Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

U.S. Surpassed 5 Million Cases, Death Toll Nears 163,000; Trump's Executive Action on Virus Relief Spark Confusion. Aired 7- 7:30a ET

Aired August 10, 2020 - 07:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[07:00:00]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN NEW DAY: This is New Day. Alisyn is off. Erica Hill with me here this morning. Great to see you.

ERICA HILL, CNN NEW DAY: Good to be back with you.

BERMAN: We do begin with breaking news, 5 million coronavirus cases in the United States. We have passed the 5 million mark and it is climbing, more than 1 million new cases in the past 17 days alone, the death toll about to surpass 163,000.

The United States now accounts for more than 25 percent of all confirmed cases and 22 percent of all fatalities in the world, yet the U.S. makes up only 4 percent of the world's population.

The president claims that children are nearly immune from the virus, but a new study finds that nearly 100,000 children tested positive in the U.S. in the last two weeks of July alone. And this morning, there are reports that the college football season could be canceled completely or postponed indefinitely this week.

HILL: Also developing overnight, massive confusion and uncertainty for millions of unemployed Americans and for businesses seeking help after critical aid lapsed. Amid backlash, President Trump now backtracking on the idea of help forcing states to help pay for these benefits that he proposed in a memorandum over the weekend.

He, of course, tried to circumvent Congress with that executive action. Democrats and even some Republicans calling it legally questionable and executive overreach.

We want to begin with CNN's Rosa Flores who is live in Miami with our top story. Rosa, good morning.

ROSA FLORES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Erica, good morning. As the legal battle over whether or not to reopen schools here in the State of Florida continues, all new this morning, schools in at least 14 counties across the state will begin reopening for in-person instruction this week. This is according to the Florida Education Association and to the websites of these school districts.

Now, you probably remember, just last month, CDC Director Robert Redfield saying that county officials in areas with a positivity rate of more than 5 percent might consider keeping schools closed. Well, 11 of these 14 counties just on Saturday exceeded 5 percent positivity rate. That's according to the latest data available by the Florida Department of Health.

Now, all of this as the battle over whether or not to reopen schools in Hillsborough County heats up. Here's what we know about that. Hillsborough County voted for the reopening of schools, for virtual schooling only for the first four weeks of the school year. Well, Florida Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran fired back in a scathing letter to the district saying and expressing his grave concerns, because the district is not offering brick and mortar instruction, and also reminding the district about funding availability.

Well, according to the superintendent of Hillsborough County, the district followed the data from the Florida Department of Health and also the advice from local health officials and also medical experts. And so they're looking at this letter and deciding what to do next and what the next steps are. They're looking at this letter with their legal team.

And, John, let me leave you with this, because you and I have talked about this before. Here in Florida, bars are still closed, and yet this morning, as of this morning, some school districts will reopen for in-person instruction in this state.

BERMAN: The important point you're making is that the positivity rate in the places where these schools are opening is high. It's higher than what Dr. Birx and Dr. Fauci and leading infectious disease experts around the country say should be the level at which schools open. Rosa Flores, keep us posted there.

Joining us now, Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo. She is the Director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Also with us, CNN's Senior Political Reporter, Nia-Malika Henderson.

And, Dr. Marrazzo, look, we can look at Georgia. We can see North Paulding High School, which is the school from we all saw this photo last week, had has been opened already. And what happened? Well, Hannah Watters, a student there, posted this photo of what it looked like as students were changing classes there, not social distanced, many of them not wearing masks. And here's the thing there, they weren't worried to wear masks and it was admitted by the school they felt that social distancing wasn't even going to be possible in most cases.

Now, the school is closed for a few days, gone to online learning, because six students and three faculty members have tested positive. What does that tell you?

DR. JEANNE MARRAZZO, DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES, UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM: Yes, John, good morning. Again, this should not be a surprise. We have been emphasizing over and over again that mask wearing, social distancing and washing your hands are the things we need to do. And the reality is, either we get ahead of these outbreaks by forestalling this kind of event, or we have the events and we're constantly chasing our tail, in order to catch up with it.

And, unfortunately, because of the lack of proactive guidance, as evidenced by what happened at that school, we're back in this situation where we're chasing our tail, of finding positives, trying to trace those positives, and unfortunately shutting down the schools.

[07:05:10]

And that's exactly what people are concerned about happening as we continue to reopen schools, particularly in settings where the community transmission rate is so high. And the positivity rate is as high as it has been.

HILL: It's such a great point. From the beginning, we've been hearing from you, Dr. Marrazzo, from so many other experts, that you need to get ahead of it before you can move forward. What really stands out then, and what we heard from the president over the weekend is that there was nothing in there about getting ahead of the virus. There was nothing in there about actually addressing the virus itself and what is needed, whether it'd be testing or any other efforts to get it under control. And that, I think, is remarkable, and underscore what the response has been from the beginning.

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: I think that's right. We talk about what is in this kind of package of memos and executive actions by the president and how that will be ineffective. But you mentioned, what isn't in there. And there's no money, for instance, for schools, right, that are trying to figure out how they're going to open up safely. They don't have necessarily the resources or the funding to kind of retrofit their buildings to make it safer for these students, who oftentimes are crowded in hallways, going to their lockers and crowded lunchrooms and the like, as we saw from that school in Georgia.

So, again, this just underscores where we have been with this administration from the very beginning of this virus, downplaying it, basically being behind the curve in terms in terms of trying to flatten that curve and get their arms around it, as we have a president who continues to say, it will just go away. Well, it won't just go away. It can be contained with the proper leadership, with the proper funding, with the proper sense of urgency from this administration. We've seen that in many states from the gubernatorial level, some of the senators and mayors in some of these states.

But, again, the president and his administration has largely been MIA, wanting to have kind of a photo op approach to this, but that doesn't work when people are in these urgent situations, both in terms of their health and in maintaining safe distances in schools and enforcing on mask requirements. And then also, obviously, economically, something he tried to address this weekend and largely failed.

BERMAN: It's a great point you make, Nia. We'll talk much more about the executive actions in just a minute. But two things they did not include was a single dollar more for schools or a single dollar more for testing.

Dr. Marrazzo, I was also struck by this study released by the American Academy of Pediatrics over the weekend, which found that 97,000 children, at varying ages, it really depends on states, but 97,000 children tested positive for coronavirus in the last two weeks of July.

Now, look, I live in New York, and my kids, I believe, are going back to school at least part-time in a few weeks, and I'm thrilled about that. However, the positivity rate where I live is well below 1 percent at this time. When you hear that nearly 100,000 kids have tested positive, what does it tell you?

MARRAZZO: Well, John, it tells you exactly what we've been saying, that the virus has almost become endemic in some communities. And by endemic, I mean that transmission is sustained to the point where you're fairly likely to get it if you go out there and are exposed to a situation where someone else is shedding it.

So, you know, kids are little vectors of disease, right? They may not be so good at social distancing, they may not be so good at not covering their faces, covering their noses, although they've been wearing masks like little super heroes, which is great. So I think it means that it's just a reflection that they are just as vulnerable to this virus as other people are. They may not get as sick. And we have been saying that from day one. Much of the morbidity and mortality of this virus is directly related to age.

I want to come back to one thing about the testing issue. Remember that with testing, we really need to know when the test was done and how quickly it was reported. So the thing about the kids is good, because they tested those kids and they knew fairly quickly that they were positive. A lot of the tests that we're seeing reported, we're not really getting those results for a couple of weeks in some cases. And that's essentially useless to give us a window into what's really happening.

So one thing I would love to see is tests that are more rapid, point of care tests, people can act on the results of those tests very quickly. And we can really start getting a window into what the dynamic situation with the virus is, and the population. And we have not really done that, based on lags in testing and lags in reporting and poor access to tests, so lots of challenges interpreting the data.

HILL: Dr. Marrazzo, can I stick with you on masks for a minute, because you're talking about kids being little superheroes wearing their masks.

[07:10:03]

And, listen, here in New York, we see a lot of kids in masks. But what we saw at that school in Georgia, the superintendent said they just couldn't enforce a mask mandate. It was too difficult. Listen, they enforce a dress code. I went through their dress code. It's very clear.

So when we hear from states or counties or districts that they can't enforce a mask mandate, I'm just curious, what's your reaction to that? Is it really, in your mind, that difficult to enforce masks in schools?

MARRAZZO: Yes, I think it depends what you mean about enforcement. I have heard people say that they weren't allowed to wear shorts and T- shirts to schools. And if that was the case, they certainly should be made to wear masks.

Enforcement is an interesting concept. What we really need is for people, including kids, especially kids, especially teenagers, who really can change the world, who want to change the world, we need them to own this, right? This isn't about telling them they can't wear shorts, they can't wear T-shirts, they can't wear a makeup, they -- whatever, they can't have their hair long, they can't wear dreads.

This is about it -- really, this is your chance to own this crisis and to make an impact on society that people are going to laud you for for centuries, right? It's like anybody who fought a war. We are fighting a war and we need to enlist them in soldiers in this war. And I just don't think it's a great idea to say, if you don't do this, you're going to go to detention. That never works. It's that carrot and stick sort of thing.

So I think we need to enlist them in our cause. And, unfortunately, this dichotomy of you must, you should, you have to, otherwise is not really working in this setting.

BERMAN: Nia, we have noted, we're higher than 5 million cases in the United States now, which we noted earlier in the show is 499,999 more than the one case that the president told us we had under total control in January. I mean, it wasn't under total control then and it's not under total control now.

HENDERSON: It isn't. And there's no sense from this White House that they feel any urgency to get this under control. You still see the president wishing it away, basically saying that schools should just reopen without any kind of financial support from the government. This has been the kind of approach he's had for all of these many months, that Americans have been enduring these lockdowns, these threats to their health and real uncertainty. That's the kind of commonality that everyone is feeling at this point, just a sense of uncertainty. What's going to happen next? Is the government going to get its act together?

You would think that this president who's facing re-election, facing voters in November would feel a sense of urgency, would see that his political fortunes are tied to the case counts and the death counts that we see skyrocketing in this country. But it's something that he just has not made that connection. He has these press briefings. Again, it's sort of a photo-op, he's present. But in terms of real action from this White House, to get this virus under control and give Americans a sense of stability and hope, really, that the corner is going to be turned, this is not something that this White House has been willing to do, and it doesn't look like that's going to change anytime soon.

BERMAN: Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, Nia-Malika Henderson, Nia, it's great to see you. We haven't seen you a while on New Day. It's great to have you back. I appreciate it. Erica?

MARRAZZO: A pleasure. Thanks so much.

HILL: And President Trump subverting Congress, causing confusion with his executive actions after stimulus talks broke down. Are these actions even legal? We discuss, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:15:00]

BERMAN: All right. There is growing confusion this morning over the executive actions that the president signed over the weekend, that he says will deliver aid to millions of Americans. Do these orders or actions really carry the force of law? And if so, what do they actually deliver?

Joining us now is CNN Senior Political Commentator and former Republican Senator Rick Santorum. Also with us, CNN Economics Commentator, Catherine Rampell, she's a Washington Post Columnist.

So there are two broad issues here. Number one, what do these things do? And number two, to what extent are they legal/constitutional/right?

Catherine, if we can, I want to start with what do they do and focus narrowly on the idea of aid or money to unemployed Americans. So what does it actually concretely deliver soon?

CATHERINE RAMPELL, CNN ECONOMICS COMMENTATOR: The way that this is structured for the U.I. benefit is that states would have to kick in an additional $100 in exchange, each week. They would get an additional $300 per unemployed worker. This would be a step down from the previous version of the federal U.I. supplement, which was $600 per worker.

So, you know, I don't know that it's exactly the end of the world in terms of the amount, $400. It's going to probably to weigh on consumer spending and will hurt some families, but at least it's not zero. However, you have to wonder whether states are actually going to participate in a program like this because, already, they're broke, their revenues are down, their spending is up, they don't have money to kick around.

There is a question -- I know we'll get to the legality of it later, but there is a question about whether this will hold up in court. If you are a state and you have no money, you also have to create an entirely new unemployment insurance system in order to use this money under the law. So if you're a state and you have no money, are you really going to spend time and resources building out an entirely new unemployment insurance system and paying 100 more per worker, money you don't have, for a system that will last maybe two months? And that may not hold up in court?

So it seems quite unlikely to me that this dollar amount of $400 will actually materialize for many workers around the country.

BERMAN: Republican Governor Mike DeWine of Ohio yesterday said he didn't know if his state would have the money to pony up $400. Now, the president has now claimed that the states won't have to do it, but it's unclear, really just is unclear and it does seem like the administration is making up the rules as it goes along and trying to figure it out.

[07:20:02]

Now, to the legality/constitutionality/rightness of this, Senator Santorum, I want to ask you. But before I ask 2020 Rick Santorum about it, I'm going to ask 2014 Rick Santorum about executive actions like this. And this is what 2014 Rick Santorum says.

He says, tonight's announcement by the president is just another in a long line of power grabs by this administration. The president simply does not believe that the executive is a co-equal branch of government. Time after time, President Obama then has ignored the rule of law, ignored the balance of power between each branch of government and ignored the will of the American people.

So that's what you, and to be fair, many Republicans felt in terms of President Obama's use of executive actions. How do you feel about it now this morning when it's a Republican president?

RICK SANTORUM, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. I would say, there're a couple of things. Number one, some of the things the president is suggesting are proper use of executive action, like suspending the payroll tax temporarily. He'll need Congress to come back and make it permanent, so people don't have to pay it back. But he can certainly do that.

That's not -- so a couple of the executive actions are clearly fine. There's a couple that are not. And I would say that Barack Obama has set the precedent, and that's the problem. That's the reason that many Republicans came out when he was spending money on healthcare that he was not -- under Obamacare that he was not permitted to spend under the act, that he was establishing the DACA program that was, again, not a legitimate use of executive power, many of us stepped forward and said, no, you can't do this and you're setting a horrible precedent that now Donald Trump is following.

And so I find the hypocrisy of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, who applauded President Obama for using this unconstitutional executive action are now complaining that President Trump is doing the same thing.

BERMAN: But I'm giving you an opportunity to not be a hypocrite. So on the --

SANTORUM: You heard me say it, John, I --

BERMAN: I know you blamed President Obama. I just want to know, do you approve of the executive action?

SANTORUM: No, I don't.

BERMAN: Because?

SANTORUM: I think -- but here is the problem. You don't see the consistency --

BERMAN: No, no. But because why don't you -- I want to give you the opportunity to say, why don't you approve of the action that President Trump, this president, took?

SANTORUM: The action that you just spoke of, creating a new unemployment system, if you will, and is something that is under the purview of Congress to do and is not for the president to be able to do. And just like when Barack Obama funded health insurance companies illegally, in my opinion, unconstitutionally, both are under the purview of Congress to appropriate that money and he can't just unilaterally do that.

BERMAN: Okay.

SANTORUM: And so, again, all I want to see is consistency. And at least some Republicans, I saw a handful of Republicans last night, you know, saying that, no, the president doesn't have the authority to do this. You didn't see that at all on the Democratic side when President Obama did it.

BERMAN: Ben Sasse, yes.

SANTORUM: And he was the first to do it.

BERMAN: Ben Sasse, Republican from Nebraska, called it unconstitutional slop.

Let's talk about the payroll tax. So this is interesting, right, Catherine. Again, from an economic standpoint, Senator Santorum says the president has a right to defer the collection of payroll taxes. Now, that may be so, but, functionally, boy, oh, boy, is this complicated/a mess.

RAMPELL: This is going to be a nightmare. So I do actually think that there are some legal questions, constitutional questions around this payroll tax deferral as well. You know, Congress is supposed to control the power of the purse, it's right there in Article I. But let's say it does survive a legal challenge. Remember, this is a payroll tax deferral, not a tax cut. That means that these taxes will ultimately need to be paid after 2020. And the real question is, who's left holding the bag?

I know that President Trump and Larry Kudlow and others have suggested that they want basically Medicare and a social security trust fund, which are the clients on those payroll taxes to be holding the bag, essentially, that the tax deferral will be a tax (INAUDIBLE), it will all be forgiven and will shortchange those entitlement trust funds. Maybe that will happen. I think it would be extremely controversial and I wouldn't count on our dysfunctional Congress and White House being able to come together on an agreement like that given that they can't come together on less controversial things.

The alternatives are, employees will have to pay these tax bills that they were not anticipating sometime next year when we may well still be in the middle of some kind of economic recession or even depression. This is money that they haven't budgeted for or that hasn't been withheld from their paychecks, will be a huge cost to them.

But most likely, based on the tax attorneys that I've consulted, what will happen is employers, their bosses, will have to make good on those taxes. Under the law, they have to remit taxes if their employees do not pay these payroll taxes.

And because of quirks in the way that the law works, they will have to pay essentially taxes upon those taxes, because it will be counted as income for employees if they're pay their employee's tax bills and kind of forgiving them for their employees. Which means on net, I know it's complicated, but the result is that what is supposed to be billed as a tax cut will actually be a tax hike next year for employers, unless Congress acts, which, again, it may or may not do.

[07:25:11]

So if Trump had any actual economists or tax experts advising him right now, he would know this. He would know how dysfunctional this version of his desired policy actually is, but he doesn't seem to have people advising him. I think the only good news is that businesses will probably talk to accountants and accountants will tell them, don't do this, it could increase your tax liabilities next year. And the best outcome is that they do nothing. They don't actually end up withholding -- excuse me deferring this withholding on behalf of their employees and the executive memorandum does absolutely nothing.

BERMAN: Rick, what about the complications here?

RAMPELL: Yes, I know.

SANTORUM: Yes. Again, Democrats have supported this in the past. I mean, this is not something that's new.

BERMAN: Well -- but to just -- referring 2011, just to be clear, it was perfectly clear that the funds would be replenished from the general collection. In this case, we just don't know. It's just not stated at all.

SANTORUM: Yes. I would agree that we don't know for sure. But, again, you've seen plenty of relief bills come through here that throw a lot of money at things to make sure that employers and employees are not unnecessarily harmed, and this would clearly be the case here. I mean, this is not -- as Catherine said, this is not a precedent. I mean, Congress in the past has -- in fact, in this current situation, there is a payroll tax relief for employers. So this is something that --

BERMAN: But you said Congress.

RAMPELL: But that was by statute.

SANTORUM: Yes, I understand. but I'm saying, this is not something that Congress is reticent to fund. And I think what the president is doing is reasonably assuming that if he does delay this, that Congress will eventually backfill it in some appropriate or inappropriate fashion, whatever Congress decides to do.

So I don't think there's a real threat out here. I think -- I don't think Democrats, whether Donald Trump is re-elected or not, are going to increase taxes on employees and employers next year. And I think so what the president is doing is saying, look, you're not cooperating with me. I'm going to force your hand on this one.

Again, I don't particularly like it. I don't like the whole idea of these unilateral executive actions, but I don't think this is one that is unconstitutional by any stretch.

BERMAN: Rick Santorum, Catherine Rampell, thank you both for being with us.

RAMPELL: Thank you.

BERMAN: All right. So Russia, other countries, what are they doing to sway the upcoming U.S. presidential election? The urgent warning from intelligence officials, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:30:00]

END