Sunday School 7/17/22: Extra Credit

For Sunday School, we were in the State of the Union classroom. Let's go back there for Extra Credit, and drop in on Dana Bash and her chat with Jared Bernstein. He's a long-time economic adviser to President Biden.

As all pundits do, Bash quoted former Obama advisor Larry Summers on the topic of inflation. Summers has said "nobody can suppose that inflation is under control." 

Bernstein first pointed out Biden "said repeatedly after the report came out that inflation is unacceptably high." On the out-of-date comment, he said that since the June report was issued, gas is down "about 50 cents a gallon...that's about the fasted decline in about a decade." It's still too high, but might give some folks some "breathing room." 

Bash said a lot of Dems "don't agree that message is working." It took a minute to figure out what message she was referring to, but she got there by playing a clip of her asking Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) if she'd tell her constituents "the data is out of date," and of course Baldwin said no, but she also said

It's great news that, in the last month, gas prices have gone down by about 40 cents per gallon. That's really not the break people are looking for.

It seems, then, that Biden and Baldwin are saying the same thing: gas prices, one of the biggest contributors to inflation, have dropped noticeably, but it's not enough. Bernstein then explained to Bash what everyone seems uninterested in talking about:

...if we're going to talk about the damage that these high energy prices are having on family budgets, I think we have to talk about the benefits for when those prices come down a little.

And, he also had to explain, 

...the president is unequivocal by not calling 'mission accomplished' on any of this. We're talking about a decline that's completely insufficient when it comes to delivering the relief to family budgets that they need. So, that's why he continues to push on every aspect he can of this issue in terms of increasing the supply of global energy to help mitigate that price increase.

And then, a lightbulb: Bash said, "And you're right. The prices have come down, which is a good thing. It's better than them going the other way." BINGO! 

Then, she talked about predictions of where the price of oil may go in the future - that it could soar 50% or more after European sanctions against Russian gas are implemented. 

Bernstein started by saying he should have mentioned that while the price of gas is down "about 8-9%, the oil price is down about 20%."

So, when we talk about the president doing all he can to provide relief at the pump, one of the things that he's doing is trying to nudge these companies to pass some of those savings along to consumers. You know, in the first quarter of this year, some of the biggest oil companies had a net profit of $35 billion. Now, these are companies we helped, to the tune of billions of dollars, during the pandemic...

Bash interrupted with "but will prices go back up?" Bernstein continued with his answer.

during the pandemic downturn. They ought to share some of that profitability with the American people right now, especially as we're supporting Ukraine's efforts in their war against Russia.

As to higher prices, he said "nobody can see reliably" a couple of quarters down the road, as there's too much volatility. He thinks prices will continue to go down this month, though.

Again, Dana, look, this is minutia. We have so much more work to do. And when it comes to prescription drugs and health care premiums, as you said in your introduction, Democrats are there. And that is essential.

But wait - there's more to talk about on oil, Bash said. And by 'oil' she meant the fist-bump picture of Biden and MSB, the Saudi Crown Prince. And the question about oil was, "Why is he fist-bumping a murderer?"

Bernstein's answer - "Well, Dana, you're talking to an economic policy adviser. And I'm much more able to give you fulsome readouts on meetings, not greetings..." Bash said "OK. So, is there a deliverable" out of the meeting? 

Bernstein pointed her to Biden's Washington Post op-ed about the meeting, and he also said that the Middle East is a critical region of the world, and the US needs to be engaged, and that we're better off economically if there's a more stable Middle East. He also noted the Saudis said they'd increase their oil production capacity. The administration has also been pressuring OPEC to do more, and some OPEC members have "talked about doing precisely that for July and August."

Moving to Biden's domestic agenda and Sen. Joe Manchin's hindrance of it, Bash noted Biden has urged the Senate to "pass the scaled-down plan" which doesn't include climate change. The question for Bernstein: Is Biden frustrated with his former colleague?  Seems that's a yes. 

At the same time, Biden's "very compelled to get Congress to work with him on his climate agenda." And, he continued, if he can't get "a legislative path to clean energy, the urgency of the problem is so significant..." that he'll continue using Executive Orders to get things done.

But the urgency of the issue, Dana, is, I think -- it is beyond me how anyone could miss it, over $100 billion per year of cost to our economy based on floods, wildfires, droughts. Look at the geopolitical pressures from this, a Russian petrocrat... who's prosecuting a war based on weaponizing fossil fuels. So, there is a great rationale to undertake what this president will do. And he will continue to press.

In my opinion, Bernstein did much better than Brian Deese, director of the National Economic Council. Maybe it's his familiarity with Biden, I don't know. At least he answered what he was asked, which is more than many classroom guests think about doing.

My question for you, students, is this: what will the Dems do now?

a. Try and pass a bill before the August recess that extends the Obamacare subsidies* and allows Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices. Get it done, and you've got a win. If the Rs block it, Dems have a ready-made campaign message: Not only are the Rs taking away your rights to reproductive health care, but they're also forcing a health care premium increase on your Obamacare plan. And, they refuse to allow Medicare to negotiate savings on your prescriptions.

b. Don't even try to get anything done before the August recess, hope inflation goes down, and then work with Manchin to get a bill done in September, before the midterms. 

c. Do nothing, except of course go all-in on bashing Manchin in the press at every opportunity. 

d. Do something else (describe it with a comment.)

See you around campus.

*Learn more about the Obamacare subsidies here. 

Wondering on Wednesday 7/6/22

Ready... Set... Wonder! 

• I wonder why I can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, but folks can legally purchase so-called 'weapons of war', so-called 'assault rifles' and happily go people-hunting, mowing down children, teenagers, parents, grandparents, great-grandparents - pretty much anyone they feel like aiming at... 

• A little bit ago, I opined that it would be discriminatory if 'life begins at fertilization' only applied to the pre-born conceived in a womb, and not to those conceived in fertility clinics. There's an article in the Boston Globe that explores this issue that I found very interesting.

First, I'm surprised at how little interest there is in regulating all embryos the same. According to a spokesperson for the National Right to Life Committee, "IVF is not even really on our radar." And second, I have to wonder why red-state legislators "in at least 10 states" have put bills out there that would treat frozen embryos the same as, you know, warm ones - and not a single one of the bills have passed. 

• Here's another one that's got me doing some bigtime wondering. A guy who, I'd surmise, was trying to prove how manly he is, wandered around Broken Arrow, OK wearing a tactical vest and openly sporting both a pistol (in a holster) and a semi-automatic rifle. From the article, it seems pretty much everyone was nervous or scared. For example,

Employees at the Broken Arrow Justice Center ― a government building that houses the local court and police offices ― locked their doors, and someone called 911. 

Oklahoma's constitutional carry law  "allows people ages 21 and over to carry firearms in public without a permit or training." Police didn't have a lot of options to do anything, but as luck would have it, the guy was also carrying brass knuckles, which are illegal under both state and city law. 

I have a hard time with open carry laws, I really do - especially ones that allow rifles to be slung casually over someone's shoulder like a purse. And I don't wonder at all why the sheriff said, "nobody needs to be walking down the street with a rifle. But I don’t make the laws; we just try to live by them and do a very difficult job in a world that’s got those people in it."

Hear, hear - even to his use of "those people" which normally I don't approve. In this case, I'll make an exception.

• Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-we ever screwed for electing Trump, or what?) was one of the Trump minions issued a subpoena by a prosecutor in Georgia. His attorneys say they'll fight it, even though they said Graham's "neither a subject nor target of the investigation, simply a witness." I wonder, though, about their grounds for fighting it. Ok, honestly? I laughed at their grounds for fighting it.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Graham was well within his rights to discuss with state officials the processes and procedures around administering elections. Should it stand, the subpoena issued today would erode the constitutional balance of power and the ability of a member of Congress to do their job.

Now, does anyone else wonder whether Graham was acting in his official capacity as ranking member - not chairman - of the Judiciary Committee when he stuck his genteel nose into the Georgia process, or do you think he was acting as a rank member of Trump's cadre of snoops and liars?

• And the final bit of wondering tonight comes courtesy of Martha Raddatz, who hosted This Week on Sunday. Here's the silly question she asked Mary Bruce, ABC's Senior White House correspondent, to close the show.

And, Mary, we really just have about 20 seconds, but I want to go back to Uvalde. What is President Biden doing about that?

I'm not sure why she dignified the question with an answer, but she did. And when she finally got around to talking about the feds and Biden, it was to note that "it's pretty unclear" how much the feds can do, adding 

But this White House continues to point to that gun legislation they’re passing. Would that have solved this? We just don’t know.

Except we do know quite a bit, Mary.  

Anyway, here's what I'm wondering: why didn't she say, "look, Martha, President Biden is much too busy causing global inflation, global supply chain issues, global food shortages, global immigration issues, and doing too much and not enough to help Ukraine, NATO, the EU, and others, to be able to focus his attention on a single mass shooting that happened months ago. Haven't you been to a gas station lately and seen his sticker?"

What's on your wondering mind tonight? 

Sidebar: Sunday School 4/10/22

One of the things that drives me nuts is how no one challenges the talking heads when they toss stuff unsupported nonsense out into the universe. A perfect case in point? The discussion on Fox News Sunday on "how national security and energy policy go hand-in-hand."

Dana Perino asked Britt Hume if he thought "President Biden will get to a place where he will figure out a way to buck the progressives and move forward to allow us to drill more here at home?"  Here's how his response started (I added the emphasis).

Well, I think he and his party are pretty much enthralled to the Green Movement and his energy policies to date have reflected that, and they have obviously -- are restraining the potential of American energy production, which would be at this point I think it's fair to say -- ... that we need more of everything. 

"More of everything" is the 'all of the above' policy. It acknowledges the need to increase our use of renewables, as well as our continued reliance on fossil fuels including coal, natural gas, and oil - "certainly for now and for the near future," Hume said on Sunday. Here's more of his response.

And I don't think the president is ready to go there, they will blame the oil companies for not producing enough and so on. We've heard that many times before, and they blame the oil companies for higher gas prices and all the rest of it. But the best way to get gas prices down is to throw open the regulatory barriers and let the United States energy industry go, which it certainly can...

If we did that, he said, we could supply countries in Western Europe with energy to make up for what they're not going to be getting anymore from Russia. And that would "cut off the flow of Western funds into Vladimir Putin's war chest." Perino said Hume's answer "makes sense to me. We'll see if it makes sense to them going forward." 

Of course, it makes sense to Perino and Hume: if we're cutting regulations, everything will be fine, right? Well, no; what Hume's selling, the oil industry isn't buying.

Last month there was a gathering in Houston called CERAWeek. I stumbled on it, looking for info on this issue. According to its website,  

For forty years, CERAWeek has been providing an integrated framework for understanding what’s ahead for global energy markets, geopolitics, and technology. Participants include senior executives, government officials, thought leaders, academics, technology innovators and financial leaders.​ 

Among the speakers last month? Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, who did as Hume suggested: she asked for increased production: 

We are on war footing and we have to respond. We have to increase short-term supply...The message right now, and I hope investors are listening, is that we can’t have one element holding back when you see what is happening every night. At this moment, we all have to give.

Here's where it gets interesting; there's this great reporting from Freightwaves.com, which covered CERAWeek (emphasis added).

Even as Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm was using the platform of a major energy industry conference to call on the nation’s oil producers to ramp up production, what was being said during other sessions made clear that was not likely to happen. 

The increasing U.S. industries’ strategy of restrained output and investment was on display last week at two separate panels at CERAWeek. It’s a game plan that has implications not only for the price of oil in the short and medium terms, but also for the transportation industries that serve it.

And it wasn't just one person saying production wouldn't be ramped up - it was several people.

• Scott Sheffield, CEO of Pioneer Natural Resources, one of the largest producers in the shale fields of the U.S., said "We’re not going to chase growth like we all did.” His comments came during a panel discussion on 'balancing growth and investor returns in the North American shale market.' The plan? Keep growth rates at 5%.

Unfortunately, government estimates are for slightly over 7% growth, to help replace the four million barrels of Russian oil a day that's no longer available.

• On the same panel? Tim Leach, an EVP at ConocoPhillips, who said that “accelerating investment in an inflationary environment is never a good idea,” and he added, a “long-term view is 'what creates value for our shareholders'.” 

• On a different panel, Chad Michael, president of an energy-sector investment bank, said that among investors, there's "an expectation of returning significant amounts of cash flow." And he said "the business model is mid-single-digit growth, because that is what investors want."

He said, they can't do much more because of labor and supply chain issues, something Granholm acknowledged in her remarks, too. The article did note that Biden's goal of moving away from fossil fuels has an impact on investing, but everyone knows the industry is not going anywhere anytime soon.

• Raoul LeBlanc, a VP at S&P global, suggested that in the face of calls for more production, the industry needs to ask "just how reasonable is it to step on the accelerator?' The current impact won't last forever." 

Why didn't anyone mention a prohibitive regulatory environment? Here's more on that, again from the Freightwaves.com reporters.

HOUSTON — A key State Department official used an appearance at energy industry event CERAWeek to take on what he said were “myths” about the Biden administration’s energy policy... 

The official was Amos Hochstein, Senior Advisor for Global Energy Security at the State Department. 

Hochstein disputed the view that the administration “is somehow holding back or is responsible for the industry not being able to produce a rising amount of oil.”

Production is up since Biden took office, but in recent weeks it's been holding steady; during that time, pressure on everyone to stop using Russian oil, and on the industry to replace it, increased.

When Hochstein has spoken with oil industry officials, he said he has asked them if the Biden administration had taken steps that are restricting production. “The bizarre thing is they told me it is not true,” Hochstein said. “The industry said there is no bottleneck for added production.” 

Rather, he said, issues outside the federal government's control, including labor shortages and problems with the supply of fracking sand, are hurting production. 

What's that all about? According to a report from Reuters (emphasis added)  

Sand supplies are so tight that it is slowing the pace of work for some oil drillers, and higher costs for sand are eating into the bottom line for others....

Hmm...what on earth is going on here? Well, sand that cost in the low teens at the beginning of the pandemic, and rose to $20-$25 per ton, and now they're at $50-$70 a ton - something industry consultants called "unheard of in the industry's modern history." 

And what's hampering the sand market? Labor and delivery - as in, they're short-handed getting the sand out of the ground, and there are shortages in the trucking industry, too. Which, if you think about it, is pretty much the issue across the board, right? 

So, back to Hume and Perino, and the rest of the talking heads, no matter what side of the oil rig they sit on. I get that they're paid to offer opinions, and that most of them are anti-Biden (for a whole host of reasons). But at some point, someone with a microphone is going to have to stop talking about the politics of everything, and start talking about reality. 

Everyone knows gas prices are high, but most people don't know why; they'll listen to Hume and think that it's a regulatory issue. Or, they'll listen to someone else say it's price-gouging, or extreme profit-taking at the corporate level. And they'll all be at least partly wrong - some more wrong than others. Getting these folks to take time out of their endless discussions on the political implications of this stuff to talk about the real problems and real solutions we need seems a bridge too far.

If the politicians won't be honest with us, and the talking heads won't, and the 'news' people won't, we're going to keep taking one step forward and two steps back. 

Is that really what we want? And if the answer to that is yes, what the hell is wrong with us?

Sunday School 4/10/22: Extra Credit

For your Extra Credit, we'll spend time with the classroom roundtable gangs, starting with What's-his-name on Meet the Press, who had Anna Palmer (Punchbowl News), Josh Lederman (NBC News), Carlos Curbelo, (Florida Man), and Kimberly Atkins Stohr (Boston Globe). 

Stohr talked about the importance of the elevation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court - and not just for Blacks.

It's important for all Americans to see that the default of a Supreme Court Justice is not in the mold of a white male. That it can be anybody, and that it should be reflective of the country. So, this is an incredible, incredible moment.

Curbelo, a former Florida Congressman, said "by today's standards," Jackson's confirmation was pretty smooth, and that it was a "big win for this administration and a big deal for the country." And he pointed to "identity politics in reverse" being what kept 47 Republicans from voting for her

I think Republicans want to make the point that we don't have to emphasize these kinds of issues, even though they are historic.

They talked a lot about the toxicity of politics, and the fact that the Rs have pretty much shut the door on any other Biden SCOTUS nominations, should an opportunity come up, and that no Senate will confirm the other party's nominee, no matter which party is sitting where. 

Probably the most astute point, when the conversation turned to this being 'Biden's last big thing,' came from Stohr, who noted 

...Democrats have shown time and time again, they talk about the problems that need some sort of policy or legislative solutions. Republicans find issues that they can campaign on and win elections on. And that's exactly what's happening right now... Democrats are always two steps behind.

At least two steps, she should have said. 

Let's head down the hall to the right and check in with Dana Perino on Fox News Sunday and her panel: Brit Hume (Fox News), Julie Pace (AP), and former Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN).

There was lots of talk about Ukraine; Hume thinks we're not doing enough, now that the goal has seemingly shifted away from helping ensure Ukraine gets a good deal in talks with Russia, to the possibility of Ukraine winning this thing.

... I think if Ukraine is going to win, we are going to need to do more. And the question arises whether the Biden administration will be willing to do that or is their fear of a direct conflict with Russia such that we will continue to hold back on some things, certain kinds of large weaponry, airplanes, and so forth.

Ford generally agreed, but instead of asking whether the administration is ready to do more, he wondered

Are the American people ready to escalate? I think the administration probably would be, but are the American people ready to shoulder and accept the consequences, which could be worse than what we are seeing right now, can certainly see American casualties as well. I don't know the answer to that, Dana.

Turning to the economic fallout from the war, Pace pointed to the first round of the French presidential election, saying it could be a test of how folks in the West

are going to respond to a lot of the economic pain that they are feeling, which in some instances -- not all -- but in some instances is a direct result of some of the actions that the US and Western European countries have taken to try to hold Russia to account... how will Western nations, Western citizens, balance their outrage over that with their feeling of economic pain, how much economic pain are they willing to sustain in order to punish Russia for what they are seen. And I think that's a balance that could change in the coming months.

It's likely to be an issue in Europe, and here in November, she thinks. 

Finally, here's what was going on as Jon Karl tried to wrangle the panel on This Week. Hanging out with him were regulars Chris Christie and Donna Brazile, along with Rick Klein (ABC) and Laura Barron-Lopez (Politico).

Part of their discussion related to former president Trump's ability to maintain control of the GOP; they used a clip from Trump's recent rally to kickstart the conversation.

I endorsed another person today, Dr. Oz, in Pennsylvania... (APPLAUSE) Dr. Oz. (APPLAUSE) Great guy, a good man. He's a good man, Harvard-educated, tremendous, tremendous career. And they liked him for a long time. That's like a poll -- you know, when you're in television for 18 years, that's like a poll. That means people like you.

After the laughter subsided, they got down to the nitty gritty: the fact that it seems Trump is endorsing "candidates that don't appear to be on track to win," including Oz. Klein says it's "totally fascinating" that Trump's putting himself on the line, and that, "in a bunch of cases, it could blow up in his face." A notable example? Trump's efforts to get rid of Georgia's governor and secretary of state.

So, this is a big moment, I think, for Donald Trump. I think the conventional wisdom about him is this kingmaker, as the biggest force in the Republican Party. It's going to be tested when you have actual Republican primary voters in a range of states, starting next month.

Barron-Lopez said none of this means he has lost his grip on the party, 

because we see Republicans, time and time again, repeating, whether it's the big lie, or repeating, you know, other claims and attempts to try to change election laws in -- in states, in order to make it so Republicans have a better edge in future elections. So that's continuing. That isn't going anywhere.

Brazile sums it up this way:

This is a battle, again, the establishment of the Republican Party is trying to re-emerge themselves after what I call the four years of a president who is still gone mad. He is still holding people to the 2020 standard that he won the election and what Republican incumbent governors are trying to do is to push away Donald Trump, to push him out of the process. But he is still a big force...

We'll close with Christie taking issue asking Republicans who they're voting for in 2024.

...don't ask me who I'm going to vote for in 2024 because, let me tell you right now, if Bernie Sanders were the Democratic nominee for president in 2024, there is not a chance in the world I could vote for a socialist for the president of the United States. So, since we don't know who the candidates are going to be, why answer the question?

I don't normally agree with Christie, but if Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee in '24, I'm not voting for him, either.

See you around campus.

Wondering on Wednesday 3/23/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

What's wonder-full today? 

My local newspaper ran an article letting us know that gas prices in my neck of the woods fell a dime a gallon in just ten days. Now, if you've been paying any attention, every time the price of gas goes up, or there's even a hint that it's going to go up, the angry folks on the right throw a mass conniption fit, which apparently causes them to run around putting Joe Biden "I Did That!" stickers on gas pumps, yell out their windows that they're mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore, and run out and order overpriced gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs which they drive around potholes and stones in the road and stuff.

And I'm wondering, why the heck they aren't thanking Joe Biden for lowering the price? Is it because they really know that presidents don't have a whole lot to do with gas prices? 

You may have heard the news that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been hospitalized since last Friday. Keep that thought in mind as we reflect on Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-Some pissed-off place south of North Carolina) and his questioning of SCOTUS nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Graham was particularly interested in how other people, or outside groups lobbied hard to have Jackson be Biden's pick; or, maybe, they lobbied hard to have Judge J. Michelle Childs, from South Carolina, not be Biden's pick. Either way, Jackson herself had nothing to do with that, Graham knows that, and he doesn't give a dried-out palmetto leaf if we all know he knows.

I think it does matter that the groups that came to your aid at the expense of Judge Childs - how did that happen and why were they doing what they were doing? What is it about your nomination that the most liberal people... threw in their money, their time, their support, and threatened Joe Biden if he picked Judge Childs? 

So, here's what I'm wondering: if Justice Thomas is unable to return to the bench, for whatever reason, how hard would Senator Graham lobby to have Judge Childs replace him?

And, sticking with the Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Jackson's nomination, I wonder why so many Republicans want to spend so much time talking about child pornography? 

And I wonder why these Republicans are expending so much effort on how Judge Jackson sentenced offenders in these cases, when what she did was exactly what other judges were doing? 

Were those judges questioned on this issue? Not just soft-on-crime-liberal-Democrat appointees, but Republicans, too, the ones recommended by the Heritage Foundation (they're the folks who fan themselves with their pocket copies of the US Constitution if it gets too hot in the freedom-loving trenches)? Judges nominated by Donald "Only the Best People" Trump, their appointments strongly supported by these same porn-focused senators?

And I wonder why these child-porn-focused Republican senators are now asking to receive additional information on these cases, including pre-sentencing reports? And why is Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin withholding information from the Republicans, if in fact that's happening here?

Truth be told, there's a simple way to resolve that conflict, and I wonder why no one has suggested it yet: have the FBI urgently investigate, like it did with the sexual harassment allegations against Brett 'I Really Like Beer' Kavanaugh, and then the senators can all go into a SCIF or something and have the report read to them. Oh wait - we all remember how that went.

There was much more from the hearings that inspired wonder, like the war criminals issue involving George W. Bush (but curiously not Barack Obama) question and the definition of 'woman' but I'll leave it here, and you can wonder out loud or to yourself, as you prefer.

I'll close out tonight's wondering where we started - with gas prices. It seems that, in addition to the blame game, some folks in DC want to try and help. And we know there's a whole lot of wondering going on when that happens, right?

We've got three federal proposals - and it's only March 23rd. Who knows how many more there'll be, since the House isn't occupied with Daylight Savings Time. One would provide a

monthly energy rebate of $100 per person. That refund would kick in for the rest of 2022 (if) the national average gas price topped $4 a gallon during any given month... both joint and single tax filers would receive $100 each, while each dependent would also receive $100 each. In other words, a family with two kids could receive up to $300 a month in rebate checks. 

The second would offer less money, but would be paid for, I think. It'd offer

a quarterly rebate to consumers based on a tax levied on oil and gas companies. The Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax would charge a per barrel tax equal to 50% of the difference between the current price of a barrel of oil and its pre-pandemic average price between 2015 to 2019... if the per barrel price sits at $120, the tax would raise about $45 billion a year — providing single filers with $240 annually and joint filers with $360 each year. 

The last proposal would also be paid for, but differently, and we have no idea how much money's involved. It would

create a rebate based on oil company profits. It's unclear how much Americans would receive because the plan is based on taxing this year's profits from oil and gas companies. 

So, what's the wondering on this one? Well, for starters, how much more appetite is there for sending checks to Americans who may or may not need them? Didn't we learn anything from the previous stimuli? And, what are the chances that any of these will make it through the legislative process before the midterms? I'm guessing slim to none, but maybe that's just me.

What are you wondering about tonight?

Sunday School 3/20/22: Extra Credit

This week's Sunday School lesson focused mostly on the war in Ukraine, so I'm going to share some of the other stuff that made the list.  

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) was a guest in ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos classroom, where he was asked by the host about China, and its support for Russia. Durbin said China's president 

has to decide his place in history and China's place in the world. If they are going to be part of Putin and his barbaric conduct in Ukraine, he's going to run the risk of discrediting his own nation. He has to think twice about that.

George, like all the other pundits in the universe, was unable to resist talking about "inflation, higher gas prices across the board." He played a clip of Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), who was also on the show, saying

Biden would rather turn to dictators like those in Iran and those in Venezuela rather than turn against the climate elitists who dictate the energy policy of that Democratic Party and of his presidency. So now he's trying to pass the buck to Vladimir Putin.

Durbin said it was "hard to deny" that our cutting off Russian oil has impacted Americans, and he mentioned some of the steps being taken to help alleviate that. And, about Barrasso's comments?

We’ve got to make sure that we’re sensible not only about Putin, the war, and these Russian oil supplies, but also sensible in what my friend John Barrasso calls these 'climate elitists.' We are fighting and waging a war against climate change. It is a war which will decide what... the world looks like for the next generation. Let’s take both of these very seriously.

George wondered about the tone of attacks on Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, specifically mentioning those of Sen. Josh Hawley (R- Insurrection Lunatic Fringe). Durbin said 

Judge Jackson has been scrutinized more than any person I can think of. This is her fourth time before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In three previous times, she came through with flying colors and bipartisan support, the last time as soon as just last year.

As to the accusations, "there's no truth to what he says." And, to Hawley himself?

... he's part of the fringe within the Republican Party. This was a man who was fist-bumping the murderous mob that descended on the Capitol on January 6th of the last year. He doesn't have the credibility he thinks he does.

George picked up with Sen. Barrasso where he left off with Durbin, asking if Hawley was engaging in what Barrasso specifically said should not happen with Jackson: "a process of character assassination." Barrasso said "the whole process is going to be fair, respectful, and thorough." And he offered an attack on Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

I’m less concerned about her statements than I am about Chuck Schumer's statements. He said she's going to rule with empathy. A judge ought to be making decisions based on the law as written, not the way they feel about it. So, he also said check her record. And going through the record, there are some concerns that people have about her being perceived as soft on crime. That's all going to come out with the hearings but they're going to be respectful, they’re going to be thorough and they’re going to be fair, George.

On the fairness of Hawley's attacks, Barrasso was about as forthcoming as then Judge Brett Kavanaugh in his hearing before the same committee. 

Well, he's going to have his opportunity to question the judge as will all the members of the committee. The last time we had a hearing with Kavanaugh, he was accused of being a serial rapist with no evidence whatsoever. So, I think we're going to have a fair process and a respectful process, unlike what the Democrats did to Justice Kavanaugh.

Back to gas-passing we went; Barrasso was asked about Durbin agreeing with the so-called "climate elitists" that we must take climate change seriously. Here's his, um, "response."

Well, Joe Biden can't hide from the fact that he is the president of high gas prices. And they're looking for anyone to blame, whether it's Putin, whether it's Republicans, whether it's the energy companies, whether it's COVID. The Democrats have a very big problem with 40-year high inflation, highest gas prices ever. When Joe Biden came into office, it was $2.38 a gallon for gasoline. Americans paid $1,000 more for energy last year than the year before. And on polling last week, 70% of Americans say more American oil and gas, and less emphasis on climate.

"Good answer, good answer!" said the GOP Family Feud fans.

George finished the interview by offering Barrasso the opportunity to spell out the "three specific things" President Biden needs to do if he wants to lead from the front.

Well, number one is, he needs to tell NATO that we collectively are going to supply the people of Ukraine things that they know how to use, whether it's drones, planes, missile systems.

Number two, he has to say that he is going to go from Brussels to the eastern front of NATO to show the resolve of NATO and the United States' commitment as well.

And, third, he needs to say to the people of Europe who are really in a tough situation with regard to energy and the dependence that they have on Russian energy, that we are going to increase the exporting of liquified natural gas from America to them.

"Even Germany," he said, realizes that "energy security is much more important than climate zealotry." And, Barrasso said, he's got bipartisan legislation to make this happen. 

Truth be told, the gentleman from Wyoming has been introducing variations of his bill at least since 2013. For those in the back of the room, that's years before Biden started "leading from behind." And, of course, all this happens because his state has a boatload and a half of natural gas buried within its borders, not for any altruistic reason whatsoever. 

One final note: as I write this, a screeching Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-?????) has stormed off the dais shortly after his first few minutes of questioning in Judge Jackson's hearing were over. Several of his questions pertained to his choice, Judge Michelle Childs, not being the person sitting at the table in front of him. I think we can take that "fair and respectful process" idea with a grain of salt. 

See you around campus. 

In Case You Missed It (v81)

Trying to get back in the 'writing-on-a-schedule' swing of things, including doing the weekly post recap. In case you missed anything, I've got you covered for last week.

It started with a Sunday School post, where we listened to a handful of senators talk about what's going on in the world, and here at home. Touching on both of those was Idaho's Sen. Jim Risch, who pointed out how difficult it is to vote on legislation these days. 

Speaking to Fox's Brett Bair, Risch noted he voted against the omnibus spending bill that was just passed, even though it included a boatload of billions for Ukraine, something he supports, and a boatload of billions in pork, something he doesn't.

Whenever we have these doggone big bills, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, whether you vote yes or no. But I -- I have -- I hope that no one would take this as not being the support for -- for the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian war.

Several guests gave their thoughts on a decision, shared by Biden administration types who were also in the classrooms, on not helping Poland provide Russian-made fighter planes to Ukraine.  To provide some context for that, I included highlights from those interviews in a Sidebar. Here's a taste, from National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan:

Our goal is to support Ukraine and their negotiations with Russia and our allies, but "ultimately, it is Ukraine that will have to make its own sovereign decisions about the shape of any diplomacy going forward."

There was some good discussion from the panel on ABC's This Week, which made it into your Extra Credit entry. Some of the back-and-forth had to do with Russia and Ukraine and WWIII, of course, but there was also some talk about gas prices, and who's to blame for them.  

Former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp noted that blame always falls on whoever is in power, but she also pointed out that the Dems and Biden's own people aren't doing a very good job pushing back on what she called "the red herrings." One example? The common complaint that "It's because you didn't build the Keystone XL Pipeline." 

And I remind them, one of the first things Donald Trump did was give the permit. And in four years the pipeline didn't get built. Why not? Because it wasn't -- it wasn't economical to build that pipeline in those price points.

She's right - the party in power does get blamed - and she's right that the Dems don't have a clue how to fight back, or how to get in front of this stuff so they don't have to play defense all the time. 

After watching and listening to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy speak to elected officials in the West, I was inspired to envision Zelenskyy asking Donald Trump for a favor via Zoom. I made some slight adaptations to Zelenskyy's remarks to American officials, and gave him the upper hand in the conversation. Here are a couple of snippets.

I remember your national memorial in Rushmore, and how you want to see your face there, with the faces of your prominent presidents, those who laid the foundation of the United States of America as it is today. 

And, later in the conversation,

 I understand that you are not personally familiar, because of your bone spurs, with how much depends on the battlefield, on the ability to use aircraft, powerful, stronger aviation to protect our people, our freedom, our land.

It was a fun exercise.

For your TGIF, I focused only on good news/good week stuff. Some of it was consequential to folks involved, personally or professionally. Some of it wasn't, but there are times when we need to escape into our time-honored traditions. 

First, one of the consequential items.

Hundreds of protesters were arrested across multiple Russian cities earlier this week; since the invasion started in late February, over 14,000 have been arrested. They protest, even in the face of up to 15 years in prison.

And, one of the less-than-consequential ones.

Baseball's Spring Training is underway, after a lengthy lockout of the players by the owners, over what else? Money. It's always about money, one way or another. Playing ball is great; my Boston Red Sox starting the season 2-0 is even better.

Finally, I tossed up a Quick Take on the entertaining process by which the Senate "unanimously" passed the Sunshine Protection Act, which would make Daylight Savings Time permanent come November 2023. The folks at BuzzFeed did some digging into how this passed, and honestly, it's a tragi-comedy or something. 

Don't believe me? Listen to Sen. Chris Coons.

Asked to re-create his reaction to the news, Sen. Chris Coons issued a series of shocked stammers that is impossible to phonetically translate.

Honestly, you can't make this stuff up.

Coming up this week? I'll be in the classrooms, of course, and there'll likely be some Wondering on Wednesday. Other than that, my former governor is getting on my nerves, and my current governor is getting ready to rumble with her own party on crime and the budget. I'm sure there's a post or two in that mess somewhere.

Thanks for sticking around.

TGIF 3/26/21

Time to make your good week/bad week lists. Ready?

The Capitol insurrectionists were "hugging and kissing" the police, according to Former Guy. 

It was zero threat, right from the start, it was zero threat. They went in, they shouldn't have done it. Some of them went in and they're hugging and kissing the police and the guards, they had great relationships. A lot of the people were waved in, and then they walked in and they walked out. 

Johnson & Johnson appears to be on track to meet their goal of delivering 20 million doses by the end of the month. 

The White House's announcement Friday was a surprise, then, with CNN's Kaitlan Collins noting that the goal had "been in doubt as of just a few days ago, given less than half the 20 million had gone out." Indeed, according to Politico, the administration on Tuesday said it only had four million doses of the vaccine to deliver. 

Georgia has decided that if I were to hand food or water to a voter in line waiting to cast their ballot, I'm trying to sway their vote, and I've committed a crime. At the same time, if I make food or water available to the same voter, but don't offer it to them, I'm not trying to sway their vote and haven't committed a crime. And boy, if I were a Georgian, I'd be ever grateful to my elected officials for “taking another step to making our elections fair and secure.” 

New York is on the verge of releasing the whole megillah of our new legal pot bill, maybe this weekend. One sticking point? Impaired drivers. According to Assembly Majority Leader Crystal Peoples-Stokes, that doesn't seem like a big deal. 

There are almost 150,000 people in the state of New York who are medical marijuana patients, as we speak. And this is a multiple billion-dollar underground business, so there are tons of people who are already driving around in our communities with THC in their system. That doesn’t mean they are impaired.

Utah, on the other hand, has passed a bill that would require porn filters on new smartphone sold in the state - but the bill won't go into effect unless at least five other states pass the same requirement. Pretty sure NY won't be one of them; we're more likely to look at that as a revenue source, rather than a "public health crisis," which is how Utah views it. 

President Biden held a press conference yesterday, and more than one reporter asked whether he was going to run in 2024; add-ons were "will Kamala Harris be your running mate?" and "do you believe you'll be running against Donald Trump?" Because nothing's more important than talking about Former Guy to Current Guy. I did like this part of his answer, though. 

Oh, come on. I don’t even think about it. I have no idea. I have no idea whether there’ll be Republican party. Do you? I know you don’t have to answer my question, but I mean, you know, do you?

Virginia abolished the death penalty this week, becoming the first in the south to do so. Home of the first execution, in 1608, and more than any other state, it's now the 23rd to get rid of the death penalty. Here's what Gov. Ralph Northam said, before signing the bill.

We can't give out the ultimate punishment without being 100% sure that we're right. And we can't sentence people to that ultimate punishment knowing that the system doesn't work the same for everyone.

 I'll leave you with this info from AAA on gas prices. The average price of a gallon of gas in the US was $2.88 over the past week, and a third or so higher than this time last year. What's driving the price increase? It's not President Biden, no matter what your friends say. Rather, 

Fuel prices have gotten a boost from rebounding oil prices as the global economy recovers from the devastation of coronavirus lockdowns.

And that ship that's blocking the Suez Canal isn't helping, either; if you've got any ideas on that, be sure to let someone know.

TGIF, everyone.

Sidebar: Answers I Wish I Heard (part 2)

During the debate, when Businessman Romney and President Obama were arguing about drilling for oil and natural gas on federal lands, the first thought that came into my head was that I was woefully unenlightened on this issue.

I did a little research on the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) website, as they're the folks who handle the leasing and permitting for use of federal lands. Conveniently they have compiled a bunch of oil and gas statistics together, so it's pretty easy to see what's what.

Here are some of the statistics as of November 2011, the last report published:

• There were 49,173 leases in effect; 22,682 were producing leases.
• There were 36,463,410 acres of land under lease, with only 12,316,233 considered producing acres

So how do the leases work?  Oil and gas companies lease the land for several years, paying a fee for the lease, with prices ranging as high as a couple million dollars.  There's also a yearly fee, which could be as much as $200,000, and there's a royalty that's paid to the federal government, ranging from 12% - 18% once the wells are drilled and start producing, according to a CNN Money article published last year.

OK - so about 53% of the leases and 66% of the acres are not producing, which means that we're getting the annual fees but we're not getting the royalties on them. And I have to wonder how that's the Obama administration's fault? 

I also have to wonder, how come I'm not getting a check from the Feds for my share of the royalty pool for the leases and acres that are producing?  I mean, these are federal lands, which mean they're supported by my taxes. Not only that, but if I want to use the federal lands I own, such as visiting a national park, I have to pay an admission fee. So that means I'm being double-dipped to enjoy my own land?  Doesn't seem right, does it? And wouldn't a nice royalty check help smooth that over? 

Heck, look at Alaska. They established the Alaska Permanent Fund Corp back in the late 1970's and have been paying residents dividends from the fund since 1980. Their fund is worth over $40 billion dollars now - imagine how big one for the Federal royalties could be? 

Seriously, after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010, where over 200 million gallons of oil flowed into the Gulf of Mexico (and more is leaking now), I'm not sure I have the stomach for more drilling on my land.

Answers I Wish I Had Heard (part 2)

Here's another audience question from Tuesday's town hall debate, this time on the price of gas, where I believe both candidates missed the boat:

Your energy secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it’s not policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department?

Here's the answer I wish I had heard:

By a show of hands, who in the audience thinks that the President or the Energy Deparrment has any direct control of the price of gas? 

By a show of hands, who thinks that drilling for oil in our national parks, and off the Atlantic coast, will have any immediate measurable impact on the price of a gallon of gas?

By a show of hands, who thinks that providing additional tax breaks and subsidies to oil companies will lead to lower prices at the pump?

If you raised your hand for any of those three questions, I hate to say it but you don’t understand how gas prices work. To be honest, most of us don't understand this, but here's the truth:  The single biggest contributor to the fluctuating price of gas is speculation, plain and simple. Speculators look at everything -- weather, war, season,  the likelihood that people will be driving, the price of tea in China -  heck, they probably figure in who's going to win the World Series. That's what drives the price you pay at the pump, not policies of my administration or any other. 

And don't forget, if you have a pension or a 401(k) or other investment accounts, you're likely making money off the hugely successful oil industry, which has been raking in record or near-record profits over the past several fiscal quarters.  Do you want me to mess with that?

Look - It’s not federal energy policy that makes gas cost $4.  According to some experts, a change in federal energy policies today would take about a decade to make a difference in the price at the pump.  

Now, we could tinker with the federal portion of the fuel tax – which is just over 18 cents per gallon, higher on diesel.  Of course, if we do that, we have to figure out where to make up that money. And there’s really only two ways to do that – find more revenue somwhere else, or cut spending.  And frankly you've seen what happens when we try to do that.

As president, I could also release some of our strategic oil reserves, but there's a big risk in that, and  it's not one that I want to take. And if I was to do that, what's the threshold? $5 per gallon? $4.50? $2.50? Are we going to agree on that? Is this really a strategic issue for our economy, our country?

What I will do is work towards having that gallon of gas take you farther, help you get more miles per gallon with new fuel standards, so you ultimately would pay less.  What I will work on is opening up drilling for oil and natural gas in a controlled way, so that we can increase our already historically high production and at the same time continue to protect our environment, protect our fishing and recreational industries,our tourism industry - we're talkling hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jobs here -  our drinking water, and so on.   What I will do is ensure we invest in other forms of energy, so that we have the full plate of options available for your car, your business, your home.  What I will do is strengthen our overall economy.

That’s what that a president, working with Congress, the energy industries, research institutions, universities, environmental groups,  can and should do.  But the President does not and should not control the price of gas.