The first thing and, admittedly, the most important thing, to notice about these remarks by President Trump is that he's doing the China thing: confronted by someone he has condemned, he has backed down. Yet, something else is interesting and likely will fly below the radar. Trump comments
But if you remember my first week, I was standing here, Paul, and they were screaming about eggs. The cost of eggs had gone through the roof. They were up like 500- crazy- four or five times and we won't have eggs for Easter. There'll be no eggs, you can't order eggs. the wanted a sort of plastic in the shape of eggs where yesterday we had 48,000 people at the Easter hunt.. They call it the Easter roll, at the White House, and we had all eggs as you know, the cost of eggs has come down like 93, 94 percent.
Since we took office and they're pretty much normally priced now- a great job by Secretary of Agriculture Brook Rollins did a very good job and groceries have come down. It's all coming down. The only thing that hasn't gone down but hasn't gone up much are interest rates so we think that the Fed should lower the rate. We think it's a perfect time to lower the rate and we'd like to see our Chairman be early or on time as opposed to late.
Trump: You know, the cost of eggs have come down like 93, 94% since we took office. They are pretty much normally price now… Groceries have come down. It’s all coming down pic.twitter.com/mUbS7k21d1
The retail cost of eggs has not declined but if a lie is repeated often enough- as Trump is skilled at- a lot of people will believe him. It's especially credible when a number not a multiple of five- such as 93 or 94- is quoted. Most human brains would go to "that number couldn't have been made up!"
Moreover, Trump is thinking logically. If the price of eggs and other groceries are in decline, there would be no better time to reduce the prime interest rate.
If only. It is unclear that prices have dropped and very clear that most economists believe that inflation will soar if the tariffs imposed by the President remain in effect. While prices overall have gone down, they did so only in March (year over year) and just barely. It's certainly inaccurate that "the only thing that hasn't gone down" is the prime rate. The only thing that's obviously going down is the economy, whether into inflation, recession, or stagflation.
But Donald Trump knows that he can adopt falsehood as his modus operandi and the same mass of individuals will believe him. As he once boasted, he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose a vote, though he probably would lose a few thousand. That's not the style of an idiot, of a man swirling in chaos or afflicted with dementia, not even especially ignorant.
In one of those great, widely applicable lines "There's another old saying, Senator. Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining." President Trump does that each day to everyone except the most fortunate, and many Americans would swear it's a 100-year flood.
Things are going great in the USA as by early afternoon the day after Easter
US stocks and the dollar tumbled Monday as investors
assessed continued tariff uncertainty and the implications of President Donald
Trump’s ongoing mission to try and oust Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.
The Dow fell more than 1,190 points, or 3%. The broader
S&P 500 fell 3.2%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite slid 3.46%. Stock
futures had slumped in premarket trading after the three major indexes closed
last week in the red.
The US dollar index, which measures the dollar’s strength
against six foreign currencies, slumped 1% to its lowest level in more than
three years.
Sarcasm? No. Things are going great for one individual (aside from Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping): Here is the Lovable Liar on Friday stating
And the egg prices are down eight-seven percent. But nobody talks about that. You can have all the eggs you want. We have too many eggs. In fact, if anything, the prices are getting too low. So I just wanted you to know....
Trump: The egg prices are down 87%. We have too many eggs. The prices are getting low.
Egg prices are not going down and if they were, it wouldn't be by as much as 87% but if you're going to lie, why not go for the Big Lie?
That Donald Trump lies is not big news, no more than it's big news that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Actually, a lie is even less so because the sun does that only once a day and when Trump intentionally utters only one falsehood in a day, it's an extraordinary display of veracity.
But there is the matter of too many eggs and the prices getting too low. During the campaign, Donald Trump pledged "When I win, I will immediately bring prices down, starting on day one." In the month between election and inauguration, he backtracked with "it's hard to bring things down once they're up. You know, it's very hard. But I think that they will. I think that energy is going to bring them down."
It's hard to bring things down once they're up. No, it's easier to bring things down when they're up than to bring them down when they're already down. That's especially true because when prices are up, they often are high for artificial or fleeting reasons, such as a decision by OPEC+ to cut production temporarily.
None of that explains why President Donald Trump would want egg prices to be high. However, perhaps this Truth Social post of his from 10/20/22 gives a clue:
The Witch Hunt continues, and after 6 years and millions of
pages of documents, they’ve got nothing. If I had what Hunter and Joe had, it
would be the Electric Chair. Our Country is Rigged, Crooked, and Evil — We must
bring it back, and FAST. Next stop, Communism!
If "evil" from thirty months ago doesn't suggest anything, perhaps his perspective at a Cabinet meeting on February 26 as
“This country has gotten bloated, fat, disgusting,” the
78-year-old McDonald’s lover said, before blaming many of America’s problems on
former President Joe Biden.
Trump, whose slogan is the Ronald Reagan inspired “Make
America Great Again,” attributed his presidential woes to the poor health of
Americans—accusing Biden as the country’s enabler.
No one could lack in self-awareness as Donald Trump would be if he actually thinks that a fat 78-year-old being President of the USA is an advertisement against being fat. And no one is, because he's aware that, if anything, he is a poster boy for being fat- and arguably for being bloated and disgusting.
It wasn't bad enough- or good enough, to President Trump- that his on-again, off-again, on-again tariff statements and acts predictably convulsed the stock market. If the nation is evil and disgusting, more would be needed. Nor, for that matter, is visibly driving a wedge between the USA and our European allies, giving hope and bargaining leverage to dictators in Moscow and Beijing sufficient to achieve the President's goal.
It's an "evil" and "disgusting" country according to a man who threatens to fire the chairperson of the Federal Reserve, sending the stock market even further down, as no doubt expected by the Wharton School graduate. President Trump could fire Jerome Powell, which would be controversial and possibly illegal. Yet, when has either controversial or possibly illegal- even almost certainly illegal- ever stopped President Trump, as a public official or private citizen?
It wasn't bad enough- or good enough, to President Trump- that his on-again, off-again, on-again tariff statements and acts that predictably convulsed the stock market.
If the President did fire (or attempt to fire, whatever), there would be a downturn in the market. However, the matter eventually would be resolved, bringing a measure of stability less likely if the controversy dragged on, which gives Trump more flexibility.
It's becoming increasingly plausible that such flexibility will be wielded not only in a manner harmful to the country, but that this is part of the plan. It's something that, for their own reason(s), neither Republicans, Democrats, nor the media will dare suggest. Reality, however, has the nagging habit of refusing to be wished away.
This tweeter is on the right track but makes one major error.
If I wanted a Republican in office or in power, I would have voted for them! Democrats are perpetual losers who continually insist Republicans are fascists that want to take away our rights, while also saying how proud they are to have them in their administration. https://t.co/ymSrbh3Jd9
Democrats do not continually insist Republicans are fascists. Democrats- several, anyway- insist Donald J. Trump is a fascist.
Consider the widely-acclaimed, and beloved among Democrats, acceptance speech in Chicago by Kamala Harris. The nominee invoked the name "Trump" (or "Donald Trump") sixteen times. She invoked the word "Republican" (actually, "Republicans") one time.
If we thought that Harris instead referred to "Congress" or the "House of Representatives" as shorthand for "Republican," we need to think again. She stated "as a part of his agenda, he and his allies would limit access to birth control, ban medication abortion and enact a nationwide abortion ban, with or without Congress."
There was no suggestion that it is Republicans aiming to "limit access to birth control, ban medication abortion and enact a nationwide abortion ban." It is the generic "Congress."
A moment later, she would add "and when Congress passes a bill to restore reproductive freedom, as president of the United States, I will proudly sign it into law." There was not even a hint that there is no chance Congress would pass such a bill if it is not controlled by Democrats, nor even that Democrats are the ones who would like to make this a reality.
And not only abortion rights because soon thereafter Ms. Harris would remark
Last year, Joe and I brought together Democrats and conservative Republicans to write the strongest border bill in decades. The border patrol endorsed it. But Donald Trump believes a border deal would hurt his campaign, so he ordered his allies in Congress to kill the deal.
It wasn't Republicans, to hear Harris explain it. It was Trump's allies, with no mention that they were Republicans. It was all Donald Trump, with no accountability assigned to his party.
And then there was the 60 Minutes interview aired on Monday, October 7. Vice President Harris was asked about her economic plan, with that segment beginning at 2:50 of the first, complete, video below (abridged video at end). At 5:10, CBS correspondent Bill Simmons asks her "how are you going to get this through Congress?" After fifteen seconds of empty words by the guest, Simmons states/asks (at 5:29) "Congress has shown no inclination to move in your direction." Harris responds
I disagree with you. There are plenty of leaders in Congress who understand and know that the Trump tax cuts blew up our federal deficit. None of us- and certainly I- cannot afford to be myopic in terms of how I think about strengthening America's economy. Let me tell you something. I am a devout public servant. You know that. I am also a capitalist and I know the limitations of government.
("I have my principles but don't expect me to do anything with them.")
Congress passed President Trump's tax bill (promptly signed by the President) in November, 2017 with opposition from every Democrat, yet with a mere twelve Republicans. Every Republican member of the Senate voted for the bill. No Democrats did. Like size, the partisan breakdown of Congress matters.
Nonetheless, the Democratic nominee says "there are plenty of leaders in Congress who understand and know that the Trump tax cuts" harmed Americans. She might have stated "there are plenty of leaders in Congress, including a few Republicans..." or :"there are plenty of leaders in Congress, especially Democrats...."
But, no, of course she didn't. Inform Kamala Harris: like size, partisan breakdown of Congress matters.
She would know that, obviously, but doesn't want to be associated with the Democratic Party as she continues her courtship with Republicans. And that is why the tweet above is accurate only up to a point. Democrats, and especially Harris, are very good at calling out Donald Trump for what he is. However, the party's presidential nominee is negligent, even grossly averse to, criticizing Republicans. That may work for her while down-ballot Democrats pay the price for a self-centered candidate.
Bill O'Reilly makes the case for election of Donald Trump,
and that warm feeling on your backside is smoke he's blowing up your rear end.
Here, he claims
I don't care whether you like Trump or not. Trump governed
this nation in a responsible way where everybody prospered. And if you don't
believe that, you're a moron. Every single thing, every single indicator was on
positive territory. All the working people no matter what color they were were
making more money and there were more jobs. We didn't have inflation. We didn't
have supply problems. We didn't have any of it. Now we have all of it, in
addition to an open border.
🚨BREAKING: Fox News legend Bill O'Reilly just said: "I don't care whether you like Trump or not. Trump governed this nation in a responsible way, where everybody prospered. And if you don't believe that, you're a moron!"
— PAMELA HENSLEY🇺🇸 (@PamelaHensley22) May 23, 2024
What a great country! All the working people were making
more money and there were more jobs. Except that, as Vox explains
some of Trump’s signature economic policies have also been
found to have had little to no measurable effect on the economy — and a few
might have even hurt. Multiple studies have shown that the Trump tariffs at
best had a neutral effect on the economy and at worst cost America hundreds of
thousands of jobs and higher prices for consumers. And his 2017 tax cuts, which
increased investment in the economy and contributed to modest wage growth in
the short term, fell far short of Republicans’ promise that they would pay for
themselves and are projected to significantly raise federal debt and increase
income inequality.
"On the other hand," Biden
faced the immediate
task upon assuming office of heading off a recession as the country started to
bounce back from the pandemic. The US did recover from that pandemic economic
slump. But there is evidence that his policies, including the stimulus checks
he issued, contributed to an inflationary spiral.
The US did, however, manage to curb inflation faster than
other economically developed countries, while also maintaining much lower
levels of unemployment and higher wage growth.
Supply chain disruptions rose nearly 70% in 2020, with the
Covid-19 pandemic leading the way as the most damaging event, according to data
from supply chain risk monitoring firm Resilinc, released this week.
The data come from Resilinc’s 2020 EventWatch Report, which
analyzes information gathered from the company’s EventWatch AI global event
monitoring service. The report shows that supply chain disruptions were up 67%
year-over-year in 2020, with 83% of disruptive events being “human caused,” the
company said...
Donald Trump was President in 2020, when he constantly
assured Americans that the coronavirus would "go away" and "is
disappearing," Inflation was low through most of 2020 (but rose to.4.2% in January 2021) because people were sheltered at home and
there was little demand for goods and services. O'Reilly says "we didn't have supply problems," a claim which should surprise suppliers and consumers of toilet tissue.
The inflation rate is now 3.4%. At 3.9%, the unemployment rate is at a nearly 50-year
low. It was at 6.3% in January, 2021, when Trump left office. (It was at 7.2%
andinflation at 4.1% as Saint Reagan carried 49 states on his way to
re-election bragging "It's Morning in America Again.")
Bill O'Reilly supports Donald Trump. But facts are facts. In 2017, O'Reilly was worth approximately $85 million and probably is worth much more now. Therefore, Bill he knows that under a President Trump, the tax he pays on his income will be significantly lower. There probably is a connection the two..
Perhaps you can discern the irony in the following tweet.
Biden: One of the things that I heard some of you saying is why doesn't Biden say what a good deal it is? You think that's going to help get it passed? No. That's why you guys don't bargain very well. pic.twitter.com/q4xRKedQGy
Of course, it would be foolish for President Biden to say what a good deal he hammered out with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy if the impediment to approval is the far right of the Republican caucus. That probably is the case, as the complaints from the House's Freedom Caucus roll in.
If the challenge were from the left side of the Democratic caucus, it still wouldn't move Biden. The center-left wing of the Party has been taking the progressive wing for granted for years now, and it has been largely effective strategy.
One consistently overlooked instance was during the 2020 presidential nominating process, when Biden was being routed and looking forward to the upcoming South Carolina primary, in which a majority of voters would be black. Biden promised at a debate that his first nomination to the US Supreme Court would be a black woman, Representative James Clyburn endorsed him a few days later, and Biden won the primary going away. Though having written much of the 1994 anti-crime bill, which would be partially blamed for the mass incarceration which millions of Democrats protested a few months later, Biden went on to sweep the field and become the party's nominee. Play the right card, and liberal Democrats can be bought off cheaply.
Yet, the President was less than brilliant when he remarked "one of the things that I heard some of you saying is why doesn't Biden say what a good deal it is? You think that's going to help get it passes. No. That's why you guys don't bargain very well."
By lecturing the press, Biden was in fact explicitly doing what he denied he was doing: he was maintaining that it was in fact a good deal. He made it clear that the only reason he didn't say that it is a good deal is not because it isn't- but because it's not going to help get it passed.
Biden was so intent on spanking the press that he (slightly) undermined his own position. The tweeter quoted at the beginning of this post evidently believes that the Administration negotiated effectively. Well, maybe: if it holds- a big if- it's a better deal than we could have expected a week or so ago.
Nonetheless, that's far more likely the impact of the Democratic negotiators than of Biden himself. The President's strategy was awful, asserting that he would not bargain with hostage-takers. That approach may have worked, but only if the President were resolute. (He stated that he wouldn't negotiate over raising the debt limit itself, and arguably did not, but obviously did talk to McCarthy and a deal was hammered out.) If the agreement announced does hold, it's a triumph not of strategy, directed by Biden, but of the tactics of his negotiating team.
Ultimately, the outcome is what matters. However, it would be helpful if we Democrats view honestly and accurately what our President says and does, rather than getting caught up in unrealistic adulation.
RNC Research claims it is "exposing the lies, hypocrisy, and failed far-left policies of Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. Managed by the Republican National Committee." Joe Biden and the "Democrat" Party rarely lie- until the Age of Trump, few politicians actually knowingly stated falsehoods. They're not as hypocritical as the GOP and as for "far-left policies"- if only!
So you won't be shocked that this twitter account is expert at taking things out of context. In the following 89 second clip, RNC Research displays Jean-Pierre commenting twenty (20) times about negotiations with the GOP over- well, now, this is what the deception is all about.
Karine Jean-Pierre claimed yesterday that Biden has been engaged on debt ceiling negotiations "for months" — except she spent months insisting the exact opposite.
The clips are very brief, lacking a hint of either what the Press Secretary stated immediately after or before or to what question she is responding. Additionally, she is not very good at her job, in sharp contrast to Jen Psaki's performance in the same role. However, the gist of Jean-Pierre's theme- if consistent with President Biden's intentions until fairly recently- can be found in remarks of hers from April 22, followed by those from May 1:
As I said yesterday, he'd be happy to meet with Speaker McCarthy but not on whether or not not the debt limit gets extended. That is not negotiable; we have been very clear about this.
As he said, we'd be happy to meet with Speaker McCarthy but not on whether or not the debt limit gets extended. That's not negotiable.
This Is a critical, though seemingly not big, difference. Biden has been willing to negotiate on the budget but not on the bottom line: whether the debt limit is extended, hence not on whether there is to be a default on the debt. By contrast, the GOP bill which passed the House in April would have extended the debt limit with deep- but unspecified cuts in discretionary spending.
The next day, RNC Research was similarly dishonest;
House Democrat Leader Hakeem Jeffries claims it's a "fake, false, fraudulent narrative" that Biden refused to sit down and discuss the debt ceiling with Republicans for 97 days.
And these Republicans- they're going to say that Joe Biden refused to sit down with them. That's a fake narrative that they continue to try to put into the public domain. They said that President Biden refused to talk for 97 days- fake, false, fraudulent narrative.
Jeffries was correct when he accused Republicans of a fake, false, and fraudulent narrative, and he gets extra credit for the alliteration. (Speaking in poetry seems to be a Jeffries specialty, and a fine one for him to have.)
As the presidential press secretary is depicted in the tweeted video as repeating, the President was always fine with talking, for better or for worse. But it was the budget, not default, he signaled an interest in negotiating, a distinction with a difference.
As of Friday afternoon, 5/26/23, the contours of a likely deal are not definitively none. Thus, whether Joe Biden has maintained that crucial distinction will be revealed only when a final deal is reached. We may find out also whether the message Jeffries displayed "House Republicans Are Running Out Of Town To Cause An Economic Meltdown," is accurate. In the meantime, faced with an extraordinarily dishonest foe, it's helpful for the Democrats, for a moment at least, not to be on the defensive.
Recognizing that the goal of House Republicans in the fight
over raising the debt limit is to "burn it all down," Will Bunch explains
John Harwood, the acclaimed veteran journalist who recently
lost his CNN post while truth-telling, wrote that the real Republican position
in the foundering negotiations seems to be what he calls “a primal scream.”
Some of that, Harwood said, is GOP House members seeing the must-pass
debt-ceiling measure as their only real chance to do something, with Democrats
running the White House and the Senate. But he also noted that this leverage
gives the right wing a shot at enacting measures, like reversing climate
action, that are wildly unpopular with voters, and to roll back some of the
cultural changes that alienate conservatives.
I think it could be even worse than that. Biden
administration officials insist the government would run out of money to pay
its bills and prevent defaulting on its current debts sometime in early June.
Defaulting would trash America’s credit rating and possibly tank the stock
market, and with it, the wider economy. Government payments — including
Medicare reimbursements, Social Security checks, and military pay — would be at
risk.
A large swath of House Republicans don’t act like they care
about this. A handful of them who openly loathe Biden and who — thanks to the
Big Lie of 2020 election fraud — don’t see his presidency as legitimate would
probably love to see the White House fail. It’s the defining trait of the 21st
century GOP: nihilism.
Bunch realizes that "Biden's faith
that a bipartisan deal could be reached is very much in line with his political
worldview" while he "should have adopted a no-negotiation stance,
declared that the 14th Amendment renders the debt ceiling debate moot, and
allowed the courts to work it out long before the government runs out of
money." (With a more detailed argument for this, see David Dayen.) He
concludes
The White House is preparing for a hostage crisis when
they’re actually dealing with political suicide bombers. I believe Joe Biden
when he insists that he’s fighting for “the soul of America,” but to win that
battle, you need to know your enemy.
Democrats have been hamstrung in this battle not only
because the leader of their Party seems not to understand the enemy. They've
been hindered for decades because they believe the media is their friend and
thus expected that the debt ceiling crisis would be reported honestly. Instead,
the left/center media has presented the controversy as another partisan
"he said, she said" dispute, failing to emphasize that the Democratic
Party wants to pay the nation's debts while the Republican Party threatens to
turn the nation into a deadbeat. Representative Katie Porter explains this to a
House committee interviewee and to the country:
Republicans do want to "burn it all down," as
Bunch maintains. And if it does burn down, the 2024 GOP presidential nominee,
as the opponent to the incumbent President, would benefit.
Pramila Jayapal hits the nail exactly on the head. McCarthy and his right wing are following Trump’s instructions, heading to crashing the economy so Trump can sweep in and save the day. Disgusting. https://t.co/dqDNhmm3RD
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, that is exactly the problem, is when the media reports it as not their fault. And I'm just gonna- I know so many of you, I have so much respect for what you do. But let's tell the truth here. We are not tanking anything....
This is taking on the media Democratic-style. "I have so much respect for what you do but let's tell the truth here," as in "stop screwing up." It may be a little passive-aggressive but it's effective, and refreshing for a Democrat, finally, to put the media on notice- or at least to question it. The media is not the Party's friend, not their ally, as the current episode so obviously demonstrates.
In an otherwise good paragraph in an otherwise good post,
Steve M. makes a minor, yet telling, mistake when he writes
In other words, the audience was the contemporary Republican
electorate. Why do you think Governor Sununu chose not to run for Maggie Hassan's
Senate seat last year? It was probably for the same reason Charlie Baker of
Massachusetts -- also a moderate Republican governor with strong support from
Democrats -- didn't run for reelection last year: he might not have survived
his own party's primary.
I thought it was bad enough when last June former Chris
Christie and Donald Trump strategist Bill Stepien characterized a group of
Republicans as "Team Normal."
It's questionable whether a few Republicans these days are
"normal"- but they certainly aren't "moderate."
And so it was that Jen Psaki (video below) on Sunday
interviewed the relatable New Hampshire governor Chris Sununu, who is one of many Republicans reportedly
considering running for President. Sununu is no fire-breathing demagogue,
surely would be considered among the "normal," and was labeled a
"moderate" by Steve M.
When asked, Sununu stated that he would not sign a bill
outlawing abortion nationwide, preferring to leave it to states to establish
their own policies, presumably pro-life in some jurisdictions, pro-choice in
others.
Sununu maintained that "with training," teachers
should be allowed to take firearms into schools and in 2014 vetoed a bill which
would have barred firearms on school property He stated "I believe the way
the laws are now are pretty good."
Sununu declined to agree to any cuts in defense spending
when Psaki turned the interview toward debt reduction. When she mentioned
Social Security, he Governor contended it's "really about creating up
other opportunities, options for the individual in terms of how they invest
their dollars." That's privatization, at least partially, while avoiding
the toxicity of the term.
Sununu mentioned "fiscal discipline"- Republican
talk for cutting the taxes of the wealthy and slashing the safety net- and
remarked "I don't mind increasing the debt limit as long as there are some
cuts." He likes Kevin McCarthy's hostage-taking.
The most important pressing issue is lifting the debt limit
to pay off bills already accrued. Spending has been approved and appropriated,
and we need the money to pay the bills. In October, 2021 . As explained in
October, 2021
The debt limit is a ceiling imposed by Congress on the
amount of debt that the U.S. Federal government can have outstanding...
It is also important to note that the debt limit is not a
forward-looking budgeting tool that reveals what policymakers think are ideal
levels of spending and revenue. Rather, it reflects the spending and revenue
decisions debated and enacted in prior years by prior Congresses and
Administrations;
If the debt ceiling is not raised, government services would
be slashed, unemployment might skyrocket, interest rates would jump, and the
stock market might plummet.
Social Security can be gutted, the USA could
become a deadbeat nation, and school shootings can continue unabated as long as John Sununu can continue his 90%+ rating with the National Rifle Association. Failing to identify anything he disagrees with Donald Trump on, Sununu can argue only that the 45th President could not be elected again. This is today's "moderate Republican."
When my Master Card bill comes, I'm going to call the bank,
advise that I will do as a Republican by imposing fiscal discipline upon myself
in the future without paying the current bill. That will go well.
Federal regulators took their eyes off the ball, focusing on progressive priorities, like climate change policy, instead of their mission: ensuring that Americans’ banks are safe and stable. pic.twitter.com/NDolWLDJmg
Republicans and Democrats in both chambers of Congress
approved a rollback of financial regulations in 2018 that may have contributed
to the failure of Silicon Valley Bank.
Bipartisan majorities in the House of Representatives and
the Senate approved S. 2155, which axed regulatory requirements for regional
banks with less than $250 billion in assets and was signed by then-President
Donald Trump, meaning such banks did not need to submit to stress testing.
Yes, those "socially moderate, economically conservative" members of Congress whom the mainstream media adores and were woke liberals when woke, corporate liberalism was politically expedient. That was before
There has been renewed focus on the bill after Silicon
Valley Bank (SVB), a regional bank based in California's Silicon Valley tech
corridor, collapsed on Friday after its customers initiated a run on their
deposits.
The bill made changes to the earlier Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which had been signed by then-President
Barack Obama in 2010, and required banks with more than $50 billion in assets
to submit to stress testing.
SVB had over $200 billion in assets by the end of 2022 and
was one of the 20 largest banks in the U.S.
While 17 Democrats voted in favor of bank run amok, most Democrats voted against it and every Republican voted in favor. Too often, that is what center-left media means when it pleads for bipartisanship- both parties striving to maintain the wealth and power of the wealthy and powerful at the expense of consumers or workers.
Well, what do you know? One of those GOP senators is the fellow who now says "federal regulators took their eyes off the ball," neglecting to acknowledge that he joined every other Republican (and seventeen Democrats) in helping prevent regulators from keeping their eyes on the ball. The junior senator from South Dakota joined his fellow Republicans in promoting the conditions leading to the run on Silicon Valley Bank.
Hypocrisy, or at least the effort to have things both ways, is nothing new for Senator Tim Scott, who when he gave the GOP rebuttal to President Biden's first State of the Union address, stated
I have experienced the pain of discrimination. I know what it feels like to be pulled over for no reason. To be followed around a store while I’m shopping. I remember, every morning, at the kitchen table, my grandfather would open the newspaper and read it — I thought....
I’ve also experienced a different kind of intolerance. I get called “Uncle Tom” and the n-word by progressives, by liberals.
Moments later he would declare "Hear me clearly: America is not a racist country.... and we get to live in the greatest country on Earth." He did not explain what would make an America, in which such discrimination is common, actually racist.
If he currently is being called the "n-word," he needs to call people out. By name. And yet
Tim Scott is a complete phony but is rumored to believe he has a chance to become the 2024 Republican nominee for President. Make that Tim Scott is a complete phony and therefore believes he has a chance to become the 2024 Republican nominee for President."
In the video below from October of 2022, The Young Turks' Ana Kasparian slams Republicans because they want to force a debt showdown to cut what conservatives luxuriate in calling "entitlement programs." At approximately 1:58, she shows a graphic from New York Magazine noting
Bloomberg's Jack Fitzpatrick interviewed seven Republican contenders to lead the House Budget Committee. They all said, with varying levels of specificity, that they plan to instigate a debt ceiling standoff to force Biden to accept cuts to retirement and health-care programs.
Those would be, respectively, Social Security and Medicare, which Kasparian recognizes as vital lifelines for most individuals and families. She adds (at 14:07)
I hope people understand why it's that they spend all of their time crying about CRT, which doesn't exist in grade school. Crying about trans athletes, when they can't even name a single trans athlete that's impacting anyone in their state. The reason why focus on these made up boogie men is to scare their own voters and distract from the fact they want to rob their own voters of programs they've paid into.
So true- and yet, in their own way, Democrats do something similar. They're not trying scare people to distract the attention of their voters from what party officials want to do. However, they try- successfully- to distract their own voters from what they should be doing by giving them some red meat- their own culture war hot button issues.
Today we protected marriage equality in the U.S. Senate.
Putting aside the Senator's obvious problem with English grammar- the concern was not marriage equality in the US Senate but marriage equality in the country- the emphasis Klobuchar and some other Democrats placed on this was remarkable, and telling.
On November 29 the Senate passed the Respect for Marriage Act with 61 votes, including those of twelve Republicans. The Democratic-controlled House then passed the legislation, which was quickly and signed into law by President Joe Biden at a "triumphant White House ceremony." Notwithstanding Klobuchar's boast that the action "protected marriage equality," prohibition by any political jurisdiction of same-sex marriage already had been outlawed (in Hodges v. Obergefell) by the United States Supreme Court. The Respect for Marriage Act provides assurance that if the Supreme Court were to take up the same issue again and reverse its decision, a state which outlaws the union would be required to recognize the marriage of two men, or two women, conducted in another state. The law guarantees full faith and credit for same-sex and interracial marriages, and does little if anything else.
But that didn't stop many Democrats, Biden and Klobuchar only two of them, from touting the law and ignoring a far more urgent matter. Eight days prior to the Senator's triumphant tweet, Peter R. Orazag, former director of the Office of Management and Budget and the
Congressional Budget Office, explained
In October, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)
warned that Republicans are planning to use the debt limit as leverage to
demand spending cuts, potentially including Social Security and Medicare — cuts
that President Biden will not accept. Now that Republicans have won control of
the House and McCarthy is potentially the next speaker, the threat is real....
The debt ceiling — now $31.4 trillion, a level that stands to be pierced by the third quarter of 2023 — is an anachronism. Congress enacts changes to tax law and entitlement programs (such as Social Security and Medicare), and sets non-entitlement spending each year. These decisions, in turn, exhaust the policy levers available to control the level of U.S. government debt. (The evolution of debt is also influenced by the economy, market interest rates and other factors, but those are mostly outside the control of policymakers.) So having a separate limit on the permitted level of debt is redundant.
As the Government Accountability Office has written, “The debt ceiling does not control the amount of debt. Instead, it is an after-the-fact measure that restricts the Treasury’s ability to borrow to finance the decisions already enacted by Congress and the President"....
There are two ways to de-risk the situation in the lame-duck session of Congress. One is regular order, which would require the cooperation of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and a number of sitting Republican senators wise enough to join Democrats to address the issue now. But this may well not happen.
The other option involves a new budget resolution, which would facilitate using the reconciliation process to raise the debt limit, as was done in 1990, 1993 and 1997. This approach would require two votes — the first on the budget resolution and the second on reconciliation. It would take up about two weeks of Senate floor time, but it could be accomplished with only 50 votes.
Any Democrats averse to taking such a painful vote now should consider how much leverage their party will lose once Republicans control the House — and how much higher the risk of default will be then. It’s generally not a good idea to enter a negotiation with a ticking time bomb and a counterparty willing to let it go off.
The next two years will be turbulent in any case. The president and Congress can make them less risky by addressing the debt limit in December.
Nonetheless, the President and Congress did not address the debt limit then.Instead, as was reported a few days later, Senate Majority
Leader Chuck
Schumer said last week that he would like to “get a debt ceiling
done in this work period” but insisted that it would require Republican
support, effectively ruling out a go-it-alone approach that would allow
Democrats to unilaterally raise the debt limit. Speaking to reporters on the
same day, the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said he didn’t think
Congress would take up the issue until “sometime next year”.
At that point and in the lame-duck session, Democrats- not Mitch
McConnell's GOP- controlled the Senate, in which an extension of the debt limit could
be approved by reconciliation, and the House of Representatives. Yet
Schumer said the Senate will take a final vote on
legislation to protect same-sex and interracial marriages when the chamber
returns after the Thanksgiving recess. Earlier this month, 12 Republicans
joined all Democrats to clear a major procedural hurdle that put the historic
measure on track to passage.
“Passing the Respect for Marriage Act is no longer a matter
of if but only of when,” he said in recent remarks. A version of the bill
passed the House earlier this year, with support from dozens of Republicans.
Schumer believed the Respect for Marriage Act would have passed in the
following Congress, anyway. By contrast, the earlier the debt limit is
effectively addressed, the less likely Republicans (who have taken control of the House, as was expected) will be able to hold it hostage, threatening the global economy, to cut Social
Security and Medicare.
The Republican Party is responsible for this problem. Taking
anyone or anything hostage is an impotent gesture unless the threat is credible,
and Republicans may be willing to take the economy down if Democrats don’t meet
their demands for policy which would slice and dice Americans who need Social
Security and Medicare. As Kasparian probably understands, Republicans may go on and on about critical race theory, trans athletes, or the other sexy issue of the moment, but they keep their eye on the prize, consolidation of wealth for the donor class.
The Republican Party is responsible for this problem. Taking
anyone or anything hostage is an impotent gesture unless the threat is credible,
and Republicans may be willing to take the economy down if Democrats don’t meet
their demands for policy which would slice and dice Americans who need Social
Security and Medicare.
But, hey, priorities are priorities. Democrats, who would like to protect the country from the mischief Republicans are planning, nonetheless focus on cultural issues of race and sex to keep their own base of voters engaged . And there are fewer greater priorities for them than making
sure that the sanctity of a same-sex marriage is respected.
Now, if the Supreme
Court takes up those unions, rules that states may prohibit them, and conservative
states such as Mississippi re-institute a ban, the marriage of a couple which decides to move from Massachusetts to Mississippi would still be recognized. And if next year the economy tanks or earned benefits plummet, we
can still celebrate Amy Klobuchar’s tweet, triumphantly.
The media have largely ignored the story of workers quitting
bad jobs for ones that pay better and/or offer better working conditions.
It’s not just workers at the bottom who are doing better
today than they were before the pandemic, tens of millions of homeowners were
able to take advantage of the low mortgage interest rates that we had until the
Fed rate hikes started. They refinanced their homes at rates that were often a
percentage point or more below the rate they paid before the pandemic.
This could mean $2000-$3000 a year in interest savings for a
typical homeowner. Are we really supposed to believe that these interest
savings won’t cover paying $1 more for a gallon of milk at the supermarket?
Obviously, no one is happy about paying higher prices for food and other items,
but the families that were able to refinance are almost certainly better off today,
even with the higher prices, than they were before the pandemic.
There is a similar story with the tens of millions of people
who are now able to work from home as a result of changes workplaces
implemented in the pandemic. These people are saving thousands of dollars a
year in commuting costs. Are we really supposed to believe that these people
are all worse off due to inflation, in spite of these savings?
It is worth noting that the average hourly wage has almost
kept pace with inflation since the start of the pandemic. It’s down by just 0.7
percent (it dropped 3.9 percent during the “Reagan Boom”), so there is not that
much ground that workers need to make up through paying lower mortgage interest
or savings on commuting costs.
So, given the economic reality, is it plausible that
everyone feels they are being devastated by inflation? That one doesn’t seem to
fit, just like the story that everyone believed Social Security was in a crisis
back in the 1990s didn’t make sense.
However, he recognizes
We know politicians can’t stick their necks out and say that
inflation isn’t that bad, the media will mercilessly trash them for being out
of touch. But people whose jobs don’t prevent them from telling the truth can
point out what the data show. Most families are not being devastated by
inflation, and that fact will not change no matter how many times the media and
Republican politicians assert the opposite.
However, the vast majority of persuadable voters will blow
off the fairly complicated message that the economy isn't as they keep hearing
it is. As summarized by Robert Kuttner, Democratic strategist Mike Lux favors a
multi-pronged approach in which Democrats emphasize:
1. Wealthy corporations with monopoly power are jacking up
their prices, and their profits are going through the roof.
2. Drug prices and health insurance premiums are going to go
down because of the Inflation Reduction Act … Republicans have no plan of their
own.
3. Seniors will be getting the biggest increase in their
Social Security payments in 40 years … Republicans are talking about ending
Social Security.
4. Manufacturing jobs are coming back to the United States …
and our infrastructure is being rebuilt. All of this will end our supply chain
problems and create millions more good jobs.
5. I will fight for the Child Tax Credit, which will give
parents up to $600 a month to help with groceries, gas, and housing. And I’m
going to pay for it by taxing wealthy corporations and millionaires who are
paying little or nothing in taxes right now. My opponent is against the Child
Tax Credit
Falling just short of using
the word "cut," Republicans have been clear that if put into power, they will reduce Social
Security benefits, and it is political malpractice that Democrats have reduced this to nary an issue.
But voters are
in no mood to be informed that manufacturing jobs are returning, infrastructure
is being built or rebuilt, and that the job market has been improving. They are
simply in a sour mood, and don't want to hear that things are not as bad as
they've been told they are.
Voters will blame someone for inflation and Republicans want them to blame Joe Biden. Yet, as explained by the Economic Policy Institute, the "main
components of cost"
include labor costs, nonlabor inputs, and the
“mark-up” of profits over the first two components. Good data on these separate
cost components exist for the nonfinancial corporate (NFC) sector—those
companies that produce goods and services—of the economy, which makes up
roughly 75% of the entire private sector.
Since the trough of the COVID-19 recession in the second
quarter of 2020, overall prices in the NFC sector have risen at an annualized
rate of 6.1%—a pronounced acceleration over the 1.8% price growth that
characterized the pre-pandemic business cycle of 2007–2019. Strikingly, over
half of this increase (53.9%) can be attributed to fatter profit margins, with
labor costs contributing less than 8% of this increase. This is not normal.
From 1979 to 2019, profits only contributed about 11% to price growth and labor
costs over 60%, as shown in Figure A below. Nonlabor inputs—a decent indicator
for supply-chain snarls—are also driving up prices more than usual in the
current economic recovery.
As luck would have it, this was exactly Representative Katie
Porter's point, that corporate greed is most responsible for inflation.
Don't defend; accuse. That's why Porter's argument and Lux's
point #1 constitute the best approach.
It's a message that doesn't have to be- or because Election Day is
almost upon us- didn't have to be wonky or complicated. Everyone understands gluttony, and resents it in others. A message attacking corporations for disagreeable inflation would have been in keeping with the great American tradition- perhaps even of human
nature- of blaming someone.
The unemployment rate isn't tangible to most people. And if you've recently obtained employment, you probably don't credit the President of the USA. So, no one cares.
Inflation is more tangible than job creation to people. It's
especially important politically as expressed in gas prices, which drivers
recognize as they stop at a gas station, or even pass by one and observe the
numbers posted. Thus, from "an organizational strategy hub for left-leaning organizations that helps identify key elections":
This is how to go on offense on the economy and inflation. Imagine the Spanish version running in states like AZ? pic.twitter.com/3pE0oATbLw
— Rachel Bitecofer 📈🔭🇺🇲🇺🇦 (@RachelBitecofer) October 5, 2022
(Wife, presumably): "Did you get coffee?"
(Husband, presumably): "I did. And it got us right
back."
(Wife, presumably): "What? Whoa. This inflation is no
joke."
(Husband, presumably): "Yeah. Republicans need to stop
whining and start helping."
Many independent voters blame both sides, which they
experience as complaining, as whining.
Talk, talk, talk and nothing gets done, they themselves complain. They're looking for elected officials to do something.
Inflation is the issue most on the minds of voters, and this ad turns the issue back on the GOP. Democratic politicians themselves are reluctant to blame Republicans but this ad reminds voters that Republicans complain without offering solutions. Nice.
In an article in February
describing recent moves regarding nominations to the Federal Reserve, The
Washington Post noted "the seven-member Fed Board of
Governors is in charge of keeping prices stable and fostering maximum
employment, along with regulation of the banking system."
The Board of Governors, under
chairperson Jerome S. Powell, clearly is focused on preventing inflation from
climbing further and disinterested in fostering employment.
Hey Sherrod, I'm happy for that. But, if our America-looking Fed raises rates enough to give us a bad recession, I will not be happy (and neither will America).
In Senator Brown's "look like America," he evidently was referring to approval to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Michelle W. Bowman (who looks like a white woman), Lisa D. Cook (who looks like a black woman), and Philip N. Jefferson (who looks like a black man) to joing Lael Brainard (who looks like a white woman), Christopher J. Waller, Michael s. Barr, and Powell (who looks like a white man). There was no one who appears to be of Latin or Asian descent but the Board did then look a little more like America than it did with all white people.
If President Biden's appointees steer the Fed in the proper direction, one which will benefit Americans even if major banks suffer, lending diversity to the Board will have been a major improvement.
Policy should triumph over an officials' appearance or racial makeup. Unfortunately, the generally wise Sherrod Brown had voted in favor of Jerome Powell's reappointment as Board chairperson. It appears that Powell, whose reappointment the generally wise Sherrod Brown supported, is satisfied with prompting a recession in hopes of stemming inflation. If that ensues, as now appears likely, white women, black women, and black men will be among the Americans crushed financially.
Last Wednesday, Presidential press spokesperson Jen Psaki
deftly defended President Biden against implied criticism for soaring
inflation:
Q Yeah, the
producer price index on inflation came out at the highest level that they’ve
had in the history of recording these events.
This is the price that companies are paying for the materials that they
need to make the stuff that they sell, right?
So, with the last two days — the inflation reports — does the White
House believe that inflation has now peaked and we’re coming back down? Or because of these reports, do you think
we’re going to see even worse numbers in the future?
MS. PSAKI: We’ll let
the Federal Reserve make projections about that; they have the purview over
those projections.
What I will say is that while we — and we talked about this
over the last couple of days, as it relates to the CPI data — consumer price
index — as opposed to producer price index, for others — and what we saw: While
energy accounted for 70 percent of the monthly inflation in March on CPI data,
it counted for a substantial portion of PPI inflation as well.
And PPI measures things like the cost of wood, metal,
plastics — kind of, materials like that.
So it’s not necessarily — it’s not a surprise to us that energy is
having an impact — is a driver of these numbers.
Obviously, what we’re trying to do is mitigate the energy
impact and take steps to do exactly that: release from the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve and other actions working to get more supply out into the
marketplace.
But, you know, again, projections of a — of when we’re
hitting a high and where it will look, we will leave that to the Federal
Reserve.
Q And one last
one. So, does the President then
acknowledge any responsibility for the inflation that we’re seeing now based on
the decisions that he’s made when he came into office?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I
would say, as the President has talked about quite a bit, there are a range of
factors, including the pandemic, the impact on the supply chains.
And our effort and what we’ve tried to do from the beginning
is take steps to address that — address the supply chains. And we’ve had a lot of success moving more
equipment and goods, through — through ports, et cetera.
We’ve also seen, given energy is such a significant driver
of this data, an increase in energy prices over the last month-plus — since the
invasion of Ukraine. That’s
factual. That’s based on data that we
have seen out there.
So, our effort and our focus has been to try to address it
and take mitigation measures when we can.
While the media generally ignores rising wages and
plummeting unemployment, Psaki needed to remind the press and the public of the
impact on supply chains of the pandemic and the effect of Russia's invasion of
Ukraine upon gasoline prices. She did, however, leave out one thing.
The flexibility of the public, also known as a tolerance for
getting ripped off, seems to be working for companies. Megan Leonhardt notes
Consumers, however, are somewhat tolerant of price increases
during emergencies, research shows. Less than half of U.S. consumers, for
example, thought the price increase in hand sanitizer at the beginning of the
pandemic was unfair, according to a recent working paper by Columbia
researchers. “Consumer norms about fairness seem pretty flexible. So what
people think is fair can be highly context dependent,” Christopher Buccafusco,
coauthor and professor at the Cardozo School of Law, tells Fortune.
Corporations know how to exploit that. Economist Michael
Meeropol explains
Companies always want to maximize profits, right? In the
current context, they suddenly cannot deliver as much anymore as they used to.
And this creates an opening where they can say, well, we are facing increasing
costs. We are facing all these issues. So we can explain to our customers that
we are raising our prices. No one knows how much exactly these prices should be
increased. And everybody has some sort of an understanding that, oh, yeah,
there are issues, so, yes, of course companies are increasing prices in ways in
which they could not justify in normal times.
But this does not mean that the actual amount of price
increase is justified by the increase in costs. And as a matter of fact, what
we have seen is that profits are skyrocketing, which means that companies have
increased prices by more than cost. In the earnings reports, companies have
bragged about how they have managed to be ahead of the inflation curve, how
they have managed to jack up prices more than their costs and as a result have
delivered these record profits.
So Jen Psaki neglected to attribute any portion of inflation
to profiteering, nor did she mention the creeping influence of monopolistic business models. But she did push back on the
persistent narrative that the President is responsible for surging price
increases. Assuming she soon leaves her
position as expected, the Administration is likely to suffer a significant loss.
