Dems prep for Atlanta debate with some sense of hope

While the impeachment inquiry by the Democrats continues, unabated, there is still the not so insignificant matter of the 2020 presidential election whose fierce competition lies at the heart of the allegations of bribery by President Trump, from Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

With Wednesday's Democratic debate in Atlanta, let’s take a look at some of the leading contenders, and some surprising late entrants, and even some that are rumored to be.

First things first, the goalposts have changed. With all eyes, and bodies, focused on Iowa, which was the game changer for Barack Obama, it has also changed the game for South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete, as he prefers to be called, who has surged ahead with a 25 percent rating, in a leading poll, surprising many, but also raising important questions about his electability, and his continued struggle to earn support among Black Americans.

Meanwhile Elizabeth Warren is taking hits on her Medicare for All, plan, or to be more succinct her version of what she would like to see happen, and some grousing about what it will cost, and its feasibility for all.

The avuncular “Uncle Joe” Biden is still near the top, but has had good days and bad days as some of the Iowa polling shows him near the top, but not at the top. And, some are seeing him as carrying too much baggage: the roughshod treatment he gave Anita Hill, in the Clarence Thomas hearings; being an old white man, sounding geriatric in his confusion, mixing up Vermont with New Hampshire, a previous anti-abortion stance; and the tough on crime bills in the 90’s; but still holding the grip with Black voters.

Bernie Sanders, is also still in the running, but some polls have him in fourth place, and others are looking at the numbers, and wondering why he is not trending as well as expected.

Just for dash, we see the unexpected - but maybe not to all - entry of Deval Patrick, and rumors that Hillary Clinton might enter the fray.

If all of this seems to be an embarrassment of riches to some, for others, it’s just an embarrassment, and one person we spoke to said, “I used to be a good little Democrat, but all of these people and that woman with that health care bill, and taxing all of the billionaires seems crazy to me!”

Crazy might be just the beginning, with a year to go before voters hit the booths, and the all-important South Carolina primary.

While ahead in the polls with white college educated voters, Pete’s standing among black voters has remained bleak, with most reacting negatively to him as an openly gay man, (married to another openly gay man), with many black heterosexual men reacting negatively to even mention that fact.

He also faced a nasty patch in his native state, where he was confronted by a local black voter, who asked him if he expected black voters to rally for him, and said that it wasn’t going to happen based on his firing of a popular black police chief who was wearing a wire to record white officers making racist remarks, and the shooting of a black teenager, who was transported to the local ER in a police car, by an officer with a fierce reputation of being a racist.

Buttigieg replied that he didn’t want her vote, and she retorted that he wasn’t going to get it.

While it has seemed to be common knowledge that blacks turn out en masse for Democratic presidential candidates, this has only been recent history and as our friends at factcheck.org summarized, “But then President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed through the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 (outlawing segregation in public places) and his eventual Republican opponent, Sen. Barry Goldwater, opposed it. Johnson got 94 percent of the black vote that year, still a record for any presidential election.

The following year Johnson signed the 1965 Voting Rights Act. No Republican presidential candidate has gotten more than 15 percent of the black vote since. This means that any Democratic candidate needs the black vote, and the young man from Indiana, has done some somersaults to reverse the echo from the above encounter. 

In an attempt to win, and woo, black voters in South Carolina, Pete’s staff supplied them with copies of his Douglass plan (to remedy the racial disadvantages of American blacks), only to later have those messages of support, and the names of local black lawmakers, identified as supporting him as a presidential candidate, when in fact they were responding only to the plan itself.

Ryan Grim of The Intercept reported recently, that “To build support for the plan, Buttigieg and his staff lobbied prominent black South Carolinians to endorse it in order to strengthen the cause of racial justice. The Washington Post reported on Monday that “Buttigieg persuaded hundreds of prominent black South Carolinians to sign onto the plan even if they are not supporting Buttigieg himself.”

Taking a closer look at the stratagem, he also reported that, “The supporters were rolled out in a press release and open letter published in the HBCU Times — which focuses on “positive news related to Historically Black Colleges and Universities.” Listed at the top of the press release were three prominent supporters, Columbia City Councilwoman Tameika Devine; Rehoboth Baptist pastor and state Rep. Ivory Thigpen; and Johnnie Cordero, chair of the state party’s Black Caucus.

“There is one presidential candidate who has proven to have intentional policies designed to make a difference in the Black experience, and that’s Pete Buttigieg,” read the open letter released along with the plan. “We are over 400 South Carolinians, including business owners, pastors, community leaders, and students. Together, we endorse his Douglass Plan for Black America, the most comprehensive roadmap for tackling systemic racism offered by a 2020 presidential candidate.”

“The blowback came immediately. Devine, who has not endorsed a candidate yet in the presidential election, told The Intercept that she did not intend her support for the plan to be read as an endorsement for Buttigieg’s candidacy, and believes the campaign was “intentionally vague” about the way it was presented.”

As if that was bad enough, we have this from their report, “Thigpen, meanwhile, has endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders for president, and was startled when he learned the campaign had not only attached his name to the plan, but also listed him as one of three prominent supporters atop the letter.”

Even that was not enough, as the Intercept continued, ““I never endorsed that plan. I don’t know how my name got on there. No, that’s not true: I know how my name got on there,” Cordero began, before explaining that Buttigieg had emailed him the plan and asked for feedback, which began a conversation with Buttigieg’s staff.”

This is a level of subterfuge that we’ve seen before but not by someone claiming Midwestern values of honesty.

As we previously noted Mayor Pete is running mostly on a personal narrative of being just another “regular” guy who just happens to be gay, and as the old saying goes, “it played well in Peoria,” but now decades after that humorous cliché was begun, it seems to play well in Iowa.

While whiteness alone is not a deal breaker for black voters, abusing the trust of elected lawmakers and leadership is.

Gayness is always a hotly debated topic in the black community, and is still not seen favorably, despite some younger member’s statements; and, there are still homophobic jokes, snickering and elbowing, with violence perpetuated against gay people in larger urban core cities, such as Chicago, Los Angeles and New York.

The AME church - a black denomination - does not support gay marriage, and there are still many religious people that use the old line of “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”

Many local observers, we have recently spoken to have said, “Imagine if Mayor Pete was Tyrone Anderson, of Englewood (a predominantly black neighborhood in Chicago), then you really would see the homophobia in the black community.”

While the primaries are important for the black vote, the general election results are the proof of the pudding and Buttigieg is not trending high with black voters, of age, and in February with the South Carolina primary and a ton of black voters, the majority of whom are over 45, his chances weaken, and his contortions, and false claims of support are not going to help him.

Biden has also faced criticism on his previous comments about working with white segregationists, and his stance on school busing by fellow candidate Kamala Harris, who, when they later debated, he said to her, “Take it easy on me kid.”

That type of remark, warm, cushy, and touching is very Biden, but it also seems to have raised some doubts in Iowa, and elsewhere about his toughness, or is it softness, and his previous label of being “electable”?

The prolific fact finders at Vox.com have also shown that he is at mission critical with some of the black electorate, “And while October polling shows that roughly 40 percent of African American respondents support Biden right now, his numbers with black voters under 45 are lower than that. The aforementioned Morning Consult poll, for example, finds that just 32 percent of black voters ages 35-44 support Biden. For the youngest bloc of voters, aged 18-29, this number falls to 29 percent.”

His campaign is also low on cash, with the last report of having less than $9 billion in the bank, and some concern about overspending on air travel, that has some donors up in arms.

While a fourth place showing is clearly not what his campaign wants, he was on a high in May, with some averaging 33 percent, then down to 20 percent in June, than cascading downwards to 11.

Last month he surged downward to 0.2 in one poll, while some staffers so inherently believe in him as Obama’s Veep, that he can bounce back, but speaking of the former president, he has not given the one endorsement that matters, noted New York Magazine in a recent focus article, also commenting that the campaign staff is looking for “old school endorsements.”

In particular, they also noted the inexperience of his staff, many of whom have not worked on a major campaign.

Of all of the myriad of comments and observations, from the piece, this one stood out the most about Biden, and his crew: “He freaks out over minor stuff on the trail that staffers don’t believe he should be concerning himself with and yet is unable to make strategic adjustments. But the staff concern themselves with unimportant matters, too, running what they think is a general-election campaign when they need to be running a primary. Inside the campaign, the Biden brain trust seems to exist more to comfort the candidate than to compel him, and strategy meetings inevitably devolve into meandering, ruminative roundtables that feel purposeless except to fill time in the day. Nobody will tell the candidate in plain terms what they think he needs to change. Not that Biden really listens anyway.”

If that continues, then the surge downward may continue.

Warren meanwhile has been spiked by Pete, and others, on the cost of the Medicare for All bill that she now, supports, although research has shown that she has bought into this latently, with some saying that this surge of support might be needed when the numbers are coming in, and she needs to get some from the Sanders camp.

Indeed, these assertions might be correct, considering that defanging Big Tech was more her forte, but as Clinton learned in 2016, the numbers are all that matters.

Nowhere do these numbers matter more than the specter of a 20.5 trillion tax package and draining the billionaire well, once again, for the end of private insurance; and, as we noted in the past, 60 percent of those American with private health plans like what they have.

Warren herself, before her campaign took a stronger look at the polls, supported the ACA and building support with needed changes, much as Nancy Pelosi and others have done.

Expect another lunge towards Warren on Wednesday, and maybe even a surprise to her challengers, especially Pete, as he closes in on her.

What remains to be seen is if Sanders will come to her rescue, or let her drown.

Presidential Elections can always have surprises, and one, now, is the entry of former Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick, rumored to have the support of Barack Obama, but also a target for those who feel that his “corporatese” as the so-called Bernie Bros, have coined, carries the baggage to the establishment.

This is especially seen with his employment at Bain Capital, which did former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, as the “scourge” of capitalism.

The big bet is that he can do very well in the New Hampshire primary, and as The Hill reported, ““Is he a top-tier competitor in New Hampshire instantly? Absolutely,” longtime Massachusetts political operative Scott Ferson said.

“If there’s somebody from Massachusetts, going back to Paul Tsongas and Mike Dukakis, they usually win the New Hampshire primary,” he continued.

With no single candidate taking the lead, the field is open and Patrick might make the grade, even as Michael Bloomberg has coyly suggested he might enter. But, with all things being equal Sanders supporters and staff have their say.

“Sanders’s senior adviser and speechwriter, David Sirota, jabbed at both Patrick and Bloomberg in his “Bern Notice” newsletter this week, writing, “The potential last-minute candidacies of corporate titans are a direct response to the Bernie Surge,’ according to The Hill.

Sanders critics, and they are there, feel that he, along with Warren, may take the Democrats too far to the left, and there are still lingering echoes form 2016 that his timetable, those ‘Day One” scenarios are overly ambitious, (e.g. free public college education) not to mention costly, but that being said, he might be able, after Wednesday night, to reaffirm, himself, and voters.

“But Patrick also brings strengths after accumulating a moderate record during his time at the helm of Massachusetts, and he appears to see an opening in the fluid Democratic field, with a number of polls showing no clear front-runner has emerged,” the report added.

 Finally, we have Clinton again, making rumblings with her new book, coauthored with her daughter Chelsea, and taking a more outspoken lead, on issues, and while its widely acknowledged that she was “robbed” of the presidency by the machinations of Russian President Putin and his virtual henchmen, and the James Comey, “one more time on the emails”, is it, some wonder, time for her to serve as a mentor for female candidates, and not try one more time?

Interviewed for The Guardian was “Bob Shrum, a Democratic strategist who was an adviser to the Al Gore and John Kerry campaigns, was equally skeptical.”

“I don’t think she would do it and I don’t think she should,” he said. “It would be late and very divisive. I am dubious that she would win the nomination, so why would she do that to herself?”

October Jobs Report better, but with reservations

The U.S. economy got a surprise bump of 120,000 jobs which outpaced expectations of 90,000 reported the Labor Department, a figure that also came close to the monthly ADP report of private employers that showed 125,000, a none too frequent occurrence, but also one that got the usual kudos from the White House and some economists, who favor a more positive outlook, than others.

What did happen was a hit from the GM strike that dealt a body blow to a higher figure, but that most economists, and market observers, say will come back in November. And, while the year over year review may look spotty - there was a revised gain of 95,000 for August and September of 2019, giving cause for a solid, if not spectacular report for many.

There were some economists polled by Reuters, that predicted an even rosier report from the private market: “Economists. . .  had forecast the ADP National Employment Report would show a gain of 120,000 jobs, with estimates ranging from 40,000 to 190,000.”

Also encouraging was the fall out from GM, that some thought would be 50,000 but came in at 42,000, giving some credence to the resilience of the American economy.

“August’s initial 168,000 estimate came all the way up to 219,000 while September’s jumped from 136,000 to 180,000,” giving that total revision of 95,000.

The banner unemployment rate was 3.6 percent, a 50 year low, and another report that shows discouraged job seekers, and those that are stuck in part-time jobs, came close to 7 percent.

“The U6 jobless rate stood at 7.5% in September, the lowest rate since 2001. Except for a brief stretch from 1998 to 2001, the broader unemployment rate seldom drops below 8%.,” said Market Watch.

Wages, which have been a moot point for several months rose to “0.1% to a year-over-year 3% gain, also in line with estimates. The average work week was unchanged at 34.4 hours,” acknowledged CNBC.

“This report is yet another sign that the economy is still strong right now and adds to a list of indicators that are looking optimistic of late,” said Steve Rick, chief economist at CUNA Mutual Group. “The vigor of this labor market, along with a more positive housing market and solid Q3 GDP, should offer some welcome reassurance.”

Federal Reserve Cut and weak wage growth

This seems to be supported by the Federal Reserve cutting interest rates for the third time this year, with a cumulative range of 0.75 percent, and that some economists are saying is insurance for a good economy, but also serves as a “just in case” tool to address decreased business inventory, trade tensions with China, job weakness, and continued nervousness over the Brexit deal being orchestrated by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

Also from CNBC, Citigroup economist Andrew Hollenhorst, who said, “The October jobs report is unambiguously positive for the US economic outlook,” and “Above-consensus hiring in October, together with upward revisions to prior months, is consistent with our view that job growth, while clearly slower in 2019 than in 2018, will maintain a pace of 130-150K per month. Wage growth remaining at 3.0% should further support incomes and consumption-led growth.”

“Hourly wage growth has been anemic for much of the recovery, and has stalled again recently. Average earnings growth picked up slightly in October, and was also revised upward for September, but growth has slowed over the past year,” noted The New York Times.

“Weak wage growth is a challenge not just for workers but also for the broader economy. The length of the average workweek has also fallen slightly, particularly in manufacturing. Without more pay and more hours, it will be hard for consumers to keep spending more money.”

As noted, in this space many times, wages at 3.0 percent may seem better than worse, but the figure is baffling for a tight labor market, and some are pushing this aside, since consumer demand is strong, and some see that relatively low wages may be besides the point.

One of them is Ben Herzon, an economist for Macroeconomic Advisers by IHS Markit, a forecasting firm, who stated, to the Times, “As long as confidence remains pretty elevated, as long as job gains continue albeit at a slower pace, and as long as those job gains continue to deliver wage growth, consumption should continue to drive the economy.”

  

Getting ahead to go along

CNN Business reported that “Powell, and others, have argued central banks should get ahead of a downturn after seeing any signs of weakness to get more bang for their buck in such a low-interest rate environment.”

The chatter of a pending recession, may have been premature, and economists are seeing this consistent with October, which may in, and of itself, be premature.

“It helps reduce the concern that the slowdown was becoming more broad-based and recession risks were right around the corner,” said Michael Gapen, chief United States economist for Barclays, “I think most people have a slightly more positive view of the U.S. economy now than even two or three weeks ago.”

If this is Tuesday, it must be a good omen, say others, without reservation, and rounding up the group of cautious optimists is Julia Pollak, a labor economist for ZipRecruiter, an online job marketplace, who said, “It’s still respectable;. Slow and steady is not necessarily bad.”

“The question is always, ‘compared to what?’” said Oren Cass, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a right-leaning think tank. “We should certainly celebrate that the unemployment rate is low and that the expansion has gone on as long as it has.” At the same time, he said, “if you ask how does this look relative to 2006-2007 or 1999-2000, it just doesn’t look as good on almost any metric.”

The fight for workers continues unabated since the end of 2018, and companies are vying for workers and dismissing college degrees and certification in the hopes of finding, and retaining a solid workforce, yet this is also part of the wage conundrum.

Even as far back as a year ago, there was some optimism about increased wages: “How hot is the labor market? Hot enough for employers to pony up some more cash to get workers to come work for them,” wrote Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at MUFG Union Bank, in a note to clients,” last October.

“Hiring last year got a push from the 2017 tax cuts, so some slowdown was to be expected as the effects of the cuts wore off. The question is whether hiring stabilizes at a somewhat lower level or continues to fall. Friday’s report, though only a single data point, suggests stabilization is more likely.”

The devil is in the details, but layoff outlook improves

Manufacturing has weakened by 36,000 jobs, and the Institute for Supply Management, said, in part, “October was the third consecutive month of PMI® contraction, at a slower rate compared to September. Demand contracted, with the New Orders Index contracting marginally, the Customers’ Inventories Index moving into ‘about right’ territory and the Backlog of Orders Index contracting for the sixth straight month (and at a faster rate).”

As noted, consumer confidence is very strong yet it’s easy to see a scenario where employers begin to layoff, since even 3.0 wage growth can’t lead to runaway spending.

Supporting that view, is the ever pragmatic Diane Swonk, chief economist for the accounting firm Grant Thornton, in Chicago, who said, “At some point in time, either the business sector has to come back or the consumer will falter.”

“We could accept data that shows weakness in manufacturing,” said Michelle Meyer, head of United States economics for Bank of America Merrill Lynch. “Where it becomes a lot more problematic is if that weakness is spreading. We were starting to see indications of that the last few months, but they’ve now been revised away. It’s painting a brighter picture of the service sector of the economy.”

“But the service sector has remained strong. Hotels and restaurants added more than 50,000 jobs in October, and even the struggling retail sector posted a second straight month of gains after months of steady losses. And revisions to earlier data erased hints that the slowdown was spreading.”

Layoffs have been a concern and leading the pack of optimists was Jeffrey Bartash of Market Watch who wrote, “Don’t read much into any increase in the unemployment rate. The pace of layoffs have clung near a 50-year low since the start of the year and have shown no sign of rising. Businesses aren’t hiring as many workers, but they’re not firing many, either.”

“Job cuts announced by U.S.-based employers jumped to 50,275 in October, 20.97% higher than the 41,557 announced in September, according to a report released Thursday from global outplacement and business and executive coaching firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.” in their press statement.

“Last month’s total is 33.5% lower than the 75,644 cuts announced in the same month last year. October was the second consecutive month during which cuts were lower in 2019 than in the corresponding month one year earlier,” they added.

“For the most part, job cut announcements are holding steady as we enter the final quarter of the year. We’ve seen increases in certain industries, particularly those experiencing disruptions from new technologies, uncertainty from government regulation or issues with trade, or slumping from demand shifts,” said Andrew Challenger, Vice President of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.

Getting into the nitty gritty, “At the industry level, the biggest job creation came in food services and drinking establishments, which added 48,000. While those positions are generally associated with lower wages, they also can reflect consumer demand and the willingness to spend discretionary money. The industry has seen a surge in job creation as of late, with the past three months averaging 38,000 compared with 16,000 in the first seven months of this year.”

Many Americans, however, are wondering where is the party. Earlier this year Heather Long in The Washington Post posed a question that still resonates, stressing that this is “a two-tier recovery” with 60 percent of Americans benefiting and 40 percent with “paltry or volatile wage growth, rising expenses for housing, health care and education and increased levels of personal debt.”

For a worrisome President Trump, facing impeachment, and a bitter 2020 reelection, it bears noting that he inherited an economic recovery from President Obama, said Rick Newman in Yahoo.com, and there is still a slowdown, “In 2014, when employment growth peaked, the economy created 251,000 jobs per month, this year the average has been 172,000.”

Warren and issues dominate in Ohio DNC debate

Tuesday night’s CNN debate in Westerville, Ohio was another chance to hear the remaining twelve Democratic candidates to appeal for the nomination for president, and while the night provided few of the gotcha moments that have come to define success for television viewers, it did provide the opportunity for some well-crafted responses to the issues facing the United States.

Most were domestic, and many centered on some of the “bread and butter issues” that face all Americans, the night proved that Elizabeth Warren was now the co-equal of favored candidate, Joe Biden, Barack Obama’s vice president, and that fact was not lost on Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar who are hoping to make the November debate, and their sharply worded attacks on Warren show that she is the one to beat.

The debates also showed a vigorous sounding Bernie Sanders after his recent heart attack and that he was in fighting mode as the creator of Medicare For All.

Buttigieg seemed much stronger, even in fighting mode, to some - despite having $23.4 million cash in the bank - needed to define himself in starker terms, although rightly questioning the buy-back programs of assault weapons from fellow candidate Beto O’Rourke, and the program’s tattered edges, he stepped out with a remark to the latter about not needing a lecture on being courageous, a remark that came out of left field, and that some viewers thought might have been a homophobic remark, about not being manly, as the openly gay candidate handles slights, both perceived and real, but also one of desperation to define himself as a military man, fighting for the remains of the lower middle class who tend to dominate in the volunteer service, in his native Indiana.

Whatever the reason behind the remark it made him sound petulant, but he was on surer ground, as he and others ganged up on Warren on the cost of her health care program which she has not given an exact revenue stream.

Some Warren critics felt that she was evasive and indeed, Mayor Pete, as he calls himself, used the term, rightly sidestepped the question of exact costs, in the limited time slot and also wise, as hitting a moving target can be like shooting apples in a barrel, to use an old country term.

Vague is a term that has been used to describe her program, yet this early in the game, giving concrete numbers only adds to being on the edge, giving Warren points for being ahead of the others.

What proved to be welcoming was the absence of a barrage of attacks on President Trump, and a focus on issues, even though many American election historians have noted that elections are not won by issues.

One salient aspect of the debate that has largely gone acknowledged, by some observers, is how the dial has moved from the old-school centrist position of the Clinton and Obama presidencies to the new exigencies, created in part by Trump, that has moved the country, in no small measure, to the progressive left of Sanders and Warren, but also significantly is now challenged by those seeking a step back to an often hazy middle, by Biden and Buttigieg.

The one issue that galvanizes the change is health care, and when Mayor Pete challenged Warren in a saber-rattling moment to give a specific price tag for her health care program, she responded by saying, in part, “"My view on this and what I have committed to is, costs will go down for hard-working middle-class families," Warren said, again stressing that taxes on "the wealth and big corporations" would fulfill the bulk of the financing before pledging that she would "not sign a bill into law that does not lower costs for middle class families."

While she can be derided for being evasive, it’s also good statecraft, to avoid being shot down in a limited time frame, to respond, on what is her central issue in her years in the Senate, and also her professional career; and if that was not clear, then her mentioning of the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, underscored her point.

"Following the financial crash of 2008, I had an idea for a consumer agency that would keep giant banks from cheating people," Warren recalled. "And all of the Washington insiders and strategic geniuses said, don't even try because you will never get it passed."

Getting ahead of the pack, from a former debating pro, as she was in her native Oklahoma high school, Warren countered the haranguing by saying, “"I'm really shocked at the notion that anyone thinks I'm punitive," Warren said. "Look, I don't have a beef with billionaires," before reprising an argument that she's been making for years: that the wealthiest Americans owed a financial -- and moral -- debt to the country that helped facilitate their success,” reported CNN.

Biden, as avuncular as ever, despite some blow out moments, telling Warren that he got her votes got befuddles about the war in Syria, that he mislabeled as Iraq; leading many to think that might be a severe liability, outside of the all forgiving community of black voters.

Rounding the evening was Kamala Harris whose appeal for reproduction rights for women, brought a round of applause, after an intro by Corey Booker, shows that her fire for social issues is more her game, giving pause that she might be a cabinet member in a Warren administration.

While the issues may not matter for much of the electorate, it gives some support to those that care about the issues to see them front and center. Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and no one has sat down to dinner, at least just yet.

Wages low, hopes high, say some in September Report

The September jobs report came roaring in with something between a roar and a whimper, delighting some economists and bankers, while others claimed with some uncertainty that the report was anything but a clarion call for a robust US economy. But, then a wise woman once said that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and the midpoint was where most clear-eyed observers see the report, as others alternate between squeals of delight and gnashing of teeth.

Overall, Friday's report from the Labor Department, showed that the economy added 136,000 jobs, from an expected, 163,000, and that the banner unemployment rate fell to 3.5 from 3.7, (it had been hovering near 4 percent for several previous months) giving joy to some, but still remains an echo of what happened in earlier economic recoveries, despite the half-century high.

The fly in the ointment is still wages, which dipped to 2.9 percent from 3.2 percent, creating a dilemma for increased consumer spending, despite some bankers seeing this trend as robust.

Nevertheless, there has been welcome news with an increase in labor force participation, not been seen in several months, and “which held steady at 63.2%. The total labor force increased by 117,000, while the employment-to-population ratio increased one-tenth of a point to 61%.”

The largest job gains were in professional services, and healthcare operations reported some of the major US staffing firms.

“What I’m hearing is different from what I’m seeing,” said Tom Gimbel, chief executive of LaSalle Network, a staffing firm in Chicago.  With so much uncertainty, some chief executives say they are afraid of having too much capital invested in their business,” he said to the New York Times.

The New York Times also noted that, “The report capped a week of otherwise disappointing economic news. Manufacturing activity in the United States fell for the second month in a row, while the World Trade Organization predicted that the growth in global trade would slacken significantly. A key measure of activity in the services sector — which accounts for two-thirds of the country’s output — also cooled.”

It is this cooling that worries many observers, who have cautiously given support to a steady economy, but one that still faces fissures from global concerns, such as the ongoing trade war, and tariffs with China.

“Today’s data don’t change the fundamental economic picture,” said Eric Winograd, senior U.S. economist at AllianceBernstein. “The labor market is still strong, adding more than enough jobs each month to absorb new entrants to the labor force. But even with a strong labor market, wage growth remains muted, limiting the risk that labor market tightness will push inflation meaningfully higher. The question that matters most for the economy is how long the labor market can stay strong given the ongoing slowdown in growth,” to CNBC.

As we have noted before, the aftershocks of the Trumpian battle with China has disrupted the global chain supply that has become the norm for modern day manufacturing and this threat, shows the slack that the WTO has reported.

There are some, however, that argue globalization has begun to weaken from its glory days when it was first married to reliable and affordable communications,(created by the internet), and that its threads are beginning to unravel, albeit aided by President Trump’s actions, and, according to the OECD, “Global trade growth has fallen from 5.5% in 2017 to 2.1%,” said The Economist in a special report, this summer, citing the onrush of local design, with Europe’s data-privacy laws, and now further hobbled by cross-border investment, and that  “soaring wages and environmental costs are leading to a decline in the “cheap China” sourcing model.”

When we circle back to wages, especially, it  makes it hard to see September, as a sunshine report, and, as some have noted, “The tightening labor market, though, failed to lift wages; the 12-month growth rate fell to 2.9 percent from 3.2 percent in August.”

Last year’s average of 223,000 jobs “were created each month, thanks in part to the temporary pick-me-up delivered by tax cuts and increased government spending. The average for the first nine months of this year is 161, 000,” said the Times, making this a spotty month.

This takes us to the Federal Reserve, in the face of another possible rate cut, which some want and others don’t; and, once again reflects a split on the Fed’s feelings on what can, or can’t be done, say some watchers.

“While not everyone fully shares economic opportunities and the economy faces some risks, over all it is — as I like to say — in a good place.” and “Our job is to keep it there as long as possible,” says the chair, Jerome Powell, ahead of its October meeting, at the end of this month.

Closer to the truth, say some, and leading the pack is “Carl Tannenbaum, chief economist at Northern Trust, [who] described the latest report as reassuring. “All of us have been on edge a little bit with declines on readings in the service sector, fearing that the trade problems would jump the fence from heavy to lighter industries,” he told the Times.

Taking us even closer to the mirror, is “Torsten Slok, chief economist at Deutsche Bank Securities, [who] was unconvinced that the clipped pace of hiring was the natural byproduct of an economy at full capacity. “The problem with that story is that wage growth dropped quite significantly,” he said. “Trade uncertainty is why we’re seeing a jobs slowdown and why the wage numbers are slowing.”

“Last spring, manufacturers were adding as many as 25,000 jobs a month. In recent months, the average trickled to a few thousand, and in September, the sector lost 2,000 jobs.”

“Mr. Trump has repeatedly placed manufacturing at the center of his economic strategy. Nonetheless, that sector is suffering the most from prolonged trade tensions. Companies in the business of making goods — as opposed to those that deliver services like hospitals and restaurants — are much more dependent on sales to other countries and supply chains that wend around the globe, they noted.

In Illinois, farmers, a reliable source of support for President Trump has shrunk, in light of retaliatory actions by China of a 25 percent tariff on US soy, in July of 2018, and who later added another 5 percent Sept. 1.

Crain’s Chicago Business reported early last month that ‘US agriculture will have to be less reliant on China as a destination for soybeans and other agricultural products” in the future, Ray Young, chief financial officer of agricultural processing giant ADM, warned on July 16.”

“Illinois, which is the country's No. 1 soybean producer, shipped $1.29 billion worth of soybeans to China in 2017, representing about a quarter of its total sales for the crop. A year later, exports to China fell 91 percent to $116 million,” they added.

“For the approximately 75,000 farmers in Illinois, permanently losing market share in China could lead to dwindling bank accounts, shrinking credit lines and a rise in foreclosures and bankruptcies.”

Upping the ante, and not in favor of Illinois farmers, is this: “What soybeans the Chinese do need they're now purchasing from other countries, largely Brazil. Illinois and Iowa farmers used to hold an edge over Brazil because the quality of U.S. roads, rails and waterways held down transportation costs. But when China upped its Brazilian imports last year, international investors financed improvements to Brazil's infrastructure.”

"That's permanent," Mike Doherty, senior economist at the Illinois Farm Bureau says. "They're not going to tear those roads up. We've set ourselves up for future loss of our market share. . . .They're selling more and more of their crop to China, and we're selling less and less. That's really the bottom line on it."

Seeing that was a shock to some, and “When Mr. Slok saw that new export orders had declined recently,  “I almost fell out of my chair,” he said, “That can only be driven by trade,” to the Times.

“The economy is still doing O.K.,” he said. “But the uncertainty from the trade war continues to be a cloud. Manufacturing is certainly is trouble.”

That takes us back to the ever growing role of politics, and as The Economist noted in a July editorial, “The last danger is politics. As the economy has trodden a narrow path, the boundaries of economic policy have been blown wide apart, partly out of frustration at a decade of sluggish wages.”

Impeachment? "witch hunt" says Trump

Speaker Pelosi

The news came like a thunderbolt to the country, as US Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi announced on Tuesday that the House would begin an impeachment inquiry for the equally startling news about the accusation about a whistleblower’s report that President Trump had threatened to freeze financial aid to Ukraine, unless President Volodymr Zalensky agreed to an inquiry into alleged transactions, and violations, against rival presidential candidate, Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

The fallout has spread banner headlines across the world, yet for most people, there has been exclamations, of “at last” and “finally” - but there seems to be a rush to judgement, for some people thinking that Trump would be immediately clapped in irons, forthwith.

While the Constitution allows a president to be impeached it is relatively silent on how the process should be carried out, other than the process begins in the House, and proceeds to the Senate for a trial.

“Impeachment is not, to be clear, the removal of corrupt presidents or other officials, but simply the adoption of charges by the House, triggering a trial in the Senate,” emphasized Intelligencer, in their coverage.

The two presidents that have been impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were not removed from office, and the expectations that Trump might be removed from office is not a given.

Trump’s enemies are as well-known as his supporters, and even the injection of reality into the argument has not been easy, and like the Mueller Report that predates the inquiry, to the squeals of the anti-Trump crowd, ‘he’s still there”, making public perception problematic.

“In past presidential impeachments, the House has formally voted to authorize the Judiciary Committee to initiate impeachment proceedings. But this step has been skipped on occasion in the impeachment of judges, and it’s entirely the product of custom and internal House rules (themselves interpreted and controlled by the House majority at a given time),” they added.

Meanwhile support for an inquiry has increased,  according to a recent poll from The New York Times, from House Democrats who, as of Thursday afternoon, are 217 supporting, one independent and 17 in opposition.

On the GOP side, there are 135 representatives opposed, and 63 have not responded..

For those in a hurry, they might as well take a seat, as the total investigation could take as long as a year, and with a controversial president, and a litany of alleged abuses, if the Mueller Report is to be believed, if not acknowledged then the country had better prepare for a lengthy inquiry.

To add fuel to the fire, it is not even necessary to have a trial, after the Judiciary Committee has made its decision In fact, “there are no constitutional provisions requiring a trial of any particular length or depth. Rules for impeachment trials can be set by a simple majority, which gives the party controlling the Senate considerable leeway. It’s assumed the House’s representatives (or “managers”) will be given an opportunity to present and explain the articles of impeachment on which the trial will be based, much like prosecutors in criminal cases,” added the Intelligencer.

Techniques aside, it’s apparent that Pelosi was pushed by the president’s actions to open the inquiry, and it’s just as clear, despite diminished expectations, after looking at the process, that this could easily backfire for those who hope that the American electorate will suddenly find itself in a rage, of discomfiture and rise up in arms to send Trump back to New York.

In a neat segue Pelosi has noted that the judiciary hearings from the House under Jerry Nadler constitute ongoing investigations, and inquiries, dovetailing with her earlier statements that when the facts were discovered, an inquiry might be launched.

Pelosi, a political veteran has “been there, done that” with process and treating the impeachment as another political process, demonstrates the seriousness of the allegations by the whistle-blower; and the deftness that she showed with the announcement, should caution future statements coming from the White House, as when the president calling the unnamed person, a spy, suggesting that he might be eliminated.

“I want to know who’s the person who gave the whistle-blower the information because that’s close to a spy," Trump said.

By all accounts reports have “suggested he was an analyst by training and made clear he was steeped in details of American foreign policy toward Europe, demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of Ukrainian politics and at least some knowledge of the law,” reported The New York Times

“The whistle-blower’s expertise will likely add to lawmakers’ confidence about the merits of his complaint, and tamp down allegations that he might have misunderstood what he learned about Mr. Trump,” they added.

The summary, and it was just a summary, released by the White House shows a strong role for Vice President Pence in the cover-up, so if that is part of the crime, then Pence as the successor is not desirable; if we are speaking of holding elected officials, the highest, to the standard of not being above the law.

Vice-President Pence

Adding fuel to the fire, Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Guilani’s involvement at pressuring Zelensky  adds to the seriousness of the charges, and to carry water for a quid pro quid does have damning consequences; but, for most, the real meat of the matter is if the Senate would “go up against” the president, the de facto leader of their party.

While Democrats can try to claim the moral high ground, the Republicans are in charge and it’s almost laughable, say some, to think that he will be removed from office, with the required two-thirds of a Senate vote.

Many are already urging a “go slow” approach and saying that the ban on soliciting foreign aid - in whatever form is overly broad, as a first amendment argument, yet proving that the solicitation is a determination of abuse, needs to be explored as an impeachable offense, is the issue, according to Rick Hassen a professor of political science at the University of California, Irvine, in an interview with CQ Roll Call.

An earlier argument noted that the airing of the misconduct will shift public opinion, and force the hand of the president to do good, but Thursday’s news that Trump “has decided to slash the American refugee program by almost half, deeply cutting the United States’ role in accepting persecuted refugees from most parts of the world", does not bode well for that argument.

“The administration said it would accept 18,000 refugees during the next 12 months, down from the current limit of 30,000 and a fraction of the 110,000 President Barack Obama said should be allowed into the United States in 2016, his final year in office.”

As noted earlier, and as the Intelligencer remarked, “the odds of Trump being removed via impeachment range from “slim” to “none.” It would take only 34 of 54 Senate Republicans to acquit Trump, and the idea that 20 senators from a party dominated by this president like a Bronze Age warlord would defy the MAGA base and try to defenestrate him on the brink of an epochal presidential election is, in a word, laughable.”

.

Fed does another rate cut, but not enough for Trump

As most bankers and economists predicted, the Federal Reserve in its open market meeting that concluded on Wednesday, approved a rate cut by a one-quarter point, as investors became nervous and the two major indices took a nosedive in response.

While the US economy has shown strength in both employment and a corresponding consumer confidence, there are shadows on the horizon, both domestic and foreign, that have begun to lengthen: wages have inched up, but have nor returned to pre-depression levels, and there are continued layoffs that threaten to reduce overall employment, coupled with wages that have not met the increased cost of living.

Also a threat to the strength of the nation is the ongoing trade war with China, promulgated by President Trump and the Brexit debacle orchestrated by Britain's new prime minister, both of which have global economic consequences that could roil the world economy.

Some have said that this is more of an insurance move than one that is specifically tied to the United States, yet others feel that with record low inflation, below the 2 percent target rate, favored by the Fed, that this allows for greater ease in corporate transactions, yet still others have noted that corporate America has responded by putting on hold plans for capital investment.

Regardless of how Wednesday's move by the Fed is seen it is a symptom that more may come as outlined in the Chair’s remarks, who feels that they have some maneuverability should the need arise.

Specifically, Fed Chair Jerome Powell, noted in his published remarks that, “Although household spending has been rising at a strong pace, business fixed investment and exports have weakened. On a 12-month basis, overall inflation and inflation for items other than food and energy are running below 2 percent. Market-based measures of inflation compensation remain low; survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations are little changed.

Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability. In light of the implications of global developments for the economic outlook as well as muted inflation pressures, the Committee decided to lower the target range for the federal funds rate to 1-3/4 to 2 percent.”

In keeping with that implied mandate, Powell indicated that should the need arise, there could be more rate cuts, a fact that has not been overlooked by some bankers that feel there could be at least three more, if needed.

The news was not well received from the White House, where Trump said, in a tweet: “Jay Powell and the Federal Reserve Fail Again,” and No ‘guts,’ no sense, no vision! A terrible communicator!”

That statement is consistent with a view of the president’s critics who point that his understanding of the role of the central bank is limited, but also the steady intertwining of politics and interface that is also quickly becoming a “new normal” for the global economy.

Powell seems to be reacting less from presidential pressure, although that can be argued, and more from the data, much like his predecessor, Janet Yellen, as he assess “risks to this positive outlook,'' meaning the mostly rosy economic forecast, and notably, that the Fed would use “more extensions,” if needed.

This new goal could be expanded to, some bankers say, to the end of the year, but most say not to the end of 2022.

There was not total consensus, in fact, who had dissented at the June meeting and who saw no need to cut.

“There was discord over the decision, with three officials dissenting. Two — Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren and Kansas City Fed President Esther George — have both voiced concerns that the US economy isn't in need of an extra boost from rate cuts. But St. Louis Fed President James Bullard favored a deeper, half-point cut,” said CNN Business, but he is seen, by some, as an outlier, when it comes to the FOMC meetings.

While the segue to another cut was predicted, there are some notable investors who see that there is more heat than light to the role of the Fed, and “In an interview with TheStreet, when asked about how he considers the Fed’s decisions, Buffett said, “I never give a thought to it.” When asked what he thinks of investors’ heavy emphasis on the Fed rate cut announcement, Buffett replied, “It’s a mistake to try and make investment decisions based on what you think the Fed is going to do.” He added, “just be content owning a good income-producing asset.”

“Mr. Powell also pushed back on Mr. Trump’s recent call for the Fed to slash rates below zero, saying such an idea was rejected during the height of the 2008 financial crisis and would not be high on the list of options if the economy worsened. If the Fed is forced to cut interest rates back to rock bottom, he said, it will again turn to bond-buying programs to provide added stimulus,” reported The New York Times.

Despite this assertion there are some, said the Times, that say otherwise, and feel that despite the traditional separation, “Some onlookers could view rate cuts, like Wednesday’s, as a sign that the central bank is caving to political pressure, particularly as dissent abounds.”

Less than six months ago, Trump noted brightly that he expected the economy to soar to 3.0 percent, but “Policymakers now anticipate the US economy will grow slightly stronger than previously expected, at a 2.2% rate, and unemployment will hold steady at 3.7%, according to their updated economic projections. In June, the Fed forecast that economic growth for the year would stand at 2.1% with unemployment at 3.6%,” reported CNN.

Perhaps, the best summary, was the BBC report, that quoted, “Brian Coulton, chief economist at Fitch Ratings, said the upgrade to that growth prediction underscores the fact that the Fed is worried about global factors, such as the trade war, rather than the underlying health of the US economy.

"This move is all about the deterioration in the global economic outlook over the late summer and very little about incoming US data," he said.

"While the Fed has maintained its 'will act as appropriate' language, we still see this as an insurance policy move and don't expect a series of further rate cuts," he added.