnuchin lets them end on Dec. 31. Beyond preventing their reincarnation under the Biden administration, Republicans are seeking to insert language into a pandemic stimulus package that would limit the Fed’s powers going forward, potentially keeping it from lending to businesses and municipalities in future crises.The last-minute move has drawn Democratic ire, and it has imperiled the fate of relief legislation that economists say is sorely needed as households and businesses stare down a dark pandemic winter. Here is a rundown of how the Fed’s lending powers work and how Republicans are seeking to change them.The Fed can keep credit flowing when conditions are really bad.The Fed’s main and best-known job is setting interest rates to guide the economy. But the central bank was set up in 1913 in large part to stave off bank problems and financial panics — when people become nervous about the future and rush to withdraw their money from bank accounts and sell off stocks, bonds and other investments. Congress dramatically expanded the Fed’s powers to fight panics during the Great Depression, adding Section 13-3 to the Federal Reserve Act.The section allows the Fed to act as a lender of last resort during “unusual and exigent” circumstances — in short, when markets are not working normally because investors are exceptionally worried. The central bank used those powers extensively during the 2008 crisis, including to support politically unpopular bailouts of financial firms. Congress subsequently amended the Fed’s powers so that it would need Treasury’s blessing to roll out new emergency loan programs or to materially change existing ones.The programs provide confidence as much as credit.During the 2008 crisis, the Fed served primarily as a true lender of last resort — it mostly backed up the various financial markets by offering to step in if conditions got really bad. The 2020 emergency loan programs have been way more expansive. Last time, the Fed concentrated on parts of Wall Street most Americans know little about like the commercial paper market and primary dealers. This time, it reintroduced those measures, but it also unveiled new programs that have kept credit available in virtually every part of the economy. It has offered to buy municipal bonds, supported bank lending to small and medium-sized businesses, and bought up corporate debt.The sweeping package was a response to a real problem: Many markets were crashing in March. And the new programs generally worked. While the terms weren’t super generous and relatively few companies and state and local borrowers have taken advantage of these new programs, their existence gave investors confidence that the central bank would prevent a financial collapse.But things started getting messy in mid-November.Most lawmakers agreed that the Fed and Treasury had done a good job reopening credit markets and protecting the economy. But Senator Patrick J. Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican, started to ask questions this summer about when the programs would end. He said he was worried that the Fed might overstep its boundaries and replace private lenders.After the election, other Republicans joined Mr. Toomey’s push to end the programs. Mr. Mnuchin announced on Nov. 19 that he believed Congress had intended for the five programs backed by the $454 billion Congress authorized to stop lending and buying bonds on Dec. 31. He closed them — while leaving a handful of mostly older programs open — and asked the Fed to return the money he had lent to the central bank.Business & EconomyLatest UpdatesUpdated Dec. 18, 2020, 12:25 p.m. ETLee Raymond, a former Exxon chief, will step down from JPMorgan Chase’s board.U.S. adds chip maker S.M.I.C. and drone maker DJI to its entity list.Volkswagen says semiconductor shortages will cause production delays.The Fed issued a statement saying it was dissatisfied with his choice, but agreed to give the money back.Democrats criticized the move as designed to limit the incoming Biden administration’s options. They began to discuss whether they could reclaim the funds and restart the programs once Mr. Biden took office and his Treasury secretary was confirmed, since Mr. Mnuchin’s decision to close them and claw back the funds rested on dubious legal ground.The new Republican move would cut off that option. Legislative language circulating early Friday suggested that it would prevent “any program or facility that is similar to any program or facility established” using the 2020 appropriation. While that would still allow the Fed to provide liquidity to Wall Street during a crisis, it could seriously limit the central bank’s freedom to lend to businesses, states and localities well into the future.In a statement, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, called it an attempt to “to sabotage President Biden and our nation’s economy.”Mr. Toomey has defended his proposal as an effort to protect the Fed from politicization. For example, he said Democrats might try to make the Fed’s programs much more generous to states and local governments.The Treasury secretary would need to have the Fed’s approval to improve the terms to help favored borrowers. But the central bank might not readily agree, as it has generally approached its powers cautiously to avoid attracting political scrutiny and to maintain its status as a nonpartisan institution.Fed officials have avoided weighing in on the congressional showdown underway.“I won’t have anything to say on that beyond what we have already said — that Secretary Mnuchin, as Treasury secretary, would like for the programs to end as of Dec. 31” and that the Fed will give back the money as asked, Richard H. Clarida, the vice chairman of the Fed, said Friday on CNBC.More generally, he added that “we do believe that the 13-3 facilities” have been “very valuable.”Emily Cochrane More