No rate increase from Feds, pleasing Trump

To the delight of many, including President Trump, the report from the Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Markets Committee meeting that ended Wednesday, said in its summary report that there were no plans to raise interest rates, a move that had been previously derided by Trump, as well as his denouement of Fed Chair Jerome Powell.

The news stoked an uptick, during Powell’s remarks, of the Dow, which shot up 200 points but, later dropped to 142, but, nevertheless, the White House is building on the news for the reelection campaign of the president.

As anyone who has taken a basic course in macroeconomics knows, the mandate of the Federal Reserve is to keep inflation beneath 2 percent, and to lower unemployment, a mandate that it has adhered to over decades.

Trump’s trashing of Powell as a threat to a healthy economy gave the injection of politics into the role of America’s central bank, and some have said there was a stare down between the two men - yet, the U.S. economy is on solid, if not spectacular ground, much like during the Obama years, and increasing employment, on a steady basis, just as Powell, (like former chair Janet Yellen), kept an even hand on the tiller, using data, not politics, to keep it there; and, ensuring, perhaps to the horror of the president, steady employment under his watch.

Rates are now between 2.25 percent and 2.5 percent, and are expected to stay that way, and with unemployment remaining low, despite the February Jobs Report that many economists and bankers see as typical for the month, those that predicted that there might be one in 2019 and maybe one more in 2020, are now looking pessimistic - and there is joy on Wall Street, as well as Main Street.

Yahoo Finance reported that “In keeping interest rates steady at the current target range of 2.25% to 2.5%, the Fed said that the labor market "remains strong" but said economic growth has "slowed from its solid rate in the fourth quarter."

“The Fed statement said indicators have pointed to "slower growth" of household spending and business fixed investment,” hinting at a slowdown in consumer spending and a corresponding slowdown in the GDP.

There is still a difference of opinion in predictions for the economy with the White House proclaiming 3.2 percent growth, and others seeing far less.

The New York Times reported that “The Fed now expects 2.1 percent growth this year, down from the 2.3 percent it forecast in December — and more than a percentage point less than the 3.2 percent growth the White House predicts. The outlook for 2020 is even more bleak, with the Fed now projecting growth of just 1.9 percent.”

If the devil is in the details, there is much to be seen, and “by signaling it will not raise rates without a clear change in conditions, the Fed is effectively giving Mr. Trump what he wants from monetary policy, but with a twist. The president has publicly pushed Mr. Powell to stop raising rates. But if the Fed is correct and growth falls well below 3 percent this year, without a single rate increase, it will be difficult for Mr. Trump to pin the blame on Mr. Powell,” they added.

Concern is still on the horizon for trade wars that Trump does not want to ease, and also the continued rejection by the British Parliament on Brexit, and the weakened, but slowly strengthening, Chinese economy; global concerns that darken an otherwise rosy outlook.

Looking at the FOMC report, it was clear that there would be no rate hikes “for 2019 — [and] came from an overwhelming majority of participants: 11 out of 17.”

The members opine were carefully laid on the now infamous dot plots, and they show that “for 2020, the median dot sits only 25 basis points above that level, telegraphing that only one rate hike could be in the cards through the end of next year,” said Yahoo Finance.

What is a dot plot, some ask - and Barron’s gave a brief description that can help that mythical person, the general reader: “For most of its history, the Fed did not tell the public where interest rates would go. Traders could make their own projections based on their readings of the economic data and their guesses about officials’ preferences, but the opinions of the people who actually set short-term interest rates were effectively a secret.

That changed seven years ago, thanks in large part to the efforts of Janet Yellen, then the Fed’s vice chair. As she explained at the time, the goal was twofold: Increased “transparency” would bolster the central bank from political attack, while the introduction of “forward guidance” would give monetary policy makers another tool to boost the economy.

Beginning in January 2012, the central bank has included regular summaries of what officials believe is the “appropriate” level and path of the Fed’s policy interest rate over the next several years. For the sake of equal representation of the Federal Open Market Committee’s members (as many as seven governors on the board in D.C., plus the 12 regional bank presidents), these summaries look like stacks of dots rather than lines or fan charts, hence the term “dot plot.”

This is not to say that there is infallibility, and Market Watch noted that “The dot plot was useful when the path of interest rates was always assumed to be higher. It doesn’t work as well when the direction of the next move is uncertain,” noted Kevin Logan, chief U.S. economist at HSBC.

Powell said last week he’s asked the FOMC’s communications subcommittee to look at the issue and its future issue.

Notably these “projections are a significant downward revision from the December FOMC meeting where policymakers raised by 25 basis points and said the economy could absorb "some further gradual increases." For comparison, the median dots in the December dot plot signaled two rate hikes for 2019 and a third in 2020.”

The partial government shutdown had its effect on the February Jobs Report, as well as the aforementioned political pressures, all that contributed to the fall for that month, despite those bankers, and observers, that saw it as a “pause” after the Christmas holidays and retail season.

Another source of concern was the unwinding of the balance sheet of Treasury securities, and mortgage-backed securities indefinitely, by up to $50 billion per month, that were part of the Central bank’s plan of  “quantitative easing” during the Recession to keep interest rates low and inject money into the economy, are now beginning an unwinding - a long held desire by Republican lawmakers.

“In May, the Fed plans on slowing the reduction of its holdings of Treasury securities. Currently the Fed is allowing redemptions on $30 billion of Treasuries a month, which it will slow to $15 billion.

The Fed says by the end of September, they will conclude the reduction of its securities holdings. A statement added that at that point in time, the Fed will have balance sheets that will "likely still be somewhat above the level of reserves necessary to efficiently and effectively implement monetary policy."

“With more clarity on the size of the balance sheet, the next step for the Fed will be deciding its ultimate composition. Some Fed officials have advocated for a more "neutral" balance sheet skewed toward shorter-term Treasurys in place of the Fed's current longer-term Treasury and agency debt and mortgage-backed securities holdings.”

Another change is to move from the traditional target rate of inflation from 2 percent to 3, a seismic move from the traditional pattern, but which is under serious consideration by its main proponent Richard Clarida, vice-chairman of the Reserve, who “is spearheading an internal strategy review to determine whether the Fed should start making up for below-target inflation during recessions and slow recoveries by allowing for above-target inflation during expansionary periods.”

Clarida laid out his plans late last month at the University Of Chicago Booth School Of Business at its monetary policy conference.

And though the review is still in its early stages, the Fed already seems to have embraced the idea that inflation might be allowed to exceed 2% without immediately triggering a tightening, something unheard of in previous decades.

Despite this dovish tone, the president and his staff are taking a full court press to make the strong economy the capstone of his reelection campaign.

“Trump’s presidency has been dotted with controversies, and he is a polarizing figure. As such, his political fortunes may be even more tied to the economic winds,” and “I think his reelection bid will live or die based on the economy,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, to The Hill.

In turn Trump said to generous crowds in Ohio, “It's going to be really easy on the debate stage when they hit me with nonsense and I say, 'Really? But African American unemployment — the best it's ever been,’” he said in Lima. “Hispanic, Asian, women, everybody — it’s all the best it’s ever been.”

“How do you top that in a debate?” he said. “What are they going to say?”

With a stay on interest rates, and a solid, if not great economy, and debates on future economic growth, it may be a case that the 14 Democratic hopefuls are going to have to look beyond Trump’s tub thumping and see the realities of American lives, and that will truly be a debate.

February Jobs Report drops the bomb

In a surprise to almost everyone from barkeeps to bookies, the U.S. economy gained a paltry 20,000 jobs, in February, the smallest gain in over a year, in an economy that has been touted as the strongest ever --- from the White House, to sound and strong, from Fed Chair Jerome Powell.

With more than a few heads to scratch, who predicted 180,000, some wondered aloud at what happened, and one of them “Carl Tannenbaum, chief economist at Northern Trust in Chicago, said Friday’s news from the Labor Department was worrisome. “This is a disappointing report,” he said to The New York Times;. “I don’t think there’s any way to sugarcoat it.”

Some economists have other worries and are wary that there might be a recession, or at the very least a slowdown coming after the good times of recovery, yet others are saying that February is always a coin-toss coming after retail highs and lows of the holiday season, and smaller pocketbooks on both side of the shop, and that it’s more of a pause than a long lasting trend.

Americans are worrying about the economy and 56 percent say that it is slowing down, or entering into a recession, while 41 percent say it is growing. And, Gallup reported at the end of last month that 77% of Republicans think it’s growing, while 82% of Democrats say it’s slowing down or in recession.”

Before our analysis, let’s take a look at the good news: “3.4 percent year-over-year wage growth, the strongest in a decade. Revisions to previous months’ estimates added 12,000 jobs, bringing the average gains for December, January and February to 186,000. The official jobless rate fell to 3.8 percent, from 4 percent in January.”

“The report also showed signs that companies are paying up for employees in a tight market. Average hourly earnings for private workers rose 0.4 percent from the prior month, topping estimates, following a 0.1 percent gain. That indicates the economy may get a lift from wage increases at companies including Amazon Inc. along with Costco Wholesale Corp., which said Thursday it’s boosting starting wages,” reported Bloomberg News.

The question remains, as it has been for many months, is that enough to meet the needs of working Americans, and the answer, for many, is no.

  

CEO Jack Kelly writing for Forbes, gave some important qualitative observations, saying in part:

“From a microeconomics perspective, as the CEO of a major recruiting firm, I question some of the conclusions drawn from the data. We have not seen significant salary offers to job seekers. If the labor market is as tight as claimed, it would be reasonable to believe that job offers would go much higher to attract a smaller pool of applicants, but we are not seeing this happen. A tight job market would also require materially enhancing the compensation of existing employees in an effort to retain them in a tight job market. We are not seeing this trend happening either.”

But, then again, there was statistically significant change for some groups, and, “Among major worker groups, the jobless rate for Hispanics also declined sharply to 4.3 percent from 4.9 percent in January. The rate for African-Americans rose two-tenths of a point to 7 percent, while the level for whites declined to 3.3 percent from 3.5 percent,” cited CNBC.

Also a broader measure of employment that includes part-timers who would prefer full-time work and those too discouraged to search fell to 7.3 percent from 8.1 percent. “That’s a year’s worth of improvement in one month,” said G. Scott Clemons, chief investment strategist at the private bank Brown Brothers Harriman.”

The latter is the good news and provides a measure of stability -- if the trend can hold, and it was one indicator that bankers, economists and analysts alike have long been concerned about.

Bad weather and weak growth in wages have contributed to those leaning into hiring, but demurred in February, yet there are some signs of job expansion, by some companies, but just not enough of them, say some.

That wage increase, while still small, “may get a lift from wage increases at companies including Amazon Inc. along with Costco Wholesale Corp., which said Thursday it’s boosting starting wages,” continued Bloomberg.

Others are more sanguine; and there is a move by some companies to convert temps to permanent positions, according to staffing firm Adecco, but increases in that area, and others, vary by geographic region, with gains in one, and losses in the others.

The increase is not seen in rural areas, and the Times quoted the “Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project [who] found that “rural counties — the majority of which were already struggling — seem to be increasingly left behind with employment barely growing over the last five years.”

For those readers looking for a formula here is one: “The jobless rate fell in part because of the vagaries the Labor Department uses to calculate the headline rate — there was an increase of 198,000 in those considered not in the labor force, while those classified as unemployed fell by 300,000 and the ranks of the employed decreased by 45,000, according to the household survey,” also reported CNBC.

It is important to know that recovering from any depression is patchy, and there are those that are more pessimistic.

“I don’t think you want to say that 20,000 is the new trend, but the trend probably is shifting down,” said Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York. “It’s hard to know with precision how much of a downshift there will be. We’ll see job growth better than this, but not as good as we saw last year.”

Showing optimism is “Ryan Sweet, head of monetary policy research at Moody’s Analytics Inc,” who noted, “There's no reason to panic. You average the couple months together and the jobs market is still doing well. Job growth will slow this year, as the economy begins to moderate. But 20,000 jobs is not what we’re going to be creating month-in and month-out.”

“William H. Stoller, chairman and chief executive of Express Employment Professionals, which is based in Oklahoma City,” said, “I’ve been in this business over 40 years, and February always presents kind of a pause.”

He is not alone, and Constance Hunter, chief economist at KPMG LLP, said on Bloomberg Television, “There was always going to be noise in this as a result of the shutdown.”

The partial government shutdown by President Trump also clouded the report and gave the lows, but also some false highs with industries like ride-sharing companies that had some federal workers driving to put food on the table, showing increases.

Bloomberg News may have summarized February the best: “Policy makers and economists are likely to wait for several months of weak hiring before concluding there’s cause for concern in the labor market. The figures also validate the Federal Reserve’s January decision to pause interest-rate hikes while awaiting signs of a more-persistent acceleration in inflation.”

Caution may be the watchword, and the increase in year-over-year wages to 3.4 may have encouraged some companies to remain bullish with hiring like “Ace Hardware, a cooperative of independently owned and operated hardware stores, expects an additional 160 stores will open this year, creating 2,500 jobs, said Kane Calamari, the company’s personnel chief.”

“The real challenge is the shortage of people,” said Tom Gimbel, chief executive of LaSalle Network, a staffing firm in Chicago, added, and that remains good for the more urban markets, but it seems based on prior reports that cautious optimism reigns.

Fallout of Cohen testimony leaves Dems at the crossroads

Last week’s testimony before the a House Oversight and Reform Committee, by Michael Cohen, a personal attorney and self-styled “fixer” for Donald Trump, drew over 13.5 million television viewers and made the case, for some, that this time, he was not lying as he had done in previous testimony to Bob Mueller, special investigator.

“I would argue he has less motivation to lie now than he ever did before. What does he have to lose?” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) told reporters amid a break in the hearing to vote. “He is already going to jail. He has been disbarred. His family is fractured. His future is gone. Maybe he can get a book contract out of it. I would argue he has no motivation to lie right now, none.”

The revelations of hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels, came to the fore as did his assertion that Trump falsified the worth of his holding downward to gain tax advantages, and vice versa, when the need suited him; along with using the Trump Foundation to avoid taxes, and a litany of abuses that many House Democrats say amount to obstruction of justice.

“Cohen testified extensively about Trump’s involvement in a scheme to pay off women who claimed to have had affairs with him during the 2016 campaign — in connection with which Cohen pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance law,” reported The Hill.

While there are those that smell blood in the water --- including the president, if his rant at CPAC is any indication -  the word impeachment is being said in a louder voice. Yet, and this is a big yet, can the Democrats afford to run this train to the station?

Yes, and no, say some and others say no ---- the most obvious history lesson, taking a rearward glance  --- has to be seen in 1998, when the GOP ruled, under Newt Gingrich, and the Dems, in a stunning rebuke got 6 seats, and President Bill Clinton was re-elected in a landslide.

Democrats were able to regain the House on a trifecta of issues: healthcare, voting rights and corporate finance reform; staying on script, with legislation is vital; and, becomes a real challenge after the partial government shutdown, when Trump wanted The Wall, and then the fallout by Rep. Ilhan Omar over her anti-Semitic remarks about our support for our long term ally, Israel.

And, if the president threatens to not cooperate, as he did at CPAC, and in the State of Union address, painting “any attempts by the House Democrats to perform their constitutional oversight duty as a threat the nation's security and prosperity,” then more is truly the better.

If as the more radical, at least vocal, members, have their way, Trump should be dragged from the White House, and placed in an orange jumpsuit. Pronto.

For some the sight might be, what was called a generation ago, “a Kodak moment”, providing even better optics than Watergate and the exile of Richard Nixon to California; yet, it would hamper the stately party of Roosevelt, as “getting” Trump - a miscalculation that, in part, helped to defeat Hillary Clinton.

The question remains is can there be two efforts, one to provide mandated Congressional oversight over real abuse, as evidenced by Cohen, and at the same time govern on the agenda that brought the Dems, and Nancy Pelosi, back to the helm?

Pure partisanship says “yes”, but a more nuanced effort, says “yes”, and then some; moves that show the much vaunted integrity of the Democratic party, but also to set the tone for the 2020 presidential campaign, while simultaneously governing on the elected agenda.

That tone of censure to those reflecting on someone whose behavior is that of a thug might play in some areas, but the best course is to tread carefully, and doggedly, as well as by careful timing: all essential ingredients should this balancing act succeed.

Then there is the specter of impeachment, which Pelosi has pushed to the back burner, a wise move considering that it would have no chance in the Senate, and the blowback could see the Democratic agenda begin to sink before it leaves port.

“Starting impeachment proceedings seems unlikely to end in a Senate conviction given the two-thirds majority needed in a body Republicans control with a 53-47 majority. That makes it a tricky political proposition, especially as Democrats eye a 2020 election they think could end the Trump era and leave Democrats in control of Congress and the White House. That scenario would leave Pelosi with the chance at scoring some sweeping policy achievements on health care and climate change in her last years in Washington.”

Far better to focus on the Congressional duty of oversight, rightly, while doing a 24/7 effort to stay on track with the legislative agenda and focus on what the Dems were voted in on, but, and this is imperative, to not neglect some glaring notes, for example, that “Cohen also revealed that he briefed then-candidate Trump as well as Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. on efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow a half-dozen times during the presidential campaign,” a key revelation, since Candidate Trump denied any efforts to build there.

In the eyes of the law, there is more: “Though it’s unclear whether Donald Trump and other Trump Organization officials like Trump Jr. were aware that the payments to Daniels and Karen McDougal, another woman who says she had an affair with Trump, violated campaign finance laws that make it illegal to make an unreported donation of more than $2,700 to a candidate in a general election, Cohen acknowledged under questioning from Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) that the hush payments scheme is akin to a criminal conspiracy.”

That became the tipping point for many viewers, but it also sets the stage for much more: “Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee unleashed a sprawling probe of President Trump's family, campaign, business and administration on Monday that includes more than 80 requests for documents,” said The Hill.

In the aftermath of the Cohen testimony, “The investigation under Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) will focus on three key areas: obstruction of justice, public corruption and abuses of power. Nadler rolled out the expansive investigation less than a week after the president’s former attorney Michael Cohen delivered explosive public testimony against him on Capitol Hill.

Democrats will be looking at those involved in the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Trump campaign officials and a Russian lawyer linked to the Kremlin, the Trump Organization's plans to build a Trump property in Moscow and a scheme to pay off two women who alleged they had affairs with Trump before the 2016 election.”

All of this is separate and apart from the Mueller investigation and another one from the Southern District of New York on Trump corporate business holdings, creating an extensive web that the president will have to fend off, as he sees attacks coming from all sides.

With predictions as common as noses, the air in Washington and New York is peppered with subpoenas, and the future is all that can be called our own - for now.

January Jobs Report? Highs, lows and in between

It looks as if January is one for the records with Friday's U.S. January JobsReport; yet despite the 304,000 gain (in non farm jobs), that raised the thermometer for many economists and job seekers, when only 180,000 were expected, wages continued to remain stubbornly low, and there was only a 3 cents raise, leading to an average wage for the American worker of $27.56.

The records are also showing that the last significant wage increase came when the Great Recession ended in 2009, a shock, perhaps to many; but, also a reality that does not take into account, an increased cost of living.

While the unemployment figure edged up from 3.9 percent to 4.0, due to the federal employee furlough, it also means, despite the fact those who need work are getting it, future employers will have a hard time finding workers.

That can also lead to the Fed boosting “rates by its June meeting, a development that could surprise some investors soothed by the central bank's cautious comments,” claimed one analyst at The Wall Street Journal.

"If employment growth remains this strong, there is still a fair chance of one more rate hike in the first half of this year," Andrew Hunter, senior U.S. economist at Capital Economics, says in a note.

“Both figures are a sign that the US economy remains strong despite recent stock market volatility over economic growth worries and a prolonged US trade war with China. The continued hiring boom also suggests that fears of a looming economic recession are largely overblown,” noted VOX.

“Most economists say the January jobs report indicates a strong overall U.S. labor market. With more Americans returning to work, consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of U.S. economic growth, will likely to continue on a steady pace, some analysts said.”

"I think muted wage growth is further indicative of the Fed’s current view on the economy," Robin Anderson, senior economist at Principal, said in a note. "There’s not a lot of inflation pressure right now, and I don’t think anything in this report will push the Fed toward another rate increase any time soon."

This all is leading to the law of unintended consequences as “Frustration over stagnant wages is also the major underlying factor behind widespread worker strikes across the country in places like California, Oklahoma, and West Virginia. Congressional Republicans had promised that their massive corporate tax cuts would help the average worker, but the gains have been meager,” and the Democrats will certainly be eager to exploit that in the march to the 2020 election.

Joy did reign on Pennsylvania Avenue, “There was a very, very positive vibe all around [in the White House],” Kevin Hassett, President Trump's chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said in an interview with Yahoo Finance. “I got, for the first time since I've been here, a knuckle bump from the President.”

“On the heels of a strong January this is another win for the bulls, and could help keep the momentum going,” said Mike Loewengart, VP of investment strategy for E-Trade Financial Corporation. “Fundamentals are standing strong—they haven’t seen their shadow just yet,” reported Yahoo Finance.

For Federal Reserve watchers, there seems to be a mixed record and The Wall Street Journal reported, More strong hiring could make the Fed change course. While Friday’s numbers boosted markets, some analysts fear that more steady economic data could force the Fed to reverse its stance again and raise interest rates. That could reignite worries that tighter financial conditions will slow economic growth,’ a cause of concern for many economists.”

They also exercised some caution, by stating that, “A Fed pause doesn’t preclude the U.S. economy from slipping further if global growth doesn’t reignite,” said Jim Vogel, head of interest-rate strategy at FTN Financial.

One problem investors face is the ramifications of tariffs and trade tensions have been largely absent as policy makers around the world have tilted toward a global economy.

“We haven’t talked about the effects of tightening tariffs on the global framework in three decades,” Mr. Vogel said, that leads to the impact of U.S. foreign trade policy outside of the domestic market.

On a positive note, “once again, the industry leaders include hospitality and health sectors, along with construction that edged up to 338,000,  an increase of 50,000, giving some relief to concerned workers.

“Workers with college degrees saw the biggest jump in unemployment last month, whereas workers without a high school education actually saw their unemployment rate fall slightly. This may partially reflect the effects of the shutdown, and the relatively high level of education in the federal workforce,” but also reflects what we have reported before that employers are looking outside the box, and with job growth showing the biggest gains in entry-level, or wage earning jobs, this is still a strong indicator.

More good news: “The unemployment rate climbed for workers of all race and gender groups last month, with an especially large jump for black men, who saw their unemployment rate climb from 5.8% in November to 7.1% in this report. (Once again, these figures were elevated due to the shutdown and may come back down in February.), in another note from the Journal.

Worth noting is that the biggest driver in employment were younger women entering the workforce, and going even further “The share of the population that is in the labor force, that is either working or looking for work, climbed slightly to 63.2%, the highest since 2013. The share of the population with a job also climbed slightly, reaching its highest mark since 2008,” and while not a huge figure it does give hope to another area of concern, aside from tepid wage growth, that has been on the worry list for most of 2018.

“Friday the Dow industrials ... [were] on track for their sixth consecutive weekly advance, which would mark the longest such streak since November 2017,” that took President Trump to praise it on Twitter.

On the whole, the indication of a strong economy gives support to many observers, politicians, and industry leaders, there is also the prediction is for only moderate growth for 2019, and to note again, “The tax-cut tailwinds are likely to fade, the state of the trade war remains uncertain and global growth is cooling. In addition, businesses say the shortage of skilled workers is limiting plans to expand their workforce.”

Racism: As American as Apple Pie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will Single Payer save U.S. healthcare?

Sen. Kamala Harris

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

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

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

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

Some history of how we got here

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

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

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

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

A new beginning?

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

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

Sen. Sanders

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

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

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

What next?

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

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

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

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

Costs v. benefits

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

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

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

Circling back

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

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

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

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

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

There is still a need . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sen. Merkley

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

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

Insurance heroes? True or False?

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

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

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

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

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

Opposition

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

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

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

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

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

This just in

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

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

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

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

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

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