The Election Eve Post, 2022 Edition

It's that time again - the night before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. That means it's Election Eve, and time for me to do my absolute best to encourage you to vote.

If you’re not motivated this year, I’m not sure there’s anything I can do to convince you how important it is, but I’ll try. 

We have people running for office - over 600 of them across the country – who are ‘election deniers’ in some way, shape or form. They’re running for local, state, and national office, including critical positions responsible for overseeing elections. Imagine that – people who deny the outcome of the last presidential election, in charge of the next one? 

It's possible we could have a Congressional majority that would have us back away from our leadership on the world stage, who would have us walk away from our support of Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression. 

It's possible there could be changes not just in the House, but in the Senate as well, which means it is possible, no matter what they say, that women will not be able to receive vital medical care. It’s possible, that we’ll see more states move to subjecting women to bounties, or parents to bounties, depending on the level of risk they’re willing to take for their trans children. Is this what 'small government' means?

No matter what they say, it’s possible that contraception could be made illegal, and that marriage equality could fall by the wayside. It's possible we could see significant cuts in a variety of benefits including Medicare and Social Security, a variety of safety net programs, including health insurance, in our educational funding, and more. Change isn't inherently bad, but change without compassion and without thoughtful consideration isn't inherently good, either. 

If you're not of childbearing age, or you're not gay, or you're not trans, or you don't rely on government programs for your insurance or your income, or you don't have kids in school, does this stuff matter?

You might say no, but I'd ask this: when they’re done going after other people’s rights, do you think they won’t come for yours?

I understand inflation stinks; I also understand it’s a global problem. I understand we have significant issues with illegal immigration problems; I also understand that the problem is much bigger than border crossing, and that immigration, too, is a global problem.

I understand that crime is rising in some areas, in red states just as in blue states; I also understand simplistic solutions and soundbites are not the answer.

It’s going to take more than that to solve our problems, and it’s going to take more than voting, too. Voting is just the first step; after that, we have the power to hold elected officials accountable, and the responsibility to do just that. 

If you're an early voter, and have already done your civic duty, thank you. If you're not going to be around on Election Day and voted by absentee ballot, thank you. And if you're planning on voting the old-fashioned way - showing up at your polling place on Tuesday, like I do, thank you. 

Use your voice. I don't care if you and I don't agree on a single thing - I still want everyone who is eligible to vote to do so. The thing that's most frustrating to me is that the people who don't show up are often the ones making the decisions for the rest of us. We can't continue to allow that to happen. 

As I do every year, I offer the following motivation, in case you're still on the fence about voting.

After some thought, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians." (1) Actually, “The idea of an election is much more interesting to me than the election itself…the act of voting is in itself the defining moment.”(2) And why is it that “When the political columnists say ‘every thinking man’ they mean themselves, and when candidates appeal to ‘every intelligent voter’ they mean everyone who is going to vote for them”?(3) 

We know it’s true that “Bad officials are elected by good citizens who didn’t vote”(4), and that “A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won’t cross the street to vote in a national election.”(5) Do we still not realize, after all these years, that “lower voter participation is a silent threat to our democracy… it under-represents young people, the poor, the disabled, those with little education, minorities and you and me”? (6) 

After all, “the vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men” (7) and “to make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not just observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” (8) 

And complain we do, after every election, when the wrong guy wins. If only people who actually voted complained, it’d likely be a lot less noisy, don't you think? 

Some folks may not vote because they don’t know how to pick the right person. There are a couple different schools of thought on that. On the one hand, some might think that “politics is the art of the possible” (9) while others may subscribe to the thinking that “politics is not the art of the possible, it consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. And it is true that, the great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter the chance to do something stupid.” (10) 

Said another way, a “Vote (is) the instrument and symbol of a freeman’s power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country.” (11) But that’s OK – “personally, I believe that our American system works as long as you participate in it. You must vote and make your voice heard; otherwise you will be left out.” (12) 

It’s generally true that if you “ask a man which way he’s going to vote and he’ll probably tell you. Ask him, however, why – and vagueness is all.” (13) But voting’s really easy; and “all voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong.” (14) And just about everyone likes to play a game every now and then, right? 

The bottom line is, “voting is simply a way of determining which side is the stronger without putting it to the test of fighting;”(15) “voting is a civic sacrament;”(16) and “the future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter.”(17) If all of that seems like too much pressure, you have an out: “Vote for the man who promises least. He’ll be the least disappointing.” (18) 

Please, vote. It really does matter, this year and every year. Honestly, "there is no such thing as a vote that doesn't matter."(19) Besides, "not voting is not a protest. It is a surrender." (20)  

My final pitch?  "Talk is cheap, voting is free; take it to the polls." (21)

If you need information on where to vote, help on 

your ballot, or any other assistance,  

contact your local Board of Elections. 

Lots of people are out there, ready and willing to help. 

(Thanks to these folks for their words of wisdom: 1 - Charles De Gaulle; 2 – Jeff Melvoin; 3 – Franklin P Adams; 4 and 13 – Andrew Lack; 5 - Bill Vaughan; 6 - Nancy Neuman; 7 - Lyndon B Johnson; 8 - Louis L’Amour; 9 – Otto Von Bismarck; 10 – Art Spander; 11 – Ambrose Bierce; 12 - Mari-Luci Jaramillo; 14 – Henry David Thoreau; 15 – H.L. Mencken; 16—Theodore Hesburgh; 17 – Dwight D. Eisenhower; 18 – Bernard Baruch); 19 - Barack Obama; 20 - Keith Ellison; 21 - Nanette L. Avery

Sunday School 10/16/22

Here's a look at a couple of the Senate races at play in November. First up? Dana Bash in the State of the Union classroom with the candidates for the Colorado seat, Joe O'Dea (R) and incumbent Michael Bennet (D).

O'Dea was up first; he was asked what he'd do about inflation if he gets elected. Mostly, "we have got to get our energy policy back on track" and that means "getting the permitting out of the way" 

so we can go back to work here in Colorado and flood the market with increased supply. It'll cause the price to come down. Inflation will go away. That's how you do it.

Bash didn't follow up on that, or on data showing that the Biden administration is approving 96% of the lease permits it receives, or about approved leases not going into production. Instead, she moved on to guns, asking if O'Dea thought any new gun laws were needed. 

He said Dems in his state are ignoring the laws on the books, that we "need more cops on the street" and to "make sure we're enforcing the laws we have." And, specifically on red flag laws, like the one in Colorado that's focused on mental health? Sheriffs tell him it doesn't work, "it puts them at risk. They're not happy with that law," and it needs to be rewritten.

...We need to do more with mental health here to get these people off the street. But we have hundreds of laws on the books. We need to enforce them. We need more cops on our street right now. If you talk to Chief Pazen here of the city and county of Denver -- he's the chief of police -- he will tell you he's short 250 officers. That's because Democrats across the state of Colorado have defunded, demoralized the police. And we need to do better.

Bash followed up, noting that Colorado's approved 146 applications to take guns away from dangerous people in two years, and asked if that didn't make his state safer.

He said no, citing stats saying it's the "the third worst state for violent crime in the United States," and "they just deemed Denver as one of the most unsafe cities in the nation." He said they have record crime everywhere, cashless bail issues, and again, the laws on the books need to be enforced.

Moving on, O'Dea said January 6th was "a black eye on the country" and that Trump "should have done more" to "keep the violence" away from the Capitol. Anyone who was violent needs to be held accountable. Trump should not run again, he said, and he'll "actively campaign" against him and will make sure the Rs have viable choices.

And finally, on abortion, he believes "for the first five months, that decision should be between a woman and her doctor. After that, for rape, incest, life of the mother, medical necessity, I believe that decision should also be between a woman and her doctor."  He says his position "is where most of America is."  

Bash started her interview with Sen. Bennet asking why the Inflation Reduction Act isn't reducing inflation. Bennet pointed out that some pieces "are going to take a while to put into place." He also explained that it's "a global problem," something other Dems forget to do. He blamed oil prices that skyrocketed during the recovery and Putin's invasion of Ukraine. 

Bash interrupted him to note that the media's favorite economist, former Dem Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, said that spending Bennet voted for, "particularly $1.9 trillion for the American Rescue Plan" is making inflation worse. Like other Dems who are paying attention, Bennet noted that other economists disagreed. And, he said, the ARP 

kept 30,000 Coloradans from being evicted... it has funded law enforcement all over the state, mental health services that we desperately need. It cut childhood poverty in half last year because of a bill that I wrote. I'm concerned that the Federal Reserve kept their interest rates at zero for too long and that their quantitative easing was too aggressive. But that's looking in the rearview mirror.

The senator said we can fix things by bringing supply chains back to the US, and "by making sure we are benefitting from the Inflation Reduction Act" by being the leader transitioning away from fossil fuels over the next 25 years. He thinks we're perfectly positioned to do that, and he thinks "that's an amazing place for us to be."

Bash turned to an ad run by a Dem group to help boost O'Dea's primary opponent "because they thought he would be easier" for Bennet to beat - and she wondered how Bennet would paint O'Dea as a "far-right Republican." Bennet said O'Dea does that by himself: he would have voted for all of Trump's SCOTUS picks; he opposes codifying abortion rights; he voted for a ballot issue that banned all abortions; and he doesn't think Trump bears any responsibility for the insurrection. 

Bash asked if it was a "mistake for fellow Democrats to prop him up as" Bennet's opponent. Bennet said we need to reform the campaign finance system, noting he's "got a racist billionaire who's funding a super PAC" that's supporting O'Dea - from Wyoming. 

That's not helping voters in Colorado. But I want, Dana, you to know and I want your viewers to know how out of touch he is with Colorado... not just on the abortion issue, but the idea that he would not support any additional gun laws, including a law Mitch McConnell voted for in the U.S. Senate. He thinks that our red flag law in Colorado after Columbine, after Aurora, is -- is out of touch.

Meanwhile, down the hall in the MTP classroom, What's-his-name talked with Evan McMullin, the Independent running against Republican incumbent Sen. Mike Lee. Notably, the other Utah senator, Mitt Romney, hasn't endorsed Lee. What's-his-name wondered if McMullen had spoken to Romney; McMullen said he hasn't, and said he respects and appreciates Romney's decision to sit this one out.

Lee has said a vote for McMullin is "a vote for the Democrats to keep their majority," and W-H-N wondered if that was correct. McMullin said no.

... look, I'm building a coalition of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and members of third parties to better represent Utah and to help lead our country forward. And I'm not going to Washington to join a party or to caucus or to play the party power game. I'm going to represent our coalition. 

If he serves all six years, he wouldn't join either party's caucus? He said he'll maintain his independence, and that would help Utah and give it "an added value of influence." After blasting Lee ("He sits on his hands until it's time to vote no and then he goes and complains about our country on cable news."), he said he thinks we've seen

... that the senators in the chamber who are willing to act with greater independence, serving their constituents, standing up to party bosses, standing up to extremist factions and special interest groups, they have the most influence in the chamber. They're more influential, I think, even than the party bosses. And I want that for Utah. 

W-H-N asked about McMullen tweeting in January 2021 that "Not only should Mitch McConnell never be majority leader again, he shouldn't be minority leader either. It's time for something new." He said he wouldn't be involved in choosing the leadership, because it's up to the parties to make that decision.

Next, he was asked whether he would have voted for the Inflation Reduction Act. There were things in it he liked, and some that he didn't like, and he would not have voted for it "as written." He thought it didn't do enough about inflation in the short term, and thinks more needs to be done on that front.

...we need leaders and need a Senate who is going to focus on actually delivering more results to lower inflation. I did like the fact that it started to allow Medicare to negotiate on prescription drugs. We pay far more for prescription drugs than we need to in America...

McMullin favored Roe being overturned, but he's expressed concern that extreme laws were being created since that happened; most of the bills that have surfaced since the decision have been designed to make a political point, and that the extreme positions are "tearing the country apart." 

...we've got to stand up to those extremes. But more importantly, we've got to find a more constructive way forward. And that's about making contraception more available, doing more to support women, children, and families, and improving education on this matter. And that's where I'll focus my time.

Of the three candidates we heard from, I prefer McMullin's approach. We do need more people who are there to represent us, not just to stand with their party or protect their own longevity. 

See you around campus.

Sunday School 9/25/22

I decided to spend some time in the Fox News Sunday classroom, to check in on new host Shannon Bream, who was tapped to fill the seat held by Chris Wallace for nearly two decades. 

One of her guests was Sen. Joe Manchin (D-They're ALL My Friends); it was his 'yes' vote that led to the passage of the dangerously named Inflation Reduction Act way back in August. Here's Bream's into to her chat with Manchin. 

She introduced him by noting the bargain he struck with Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) that would "reform the tedious federal permitting process for new energy projects," something Schumer's trying to find a way to go in order to "avoid a potential government shutdown." And, she quoted a Wall Street Journal comment about Manchin having "had political leverage but the bill shows he traded his voted on the cheap." Did you, she asked?

Nope - he didn't, he said, and he's got a response being published today in the WSJ; he said it answers "every one of the things which they basically have evaluated wrongly." And, he said,

But this is a chance in a lifetime for us to have energy independence, Shannon. For us to have security in this nation, which we need, and making sure that we can take care of the American people with low energy prices, producing more oil, producing more gas. But we have to have permitting reform if you're going to deliver it. You have no way of infrastructure to deliver it. So, everyone knows that. My Republican friends know that.

Much of the conversation centered around Republicans who are mad at Manchin because he struck a deal and the IRA passed. It seems most of them thought that he would be a no, and the Rs could hit the Biden administration with a loss just a few months before the midterms. 

For example, Bream brought up an amendment to the IRA from his fellow WV Senator Shelley Moore Capito that Manchin voted against ("hers is a messaging bill"), and ("she's totally supportive of my approach basically as it incorporated many of the things she and 46 other Republican senators had endorsed").

Not only that, but "Well, certainly, you understand where Republicans don't think they should be the ones to come across the aisle to vote for a measure that primarily benefits you, which was done in exchange for your vote on a measure they didn't support -- not a single one of them vote for the Inflation Reduction Act." 

And there's more - she quoted something in 'Politico' from Sen. John Cornyn, "Given what Senator Manchin did on the reconciliation bill, it's engendered a lot of bad blood. There's not a lot of sympathy on our side to provide Senator Manchin a reward." The point of that? Why should the Rs help him now?

Manchin handled it all as well as can be expected, starting by saying "this is not about me." He spoke of the twelve years he's worked with the Rs on their top priority - permitting reform. 

We can't build anything in America. It takes five to 10 years. The developed world takes one to three years. And why should we so behind the developed world bringing products to market, to be able to have the infrastructure to move energy around? And we're asking people around the world to do things for us, we won't do for ourselves? My Republican friends know exactly where we are. This is not about the previous legislation. This is something, a high priority that we have for our country.

His point? It's bigger than partisan stuff or hurt feelings  - it's about time, and history. 

If we don't, Shannon, take advantage of this and come together as Americans, we're going to look back five or 10 years from now and wonder why we're not able to meet demands, why are we allowing Putin to kind of control, dictate our energy policies, and what we are trying to respond to and not able to do it in a timely fashion because we can't move the energy in America -- whether it's going to be new transmission lines for renewables or basically for fossils and oil and gas that moves the products we need today. That's what this is about. And we need to come together as Americans.

Bream brought up a letter from a group of senators asking Schumer to separate the permitting reform piece from the federal spending bill. The senators - including Booker, Warren, Duckworth, and That Guy from Vermont - are concerned Manchin's bill will make the climate worse, and that it "would actually disproportionately hurt low-income Americans and communities of color if it does get passed."

Manchin's not surprised that TGFV and the others are against his plan - they've never been for it, and "that's why we've never had it." Even with the folks behind the letter, Manchin said "overwhelmingly, Democrats in both the House and the Senate are supporting" the bill, and he hopes that's enough to swing the Rs

We have a golden opportunity and we have a majority, overwhelming majority of Democrats supporting it. And they're doing it because this is the right time and the right thing to do for our country. But, also, it's a time we basically can bring Democrats and Republicans together as we've done with the bipartisan infrastructure bill... with the CHIPS bill. And we continue to do things when we need to do something for our country. 

He echoed the same line of thinking when Bream asked him if, as Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) said, he didn't have all his ducks in a row when he went along with Schumer on the IRA. The Rs have had a ton of input on his bill, because he's been working on it with them for over a decade. 

... they have tremendous amount of input in this. But the process has come down to party line vote which is unfortunate, but it is what we're dealing with in a toxic political atmosphere. But I can assure you, everybody, we try to take everyone's input on this and my Republican friends' input is in this piece of legislation. So, I'm just hoping that and I'm very optimistic that we have the opportunity, they realize this opportunity and they'll never pass again in our lifetime.

He gently reminded any Rs watching that they weren't successful last time around.

When they had everything, when they -- in 2016 to 2020, Shannon, they had Republican president, Republican House, Republican Senate, we couldn't -- we couldn't move it because I was the only Democrat. Now we're in a position where we have a majority Democrats and our Republican friends can take it across the line.

After sharing some gloom and doom from Carl Icahn, who, Bream said, compares U.S. inflation to the fall of the Roman Empire, she asked Manchin "what regrets do you have at this point in voting for the Inflation Reduction Act...?"

He doesn't appear to have any regrets. He said the bill "puts more energy back into the markets" - and cleaner energy, too. Similarly, when you allow Medicare to reduce the price of drugs, that's helping inflation, and he said 300,000 of his constituents rely on Medicare.

The bottom line, for the folks who say the IRA will have little impact on inflation, in his view? They might not see a reduction in inflation right now, but they'll definitely see it.

because this does nothing but gives us a chance to reduce inflation... I have worked very hard to make sure we had an opportunity to be energy-independent and secure and fight Putin's war. 

And, in closing, he said "And I sure do put the country first and America. It's all about America, not about Democrats or Republicans," to which Bream replied, "That's what Americans are hoping for."  

Yes, it is. 

See you around campus.

Sunday School 9/11/22: Extra Credit

Let's continue with What's-his-Name and Vice President Kamala Harris in the Meet the Press classroom. 

I recapped the first part of the interview in yesterday's Sunday School post; this segment begins with questions about the Supreme Court, and her confidence in it.

Harris said the thinks the SCOTUS is an "activist court," which means 

we had an established right for almost a half a century, which is the right of women to make decisions about their own body as an extension of what we have decided to be the privacy rights to which all people are entitled. And this court took that constitutional right away. And we are suffering as a nation because of it.

She also said she was inspired by Thurgood Marshall, and by the Warren Court, with decisions like Brown vs. Board of Education. Now, though, "it's a very different court" than the one that had justices like Marshall, Warren, and Sandra Day O'Connor.

With no follow-up on that, WHN moved to abortion, asking Harris about a bill being moved forward by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-OH) and Susan Collins (R-ME), which they say would basically codify the protections under Roe for abortion up to 24 weeks. and wondering if she'd "be OK with" that. She said she'd have to read the bill, noting "the details obviously matter."

He noted that this bill is not getting the same support from "some abortion rights groups" as other options, and he asked if it was "more important" to find Republican support for this. She said "Ideally, yes, it would be bipartisan."  

And, should the government "put any limit on abortion?" Harris believes government should not be

telling women what to do with their bodies... telling women how to plan their families... criminalizing health care providers... saying "no exception for rape or incest."

And moving on, "since we're here in Texas," WHN asked if Harris would call the border "secure."  

The border is secure, but we also have a broken immigration system, in particular over the last four years before we came in, and it needs to be fixed.

WHN asked again if she's "confident the border's secure," given we'll see two million crossing this year. 

We have a secure border in that that is a priority for any nation, including ours and our administration. But there are still a lot of problems that we are trying to fix given the deterioration that happened over the last four years. We also have to put into place a law and a plan for a pathway for citizenship for the millions of people who are here and are prepared to do what is legally required to gain citizenship. We don't have that in place because people are playing politics in a state like this and in Congress. By the way, you want to talk about bipartisanship on an issue that at one time was a bipartisan issue both in terms of Republican senators and even presidents.

Next question? Inflation is being made worse by us not having enough low-wage workers, so a "solution on immigration reform that increased particularly lower wage job labor – lower wage labor could actually have an impact on lowering inflation. How is that not the motivating force to get something done here?"

Um, because there is literally zero motivating factor to giving Biden another win? Why do anything before the midterm election, since the Rs have visions of taking over the House and Senate, ensuring nothing gets done for another two years...  But that's my answer. 

Here's what Harris said.

I do believe that, for all reasonable people, all reasonable people are motivated and desirous that we would get something done. I think a big part of the problem though is that there's been political gamesmanship with this issue suggesting that it's a zero-sum game. If you want to deal with the issue, there are practical solutions, which include creating a pathway to citizenship, fixing a broken immigration system, dealing with the root causes of why people are fleeing their home when most people don't want to leave home. And if they do, it's usually because they're fleeing some harm, or they simply can't take care of their basic needs if they stay. There are solutions. And sadly, this has become such a partisan issue, instead of something where we work on it together, agreeing that what we're doing is not working as a nation. It's not working.

That agreement alone will be hard to get, regardless of the outcome of the midterm election. 

WHN then delved into 2024, wondering if there'll be an announcement after the midterms about the Biden/Harris team's plans. Harris said

Listen, the president has been very clear that he intends to run again. And if he does, I will be running with him proudly.

He thought she said 'probably,' which prompted some chuckles. She reiterated that a couple of times, saying "I'm very proud to be his vice president." The talked about Harris now having broken John Adams' record of tie-breaking votes in the Senate, which made her proud.

Who would have thought that this kid born in Oakland, California just broke a record with John Adams... Kind of, you’ve got to appreciate that.

WHN asked her about preparing for "the worst-case scenario that your job may hand you."  She said that she prays it doesn't happen; the rest of her answer seemed designed to show that she's preparing for it by doing the work that a VP does, even if, as WHN noted, there's no job description.

And listen, I think that there is no question that the role and the responsibility of vice president is a very important one. And Joe Biden knows that more than anybody. He and I talk about it. And it is the job of working with the president, doing what I can to be a great partner, to take on and help take on some of the biggest issues that impact our country, both domestically and in terms of foreign policy. And so that's the work that I do. So that has been the work of meeting with over a hundred heads of state around various issues, be it Ukraine or what we need to do around our space program. So that is the work of vice president, and it is important and it is something that I take very seriously.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this interview: were you satisfied with her answers? Do you have a better sense of her now than before? If Biden decides not to run next year, is she the best Dem to replace her? Chime in!

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 7/31/22: Extra Credit

Picking up where we left off with your Sunday School, we're back in the Face the Nation classroom with John Dickerson and Neel Kashkari, president of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve. 

If I had to pick a favorite Fed banker, he'd be it; I've learned from and enjoyed his interviews. 

Kashkari's concerned about inflation, of course, saying that it's "higher than we expect. And it's not just a few categories. It's spreading out more broadly across the economy." And that, of course, explains why the Fed is "acting with such urgency" to rein it in.

He said that while wages are going up, they're not keeping up with inflation, so "real wages, real income" are going down. He also gave a simple definition of inflation. 

Just at its basic level, inflation is when demand is outstripping supply. We know supply is low because of supply chains, because of the war in Ukraine, because of COVID. We hoped that supply would come online more quickly. That hasn't happened. So, we have to get demand down into balance. Now, I hope we get some help on the supply side. But that doesn't change the fact that the Federal Reserve has its job to do, and we are committed to doing it.

And what does "help on the supply side" look like? Kashkari said he speaks with "global businesses" that are working on getting their supply chains "sorted out" so they can have products on shelves and meet demand. Some progress is being made, he said, but "it's taking a lot longer than they thought," and longer than he thought, too, which is why the Fed's efforts are needed.

Dickerson mentioned his conversations with Sens. Manchin and Toomey about taxing corporations that aren't paying a minimum tax now. He wondered if that would hurt supplies and increase inflation.

Kashkari said that's the same thing people say about raising interest rates, and he also talked about the difference between the long-term, where both higher taxes and higher interest rates could have an impact, and the short-term, which is where we have to focus now, because 

the demand side effects totally swamp the supply side effects. And so, when I look at a bill that's being considered, that your two senators talked about, my guess is over the next couple of years it's not going to have much of an impact on inflation. It's not going to affect how I analyze inflation over the next few years. I think long-term it may have some effect. But, over the near term, we have an acute mismatch between demand and supply. And it's really up to the Federal Reserve to be able to bring that demand down. 

Recession was a topic, too: whether we're in one, and why it matters - or not. Kashkari said "it really matters when Americans feel it, especially in the job market, especially in the job market, that's the most important part of the economy, so to speak, for Americans is their job." 

Do they have a decent place to work and earning decent wages? And, typically, recessions are -- they demonstrate why job losses, high unemployment, those are terrible for American families. And we're not seeing anything like that. The labor market, so far, is very strong. We are seeing some sectors, like the tech sector, start to shed workers or start to cool down in hiring. But fundamentally, the labor market appears to be very strong.

This is the reason why President Biden said, to equal parts dismay and delight, "that doesn't sound like a recession to me." Kashkari did say that "GDP, the amount the economy is producing, appears to be shrinking." These are the "mixed signals" that everyone's trying to figure out - mostly by talking to Larry Summers, it seems. 

Kashkari isn't focused on that so much.

From my perspective, in terms of getting inflation in check, whether we are technically in a recession or not doesn't change my analysis. I'm focused on the inflation data. I'm focused on the wage data. And, so far, inflation continues to surprise us to the upside. Wages continue to grow. So far, the labor market is very, very strong. And that means whether we are technically in a recession or not doesn't change the fact that the Federal Reserve has its own work to do, and we are committed to doing it.

And, a final thought on GDP: Dickerson said when it goes down, "isn't that kind of what the Fed's trying to do, slow down growth...?" Kashkari said they "definitely want to see some slowing," and that they don't want the economy to overheat. And, he was honest about the situation; he admitted there's "not a great record" of transitioning to a "sustainable economy" without pushing it into recession.

Typically, when the economy slows down, it slows down by quite a bit, especially if it's the central bank that is inducing the slowdown. So, we're going to do everything we can to try to avoid a recession, but we are committed to bringing inflation down and we are going to do what we need to do. And we are a long way away from achieving an economy that is back at 2 percent inflation. And that's where we need to get to.

Are you feeling the recession, or are you just feeling inflation? Or, maybe you're lucky and aren't feeling the pinch at all? Chime in if you like.

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 7/31/22

CBS won the billion-dollar classroom lottery today, so we'll have highlights from Face the Nation for Sunday School and your Extra Credit. John Dickerson sat in for Margaret Brennan. 

We'll start with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), and then listen in as Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) chimes in. 

Manchin denied that he had "changed his mind" on anything; rather, the Inflation Reduction Act he agreed to with Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer fights inflation, which is what he wanted. And, he said, the bill doesn't raise taxes.

...the corporate tax in America in 2017, before the Republican tax cut, was 35 percent. They cut it to 21 percent, 14 percent reduction. All the people that I know are paying 21 percent or more. All the even larger corporations, but some of the largest corporations of a billion dollars of value or more don't even want to pay the minimum of 15 percent.

He said he "never thought" people (I think he meant corporations) weren't paying at least 21%. Has he had his head in his state's coal dust for the last decade or more? I mean, I did a post on GE not paying any federal income taxes back in 2011, for heaven's sake. And West Virginia's almost heaven, so Manchin clearly should have known about this.

Dickerson explained the "Republican criticism" that closing loopholes increases taxes which hurts supply, and during inflation you need a lot of supply. Manchin, sounding almost like a Democrat, said

In the last two years, there have been massive record profits across the board by these largest corporations, massive record profits. And it's been the lowest capital expenditure in the last two years, so that didn't drive it...

Dickerson said Manchin's GOP colleagues think he and Schumer "did something underhanded" by saying 'no deal' and then making a deal. He quoted Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) who said this was "a declaration of political warfare." Manchin's reaction?

It's such a shame. John Cornyn is a good friend of mine. He's such a good man. And for the politics to be so toxic right now, first of all, I never thought this would come to fruition. I never spoke with anybody about it, any of my colleagues, because they were frustrated that nothing happened for so long on the other. 

And, Dickerson pressed yet another GOP argument.

-- you made certain representations, they would say, to Republicans, then broke your trust... Susan Collins said: "It's a very unfortunate move that destroys the many bipartisan efforts that are under way," in other words, whether it's on election reform or same-sex marriage, that the well has been poisoned.

Manchin said he considers Collins a "very dear friend," but said he "never told anybody" he wasn't going to do something. 

If I had a chance to fix the energy policy of the United States of America, and I didn't do it, shame on me. If I had the chance to reduce the amount of inflation that people in West Virginia and across the country are enduring right now, shame on me... we were able to provide these solutions. Let's not make them political, John." 

Next up? Sen. Toomey, and Dickerson stayed with the Inflation Reduction Act, asking for Toomey's "principal critique."

Well, it's going to make inflation worse, actually. So, they've got a big corporate tax increase that's going to probably make this recession that we're in worse... this spending is unnecessary. It's going to exacerbate inflation. It is not going to reduce the deficit.

He's a big fan of his friend Joe Manchin, but said Manchin "got taken to the cleaners." He agreed to a bunch of bad policy, and in return he was promised "there's going to be some kind of pro-energy infrastructure bill sometime in the future."

Dickerson noted that The Committee for a Responsible Budget, a "fan" of Toomey's, said that this new bill "would be the first time in many years" that reconciliation was used for deficit reduction. Others have said the same thing, but Toomey disagrees.

... they use the same gimmick that Sen. Manchin said he was opposed to in the past. They claim the revenue over a 10-year window from their big tax increase, and their price controls. And then the expenditure that they acknowledge, they pretend is only going to be for three years. That's the Obamacare subsidies for wealthy Americans. That's an obvious political payoff. The last time they had to do this, they said it would only be for two years. It's about to expire. And they can't - - they can't have it expire before an election. So, they're extending it, but only for three years. They have no intention of ever ending the Obamacare subsidies. Over a 10- year window, that wipes out the purported deficit reduction.

Dickerson didn't question the comment about "wealthy Americans" getting the health insurance subsidies, or the fact that many very much not wealthy Americans would lose their insurance without the subsidies; I wish he had.

Toomey said the supporters of the bill aren't "taking into account how much our economy will slow down from this big corporate tax increase that will mostly hurt manufacturing and domestic investment..." And he explained how the GOP tax cut was supposed to work, how allowing businesses to make capital investments (new plants, new equipment, etc.) and deduct the cost in the same year caused a "huge surge in capital expenditure" and the Dems will "raise the cost of investing in a business."

Folks at the Brookings Institution who studied this would disagree with Cornyn, as would the IMF, but I'm sure he has experts that would say he's right.

They moved on to the PACT Act, which would provide health care to veterans who were exposed to dangerous toxins from burn pits. The Senate shot the bill down, even though they voted for it in June. Cornyn said they want an amendment to "change a provision that has nothing to do with veterans' health care," because the Dems added a provision that's "designed to change government accounting rules, so that they can have a $400 billion spending spree."

Toomey said that the Rs are "fully accepting" the deficit will grow due to the PACT Act - "we accept that as a price we have to pay for people who serve the country." He objects to

a budgetary gimmick, a sleight of hand in accounting rules, that will allow totally unrelated spending of $400 billion over the next 10 years. 

There was more discussion, where Toomey accused Dickerson of being "totally incorrect" in his assessment of Toomey's amendment; Dickerson said "it actually caps annual expenditures for the toxic fund. And after 10 years, it goes away."  However, Toomey argued,

What it caps is how the government accounts for these transfers, but there is no cap on the amount of money that goes over. There is no cap on the total program. Look, if -- honest Democrats evaluating this will tell you, if my amendment passes, not a dime change in spending on veterans' programs. What changes is how the government accounts for it.

Dickerson noted Cornyn may be consistent on the deficit, but many of his colleagues aren't, and asked "why is it important to be fastidious when it comes to veterans, but less so when it comes to, say, supporting chip manufacturers?"

Because, John, once again, you're completely mischaracterizing this... most Republicans think we shouldn't loosen up the budget rules so that Democrats can go on a spending spree on things that have nothing to do with veterans' health care.

To which Dickerson responded,

 Of course, Democrats have to be in charge in the future when that spending happens, and they may very well not be. 

See you around campus.

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. 

Sunday School 5/22/22: Extra Credit

In a changeup from this week's Sunday School  which was about foreign policy and the economy, the focus of your Extra Credit is the November elections.

We'll start with Margaret Brennan and her chat with Sen. Rick Scott (R-Darn Right I Want to Raise Taxes on the Poor!) in the Face the Nation classroom. Scott leads the effort to get more Republicans elected. As he's done in other interviews, he jumped right in with an opinion without waiting for a question. His target? Numbers from a new CBS poll Brennan mentioned in her lead-in.

I think those numbers are consistent with what we've seen, that inflation is still the number one issue in the country... I think the election this fall is going to be about inflation... And I think it bodes well for Republicans.

Brennan noted only 51% polled say they trust the GOP more than the Dems on inflation, while 49% trust the Dems; she wondered how Scott and the Rs will change that. 

So, I think we have to talk about the things that we're going to do to make it better for people. But, if you go and look at the races around the country, Biden's numbers are really, really bad. And he's -- he is the face of the Democrat Party right now.

Brennan's next question was a good one: basically, if inflation is the big issue, why do Rs keep "relitigating 2020." Scott said people care that this election will be '"fair and their votes are not going to be diluted," and hope the Rs will make that happen. He also said that people "want to know what happened, why it happened" in 2020.

Well, they want to know -- they want to know that -- exactly what happened, if -- were there problems, exactly what happened. They'd like to know that. But, also, they're -- you know, they also want to make sure we win in '22. So, they -- they want to make sure that we're going to make sure their vote's not diluted. So, I think you have to -- you have to talk about making sure people understand what happened in 2020, but also make sure you know -- they know that you're going to focus on making sure that 2022 is a -- is a fair election.

Got it? It's all about making sure things are surely made sure by making sure of being sure. That's what they want. Without saying a darn thing. As long as you're talking about 2020, I guess. But not about all the fraud committed by Rs. Don't mention that. They surely don't want to know anything about that, for sure.

After some discussion on Scott's plan that is not the GOP plan, Brennan asked about white supremacy. The polling data show only 23% of Rs say condemning that kind of hatred is very important, while 75% of Ds think it is. She asked him why there's such a gap there.

Well, clearly, we ought to all condemn any hatred. We ought to condemn any white supremacy. We -- I mean, we've got to figure out how to come together. I believe we got to stop all this racial politics.... So, we've got to figure out how to bring people together.

Brennan then asked, "So, you would tell all Senate Republicans running for election that they need to, each and every one of them, condemn white nationalism?" Surely, no. No way.

Well, I tell people what I believe. And every -- every Senate candidate on both sides is going to decide what is important to them and what is important to the citizens of their state...  if they asked me, I would say, 'be clear. Be clear.' I mean, we do not believe, none of us -- I don't think any American should believe in white supremacy or hatred of any kind. I mean, it's wrong.

But, as he said, "they want to make sure we win in '22," so, just go with the flow in your neck of the woods - even if that means promoting white supremacy. The tent is big enough, I guess.

Her next guest was Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who's chair of the House Democratic Caucus. Brennan noted poll findings that "young people, Hispanics and half of Black Americans say the president has been too slow to react." And, his 'effectiveness' and 'competency' ratings are low. Add in a majority of Dems saying the economy is 'bad,' and Brennan wondered how the Dems will hold their majority.

Jeffries said he's "very confident" they'll hold on, saying President Biden "has done a very good job under incredibly difficult circumstances." He pointed to several things that are out there causing an "unsettled" electorate, as people are

experiencing COVID fatigue, inflationary pressures, high gas prices, a war in Ukraine, a radical, extreme Republican Party that doesn't appear to believe in democracy any longer. And so this is a tough moment for our country.

He said Biden has been a "decisive" leader, starting with the American Rescue Plan, noting 

We rescued the economy, put shots in arms and money in pockets, kids back in school, laid the foundation for a robust economic recovery that has led to more than eight million good-paying jobs being created and unemployment at 3.6% That's a tremendous start. Of course, there's more that needs to be done.

Brennan focused on the 'slow to react' metric, using police reform as an example. Two years after the death of George Floyd, she said Biden's been "looking at an executive order on police reform for months now, continues to say it's coming." She asked Jeffries if Biden needed to act on something like that before November.

Well, it's my hope and expectation that we will see some further decisive action from the administration. It's unfortunate that we find ourselves in this position because Senator Tim Scott decided to walk away from negotiations that were bipartisan in nature...

Brennan said it was the Dems who walked away, not the Rs, and asked if the urgency on police reform was "fading." Jeffries said they're going to "lean into public safety," and recited a list of issues that are important, but he didn't really address the 'urgency' question. 

Today, I can: this afternoon, news is breaking that Biden will sign his long-awaited executive order Wednesday, on the anniversary of George Floyd's death.

Another hit from the poll? She said more than a third of Dems "call their own party weak" - and 41% of young people think that, which "could hurt your turnout." She asked if it was time for a change in Congressional leadership. Jeffries was firm that, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, "we've been acting decisively." And, he continued, 

But I think we do have to crystallize the differences between what we're about and what Republicans are all about. It's clear that Washington Republicans want to raise taxes on everyday Americans, on police officers, on firefighters, on nurses, on factory workers, on grocery store clerks. And we are trying to provide them with relief. The Republicans, including your prior guest, actually want to end Social Security and Medicare as we know it in five years, forcing it to sunset. Those are serious differences between the two parties. And I think, once the voters understand that dynamic, the choice will be as clear as a sunny day in San Diego. 

Finally, Brennan wondered if "Democrats put their own communities at risk" in New York by their asinine gerrymandering (my word, not Brennan's). Jeffries did his best to blame the Republican judge, and the special master, and the Court of Appeals - but not the Dems, at the feet of whom all the blame lies.

Well, the process, unfortunately, was hijacked by the Court of Appeals. A bad process has now led to a bad result. You're talking about five different congressional districts where the Black and Latino population was degraded. The only -- most significant Jewish district in the country has been detonated, for no good reason...

That said, Jeffries stated, 

...here's what's most important. We're going to remain united, because we believe in a very simple vision for America. Work hard, play by the rules, you should be able to provide a comfortable living for yourself and for your family... educate your children, purchase a home, and retire with grace and dignity.

"Play by the rules."  Four words we don't hear, or see in action all that much from either party. 

See you around campus.  

In Case You Missed It (v87)

Miss anything last week? Here's a recap of your week in posts.

Christine Lagarde, head of the European Central Bank, was in the Face the Nation Sunday School classroom with Margaret Brennan. Here's part of that conversation, which focused on one of the differences between the US and our European friends.

Brennan noted there's a bit of debate here that the government bears some blame for inflation, including $6T in COVID stimulus, a third of which went out "on President Biden’s watch last spring when the economy was already recovering." Noting "Europe didn’t spend like this," she wondered if our path exacerbated inflation.

Lagarde said Europe put "half as much" as the US on stimulus; rather, the focus was "predominantly on keeping the jobs, not necessarily sending the checks." That's not the same as what's going on here.

And the current situation you have in the labor market here in the US is clearly contributing to possible strong inflation and second-round effect, where prices go up, wages go up, short supply of labor, wages continue to go up, and that feeds back into prices. That’s one of the differences between our two economies.

Brennan didn't ask who the Europeans were blaming for inflation there; would have been interesting to see whether that would be another difference between us and them.

I covered only one interview in your Extra Credit - the talk Dana Bash had with our only Ukrainian-born member of Congress, Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-IN) in the State of the Union classroom. Spartz was in Ukraine spending time with family over the Orthodox Easter holiday. 

Among the topics they touched on? US aid, and our diplomats. 

She said she was glad to see American officials coming to Ukraine, and said she had written Secretary of State Antony Blinken, asking if we could get some of our diplomats back to Lviv. Other countries are starting to return diplomats to Kyiv, and noted that 

 -- in any job, whether it's a political job or diplomatic job, you do take some risks. You need to be smart. But, also, that's a part of your job to do your service. And if you are not on the ground, it's very difficult to do your job. 

Blinken, who was in Ukraine over the weekend with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, announced that our diplomats will start making day trips, to Lviv.

When it came time for Wondering on Wednesday, I was ready. After the news broke that Twitter and Tesla had agreed to a deal for Elon Musk to take the company private, I had spent a bit of time on the platform checking the pulse of things. And let me tell you, if I was a cardiologist with patients who were Twitter users, I'd have ambulances on standby. Lots of ambulances. It was heart-attack city.

On the one hand, you had the people who had left the platform coming back in droves, now giddy with the thought of being able to spew their disinformation and hatred with reckless abandon, now that Musk had somehow restored their 1st Amendment rights. And on the other hand, you had the people who had flooded the platform after Trump was kicked off apoplectic at the thought of not being able to spew their disinformation and hatred with reckless abandon now that Musk is in charge. Which he's not, at least not until the deal goes through - and he could still screw it up. 

Here's just a bit of the wonderment.

And what about blue checkmark people? The checkmark, the symbol of 'authenticity' on Twitter, will lose its oomph when Musk takes over, if not sooner - more people could get it, under his current thinking. Will that make the authenticated folks mad, I wonder? 

I mean, they'll be losing some of their specialhood or something - and if I'm willing to subscribe to a paid Twitter, they'd be no different from me. Well, they'd still have lots more followers, but at least 99% of mine are real...

During the week, I circled back to the Extra Credit post, intrigued (boggled might be a better word) by a conversation Spartz had with an American on one of her trips home. The gentleman said 

You know, Victoria, these Ukrainians, they're actually more Americans than I thought. They really remind me of Americans, and they really inspire all of us.

I was inspired by that comment, or at least my sarcastic inner child was inspired, and that led to a Sidebar on how we would rise to the occasion of an honest-to-goodness existential threat like Ukraine's. 

• The Rs in states along the southern border would race directly into the Rio Grande to pull immigrants from the water. Unaccompanied minors and other children would be sent to temporary detainment facilities to sew MAGA flags and make other mission-critical supplies, while adults, including parents, rapists, murderers, drug dealers and the other 'not the best people' will be sent with their COVID and fentanyl to the trenches. Promises of speedy citizenship would be dangled, of course, with no intention of anyone ever making good on them.

• The Ds would do their best to ensure that no one got sent to battle unless the government first wiped out their student loans, and guaranteed that, no matter what, they can't be evicted from their home for the duration of their service, including any time served as a POW or in any other state of confinement.

Sure, it was dark, and silly, but in the end, I can't for the life of me understand what that guy was thinking. 

I closed out the week with my usual exercise - the TGIF 'good week/bad week' list-making. And it was a bit of a challenge. Here's one example.

I'm not sure whether this is indicative of a good week or a bad week, but four progressive Ds  (Reps. Cori Bush, AOC, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib) and four conservative Rs (Reps. Lying Cawthorn, MTG, Thomas Massie and Chip Roy) voted against a symbolic bill that urges President Biden to seize and sell the assets of Russian oligarchs, and use the money to help Ukraine. This brought much joy, or chagrin, to the Twitterverse: having these folks on the same side of an issue is a rare treat, for sure.

 Grab yourself a rare treat, enjoy the day, and I'll see you later for Sunday School.