In Case You Missed It (v49)

Grab your cuppa and settle down for our review of last week's posts. It was kind of a tough week, I have to tell you, so be warned.

For Sunday School, I took one for the team,  I really did. I mean, Nancy Pelosi. Chuck Schumer. Steve Mnuchin. These three are not great interviews, especially when they are all pushing their agendas. I find it difficult to listen to each of them, much less all three of them in the same classroom session. But I did it, for you.

One of the best lines of the day? Mnuchin, talking about aid to states and municipalities. He of course used the White House talking points about "poorly managed" states and local governments.

But, he said,

We can deal with in January, if there's ongoing issues, we can pass more legislation. This will be the fifth bill. We don't have to get everything done at once. What we should do is get things done for the American public now, come back for another bill afterwards.

Seems he's planning on being around for a while. Anyone up for helping make that not happen?

I tried to find something more palatable for your Extra Credit, and even though I did devote quite a bit of time to Larry 'I Find it Hard to Understand Something Called Systemic Racism Because Lots of White People Voted for Barack Obama' Kudlow trying to do math with Dana Bash (who deserves a medal for putting up with him, I might add), I also spent some time in the Meet the Press classroom (again, taking one for the team) with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).

Like Mnuchin the day before, Durbin hit the party line, saying that the Dems had dropped a trillion dollars from their plan, so the Rs should add a trillion to theirs - meeting in the middle, as it were.  There was more, too, including scathing remarks about

"this urban legend, which I say is an urban lie, about people sitting at home bingeing on Netflix and eating chocolate-covered cherries," simply is not happening 

And another thing?

Durbin argued that actually "doing something directly about the coronavirus" is more important than unemployment. 

...this notion that you're going to have the same instant results of testing that (the president) does with his White House visitors or Major League Baseball does overnight, that isn't the real world out here. The people are waiting in line for testing, and they're waiting for results from 5-12 days, which makes them almost pointless. That is a priority for us. Testing to deal with coronavirus is key to opening the economy and opening our schools.

Moving on, I believe my inclusion of the information below in my Wondering on Wednesday post may have been the reason why I had so many hits from Russian IP addresses in the second half of the week. We'll see if that's true with this re-post.

Moving on to QAnon - something I honestly NEVER anticipated typing - it seems we'll have an honest to goodness supporter of the conspiracy theorists in the House come January. As noted in this NPR story,

Marjorie Taylor Greene, a construction executive, won 57% of the vote in Georgia's heavily-Republican 14th Congressional District, handily defeating neurosurgeon John Cowan, who had pitched himself as, "All of the conservative, none of the embarrassment."

I did like Cowan's campaign slogan; there are actually loads of Rs who could probably use that, if they were willing to distance themselves from you know who.  And he, of course, was not able to distance himself from Ms. Greene.

President Trump congratulated Greene on Wednesday morning, calling her a "future Republican Star" who is "strong on everything."

Shocked, I amn't.

I was a little shocked, however, by the fervor with which the NRA's Wayne LaPierre tried to woo me over to his side, now that the lobbying organization has been hit with a lawsuit by NY's Attorney General Tish James (something I wasn't thrilled about).

And while LaPierre's love letter was the winner of the coveted Email of the Week, it didn't win me over.  He started out all lovey-dovey, with gentle tugs on my heart-strings, telling me about the "radical fringe of our country."

And here's how it was at the end, all capitalized and throbbing, or something.

This isn’t simply a fight for the continued existence of the NRA. It’s a fight for the continued existence of American freedom as we know it.

This is a fight for the Right-to-Carry permit in your pocket that you’re sure to lose if and when NRA goes out of business.

This is a fight for the guns in your safe that are certain to be banned and confiscated if NRA is forced to shut down.

And this is a fight for your God-given right to protect your life and your loved ones against violent criminals – who will still have their illegal guns long after you hear that knock at your door.

So please, join NRA today. Add your VOICE, your VOTE, and your MEMBERSHIP to our FIGHT.

Yeah, no - but thanks for trying.

And, blissfully, it was TGIF time, even though it wasn't the best week ever.

Now, why would I say something like that? Maybe because we're having to deal with this...

How about the new birther attacks, suggesting that Kamala Harris is not eligible to be Joe Biden's VP because, you know, she was born in the USA.  Does that sound familiar to anyone, maybe from a few years ago? And now, maybe trying to keep another person of color out of the White House? This is a tried and true tactic of the Trump squad; you can hear Tamara Keith's reporting that it's playing out in living color - again from tonight's All Things Considered.

So - your cuppa should be at least cold, if not empty, if checked out all of these posts - but at least you're up-to-date on the full and veritable pastiche from last week.

I'll be back later with Sunday School.  Word has it Jared's making a classroom appearance, and I know you'll not want me to miss that.

Sunday School 8/9/20: Extra Credit

Yesterday, in Sunday School, we heard from three of the key negotiators who were unable or unwilling to come up with another COVID-19 stimulus plan: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and Senate Minority Leader.

Also wandering around the lecture hall? Peter Navarro and Larry Kudlow, two cheerleaders for the Trump team. I refuse to cover Navarro anymore, and am on the kusp of kicking Kudlow to the kurb, but I bit the bullet one more time on him. But first, the Senate's #2 Dem, Dick Durbin, talked with Chuck Todd on MTP. Let's listen in.

Todd asked if there's any potential progress, including the possibility that the White House would "move to the middle" on anything. Durbin said that the Dems have already done that, coming down from $3.4T requested in the HEROES Act to around $2T now, so the Rs should do the same and come up to $2T from their original $1T. 

The legality of the president's executive orders, Durbin said, is a "moral dilemma."

We want unemployed people to receive benefits. We never wanted them cut off at all. So, I'm not going to suggest that we run out to court at this point... There'll be some challenges. This country club fix suggested by the president is going to be a cut in the unemployment benefits for 30 million Americans. It's either going to be cut from 600 to 400 or from 600 to zero, where it is right now, if the president's executive orders don't stand. You know, the bottom line is this: These people are not lazy people. We have five unemployed Americans for every available job.

And he said "this urban legend, which I say is an urban lie, about people sitting at home bingeing on Netflix and eating chocolate-covered cherries," simply is not happening He's talked with these folks, who he described as "desperate to get back to work." He noted that 70% of folks who have gone back to work have done so with wages less than unemployment was paying.

So, this notion that they're lazy and if they tried a little harder, they'd find jobs just doesn't work.

Durbin also pointed out that there are "20 Republican senators" who won't go for even a penny at this point, and that he sees a leadership gap there.

And we have Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, who is not even attending negotiating sessions. He's stayed out. His chair is empty. Same thing with Kevin McCarthy, the House Republicans’ (leader).

Durbin argued that actually "doing something directly about the coronavirus" is more important than unemployment. 

...this notion that you're going to have the same instant results of testing that (the president) does with his White House visitors or Major League Baseball does overnight, that isn't the real world out here. The people are waiting in line for testing, and they're waiting for results from 5-12 days, which makes them almost pointless. That is a priority for us. Testing to deal with coronavirus is key to opening the economy and opening our schools.

That's the part that seems to be missing from what's being delivered, or considered: people want a way to safely return to work, to get kids back in school, to shop, to dine out - in effect, to really reopen the country.

Sunday School Extra Credit 7/26/20

Our Sunday School post was devoted to the president's 4th Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows. 

Today, we'll hear from a couple of the president's other men: Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, National Economic Council director Larry Kudlow, and from Texas Senator Ted Cruz. 

Mnuchin is first, speaking with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday.

On the Republicans taking so long to get a new stimulus plan put together, the Dems having passed one in May, and the Rs missing their own deadlines to announce a bill, potentially causing harm to millions of Americans:

We want to move forward quickly. The bill will be introduced Monday and we're prepared to act quickly. This is all about kids and jobs. This is our focus and we want to make sure something gets passed quickly so that we deal with the unemployment and all the other issues -- Paycheck Protection Plan, tax credits to rehire people and money for schools.

On whether there's really a plan to be announced on Monday:

...we do have an entire plan, it's a trillion dollars. And let me just remind everybody that of the $3 trillion we've already passed, we have about a trillion to a trillion and a half still left to put into the economy. So these are very, very large amount of money, working with Congress to support this. And what Mark Meadows was saying is that within the trillion-dollar package, there are certain things that have time frames that are bigger priority, so we could look at doing an entire deal, we could also look at doing parts... we can move very quickly with the Democrats on these issues. We've moved quickly before and I see no reason why we can't move quickly again. And if there are issues that take longer, we'll -- we'll deal with those as well.

 On how much of a reduction there'll be to the expired $600/week unemployment bump:

...as it relates to unemployment insurance, we knew there was going to be large unemployment. We had a technical issue with the states and how they were going to be able to do this. So, we picked a number that on the average looked OK, but what we've seen is now that we want to have the technical correction -- and we want to have something which pays people about 70 percent wage replacement, which I think is a very fair level. So it's not a fixed number, it's something that pays you a percentage of your wages that are lost.

On even Republicans, including Sens. Grassley, Thune and Cornyn, being against the payroll tax cut the president wanted:

There are other Republicans that supported it, and let me just say -- again, we know we need bipartisan support. We have tax credits that we put in here to incentivize people to get back to work and small businesses to hire people. We have the direct payments. And as you know, the direct payments are much quicker way of effectively giving everybody a tax cut and it's much quicker than the payroll tax cut. 

On having the extra unemployment be roughly 70% of salary, or around $200 on average, and whether that will cost jobs, especially if there's significant GDP contraction in Q2, as expected:

And I think as we've said, we expect the third quarter, the consensus is 17 percent GDP, so we do think you're going to see a very big rebound. I might just also comment on June retail sales. We're 1 percent higher than June of last year. So all that money we pumped into the economy, it worked. People went out and spent. And on -- as it relates to the unemployment insurance, again, I think workers and Americans understand the concept that you shouldn't be paid more to stay home than to work. That the fair thing is to replace wages and it just wouldn't be fair to use taxpayer dollars to pay more people to sit home than they would get working and get a job.

Optimism abounds with Mnuchin, and even more so with Kudlow, the happy puppy of the administration. He talked with Jake Tapper for CNN's State of the Union. 

On Census Bureau data showing that employment is down:

Most people look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics that print out the weekly claims and the monthly jobs numbers. All right, that's what -- I haven't seen those Census numbers. And I don't know that I would put a lot of stock in it, but whatever. The fact remains, as I was saying before, in some places, job increase -- job declines or job increases have been affected. I don't deny it. But it's being made up by people calling back employees, so that, actually, the joblessness rate is going to fall. I'm not going to suggest -- I don't know the July number. We will all learn it in about a week or so. But I do think the odds favor a big increase in job creation and a big reduction in unemployment. I just want to make the point, though, all these other signals, Jake, most economists, Wall Street, elsewhere, are suggesting we are in a self-sustaining recovery. Now, you can argue about the speed of it. I get that. And you can -- and I don't deny that some of these hot spot states are going to moderate that recovery. But, on the whole, the picture is very positive. And I still think the V-shaped recovery is in place. And I still think, Jake, there is going to be 20 percent growth rate in the third and fourth quarters.

On the proposed reduction in the unemployment bump:

It won't stop the assistance. It's going to -- it's going to cap the assistance at a level that is consistent with people going back to work. That's what we have said from day one. First of all, state unemployment benefits stay in place. Second of all, we will try to cap the benefits at about 70 percent of wages. You know, a University of Chicago study showed virtually 70 percent, 68 percent of people actually have higher benefits than wages. We have had a flood of inquiries and phone calls and complaints that small stores and businesses, restaurants can't hire people back. They went too far. Maybe last March, it was necessary for that. But, really, the consequences of people not returning to work -- Secretary Mnuchin said it right. We want to pay folks to go back to work. And, incidentally, we are going to have, on top of the cap of wages, 70 percent, which is quite generous by any standard, on top of that, we will have a reemployment bonus and a retention tax credit bonus for going back to work. So, that's going to more than offset any of this. I mean, the trick here is going back to work. We don't want people out.

And, a random string of what else will be in the Republican package:

Don't forget, in the package, we're talking about a $1,200 assistance check. I just want to add, Jake, I just want to add -- we were talking about employment benefits and so forth. Don't forget, there's a $1,200 check coming. That is going to be part of the new package. I would have preferred a payroll tax cut, on top of that check. But, be that as it may, politically, it doesn't work. But the check is there. The reemployment bonus is there. The retention bonus is there. There will be breaks for small tax credits for small businesses and restaurants. That's all going to be there.

And finally, Senator Cruz, talking stimulus with Margaret Brennan on CBS' Face the Nation.

 
On whether he is on board with the new Republican stimulus bill: 

I am not. We have right now two simultaneous national crises. We have a global pandemic. It is serious. It has taken the lives of over six hundred thousand people. We need to do significantly more to fight the disease. At the same time, we have an absolute economic catastrophe. We have over forty-four million Americans have lost their job, and we have got to get America back to work... (Speaker Pelosi's) objectives are shoveling cash at the problem and shutting America down. And, in particular, you look at the three-trillion-dollar bill she is trying to push. It's just shoveling money to her friends and not actually solving the problem. Our objective should be Americans want to get back to work. They want to be able to provide for their family.

On whether he is willing to consider a lower bump in unemployment insurance:

I- look, I- what we ought to focus on, instead of just shoveling trillions out the door, we ought to be passing a recovery bill. Now, what's a recovery bill? A recovery bill would be lifting the taxes and the regulations that are hammering small businesses so that people can go back to work. A recovery bill-would suspend the payroll tax, which would give a- a- a pay raise to everyone in America who is working. That actually gets people back to work. But what- I am on board with restarting the economy. What- what Democrats want to do- we're a hundred days out from the presidential election. The only objective Democrats have is to defeat Donald Trump, and they've cynically decided the best way to defeat Donald Trump is shut down every business in America, shut down every school in America. You know Nancy Pelosi talks about working men and women. What she's proposing is keeping working men and women from working. And, you know, ironically, what she does have in her bill? She has a big tax cut for millionaires and billionaires in blue states.

Sadly, Brennan didn't have time to probe that last part.  

So, there you have it -- three more Republicans painting us a nice picture of what's to come, in the next stimulus as well as in the jobs number and overall economic growth. Let's hope all of that adds up to a nice stimulus in your Extra Credit points, right? And, do you agree with the rosy picture, or no?

Drop a comment, let me know what you think.

Stay safe.  See you around the virtual campus. 

Shots Fired: Systemic Racism? Here?

Shots fired.

Shots, in the form of voices talking about systemic racism, echoing around the interwebs. I hope they continue to do so, until the echoes ring in everyone's ears, creating a deafening sound that simply cannot be ignored.

We need that; we do.

Well, I don't believe in systemic racism. I think the American system is the best system ever devised for mankind, for history. We are liberty, we are equality, we are fairness, we have come a long way in this country...Here's a thought: President Obama, the first black president was elected twice, and he got 79 million white votes - 79 million in two elections. Now therefore, I find it hard to understand something called 'systemic racism. ~ Larry Kudlow, White House economic advisor, June 2020.

I live through the crisis and the systemic racism every single day, but I say, 'Maybe George Floyd is different.' We need to do whatever we can and commit every resource that we have...to combat this 400 years of systemic racism across every one of the important areas: education, economics, criminal injustice, and health care. ~black executive Ray McGuire, vice chairman of Citigroup, June 2020

We tried to deal with our original sin of slavery by fighting a Civil War, by passing landmark civil rights legislation, electing an African American president. I don't think we should be trying to figure out how to compensate for it. First of all, it would be hard to figure out whom to compensate. ~Kentucky's Senator Mitch McConnell, on the topic of reparations, June 2019

It remains a shocking failure that many African Americans, especially young African American men, are harassed and threatened in their own country. It is a strength when protesters, protected by responsible law enforcement, march for a better future. This tragedy - in a long series of similar tragedies - raises a long overdue question: How do we end systemic racism in our society? The only way to see ourselves in a true light is to listen to the voices of so many who are hurting and grieving. Those who set out to silence those voices do not understand the meaning of America - or how it becomes a better place. ~George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States, May 2020

I do not think that we have a system racism problem with law enforcement officers across this country. Do I acknowledge that there are some law enforcement officers that abuse their job? Yes. And again, we need to hold those accountable. And I would say that there are individuals in every profession across this country that probably abuse their authority and their power. And we need to hold them accountable. Can we do better? Can we continue to do more in the law enforcement arena? Outreach to our communities? Particularly those that feel slighted or -- absolutely. And so, I think there's always that - things that we can do more. But, again, I think painting law enforcement with a broad brush of systemic racism is really a disservice to the men and women who put on the badge, the uniform every day, risk their lives every day to protect the American people, to protect them so that they can go to school, they can have a business and come home safe to their families. So, I think we need to keep that in mind as well. ~Chad Wolfe, Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, June 2020

These events are yet another reminder that many of our fellow citizens endure the burden of unjust, exploitative, and abusive treatment by institutions in this country. Over the course of American history, the examples of such institutionalized racism are many, and include slavery, federal law (consider the Three-Fifths Compromise our founding fathers established to determine federal representation), sanctioned intimidation during Reconstruction, Jim Crow laws in southern states, redlining by bankers and brokers, segregation, voter suppression, and racial profiling in policing. These institutions hurt not only the African Americans they've targeted, but the systemic racism they've codified also hurt, and continues to hurt, America and its economy. By limiting economic and educational opportunities for a large number of Americans, institutionalized racism constrains this country's economic potential. The economic contributions of these Americans, in the form of work product and innovation, will be less than they otherwise could have been. Systemic racism is a yoke that drags on the American economy. This country has both a moral and economic imperative to end these unjust and destructive practices. ~Raphael Bostic, President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, June 2020

I think there's racism in the United States still but I don't think that the law enforcement system is systematically racist. I understand the - the distrust, however, of the African American community given the history in this country. I think we have to recognize that for most of our history, our institutions were explicitly racist. Since the 1960s, I think we've been in a phase of reforming our institutions and making sure that they're in sync with our laws and aren't fighting a rearguard action to impose inequities. ~William Barr, US Attorney General, June 2020

The truth of our nation is that too often, the color of your skin alone can endanger your life, and for far too long, systemic racism has oppressed communities of color in the United States. Black and brown communities must no longer be the only ones to bear the weight of pushing for change. No one can stay silent. No one can ignore injustice. It's long past time for our nation to deal with systemic racism, including its contributions to growing economic inequality. We must seize this moment of opportunity to address all the issues that have denied the promise of this nation to so many for long. Let's use this moment or urgency to finally find the path forward. ~former Vice President Joe Biden

Systemic racism is manifesting itself in the public lynchings of Ahmaud Arbery and George Floyd, as well as the state violence against Breonna Taylor. Black folks are also dying at startling numbers to COVID-19 due to systemic racism. One virus (systemic racism), two manifestations. ~Bakari Sellers, attorney, author, former state representative in South Carolina

Not all of the folks here necessarily have the same opinions they've always had; some have evolved, as is part of human nature. Others may not have.  But if the thinking is that it's enough to say that there is (or is not) systemic racism in law enforcement, that thinking is missing the boat.

Systemic racism in law enforcement can lead to a very violent death, a 'public lynching' as described by Bakari Sellers, but perhaps the more insidious systemic racism - the kind that can bring about a long, slow, death - is the kind talked about by Ray McGuire, by Raphael Bostic, and by Sellers, too.

The kind that kills not one individual at a time, but entire communities of people who are not allowed the chance to succeed. The ones with bad water, and lead paint, and permanent code violations and redlined zip codes. The ones with poor transportation options; the food deserts; the medical deserts; the ones without polling places; the ones with 'labels' that last for generations, whether deserved once, now, or never.  The communities where 'those people' live.

How do we end systemic racism in America? Maybe we can start by admitting it exists...

Shots fired.

Sunday School 5/10/20

In today's Sunday School, I've got a couple of the president's men - economic advisor Larry Kudlow, who talked with George Stephanopoulos on This Week, and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who spent time with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. Let's take them in that order.

George sasked Kudlow about the two positive cases in the White House and the self-quarantining of Drs. Fauci, Redfield (CDC), and Hahn (FDA). He wondered if Kudlow would be following their lead. Kudlow said he'd take the advice of the White House medical folks, but was not ruling anything in - or out. Anyone who has contact with the president or vice president is tested daily, he said, and the goal is to keep everyone safe. 

George wondered "if the White House is not fully safe" with all that they're doing, "how can average Americans feel safe with the idea of going back to work?" Kudlow said there are probably 500 or more people working there, with only a small fraction of positives. And, he added, "... we have established guidelines from our health task force..."

And I ask your indulgence for a sec here, as we look at what WH Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said at last Friday's press briefing,

We have put in place the guidelines that our experts have put forward to keep this building safe, which means contact tracing. All of the recommended guidelines we have for businesses that have essential workers, we are now putting them in place here in the White House. So as America reopens safely, the White House is continuing to operate safely. (emphasis added)

I have to chuckle at that. I mean, we've had the WH Task Force wave guidelines in our faces for two months now, before the new reopening guidelines came out - and they're just now putting them into effect?

Anyway - back to Kudlow. There are all kinds of guidelines, for the WH, for states, for businesses, and so on, he said.

So, my point is, why don't we rely heavily on what the businesses, the free enterprise system can produce? Companies are very innovative. They know the job that has to be done. They know, on the one hand, folks have to be safe, must be safe. They know, on the other hand, we have to have some reopening as much as possible to deal with the economic problem, the pandemic contraction, as I call it. So, I think, between public and private health systems, we can do this.

It's not an either/or thing, he said; safety and reopening the economy go hand in hand. Other things that go hand in hand? The president and crazy comments on the economy. George noted that Trump said last week that all the jobs that have been lost will be back, and he wondered if Kudlow thought that was a keepable promise.

In a nutshell, April's numbers were bad, and May's are going to very difficult too, and so "it's going to take a while for the reopening to have an impact," Kudlow said, but "there's a glimmer of hope."

We had -- about 80% of it was furloughs and temporary layoffs. That, by the way, doesn't assure that you will go back to a job, but it's suggest strongly that the cord between the worker and the business is still intact. I think, hopefully, that has something to do with the $3 trillion of assistance, including the payroll protection plan.

Doing the math, he said it's around $9T worth of assistance for 175 million people. That gave George the chance to ask about another phase of stimulus, perhaps "another $2T," with aid to states and municipalities, testing, and direct assistance that the Dems are talking about, but that the White House and the Rs don't seem very interested. Kudlow said that

I think that many people would like to just pause for a moment and take a look at the economic impact of this massive assistance program, which is the greatest in United States history. That's all that is being said.

He also said that reports saying the WH and the Dems aren't talking are not true, but Kudlow and Kevin Hassett just had a conference call with around 50 Representatives, from both parties. There's another one planned for the Senate on Monday, so things are moving along.

Wallace asked about President Obama's comments about how the Trump administration has handled the crisis, Kudlow was surprised, saying "...I don't know what he's talking about." And he pointed to all the work they did with the governors and mayors and Congress and testing, and PPE, and ventilators,

you know, this President Trump, one thing shouldn't be lost here, he has -- and it's unusual in these emergency situations -- he's made great use of the private sector, talking about that earlier in terms of reopening in a safe manner. You know, we have relied very heavily on the smartest people in this country who run retail operations, pharmaceutical companies, biotech companies. You got automobile companies producing ventilators at a rapid rate. We’ve ramped up the testing. We have the world’s largest testing percentages so far. So, I just -- I don't understand what President Obama is saying. It just sounds so darn political to me.

He said that what they've done "may not be 100% perfect" but in the overall scheme of things, they've "created a massive health and safety infrastructure to deal with the pandemic" and the results show that what they've done is working. And when they reopen the economy?

I think, according to Congressional Budget Office and a bunch of private surveys, we’re going to see a very strong second half of the year, probably 20 percent economic growth.

And, "2021 could be a tremendous snapback in the US economy." And that's where they left it.

So, turning to Mnuchin, the first question was what the real unemployment rate is, given that the 14.7% we heard on Friday doesn't include 7 million jobs lost since mid-April, the millions not looking for work, and the underemployed. (Notably, the latter two are the same things that the Rs used to complain were not included in the Obama administration's unemployment figures.)

Did you know Mnuchin was a tap dancer in a previous life?

Chris, the real issue, and the president and I understand this, is the economic issues that American workers and American business are facing as a result of this virus and the decision to close the economy. And that's the reason why the president wants to work with the states to safely reopen the economy so we can safely get people back to work. So these are very, very large numbers. These are not large numbers because of the economy wasn't doing well. These are large numbers because we've shut down the economy. And I would just highlight the biggest component of this was in travel and retail and leisure and not a surprise we've closed down major parts of the economy.

Wallace pushed back, saying that "it's important that we face what the real numbers are." And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that number for April is 22.8%, not including the 7M who lost jobs in the second half of the month. "So, aren't we talking close to 25 percent at this point, which is Great Depression neighborhood?"

Chris, we could be. But let me just emphasize, unlike the Great Depression where you had economic issues that led to this, we closed down the economy so it's -- it wouldn't be a surprise if you closed down the economy that ... half of the workforce is -- half the people didn't work. And that's why we're very focused on rebuilding this economy and getting it back to where it was... So you are correct. The reported numbers are probably going to get worse before they get better, but that's why we're focused on rebuilding this economy. We'll have a better third quarter. We'll have a better fourth quarter. And next year is going to be a great year.

Wallace continued to press on the numbers, pointing to widespread losses in multiple sectors, including white collar and government jobs, retail bankruptcies, and a report from the Congressional Budget Office saying even at the end of 2021, the unemployment rate "will still be 9.5%." And then he dropped the question: "Are your rosy predictions based on economic reality or the November election?"

Mnuchin pointed out that all these numbers "impact real people," and that his numbers "aren't rosy." We're going to have "a very, very bad second quarter" but then, we'll see a bounce back, and he said his predictions are based on his personal views and that

I've personally heard from many of the doctors that have vaccines and virals in trials and their expectations of being able to get a vaccine by the end of this year and having real viral treatments, the advent of testing. All these things are going to help give American business and American workers the confidence to reopen in a careful and a deliberate way.

And when Wallace questioned the food supply chain, and folks saying it's broken "because they can't get their meat and they can't get their produce from the field to market," Mnuchin basically said he's a glass half full kind of guy, not the other kind.

If you had told the American public we would virtually shut down the entire supply chains and still be able to feed America and get drugs to America and continue to do critical work, I couldn't be more pleased how Americans are pulling together to get through this.

And, the task force is focusing on issues like then when they see them.

The conversation moved on to reopening. Wallace quoted Trump, who said "will some people be affected? Yes. Will some people be affected badly? Yes. But we have to get our country open and we have to get it open soon." He also quoted Patrick Harker, head of the Philly Federal Reserve, who says reopening too soon and having the virus spike, "not only would this be a health catastrophe, but it would reverse the recovery as well."  And Harker predicts "a painful economic contraction of GDP in 2021 as shutdowns are reintroduced," Wallace said. 

And he asked if Mnuchin agrees there's "a considerable risk" to reopening, economically and from a public health standpoint.

Chris, if we do this carefully working with the governors I don't think there's a considerable risk. Matter of fact, I think there's a considerable risk of not reopening. You're talking about what would be permanent economic damage to the American public and we're going to reopen in a very thoughtful way that gets people back to work safely, that has them social distanced.

He talked about teleworking, and maybe there being appointments to shop at retail stores, but  "businesses will be able to reopen." Mnuchin also said that certain areas, like New York, had "very devastating impacts" but others didn't, and all of that stuff is being monitored.

And, moving on to a potential new phase of stimulus, Wallace referred to comments Kudlow made about waiting until late May or even later to make a decision, and to Trump's comments that "we were in a rush to get the money out to people. We have gotten the money out." His question this time? "With 33 million people unemployed, with the Paycheck Protection Program money running out by the end of this month, with state budgets cratering, this administration is in no rush?" 

Well, Chris, the president and I have been very clear on this and we're in 100%  agreement....What the president and I are now saying is, we spent a lot of money, a lot of this money is not even into the economy yet, let's take the next few weeks -- I'm having discussions with both the Republicans and the Democrats to understand these issues. The president and I are having conversations with outside people with business. We just want to make sure that before we jump back in and spend another few trillion of taxpayers' money that we do it carefully. 

We had an emergency process, it went quickly. We're there to help the American people. We're going to be considerate and if we need to help the American people -- in every aspect of this, as I've said before, we're willing to spend whatever it takes. But whatever it takes needs to be done carefully.

Finally, Wallace wondered about the next phase. The president says there won't be one without a payroll tax cute. The Dems (and even some Reps) say that won't help people who aren't working. And Mitch McConnell says there won't be one without protecting businesses from liability in case someone claims they got the coronavirus from their company. So, how will there be another phase with so much opposition from all sides?

Well we're absolutely pushing for the payroll tax cut. It's an incentive to get people back to work. It's delivering money to the American public and to business in a very effective way. And that will be one of the components. 

You've heard Mitch McConnell talk about liability. We agree with that completely. The Democrats have been asking for more money for states. We've been very clear that we're not going to do things just to bail out states that were poorly managed, but we're going to look at all these issues.

Before wrapping things up, Mnuchin said no matter what they do, it'll be bipartisan and they'll "make sure we get all these things included."

Got all of that? Tippity tappity, we're going to do everything including stuff we're not going to do, but tippity tappity things will be great before you know it, as he dances off the stage.

See you around the virtual campus, from a safe, clean-hands, cutely-masked distance. And be sure to check back tomorrow for some Extra Credit.

Sunday School 8/25/19

Where to go today?

Let's start with Face the Nation, where Margaret Brennan spoke with Larry Kudlow, director of the National Economic Council, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina and The White House), and Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) who is also a candidate for president.

Kudlow talked about trade, basically that we'll outlast the tariffs and that Trump is doing what needs to be done and everything's going to be OK and there'll be no recession. Graham admitted that tariffs had an impact on his southern constituents, but that we need to accept the pain that comes with Trump's standing up to Beijing.

Klobuchar talked about Trump's China policy, such as it is, noting that he's been using tariffs "like a tweet cleaver" and pointed out all of the twists and turns we've heard on China just this month

...on August 1st he announced $300 billion goods, more tariffs. Then on August 13th they reversed it. Then on August 20th they said they were going to do taxes - because of the fears of recession, they were going to reduce taxes which, of course, would only add more to the debt that he's created. And then the next day they reversed that. 

Her approach, if elected, would be to go back to the negotiating table with our allies. They'd look at the tariffs. Some would go, some would stay - and there'd be focus on enforcement as well.

On the administration's plan to get rid of the Flores agreement, here's Klobuchar's take.

This will end up in court. And my guess is that it will be thrown out because of the way this administration has handled immigration. But I think the bigger issue here, Margaret, is that if he really wanted to do something about this, he's pass comprehensive immigration reform which would be better for our economy, instead of using these immigrants as pawns.

On CNN's Face the Nation, Senator Bernie Sanders (not a D-VT) talked with Brianna Keilar (sittin in for Jake Tapper) about the change that's not a change in his Medicare for All plan.

Basically, the senator caved to unions who were expressing concern about having to give up their hard-fought health insurance benefits. In some cases, the unions negotiated smaller wage increases in exchange for improving (or at least not losing) their health insurance benefits.  So, Sanders now says that if a union benefits plan moves to Medicare for All, the savings for the company have to be given to union members in the form of wages.

Brianna Keilar (sitting in for Jake Tapper) asked why all workers shouldn't receive the same benefit, the wage increase, when their company moves to Medicare for All. Here's the response.

Well, they are going to receive an enormous benefit. The overwhelming majority of the American people are going to pay significantly less for better health care under Medicare for All. Right now you've got 87M people who are uninsured, underinsured; 500,000 go bankrupt every year because they cannot pay their outrageous medical bills. You've got 30,000 people who are dying. People are spending 10, 15, 20% of their limited income on health care. 

But Medicare for all will do is lower the cost of health care for the overwhelming majority of Americans. That's how they benefit, no premiums, no copayments, no deductibles, no out-of-pocket expenses, every American, virtually every American.

Keilar tried again, noting "a non-union worker, unlike a union worker, under your plan, if there is a savings, their employer sees a saving, they would not be guaranteed to have higher wages or benefits to realize the savings."

Well the difference - but the difference is -- I will tell you why not, because union workers gave up wage benefits over the years in order to pay for health care, and non-union workers did not, that's the difference. But at the end of the day, the vast majority of of the American people - union and non-union workers, will benefit under a Medicare for  All. 

And what about his opponents who say this is special treatment?

Very few people - very few people have been attacking me. I think one candidates, and the media picks up on it... the issue again, as I've just said, is that if you are a worker in a union shop and the company says, well we're going to offer you a 3% wage increase, but you know what, you're going to have to pay - you're going to lose 4% in your health care, your deductible is going up, your premium is going up, those workers have given up wage increases in order to retain the health care that they have. Those are the workers we are reaching out to in this -- what we are doing right now. 

Actually, here's the truth: union workers have the opportunity to be at the table  when these decisions are made. Regular folks, non-union workers, are not at the table when these decisions are made. 

I worked for a health insurance company, and when our premiums, copays, or formulary changed, I found out during open enrollment, like millions of other non-union workers. We didn't have the benefit of a two- or three-year contract to help us prepare for the changes in costs - we got hit with them, and we did the best we could to manage them. I'm retired, but why wouldn't my former coworkers and everyone else deserve the same wage bump as the union workers will get when their company moves to the new plan? 

I'll tell you why: unions endorsements carry a lot of weight, and they spend a lot of money helping Dems get elected.  He's creating two separate classes in the 99%, which goes completely against what he supposedly stands for.

It's pandering, pure and simple, I don't care what Sanders says.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 8/18/19

As I've just returned from a vacation to an undisclosed location, I only had time to pop in on one classroom today. And when it's Sunday and there's only time for one, it's time for Fox News Sunday (sorry, Chuck).

Dana Perino sat in for Chris Wallace today, and guests were White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow and Democratic presidential candidate Steve Bullock.  Let's look at highlights from Kudlow first.

• He doesn't see a recession coming and says the administration will stick with the ones it brung to the dance - regulation rollbacks, opening up the energy sector, and trade wars  - er, trade reform.
• New initiatives include "a good beef deal" with the EU and progress with Japan on agriculture and telecom stuff.
• The administration is looking at what Kudlow referred to as "Tax Cuts 2.0" which may be the 10 percent middle class tax cut that Trump promised last year. And he referenced an idea from Florida Senator Rick Scott about taking all the money we're getting from the Chinese tariffs and giving that back to taxpayers as tax cuts. When Perino questioned whether that was the money that Trump was using to shore up farmers (what is it up to no, $28B in farmer welfare payments?), Kudlow says there's room to do both.  They didn't discuss who is actually paying the tariffs, which seems to be American consumers and importers.
• Trump apparently likes to give us Christmas presents; he's delaying some tariffs that were supposed to go into effect next month until December 15th, mostly those impacting "big American consumer companies."
• Trade, security, Hong Kong are all part of our negotiations with China. 
• And yes, the conversations about Trump wanting to buy Greenland are serious. 

Moving on to Bullock, who's the only Western governor in the race since John Hickenlooper dropped out (blowing my Buttigieg-Hickenlooper wrap-around bumper sticker idea right out of the water):

• He sees himself as the 'get stuff done' guy, the one who has made progress and can do that again, in comparison to some of the progressives. 
• He thinks it's wrong that someone can buy the votes needed to get qualified for the September debate (Tom Steyer), versus actually talking to voters and getting the word out and having donors make small contributions (everyone else).
• Trump is messing with something that's always been bipartisan - US support for Israel - and he shouldn't be (and this is me talking, not Bullock, but Dems are falling right into his trap, like they do all the time).
• "Putting Ken Cuccinelli (Acting Director of USCIS) in charge of immigration would be like putting Putin in charge of election security." Bullock disagrees with using immigration as a divisive tool (another Trump success).
• He says that America First under Trump really means America Alone, and among other things, farmers don't want aid, they want trade - pushing back against Perino's assertion that the farmers are being made whole by the $28B in welfare going to them because of the trade wars.
• He's not running for Senate.
• The idea that Trump wants to purchase Greenland is a wild idea, no matter that Harry Truman had the idea first. You can go to the website Bullock created, isgreenlandgorsale.com for more information.

There was more, including a panel discussion about whether or not Barack Obama will make a Biden  endorsement, and whether or not Elizabeth Warren will take the progressive lead, leaving what's his name, the non-Democrat, in the dust.

See you around campus - hopefully we'll have a full slate of classroom updates next week.

Sunday School 6/10/18

Oh dear - the classrooms were quite boisterous today!  There was a whole lot of posturing going on, and name calling, and tit-for-tatting and all that kind of stuff.  Let's take a look, shall we?

There were two Trumpeters making the rounds today: Peter Navarro, who's the president's trade advisor, and Larry Kudlow, the director of Trump's National Economic Council.

Navarro was the more over the top of the two, speaking with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday about that backstabbing, traitorous blankety-blank we used to call Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.  Wallace led into Navarro's tirade by mentioning Trudeau's statements about going ahead with promised retaliatory tariffs, which are to take effect on July 1st. Trump responded as he usually does (my words, not Wallace's) by calling his opponent names - 'weak' and 'meek and mild' and 'very dishonest'.  And Wallace asked if that was really how we wanted to deal with our 2nd largest trading partner. I recommend fastening your seat belts for the response.

Chris there's a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with president Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door. And that's what Bad Faith Justin Trudeau did with that stunt press conference. That's what Weak, Dishonest Justin Trudeau did. And that comes right from Air Force One. 

Well, except Navarro admitted those were his special place in hell words, not Trump's.

And I'll tell you this, to my friends in Canada, that was one of the worst political miscalculations of a Canadian leader in modern Canadian history. All Justin Trudeau had to do was take the win... Trump did the courtesy to Justin Trudeau to travel up to Quebec for that summit. He had other things, bigger things on his plate in Singapore... He did him a favor and he was even willing to sign that socialist communique. And what did Trudeau do -- as soon as the plane took off from Canadian airspace, Trudeau stuck our president in the back. That will not stand. 

Whoa.  The United States participating in a G7 summit is a 'courtesy'? What did he have on his plate that is more important than representing our country at a meeting of our closest allies? I mean, it might have been a courtesy if Melania had attended, but I'm not sure at what point the president of the US doing his job should be considered a courtesy, especially since he has nothing else on his plate, by his own admission.

But wait - there's more!

And as far as this retaliation goes, the American press needs to do a much better job of what the Canadians are getting ready to do because it's nothing short of an attack on our political system and it's nothing short of Canada trying to raise it's high protectionist barriers even higher on things like maple syrup and other goods.

Well, cheese and crackers, not maple syrup!!!  I don't know where Navarro's been lately, but Canada retaliating against the US in a trade war is not an attack on our political system. That's actually what Russia did, but you know, these pesky details are hard to remember, if you've been living under a rock.

Navarro went on to bash Canada for NAFTA, saying we'd have a great deal on that existing deal, if only the Canadians would deal with Trump instead of trying to deal with Congress, blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda.

They are just simply not playing fair. Dishonest. Weak.

 Navarro was reminded of his earlier statement that no one would retaliate against our new tariffs, with Wallace pointing out Canada's $13B, and the EU's $3B in tariffs since our announcement. In response, Navarro talked about Germany, where we says we have a $151B annual trade deficit, and not only that - not only that, but

Germany has tariffs on autos four time higher than our tariffs on the equivalent German imports here and they sell us three times as many cars as we sell them.

Because we like German engineering almost as much as the Germans do, maybe?

So on the issues alone, we have allies strategically. But when it comes to these trade disputes, these allies basically are robbing us blind. The president is not going to put up with that.  

Nope -he's going to tweet about it, and send minions out to yell at our allies.

Kudlow, for his part, didn't declare a final resting place for Trudeau; in fact, he made it a point to talk about how directly involved he was with the Prime Minister, as if tooting his own horn would make everything right with the world. Here are some of the high points of his conversation on Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.

Regarding why the president called Trudeau weak and dishonest:

Well, to be honest with you, Prime Minister Trudeau - by the way, I respect. I have worked with him in good faith, getting through a good communique on Friday and Saturday. So, he holds a press conference. The president is barely out of there on a plane to North Korea, and he starts insulting us. You know, he starts talking about US is insulting Canada. We are not -- we, Canada, are not going to be pushed around. 

Brennan noted that Trudeau was talking about the trade tariffs.

That's correct, and in general, OK, it was an attack on the president. "We're going to have retaliatory tariffs." Now, these are things that the prime minister said before, basically, but he didn't say them after a successful G7 communique, where president Trump and the others all worked in good faith to put a statement together, which, by the way, almost nobody expected to happen. In fact, reporters were asking me before the trip whether the president was going to show up at all. He did. He negotiated. He directed his team, myself and others. We worked it out. We used good language that was acceptable. 

At which point Brennan noted

And the the president reneged on that G7 statement.

Kudlow:

No, No, I'm sorry.  And then Trudeau decided to attack the president. That is the key point. And yes, you know, if you attack this president, he is going to fight back.  But here is the key point, Margaret. The president is going to negotiate with Kim of North Korea in Singapore. It is a historic negotiation. And there is no way this president is not going to stand strong, number one. He is not going to allow other people to suddenly take potshots at him hours before that summit. And number two, Trudeau should have known better.

On and on it went, and it went on and on on CNN's State of the Union as well.  Let's pick up when Tapper reminds Kudrow that Trump is known for this kind of thing.

JT: But president Trump does that all the time, though, doesn't he?

LK: No, he doesn't.

JT: He doesn't say things for domestic consumption? 

LK: No, the point is, if you are going through a treaty process, a communique, and you have good faith... And those leaders were together. I mean, I was right smack in the middle of it on Friday night and Saturday morning. You don't walk away and start firing bullets. Now, look

JT: I can't believe that an adviser to president Trump is saying that - because president Trump does that all the time.  He does things for - for domestic consumption.

LK: Jake, not in -- not after you pull a treaty or a deal together...

 JT: Why walk away from it just because of something Justin Trudeau said for domestic consumption.

LK: No, not something. Look you -- yes, for domestic political consumption. But it was a global statement. The whole world listened to what he said. Look, you're reporting it here in Washington, as you must.  

 JT: Sure.

LK: I get that. You just don't behave that way, OK? It is a betrayal, OK? He is essentially double-crossing -- not just double-crossing president Trump, but the other members of the G7, who were working together and pulling together this communique. You know, you never get everything you want. There are compromises along the way; president Trump played that process in good faith. 

So I ask you, he gets up in the airplane and leaves. And then Trudeau starts bashing him in a domestic news conference? I'm sorry, that is a betrayal. That is a double-cross. It pains me, because I like Trudeau. I was working with him. We were together putting words on paper.... 

It pains me to keep going, to keep paying attention. It pains me that none of them realize, or admit, that if the president hadn't acted like a two-year old and resorted to name-calling, no one would be paying any attention to the fact that the Canadian Prime Minister reiterated comments he had made previously to everyone, including government officials, media outlets from both countries, and to Kudrow himself. 

It pains me that the president of the United States is a big crybaby, a big bully...  I can go on, but that pains me too.

See you around campus.