The challenges ahead (Biden's America)

[N.E. Brigand]

In a new poll, 63% of Americans say they would rather that prices go down than that their income go up, even if their bottom line remains the same. Even after being told that if prices fall, that will trigger a recession, 37% of Americans still want prices to fall. So that's a base number that you can't change. I also appreciate this anecdote about a conversation that pundit had with some small business owners who are unhappy with the economy even though they themselves are doing very well financially.

In France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, public opinion about the state of the economy largely tracks with the actual state of the economy. That used to be true in the United States as well, but it changed starting in late 2020:



For some reason, only Americans stopped caring about the economic factors that always used to matter to them.

- - - - - - - - - -
The U.S. Department of Energy today announced more the purchase of more than 5 million barrels of oil to be delivered in January and February as part of the effort to replenish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

- - - - - - - - - -
Left-leaning journalist Matt Bruenig argues that it's "insidious" that Hunter Biden "was appointed to a state-owned enterprise because his father is a senator. When that happens in, say, Latin America, people don’t struggle to understand that it’s corruption." And there's some truth to this! Hunter Biden was appointed to the board of Amtrak, the quasi-public corporation that provides regional train service in some parts of the country. I think it's absolutely true that Hunter probably wouldn't have received this appointment if his father was not a senator at the time. In 2006. When Hunter was appointed by President George W. Bush. Who led the political party to which Senator Joe Biden was opposed. As an Amtrak board member, Hunter received $32,000 over more than two years. That's not nothing, and who knows if he deserved it. But it pales in comparison to so much else.

[N.E. Brigand]

Yesterday, Congressman Troy Nehls, a Texas Republican, "said he wants to give Trump 'a little bit of ammo to fire back' and say Biden has also been impeached."

[N.E. Brigand]

Last night a group of Senate Republicans gave Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville a pretty hard time about all the military promotions he's been blocking, forcing him to publicly object 61 times to the nominations and promotions of various officers, and publicly saying that his efforts were helping China. Earlier today the Senate, by a vote of 95-1, finally approved Admiral Lisa Franchetti to be chief of naval operations (making her the first woman on the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and General David Allvin as Air Force chief of staff. (The no votes came from Senator Roger Marshall, a Republican of Kansas. Tuberville didn't vote.)

The Senate also approved, by a vote of 86-0, the nomination of Lieutenant General Christopher Mahoney for the second highest position in the Marine Corps. This was pretty urgent because the Marine Corps Commandant suffered a heart attack over the weekend; he'd been effectively doing both jobs. Tuberville said about 15 minutes ago that it's no big deal that the Commandant had been working very long hours: "The guy's gonna work 18-20 hours a day no matter what. That's what we do. I did that for years, because you got to get the job done."

And it's been reported that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer would start the process of getting all of the hundreds of blocked nominations approved as a bloc next week. Republicans were said to be on the fence about changing the rules to allow this, but then about a half-hour ago, the "Senate Cloackroom" Twitter account, which appears to be an official account of Senate Republicans, tweeted "Military Promotions Confirmed by Unanimous Consent: All nominations on the Secretary’s Desk in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Space Force," suggesting that the process had moved faster than expected. However, I've seen no other reports confirming this, so I think it's a mistake.

[Victor Shi on Twitter, Nov. 26, 2023:]
"Finally. Senate Democrats have passed a resolution through the Rules Committee that overcomes Tommy Tuberville's military blockade of 350 nominations & Senator Schumer just announced he will bring it to the Senate floor for a final vote 'swiftly.' It's over, Tommy Tuberville."

It really is (mostly) over: earlier this afternoon, Sen. Tommy Tuberville, Republican of Alabama, announced that after ten months, he is finally releasing hold on the promotions of the nearly 450 servicemembers whom he has been holding up since February. (It wasn't 450 the entire time: the number grew as vacancies arose and weren't filled.) The ostensible reason that Sen. Tuberville had been blocking these hundreds of promotions was his objection to a Dept. of Defense policy announced in December 2022 that provides pregnant service members with leave and the reimbursement of travel costs so that they can obtain legal abortions in other states if the states to which they are posted prohibits abortion. (This followed on the Dobbs decision earlier in 2022.) As far as I know, Tuberville got no concession in exchange for finally releasing his hold. The DOD abortion-travel policy remains intact.

And just in the past half-hour, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer introduced a motion on the Senate floor asking for unanimous consent to approve 425 of these military promotions. The motion passed without objections.

Tuberville has said he will force roll-call votes on the dozen or so most senior such nominees. But I don't think that will prevent their confirmations.

From a national security perspective, I would add that this means that if Tuberville's real plan was to leave the military understaffed and thus ready for Donald Trump to fill vacancies should he win election in 2024 (as some suggested), that he has failed. And from a political perspective, I think Tuberville also probably made some servicemembers whose promotions were held up so long sour on Republican politics.

[N.E. Brigand]

Another poll finds that most respondents (in this case, younger Americans) say their personal financial situation is good (65%) but that others' financial situations are bad (70%):



(I like this response: "The kids these days just constantly erasing the lived experience of their similarly prosperous peers.")

Maybe there should be some open-ended surveys asking respondents to explain why they simultaneously hold both of these views?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

From a national security perspective, I would add that this means that if Tuberville's real plan was to leave the military understaffed and thus ready for Donald Trump to fill vacancies should he win election in 2024 (as some suggested), that he has failed. And from a political perspective, I think Tuberville also probably made some servicemembers whose promotions were held up so long sour on Republican politics.

Other than Liz Cheney, have you heard any one else make this suggestion? She is the only one that I have heard do so, and I didn't think she was right when I heard her say it. I think that Tuberville was just flailing along trying to make a (ridiculous) point, and finally realized that the game was up. I doubt he had some secret strategic plan.

[N.E. Brigand]

From a national security perspective, I would add that this means that if Tuberville's real plan was to leave the military understaffed and thus ready for Donald Trump to fill vacancies should he win election in 2024 (as some suggested), that he has failed. And from a political perspective, I think Tuberville also probably made some servicemembers whose promotions were held up so long sour on Republican politics.

Other than Liz Cheney, have you heard any one else make this suggestion? She is the only one that I have heard do so, and I didn't think she was right when I heard her say it. I think that Tuberville was just flailing along trying to make a (ridiculous) point, and finally realized that the game was up. I doubt he had some secret strategic plan.

While I've seen that theory mentioned repeatedly online over the past three months or so, I don't think I knew it originated with Liz Cheney.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't know that it originated with her, but she is the only one who I have heard express it.

[N.E. Brigand]

Yesterday a Senate leadership meeting with top Biden administration diplomatic and security officials that was supposed to be about the increasingly dire need for more Ukraine funding was hijacked by Republicans who instead wanted to talk about U.S.-Mexico border security, and even mild-mannered senators like Mitt Romney reportedly were up in arms about their perception that President Biden is ignoring what they view as a major crisis.

It is with that background in mind that I share this message from a Fox News reporter:



OK, let's take those numbers as accurate. What is the Republican solution? What will stop people from Latin America from trying to immigrate to the U.S.? Or failing that, what will make it possible for U.S. agencies not to be overwhelmed when confronted with this many immigrants?

Immigrants come here for a better life. If they can't work, they won't stay. I have for decades argued for very, very strict penalties on businesses who employee illegal immigrants. Republicans always reject such proposals.

So the alternative is an enormous boost in funding for the agencies that process immigrants. (They have to go through some processing even if they're going to be returned to their country of origin.) Republicans always reject those proposals too, because they oppose "big government."

[N.E. Brigand]

President Biden's team continues to identify and implement student loan cancellation that doesn't run afoul of the Supreme Court.



In all, some 3.6 million graduates have seen their student debt forgiven by the Biden administration.

[N.E. Brigand]

In August 2020, in the midst of the pandemic, 58% of Americans were worried about the state of the economy.

But now, in November 2023, 84% of Americans are worried about the state of the economy.

Both results per CNN polls.

Edit: see also this:



The U.S. economy was good in 2019, but it's even better now.

[N.E. Brigand]

Apparently there's a segment of the U.S. population who believes that there were "massive layoffs" in 2023, but the truth is that "2023 will almost certainly be the record low in total layoffs" (chart at link). The problem largely seems to be that there were some layoffs in the tech industry, particularly at Twitter (which is the only result for "layoff" that a word search of this forum brings up for the past year, and only once), and tech people have an outsized presence online (and thus on the media, and thus on the public).

I see that one such view comes from a self-described hiring manager who says this is "one of the most difficult job markets I’ve ever seen," adding that "I have colleagues who have been looking for work for 9+ months, due to shifts in their sectors." By contrast, my company has been short-staffed for two years now with open positions we've been struggling to fill for many months, and that this is typical in my industry right now. And since the plural of anecdote is data, that means the jobs market is neither good for employers nor good for workers but average.

[narya]

Here's another data point. The laid off Twitter workers can't necessarily fill the positions in the short-staffed fields. So they are floating around out there complaining about being laid off and unemployed. In the sectors we examined and reported on during my stint with the civil grand jury - police, 911 dispatch, social work, behavioral health, general admin, and human resources - the city and county job slots were up to 30% under filled. This resulted in the inability of remaining workers - even on mandatory overtime - to adequately address industry minimum standards.

Also, people may be mistaking the Great Resignation with "massive layoffs". Us baby boomers are retiring in record numbers because many of us are over 65 and frankly, not interested in working in the new, changed, and in some cases riskier work environment. Seniors are still the most likely to die from COVID. Working in a high contact environment (pre-COVID, 90 people per day walk thru our permit office doors) just doesn't sound appealing anymore. But again, that's an employee choice, not a layoff.

[N.E. Brigand]

What is the Republican solution? What will stop people from Latin America from trying to immigrate to the U.S.? Or failing that, what will make it possible for U.S. agencies not to be overwhelmed when confronted with this many immigrants? Immigrants come here for a better life. If they can't work, they won't stay. I have for decades argued for very, very strict penalties on businesses who employee illegal immigrants. Republicans always reject such proposals. So the alternative is an enormous boost in funding for the agencies that process immigrants. (They have to go through some processing even if they're going to be returned to their country of origin.) Republicans always reject those proposals too, because they oppose "big government."

Belatedly remembering that the very first prison sentence commuted by President Donald Trump issued was for Sholom Rubashkin:

Rubashkin was the chief executive of Agriprocessors, a large meatpacking corporation. The company's plant in Postville, Iowa, once the U.S.'s largest kosher meatpacking operation, was the raided by immigration agents in 2008, and almost 400 undocumented workers, including several children, were detained. Rubashkin was convicted of bank fraud and related offenses for fabricating collateral for loans; prosecutors said that as a result of Rubashkin's conduct, banks lost more than $26 million. After his fraud conviction, the immigration-related charges against Rubashkin were dropped; some of the plant's managers and supervisors were convicted of harboring illegal immigrants (a felony) and approximately 300 employees at the plant (mostly Guatemalans) were convicted of identity theft. The commutation released Rubashkin from prison 19 years earlier than planned but left in place a term of supervised release and a substantial restitution obligation.

Republicans' stated position on illegal immigration is phony.

[N.E. Brigand]

Special Counsel David Weiss has indicted Hunter Biden in California on nine tax charges (three are felonies and six are misdemeanors) for not having filed and/or paid his taxes on income earned from 2016 to 2019. (Read the full indictment here.) While it does seem to be selective prosecution (others who failed to pay more taxes have been allowed to make a deal and avoid charges), that almost never works as a defense. At a glance, I think they have him dead to rights, but I would note that Marcy Wheeler (who predicted these charges) has spent months noting procedural flaws in the case, so who knows how it works out in the end.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

ETA:

[N.E. Brigand]

Rep. James Comer, who has been leading inquiries into President Biden with an eye toward impeachment (for what, it's not clear), is dissatisfied that these charges are insufficient, and he apparently believes that Special Counsel David Weiss is protecting President Biden from scrutiny.

- - - - - - - - -
Hunter Biden's attorney, Abbe Lowell, argues quite reasonably but probably fruitlessly that (1) Hunter Biden has long since paid back all the missed taxes plus interest (although I would note that he did so thanks to a loan from a friend that he has to repay) and (2) Weiss had agreed just five months ago to accept a plea deal that would have covered all these charges. As Marcy Wheeler has pointed out, the deal fell apart when Weiss's team said it didn't cover possible charges for failing to register as a foreign agent, and yet Hunter Biden has not been charged for that.

[N.E. Brigand]

It wasn't discussed here, but since the pandemic, there's been a fair amount of noise, especially on the right, about shoplifting and particularly about gangs of shoplifters. But this week the National Retail Federation retracted its 2021 claim that "'organized retail crime' accounted for nearly half of all inventory losses" that year "after finding that incorrect data was used for its analysis." In fact, as Kevin Drum notes, although shoplifting is a problem, it's been only slightly worse in recent years than it was a decade ago:



- - - - - - - - - -
On the subject of bad news being overhyped, here's an interesting column about "The Ubiquity of Doom."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

More bad news for Biden! Another stronger than expected jobs report adding just under 200,000 jobs, with the unemployment rate dropping back down to 3.7% from 3.9%.

How this is bad news for Biden I couldn't tell ya, but I'm sure it is. Because everything is!

[N.E. Brigand]

More bad news for Biden! Another stronger than expected jobs report adding just under 200,000 jobs, with the unemployment rate dropping back down to 3.7% from 3.9%.

How this is bad news for Biden I couldn't tell ya, but I'm sure it is. Because everything is!

That 199,000 jobs added in November also beat the forecasted numbers of 180,000-190,000. October's numbers remained unchanged (at 150,000) but September was revised downward (from 297,000 to 262,000).

And we're at 22 straight months with unemployment below 4%.

Here's a nice historical chart:



Notice that the unemployment rate during Ronald Reagan's entire presidency (Jan. 1981-Dec. 1988) remained well above the level in the last year of Barack Obama's presidency, the first three years of Donald Trump's presidency, and the past two years of Joe Biden's presidency. And that wasn't just Regan inheriting the conditions of Jimmy Carter's presidency: unemployment rose to what had been its highest level in my lifetime (prior to the Covid-19 pandemic) -- or indeed since the Great Depression -- reaching 10.8% in December 1982, nearly two years after Reagan's inauguration.

Campaigning to unseat Carter in November 1980, Reagan famously asked Americans, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" In terms of employment, the correct answer would have been, "Yes, barely": unemployment had been 7.8% in November 1976 and was at 7.5% when Reagan said that. Four years later, the answer would have been the same! In November 1984, unemployment was at 7.2%. And for 28 of Reagan's first 48 months, unemployment was higher than it had ever been during Carter's administration. And yet Reagan was reelected in a landslide.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Edited to add links to some more useful data:
1. There are 2 million more people employed now than the Congressional Budget Office had predicted in January 2020 (i.e., before the pandemic) would be the case at this point.
2. The labor force participation rate for "prime age" workers (25-54) reached the Jan. 2020 level in Feb. 2023 and has remained that high since then.
3. The S&P market today marked its highest daily close in 22 months. The weekly level has also been up for six straight weeks, the longest streak since 2019.
4. The median gas price fell today below $3.00 per gallon for the first time since 2021.*
5. The "Sahm rule" indicator of possible recession has fallen slightly.

*The one really makes people who paid more for gas mad. So mad they insist it can't be true that others are paying less.

[N.E. Brigand]

It's a little late to resurrect an Obama presidency thread, but I was struck by Matt Yglesias's lament that he never reported on what he now thinks is one of the most important stories of 2015: the repeal in December of that year of the U.S. ban on export crude oil -- a ban which had been put in place in 1975 -- which was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama. And we didn't discuss it here either. I was completely unaware of it until today.