Trump to Putin: no Russian interference in 2016

For some, it was proof that President Trump’s bromance with Russian Federation president, Vladimir Putin, was stronger than media portrayals, yet Trump’s words at the news conference in Helsinki on Monday gave credence to the dangerous denials that were made on U.S. soil: there was no proof that Russian spies interfered with the 2016 presidential election, and anything to the contrary was fake news.

Uttering the denials, and not answering direct questions from reporters about charges of collusion, and asserting that he won the election fair and square, in a “brilliant’ campaign and one in which, there was no collusion at all with his campaign staff, and that of Russians, seemed as one reporter deemed it ‘surreal”; it was also alarming that they were made on foreign soil, and with Putin less than an arm's length away, it seemed to begin the tolling of the doomsday bells, for the Trump administration.

Anderson Cooper, who anchored CNN's coverage from Helsinki before and after the press conference, declared it "perhaps one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president at a summit in front of a Russian leader that I have ever seen."

The Hill, the ultimate inside-the-beltway publication quoted David Gergen, a former adviser in the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton administrations, called it "embarrassing" for Trump to bring up Hillary Clinton's emails and the 2016 election on the international stage.

“I’ve never heard an American president talk that way, but I think it’s especially true that when he’s with someone like Putin — who is a thug, a world class thug — that he sides with him again and again against his own country’s interests,” Gergen said.

It’s certainly is not far from the charges that critics have dubbed treason, or at best high comes and misdemeanors, coming from his lips, and that of some of his current, and former associates, both from the campaign, and from the West wing.

“Fox News, which is normally friendlier territory for the president, was also largely critical of Trump's performance. Bret Baier called the press conference "surreal,” they also reported.

In his Tweet, Brit Hume, another Fox correspondent said, “Trump, finally asked whom he believes on Russia interference, gives a vague and rambling non-answer, with renewed complaints about Hillary’s server. Says he trusts US intel but made clear he takes Putin’s denials seriously. Lame response, to say the least.”

Then again, we suppose no one should be surprised. We saw Trump being Trump,  only the locale differed, which tilted even his supporters from FOX away from him, in horror --- and the mention of Hillary Clinton, is in keeping, with the “I won, and I am king of the hill” mantra that he has said again, and again.

Conveniently missing was that he won the Electoral College votes, but lost the popular, which Clinton won.  But, then details do not matter with Trump, because as one wag said, “it’s his world, the rest of us just live in it.”

Humor aside, Monday’s statements put him on a dangerous slope, and especially with the midterms coming soon, and where Democrats are predicted to win a majority in the House and maybe a slim majority in the House.

“Ari Fleischer, a former aide in the George W. Bush administration and a Fox News contributor, said Trump's acceptance of Putin's denials gives him a better understanding for why Democrats "think Putin must have the goods on him."

"Something tells me Trump’s easy acceptance of Putin’s POV will send his critics into an even higher state of hysterics," Fleischer tweeted. "Trump’s supporters will not be moved. And the few people left in the middle like me think he should have been tougher on Putin, but we’ll wait for Mueller.”

The fact that there were 12 Russian nationals found guilty by special prosecutor, Robert Mueller, and no mention, or even demand, that they be extradited to the U.S. even if symbolically, has many questioning not just the relationship, with Russia and its president, but his understanding of statecraft.

Dismissing, and dissing, the charges, Trump said, in response, to no one in particular, “There was nobody to collude with. There was no collusion with the campaign and every time you hear all of these you know 12 and 14 stuff that has nothing to do and frankly they admit - these are not people involved in the campaign.”

As if, on cue, Putin said, “I had to reiterate things I said several times, including during our personal contacts, that the Russian state has never interfered and is not going to interfere into internal American affairs including election process,” Putin said through a translator. “Any specific material, if such things arise, we are ready to analyze together.”

He went on to suggest Russia would be ready to collaborate with U.S. officials on a “joint working group on cybersecurity.”

Fox Business Network's Neil Cavuto laid into Trump, calling it “disgusting” that the president did not confront Putin.

In a late development, on Monday afternoon, “A criminal complaint was unsealed today in the District of Columbia charging a Russian national with conspiracy to act as an agent of the Russian Federation within the United States without prior notification to the Attorney General.”

The announcement - from the U.S. Department of Justice - was made by Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jessie K. Liu, and Nancy McNamara, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office.

“Maria Butina, 29, a Russian citizen residing in Washington D.C., was arrested on July 15, 2018, in Washington, D.C., and made her initial appearance this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. She was ordered held pending a hearing set for July 18, 2018.

According to the affidavit in support of the complaint, from as early as 2015 and continuing through at least February 2017, Butina worked at the direction of a high-level official in the Russian government who was previously a member of the legislature of the Russian Federation and later became a top official at the Russian Central Bank.  This Russian official was sanctioned by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control in April 2018.”

Despite this news and in favor or what was heard on Monday, and cheerleading from the sidelines was former Trump advisor, Sebastian Gorka, who in an opinion piece wrote, “Unlike his predecessor, President Trump is a pragmatist who sees the world as it is. His is not hobbled by a default setting that sees America as the cause of the world’s ills. At the same time, he understands how the clear expression of power and success shapes relationships and can influence the behavior of bad actors. That is why he is the right man to meet with and rein in the former KGB colonel.”

Using much of the same language that he did with the Charlottesville demonstrations, and counter demonstration, where white supremacists marched on a sleepy southern college town, Trump said, again, on foreign soil, and with a leader whose legendary obfuscation and posturing, are well known, “Yes I do. I hold both countries responsible. I think that the United States has been foolish. I think we've all been foolish we should have had this dialogue a long time ago a long time frankly before I got to office. And I think we're all to blame.”

It’s also becoming crystal clear that Clinton’s calculated wariness to Putin was another nail in her coffin, in her quest to become president, because as Putin noted, “President Trump, when he was a candidate, he mentioned the need to restore Russia U.S. relationship and it's clear that a part of American society felt sympathetic about it and different people could express their sympathies in different ways.

But isn't that natural? Isn't it natural to be sympathetic towards a person who is willing to restore the relationship with our country who wants to work with us? We heard the accusations about the Concorde country. Well as far as I know this company hired American lawyers and the accusations doesn't have a fighting chance in the American courts. So there's no evidence when it comes to the actual facts. So we have to be guided by facts not by rumors.”

It’s not too easy with this reasoning why the former KGB agent gets along so well with the U.S. president, who in their statements echo each other in denials and dismissals, a tactic honed by his years as KGB, or as he said in 2004, “There is no such thing as a former KGB man.”

Much like Putin who destroyed the newfound freedoms of his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, “took control of the news media,” and created a “managed democracy”, noted the magazine THE WEEK, this past April.

Putin also destroyed anyone, and anything, he deemed in opposition, a posture that Trump seems to admire; and in his quest to reshape the Republican party, has set course, say critics, on destroying public education, environmental protections, the voting rights act, reproductive health for poor women, housing and food vouchers - the list is endless.

While restoring economic stability after Russia's deep recession and runaway inflation in the 1990s, Putin’s moves are mostly popular, for his “social contract”.

Trump, in turn, is willing to destroy NATO’s reputation for Republicans, and in this sense, it is what seems the be the underlying methods these past few days, while abroad, and in one poll, the results may be mostly successful where over 50 percent of Republicans now distrust NATO.

As seen in The Washington Post, Fareed Zakaria, said this” “Jonathan Chait writes in New York magazine that “Trump is training his base to hate NATO and like Putin.” Indeed, Trump has been remarkably successful: Fifty-one percent of Republicans now believe the United States shouldn’t defend NATO allies unless they increase defense spending. Even more astonishingly, Trump seems to have reversed Republican attitudes toward Russia and its dictator, Vladimir Putin. At a recent rally, Trump said, “You know what? Putin’s fine. He’s fine. We’re all fine. We’re people.” Republicans are now twice as likely as Democrats to express a favorable opinion of Putin, and 56 percent of Republicans want to cooperate and engage more with Russia.”

The proof of that pudding is in the eating, and it seems that desert is now being served.

Brett Kavanaugh: ready to do conservative battle

President Trump’s announcement on Monday evening of his nominee to fill the empty slot on the United States Supreme Court, with D.C. Appellate Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh, brought some surprise to those outside the administration, who were expecting that Amy Coney Barrett might have been the choice, yet as many have said, he felt simpatico with him, and that the confirmation process would be less contentious with Kavanaugh, than with her.

The 53 year old, in his initial remarks made it clear that he, above all, was a loyalist ,and in that all-too-familiar tone that gives obsequious a new twist he said, ““No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.”

As others have pointed out, how could he have known this? Ruling out time travel, it’s easy to see why many groaned when they heard those words as they bounced off the gilt and cream walls of the East Room, with George Washington, looking down, from his gilded frame, or was that aghast, at what was said?

Naked partisanship aside, the rightward turn to the Court is now becoming reality, and maybe another opportunity with Judge Ginsburg, well into her 80s. But, this is a road that has been long prepared, by conservatives, with the intent of revoking Roe v. Wade.

NBC News has portrayed Trump as the water carrier for conservatives on Court nominations and in fact, this was used, as a way to carry undecided voters in the 2016 election. As they noted: “Polls have shown that power over the Supreme Court nominees was critical to getting Republicans who had misgivings about Trump’s fitness for office to the polls — he issued two lists of conservative judges pleasing to activists over the course of the 2016 campaign — and they’ve also been an important reason for Republican members of Congress to refuse to provide meaningful oversight on an unprecedentedly corrupt president. Trump’s selection of orthodox conservatives to the courts reflects his understanding of this dynamic.”

While there has been some scuttle butt that retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy's resignation was engineered, and that there were supportive business dealings between both the Trump and Kennedy families, what proves to be more reliable is that Kavanaugh is the man for the job in the eyes of many.

As has been noted:  “He is not only of a very conservative legal bent, he has taken a view of executive power that Trump is sure to find pleasing. In a 2012 law review article, he suggested that Congress should consider a law forbidding the president not merely from prosecution but even from being investigated while in office. “Criminal investigations take the President’s focus away from his or her responsibilities to the people,” Kavanaugh argued. “And a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President.”

For the Democrats the knowledge that they,, due to their slim minority in the Senate,  can get nowhere without help from across the aisle, gives support to two senators, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, who have said, especially, the latter that they could not support a candidate that wants to revoke Roe.

Collins has remained her ladylike self and said that she is impressed by Kavanaugh's credentials, as they are, but not gone further beyond that. Yet some of her liberal detractors have said that in the past she has voted along party lines for confirmation to the Court, 99 percent of the time.

It’s very important to remember that these two lawmakers were able to stop the Affordable Care Act from total destruction

For the Democrats, their way to try to win is to trash talk the GOP, and the candidate, on lack of support for healthcare, with the specter of millions without health care; an issue that is of special concern for women voters, and lawmakers, who we have noted earlier, are in important voting bloc, in the upcoming midterm elections.

"Democrats believe the No. 1 issue in America is health care, and the ability of people to get good health care at prices they can afford," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

The Kavanaugh nomination, he added, "would put a dagger" through the heart of that belief.

As National Public Radio noted, “Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., on the Senate floor Tuesday. Chief Justice Roberts was the decisive fifth vote to uphold the ACA in a key case in 2012. "[Republicans'] new strategy is to use the court system to invalidate the protections in the law for people with pre-existing conditions, Murphy said.

Murphy — and many of his Democratic colleagues — are referring to a case filed in Texas in February by 20 Republican state attorneys general. The AGs from these states charge that because the tax bill passed by Congress last year eliminated the tax penalty for not having health insurance, it rendered the entire federal health law void.

Their reasoning was that Roberts based his opinion upholding the ACA on Congress' taxing power. Without the tax, the AGs argue, the law should be held unconstitutional,” they concluded.

On the chopping block is the refusal to insure those with pre-existing conditions.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has told everyone that he wants Kavanaugh confirmed and installed before the midterms; a statement that rankles the Democrats as they watched Republican leaders delay, and further delay the confirmation of Merrick Garland, President Obama’s choice to replace Antonin Scalia, citing historical precedent, but not accurately.

Once again this is base politics, so that Trump can give a laundry list no matter how short of his success: Neil Gorsuch, as first on the Court, the Muslim Travel Ban, the Tax Plan, U.S. withdrawal from the Iran Treaty, and maybe NAFTA.

Adding Kavanaugh, and then a repeal of Roe would give him street cred as a true Republican conservative, something that many doubted during the election.

A little known fact is that “The most important player is the conservative legal movement is the Federalist Society, created in 1982 to counter the perceived liberal bias of law schools. It has become a well-funded and hugely influential organization, transforming itself into the go-to group that conservative would-be judges need by their side. Important scholarly books by political scientists Amanda Hollis-Brusky and Steven Teles have shown how the organization influenced a generation of conservative judges and legal scholars, and provides the information Republican presidents now rely on to pick federal judges.”

Perception aside McConnell might want to take a step back as some people do not want to rush this confirmation --- as was said, by New York Magazine: “That James Bopp, one of the conservative legal architects behind the anti-Roe campaign was opposed to Kavanaugh is an interesting twist in a nominating process that has been beset by indecision. And don’t think for a moment that Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, will rush the confirmation process. A stickler for process with an abiding respect for Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat in the committee, he won’t hold a vote until every senator is satisfied and every piece of paper in Kavanaugh’s voluminous record has been turned over and examined.”

“It’s all over but for the fighting,” is an old Southern expression and it seems to ring here, quietly but insistently.

Other groups wary of Kavanaugh, are LGBT groups and Planned Parenthood, the bête noire of conservatives.

In a statement, Equality Illinois, the state’s civil rights organization for LGBTQ people, said, among others, that “We at Equality Illinois will work with our state and national partners to analyze Judge Kavanaugh’s record and call our community to action in the coming days. We will fight and resist an anti-LGBTQ nominee who would try to turn back the clock on our civil rights. The history of LGBTQ people demonstrates that we know how to show up, speak up, and fight back.”

In another statement from Jennifer Welch, President and CEO Planned Parenthood of Illinois, she said:  “Planned Parenthood of Illinois (PPIL) believes that no one should be denied care based on where they live; unfortunately Illinois is surrounded by states with unnecessary barriers and restrictions on reproductive health care. While House Bill 40 eliminated the immediate threat to abortion rights in Illinois, it doesn’t remove the long-term threat of rolling back rights if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, and PPIL will continue to work alongside our partners to educate the public, and our senators, about the dangerous implications of Brett Kavanaugh being appointed to the United States Supreme Court. We are encouraged by Senators Duckworth and Durbin’s vocal statements about advocating and protecting the rights of all Illinoisans.”

It should be noted that Kavanagh is a practicing Roman Catholic, and by all accounts is the consummate Washington insider having been born and raised in the nation's capital and attending its elite schools, including Georgetown Prep.

While the GOP and the conservative elite are looking forward to a long sought desire, especially since the days of the liberal Warren Court, it’s also interesting to see that while they profess to be strict constructionists, it's equally interesting to see that the independence of the tripartite of the federal, the judiciary and the executive have become blurred in a desire to move their agenda along.

Once again, it’s all over but for the fighting.

Amy Coney Barrett: Crusader for religous conservatism

The providential nature of the formation of the United States has been one of the more enduring aspects of the founding of the nation. The country on the whole has been described in its earliest documents and literature as “The New Jerusalem”, and “The City on the Hill.” 

American currency is printed with the words, “In God We Trust,” and there are countless prayer appeals from suburban football players, and words of thanks from Hollywood film stars to Broadway actors, as they hold their gilded awards aloft, after winning performances, in thanksgiving to the Almighty for their victory.

For some, it came as no surprise that Amy Coney Barrett, one of the contenders for the empty slot on the Supreme Court, announced, when she was first confirmed, for her current position, that her Roman Catholic faith informed her decisions.

That fact became part of a notable exchange, from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, when she commented, as Politico recalled, “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that people have fought for years in this country,” in an obvious reference to those that have fought for a liberal and progressive agenda.

Adding flames to the fire of discontent, by some, on the left, was that “While she identifies as a Roman Catholic, Barrett is also a member of People of Praise, a small Christian group that practices traditions outside mainstream Christianity, according to the New York Times. Among the group’s practices are a tradition of swearing a lifelong covenant of loyalty to one another and the belief that husbands have more authority than wives over a family.”

Americans love the Christian affiliation, from its founders to its adherents, but in the area of practice it has struggled with how and when it can be called up, or tamped down in national political life.

The Constitution says only that there be no established religion, and that all are free to practice their religion, freely, and without compromise, as they see fit.

Thomas Jefferson, in his reply to a letter from the Danbury Baptists, in 1801, who wanted a national day of fasting, famously and eloquently, described the “wall of separation” between church and state, that has been used by many, thereafter, with some actually erroneously thinking that his words are enshrined in the document.

Then there was the Scopes Trial, on the teaching of evolution, and then Madalyn Murray O’Hair, famously adhering to atheism wearing her “sugar scoop” hat and crinolines, with the Stars and Stripes in the background of one of her more remembered photos.

Shortly thereafter was Dr. Martin Luther King, framing the rights of Black Americans in the words of Holy Scripture, in moral terms, and paraphrasing from the Book of Amos, ““until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream,” as a plea for justice.

During the early years of the administration of George W. Bush there was the joining of the moral majority and the many prayer breakfasts across Capitol Hill, where some lawmakers had Bible study as an option, making that wall more porous than Jefferson intended.

Now, in the 21st century we have a divided nation, in both thought, word, and deed, by a president who played on the conscience of those that never embraced the rights movement, by blacks, women, or gays; and were brought to the polls by words that spurred them on to “take back” the nation, making the 2016 presidential election look like a religious crusade.

With descending polls, Trump, as we have often seen is looking to hanging on, along with fellow Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections that many say will turn the tide for the flailing Democrats, struck down by the crash and burn of Hillary Clinton.

The actions of the president, as we have discussed in earlier columns, be they children separated from their parents as they illegally enter the country to the travel ban for some Muslim majority countries, has seized the prejudices of a few for the rule of the majority.

Enter Amy --- the preferred candidate, say some, to fill the Kennedy resignation, and again, as Politico noted: “Her rapid ascent in elite legal circles is due in part to a calculation by the president’s legal team, which is looking to inculcate Trump and the Republican Party more broadly against Democratic attacks that they are coming after women’s rights.

The solution, argue an increasing number of conservatives, is for the president to tap a woman — but a reliable conservative — to replace Kennedy, who for years ping-ponged between the court’s liberal and conservative wings. “The main reason I favor Barrett ... is the obvious one,” Ponnuru wrote in a Bloomberg View op-ed: “She’s a woman. It may be that in an ideal world, the sex of a Supreme Court nominee would not matter. But opposing a woman will probably be more awkward for senators than opposing a man would be. “

Pasting gender onto religious conservatism, is a new tack, and it might work, say some we have spoken to.

Then move to the most emotional and contentious social issue for Americans, abortion, as a freedom, enshrined in Roe V. Wade, and the stakes get even higher: a woman, on what many see as a woman’s issue, and the religious conservatism that has embraced Roman Catholic Cardinals to Southern Fundamentalism, the opportunity is too bold, to reject.

“The subject of controversy with Feinstein and other Democrats in Barrett’s October 2017 confirmation hearing was a 1998 article she co-authored with John Garvey, president of the Catholic University of America, arguing that Catholic judges should in some cases recuse themselves from death penalty cases given their moral objections to capital punishment,” a shot that has some precedent, and punishment, when John Kerry, was told by some, running as president that due to his pro-life stance he would be denied Holy Communion, by some bishops such as Raymond Burke.

The thorns of the past, while still present, in virtual files, might not come to pass, since Barrett has a thin judicial record, yet some say even that does not matter. In one move, that can be read, is whether Roe was even remotely tenable, on its basis.

The latest news is that Trump may be giving a second look to Thomas Hardiman, whose affable personality and rags-to-riches story is appealing; and who is less likely to have the brutal fight for confirmation, than Barrett would have.

Another top contender, Brett M. Kavanaugh, a former staff secretary to George W. Bush, is not seen by some in the White House as being sufficiently conservative; but others see that as a slight, since both he and Barrett are comparatively young, and their appointments would swing the Court to the right, for decades to come.

In the absence of the London bookies, all that is left is hope, lawyerly wings, and maybe a prayer, for the final decision, to be announced Monday evening at 9:00 p.m., from the White House.

June Jobs Report: strong U.S. market with weak wages

Friday mornings release of the June Jobs Report by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics gave support to many that the U.S. economy is strong, even with the slight uptick of the unemployment rate by a point; but seeing that 213,000 jobs were added, pleases many economists, and academics, and exceeded payroll processor ADP’s prediction of 177,000, but ahead of the 195,000 that was predicted from BLS.

This is the 92nd straight month, beginning in October of 2010 with the Obama administration, of straight gains, for the nation.

Then there is the still weak news about wages, as we have consistently seen -- this time we saw that the average hourly wage has risen by 0.2 percent, and only 0.3 percent from May of this year.

The mere fact that this is still a problem in an otherwise strong report makes for another head-scratcher among economists, whose knowledge shows that the inverse relationship between the two figures belies all of the rules of macroeconomics.

Offering a glimmer of hope is that labor force participation increased -- but without a gain in wages 211,00 -  the question begging to be asked is why, or more importantly, why is this such a persistent problem?

With hiring so far ahead of growth it has turned conventional economic theory on its head, once again.

Last month we showed that some observers felt that wage increases were only given to those than changed jobs,  and not those that stayed in place. And, this theory may still be holding.

Mark Hamrick, Bankrate.com senior economic analyst says "I think typically, the easiest way to get a wage increase is to just change jobs," he says. "Most workers do not have much bargaining power with their current employer, because they've already got you."

The increase of 600,00 people joining the workforce was good news for some, especially considering that, of those that did get jobs, three-quarters of them were from the ranks of the unemployed.

“I’m really excited to see that the labor force is growing,” said Catherine Barrera, chief economist of the online job site ZipRecruiter, in an interview with The New York Times.

“The number of Americans working part time because of their inability to find a full-time position fell — as did the number of those too discouraged to bother searching,” and while the increase in the jobless rate increased to 4 percent, “Ms. Barrera was unruffled, saying ‘there were some people who weren’t participating in the labor force who are now being encouraged to return.’”

“The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) increased by 289, 000,” BLS also stated.

Earlier this year, there was some fear that the economy might overheat, but now those fears have been allayed by the June numbers.

“This should take a little bit of pressure off the Federal Reserve to step up the pace of tightening,” said Jim O’Sullivan, chief economist of High Frequency Economics, reported the Times with his remarks, with some also “referring to the debate over how quickly to raise benchmark interest rates,” but some are saying that with no strong changes in place, that they will continue as planned,

There have been as usual, gains and losses, with the strongest areas being, once again in professional and business services, showing an increase to 50,000 in June, with overall strength showing 521,000 over the year. But, as always we offer the cautionary note that this is a catchall category, which can hold temporary office workers as well as accountants, so it’s tough to tease out the particulars, and begin the applause.

Construction workers saw an increase of 13,000 in June with annual gains of 282,000 over the year; an important figure with the changes in supply management, that looked grim, for some.

“Health-care payrolls jumped 25,000 for the month, increasing by a total of 309,000 for the year,” but this is also another catch-all label that could include everything from registered nurses,

Most significantly is that retailers lost 22,000 jobs last month after a gain of 25,000 in May, but with the continued rise of online shopping and the closing of some Sears stores, plus that of the iconic Toys R Us, this figure is not entirely unexpected.

New jobless claims are at an all-time low, and some consumers, as the Times reported, treated themselves to a new car, pleasing Detroit automakers.

All of this good news is tempered by the beginning of the trade war that President Trump has begun with the increase in tariffs, this Friday, against China, in steel and other products.

The Times was not shy about stating that “Anxieties over the fallout from a trade war, however, continue to cast shadows as $34 billion in additional tariffs on China went into effect on Friday, and the Chinese vowed to retaliate. “They’re playing with fire, really,” Mr. O’Sullivan said of the Trump administration’s trade policies. While welcoming the positive labor report, he nonetheless noted that “we could do with a scare in these numbers to force trade negotiations along.”

Most of the effect, say some, would be on manufacturing employees and working families, as we are beginning to see already with the Harley Davidson move to Europe to increase their share of that market and others.

Bloomberg news did say that “While analysts say June is too early to see significant fallout from trade tensions in the employment data, such forces are starting to emerge as a possible counterweight to the tax cuts buoying corporate investment and consumer spending -- and boosting a labor market that’s shown little sign of slowing. Yet anecdotal worries are mounting, with a U.S. factory survey on Monday showing executives “overwhelmingly concerned” about tariffs and two regional Federal Reserve presidents warning last week that a trade war is increasingly weighing on businesses and adding risks to the outlook.”

“For now, the underlying fundamentals are strong enough and the stimulus the economy is receiving from fiscal policy is large enough to outweigh the uncertainty from protectionism,” said Michael Gapen, chief U.S. economist at Barclays Plc in New York.”

Still problematic are the dearth of qualified workers to fill slots that some employers so desperately needed, say some employers, but despite some success in that area, employers have had to do somersaults in sign-on benefits, and salaries for some; but baby boomers still seem loathe to leave their self-imposed exile, and  join the workforce, once more.

Some big box stores such as Target set higher wage to lure some out of the woodwork, along with their grandchildren, but he result have been spotty,

Last month we reported this: “Looking at one often overlooked area is Diane Swonk, an economist with Grant Thornton, who is “watching teenage unemployment, which was 12.8 percent last month. In April, the rate stood at 12.9 percent, down from 14.7 percent in April 2017.” in her conversation with the Times.”

“Employers surveyed by Vistage survey last month said they are increasing pay, sweetening benefits packages and trying to create an appealing work culture to retain workers as well as attract new ones — including candidates not previously looking.

“As a result of this shortage, Hamrick says many firms will have to get more aggressive with training and sourcing their own workers. For recent grads and job seekers, this could be good news, as employers may be forced to hire and provide training to someone who may not ordinarily be qualified for the job. He adds that since many of the industries impacted by this gap rely heavily on an acquired skill, young professionals today should broaden their scope on the educational requirements they think are needed for employment.”

"It will be wonderful if young people take a wider view of the job market and not only associate it with jobs that come by virtue of a college degree, but also by learning a new skill," explains Hamrick.

Still, as this latest jobs report shows, the lengthening list of help-wanted postings has had only a modest effect on hourly earnings. Several employees said their reluctance to raise prices limited the wages they could offer.”

Even more so, says the Times, “despite the demand for workers, many of the available jobs, particularly in lower-wage sectors, are short on appeal. Many employers limit hours to avoid paying benefits like health insurance. Work shifts frequently change with little notice, and wage increases are still insufficient to cover living costs. Stability and security are often scarce.”

The last several reports reveal a different world and a different attitude as Hamrick and others have outlined, but the trade policies and tariffs of Trump have the great capacity to complicate the jobs market and the national economy even more, and not for the better, making what was once a  routine pulse taking of the jobs market, into a cause for an increase in blood pressure.