Fed stays the course on interest rates

Mr. Powell

In a much anticipated meeting, and with a much anticipated move, the Federal Reserve Open Market concluded its meeting on Wednesday and decided to let rates remain the same between 2.25 and 2.5 percent range, currently holding at 2.5; historically low, but high in terms of the last decade.

For some this soothes the markets, but some others have opined that this does leave the door open for 2020 cuts. And, some see that there might even be a change in July, while still others say that Wednesday's announcement could keep options open

The 9-1 vote also signaled to many observers that this was a divided move and that there was some dissension among members as they hatched out the dot plots, the anonymous charting of rate moves, that the Fed has recently used.

“This was probably the compromise decision — it wasn’t shocking and should offer some reassurance,” Steve Rick, chief economist at CUNA Mutual Group, said in a note, quoted by CNBC,  “The FOMC will still want to closely monitor the stress fractures from the bond market, middling housing and auto sales numbers, and an increasingly uncertain global economic landscape in the coming months.”

Some have said, most notably, The New York Times, that “Though there are economic reasons for the Fed’s greater caution, it carries a political risk: The Fed might appear to be bending to the president’s will.”

In that vein, the news also seemed to soothe concerns, at least for now, on the part of the Administration, whether President Trump will sack Fed Chair Jerome “Jay” Powell whose dovish moves have led the president to blame Powell for not having a market rebound.

“If the Fed had done its job properly, which it has not, the Stock Market would have been up 5000 to 10,000 additional points, and GDP would have been well over 4% instead of 3% … with almost no inflation,” Trump tweeted on April 14.

For his part, the chair has said that the law is clear, and that he “fully intends to serve” his four year term.

Senior White House advisors have said, that only for the most egregious conduct, or to use the term “for cause”, could Powell be sacked; but, they have suggested that he could be demoted.

Powell for his part has powerful friends, including Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) who is a senior member of the banking committee, who said, “We should make sure that the independence of the Fed is above politics as much as you can and doesn’t accommodate one group or another, or one person or another, or one president or another, but does what’s best for the economy.”

“That would be an unprecedented step, and the White House probably lacks the legal authority to make such a move. The Fed chair is a Senate-confirmed position, and the Fed is an independent agency,” opined the Times.

Trump who launched his reelection bid, on Tuesday, faces polls that show him trailing  former Vice-President Joe Biden, and some say that he needs to ramp up his strong economy, his possessive, that it has never been better, as the gain to reelection, while others opine that the president needs to let the Fed maintain its historic independence from politics.

The FOMC has clearly evolved from prior moves and according to Yahoo Finance, “The new dot plots show Fed officials tilting closer toward a rate cut by the end of 2020. Nine members now see a case for up to two rate cuts in that same window of time. For comparison, the March dot plot reflected only seven members seeing a case for a rate cut by the end of 2020 — and none projected more than a single 25-basis point cut.”

Perhaps most revealing was that “The June update shows some members still taking a hawkish stance. Three Fed officials see a case for at least one rate hike by the end of 2020, with one of those three officials predicting three rate hikes.”

Supporting that view is Neil Birrell, chief investment officer at Premier Asset Management, who said, “The Fed didn’t surprise investors with the decision to maintain rates, but the split vote tells us that a cut is on the way and it’s increasingly likely that will be in July, as bond markets have been hoping.”

These projections also “saw a tick down in future expectations for inflation. In March, the median Fed official projected the economy touching 2% on core personal consumption expenditures (the central bank’s preferred measure of inflation) by the end of 2019 and hitting that target again in 2020 and 2021.”

The Fed’s historic mandate of keeping inflation at 2 percent, or lower, is one that faces a variance of opinion among economists, and even politicians who have described themselves as populists.

In a statement after the announcement, the Fed “also changed wording to concede that inflation is “running below” the Fed’s 2% objective. In their forecast for headline inflation this year, officials slashed the estimate to 1.5% from March’s 1.8%. Core inflation, which excludes volatile food and energy prices, is likely now to be 1.8% from March’s 2%, according to the quarterly summary of economic projections also released Wednesday.”

Bloomberg Businessweek, this past April, had a cover story on “Who Killed Inflation”, and asked “Was it killed by central banks, with high interest rates the murder weapon? Or is it not dead at all but just lurking, soon to return with a vengeance?”

Or, as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez have suggested, is the culprit class struggle related to a neo-Marxian effort at wage suppression, which as we have seen in recent job reports, is down, and staying down?

“Richard Clarida, a Columbia University economist who began a four-year term as vice chair of the Fed in September, likes to point to the decline in labor’s share of national income, to 66.4 percent at the end of 2018, from a range of 68 percent to 71 percent from 1970 to 2010. His implicit argument is that business could give labor a solid raise without raising prices of goods and services, as long as it was willing to give back some of its increase in the share of national income,” noted Bloomberg..

The change in wording from the Fed might also help understand the problem of low inflation, because, as Bloomberg said, in an earlier and prescient mood, “Powell acknowledges, persistently low inflation is hard to explain using standard macroeconomic theory. Price pressures were weak in the aftermath of the global financial crisis because there was a lot of slack in the economy, including underutilized factories and workers. What’s surprising now is that even after one of the longest economic expansions in U.S. history, and with the unemployment rate hovering around half-century lows, inflation is still subdued.”

Going even further, “The Fed has repeatedly missed the target it set in January 2012 of 2 percent annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures. Once you strip out volatile food and energy prices, inflation by that measure has reached 2 percent just one month (July 2018) in the past seven years.”

That seems to have echoed what Powell said in January, where he “was declaring that the economy seemed strong enough to sustain two quarter-point interest-rate increases in 2019, on top of the four the Fed orchestrated last year. But inflation has again come in below the Fed’s expectations, and both 2019 rate hikes have been erased from the median forecast of the bank’s policymakers.”

The road ahead is more than traveled, and with the tariff war with China, and the president's willingness to slap a tariff on any country he picks a fight with, and a slowing of the economy, plus a May Jobs Report that showed less robust numbers, especially with revisions, most economists and observers are cautious, for just cause, with the outcome of the FOMC decision.

Lightfoot hits the ground running as new mayor of Chicago

In less than the three weeks that Lori Lightfoot was inaugurated as mayor of Chicago, she has shown a propensity for tackling the hard work ahead, and her unenviable task list, for taking America’s third largest city from a sea of financial red ink, and the burden of high crime, weakened schools, (with a wobbly reputation), and pension indebtedness, among others; and has made some fast enemies, yet seems to care less about them, and more about the future of the city.

To wit, she has called for the disgraced, and now indicted, longtime alderman Ed Burke to resign, after he was fried by the feds for trying to shake down a Burger King franchise in exchange for a bribe, targeted to defeated mayoral rival, Toni Preckwinkle.

Lightfoot’s swift actions have gained her some enmity from long-time Chicago “machine” fans; and, to wit, one 60ish, black woman, and self-styled politico, told me in an off-hand comment,“I can’t stand her,” and exclaimed, with outstretched hands,  ”Look at what she has done to Beale!”

What she did to earn that woman’s ire was to push aside a Burke crony, Ald. Anthony Beale, from a key position in favor of a younger and fresher, read, “non-machine” colleague, Scott Waguespack, and accepted the reality that she was not going to have control over a casino, (designed to help fill the city coffers), and prepared an interim school board, as the Chicago Teachers Union, wrung its collective hands at not having an immediate elected school board, and most significantly signed an executive order to not allow aldermanic privilege to go unfettered, in the shadow of Burke’s shenanigans.

For a woman that is shorter than most of her colleagues, and even her own wife, she seems to brook no nonsense as she tackles Chicago’s problems systematically and methodically, and in less time than many of her rivals, who might have wallowed in the perks of office.

As we noted previously the job of Chicago mayor is often death by a thousand blows, and those who want the job either have to be mad, or are a crusader, and Lightfoot seems to be the latter.

Ending aldermanic privilege

Facing down the alderman and their “life, or death, privileges”, and also their side hustles, may give her street cred among progressives, but also is likely to increase the challenges to that effort, but as The Economist noted earlier this year, after the raid on Burke’s office, these building permits, and development requests, are best handled by city departments rather than through their hands. And, their power often hinders the effort to gain affordable housing, and re-enforces Chicago’s long held racial segregation.

“Under Lightfoot’s plan, the old system would be replaced with one where departments underneath the mayor’s purview would establish uniform criteria to decide who gets permits, licenses and more,” according to local PBS affiliate, WTTW.

“It’s really a simple change,” said Ald.Carlos Ramirez-Rosa, 35th, who says he enthusiastically supports the measure. “Rather than an alderman just picking up the phone and saying, ‘Stop that permit,’ it means the aldermen has to answer to a commissioner.”

Then on the other hand, there is blowback, and,  “She might as well say she doesn’t need aldermen anymore,” said Ald. Ray Lopez, 15th. “There is no cookie cutter solution to answer the issues in every neighborhood, and to try to use this to force aldermen to give up their duty to be advocates for their community is not only distressing, it is wrong.”

Ald. Lopez

“Still, there are some incoming aldermen who like Lightfoot won in part by campaigning to take power away from individual Council members. Some of them say they’re not quite sure that what they heard today from Lightfoot’s staff goes far enough to change the system.”

“For example, they point out that the issue of zoning is not included in Lightfoot’s planned executive order, meaning that aldermen will still have final say about which parcel of land can be zoned for residential, commercial or other types of use.”

“These kinds of decisions have, in the past, facilitated a pipeline for campaign contributions and corruption. Therefore, some aldermen say that Lightfoot will eventually have to take bolder steps to change the system.”

As the Tribune Editorial board reminded readers, “Remember, this is a body that brazenly avoided filling the position of legislative inspector general, a post that was created to investigate complaints against City Council members. When aldermen finally settled on New York attorney Faisal Khan to fill the role, they swiftly discredited him, mocked him, refused his requests for paperwork and ignored his demands.”

“I believe that it was abuses of prerogative around zoning that brought us to this point, to this call of reform,” said Ald.-elect Daniel LaSpata, 1st.  “And I think that’s going to have to be an ongoing conversation.”

“When public officials cut shady backroom deals, they get rich and the rest of us get the bill,” Lightfoot said in her inaugural speech., adding that “It’s in the City Council’s own interest.”

Lightfoot  also has plans to replace longtime politico Carrie Austin, another African American alderman, “from her long-held perch as chairman of the Budget Committee, instead giving that high-power assignment to Ald. Pat Dowell, 3rd.”

“The mayor wants to create a new Committee on Contracting Oversight and Equity and let Austin chair that one instead, in a bid to temper Austin’s anger over losing the Budget post.”

“My decision is going to hinge upon Mayor Lightfoot,” Austin said [last] Thursday. “I will say this throughout my term with her: If it’s something you want me to support, you’ve got to ask me. You’ve got to ask me. That’s the one thing I can say about Mayor Emanuel. He asked me for my support.”

“Lightfoot said Friday that she had asked Austin for her support. Asked whether she expected to get it, Lightfoot replied “I do.”

On a purely operations level, the mayor won as she “managed to reshape the City Council in her reformer image — installing new chairmen and new operating rules to prevent aldermanic conflict of interest — by a voice vote,” reported the Sun-Times.

“Only three aldermen could be heard shouting “No”: Anthony Beale (9th), Edward Burke (14th) and Ray Lopez (15th).

“I think it went fine,” a self-satisfied Lightfoot said, in a dramatic understatement.

Here a TIF, there a TIF

Next up on the “must do” agenda that helped propel her to City Hall, and also the progressive agenda that she backed, is reforming the TIF program -- Tax Incremental Funding -- that was designed to benefit low income areas, and encourage economic development, but which became under Mayor Richard M. Daley, and Emanuel, a slush fund, of sorts, that helped open the French Market, and other posh establishments, in rapidly gentrifying areas of the Loop.

Using the backdrop of an internal investigation by Inspector General Joe Ferguson, the Chicago Tribune reported that it was established to see “how well the city had enacted the recommendations made in 2011 by former Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s Tax Increment Financing Reform Panel.

The inspector general found the city has only partially followed through on setting multiyear development plans and capital budgets for the money, which gets diverted into infrastructure spending accounts within TIF districts all over the city instead of going to traditional property taxing bodies such as Chicago Public Schools and the annual City Hall budget.”

“Inspector General Joe Ferguson’s report reveals what many of us have long suspected: Behind closed doors, City Hall has made decisions on how to spend TIF dollars without documented justifications or clearly articulated goals to guide the spending,” Lightfoot said in a statement.

Mr. Ferguson

“The report makes two things clear. First, the TIF system needs far more transparency in how it makes decisions and who receives money. Second, the City must commit to publicly-available, community-driven plans for which economic development and capital improvement projects should be approved.”

“Emanuel’s agreement to earmark up to $2.4 billion in tax increment financing money to support megadevelopments The 78 and Lincoln Yards just before he left office this year brought particular scrutiny to the city’s TIF process,” the Trib added.

Despite those assertions, Lightfoot was criticized by some of the more progressive groups and media for accepting the deal negotiated by the outgoing administration of former mayor, Rahm Emanuel; and, in another blow to reality, Lightfoot had to accept that she did not have the votes to forestall the project,and instead let it continue with the promise of increased contracts for minority and women owned projects.

“But progressives see it differently. Talk to them and they say that they took Lightfoot at her word when she frequently said during and since the campaign that the Lincoln Yards deal in particular needed lots of work and that a final decision should be left for a new mayor and City Council,” reported Crain’s Chicago Business, also noting that the Chicago Teachers Union criticism was misplaced.

"Her consent for these deals will cost our schools, our parks, and our public services literally billions of dollars in deflected funding," thundered the Chicago Teachers Union in a statement shortly after the City Council vote. "The City Council and the new mayor will have to answer to the people occupying a packed City Council chambers who are jeering their maneuvers."

Crain’s columnist Greg Hinz opined, with accuracy, “I think the progressives really are way, way off base in much of their opposition. The $2 billion-plus in subsidies mostly is for transportation infrastructure, the type of thing government generally pays for. And that money won't "come from" public schools, however much the CTU screams. It will come from property taxes paid by the developers. With few exceptions, the schools will get that money back by raising their property tax rate a little higher on landowners not located in the TIF districts.”

All of this before the inauguration, to boot, but it shows that the 56-year-old, and former corporate attorney, will have to maintain a tough stance, as she faces criticism from many sides, in her effort to reform Chicago; or to paraphrase Lincoln’s famous stance of not being able to please all of the people, all of the time.

On the heels of that action Hinz added: “But Lightfoot is the one who said she opposed action now. And she's the one who acted very much like the Emanuel she criticized in releasing terms of the deal under cover of night—in this case, a 10:45 p.m. email—too late for morning media coverage and too late to really have much impact before a 9 a.m. City Council meeting.”

There was good news in the shuffle: “The new Finance Committee also has been stripped of control over tax increment financing subsidies, like the record $1.6 billion package for Lincoln Yards and “the 78” Mayor Rahm Emanuel pushed through shortly before leaving office.

The power over TIF subsidies has gone to the Economic Development Committee, to be chaired by Ald. Gilbert Villegas (36th), Lightfoot’s floor leader.”

With her support for affordable housing, which is at a dearth in the city, and those calling for rent control, which the local realtor association definitely does not want, the balancing act between a progressive agenda, and not wanting to totally alienate the business community, will be a challenge.

Violence they say, stop, she says

Gun violence has been in the headlines for Chicago for months, even years and there seems to not be a day that there are not headlines proclaiming the latest murders and shootings.

“In an interview with CBS News national correspondent Jericka Duncan, Lightfoot said she plans a proactive approach to tackling gun violence as a public health crisis by better investing in neighborhoods to address the causes of violent crime,” reported CBS Chicago.

“It means we bring resources to the communities so that they can grow; that we bring economic development opportunities to neighborhoods; that we work on providing wraparound services and job training in the neighborhoods so that people in those neighborhoods who don’t have a history of work actually have a pipeline to good paying jobs,” she said, and noted that fighting violence was the biggest challenge of her new role.

“You have to bring people together. They have to get comfortable with each other, which is why we are encouraging our officers to get out of their cars, walk the beat, get to know the community that they’re in. We will be bringing some additional changes both in training our new recruits and our veteran officers,” she said, just ahead of the Memorial Day holiday, an annual launch to a new round of violence, and associated with warmer weather.

Her good intentions aside, “After “flooding the zone” over Memorial Day weekend with 1,200 more police officers and dozens of religious leaders — and touting more than 100 events and youth programs as alternative activities — Lightfoot came away with results tragically similar to previous years, according to the Sun-Times.

“Seven dead, same as last year. And 34 wounded, two more than last year.

That’s apparently why Lightfoot is now attempting to lower the bar that she herself raised by putting so much of her early political capital on the line over Memorial Day weekend.

“I didn’t come into this with any illusions that we were gonna be able to wave a magic wand and reverse trends that have been in the making for some time. We were down on homicides from a year ago. But, we were up on shootings—and that’s clearly unacceptable,” the new mayor said.

It's been widely acknowledged by academics, sociologists, and others who study America’s core cities, that violence is underscored by the lack of opportunity that Lightfoot has seen.

She has noted that “a lot of what we’re seeing out there are crimes of poverty.” That underscores the need to invest heavily in the South and West side neighborhoods suffering from “systemic disinvestment” that has dragged on for decades.”

“There’s young guys out there who get a small amount of money to essentially patrol their streets, but are telling me, ''We have nothing.’ It’s difficult to make a persuasive argument not to be involved in the illegal drug trade, for example, when there are no other economic activities and opportunities out there for young men and women to participate in,” she said.

Show me the money

Of course, as critics have pointed out, none of these changes are possible without money; and the debt, especially the pension debt the city has endured, plus the high interest loans the city took out, under Emanuel, have made things better and Lightfoots’ transition team demurred on the question of city finances, and what is known is a $700 million budget shortfall.

According to The Civic Federation, Lightfoot faces a $277 million increase in pension payments and “payments that will rise by $1 billion in 2023 — as a five-year ramp to actuarial funding ends and the road to 90% funding begins.”

“Whether it’s the structural deficit for next year, the pension obligations that we have to meet, the service on the debt, open police, fire and teachers contracts and a range of other issues, we have a significant challenge on our hands. Make no mistake about it,” Lightfoot said.

“We will talk about what that challenge is. But I also believe you have to talk to people about solutions. We’re not there yet. We’re looking at a range of different options. . . . But it’s important for us to actually get in and see the books for ourselves so we can understand what the magnitude of the challenge is.”

The dean of Chicago political reporters, Fran Spielman, of the Sun-Times, said, in her coverage that “Newly elected mayors routinely paint the worst possible picture of the budget shortfalls they inherit, then blame their predecessors for leaving behind a bigger mess. That frees them to make the painful choices on taxes and budget cuts early in a first term in hopes that Chicago voters forget about it before the next election.”

May Jobs Report shows slow down

The May Jobs report, released by the Labor Department on Friday, offered another exercise in spin: how to take a plunge in non-farm jobs and make the overall picture seem rosey, and self-assured, proclaiming that the American economy was sound, and to that effort a variety of voices were heard, but not always seen.

75,000 was the number of jobs gained, with 180,000 expected, and taking the biggest loss was manufacturing, which took a huge loss, joined by construction, and wages remained flat and labor force participation refused to budge; a reflection of the past few months; but for some the fact that the unemployment rate held at 3.6 seemed to be balm that soothed the savage beasts of bankers, and economists.

Wages, on average, felt only an increase of 3.1 percent, compared to one year ago.

“Slow income growth has been the weakest part of the US economy in its recovery from the Great Recession. Wages have barely kept up with the cost of living, even as the unemployment rate dropped and the economy expanded,” noted Vox in their coverage.

Of note, “Over the past year, the cost of food and housing has gone up, so paychecks have had to stretch further. But because of a recent drop in the price of clothes and utilities, the annual inflation rate has fallen to 2 percent, compared to a high of 2.4 percent in 2018 (based on the Consumer Price Index).

So when you take inflation into account, workers’ real wages only grew about 1.1 percent within the past year. That’s even slower than wages were growing earlier this year,” they added.

“The jobs report follows the smallest increase in private-sector employment in nine years, according to payment processor ADP on Wednesday, which showed that the private sector added 27,000 nonfarm jobs in May, representing the weakest growth since March 2010,” reported Market Watch.

Some economists and market observers see the ADP survey as an indicator of what is to follow in the monthly government report, but “ADP’s survey has not historically been a perfect indicator of the BLS payroll data, but the stark miss was taken by many economists as an augury for a disappointing report Friday,” according to Yahoo Finance.

Those aforementioned voices? Some were eager to say, that Mother Nature, with her storms, and tornadoes, were at fault, and that should be taken into allowance.

Others noted that, “This is the type of [jobs report] the doves will really take to, as it supports the argument for cutting rates beyond politics or trade issues, which were never part of the Fed’s mandate to begin with,” Mike Loewengart, vice president of investment strategy at E-Trade wrote in an email. to Market Watch.

“That said, our historically low unemployment rate hasn’t moved, and even though the number came in low we’re still creating jobs, which supports the case that the economy is still expanding,” he added. “So the Fed will have to walk a really thin line.”

“While the slight decline in wage growth will support the Fed’s patient stance on rates, the average pace of job growth over the last 3 months (at 151,000) is hardly alarming,” Brian Coulton, chief economist at Fitch Ratings, wrote in an email. [to Market Watch]

“It speaks to a slowdown in the domestic economy but there’s no suggestion of demand falling off a cliff.”

“Economic growth is clearly slowing, as indicated by the slower pace of job growth in May, downward revisions in prior months, and a leveling out of wage growth,” Mike Fratantoni, chief economist for the Mortgage Bankers Association, [also] wrote in an email. “The job market remains tight, but this report, coupled with other recent data, shows a distinct cooling of the economy this spring.”

If that does not give hope, then at least, depending on your view there is support for a variety of opinions, yet as my late father said, “Numbers don’t lie,” and the numbers seen give most bankers and economists a deeper sense of loss, than might be publicly acknowledged, and with transportation and warehouse jobs tasking a nosedive from 6,700 to 200, and manufacturing dipping to only a gain of 3,000 jobs added, and construction losses were from 30,000 to 4,000, then Dad was right, as he so often was.

Some more good news was that Toyota and Fiat Chrysler posted gains, but not Ford Motor Company and General Motors; and “An index of manufacturing activity released Monday fell to its lowest level in 2 1/2 years,” according to National Public Radio.

“Manufacturing is especially sensitive to trade disputes, which can raise costs, disrupt supply chains and depress foreign demand. Last month, the administration increased tariffs on $200 billion worth of imports from China. The president has also threatened to impose tariffs on imports from Mexico, beginning next week,” but that bullet has been dodged, with talks between the US and Mexico on intervening to prevent asylum seekers from the United States, at a premium.

While the Trump administration has said that new arrangements were made, and agreed upon, The New York Times reported that these were mostly old agreements made in Miami with the former secretary of the homeland, Kirstjen Nielsen, and the Mexican secretary to the interior, Olga Sanchez, with more of the Mexican National Guard directed to intervene and holding asylum seekers in Mexico after they had seen US immigration judges, an American requirement, but also, in short supply.

What is not clear is how successful these efforts will be, and if they will take more time, as predicted, in the Miami talks, or later.

Most observers say that Trump had to back away from the threatened tariffs, ranging from 5 percent to 25 percent, due to criticism from business executives, and global leaders, and even his own staff, of a trade breakdown that would deeply affect much of his base and that wanting, and needing, to use the economy, as a key plank in the 2020 presidential campaign.

Others say that while this report is not indicative of a pending recession that many had predicted, in the first quarter, moves like the one for Mexico could precipitate one, and that this is one reason Trump backed down after 9 days of threast, while White House spokesperson Sarah Sanders strutted out the news to reporters.

Reality beckons, and "There's increasing evidence that the ongoing trade war here is beginning to have some tangible effects on the U.S. economy," said Tim Quinlan, a senior economist at Wells Fargo Securities. "We're not on the edge of the cliff here. But the pace of expansion in [manufacturing] is the slowest of the Trump era."

“Over all, the economy is on a fragile footing,” said Lindsey Piegza, chief economist at the investment bank Stifel. “We’re still talking about solid growth at the start of the year, but that’s in the rearview mirror. The name of the game is uncertainty,” reported the Times.

Next up is the reaction by the Federal Reserve in its upcoming meeting in ten days, and the experts are all over the map with many markets nervous about rate cuts.

“Until relatively recently, the expectation was that the Fed would continue raising its benchmark interest rate, something it started doing in December 2015. The Fed changed course in January, when Mr. Powell suggested that very modest inflation and weakness in Europe and China warranted a neutral stance.

Michael Gapen, chief United States economist at Barclays, predicted the Fed’s next move would be anything but neutral. On Friday, he estimated that the central bank would cut rates by half a percentage point in July, followed by a quarter-point reduction in September.”

Reaction on the investment side of the equation, has been strongly seen in “The futures market, where traders can bet on the direction of Fed policy, indicated on Friday that investors believe there is a more than 80 percent chance of the Fed easing monetary policy in July, compared with a 17 percent probability just a month ago,” and “Expecting a rate cut, the financial markets bid up the price of stocks and bonds on Friday, with the S&P 500 closing up about 1 percent, the Times added.

According to The Los Angeles Times, “The Fed never had to rescue the economy from past presidents’ trade wars, or from policies that presidents embarked upon against the wishes of advisers,” said Gary Richardson, an economics professor at the University of California at Irvine who used to be the official Fed historian.”

Abortion bans in America increase divisiveness

Justice Kavanaugh

Abortion, one of the most divisive issues in America, has taken on new life with the addition of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court after his bruising confirmation by the Senate after allegations of sexual attacks on a high school classmate. It was not without rancor, or intention that this conservative voice was brought to bear on the Court under the aegis of Chief Justice John Roberts.

Add to that the Alabama abortion bill, the strictest in the nation, and designed to be a test case to overturn Roe v. Wade, and the die is cast for more than a bumpy road as other states in the nation have adopted similar bills, and laws, to restrict what pro-choice supporters see as threats to women’s health, and a right to choose, versus the pro-life community that want no exceptions but to repeal the 1973 legislation.

This February it seemed that the first shot was fired when Kavanaugh gave his dissent to temporarily block  “a strict new Louisiana law that require providers to to get admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic,” and as most observers have noted, this bill is similar to one from Texas that the Court struck down in 2016 for putting an “undue burden” on women seeking an abortion.”

While some have seen this as a declaration of war on repeal, others have not, while still others have seen that Robert's support for the temporary block is calculated to politically protect the GOP by joining the conservatives, “in ruling of favor of most state abortion restrictions -- effectively making it illegal in red states, and legal in blue states,” opined Paul Waldman in The Washington Post.

He also added, “If your goal was to destroy Roe and to minimize the backlash Republicans will suffer at the pools, that’s how you’d do it.”

Whether this prediction will prove to be true is debatable in some quarters, but the news from the Illinois General Assembly, which recently approved a woman’s right to an abortion, might be a first step.

State Rep. Kelly Cassidy, (D-Chicago), sponsored a liberal House bill, that was also passed last Friday in the Illinois Senate, titled the Reproductive Healthcare Act (RHA), it ensures women’s access to reproductive healthcare in Illinois..

“States across the country are passing legislation to undermine Roe v. Wade to fill the pipeline to the Supreme Court to eventually overturn our rights. The Reproductive Healthcare Act is testament that we will not go back in Illinois,” Cassidy said. “To our neighboring states, Ohio, Missouri and Indiana I say our rights will not be taken away, not on my watch.”

State Rep. Cassidy

A statement from her office noted that “Cassidy’s Senate Bill 25 solidifies that all forms of reproductive healthcare are fundamental rights and codifies current medical practice standards. The bill expands reproductive healthcare and removes decades old criminal penalties against physicians performing abortions along with spousal consent laws and waiting periods that are currently found in Illinois statute. “

It also, somewhat prophetically, quoted her with the following: “With recent appointments to the Supreme Court and constant threats from the Federal government to overturn our rights, our fight for choice and bodily autonomy is more important than ever.”

The bill now awaits Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s signature, and while some have seen this as a “take that” bill, Cassidy’s legislative effort, and remarks, echo that of many pro-choice groups across the nation; albeit in areas where they are bitterly fought, such as in Alabama.

“The Alabama Senate passed the bill 25-6 late Tuesday night. The law only allows exceptions "to avoid a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother," for ectopic pregnancy and if the "unborn child has a lethal anomaly," CNN reported last month, and also that “Democrats re-introduced an amendment to exempt rape and incest victims, but the motion failed on an 11-21 vote.”

"No matter one's personal view on abortion, we can all recognize that, at least for the short term, this bill may similarly be unenforceable," Ivey wrote. "As citizens of this great country, we must always respect the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court even when we disagree with their decisions. Many Americans, myself included, disagreed when Roe v. Wade was handed down in 1973. The sponsors of this bill believe that it is time, once again, for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit this important matter, and they believe this act may bring about the best opportunity for this to occur."

Gov. Ivey

With continued coverage, CNN reported that In nearby Missouri, “After a four-day reprieve, Missourians could soon learn whether their state will become the first with no abortion clinics. Circuit Court Judge Michael Stelzer is hearing arguments Tuesday before deciding whether the state's last abortion clinic, Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, can continue performing abortions.

The clinic is suing the state over its refusal to renew its license. That license was supposed to expire Friday. But the judge intervened during a hearing Friday, saying the license can stay in effect until another hearing Tuesday.”

Under the guise of patient safety, Gov. Mark Parson is saying that there was a patient complaint, but has provided no details, and Planned Parenthood is protesting the need for meeting the terms of licensing agreements and publicly states, that, "In order to renew the license, Planned Parenthood bent over backwards to meet some frankly medically unnecessary and inappropriate requests from the state. But they did it," said M'Evie Mead, director of Planned Parenthood Advocates in Missouri.

“Planned Parenthood said the state's refusal to renew the clinic's license is just another tactic to "restrict abortion access and deny Missourians their right to choose abortion."

“If the Planned Parenthood clinic is forced to stop providing abortions, Missouri would be the first state in the nation to block the procedure in more than 45 years," added CNN.

Last month Missouri also passed a bill that outlawed abortions after 8 weeks, and with no exception for rape or incest.

But, as Vox reported, “The law is scheduled to go into effect in August, but is all but sure to be challenged in court. If it does go into effect, “it would be nearly impossible for patients in Missouri to access abortion care,” Ashley Gray, a state advocacy adviser for the Center for Reproductive Rights, told Vox.”

Gov. Parson

Another opposition tactic to prevent legal abortions, under Roe, was Kentucky’s last abortion clinic, that in 2017, nearly lost its license under a requirement that transfer agreements, with nearby hospitals were needed, in case of an emergency development; but under federal law, emergency rooms are required to accept anyone that shows up for treatment.

“The Planned Parenthood Action Fund reports that so far in 2019, there have been 300 anti-abortion bills introduced in 36 states.”

Many of these are the so-called “heartbeat bills” that say that if a fetus has a heartbeat, which comes at an average of 6 weeks, a point at which some women are not even aware that they are pregnant, passed in states such as Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Arkansas and Iowa.

“This is an extremely dangerous time for women’s health all around the country,” Leana Wen, president of the Action Fund, told the Washington Post.

Yet, despite the legislative activity “Two-thirds of Americans want Roe v. Wade left in place, and most who hold that view would be disappointed or angry if the ruling were to be overturned someday, a new CBS News poll finds.”

It has also been shown, in previous polls that in places where abortion is the most restrictive, abortions are the most prevalent, especially those that are conducted by the so-called “back alley butchers” of yesteryear.

Frequently unmentioned, is the color line between access for white and black women (and brown women) which gives the former more access, especially white women of means, with trips to nearby states that do allow it, or trips abroad, often under the disguise of visiting relatives, or spending the summer abroad, which was common among wealthy young white women in mid-century America.

As far back as 2011, the National Latina Institute noted that: “Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100 percent of the federal poverty level, which is $10,830 for a single woman with no children. Due to systemic disparities that result in less access to quality education and wealth in this country, women of color and immigrant women are disproportionately low-income and are deeply impacted by barriers to health care. We know that women denied abortion coverage will postpone paying for other basic needs like food, rent, heating and utilities in order to save money needed for an abortion. Yet, not all are able to cobble together the necessary funds. Currently, 25 percent of poor women who want to access abortion services cannot because the federal government refuses to pay for the legal medical procedure.”

Extending the often dire situation, In 1989, 16 prominent Black women signed a pledge, published in major newspapers, noting their support for safe and legal abortions, and noted that for some,“It’s been a matter of survival. Hunger and homelessness. Inadequate housing and income to properly provide for themselves and their children. Family instability. Rape. Incest. Abuse. Too young, too old, too sick, too tired. Emotional, physical, mental, economic, social — the reasons for not carrying a pregnancy to term are endless and varied, personal, urgent, and private.”