Racism: As American as Apple Pie

Former President Bill Clinton perhaps summed it up, best, when several years ago he called racism, “our most intractable problem,” a statement which came to mind after two recent disturbing racial incidents: the light sentence - 7 years - that Chicago policeman, Jason Van Dyke received after shooting 17-year-old  African American teenager, Laquan McDonald, 16 times, saying that he was in fear for his life, when the teen, who was breaking into cars, was actually walking away; and then just preceding that, a Chicago judge found no evidence of a cover up, by police on that scene, in their written reports, despite others that refuted it.

On the heels of these events, a group of Catholic High school boys, from Covington, KY, wearing “Make America Great” hats, who took part of the annual March for Life demonstration in Washington, DC, on the National Mall, were taunted by a fringe religious group, called the Black Israelites who taunted the boys, with racial epithets, and other vulgarities.

An American Indian group, also present on the Mall, part of the Indigenous Peoples March, had its drummer, Nathan Phillips, attempt, on his own effort, a peaceful diversion for what he felt what was potentially an explosive confrontation, between the two groups, beat his drum, rhythmically, chanting Native American hymns..

The unintended consequences was that the boys were indeed diverted, but also appeared to taunt the man, and,later one teen, junior Nick Sandmann, stood inches away from Phillips’ face, with a smirk, that seemed menacing to many observers of the video.

The video, which rapidly went viral, enraged most who had seen it, for various reasons, and a subsequent televised NBC interview, was called a PR setup, (there was some truth in that) and adding fuel to the fire was Sandmann’s saying in a soft drawl, ‘I had a right to stand there.”

Many have believed that Sandmann was blocking Phillips path, while others say that there was potential for a physical assault to the latter.

While many bemoaned the absence of chaperones, the mixture of privileged white teens, Native Americans, and African Americans, no matter the type of behavior, egregious or not,  was an admixture for a violent confrontation, for three groups that have faced off over the course of centuries, in what is now a divided America.

The racially exploitative statements by Donald Trump as a presidential candidate in 2016, especially the charge that Mexican immigrants were rapists and terrorists, added further burnishing to earlier assertions, about President Obama’s birthplace - not the US -  this disqualifying him from the presidency

This all  quickly brought a rush of nativism, and intolerance that quickly escalated to a peak of racial bigotry with the tipping point in the 2017 demonstrations in Charlottesville, by a band of white supremacists all wearing versions, of what is now known as the MAGA hat, and his trademark casual attire of khaki pants and a white golf shirt.

While some have denied the smirk, including Sandmann, others are seething at the level of disrespect and potential for violence, after the historic standoff between Christians and Native Americans, and in particular, some forced conversions by Roman Catholics, that included dragging some Indians to attend Mass, and forced to make the Sign of the Cross.

 “The Catholic Church was one of many Christian denominations that ran boarding schools in Canada and the U.S. designed to “kill the Indian in the child” by taking kids from their families, cutting them off from their culture and educating them in the ways of the European-minded settlers.”

While Pope Francis apologized to the American Indians for all that they suffered he also canonized Brother Juniper Serra, who had a history of physically abusing Indians; and he also, when given the chance, on a visit to Canada, did not apologize for the residential schools.

“Fifty different tribes in California condemned the sainthood conferred on Serra, said Deborah Miranda, a literature professor at Washington and Lee University in Virginia and a member of the Ohlone Costanoan Esselen Nation of California. She wrote "Bad Indians: A Tribal Memoir," a book about her ancestors' experiences in the Spanish missions.

"My objection and the objection of many California Indians is that he is being honored for in fact dishonoring many of our California ancestors. The missions ended up killing about 90% of the California Indians present at the time of missionization, creating all kinds of cultural and emotional baggage that we still carry to this day," Miranda said. "It's not a question of attacking the Catholic Church or attacking Pope Francis. It's about making sure that the truth is heard and that injustices are not continued on into the 21st century."

While the Black Israelites, are a fringe groups with a troubled history as described by The Washington Post, “They are members of The House of Israel, which draws from what scholars call Black Israelism, a complex American religious movement that can be dated to the 18th century, at least. Beliefs vary widely, but groups are bound together by the central tenet that African Americans are the literal descendants of the Israelites of the Bible and have been severed from their true heritage.”

The Post also stated, while they “are not heroes in this story, their beliefs can be seen, on one level, as people grasping for historical dignity.”

In a country that once enslaved Africans and their descendants and fought a civil war, based on their continued state, the United States, has seen through the ages, a legacy of bigotry and segregation, and seeing the “slap on the hand” for Van Dyke’s unwarranted actions, makes for continued anger by the city’s black residents.

It’s been well established that Chicago is one of the nation’s most segregated cities, a legacy of what has been a century of racially motivated behaviors that have disenfranchised, and divided, the city, lessening, and in some cases, thwarting economic development, as well as access to education, public resources and employment.

With the Trump presidency and his remarks about racial minorities, the unseen threat of terrorists, and gangs from the Southern border, the disparagement of Hondurans fleeing from violence, in their towns, and others, has angered many, it has also pleased those to whom his message of intolerance is seen as saving the country, and that includes Catholic pro-life advocates such as Fr. Frank Pavone, who is also a Trump supporter.

The Post also noted, that “The Friday incident happened less than a week after Trump made light of the 1890 Wounded Knee massacre of several hundred Lakota Indians by the U.S. cavalry in a tweet that was meant to mock Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), whom Trump derisively calls “Pocahontas.”

Of particular note: “A huge swath of March for Life attendees are Catholic students, from Catholic high schools that bus them into Washington for the event, and from Catholic colleges and universities. Some Catholic high schools in the region require students to attend. Attending the march can have the feel of being at a youth sporting event or field trip, with young people wearing matching clothes laughing and visiting with friends. The image of tens of thousands of young people marching and cheering for the antiabortion cause is one of the movement’s annual highlights.”

Some in the national media have called for a national dialogue, or to use the incidents on the Mall, as a “teachable moment”, but in the swirling maelstrom of hate, distrust, betrayal, and religious fervor, this is unlikely, and any efforts to establish a dialogue will be labelled as “fake news” by the radical right.

Clinton was correct, racism is indeed the nation’s most intractable problem, and the hopes, and the dreams for a New Jerusalem, where in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King: “I have a dream that one day little black boys and girls will be holding hands with little white boys and girls,” is just that - a dream.

Will Single Payer save U.S. healthcare?

Sen. Kamala Harris

Health care was the definitive issue that propelled the Democrats to leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives, during the recent midterm elections, and it’s bound to be on the agenda for the party as it moves progressively to the left; and after not being even remotely possible during the Obama administration, polls now show that it is the number one issue that most Americans care about.

In fact, a recent Reuters survey found that 70 percent of Americans now back universal healthcare.

The move to “Single Payer”, or what some are calling “Medicare for All”, has also become part of the litmus test for aspiring Democratic presidential hopefuls, and was on the platform for recently announced 2020 presidential candidate, Sen. Kamala Harris of California.

Not having comprehensive  healthcare for all of America, can also be seen, by some, as a moral issue; and, taking this stance is John Marty, who writing for Commonweal Magazine, noted, “The United States, the wealthiest nation on the planet, remains the only industrialized country that fails to provide health care for everyone. Our dysfunctional health-care system is bankrupting families and killing people by failing to provide needed care.”

Some history of how we got here

Helping us to take a look back on past efforts  is Investopedia, who stated, “Advocacy for a single-payer system in the U.S. is nothing new. In the fall of 1945, just after the end of World War II, recently inaugurated President Harry Truman addressed Congress with a plea for a national healthcare system. The American Medical Association opposed the idea, and it eventually faded away.”

Filling the void, were incremental steps: ”Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965, essentially becoming a de facto single-payer system for certain groups of the population – senior citizens, and young children and the poor, respectively.

In modern times, the strongest push to nationalize healthcare in the world’s largest economy happened in 1993. When her husband’s administration was months old, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton spearheaded the Health Security Act . . .the bill required all citizens to enroll in a government-approved health plan and forbade them from ever exiting that plan.”

In the space of less than ten years, when President Obama saw no possibility of a single payer bill  passing Congress, there is now the additional  push for a bill proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, to build on the foundation of the Affordable Care Act, known as “Obamacare”, which has helped 17 million Americans gain health coverage.

A new beginning?

“Imagine how much less stressful our lives would be without co-pays, deductibles, billing for services, lifetime limits or huge insurance premiums,” says University of Massachusetts Economics Professor Gerald Friedman.

Sanders proposes a 6.2 percentage fee paid by employers and for  families, 2.2 percent, resulting in total savings of $5800; and others are saying that there will be savings of $6 million over the current system.

Sen. Sanders

Giving a public push to the proposal that, “95 percent of U.S. households would save money under a single-payer plan,” says Mark Dimondstein, president of the American Postal Workers Union, in an Op-Ed piece last year for Cleveland.com.

Arguments for the single-payer option, are plentiful, but others are taking the tack that since the ACA was a “failure”, and is cost prohibitive, among them Friedman, a new effort should be made from whole cloth.

Part of the problem, he sees, for a GOP issued plan is it “would drive 22 million people from health insurance rolls, according to the Congressional Budget Office; incentivize employers to eliminate health coverage; limit coverage for pre-existing conditions; and drastically raise medical costs for seniors - all while giving billions in tax breaks to the wealthiest.”

What next?

Where are we now, say many? Is this an either or choice, or do we continue the struggle to harness healthcare, an effort almost as old as the nation, or do we give up, and go back to the dark days, where there was no coverage for preexisting conditions and where preventive care was not an option, except for those lucky enough to have a generous employer based plan.

Among those who are making single-payer, or Medicare for All, as the cornerstone of the new progressives, are  Rep. Alexandria Cortez-Ocasio, whose promotion of the plan, helped her unseat a seasoned New York incumbent,  and who publicized that she paid more, as a waitress, in the city, for health coverage, than she does as a member of Congress.

Joining in the opposition, are those who are “conservatives who simply abhor "big government." Some have perfectly valid reasons to question the merits of single payer in general or [Bernie] Sanders' methods in particular. Yet others claim they support universal healthcare in theory (one day, perhaps) but cannot do so now because of a "concern." They are "concern trolls" — broadly defined as "a person who disingenuously expresses concern about an issue with the intention of undermining or derailing genuine discussion," in a 2017 editorial in the LA Times.

With the single payer option, there is one source - the government - that would pay all health care providers and also negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies ro better drug prices.

Costs v. benefits

Nevertheless, some conservative concerns are valid: ”The Mercatus Center bakes in some assumptions that could vary the actual cost quite a bit. For example, its scholars assume (as the Sanders bill dictates) that hospitals and doctors would be paid at Medicare rates, a cut from private insurance rates but an increase from Medicaid rates. If the real payment rate were different, it could affect the price tag significantly.”

$32 trillion, to be exact, is the cost set by Sanders, and yet some supporters, while acknowledging this, also state, “Single-payer supporters are going to have to come up with a persuasive case that, yes, the federal government is going to spend more, but overall spending won’t go up. Taxes are going to rise for somebody, but many or even most Americans could end up saving money on their premiums or on out-of-pocket costs.”

Of course, as we have seen, partisan politics could bring the whole effort to a dead stop.

Circling back

Circling back, to those employer based plans, let’s take a look at how, and why, there were developed, and who benefits from them.

“Half of all Americans get health insurance through their jobs. That’s by design. Doctors and hospitals in the mid-20th century saw a rash of government-run systems being set up in Europe and they lobbied hard to avoid one of their own, vastly preferring private coverage. Employee benefits were exempted from wartime price controls during World War II, giving employers an incentive to offer them at a time when it was nearly impossible to offer raises. Labor unions got on board too, sensing an opportunity to expand the safety net for workers without needing to pass another massive piece of social reform so soon after the New Deal,” explained Vox in their continuing coverage.

“But the work-based system, for all its flaws, could also be the biggest barrier to enacting single-payer. Shifting 160 million people from the coverage they currently get through their jobs to a new government plan is a lot of disruption — and disruption, especially in health care, makes a lot of Americans nervous.”

“It's a real barrier to doing anything big,” says John Holahan at the Urban Institute, who helped create a proposal explicitly designed not to disrupt work-based insurance. “Most people with employer plans are reasonably happy with them.

When Vox conducted focus groups on single-payer, led by opinion researcher Michael Perry, one recurring concern we heard was from people who mostly like the insurance they have and were worried about losing it under Medicare-for-all.”

There is still a need . . .

The sad part is that “More than 30 million people still lack health coverage. Premiums and out-of-pocket costs for employer-sponsored plans have been rising steadily.

“Right now if you look at a lot of the labor disputes that go on, very often they have to do with health care. They have to do with employers saying, hey, you know what, we’re raising deductibles, raise your copayments.”

Sanders told Vox in 2017. “What we can say to those workers is they will be better off financially and that their business that they work for will be better off financially.”

With rising prices of the cost of healthcare, it is the one area that many employers cut back on the most, and is at the heart of many strikes, especially those by teachers.

There seems to be no simple solution in sight, and it is necessary, say some, to realize that “Employer health insurance does do a few things quite well. It covers a lot of people, of course. It helps pool risk — companies, particularly larger ones, are almost by default a useful mix of healthy and sick people, helping to spread costs around, because they were not formed for the purpose of providing health insurance.”

Prices are generally lower than the individual marketplace, and the insurance industry is trying to cover a menu of options and at a lower cost to meet need, while providing value to employees, say its defenders.

Sen. Merkley

“Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon progressive with stated presidential interests, co-sponsors Sanders Medicare-for-all bill — but he has also introduced his own narrower proposal with Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut to give people the option to buy a government plan.”

“You have folks who will say, ‘Wait a minute, I don’t have a choice,’ and they will provide resistance,” Merkley said, “And, of course, the private insurance companies, which would be replaced, will put up massive resistance.”

Insurance heroes? True or False?

There are those that countering the argument that insurance companies are working hard at improving coverage..

“They haven’t proven that successful at improving health or managing costs,” Caroline Pearson, a senior fellow at NORC-University of Chicago, says. “What they’re investing in hasn’t shown any return yet. Behavior change is really hard. Frankly, we have no idea how to do it well.”

Employer based insurance also favors high earners at large corporations, and not people in the lower income levels, with many left wondering should an employer decide what health coverage that you can get?

Single-payer supporters state that, "Medicare is a very popular program, so the idea of expanding it to everyone is popular as well," Larry Levitt, senior vice president for health reform at the KFF, told CNBC Make It  last  August. "The advantage of 'Medicare for all,' which is much closer to how the rest of the world provides health care to their residents, is that you can achieve universal coverage at a lower cost."

It does all come back to cost, and there are wide price disparities, for simple surgeries, and, ”a national comparison of hospitals, from The New York Times, showed pricing for the simplest form of knee replacement ranged from about $3,400 to about $55,800. Hospitals charging the low-end prices are not undercharging; they set prices sufficient to cover their costs. Those radical price disparities—unrelated to costs or benefits—show that some purchasers of health care are being charged as much as ten to fifteen times what is reasonable. A logical single-payer system negotiates prices, resulting in rational costs,” say advocates.

Opposition

Opposing is Scott Atlas, who in 2017, in an Op-Ed piece for CNN, saw the single payer option as being the worst option for the nation, and citing our neighbors to the North, said, “in Canada's single-payer system, the 2016 median wait for a referral from a general practitioner appointment to the specialist appointment was 9.4 weeks; when added to the median wait of 10.6 weeks from specialist to first treatment, the median wait after seeing a doctor to start treatment was 20 weeks, or about 4.5 months.”

In contradiction, one Canadian replied that these were mostly false statements, and emphasized “we wait, if it’s not urgent, but then we are more of a communal society than the States.”

Another Canadian expat, said in return, that was an example of  ‘Canadian conceit.”

“Increases in per capita healthcare spending in Canada have kept pace with those in the U.S., expenditures in the former having almost tripled since the mid-70s, going from $39.7 billion to $137.3 billion. The Canadian government not only acknowledges that many of its citizens have to wait a long time for care, but recently spent an additional billion dollars to examine the issue. In the meantime, watching the months pass is an unavoidable component of Canadian healthcare. If you want a new hip or knee, prepare to live with your old one for at least half a year,” say those in opposition among them, financial analyst, Greg McFarland.

Joining the naysayers are those who feel that control is lost and fear the bugaboo of government control.

This just in

Not to be outdone in the political climate, where winning is still winning and losing is well, still, losing is a report from Politico, released on Tuesday,  noting that “Several likely 2020 Democratic presidential candidates are pushing plans for something short of universal health care, a move already creating friction within the party's empowered left wing, which has panned any attempt to water down the progressive dream of a single-payer system.”

In a nod to political reality, “One idea gaining support is allowing some demographic groups to buy into Medicare earlier than age 65, while still incrementally building on Obamacare coverage gains.

“It’s easy to say ‘Medicare for All’ and make a good speech, but see no action,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), a potential 2020 candidate whose own bill would give retiring police and firefighters access to Medicare before 65. “I want to see action.”

It's a pathway Brown and many in the party establishment have gravitated toward in recent months — one that balances the desire to make a Trump-era lurch leftward with memories of the political blowback Democrats endured for a decade after their last revamp of the nation’s health system.”

“If we could make the leap straight to Medicare for All, I would love for us to do that,” Merkley said. “But it’s important to lay out a route about how we get to that vision. If you tell people the only choice they have is Medicare, that could produce a lot of folks being concerned about, ‘Wait a minute, I like my health care and you’re telling me I have to leave it.” - giving credence to the earlier arguments for retaining employer based insurance.

Chances are slim for Democratic hopes “of enacting any coverage expansion bill while Republicans control the Senate . . . rather, the party establishment is urging progressives to bide their time and use the next two years to perfect a plan the entire party can get behind come 2020.”

Trump on threats from Southern border

President Trump addressed the nation Tuesday, on network television, and his goal was to persuade the country that the danger to the nation’s southern border is fraught with such serious danger, that only a concrete wall is necessary to protect the nation from the danger of rapists, terrorists, and drug dealers, intent on harming the United States.

The truth is that most, thousands, intent on doing harm, in any manner, come through airports; yet another falsehood perpetuated by the president, and recently on FOX TV by White House spokesperson, Sarah Sanders, in his intent to keep a campaign promise on the wall, that has become central to his presidency and many of his supporters, and has succeeded in a partial shutdown of the government, sending thousands of government workers without a paycheck, an abyss that will cause untold pain, as they struggle to pay the bills.

Determined to blame the Democrats, for any failures to protect the nation, the truth, for many, is that this is not a conviction, but a political ploy, and a dangerous one; and, one that should he succeed will be fodder for the 2020 presidential election.

As Roll Call reported, “If his past statements are any indication,” the Oval Office remarks “will be full of malice and misinformation,” say Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, who will jointly deliver a response after the president’s remarks, said in a Monday statement.

Trump added another Friday, that he never promised his supporters a concrete-based border wall during his 2016 campaign. That’s false. His top aides have added another misleading statement in recent days, saying thousands of terrorist suspects have been detained at the southern border. DHS and State Department data show those have been made mostly at airports.”

To keep the pressure and the anxiety afloat, Vice-President Mike Pence “during the Monday session with reporters repeatedly uttered this line, aimed at trying to force Democratic leaders to the table: “There is a crisis at the southern border, and Democrats are refusing to negotiate.”

The White House has called for a national emergency in order to work around Congress, and build the wall anyway, to keep his promise, but will surely open the whole affair to a lawsuit and weighing in is “GOP Judiciary member, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, on Monday [who] said an emergency declaration would add “new elements to this — court hearings and litigation that may carry this on for weeks and months and years,” adding: “To me, injecting a new element in this just makes it more complicated.”

Roll Call also noted that “Margaret Taylor, a governance studies fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former Democratic chief counsel for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wrote recently that without an “appropriate statutory authority ... such action would be unconstitutional.” But she speculated that what White House lawyers are searching for “is what existing statutory authorities the president could reasonably rely on to use already-appropriated funds to build the wall.”

At best, as Taylor argued in her article, with all of the approvals needed, Trump might not be able to jump constitutional hurdles, to keep this promise,

The foundation of this effort lies the long standing nativism that reached its zenith with the arrival of the Irish immigrants in the 19th century, and peaked with the the Draft Riots in New York, and continued down through the ages, to the 2016 presidential election, where Trump claimed that Mexico was not sending the U.S. their best, but rapists and drug dealers, and gang leaders, stereotyping a large swath of people.

As we noted last January, Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign capitalized, largely, on fear-based prejudices that many Americans harbored towards immigrant from Mexico, and Central America. Add to that came the age-old pejoratives such as “wetbacks” and “jungle monkeys”, which stand in direct contrast to the stated ideals written on base of the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

The quote is from Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, “New Colossus”, and the welcoming sight of Lady Liberty, must have warmed the heart of many immigrants, not only from Ireland, but from Southern Italy, and Eastern Europe, to name but a few, fleeing from famine, war, and hunger.

It’s been often said, that had these Mexicans, and Central Americans, come from Northern Europe, and been Protestants, the hue and cry, for border walls, would be absent.

When the Honduran marchers came in search of political asylum and legal under American law, the optics, and the media were filled with people fleeing violence, and destruction in their home countries but met, after interminable delays, desperate acts to cross the border to Mexico and the States, to be met with tear gas and bullets; exhausted and drained many of them fell away.

Compounded with the deaths of children kept in freezing conditions, and even in cages, the result has shown the darker side of America.

Looking at the children who were separated from their parents, has now resulted in an effort of reunification, for many who were scattered across the country, and 66 to Chicago. But, the effort to reunify the children is fraught with the cumbersome apparatus of American bureaucracy, and poor record keeping, with the result, say critics, that many children will not see their parents again.

The resulting furor has not, as Abraham Lincoln said, been the “better angels of our nature,” yet many people in the nation cling to the negative, as well as the pejoratives, and Trump cleverly played on these prejudices, rallying his base, as well as the hackles of those opposing him.

The moral dimension has not been lost on those that heard the president, and one of them, was Jim Wallis of Sojourners Magazine who posted the following on the website: " . . .last night many feared that Trump would designate his falsified national security crisis a “national emergency,” which would justify bypassing the legislature to fund the wall. Such an act would violate the separation of powers in the Constitution, continuing Trump’s dismissals of presidential protocols, practices, and the rule of law, potentially a first step on the road to dictatorship. Thankfully, Trump did not make that declaration — yet. But make no mistake: If President Trump concludes from this episode that he can invent an emergency to justify ignoring the limits of the other branches of government, the survival of our democracy is in grave jeopardy."

So far, the GOP has backed Trump, but some are beginning to want a compromise to open the government and create a stopgap measure to fund border protection. But, we are now seeing some senators, such as Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins and Cory Gardner of Colorado, and James Lankford of Oklahoma, are pressing the president to accept some sort of compromise, to stem the vocal outcries of some federal workers that are facing a payless Friday.

Yet, that hope might be dashed when the president walked out of a meeting with Democratic leaders, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, when he asked the former if she would fund "my wall," and when she refused, said, "The we have nothing to discuss," and walked out of the room.

December jobs report comes in roaring like a lion

The December Jobs report released on Friday practically leapt off the monitors, and onto the laps of waiting officials, and newsmakers, with the trumpets blaring that there were 312,000 non-farm jobs gained, when there were only expectations of 180,000, and the unemployment rate was 3.9, up from 3.7, on the household side.

Some optimists have noted, that wages are on the “higher side of a moderate to moderate pace,” but that might be more than a glass full.

That was only one voice, as others said, “Hey, hold on, not so fast that banner rate of 3.9 percent unemployment is OK,, but not that much better than November, and besides, everyone knows that the household survey is more accurate, and that is just a tad over 7 percent.”

Another voice in the crowd says, “Well that’s all good, but even better is that these numbers represent real employment, and after all, isn’t that what we’re all about Alfie?”

Bringing up the rear was this: “I don’t want to take all of the joy out of America’s hearts, but what about wages? That 3.2, is only a paltry increase. Show me the money, and then we can talk!”

From the Rose Garden of the White House, President Trump exclaimed, ““312,000 jobs was a tremendous number and obviously having a big impact on the stock market today,” he said, adding that the pickup in wage growth was “beautiful to watch.”

The hardnosed truth is that all of these voices are present, and while real wages, are not what they need to be, or even should be, it’s better than previous months, is the best said.

Cheering on the news was Fed Chair Jerome Powell, who noted that the Fed would not move quickly to raise rates unlike last tear.

Not to be outdone, but joining the Hallelujah Chorus was the usual cast of bankers and economist, and here is a small, yet sturdy, selection of comments culled from The New York Times.

“It’s an unequivocally phenomenal report all the way around,” said Ellen Zentner, chief United States economist at Morgan Stanley. “Anyone that finds something negative in this report is simply cherry picking.”

Economists offered raves that could appear on a movie poster or a book jacket — “Extraordinary!” “Blowout,” “Wow!” The figures, they said, offer a resounding response to the question of whether a recession is imminent: “Never mind!” said David Berson, chief economist of Nationwide. “The fears of the economy tipping into a recession now have clearly been overstated.”

Wages, as previously noted, are still a problem, for many, yet the report gave hope to many, but as we have noted in previous months, with the banner number this high, there should be higher wages, at least hitting 4 percent, or higher. The reasons, why we are not seeing them, is due to a number of factors: the mega employers, like Amazon are depressing wages with their global eight; employers are still seeing a lack of the right skill set, for the jobs that need to fill; and, higher wages are being given to those who change jobs, and have the right skills, but those that remain are being paid the same old wages.

The gap between education and experience has continued unabated, and that gap is particularly vexing to “the finance and insurance industries [who] are the most apt to see education and training as the largest impediments to hiring: 63 percent single this out as the primary reason.”

“In December, private sector workers (excluding farmworkers) got an average 11-cent hourly raise, adding up to an average hourly pay of $27.48. That’s a tiny bump, and reflects more of the slow wage growth that has plagued the economy in recent years. In the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have only increased 84 cents, or 3.2 percent, and that doesn’t even take inflation into account,” noted Vox.com.

“Wages, which for months only inched up, have begun to pick up more quickly. December’s year-over-year increase hit 3.2 percent, tying October for the biggest surge since 2009”, noted the Times.

Let’s go even further, as the good folks at Vox, said, “Over the past year, prices rose, so paychecks had to stretch further. When the 2.2 percent inflation rate is taken into account (based on the Consumer Price Index), workers’ wages only grew about 1 percent within the past year.”

“The price index for personal-consumption expenditures, the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation gauge, rose 1.8% from a year earlier in November, the latest month for which data is available,” noted the Wall Street Journal.

They also noted that “the recovery has gone on for so long that it has finally begun to benefit the lowest-paid workers, who have seen the biggest pay gains.”  But, then that is not news, we have seen that for the last two months, and while this is helpful, it does not define the market.

A significant bright spot, continuing from August, is the increase in hiring for job seekers with only a secondary education. And some employers are decreasing requirements, overlooking lesser marijuana convictions, and even giving employees greater control over their schedule, as a further hiring incentive.

Overall, it will be hard to try and define the market, and while some are giving laud, others are taking a cautionary note, for example: "When we look at the job market, it's a bit of a counterpoint to the tremendous amount of volatility we see elsewhere in the economy, and essentially in society," Bankrate.com senior economic analyst Mark Hamrick tells CNBC Make It.

He adds that while the current jobs report does provide some measure of comfort, job seekers should be mindful of a possible hiring slowdown due to risk factors like rising interest rates, trade war tensions and a low stock market.”

Weighing opportunity and risk may be the best effort for workers, and check bank reserves and keep a constant network for that rainy day that might be around the corner.

What is not around the corner is the resignation of Jay Powell, the Fed Chair, that has been under so much fire and vitriol from President Trump, who has publicly criticized him. He told reporters, when asked whether he would resign if Trump asked him to, Mr. Powell simply said, “No.”

“Wall Street’s enthusiastic response to the jobs numbers was magnified by Mr. Powell’s comments. The S&P 500 index closed up more than 3 percent,” which was gleefully reported, again, by the Times.

“Powell’s statement that he’s willing to adjust central bank policy, if needed, represents a step back from a dogmatic determination to raise interest rates and is a concession to financial markets, said Andrew Brenner, head of global fixed income at Nat Alliance Securities.”

“We will be prepared to adjust policy quickly and flexibly and use all of our tools to support the economy should that be appropriate,” Mr. Powell said in response to recent volatility that has jolted financial markets.

“He’s blinking, big time,” Mr. Brenner said.

On the global side, China is facing an economic downturn, which can dampen trade, and its existing tariff war with Washington doesn't help; and the U.S. auto industry faces a possible downturn with the advent of driverless vehicles, and demand for electric cars.

Taking a cue from the Cassandras of a few months ago, “On Thursday, the Institute for Supply Management released a survey showing the biggest drop in manufacturing activity since 2008. Many manufacturers blamed rising costs related to tariffs. (The index reading of 54.1 still showed an economy in expansion.) Measures of consumer confidence have also weakened recently.”

Underemployment is still a factor and the share of people who have part-time positions but would prefer to work full time is higher today than it was in 2007, before the Great Recession.

Labor force participation is continuing a downward slide, “a far smaller share of the American population is working today than before the recession. That decline is partly because of the aging of the baby boom generation. But even among people in their prime working years, employment is down from before the recession, and far below its peak at the height of the dot-com boom.”

We noted last month that there is also a gender gap, with more women working, than men and some observers, wondering what is needed to get men off the sidelines. But, wages are a part of the problem, and some, though not all women, are either working part-time to supplement the family balance sheet, or accepting lower pay.