Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Elizabeth Warren told the truth — and Donald Trump panicked

Published

on

Elizabeth Warren told the truth — and Donald Trump panicked

After a rough July jobs reportTrump promptly fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statisticsclaiming without evidence that the data was “rigged” to hurt him. If his skin wasn’t thin enough already, he then had a meltdown in response to Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s remarks on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” Warren rightly called him out for failing to live up to his economic promises and raised concerns that he would install “some sycophant who’s going to give data that makes the president happy” as BLS commissioner. “Trump ran for office saying he’d lower costs on day one,” Warren told CNBC. “Cost of groceries are up, cost of housing is up, cost of health care is up. And where is Donald Trump?”

Trump’s response? A multipost rant in which he called Warren a “LOSER!” and demanded CNBC “Call her out!!!”

When the economy did not immediately collapse, Trump quickly declared victory — but it was short-lived.

Though the president consumes a lot of cable news, it is rare for an interview to provoke this much ire from him. But the truth hurts. Trump’s assault on independent government statistical agencies alone has far-reaching implications for the reliability of U.S. economic data. And the president faces another, more immediate problem: If he is planning to fire anyone who brings him bad economic news, he may soon run out of messengers to shoot.

Economists, analysts and executives were quick to sound the alarm in April when Trump announced sweeping tariffs on nations across the world. The stock market tanked and bond yields surged, prompting Trump to quickly walk back his most draconian measures, while still leaving overall tariffs at their highest level since the Great Depression. When the economy did not immediately collapse, Trump quickly declared victory — but it was short-lived. Last week’s slew of economic data made evident that Trump’s agenda is strangling growth, raising costs and killing jobs.

Under the hood, the labor market is stuck in neutral and the private sector is stagnating. A labor market that looked surprisingly resilient in the face of Trump’s erratic trade wars suddenly is showing significant cracks. The economy added just 73,000 jobs last month, and job growth in May and June was revised downward by 260,000 jobs, as well.

Far from the industrial renaissance Trump promised, manufacturing jobs have fallen every month since May and construction jobs have been flat. Businesses are doing exactly what they’ve been warning they would: freezing hiring and cutting back amid growing pessimism about current and future economic conditions. Long-term unemployment (workers jobless for 27 weeks or more) has risen by more than 300,000 since March, matching a rise of continuing unemployment claims.

Trump’s chaos is also dragging on economic growth. Though second quarter gross domestic product came in at a solid 3% clip, compared to the 0.5% contraction in the first quarter, that headline number masks the underlying weakness. In the first quarter, consumers and businesses raced to import as many goods as possible to get ahead of Trump’s tariffs; in the second quarter, the trend reversed, with consumers pulling back on spending and businesses selling down their newly stockpiled inventory. Investment plummeted and “core” GDP fell below the first quarter, a clear sign of economic deceleration. Declining consumer spending is concerning for an economy that runs on pocketbooks. Low-income workers are being hit the hardest, with wage growth slowing the most for those who can least afford it and more subprime borrowers turning to debt to continue fueling spending.

Price hikes are showing up in hard data and at the cash register.

After years of high prices, consumer fatigue is understandable. Americans overwhelmingly want Trump to focus on bringing prices down. Instead, his broad-based, indiscriminate tariff policy is doing the opposite. Retail price increases were initially more muted than most economists predicted. To hold off price hikes, businesses worked through the stockpiles accumulated in the first quarter and paid the costs themselves temporarily while waiting for Trump’s trade policy to resolve.

Now, though, price hikes are showing up in hard data and at the cash register. Last week’s personal consumption expenditures price index for June, the Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of inflation, increased by 2.6% compared to a year ago, with the “core” measure rising by even more. In earnings calls, companies like Proctor & Gamble and Adidas are telling investors that they will have to start hiking their prices. Several warned about coming pain for the back-to-school and holiday seasons as inventories have been depleted.

A little more than halfway into the first year of his second term, Trump’s economic approval rating is underwater. It’s not hard to see why. As Warren pointed out, he promised to lower prices, bring back American manufacturing and raise wages. Instead, he has frozen consumers, businesses and workers in place as he uses trade policy to bully allies and secure gifts for himself. The American economy has been remarkably resilient in the post-pandemic period, and many recession predictions have failed to pan out. This time, however, the data is all pointing in the same direction. Instead of trying to find a new messenger, Trump should heed the warning signs.

Alex Jacquez

Alex Jacquez is the chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative. Before joining Groundwork, he was special assistant to the president for economic development and industrial strategy at the White House National Economic Council, where he advised the president on issues from labor and competition to clean energy and manufacturing. He previously was a senior policy adviser for labor and economic issues for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., on the Budget Committee and on his 2020 presidential campaign, and he has held policy, communications and engagement positions for Senate Democratic leadership, the Obama White House, the Agriculture Department and federal and state campaigns.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Judge blocks Trump order to end funding for NPR and PBS

Published

on

Judge blocks Trump order to end funding for NPR and PBS

WASHINGTON (AP) — Citing the First Amendment, a federal judge on Tuesday agreed to permanently block the Trump administration from implementing a presidential directive to end federal funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service, two media entities that the White House has said are counterproductive to American priorities.

The operational impact of U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss’ decision was not immediately clear — both because it will likely be appealed and because too much damage to the public-broadcasting system has already been done, both by the president and Congress.

Moss ruled that President Donald Trump’s executive order to cease funding for NPR and PBS is unlawful and unenforceable. The judge said the First Amendment right to free speech “does not tolerate viewpoint discrimination and retaliation of this type.”

“It is difficult to conceive of clearer evidence that a government action is targeted at viewpoints that the President does not like and seeks to squelch,” wrote Moss, who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said Moss’ decision is “a ridiculous ruling by an activist judge attempting to undermine the law.”

“NPR and PBS have no right to receive taxpayer funds, and Congress already voted to defund them. The Trump Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue,” Jackson said in a statement.

PBS, with programming ranging from “Sesame Street” and “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” to Ken Burns’ documentaries, has been operating for more than half a century. NPR has news programming from “All Things Considered” and cultural shows like the “Tiny Desk” concerts. For decades, the fates of both systems have been part of a philosophical debate over whether government should help fund their operations.

Punishment for ‘past speech’ cited in decision

The judge noted that Trump’s executive order simply directs that all federal agencies “cut off any and all funding” to NPR, which is based in Washington, and PBS, based in Arlington, Virginia.

“The Federal Defendants fail to cite a single case in which a court has ever upheld a statute or executive action that bars a particular person or entity from participating in any federally funded activity based on that person or entity’s past speech,” the judge wrote.

Last year, Trump, a Republican, said at a news conference he would “love to” defund NPR and PBS because he believes they’re biased in favor of Democrats.

“The message is clear: NPR and PBS need not apply for any federal benefit because the President disapproves of their ‘left wing’ coverage of the news,” Moss wrote.

NPR accused the Corporation for Public Broadcasting of violating its First Amendment free speech rights when it moved to cut off its access to grant money appropriated by Congress. NPR also claims Trump wants to punish it for the content of its journalism.

“Public media exists to serve the public interest — that of Americans — not that of any political agenda or elected official,” said Katherine Maher, NPR’s president and CEO. She called the decision a decisive affirmation of the rights of a free and independent press.

PBS chief Paula Kerger said she was thrilled with the decision. The executive order, she said, is “textbook” unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and retaliation. “At PBS, we will continue to do what we’ve always done: serve our mission to educate and inspire all Americans as the nation’s most trusted media institution.”

Last August, CPB announced it would take steps toward closing itself down after being defunded by Congress.

A victory, though incremental, for press freedom

Plaintiffs’ attorney Theodore Boutrous said Tuesday’s ruling is “a victory for the First Amendment and for freedom of the press.”

“As the Court expressly recognized, the First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power — including the power of the purse — ‘to punish or suppress disfavored expression’ by others,” Boutrous said in a statement. “The Executive Order crossed that line.”

The judge agreed with government attorneys that some of the news outlets’ legal claims are moot, partly because the CPB no longer exists.

“But that does not end the matter because the Executive Order sweeps beyond the CPB,” Moss added. “It also directs that all federal agencies refrain from funding NPR and PBS — regardless of the nature of the program or the merits of their applications or requests for funding.”

NPR and three public radio stations sued administration officials last May. While Trump was named as a defendant, the case did not include Congress — and the legislative body has played a large role in the public-broadcasting saga in the past year.

Trump’s executive order immediately cut millions of dollars in funding from the Education Department to PBS for its children’s programming, forcing the system to lay off one-third of the PBS Kids staff. The Trump order didn’t impact Congress’ vote to eliminate the overall federal appropriations for PBS and NPR, which forced the closure of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity that funneled that money to the TV and radio networks.

___

AP Media Writer David Bauder and AP writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

‘I don’t care about that’: Trump moves the goal posts on Iran’s uranium stockpile

Published

on

‘I don’t care about that’: Trump moves the goal posts on Iran’s uranium stockpile

More than a month into the war in Iran, there’s still great uncertainty about why the United States launched this military offensive in the first place. There’s reason to believe, however, that the conflict has something to do with Iran’s nuclear program.

At an unrelated White House event on Tuesday, for example, Donald Trump said“I had one goal: They will have no nuclear weapon, and that goal has been attained.”

It was a curious comment, in part because by the president’s own assessmentIran didn’t have a nuclear weapon before he decided to launch the war, and in part because Secretary of State Marco Rubio this week presented the administration’s four major objectives in the conflict, none of which had anything to do with Iran’s nuclear program.

As for whether Trump’s newly manufactured “goal” has actually been “attained,” The New York Times reported“Unless something changes over the next two weeks — the target Mr. Trump set to begin withdrawing from the conflict — he will have left the Iranians with 970 pounds of highly enriched uranium, enough for 10 to a dozen bombs. The country will retain control over an even larger inventory of medium-enriched uranium that, with further enrichment, could be turned into bomb fuel, if the Iranians can rebuild that capacity after a month of steady bombing.”

The American president has acknowledged that these details are true, though he apparently no longer cares. Ahead of an Oval Office address to the nation about the war in Iran, the Republican spoke to Reuters about his perspective:

Of the enriched uranium, Trump said: ‘That’s so far ⁠underground, I ​don’t care about that.’

‘We’ll always be watching it by satellite,’ he added. He said Iran was ‘incapable’ of developing a weapon ​now.

The president’s comments definitely have a practical element: It’s been an open question for weeks as to whether Trump intends to try to seize Iran’s uranium stockpile, which would require ground troops and be profoundly dangerous for U.S. military service members.

If Trump told Reuters the truth and is prepared to let Iran keep the uranium it already has because he no longer “cares about that,” it would drastically reduce the likelihood of a ground invasion — one that would almost certainly cost lives.

But there’s another element to this worth keeping in mind as the process moves forward: Ever since the Obama administration struck the original nuclear agreement with Iran in 2015, Trump has insisted that it was wrong to allow the country to hold onto nuclear materials that might someday be used in a nuclear weapon.

A decade later, he’s suddenly indifferent to Iran’s uranium stockpile — which has only grown larger since Trump abandoned the Obama-era policy.

Trump’s goalposts, in other words, are on the move.

Indeed, if the American president’s comments reflect his true perspective (and with this guy, one never really knows), we’re due for a serious public conversation about the motives and objectives for the war. Because as things stand, before the war, Iran had a regime run by radical religious clerics and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard; the country had a significant uranium stockpile; and the Strait of Hormuz was open.

And now, Trump’s apparent vision for a successful offensive will include Iran with a regime run by radical religious clerics and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard; the country still holding a significant uranium stockpile; and the Strait of Hormuz will be open.

Mission accomplished, I guess?

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Mike Johnson caves to the Senate, paving the way for likely DHS shutdown deal

Published

on

Just days after labeling the Senate deal to end the record-breaking shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security a “crap sandwich,” Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., now appears ready to swallow it whole.

Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., announced Wednesday they will move forward with the two-track approach senators unanimously backed last Friday. They will pass a bill to fund most of DHS — with the exception of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and parts of Customs and Border Patrol — and then look to approve money for ICE and CBP in a separate reconciliation package.

“In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited,” Johnson and Thune said in a joint statement.

The announcement amounts to a stunning reversal for Johnson, who was facing pressure from conservatives to oppose the Senate deal. Their objections centered on the lack of money for ICE, as well as the Senate’s failure to include new voter ID restrictions, championed by President Donald Trump, with the so-called SAVE America Act.

Instead, Johnson on Friday forced a House vote on an alternative measure to fund all of DHS for eight weeks. While it passed almost entirely along party linesthe stopgap measure stood no chance in the Senate, where Democrats have repeatedly rejected a similar proposal in recent weeks.

Lawmakers were back to square one.

But it turns out, all they needed was a little push from Trump.

Less than three hours before Johnson and Thune’s announcement, Trump urged Republicans — in a lengthy statement on Truth Social — to pass funding for ICE and border patrol through budget reconciliation. While that approach allows GOP lawmakers to bypass Democratic opposition, it requires near-unanimous GOP support.

Trump said he wants the legislation on his desk by June 1 — an ambitious timeline that dramatically increased pressure on Republicans.

“We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won’t be able to stop us,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We will not allow them to hurt the families of these Great Patriots by defunding them. I am asking that the Bill be on my desk NO LATER than June 1st.”

With Johnson suddenly on board, lawmakers appear poised to end the DHS shutdown just as soon as the House can reconvene. It’s unclear exactly when that might happen. The House isn’t due back until April 14. But Johnson could always call lawmakers back sooner — or look to pass the Senate bill while both chambers are out on recess through a special process.

Because the House never technically sent its 60-day continuing resolution to the Senate, the House could just recede from its amendment of the Senate-passed bill and immediately send the legislation to the president.

Either way, barring another sudden shift from Trump or House leadership, the longest government shutdown in U.S. history may soon be over — and Democrats are already taking a victory lap.

“Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. “We were clear from the start: fund critical security, protect Americans, and no blank check for reckless ICE and Border Patrol enforcement.”

“We were united, held the line, and refused to let Republican chaos win,” Schumer added.

Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.

Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending