U.S. youth protest on need to end gun violence

In the one month since the Parkland school shootings in South Florida, students across the nation protested on Wednesday in mass walkouts for 17 minutes, one for each victim that was shot and killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

These events, billed by youth organizers as National Walkout Day, underscored a united push for political action to address the seemingly “relentless outbreak of mass shootings in the U.S.” said HuffPost Politics in their coverage, and also reported that, “Participants in the National School Walkout, a massive protest organized by Youth EMPOWER, a branch of young activists affiliated with the Women’s March, called on Congress to pass stricter gun laws.”

Soon after the shootings, last month, a youth response began from the surviving students and has quickly spread across the country, calling for change in gun laws, to help protect students from gunman like Florida shooter, Nicholas Cruz, who was able to buy a gun under the age of 21, a change that students want along with expanded background checks.

From coast to coast, this movement has garnered not only national attention but an increasing grassroots movement that hopes to effect change in  what many see as an inadequate response from President Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association, which is opposed to additional measures such as the banning of bump stocks; a device that was used by the Las Vegas shooter to “bump” up his ability to fire round after round of ammunition into concert goers at a country music event this past summer.

Some students may face disciplinary issues for the walkout -- and some are being told that they will be marked absent in response, but they have also been advised by the ACLU that being given punitive discipline for the walkout beyond, being marked absent, would be wrong..

Support has also come from Black Lives Matter leaders who tweeted: “Salute to students walking out today despite consequences imposed by educators who failed Civics Class! Salute to Black and Brown students reminding folks today that they want to be safe as well and want all students to be safe, just not in ways that criminalize them.”

They are referring to those student protests that have been expanded to those black and brown students whose lives are endangered every day, living and studying in urban areas, such as Chicago, New York City and Baltimore.

In response, students in Wisconsin marched to their capital, Madison in protest. And in Chicago, students marched in solidarity with the others and in a statement by organizers, said: “A new collective of Baltimore and Chicago students who call themselves GoodKidsMaddCity and use the hashtag #BmoreChi. 

Over 1,500 students and teachers from schools across Baltimore and Chicago, who have lost loved ones to gun violence . . . recently met with Parkland students," and it seemed that the intersection of class and privilege is also being crossed.  Acknowledging the lived reality of these students, organizers also said: “Students of color from cities that have been impacted by gun violence will be adding their voices to the national call to action to address root causes of gun violence that impact their lives on a daily basis”

Noting that there have longstanding calls “for increased investment in health, education, youth employment, and other community resources as proactive solutions to decrease gun violence, yet these demands have largely fallen on deaf ears the local, state, and national levels” the organizers expanded their concerns.

When Parkland students survivors met last week with Chicago youth, Emma Gonzalez acknowledged, “Those who face gun violence on a level that we have only just glimpsed from our gated communities have never had their voices heard in their entire lives the way that we have in these few weeks alone.”

Much of the continuing disinvestment has seemed to have increased under Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and the result is that  “. . .  over the past 8 years communities which have been impacted by high unemployment and violence have only seen divestment of critical resources; for example during his first term, “Chicago saw the closing of almost half the city’s mental health clinics, in addition to ongoing cuts to social services and after school programming as a result of a lack of State budget for almost three years,” not to mention closing 50 schools in mostly black neighborhoods.

The recent school closings in the Englewood neighborhood have also faced mounting criticism, to the seeming gentrification and the change in an award winning elementary school, the National Teachers Academy, on the city’s near South Side, transitioning to a high school seems to underscore the point of  anger. And, as many sociologists have emphasized schools anchor a neighborhood, in addition to their dedicated task of educating and training a new generation.

Some glaring statistics: “In Chicago, the unemployment rate for African-American youth was at 43 percent in 2017, and according to data from the Chicago Tribune, 1,619 young people under the age of 17 have been shot since 2011.”
  

Student-led demonstrations around the country and the dozens of separate events at Episcopal cathedrals and churches coincided March 14 to mark one month since the deadly high school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

“This is the only nation in the world that has a gun death problem at the rate we do,” New Jersey Bishop Chip Stokes said in his sermon at Eucharist held at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Trenton. “Those of us who oppose it need to get in the face of the problem and cry out in the name of the Lord.”

On the religious front, “Episcopalians gathered in Springfield, Massachusetts, outside a Smith & Wesson facility to rally behind protest signs that asked the gun manufacturer to “Stop Selling Assault Weapons, noted Episcopalian News Service, who also reported that, “Students of Episcopal schools from New York to Florida walked out of class to participate in a nationwide call to action.”

The largest, or at least the most visible, of the protests was the one that took place in Washington, D.C where a student said: “Their right to own an assault rifle does not outweigh our right to live. The adults have failed us. This is in our hands now, and if any elected official gets in our way, we will vote them out.”

Returning to Illinois, the Chicago Sun-Times reported “Gov. Bruce Rauner said Tuesday he and his aides were “working feverishly” to study the gun dealer licensing bill before he decided to veto it because “it was going to create a big layer of burden and bureaucracy, and really not keep our communities safer.”

Belying his critics that said the decision had to do mostly with political posturing, the governor said in defense while,” Speaking after a campaign stop in Naperville, the governor insisted his decision had nothing to do with trying to shore up conservative support a week before the primary.

“Not at all,” Rauner told the Chicago Sun-Times. “What we are focused on is winning in November against Pritzker and Madigan, and our message is a unifying message. It’s the right policy that everybody wants.”

Going even further Rauner stated, “Our team has been working feverishly, studying, talking, doing our due diligence on what other states have done, what’s the law here, and what it would do to our small shop owners,” further expanding on a campaign stop, to say: “And we just decided it was going to create a big layer of burden and bureaucracy, and really not keep our communities safer. And so we decided let’s go ahead and veto the bill.”

With the powerful National Rifle Association fighting hard against proposed changes, “One of the bill’s chief sponsors, State Sen. Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, on Tuesday accused Rauner of being a “lap dog” for the National Rifle Association “rather than listen to the people he represents.”

Utilizing their age-old defense “the NRA in turn said the bill created “dramatic overreaches specifically designed to close as many Illinois federally licensed firearm dealers as possible.”

Ramping up the rhetoric was NRA spokesman Lars Dalseide, who said, in another statement: “Now it’s up to the law-abiding gun owners of Illinois to let their lawmakers know this type of infringement on their Second Amendment Rights is completely unacceptable,” and “Punishing legitimate businesses for the criminal actions of others is a prime example of why communities continue to suffer as their elected officials focus on headlines instead of the real problem; actual criminals.”

Backing up these claims the Illinois Rifle Association said, partly, in a statement, that “Bloomberg and his henchmen have now enlisted an army of impressionable children to do his anti-constitutional dirty work.  Too old and tired for trench warfare themselves, the likes of Schumer, Harmon, and Pelosi are exploiting the energy of our young people to fulfill the aging anti-gunners’ bucket list.

Using the fear that gun owners would lose their guns, under any changes, they said: “Cynically titled the “March for Our Lives,” Saturday’s events would be more properly dubbed, “March for Your Guns.”  Organizers of these events are demanding legislation that would ban and confiscate nearly every gun you own, repeal concealed carry, and leave you with nothing in your safe but your grandma’s silverware.”

They then urged supporters to attend any, all local rallies to counter protest to the threat to Second Amendment Rights.

In response, State Rep. Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago) defended the protests and said,  in a statement from her office: “I strongly condemn the incendiary, misleading rhetoric of the Illinois State Rifle Association regarding the March for Our Lives this weekend. As anyone following the news over the last several weeks knows, these nationwide marches are a result of high school kids after Parkland being unwilling to sit back and watch politicians do nothing when their schools are shot up by battlefield weaponry.”

“It is ridiculous bordering on disturbingly paranoid to pretend that Michael Bloomberg and Nancy Pelosi are somehow behind these actions. The kids are not trying to repeal concealed carry. They’re not trying to raid anyone’s gun safe. They just want to go to school without fear that a disturbed teenager can buy a weapon designed for war at the corner gun shop and commence the kind of slaughter we’ve seen repeatedly.”

Cassidy also called for a retraction, saying that “They must retract their statement and issue another reminding [their] members that if they attend a march, their actions must be confined to speech alone.”

In a related move, north suburban Deerfield, Ill, recently passed legislation approving a unanimous “ban on certain types of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, amending a 2013 ordinance that regulated the storage of those items,” the Tribune also reported.

“The new ordinance prohibits the possession, sale and manufacturing of certain types of assault weapons and large capacity magazines within the village, according to the ordinance,” and “Violations carry a fine of between $250 and $1,000 per day, according to Matthew Rose, the village attorney. He said the fine is levied each day until there is compliance.”

Echoing the sentiments of her national peers, “Ariella Kharasch, a Deerfield High School senior who favors the legislation, said she wants more action both on a local and national level. “This is our fight,” Kharasch said. “This is our generation’s fight. We’re going to keep fighting and this is part of it. Change happens gradually step by step. The fight does not end at the borders of our village.”

February Jobs Report beats odds, still problematic

The February Jobs Report released on Friday has given wild hope to many with the addition of 3130,000 jobs added to the economy and most observers have been jubilant and The New York Times proclaimed “healthy job creation” and “swelling workforce” in its coverage, and all that was missing was the blare of trumpets as the soundtrack soared in the background.

Estimates had been that there would only be 205,000.

Certainly, the banner unemployment rate holding at 4.1 percent represented a good number to work form especially from the White House, where President Trump tweeted: “Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!”

The brightest spot in this mixed report - was that wages increases to 0.1 percent, a long held hope as wages had stagnated or flattened over the previous months and many were hoping to see more. While this is not in the “much more” category, any movement upwards was welcome news.

“A strong jobs report with less wage inflation tells the market that the current concern about the wage issue is overblown,” said Jonathan Golub, chief United States equity strategist for Credit Suisse.

For the other eager beavers out there, it also suggested that there might be a fourth increase by the Federal Reserve  in the benchmark rate; but that is still speculative at this point.

Golub was quick to point out to the Times that this increase was not attributable to the tax cuts bill, but yet instead to the “synchronized” global economic expansion since 2016.

For some the news is useful in establishing a baseline to monitor the impact of the trade deficits proposed by Trump,and the resulting restriction and retaliation that will occur, if his proposal continuing as planned.

It may also help, say others, for flexibility and accommodation, as time goes by

Even others, further still, see that a more sustained progress is what is needed to see real progress; but with most looking for any silver lining the cloud of the Great Recession.

Elise Gould, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, which tracks average worker pay, said the hourly increase in February’s report was “relatively disappointing,” compared to monthly wage bumps before the last downturn,” to the Washington Post, where she also said: “Year-over-year wage growth, she said in an email, “needs to exceed 3.5 percent for a substantial amount of time for workers to begin to claw back losses in the labor share of income they’ve felt during and since the Great Recession.”

Consumer spending did rise by .4 percent giving some impetus to optimism, yet there is also a real challenge, wages, for once, but also labor force participation, which did increase to 6.27 percent, after the needle barely moved from 6.1, at its highest, for months preceding February.

Growth was seen in hospitality and tourism and in that catch-all, but ill defined category, of business services, and retail which boomed at 50,000, but a closer look shows that these are lower level jobs. In fact, such retailers as Walmart, Target, CVS Health and Starbucks have increased their wages, as well as states such as Ohio, Washington, and Maine.

As the old game show show said: “What is the $64,000 question?” regarding the low rate of labor force participation, and the answer is complicated, there are some employers who have openings but can’t fill them, despite offering higher wages, less strictures about pot smoking, etc. is that many employers cannot find workers with the required skills. This was as true for February, as it was in the last quarter.

Quoted both in the Post and the Times was “Brian Krenke, president of KI Inc, a furniture maker in Green Bay, Wisc., said his firm has raised wages and expanded its recruiting efforts into high schools but still struggles to fill vacancies.”

“In the next 90 days, we need to identify and train 390 employees to do skilled positions,” Krenke said. “But individuals are failing drug tests and that, combined with low unemployment, makes it hard to find people.”

“Economists point out that Baby Boomers are retiring faster than young people are entering the workforce to replace them, but they still don’t know why so many workers appear to be stuck on the sidelines. Some blame the opioid epidemic, which, studies show, has knocked a chunk of potential hires out of the workforce.

One alarming example: “the number of truck drivers, commercial pilots, railroad operators and pipeline workers who failed drug tests in 2017 has spiked 77 percent since 2006, according to federal data,” continued the Post.

Another angle says “Economist Heidi Hartmann, president of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, said the rising price of childcare, combined with a decade of slow wage growth, keeps some workers from seeking jobs.

“If they can’t afford childcare, they’re not going to work,” she said. “If they can't make enough to pay for a car or the bus fare, they’re not going to work.”

Others cite that while growth has been seen on the coasts there has not been as much in central parts of the country, or south central and that moving to a high growth area necessitates paying higher housing costs for a salary that may not cover the new salary, and for even more, the costs of transferring government program like Medicaid may prove to be burdensome.

A group of national economists see this as a hardening of the economy with little wiggle room for other areas that see less growth, yet even others see February as being hugely important and that “Two of the most important household surveys were at their best level in almost ten years,” said Jed Kolko chief economist at Indeed, an online recruiting tool.

We can accept these numbers as more indicative of growth in some geographic areas, and in some jobs, but the outliers are too great for us to ignore, and this pockmarked growth needs to see, as Gould states, a more sustained pattern, before a total recovery from the Great Recession can be fully recognized.

Trump and NRA complicate response to Florida shootings

After the recent high school shootings in Parkland, Florida, there have been renewed calls for stricter gun laws and several of the surviving students have been in the forefront of that effort, often, eloquently, and always passionately, calling for ways to save the lives of students across the nation, which seemed to first sear the nation with the Columbine school killings in 1999.

Awaiting the signature of the Florida governor, there is legislation pending, which supporters state, that “If passed, the bill would raise the legal age for buying rifles from 18 to 21, impose a three-day waiting period on all firearms sales and allow qualified school personnel to be armed on campus,” reported National Public Radio on Wednesday.

This has been directly attributable to loud and vocal dissent from existing law by the parents, and surviving students of the school and which famously confronted Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, in a by now much viewed CNN special, where he was pressed to say that he would not accept donations from the National Rifle Association, but in turn, he avoided a response, saying instead that the NRA "buys into my agenda, I don’t buy into theirs," which . . . evoked jeers,” from the crowd.

Each time there is a mass shooting - and they are growing more frequent -  American reformers,and some lawmakers, try to write better gun control legislation, and each time their voices are diminished by slogans such as “People kill people,not guns,” and an effective lobbying effort directed at senators like Rubio, by the NRA, and others across the nation, and eventually, the voices are silent, or silenced.

An example: “Rubio was on the Senate floor to unveil his gun plan. He announced he would be introducing legislation focused on background checks. One of these is called the “Lie and Try” legislation, which requires the FBI to notify local law enforcement when someone who is prohibited from buying a gun tries to purchase one. Rubio is also backing a “gun violence restraining order,” which would allow the police to confiscate weapons from known threats and require schools to report potentially dangerous children to the police as well.

But none of these proposals are what the families of victims or survivors of the Parkland shooting want. They’ve rallied around banning assault rifles and high-capacity magazines and raising the minimum age to purchase a gun. These policies are not supported by the National Rifle Association and therefore, will not be supported by Sen. Rubio, who has advanced in his career will the help of $3,303,355 in NRA campaign spending.” 

Leadership from the  White House has been another source of of dissatisfaction, and President Trump’s statement at the recent meeting of the nation’s governor’s, following the shootings, where he said, ““I’d run in there even if I didn’t have a weapon.”

This was only marginally better than what really riled the parents, and the surviving students, and much of the country, with his initial tweet: "Very sad that the FBI missed all of the many signals sent out by the Florida school shooter. This is not acceptable. They are spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion with the Trump campaign - there is no collusion. Get back to the basics and make us all proud!"

President Trump is deeply entwined with the NRA, as they were largely responsible for helping him get elected. Spending more than three times the amount that they gave to Mitt Romney, when he was the GOP candidate running against Barack Obama, they spent $30 million, of a total of $55 million for the entire 2016 election, from the NRA, in their effort to defeat the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

This figure does not include the “above and beyond dollars” that were spent on voter mobilization and advocacy, or even the $176,350 given to the Republican Governors Association, or the $110,675 to the Republican Attorneys General Association..

Further muddying the waters are the durable allegations that Russia might have gone even further than previously thought, by directly contributing money to the NRA, to help defeat Clinton, whom they feared because of her strong support, among other things, for the sanctions against Ukraine.

The person accused of funneling the funds  is Alexander Turshin, a deputy general of Russia’s Central Bank, and who some say has mobster ties in the former Soviet Union. He is also a close associate of Russian President Vladimir Putin. He also has been accused by other foreign governments as a money launderer, giving weight to some allegations that the Trump family has obtained much of their wealth by this route.

When the NRA recently met at their annual meeting, in Louisville, Ky, Donald Trump, Jr. met with Turshin, but Trump Jr’s lawyer, says that this was just small talk.

Or is it? In a January McClatchy Report these allegations have been the target of an FBI investigation. There has been no response by the NRA.

Collusion may be, if proven, a polite term for deeply treasonous behavior on the part of Trump and his family members, as evidenced by the loss of the security clearance of son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who also met with Russian officials to form a back channel communications network outside of the existing structure, and knowledge of the U.S. government.

In an amazing statement the Republican commitee, on Monday, said that there was absolutely no evidence of collusion on the part of Trump, or his family.

Taking this even further throughout these allegations, is the way that American elections are handled, across the nation, who supporters are allowed to meet with, and who they aren’t, how much money is contributed, and by what means, and under what cover; from the well-known to those less well-known, and seemingly extended to those with dubious connections.

The Special Counsel Robert Mueller is working at a faster pace than previously thought possible, but also gives further pause when there was the recent discovery that Russia prevented the nomination of Romney as Secretary  of State, because of negative remarks that he made about Russia during his contest with Obama, for the presidency.

This fits too neatly, some say, with the now well established Intel that showed Russian opposition to Clinton, and her vast knowledge of Western European leaders and their wives, and a possible U.S. policy reaction to Russian economic hectoring, and bullying, with their provisions of gas to nearby countries.

Circling back to the NRA, their opposition to Clinton was vociferous due to her proposals to increase background checks on those purchasing guns, and preventing the mentally ill from buying them, among other safeguards she announced.

Again, on Monday, after a Washington Post reporter questioned the president's earlier segue from established NRA positions, he asked White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders whether he had “chickened out” in the face of pressure from the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Sanders said Trump “hasn’t backed away” from his support for expanding background checks or raising the age limit on gun purchases, although neither was addressed in a plan the administration rolled out Sunday night.

According to the Hill, "Sanders made the case that Trump is focusing first on proposals that have “broad bipartisan support” or that could be accomplished “immediately” through the regulatory process or federal action.

She insisted that the president still supports raising age limits on gun purchases and expanding background checks, but said both would require more political pressure and further review before action can be taken.

“He can’t make them happen with a broad stroke of the pen,” Sanders said. “You have to have some congressional component to do some of these things, and without that support, it's not as possible.”

As Sanders became exasperated at the questioning she fell back on the old canard of beating up President Obama and his record, when she said: "“Let's not forget that the Obama administration had the White House and all of Congress for two years and didn't do anything."

Adding to the criticism that the White House has backed down under pressure from the NRA to change things that many want, such as banning bump stocks (used by the Las Vegas shooter) and expansion of background checks, Trump has asked Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to create a blur ribbon panel - an act that he has said in the past, as the Hill states, ". . . they are used by bureaucrats to kick the can down the road."

Updated 03.13.18

New Fed Chair handles himself well on Capital Hill

The newly sworn in Federal Reserve Board chair, Jerome Powell, barely had time to move into his new office, before it was off to Capitol Hill to address the respective Congressional committees that expected to question him after submitting his prepared address.

In both the House Financial Services Committee, on Tuesday, and at the Senate Banking Committee, on Thursday, he emphasized the economy was not overheating, and that he fully expected that it would continue to make gains.

Some observers felt that there was nothing remarkable in his comments, while others being thus assured, felt the familiar echoes of his recent predecessor, Janet Yellen, In fact the 65-year-old former banker has built a quiet, but significant, reputation as being a consensus builder. And, if part of his remarks seemed as if he was giving a primer on Econ 101 to a group of undergrads, then he seemed to do just that, if required.

One of the issues that has been at stake is the number and amount of increased rate hikes, after years of near zero rates. In fact, while describing the process of how they are developed, some interpreted his words, to mean that there would be a fourth one.

This happened on Tuesday, when noting in some detail, that process, and after the strength that they saw In December after meeting Fed officials “penciled in three hikes in 2018. They meet again later this month,” reported Bloomberg Markets.

“Powell made it clear that the Fed could find reason to raise interest rates more than the three times it forecast for this year, based on the economy and inflation. Powell made the comments when he delivered the first half of his semi-annual economic testimony before the House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday,” causing some concern, sending the stock market down 300 points, and an abundance of sell orders.

Some called it a “rookie mistake” -- and those might be the ones critical of his selection, since he lacks the seemingly credential of a Ph.D. in economics that his predecessor had.

“But others doubt that the comment itself was unintentional, noting it echoed the statement and the minutes from the last meeting headed by his predecessor, Yellen. In those minutes, the Fed gave a nod to the improving economy and said it could be that "further gradual policy firming would be appropriate."

Taking it even further, Grant Thornton chief economist Diane Swonk said the Fed chief's comments were measured and he followed the progression of Fed speakers and releases.” And, again, in teaching mode, citing the data necessary for any moves, he said that it would not be  appropriate to “prejudge” what the Federal Open Markets would do at their meeting in March.

Moreover, in his address, he wrote that “The robust job market should continue to support growth in household incomes and consumer spending, solid economic growth among our trading partners should lead to further gains in U.S. exports, and upbeat business sentiment and strong sales growth will likely continue to boost business investment. Moreover, fiscal policy is becoming more stimulative. In this environment, we anticipate that inflation on a 12-month basis will move up this year and stabilize around the FOMC's 2 percent objective over the medium term. Wages should increase at a faster pace as well. The Committee views the near-term risks to the economic outlook as roughly balanced but will continue to monitor inflation developments closely<’ and entirely consistent with the data driven work by Yellen, considered an economist’s economist.

Helping to support this view is the banner rate of unemployment of 4.1 percent, the lowest since 207, and inflation under the FOMC target rate of 2 percent.

Powell’s position is not enviable as he has an unreliable partner in the White House, who seems to have a weak grasp of the guiding principles of American economics, plus the fourth goal of keeping Wall Street happy.

President Trump wants to see the economy grow at a rate of 3 percent, a figure that some economists, and even lawmakers question, but that is more of a political goal that the president has set, than one based on data.

Adding to Powell’s challenge is that the recent tax cut and jobs bill cuts revenue and increases spending, especially on the military, and now the announcements of high tariffs on imported steel, affecting even long hell allies increases the global challenges that have now had their ante upped.

Adroitly, he also remarked,“As Chairman Bernanke said, the tariff approach is not the best approach, the best approach is to deal directly with the people who are directly affected, rather than falling back on tariffs,” Powell said. “But again, these are not issues that are consigned to us, they’re really for you and for the administration.”

With that in the background Powell also had to answer the question that House chair Jeb Hensarling, previously of Yellen,  almost becoming incivil at times; with Powell he was gracious, but insistent on determining the wind down of the balance sheet, reserves that the Feds had increased as a bulwark during the Great Recession.

CNBC reported him giving Powell high marks, but also said,  "If there is ever a time to unwind the balance sheet, it's in a good economy,"  and "Now is a good time to do it."

In Hensarling's opening statement Tuesday he said, "The Fed must commit to a credible, orderly and well-communicated normalization policy," all of which impacts interest rates and the Fed's balance sheet.

The congressman said Powell did achieve that in his remarks "in part," but Hensarling still had "concern" over the flexibility of caps on the Fed's balance sheet.

"I don't think I got a really credible answer on the composition of the balance sheet," Hensarling said, and pointed out that right now it's roughly two-thirds Treasury, one-third mortgage-backed securities.”

The Fed chair proved to be nimble in his responses, and also with both the Republicans and the Democrats as they respectively wanted him to say that the new tax bill was creating jobs, and with the letter, that it was causing inflation.

Seeing this dance, it’s easier to assume that Powell may have polished his crystal ball, or watched tapes of Hensarling sparring with Yellen. In either case, coming out ahead, at least in this maiden appearance counts for a lot in partisan Washington.

Complicating matters even more is that some economists are predicting at least a 70 percent chance of a recession heading down the line.

Powell himself has identified four key areas that he sees as primary: the labor market, inflation, global markets and fiscal procedures and oversight. And, seasoned veterans of the Hill noted that his supply side is showing itself, in abundance.

Additionally, he also showed great sensitivity with Rep. Maxine Waters asking, after a letter from her, was sent to the Board, that they consider diversity - racial diversity in their selection for a replacement for the New York governor, vacated by William C. Dudley, and Powell assured her that they would always do just that, with a follow up to her office.

He also was concerned about the amount of student debt that many carry and its deleterious effect on the national economy, currently being held at $1.38 trillion dollars and that is not eligible for bankruptcy filing.

While the issue is primarily one for Congress to tackle, Powell said it could become an economic question.

"You do stand to see longer-term negative effects on people who can't pay off their student loans," he said. "It hurts their credit rating, it impacts the entire half of their economic life."

Powell said he generally supports the idea of a vibrant education loan climate, but added that borrowers need to be informed of the risks they're taking. He also wondered why student debt can't be discharged in bankruptcy.

"I'd be at a loss to explain why that should be the case," he said, while acknowledging that the issue is one for Congress to tackle.

For a first time appearance on the Hill before congressional committees, Powell, in most estimates, did an excellent job in traversing what could have been a minefield of misquotes and frayed nerves, yet kept an enviable cool, in what was the hottest seat in a town known for placing the highest at their mercy.

Janus case threatens unions and much more

Opening arguments were presented on Monday before the Supreme Court of the United States in a case that that has essentially never been easily settled: should those public employees, represented by a union, be forced to pay dues to an organization whose views that they do not agree with; even if those dues get a different name, just for them, or are even partially reimbursed to give equality to their viewpoints, or at least their disagreements with the views espoused by the union?

The case Janus v. AFSCME has hit the media like fireworks on Independence Day, and everyone has shouted, from all sides that this is about First Amendment rights guaranteed in the U.S Constitution, that says that all citizens have the right to free speech, that cannot be infringed upon.

At first blush, this does indeed seem to be the case, but then like a multilayered fruit, peeling back the cut pieces shows less than the sum of many parts. Part one of course is union busting an effort from the state of Mark Janus, Illinois,whose Republican governor, Bruce Rauner has tried just that, even holding it over the heads of his Democratic controlled state assembly as a condition of passing a state constitution mandated budget; and which finally had to be passed, by a veto, after a two year stalemate, as the state bonds were threatening to be get junk bond status by the rating agencies.

Now comes Janus with a case that can threaten the financial and political influences, and even livelihood of public sector unions, (there are 35,000 of them across the nation) especially in Democratic states. That seems obvious to many. Yet, that is only part of commonly held beliefs - in fact Republican states and GOP elected officials have just as much to gain as the Dems, in fact more so, since they support and in return receive support from some of the largest, albeit conservative, group: firefighters and police. Lose them and they lose a significant chunk of dollars that can be used in many ways, such as the gubernatorial races, in states, such as Illinois which is expected to cost as much as $300 million.

“The plaintiff, Mark Janus, is a child-support specialist who works for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. Under current law, no one can be forced to join a union, and Janus chose not to become a member of AFSCME, the union that negotiates collective bargaining agreements with the state on the behalf of him and more than 35,000 other public employees in Illinois,” identified Progressive.org.

Adding to the failed efforts of Rauner, to bust the unions, after his budgetary defeat, it is worth noting that Janus is represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Inc., a business-backed anti-union group.

“Right-to-work laws are currently in place in twenty-eight states. The Janus litigation, if successful, would extend them to public-employee unions in the remaining twenty-two, including California and New York, the states with the greatest number of unionized public employees.”

Turning yet another page in the unfolding drama -- a decision is not to be expected to be made until June -- is that, in Illinois, 26 percent of the budget is spent on retiree healthcare, a sizeable amount, and as in other states, there have not been provisions for advanced budgeting, but instead the funds are often made through collective bargaining, or backroom committees, where the final terms are footnoted, some say buried, in thick legislative binders.

As The Washington Post noted, these terms were not even required to be made public until a law in 2008 that forced them into the light of scrutiny, and then the costs were seen to feed underfunded pension programs that promised much, and held little, forcing increases in property taxes. As of 2016, nationwide, there is $1.1 trillion underfunded pensions.

In Illinois there is an unfunded liability of public employee pensions of $129 billion, that is also accompanied by nearly $16 billion in unpaid bills from the budget impasse.

Rooted in an earlier decision, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, there was a chance to maybe get it right, with Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association yet that was put on hold, after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

With Abood in a 4:4 deadlock, there were some provisions made - one was to have the worker that objected to the dues, get a portion back - in cash -- after political activities were stripped out; but as imagined this was a less Solomon like decision in an attempt to separate wheat from chaff, in an effort whose lines were easily blurred.

Over 20 states currently have laws that let unions charge non-members fees for work done on their behalf.

The general counter argument was that the objecting worker was still enjoying the benefits of the union, despite their disagreement with the political arm of the union. And, that is where the First Amendment comes in, since Janus argues that the very process of negotiation, seeps into political speech, or actions, some, or all of which may be objectionable to some members.

As some have believed, the benefits largely fund Democrats, there is truth, in that, and the Post “found that states with stronger unions have higher liabilities. Moreover, they tend to be states run by Democrats. Unionization rates — the percentage of public employees who are union members — are twice the national median in New Jersey and Connecticut, states where 60 and 61 percent of public employees belong to unions. In each of these states, liabilities are also twice the national median, totaling $7,770 and $6,785, respectively, when divided across those states’ total residents.”

But there is a rub: “Second, and more surprising, public unions also secure generous benefits in Republican-controlled states. Contrary to Republicans’ reputation for austerity, GOP lawmakers are frequently aligned with unions, especially those representing police, fire and corrections officers. Such alliances result in promises of future benefits — and the accompanying liabilities. Moreover, workers in these fields are more likely to retire earlier and draw on their public benefits longer than other public-sector employees. Hence, red and purple states like Michigan, Ohio and New Hampshire also have significant liabilities,” said the Post researchers.

In fact Republicans can get twice as much -- $91,000 in union contributions to be exact --  in a state with strong unions, versus the opposite. So, the opposition form the mostly GOP leaders is only when union contributions don’t help their party; otherwise it’s anathema, a fact not always generally known.

Politics aside, this is on one significant level, about the state balance sheet, not just in Illinois, but across the country. That fact, is getting buried in the avalanche of partisan politics, but despite the gnawing chasm, help is needed. And, one way to treat the financial liabilities are to create retiree medical trusts, or go to that old GOP bete-noire, the health care exchanges generated by the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare.

Since that is mostly being shoved aside the concentration is on the partisan divide in the Court where it was clearly seen that there was not going to be much change since Abood.

“Illinois Solicitor General David Franklin, who was at the lectern defending the state's compulsory fee scheme, told the Court that "the state has a much freer hand when it manages its personnel as an employer than when it regulates its citizens as a sovereign, and...that freer hand includes broad authority to put conditions on employees' speech.

Unfortunately for Franklin, that argument apparently did not sit well with Justice Kennedy, who often casts the decisive vote in closely divided cases. "What we're talking about here is compelled justification and compelled subsidization of a private party, a private party that expresses political views constantly," Kennedy retorted. A little bit later, Kennedy told Franklin, "it seems to me your argument doesn't have much weight,” reported Reason.com.

Returning to the core of the case, says the Los Angeles Times, “Janus' argument is that, because wages and benefits for public employees have an effect on budgets and taxes, they are inherently "political" issues. Therefore a non-union employee whose fees support negotiations that result in a contract that raises his and other employees' pay is being forced to "speak" on a matter of public concern.”

Accepting that conclusions, the Court would undermine “the view it has expressed in other cases that public employees' 1st Amendment rights aren't identical to those of private citizens — as the lawyer for the state of Illinois suggested at Monday's argument,” they note.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer suggested that the fees, seen earlier, should only go towards those that affect “wages, hours [and] working conditions”, and not to any “political” activities; and to make it explicit that  these"fair share" fees do only that, which are subject to collective bargaining under state law, is one direction the Court might take in June.

In the larger world the consequences of a complete overturn, as Justice Elena Kagan noted, if the Court were to rule for Janus, labor laws in 24 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico “would be declared unconstitutional and thousands of municipal contracts covering millions of workers would be invalidated,” creating havoc and chaos for an important block of U.S. employees.

"What would be the justification for doing something like that?" she asked Janus' lawyer.

Indeed, and the question has become a national one; “Today’s economy is rigged against working people in favor of the wealthy and the powerful,” AFL-CIO Massachusetts President Steven Tolman said. “It’s not by accident. Corporate CEOs and the politicians who do their bidding have written the rules in favor of their own special interest, and now those same corporate billionaires have taken the case Janus v. AFSCME to the Supreme Court, and it’s not done to help us.”

American Federation of Teachers president, Randi Weingarten wrote in an email to members, on Tuesday, that “This case isn’t about petitioner Mark Janus, it’s about defunding unions. It’s about who will have power in our country—working people or big corporate interests. That’s why it’s being funded by the Koch brothers, the DeVos family, and other wealthy and corporate interests. First, they pledged $80 million to “defund and defang” unions. Then, the Kochs, after getting the Trump tax cut, upped the ante with $400 million to undermine public education and “break” the teachers unions. And now, with the Janus case, they are pushing to prevent workers from having a union at all. Why? Because unions are our vehicle to fight for and win a better life for people, and corporate interests see that as a threat to their power.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that without the fees in place, unions would be deprived of the monies they need to advocate for the people they represent. Presciently, she said “not only would people opposed to the union stop paying fees, but also people who want the union’s representation without the cost,” said the Daily Northwestern the student paper at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.

“You’ll have a union with diminished resources, not able to investigate what it should demand at the bargaining table, not equal to the employer that it faces,” Ginsburg said

In a Tweet posted after oral arguments, Rauner, who attended the proceedings, said he was confident that the Supreme Court would side with “free speech” for workers in state government, and that “The gravity of the Court’s decision will be felt not just in Illinois, but across America.”

Totally silent, on Monday, was Neil Gorsuch the newest justice on the court and for awhile the only victory claimed by President Donald Trump, who as an established younger conservative, and has previously been downright loquacious; at his first case he practically bubbled over, peppering attorney's with questions.

Considering his pro-business record, his vote in support of Janus would create the resulting chaos that Kagan predicted.

This blog profiled him a year ago and noted, “What has been examined by concerned liberals is his support for the Hobby Lobby decision decision which says that business owners do not have to violate their religious beliefs to fulfill the law - in this case the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act. Seen as a landmark victory by those that support religious freedom the decision also affected another case with The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Roman Catholic women's religious order.

For the former he wrote: “The ACA’s mandate requires them to violate their religious faith by forcing them to lend an impermissible degree of assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong.”  And, for the latter he wrote, ““When a law demands that a person do something the person considers sinful, and the penalty for refusal is a large financial penalty, then the law imposes a substantial burden on that person’s free exercise of religion.”

If Gorsuch sees Janus’ first amendment rights violated, and possibly views them in the light of legislative sin, then risking the wellbeing of public sector worker rights, might just be worth it.

January Jobs Report: Wages up, workers down

Friday’s release by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics for the January Jobs Report was highly anticipated by nearly everyone -- including President Trump and his team. It was to be, for them, a vindication for his business friendly policies, and also to tag onto his key piece of legislation, the tax reform bill, but it was also eagerly anticipated by those that wanted to see one key piece of news: a wage increase.

The report did not disappoint -- it showed that the economy added 200,000 jobs, much more than the 180,000 anticipated, and the bonus was that average hourly wages increased to 2.9 percent, a welcome bump of 0.3percent from a figure that seemed on hold for several previous months at 2.5 percent.

This is a welcome change from the unwelcome images of income inequality that spilled from the media, and also led to political upheaval, even turmoil, said many.

Wages represent the real test of our economic strength and getting there, as we noted previously is half the battle and in earlier months there was optimism, when last month, it was noted by Business Insider that “Economists, however, remain optimistic that wage growth will accelerate with the labor market near full employment. The unemployment rate, which has declined by 0.7 percentage point since January, is now at its lowest level since December 2000 and below the Fed’s median forecast for 2017.”

Leading, or perhaps even lauding, the good news was economist Joseph Brusuelas who told Fortune Magazine that this would signal the “tightest labor market in a generation.”

The headline number remained at 4.1 percent, the lowest it has been since December 2000. The combination is likely, say observers, to lead to a March interest rate increase of a quarter-point, by the Federal Reserve, under the new chair Jay Powell. The usual disclaimer is still present: the headline, or marquee number, does not include those that want a job, but have given up, discouraged workers, or those that are not of working age; or those that want full time employment, but are stuck in part-time jobs; It does, by definition, include those that are simply unemployed and looking for work.

The good news is also that the discouraged worker rate has fallen by 15 percent in the last year.

While the champagne corks popped in many quarters, others were less sanguine, as they considered a Labor Force Participation Rate of 62.7 percent, that has been steady for four months, with seemingly no abatement to come. In 2000, the rate peaked at 67.3, but was depressed by long term joblessness, and the aforementioned discouraged workers.

The downward spiral has many reasons, and one is the continued opioid crisis, that has given the LFPR a 20 percent drop, say employers. Going further some have even said that the rate has been nibbled away by those that have claimed disability, often by jobseekers lacking relevant skills; and this was joined by the fact that Baby Boomers have retired at a steady clip, with younger workers filling the void, but not always, “shovel ready” as employers say that many of them lack the skills and education needed to perform.

To fill that void, some employers are lowering standards, including hiring those that test positive on marijuana, or lack requisite skills and need that “in-house” training, but mostly occurring in lower wage jobs. In fact, the largest increases were in bars and restaurant work, 31,000; health care (mostly lower-salaried aides) at 21,000; and manufacturing, of 15,000, welcome news, but most economists are taking a wait and see approach, as these numbers are subject to revision.

In a unique turnabout some employers are paying them increased wages after training them, and then, and only then, increasing wages giving employers an advantage, but simultaneously saving money.

Market Watch reported that “Dan North, chief economist at Euler Hermes North America, says a labor shortage has reached the critical stage.” He says that employers are “desperate for potential employees who have skills, or at the least, who can pass a drug test.”

“Companies are having to hiring unskilled people at unskilled wages, and train them. That’s part of the reason wages remain weak.," he emphasized.

While the White House seems to suggest that they have the wherewithal with this new bill to increase these overall numbers, some economists are saying this short-term boost from a deficit funded legislation is not enough, and that what is needed is an examination of the social causes of worker discouragement.

State of the Union address shows a new visionary Trump

Donald Trump’s first State of the Union address showed a remarkable change in both tenor and tone, than has been seen before. Gone, at least for the moment, were the bellicose statements, and the bombastic rhetoric that has endeared himself kudos from his base, and pans from his critics. In its place was a clearly articulated vision of his America, one that can, and will return to its strength and might - Pax Americana.

While the team of speech writers went into overtime, Tuesday’s result gave a magnificent mantle to what has been not only a contentious record, but a thin one, that gave even his supporters pause. But, freshly imbued with the legislative victory of tax reform, and the Senate confirmation of conservative Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, Trump could crow a bit, and the writers obviously gave pause to how much that bit contained.

More than one observer noted the similarities between Tuesday’s address and that of the iconic GOP hero Ronald Reagan whose script was both flawlessly delivered, and executed, as the former Hollywood actor sailed through it.

Trump did hit all of the points that led him to victory in 2016: a stronger military, border security - including the infamous wall, changing the structure of legal immigration and countering illegal immigration, trade deals that don’t debilitate the U.S. economy, and jobs, those “beautiful” jobs that he heavily touted, in the early days of the administration.

As usual there were guests in the First Lady’s box, there as examples of what lay at the core of his agenda --- almost part and parcel of what the televised audience expects to see from any modern president in a State of the Union address.

One of those were family members of a victim of the infamous MS-13 gang that had killed their daughter; and while no one watching could not share their grief, the moment was a playbook from the old 60’s “law and order” tag, which was a coded term for race, and tags onto the remarks that candidate Trump made about Mexico sending its rapists, thugs and criminals, and painting an already troubled legislative landscape with fear.

Seen also in a familiar pose, that the Republicans once held, was the minority party, sitting on their hands, as the hall erupted into applause, at prime points; at least those Democrats that actually showed up, as there were those such as Rep’s John Lewis, of Georgia, and Jan Schakowsky, of Illinois that boycotted the evening because of the recent intense partisan battles that have defined the Trump presidency, perhaps even more than his predecessor.

There were some cringe worthy moments, however, after the  announcement, or more accurately, re-announcement of the path for the DACA recipients, Trump later said, that “Americans were dreamers, too” in a direct reference to the former Obama program for those children brought to the country, illegally, as toddlers, or infants, 1.8 million of them.

But, pitting one group against another is dirty politics, that can lead to more than we hope for, and far less, that, as a nation, we deserve.

It was reported that some Democrats brought some DREAMers as their guests for the evening, only to have Rep Paul Gosar, a Republican from Arizona, express his desire that the police arrest, and deport them on the spot.

Care of the veterans, those that fought the nation’s wars when revealed next to a decade earlier, to rove far less than adequate, and now have become part of the arsenal against an entrenched liberal presence, intent on robbing these men and women of their  rights of care. While those problems are complex, and vary widely, the problems seem less than liberal but neglectful, a sad bureaucratic reality.

Ron Elving of NPR, perhaps said it best, when in his analysis he noted the gaping hole of bipartisanship, saying, “the president might have chosen to make a very different speech — aimed at meeting his various opponents halfway. He might have credited, for example, some of the members of the Senate who have been trying to negotiate a compromise on immigration. He might have saluted the Democrats in the Senate who voted for his tax cut last year, or who have been negotiating with his administration on infrastructure and other areas of shared concern.”

For those viewers,and listeners, that might have been pleased with the new tune, whose lyrics were the same, regrettable during a time of near savage partisanship, the issues of race (which dog him), the class divisions; indeed the whole lot, that has plagued the nation for decades, have been purposefully exacerbated, as political exercise.

In a possible attempt to heal,and win over Black Americans, Trump advanced the low unemployment rate for African Americans, and giving himself credit for it - yet that rate, still higher than those for white people or Asians, is not an end unto itself, but a beginning, and one that was not helped by the recent tax reform bill that gives some relief to some taxpayers, living in some places; but mostly, not to black Americans, like their white cohorts, on a reliable basis.

Jesse Jackson, in an editorial for the Chicago Sun-Times noted that the headline rate, what we’ve referred to as the marquee number, in previous blogs, is not wholly accurate as it does not include those that are stuck in part-time work and want full-time work, or those who have given up looking.

The diligent staff of factcheck.org gave their estimation: “When Trump took office in January 2017, the black unemployment rate was 7.8 percent, the lowest it had been in nearly 10 years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Under Trump, it dropped a full percentage point to 6.8 percent in December. That’s the lowest rate since the bureau began regularly breaking out unemployment rates by race in 1972.

A similar drop of 1 percentage point was recorded during the same 11-month period in 2016. The drop was even more pronounced in each of the three years before that. It fell 1.9 percentage points in 2015, 1.5 percentage points in 2014 and 1.8 percentage points in 2013.

In other words, the downward trend has continued under Trump, albeit at a slower pace than in recent years.”

While others have blasted the president for this bout of hubris, the conclusion was this:  “. .  .  the gap between white and black unemployment remains largely unchanged under Trump. While black unemployment fell to 6.8 percent in December, the white unemployment rate that month was 3.7 percent. So the white rate is 46 percent lower than the black rate, about the same as the gap in December 2016.”

The tax reform bill that Trump has widely trumpeted - his only legislative victory is a  mixed bag, but one that primarily gives huge deductions for wealthy individuals and  corporations while slicing away at the deductions that most average income, and above, earners need, such as the state and local income tax deductions.

Many polls have revealed how deeply unpopular the bill, titled the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” is; in fact 64 percent of Americans oppose the Act and say that it favors the wealthy, and 76 percent for corporations, more than it does the average American; especially families living in high tax states, such as New York and California.

“The average household would get a tax cut of $1,610 in 2018, a bump of about 2.2 percent in that average household's income, according to a report by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank that has been critical of the tax overhaul plan,” says National Public Radio.

Most revealing of those figures is that “however, extremes make averages, and the benefits would be much larger for richer households. A household earning $1 million or more would get an average cut of $69,660, an income bump of 3.3 percent. Compare that with the a tax cut of $870, or 1.6 percent, for the average household earning $50,000 to $75,000.”

Hearing the president crow about the bill made many observers wonder about the old “fuzzy math” of yesteryear. On a more serious note, most of the economic gains that Trump has claimed for himself came about as a result from the work of outgoing Fed Chair Janet Yellen, whose dovish, and data driven, approach made the grade, along with President Obama’s economic policies, and rescue of the auto and banking industries, coupled with a growing global economy.

The end result --- Pax Americana writ large - was the central theme, the rebuttal by Rep. Joe Kennedy III, said much about how regular wage earning people, of the so-called rank and file needed more than has been given this past year.

“Kennedy, a millionaire scion of the famed political family, pushed the official Democratic message of a “better deal,” with paid family leave, higher wages, and affordable child care and education. He argued that Trump is turning American life “into a zero-sum game” where one group can win only if another loses,” reported the Boston Globe.

Without mentioning the president by name, he said this, about the record that was touted that evening: “Their record is a rebuke of our highest American ideal: the belief that we are all worthy, we are all equal and we all count,” Mr. Kennedy said as he delivered the official Democratic Party response to Mr. Trump’s State of the Union address, said The New York Times.

Ripping the well-stitched cover from the evening, Kennedy also helped to reposition the Democrats when he noted, “We are bombarded with one false choice after another: coal miners or single moms, rural communities or inner cities, the coast or the heartland,” Kennedy said. “So here is the answer Democrats offer tonight: We choose both. We fight for both.”