• Tag Archives COVID

  • Landlords Are Struggling to Make Ends Meet as CDC Extends Eviction Ban

    Posted on by Azrael Comment

    With so many Americans out of work and unable to pay their rent, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention instituted a nationwide eviction ban on residential rental properties.

    With the moratorium originally set to expire on January 31, newly elected President Joe Biden, on his first day in office, signed an executive order prolonging the eviction ban until at least the end of March.

    Under this eviction moratorium, tenants who fail to pay their rent or mortgage are shielded from removal, so long as they submit a formal declaration to their landlords, proving their financial hardship is COVID-related.

    Any landlord who fails to comply with the CDC’s policy can be slapped with fines up to $200,000, face criminal prosecution, and even be forced to serve time behind bars.

    No one wants to see the homeless population rise, but what of the landlords who also have bills to pay and mouths to feed? These individuals seem to be forgotten when we look at the casualties of the nationwide financial crisis.

    In Northeast Washington D.C., Archie Djabatey owns a four-unit building where he also resides. According to The Washington Post, the 35-year-old bought the building with dreams of building a legacy he could pass on to his future children—an aspiration that has since been placed on pause by the eviction moratorium.

    The eviction crisis has been a unique situation for Djabatey, because his neighbors are also his tenants. “You want to help, but it’s also a business,” he said, “That’s the way it is.”

    These moratoriums place the burden of housing solely on landlords, perpetuating the financial hardships the country is already facing.

    In February of last year, just one month before the pandemic changed nearly every aspect of our lives, Djabatey had to file an eviction suit against one of his tenants after he had failed to pay rent. Not only was the tenant delinquent, but he had also been using drugs on the property and had strangers funneling in and out of his unit at all hours, becoming a nuisance to the other residents.

    The court rightly sided with Djabatey. But the eviction process came to a screeching halt as COVID began spreading across the country. Ten months later, and the tenant in question is still living in the apartment without paying rent while violating the terms of his lease and protected against eviction. This moratorium is not only a problem to other residents, it’s also robbing the building’s owner of $1,002 a month. “It’s coming out of my pocket. I’m in a very tight situation.”

    Djabatey’s story is just one of many. Pacific Legal Foundation attorneys spoke to a landlord in Louisiana who explained that she had trouble paying her mortgage due to lost income. As a result, she could no longer afford essentials, like prescription medications, all because of the eviction moratorium.

    But Louisiana and Washington, D.C. are not the only regions with a strict eviction moratorium.

    The term “landlord” might conjure up images of slumlords taking advantage of their tenants and leaving them with dilapidated and unlivable dwellings. Yet, in Southern California, where eviction is prohibited for any tenant who is able to pay at least 25 percent of their rent or mortgage, 70 percent of rental building owners own fewer than 50 units. These small landlords are worried about how they will stay financially afloat with the eviction moratoriums being continually expanded.

    New York landlords are dealing with the same concerns, as the state recently passed what The New York Times called “the most comprehensive anti-eviction laws in the nation.”

    Many constitutional attorneys have questioned why the CDC is making policy decisions in the residential real estate market, given that the Constitution does not authorize it to do so.

    The ordinance puts a pause on any eviction proceedings already filed in court and prohibits landlords from beginning any new proceedings until at least May 1.

    In Oregon, the newly passed House Bill 4401 extends eviction bans until June 30, 2021. Several landlords have since filed suit against Governor Kate Brown, Portland, and Multnomah County in response to the new law.

    Many constitutional attorneys have questioned why the CDC is making policy decisions in the residential real estate market, given that the Constitution does not authorize it to do so. Only Congress has the power to create and pass laws.

    The Public Health Service Act does give the CDC the authority to take steps to curb the spread of the virus, but it only authorizes the agency to “provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated…and other measures.”

    The CDC has extended that authority by claiming that allowing landlords to evict delinquent or destructive tenants will exacerbate the spread of the virus.

    Well-intentioned as the eviction moratoriums may be, these policies often cause more unintended consequences than solving actual problems. It’s unclear how many people would actually have been evicted in 2020 without the bans. During the 2008 financial crisis, for example, despite fears of mass evictions and homelessness, eviction rates stayed relatively the same as before the crash.

    These moratoriums place the burden of housing solely on landlords, perpetuating the financial hardships the country is already facing. There are more effective and reasonable policies that would protect those truly struggling from pandemic-related hardships, while also making sure landlords aren’t losing their income.

    There are more effective and reasonable policies that would protect those truly struggling from pandemic-related hardships, while also making sure landlords aren’t losing their income.

    Many people are struggling right now, but not everyone is being asked to bear such a heavy weight on their shoulders. “No one is asking restaurants and grocery stores to give food out for free, so why are government agencies, with no authority to legislate, asking landlords to provide a service without compensation?” said PLF attorney Ethan Blevins.

    As is the case with many national crises, the government is making a power grab wherever it can feasibly justify doing so, ignoring the separation of powers guaranteed in the Constitution.

    PLF has filed suits on behalf of struggling landlords in Ohio and Louisiana, but landlords all over the country continue to suffer the consequences of the CDC’s actions.

    This Pacific Legal Foundation article was republished with permission.

    Brittany Hunter


    Brittany Hunter

    Brittany is a writer for the Pacific Legal Foundation. She is a co-host of “The Way The World Works,” a Tuttle Twins podcast for families.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


    📂This entry was posted in News and Politics 📎and tagged

  • ‘It’s Easy Money’: Nigerian Scammer Laughs about Huge Sums Stolen from COVID Welfare Programs in Bombshell Interview

    Posted on by Azrael Comment

    State unemployment agencies aren’t especially responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars even in the best of times. Yet when the COVID-19 crisis and government lockdowns put tens of millions of Americans out of work, Congress responded by pouring more taxpayer money into state-level unemployment systems.

    The federal legislation enormously increased weekly payouts and expanded unemployment benefits to many new classes of workers, with little in the way of verification or qualification requirements. This welfare expansion was just reauthorized in the second major COVID-19 spending package, which Congress passed in mid-December. Sadly, lawmakers didn’t bother to address the runaway fraud that had plagued the first round of COVID relief efforts.

    An astonishing $36 billion has been lost to fraud in pandemic unemployment benefits, the Department of Labor reports. To put this figure in context, the entire unemployment system only paid out about $26 billion in 2019.

    That’s right: Bureaucrats lost to fraud more than is usually paid out in an entire year. The $36 billion lost—and that’s just the fraud we know about—amounts to an average of roughly $1,894 lost per current unemployment beneficiary. (What would we think of a private system that lost nearly $2,000 for each customer served?)

    These figures alone are horrifying, but a new bombshell interview with one of the countless international scammers getting rich off our relief efforts makes it painfully clear just how carelessly Congress is throwing around our money.

    A Nigerian student named Mayowa spoke to USA Today and, on the condition of partial anonymity, openly admitted to scamming $50,000 from the US pandemic welfare system so far.

    All he had to do was make a list of real people and then search through available databases of hacked information for their Social Security numbers and birthdates.

    “In most states that information is all it takes to file for unemployment,” USA Today’s Nick Penzenstadler says. ”Even when state applications require additional verification, a little more money spent on sites such as FamilyTreeNow and TruthFinder provides answers – your mother’s maiden name, where you were born, your high school mascot.”

    It doesn’t always work, of course. But Mayowa told the newspaper his success rate is pretty high—about one success in every six claim attempts.

    “Once we have that information, it’s over,” Mayowa told reporters. “It’s easy money.”

    Government bureaucrats were caught flat-footed, and the flood of money being rushed out the door in the name of emergency meant more vulnerabilities than ever. It took many states more than six months to add verification requirements and partially stem the flow. Just to use one state as an example, Washington state usually identifies a few dozen fraudsters in a year—now, it has identified more than 122,000 since March.

    “When you consider the policy factors accelerating benefits and getting them to the neediest people and the expanded $600 available … we had the perfect storm,” Washington Employment Security Department Commissioner Suzi Levine said. “[Scammers] have been lying in wait for this moment.”

    It’s certainly true that the COVID-19 pandemic and the sweeping big government response are unprecedented in our lifetimes. So, the runaway unemployment fraud and rampant fraud in other COVID relief programs are indeed an extreme example. But do not make the mistake of thinking that they are uncharacteristic of big-government programs by any stretch.

    As Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises explained, bureaucracy, incompetence, and waste are inherent to government administration by its very nature.

    In contrast, private businesses are driven to efficiency by the profit motive. A company-wide system that is broken and bleeding money is, in short order, fixed—or if it cannot be, that company will soon be driven out of business by more efficient competitors. This influences the behavior, not only of the business’s owners, but of its hired managers, and thus all its employees.

    “Within a business concern [the management of expenses] can be left without hesitation to the discretion of the responsible local manager,” Mises explained in his book Bureaucracy. “He will not spend more than necessary because it is, as it were, his money; if he wastes the concern’s money, he jeopardizes the branch’s profit and thereby indirectly hurts his own interests.”

    Fundamentally, in private enterprise, everyone involved has skin in the game. So, while mistakes still certainly happen, there’s a strong incentive to correct them and push for as much efficiency as is possible.

    In government the opposite is true.

    “It is another matter with the local chief of a government agency,” Mises explained. “In public administration there is no connection between revenue and expenditure. In public administration there is no market price for achievements.”

    It’s not that government bureaucrats want to waste taxpayer money. But the lack of proper incentives breeds incompetence, and all government agencies have a monopoly on what they do.

    If a state’s unemployment agency does a poor job, it doesn’t go out of business. Neither the profits of the “owners” nor the salaries of the workers are on the line. So, it’s much less likely that anyone will even face firing or disciplinary action for mistakes in government. (Especially thanks to the strength of public sector unions).

    Need proof? Only a few state administrators have been fired throughout this entire national COVID-19 welfare fraud scandal. It’s simply unthinkable that this level of scandal and waste could happen in private enterprise without wide-scale firings and other forms of accountability.

    This inherent inefficiency is a feature of government bureaucracy, not a bug.

    Yes, this particular problem may fade, if expanded pandemic unemployment relief programs are eventually allowed to expire. But waste, fraud, and inefficiency will plague big government efforts long after the COVID-19 pandemic subsides.

    RELATED: Why You Should Expect More Stimulus Fraud Coming Soon.


    Brad Polumbo

    Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Opinion Editor at the Foundation for Economic Education.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


    📂This entry was posted in News and Politics 📎and tagged

  • The Sneaky Trick a Public Health Official Used to Make Mask Mandates Look Super Effective

    Posted on by Azrael Comment

    As of early August, 34 US states mandate the use of masks in public to limit the spread of COVID-19.

    The efficacy of face masks has been a subject of debate in the health community during the pandemic. Because health experts disagree on their effectiveness, countries and health agencies around the world, including the World Health Organization and the CDC, have done a reversal on their mask recommendations during the pandemic.

    Reasonable and persuasive cases can be made both for and against the use of masks in the general population. Unfortunately, the science of masks and viruses is becoming less clear because of the politicized nature of the debate.

    A case in point is the Kansas public health official who made news last week after he was accused of using a deceptive chart to make it appear counties with mask mandates had lower COVID-19 case rates than they actually did.

    At a press conference, Kansas Department of Health and Environment Secretary Dr. Lee Norman credited face masks with positive statewide COVID-19 trends showing a general decline in deaths, hospitalizations, and new cases.

    Norman pointed to a chart (see below) that depicted two lines tracking cases per 100,000 people between July 12 and August 3. The red line begins higher than the blue line but then falls precipitously as it travels down the X-axis, ending below a blue line.

    Norman explains that the red line represented the 15 counties with mask mandates, which account for two thirds of the state’s population. The flat blue line represented the remaining 90 counties, which had no mask mandates in place.

    “All of the improvement in case development comes from those counties wearing masks,” Norman said.

    The results are clear, Norman claimed. The red line shows reduction. The blue line is flat. Kansas’s real-life experiment showed that masks work.

    It didn’t take long for people to realize something wasn’t quite right, however. The blue line and the red line were not on the same axis.

    This gave the impression that counties with mask mandates in place had fewer daily cases than counties without mask mandates. This is not the case, however. In reality, counties with masks mandates have far higher daily COVID-19 cases than counties without mask mandates.

    If the trends are depicted on the same axis, the blue and red lines look like this.

    Many Kansans were not pleased with the trickery.

    Kansas Policy Institute expert Michael Austin told local media that the chart clearly gives a false impression.

    “It has nothing to do about whether masks are effective or not. [It’s about] making sure Kansans can make sound conclusions from accurate information,” Austin said. “And unfortunately, the chart that was shown prior in the week strongly suggested that counties that had followed Dr. Norman’s mask order outperformed counties that did not, and that was most certainly not true.”

    Twitter was less diplomatic.

    The chart is deceptive.

    Worse, Norman also failed to note that the lines were on different axes until a reporter asked if the blue line “would get below the red line” if those counties passed mask mandates, which prompted Norman to mumble about different metrics and then admit that counties without mask mandates have lower case rates.

    “The trend line is what I really want to focus on,” Norman said.

    The deception prompted a non-apology from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment: “Yes, the axes are labelled differently … we recognize that it was a complex graph and may not have easily been understood and easily misinterpreted.”

    Dr. Norman, meanwhile, vowed to do better next time.

    “I’ll learn from that and try to [be] clearer next time,” he said following criticism from lawmakers.

    The episode is unfortunate because it further clouds the science and erodes trust in the medical experts individuals rely on to make informed decisions.

    It’s also ironic, because the controversy overshadowed the state’s positive data, which suggests masks may be working in Kansas. The chart may have been deceptive, but the data is correct and shows a 34 percent drop in COVID cases in counties with mandates in place.

    It’s quite possible that drop is linked to county orders mandating the use of masks. Then again, the order may have nothing to do with the drop. Correlation, we know, doesn’t equal causation. If it did, the surge in COVID-19 cases in California following its mask order would be “proof” that masks increase transmission rates.

    But science doesn’t work that way (at least it shouldn’t), and Dr. Norman knows this.

    Maybe masks are an effective way to curb transmission of the coronavirus, or maybe it’s largely ineffective or even harmful, like the Surgeon General stated back in March. The truth is we don’t yet know.

    What’s clear, as I noted last week, is that the top physicians and public health experts on the planet can’t decide if face coverings help reduce the spread of COVID-19.

    In light of this, it seems both reasonable and prudent that public health officials should focus less on forcing people to “mask-up” and more on developing clear and compelling research which will allow individuals to make informed and free decisions.

    This, after all, is the traditional role of public health: inform people and let them choose.

    Allowing individuals to choose instead of collective bodies is the proper and more effective approach, because, as the great economist Ludwig von Mises reminded us, individuals are the source of all rational decision-making.

    “All rational action is in the first place individual action,” Mises wrote in Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis. “Only the individual thinks. Only the individual reasons. Only the individual acts.”

    Mask orders aren’t just about public health. They are a microcosm of a larger friction at work in our society: who gets to plan our lives, individuals or the collective?

    Despite what many today seem to believe, society is best served by allowing individuals to plan and control their own lives.

    But individuals benefit from sound and reliable information. Sadly, that is something public health officials increasingly appear incapable or unwilling to offer.

    Jon Miltimore


    Jon Miltimore

    Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune.

    Bylines: The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


    📂This entry was posted in News and Politics 📎and tagged