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.”

Just don't call it a trade war: US v. China

Last Friday’s news that President Donald Trump has upped the ante with China by increasing the tariff to $200 billion on Chinese exports, was a move that sent the Dow and global exchanges into a downward spiral that made both Wall Street and Main Street nervous as a threat to a strong US economy, since consumer spending is its main driver.

Despite saying that “The relationship between President Xi and myself remains a very strong one, and conversations into the future will continue,” Trump’s threat to increase by 25 percent on another $325 billion of Chinese exports, seemed less than a good faith measure.

Chinese Vice Premier Liu He appeared to minimize the impasse as one of distractions, and said, “But China is not afraid, nor are the Chinese people,” adding that “China needs a cooperative agreement with equality and dignity.”

Despite long running concerns over several American administrations over allegations of stealing of business strategies and price hikes, joined by European concerns, Bloomberg reported, “Before the rebound late Friday, U.S. markets had posted their worst week of the year so far, as the trade truce that had been in place for months was shattered by the new U.S. tariffs.”

China announced it would raise tariffs on $60 billion of American goods in a tit-for-tat move that has made every market nervous.

CNN Business reported that “Asian stocks dipped lower on Monday, with Japan's Nikkei Index (N225) dropping around 0.7% and the Shanghai Composite Index (SHCOMP) closing more than 1% lower. Hong Kong markets were closed for a holiday.

Major European markets like the DAX (DAX) and CAC40 (CAC40) fell more than 1% on Monday. Stocks in Germany, which exports heavily to China, were among the hardest hit. BMW (BMWYY) and Volkswagen (VLKAF) both dropped around 1.5%, Daimler (DMLRY) fell 3.3% and ThyssenKrupp (TKAMY) closed 8.3% lower. Losses on the FTSE 100 (UKX) were narrower, as rising oil prices gave a lift to BP (BP) and Shell (RDSA).”

“China has used its WTO membership to flood other countries with exports, while limiting foreign access to its own market. "Their vision is in a lot of ways zero sum," said Blaine Johnson, a policy analyst who specializes in Asia at the liberal Center for American Progress.

The result is a badly lopsided trading relationship: The U.S. trade deficit with China last year hit a record $379 billion,“ reported US News and World report, using an AP post.

In February of this year, The Economist said, “At the heart of these complaints is the role of China’s government, which funnels cheap capital towards state firms, bullies private companies and breaches the rights of foreign ones. As a result, China grossly distorts markets at home and abroad.”

Summing up the long, nearly 20 year problem, they also noted, “the U.S. says China is trying to meet its [market] aspirations by stealing trade secrets, coercing technology transfers, subsidizing its own firms and burying in red tape foreign companies that want to compete in the Chinese market. Last year, the U.S. began imposing tariffs to pressure China to drop the aggressive tactics.”

Trump has noted that the next round will begin when “he expects to meet Xi in late June at the G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan.”

Tariffs have had a long chapter in US history and after the weak Articles of Confederation, there was no room for taxation, other than requesting by the nascent federal government from the states, and tariffs, the brainchild of Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, created the idea that was also supported by George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, as a way of protecting American industry and goods.

It was a point of departure between President Cleveland and Candidate William MckInley as they argued whether a republic, a free nation, could use them. And, all came to increasing controversy with the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 that some felt exacerbated the oncoming Depression.

While seen as a success at first the failure of global banks decreased the benefits of the Act, but  the tide turned, and later, “The 1932 Democratic campaign platform pledged to lower tariffs. After winning the election, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the now-Democratic Congress passed Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934. This act allowed the President to negotiate tariff reductions on a bilateral basis, and also treated such a tariff agreement as regular legislation, requiring a majority, rather than as a treaty requiring a two-thirds vote. This was one of the core components of the trade negotiating framework that developed after World War II. The tit-for-tat responses of other countries were understood to have contributed to a sharp reduction of trade in the 1930s. After World War II this understanding supported a push towards multi-lateral trading agreements that would prevent similar situations in the future,” summed Wikipedia.

Now it’s Trump’s turn to return to high tariffs, and its alignment with his nativist stand, replete with the infamous Make America Great Again slogan; but now it promises to be a threat to his 2020 reelection campaign, just after he pinned his star on the strong economy, as a lead to keep the presidency for a second term.

He does this despite the opinion of most economists, and observers, who have shown the successful economy to be attributable more from the efforts of former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, and President Obama, with data-driven formulas, and saving the auto industry, and banking industry from fiasco, early on in his first term.

Illinois farmers have seen decreased profits over the last six years, and “Evan Hultine, a sixth-generation corn and soybean farmer in Princeton, Illinois, said a trade war is the last thing he and his fellow farmers need,” in an interview with CBS This Morning.

Pointedly he also said that "I'd tell him that we supported him from the get-go on trying to bring China to the table and make them more accountable for their practices, but every day that this ticks on, farmers are the ones that are taking it on the jaw," Hultine said.

Trump will, in turn, have to ask himself if the risk of alienating some of his most ardent supporters is worth the risk.

Despite, what many say is a strong and consistent approval base of at least 44 percent according to a recent Gallup poll, it makes some wonder if this trade war with China may chip away at support from his base, as the concern from Hultine expressed.

Some feel that China may have the upper hand, thus further jeopardizing the economic platform that the president has trumped as the means to staying in office, and created a backlash with what is essentially a tax on the American consumer.

What-a-coulda-shoulda, is an old American saying and perhaps,there was an alternative, as Washington Post columnist, Robert J. Samuelson noted in a recent column: “What the United States should have done is create a global coalition of major trading countries — itself, the European Union, Japan and other advanced societies — that would negotiate limits on subsidies, coerced technology transfers and a level playing field for competition between domestic and foreign firms. If China violated the rules and refused to join, the other countries could take action against its exports.”

Chinese state media, according to The Economist, issued this statement: “If you want to talk, our door is wide open,” said an anchor on China’s most-watched news programme on May 13th, in a clip that went viral. “If you want to fight, we’ll fight you to the end.”

American healthcare, American values

It’s no secret that America has faced a crisis with the provision of healthcare over the last several decades, and that entering the fray is like Daniel entering the lion’s den, yet that debate continued last Tuesday with a Congressional hearing, by the House Rules Committee, on major health proposals; one from the Senate, and the other from the House of Representatives, with  each one attempting to cover more ground, than the Affordable Care Act, from the Obama administration, commonly known as Obamacare.

While the Democrats are tied to the issue that propelled them into the majority in the House are committed to seeing that a plan be developed, the Republicans, are equally harnessed to seeing any effort, by them, defeated as a socialist effort, as they did with Obamacare, nevermind that most GOP supporters cannot clearly identify what socialism is, or isn't.

“Democrats are fully embracing socialism and a complete government takeover of the American health care system. Democrats’ radical plan will rip health care from 158 million Americans. Taxes would skyrocket and access to care would slow to a crawl,” House Republicans said in a statement the day before.

It also promised to be debatable within the Democratic party, with some presidential candidates on the left of the issue, while others are in the middle, some lined up behind Medicare for All, with others, lightly defined as “single-payer”, while still others, including leadership, want to take a more incremental approach with universal coverage as the goal.

The Democratic left has become energized on the issue, and want to see fast results, but in a body that is easily entrapped in debate, and with President Trump eager to use healthcare (despite his failings to replace Obamacare) as a wedge issue, to help ensure his re-election,and keep the insurance industry profitable, while further enriching the coffers of Big Pharma.

As Bloomberg News reported, “The House on Tuesday will gavel in the first-ever hearing on a sweeping Medicare for All proposal .  . . and, if private health insurers are one day put out of business by a government-run single payer health system, they may look back at Tuesday as the beginning of the end. Yet the bill coming before the House Rules Committee won’t become law anytime soon and may never get a hearing in the committees that oversee Medicare.”

“Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington State, sponsor of the legislation and a leader of the Democrats’ progressive faction in the House, said she’s playing the long game.

“This is first step but certainly not the last step,” she said in an interview.  But, in the House, Jayapal’s bill has backing from 109 out of 235 House Democrats.”

“From my read of the room, there isn’t support for that proposal,” said Representative Ben McAdams, a freshman Democrat who represents a swing district in solidly Republican Utah. “I’m worried it causes more problems than it solves.”

Shoring up Obamacare, is the goal of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who also wants, as with most of her supporters, mostly fellow lawmakers, to lower drug costs, while letting the debate on more radical legislation continue.

Significantly, as Bloomberg noted, “The two committees with jurisdiction over Medicare haven’t agreed to hold hearings and there is no push for a floor vote this year under discussion.”

“It’s also not clear if it will be considered by the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has primary jurisdiction over health care issues,” said the Hill.

That has not deterred some, and “Things are moving at a faster pace than some had anticipated and I think that’s good,” said Massachusetts Representative Jim McGovern, the Rules Committee chairman and a supporter of the Medicare for All bill. “This is not being slow-walked, we are trying to ignite the discussion on this.”

Jayapal’s bill, H.R. 1384, is “far more generous” than one in the Senate by Sen. Bernie Sanders, “It would expand Medicare to everyone over just two years and once in place would waive all co-pays, deductibles and premiums for the insured. Unlike Medicare now, it would cover long-term nursing home care. Private insurers would be banned from competing with the new Medicare for essential services but could offer new plans for elective procedures like plastic surgery.”

There is weak support for her plan in the House and the votes, are, as of now,109 out of 235 among House Democrats.

There is good news, according to The Hill, which reported that “House: Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which shares jurisdiction on health care issues, will soon hold a hearing on the proposal.”

That may be a wise move since “Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee organization has threatened to support a primary challenge against Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal of Massachusetts if he refuses to hold hearings on the plan. The group also complained that Neal was moving too slowly to demand Trump’s tax returns.”

Sanders, in the lead as one of the major contenders for the 2020 Democratic nomination, “introduced his own Medicare for All bill in the Senate. Four of his Senate colleagues also seeking the Democratic nod, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand and Elizabeth Warren, have signed on as co-sponsors.”

Former Vice President Joe Biden, now a presidential contender, has taken an incremental approach, and does not support the Sanders bill, and has endorsed a public option plan, with lowered drug prices, except for people covered by a private plan.

Sensing a dust-up, “Some Democrats have said they prefer lowering the Medicare age to 55, allowing people to buy into the program or a public option to compete with traditional insurance. A group of liberals led by Connecticut’s Rosa DeLauro and Illinois’s Jan Schakowsky are introducing a bill that would allow traditional employer-based insurance to continue while enrolling the uninsured automatically in expanded versions of Medicare and Medicaid,” Bloomberg added.

Nothing is simple when it comes to healthcare legislation, as we have seen, stretching back to the days of President  Truman, in 1945, whose national health insurance was defeated, in part, by the American Medical Association's accusation of  “socialized medicine” and then President Johnson faced down his critics for ushering in Medicare and Medicaid, for the same reason, and President Obama was attacked by the same reasoning, for the ACA.

In Tuesday’s hearing “GOP panel members repeatedly pressed McGovern on why the Rules Committee, which is often controlled by the Speaker, was the one holding a Medicare for All hearing.

McGovern, who took over as head of the panel in January, responded by saying: “There’s a new sheriff in town. That’s why we’re doing the hearing.”

Tart replies aside, “The location underscored the divisions the Democratic Party faces in how it plans to improve a system where 29 million Americans are uninsured, and millions more can’t afford their premiums, deductibles and prescription drugs,” noted The Hill.

Despite the enthusiasm on both sides, “Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) hasn’t committed to holding a hearing on Medicare for All, and has instead focused on bills that would strengthen the ACA.”

Another reality is that “Many Democrats are wary of Medicare for All because it would eliminate private insurance, a multibillion-dollar industry that covers 67 percent of the population,” and is also a significant employer; and, polls have shown that there is less support for the proposal, when respondents, many of whom like their employer based plan, are told that it would be eliminated.

The biggest issue, at least from the Sanders plan, is cost, and $32 trillion dollars is a hefty price tag for something that many do not fully understand, or support.

Republican witness Charles Blahous, of the Mercatus Center, has estimated that the Sanders version would require spending that amount over a decade.

All of this aside, is the human cost to those without adequate health insurance, and a recent story from NPR showed that “A study published last month in Health Affairs examined claims data from a large national insurer for 316,244 women whose employers switched insurance coverage from low-deductible health plans (i.e., deductibles of $500 or less) to high-deductible health plans (i.e., deductibles of $1,000 or more) between 2004 and 2014.”

Notably, they found that for women with possible breast cancer, those “with low incomes who had high-deductible insurance plans waited an average of 1.6 months longer for diagnostic breast imaging, 2.7 months for first biopsy, 6.6 months for first early-stage breast cancer diagnosis and 8.7 months for first chemotherapy, compared with low-income women with low-deductible plans.”

Whether, or not, these illustrative stories reach the Congress is debatable, but what cannot be ignored is the need for a comprehensive healthcare that is equitable for all all Americans.

April Jobs Report gives U.S. economy high and lows

More than hoped for, but less than what we deserved, seems to sum up the April Jobs Report released by the Labor Department on Friday which showed 263,000 jobs added the US Labor Market. With unemployment under 3.6 percent, and continued growth of 100 months in a row.

Many economists cheered after hearing the news, along with some bankers, and President Trump, who tweeted that the US is “the ENVY of the WORLD”.

As the celebratory confetti, and balloons, appeared, accompanied by a steady stream of praise, the glow was off for some, concerned about the slow wage growth that  says to many in the media, that “this is not your father’s economic recovery; and as The New York Times reported, the “. . . current expansion doesn’t resemble past booms.”

Of particular concern, was the stubborn labor force participation rate which remained the same at 62.8 percent, contributing to the still abysmally low wage increase of 3.2 percent that has weakened the “larger more durable expansion” that Michael Gapen, chief US economist at Barclays, described.

Others have attributed the low wages to the dearth of qualified workers, and others to the popularity of non-compete clauses for departing workers, the lack of organized labor for some of the big retailers, or wage freezes for those companies captured by venture capitalists; but the simple fact is that the story behind the headline numbers is not as rosy, as some would have us believe.

There are some observers, that say, at least, talks of inflation have receded, and Fed vice chair Richard Clarida said, in prepared remarks, also released on Friday: “The U.S. economy is in a very good place,” and Chair Jerome Powell has resisted pleas from Trump, and Vice-President Pence, to cut interest rates, stating that he will not bow to political pressures.

Terming wage growth as “appropriate” the Fed’s core indicator is the personal consumer expenditures and that rate was 1.6 percent in March, well below the Fed target of inflation, the traditional 2.0 percent.

There are also some that see April’s good news as a blunt to talks of a recession, something that was prevalent in January, but now might be stilled; and, extended even further are those that see global concerns such as Brexit, or the US and China trade wars will have no effect, but some critics of that assertion, think that view as overly optimistic.

There is good news for certain areas, and especially business and professional services, a catch-all category for a variety of clerical and administrative workers, including those working for temporary agencies, but has increased its numbers to 76,000 jobs and some like Diane Swonk of Grant Thornton, told the Times that their increased duties, especially technical, have placed them in greater demand.

“These people are handling the logistics of implementing this stuff,” forcing businesses to hire more administrative and support workers, Ms. Swonk said. “These are not the kind of admin jobs like we used to have. They’ve moved up significantly in terms of skills.”

As with earlier coverage, in previous months, some employers have turned to other methods to lure prospective and qualified employees, with hefty sign-on bonuses, child care, and for some, the absence of a college degree, or marijuana convictions, are no longer the impediment, that it once was - unheard of even a year, or so ago.

Justin Holland, founder and chief executive of HealthyJoy, shared with the Times, that he “is also considering workers who might not have been as appealing a decade ago. “I don’t look at a college degree as a gatekeeper”.

Interestingly, the Times coverage noted that some of the most popular search terms, on Indeed, are “felony friendly” - up 37 percent, and “no background check” - up 148 percent; all indicators that show future employers are looking beyond traditional barriers, to get the people that they need; which in turn might partly contribute to greater labor force participation.

Despite these concessions, the U-6 rate, which shows those that are underemployed, as well as those still searching, remained the same for both February and march at 7.3 percent.

Further complicating an analysis is the example of manufacturing, which showed an increase of 4,000 jobs added, but omits the previous loss of 6,000 in March.

Additionally, the jobless claims rose to 23,000 on “ a seasonally adjusted basis” but fell in the final full week of April, Yahoo Finance reported.

For those that are still looking for a silver lining, they get it with the news of the GDP which was 3.2 percent, in the first quarter, belying predictions that it would only be 2.3 percent.

Finally, just to mix apples with oranges, Amazon, has increased its hourly pay to $15 an hour, followed by Costco; and in April, Target increased its hourly pay to $13 an hour.