Skip to content

Month: March 2018

Cohn out, tariffs in, trade war good

Cohn out, tariffs in, trade war good
by digby
Gary Cohn has resigned. I’d guess Peter Novarro will succeed him. And Peter Navarro is yet another eccentric fifth rater. This could be a wild ride.
Trump said today that the EU are a bunch of cheaters and we’re going to kick their asses all the way back to to eastern front. (Well, he didn’t say that in those words. But practically.) He is really looking forward to this. 
Anyway, about those tariffs. Kevin Drum takes a look at one of the studies about jobs and Trump’s tariffs:

Donald Trump says his tariffs on steel and aluminumn will bring back jobs to the United States. A consulting outfit called The Trade Partnership says he’s right—but only at the cost of losing jobs in lots of other areas:

TTP estimates that the tariffs will, on net, cost about 146,000 jobs, two-thirds of which are production and low-skill jobs. This estimate doesn’t take into account any possible retaliation from our trading partners.

The TTP analysis is based on the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) database. This is a model coordinated by Purdue University that’s widely used, not least by Joseph Francois, the economics professor who serves as managing director of TTP. The GTAP model, says the TTP paper, “is the same model used by the Commerce Department to arrive at the tariff rates it argues will yield increases in U.S. steel production sufficient to bring the industry to 80 percent capacity utilization.”

Trump doesn’t understand the concept of “trade”. I doubt he understood it on the playground and he doesn’t understand it now.

He believes in “take.”

I don’t know how this will end up. But he reasserted at this press conference today that he thinks trade wars are good and that we will “win” because we have a trade deficit so it’s guaranteed. I guess we’re definitely going to find out if he’s right.

.

The bloodthirsty psycho and his depraved offspring true to form #savetheelephants

The bloodthirsty psycho and his depraved offspring true to form #savetheelephants

by digby

Trump has done one single decent thing since he took office and it was defy his murdering neanderthal heirs and uphold the ban on imports of elephant trophies. I guess Uday and Qusay were the last people in the room on this one:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has quietly begun allowing more trophy hunting of African elephants, despite President Donald Trump’s pledge last year to uphold a ban on importing parts of animals killed by big-game hunters.

The agency issued a formal memo Thursday saying it would consider issuing permits to import elephant trophies from African nations on a “case-by-case” basis, effective immediately. The new guidelines, first reported by E&E News and later by The Hill, end U.S. bans on the import of such trophies from Zimbabwe and Zambia.

The decision comes nearly four months after Trump stepped in to halt his own administration’s decision to begin allowing hunters to import elephants killed in the two African countries. The president called such trophy hunting a “horror show.” He drew rare accolades from environmentalists at the time, who said they were surprised that Trump would move to uphold environmental protections.

“What the agency just did with this memo is completely contrary to everything Trump has been saying,” Tanya Sanerib, a senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, said in an interview.

In November, the agency reversed an Obama-era ban on the importation of elephant trophies from Zimbabwe and Zambia, determining that sport hunting in those countries would “enhance the survival of the species in the wild,” a spokesperson said at the time.

The decision was first revealed publicly by Safari Club International, a trophy hunting advocacy group with close ties to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. The group, along with the National Rifle Association, sued to block the 2014 ban on elephant trophies from Zimbabwe. Late last year, a federal appeals court ruled that the Obama administration did not follow proper procedures when it instituted the ban. Among other things, it failed to invite public comment, the court said.

The Trump administration based its decision allowing case-by-case permits on the court’s opinion, writing in the memo that so-called enhancement findings are “no longer effective for making individual permit determinations for imports of sport-hunted African elephant trophies.”

Some wildlife experts said the memo complicates the administration’s stance on conservation at the expense of animals desperately needing protection. The memo also withdrew findings related to the Endangered Species Act for trophies taken from bontebok, a species of antelope, elephants and lions hunted in several other countries.

“Our biggest concern is there’s been too much back and forth by the U.S. government to the point of really confusing the public,” Jimmiel Mandima, the director of program design at the African Wildlife Foundation, said. “Why does the decision keep flopping, are we hunting or are we not hunting?”

Mandima, who noted that his group has long opposed the hunting of threatened, vulnerable or endangered species, said such confusion makes it difficult for the public to voice opinions about the issue, and harder for environmental groups to craft conservation recommendations.

Several environmentalists on Monday pointed out that the new import guidelines haven’t been made public, and Freedom of Information Act requests to determine what “case-by-case” actually means will likely take months. In that time, an unknown number of applications could be approved.

“We saw the public outcry last fall when [the trophy decision] was announced … not just from people who are traditionally Democrats,” Sanerib said. “The agency is really playing hide the ball. It’s incredibly disappointing.”

Dissapointing? No, it’s not disappointing, it’s fucking disgusting.

I could not hate these people more. Really. They are the most indecent people on this planet.

.

The worst and the dullest

The worst and the dullest

by digby

Journalist Tim O’Brien points something out about the Trump operations both in business and in politics that I think should be mentioned more often:

Way back in 2015, shortly after Donald Trump announced his presidential run and the country began to learn what New Yorkers had always known about him, he reassured folks that he was a talent magnet.

“I’m going to surround myself only with the best and most serious people,” he boasted to the Washington Post back then. “We want top-of-the line professionals.”

And, here we are. Boris Epshteyn, Anthony Scaramucci, Sebastian Gorka, Carter Page, Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Corey Lewandowski, Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, Sean Spicer and others all have come and gone.

O’Brien goes on to talk specifically about Sam Nunberg and Michael Cohen, both of whom are truly 5th rate talent with very big mouths.

But I would also point out that even his allegedly most talented people like Rob Porter turn out to be psychos. Jared and Ivanka aren’t exactly Mensa. Sarah Huckabee Sanders is the worst press secretary in history, lying as easily as breathing and calling for people to be fired from the podium. How about K.T. McFarlane, the brilliant Fox News “analyst” he hired as a national Security Adviser and the weirdo Ezra Watkins-Cohen who conspired with Trump’s equally brain dead lieutenant Devin Nunes.

They are all terrible, including Kelly and McMaster, both of whom seem to be Buck Turgidson types who are itching for some “kinetic” action, whether on the borders or with North Korea.

In fact, the most competent person in his administration is KellyAnne Conway who has sold her soul for reasons that make little sense. She was found to have violated the Hatch Act with her blatant campaigning as a white house official today but it’s up to Trump whether he does anything about it. That’ll happen.

,

Kushner stole money from Trump? So says Sam Nunberg

Kushner stole money from Trump? So says Sam Nunberg

by digby

Nunberg spoke to Olivia Nuzzi late last night. He repeated his nonsense. I thought this was interesting though:

So, what do you think happens next with Mueller?

Nothing! I’m gonna cooperate!

Then why did you say you’d rip up the subpoena?

Here’s what I really didn’t like: I don’t think it’s fair for them to ask me for every email communication I’ve ever had with Steve Bannon and Roger Stone. And here’s the other thing I wanted to use this opportunity for: was to make it very clear to Trump, to the president, that he screwed me over.

You mean by going out there and saying that you don’t care if he gets taken down?

Right. I wanted to make it very clear it was inexcusable to me the way that I was treated. Be very fair on this: I worked for him when he was a joke. They can all talk crap about me all they want, they can talk crap about Roger. But here’s a fact: Roger and I came up with the special sauce, okay? Just because we didn’t go around with Corey and Hope [Hicks] did, Hope’s big claim to fame, that they went to those stupid rallies, boo-hoo-hoo. Boo-hoo-hoo! And I’ll tell you something, Trump listened to me more after I left.

Did you start talking to him more after August 2015?

No, I didn’t! He listened to me more after I left because he started reviewing the stuff I gave him. And when I go in there to a questioning and I can tell that Lewandowski was talking shit about Roger and me? Okay, fine, let’s do it! You know what Mr. President? Let’s do it. You love Corey? Let’s do it. And, you know, Trump will have a bigger problem with me than he will with Roger, because Roger lets him off the hook. Roger and I have a big disagreement, as I said on TV. The disagreement is Roger blames Corey for everything. My issue is Trump let Corey do everything to us. And Corey’s a scumbag lowlife, by the way, who’s a thief.

[Stone disputed Nunberg’s assessment. “I resigned. It was my decision. I was far more effective on Trump’s behalf outside the campaign. Perhaps you’ve heard of the “Stop the Steal” effort or Danney Williams … or The Clintons’ War on Women?” he told New York. “I have no animus towards the president but none of these things would have been possible if I had remained in the confines of the campaign.”]

When was the last time that you talked to Trump?

I’ve not talked to him for a very long time, and I’m not gonna talk to him for a very long time after what he did to Steve. It’s inexcusable to me. You know what, that’s where Roger and I have a big disagreement, too. Trump would not have won that election without Steve. Not with his stupid-ass son-in-law. You know what Trump’s falling is gonna be? Trump’s falling is gonna be that Trump is loyal and won’t do anything to his stupid-ass son-in-law, who, by the way, is a thief that stole money from him.

But —

I wanna know! Here’s what I wanna know! And I think in the interest of transparency we should know what Brad Parscale took from the 2016 campaign and if he gave any money to Jared Kushner. [Parscale was the 2016 campaign’s digital media director, and was just hired to manage Trump’s reelection bid.] I just wanna know it! Maybe I’m wrong! Who knows.

When you say that you haven’t spoken to Trump in a very long time, do you mean, like, weeks, months?

Months.

How many months?

Uh, I don’t wanna get into it.

Did he call you the last time that you spoke?

Yes, he called me.

Was it at night?

Yeah, it was at night.

What was it about?

I’m not gonna get into it. I think it would hurt me with my thing with Mueller. I’m not getting into it.

There’s a lot there. And I assume he was just spouting off without any real strategy. He seemed to be in a manic state. But Mueller will be interested in everything he said yesterday because he has to be. The stuff about protecting Roger Stone and how Nunberg was talking to Trump after he left and that Kushner stole money from Trump might be bullshit. In fact it probably is. But he’s going to have to answer for that and all the other crazy stuff he told the press yesterday.

.

Roger and Sam: a love story

Roger and Sam: a love story

by digby

I wrote about the Sam Nunberg meltdown for Salon today:

Roger Stone has been the nation’s most famous active dirty trickster for more than 40 years. From Richard Nixon’s original operation to the “Brooks Brothers riot” during the Florida recount of 2000 to threatening the father of New York’s then-Gov. Eliot Spitzer, Stone has honed his “ratf**king” craft to a fine art.

Much like his old pal Donald Trump, Stone has always operated on the legal and ethical fringe while craving the spotlight, which is a dangerous way to live. They are both in their own ways flamboyant thrill-seekers, always dancing on the edge of disaster. So when I first heard that Stone was involved with Donald Trump’s presidential campaign it was anything but surprising. It was even less surprising when Trump allegedly fired him early on. Stone does his best work outside the normal political boundaries.

Stone also has connections to Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who has recently been indicted on multiple charges in Robert Mueller’s investigation. The two men were partners in a high-level Republican lobbying firm that included the notorious strategist Lee Atwater, back in the 1980s.

It’s pretty clear that Stone is implicated in some aspects of the Russia scandal, and it probably has to do with the hacking. He’s been playing fast and loose with his connections to WikiLeaks and the hacker who called himself Guccifer 2.0, as well as ill-advised Twitter previews of hacked materials before they were released.

Stone had also worked with Trump on his earlier aborted presidential runs in 2000 and 2012. By 2014, he’d been working with Trump for some time, preparing for what both men saw as his big chance. By then Stone had brought in a helper named Sam Nunberg to school the candidate on the the issues the GOP base cared about. According to journalist Gabriel Sherman, Nunberg taught Trump a lot:

“I listened to thousands of hours of talk radio, and he was getting reports from me,” Nunberg recalled. What those reports said was that the GOP base was frothing over a handful of issues including immigration, Obamacare, and Common Core. While Jeb Bush talked about crossing the border as an “act of love,” Trump was thinking about how high to build his wall. “We either have borders or we don’t,” Trump told the faithful who flocked to the annual CPAC conference in 2014.

Trump fired Nunberg that year for setting up an interview that didn’t go well and then hired him back in 2015. He fired him again over some racist Facebook posts and later sued him for $10 million for violating a non-disclosure agreement. (That case was settled “amicably.”) Nunberg is yet another example of the top notch talent Trump always seems to attract.

On Monday, Nunberg had a meltdown on national TV. It was uncomfortable to watch. The story, in a nutshell, is that he received a subpoena from Mueller’s grand jury asking for all of his correspondence dating back to November 2015 with a number of the people involved in the Trump campaign, including Roger Stone, Steve Bannon and Trump himself.

On Sunday night, Nunberg shared the contents of the subpoena with Axios and NBC, and then, on Monday, he started calling up reporters to proclaim that he would refuse to cooperate with the grand jury. This was odd, since Nunberg had appeared on Ari Melber’s MSNBC show last week with nothing but praise for the professionalism of Mueller’s investigation, after having been called in for an initial interview.

According to the Daily Beast, Nunberg’s friends were worried about him:

Starting Monday morning, Nunberg began calling several close associates that he was flatly refusing, at this time, to cooperate with Mueller’s investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Three Nunberg friends said they walked away from those conversations fearful that he was “drinking again” and was about to embark on a personal tailspin. They didn’t know it would play out on daytime TV.

He sounded agitated on the phone while speaking with Katy Tur of MSNBC and Jake Tapper of CNN. He told Tur: “I think he [Trump] may have done something during the election. But I don’t know that for sure.” He told Tapper, “I believe Carter Page was colluding with the Russians” and said he believed Trump knew about his son’s infamous June 2016 meeting with Russians before it happened: “He was talking about it a week before. … I don’t know why he went around trying to hide it.”

Nunberg also spoke with The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman, The Washington Post’s Josh Dawsey and NY1’s Josh Robin (to whom he described Sarah Huckabee Sanders as a “fat slob”). Then he appeared in person for two incredibly bizarre interviews, one with Melber on MSNBC and immediately after that with Erin Burnett on CNN. He was waving around his subpoena on the air, insisting it would be “funny” if Mueller tried to put him in jail and complaining about having to turn over emails with people he claimed he didn’t know.

By 8 p.m. Monday evening, Nunberg was back to telling various reporters that he would probably cooperate with the subpoena after all.

What was this all about? Who knows. He appeared red in the face, and Erin Burnett said she smelled alcohol on his breath. Perhaps getting a subpoena was just too much for him and he couldn’t take the pressure. But whatever caused the meltdown, there was one thing he kept saying over and over again:

He told CNN: “Yeah, they think that Roger [Stone] colluded with Julian Assange. I can tell you Roger did not collude with Julian Assange.”

Julian Assange tweeted this on Monday:

That’s Stone standing outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, which has been providing asylum to the WikiLeaks founder for the past five years.

Killing a parasite — Canceling student debt (part 1), by @Gaius_Publius

Killing a parasite — Canceling student debt (part 1)

by Gaius Publius

In America today, 44 million people collectively carry $1.4 trillion in student debt. That giant pile of financial obligations isn’t just a burden on individual borrowers, but on the nation’s entire economy.
For families under age 35, growth of student debt outstrips by far the growth of any other debt source, including mortgage and credit card debt (source).

In the world of parasites, the job of the parasite is to benefit from the harm it does to the host, but not to kill the host, at least not until the parasite is done with it:

In biology, parasitism is a relationship between species, where one organism, the parasite, lives on or in another organism, the host, causing it some harm, and is adapted structurally to this way of life. The entomologist E. O. Wilson has characterised parasites as “predators that eat prey in units of less than one”….

Unlike predators, parasites, with the exception of parasitoids [examples: wasps that lay eggs in paralyzed spiders, or the beast in Alien], typically do not kill their host, are generally much smaller than their host, and often live in or on their host for an extended period. Parasitism is a type of consumer-resource interaction. [Footnotes removed]

Parasites are not the same as predators. Predators kill, eat, and move on. Parasites disable, then live off the energy system of the disabled host for as long as they can keep the host alive.

Viruses are a form of parasite. So are credit card companies.

Loan companies as parasites

The parasite first disables the host’s ability to reject the parasite, then derives its own energy (that which sustains it) by robbing the host’s energy system. It attempts to do this for as long as possible. Loan companies whose “business plan” — survival strategy — is to prolong the loan, and at the maximum sustainable rate, are by definition parasites.

But there is a scale of parasitism among loan companies. The least parasitic are mortgage companies, in that mortgages typically don’t destroy incomes; they just feed off them. When the host goes into bankruptcy (usually for other reasons, such as illness, divorce or job change), the host (the home-owner) is abandoned, but mortgage company parasites don’t typically cause these bankruptcies by themselves.

In addition, if a host wants to repay her debt and free herself from the parasite, she is allowed to do so, though typically, hosts usually seek a new parasite, either by necessity or because of cultural pressure.

At the less gentle end of the parasitic spectrum are payday lenders and loan sharks, who actually disable the host’s income capability by extracting so much money that the host almost certainly goes bankrupt, often first drawing on the resources of others and transferring those resources to the parasite as well before they do.

Payday lenders thrive in an environment rich in new hosts, since so many of their former ones become useless. In contrast, most mortgaged homeowners (hosts of mortgage banks) don’t go bankrupt — just some of them.

Student debt parasites feed on especially vulnerable hosts

Not far up the parasitic scale from payday lenders and loan sharks are owners and beneficiaries of student debt, i.e. the lending companies.

First, as the chart above shows, there’s a large and growing population of prospects in the student loan world. New hosts, it seems, are everywhere.

Second, the loan amounts are extraordinarily large and extraordinarily long-lived (my emphasis throughout):

The average debt load for students who graduated in the class of 2016 was around $30,000, and the average rises every year.

But some students graduate with far more debt than that, especially those who pursue graduate degrees or professional degrees. Nearly 17 percent of those who borrow for education costs will graduate owing more than $50,000, according to the recent study by the Brookings Institution. That is a much higher rate than in 2000, when five percent of new graduates owed that much money.

Today, many of those who graduate with more than $50,000 in debt aren’t the students who are pursuing highly-lucrative careers, such as becoming a doctor or a lawyer, but undergraduate students and their parents. On the other hand, more people who are pursuing a professional degree are graduating with well over $100,000 in student loans.

While a student debt load of $30,000 doesn’t sound large compared to mortgage debt, remember that these hosts almost never have a source of income when they incur the debt. In contrast, home loan applicants generally have to prove income prior to acquiring the debt.

For high-debt graduates — greater than $50,000, greater than $100,000 — the situation is much worse. The debt burden can hobble their entire lives. I’ve met men and women in their thirties whose most common complaint is, “I will never get out of debt, and I will never get a job in my profession.” I’ve met high-tech workers in high-mortgage-cost regions of the country with incomes greater than $150,000 per year, student loan repayments of nearly $2,000 per month, more than one child, and no way to break even on a month-to-month basis.

All of these people are one bad-luck accident away from bankruptcy — which means good-bye to the next good job for more than a decade afterward.

Student loan parasites also feed on the economy as a whole

But student loan parasites don’t just eat and diminish the host — they eat and diminish the economy as a whole. It’s an axiom in economics that aggregate debt repayment subtracts from GDP, a measure of overall economic production. In practical terms, a dollar spent repaying a debt to a lender is a dollar that doesn’t buy bread, purchase services like health care, or build a factory.

As a nation’s private debt burden increases, private sector demand and spending falls. In the extreme, if everyone in a country decided or were forced to pay all debts at once, the overall economy would collapse. (The same would happen if everyone in an economy went on a savings spree.)

This is what today’s high levels of student debt are doing to our economy. Writes Eric Levitz at New York magazine:

In America today, 44 million people collectively carry $1.4 trillion in student debt. That giant pile of financial obligations isn’t just a burden on individual borrowers, but on the nation’s entire economy. The astronomical rise in the cost of college tuition — combined with the stagnation of entry-level wages for college graduates — has depressed
the purchasing power of a broad, and growing, part of the labor force. Many of these workers are struggling to keep their heads above water; 11 percent of aggregate student loan debt is now more than 90 days past due, or delinquent. Others are unable to invest in a home, vehicle, or start a family (and engage in all the myriad acts of consumption that go with that).

Note that number: U.S. aggregate student debt has reached almost $1.5 trillion

A Debt Jubilee to rejuvenate the economy

The obvious solution to this problem has been practiced since ancient times — a debt jubilee in which all student debts are cancelled. Keep in mind that the U/S. government owns or controls 90% of all student debt in this country:

Thus, if the government were to forgive all the student debt it owns (which makes up more than 90 percent of all outstanding student debt), and bought out all private holders of such debt, a surge in consumer demand — and thus, employment and economic growth — would ensue.

According to the Levy Institute paper [here], authored by economists Scott Fullwiler, Stephanie Kelton, Catherine Ruetschlin, and Marshall Steinbaum, canceling all student debt would increase GDP by between $86 billion and $108 billion per year, over the next decade. This would add between 1.2 and 1.5 million jobs to the economy, and reduce the unemployment rate by between 0.22 and 0.36 percent.

Note that the ancient concept of “debt jubilee” doesn’t necessarily apply to all debt, just unproductive debt.

Economist Michael Hudson writes this about debt jubilees in Sumerian and Babylonian times:

The Bronze Age core economies coped with the debt problem simply by canceling society’s unproductive debts when they grew too large. However, the Sumerians and Babylonians only annulled consumer barley-debts; they left commercial silver-debts intact. … This implicit distinction between productive and unproductive debt represents a third way in which Babylonian economics may be deemed more sophisticated than modern economics (in addition to the afore-mentioned focus on the destabilizing role of debts multiplying at compound interest, and the phenomenon of wealth addiction.)

Note his mention of the socially “destabilizing role of debts multiplying at compound interest,” as well as the (similarly destabilizing) role of “wealth addiction.” Our society is hobbled by both.

Student loan debt is by definition unproductive debt — a debt owed to parasites, in other words. There is no question that cancelling it would free both hosts — the millions of graduates themselves (and those who failed to graduate), and the larger economy as well.

A moral question and an economic question

It’s certainly true that the economy as a whole would benefit from student debt cancellation. As noted, aggregate student debt is at or near $1.5 trillion, and rising.

We also know that even Repubicans believe that an injection of $1.5 trillion into the economy would do a world of good. According to one Fox News defender of the recent $1.5 trillion tax cut bill, “Democrats have now become born-again deficit hawks, painting an additional $1.5 trillion added to the deficit over the next 10 years from this tax plan as causing certain harm. But they fail to take into account economic growth that would be created by tax cuts”.

It’s true that tax cuts have a stimulus effect, but not much of one. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent, for example, had a “fiscal multiplier” (stimulus effect) of 0.26. By contrast, a one-time increase in food stamps would have a multiplier of 1.73.

Quite a difference. A one-time reduction of student loan debt of $1.5 trillion would immediately pour hundreds and in some cases, thousands per month per indebted household into the productive economy — enriching not Wall Street this time, but Main Street.

Everyone in the country would benefit, offering an answer to the economic question “How do we improve the lives of all Americans?”

But a massive student loan cancellation would also help answer a moral question: “How do we free ourselves from the financial parasites who take money for themselves that others have earned?”

Freeing a host from parasites is indeed a moral task, especially when humans are the hosts. If you doubt you have a moral response to parasites, consider the “tongue-eating louse” (pictured below).

Cymothoa exigua, or the “tongue-eating louse,” is a parasitic
crustacean of the family Cymothoidae. The parasite enters fish through the gills and then attaches itself to the fish’s tongue, strangling and replacing it (source).

This parasite destroys the tongue of its host, replaces the tongue so the fish thinks nothing is amiss, then slowly drains the fish as the fish feeds itself.

If you owe student debt yourself, especially great amounts of it, something similar is happening to you — a large percentage of your income is going each month to people who do nothing but move money around. The only difference between you and the fish above is — you know something’s amiss.

Next steps: Answering the “How?” and “What Next?” questions

This answers the Why question of student debt cancellation — the moral job of freeing a host (us and our children) from parasites, the economic job of growing the productive economy so all can have better lives. I’ll answer the How question — what does implementation look like? — and the What Next question in another installment.

I’ll also answer the “What If We Don’t?” question. Here’s a hint: Extreme parasitism is not a stable system. When hosts become aware of their parasites, they fight back.

(A version of this piece appeared at Down With Tyranny. GP article archive here.)

GP
 

.

Takin’ it to the streets by @BloggersRUs

Takin’ it to the streets
by Tom Sullivan

Teachers in West Virginia are no longer waiting for beneficence from lawmakers. Their statewide strike has entered its second week in a state once known for being the birthplace of the labor movement, and in which strikes by public-sector workers are illegal.

But for all the media fixation on working-class America and the fate of blue-collar workers in the Rust Belt, that perception of what working class means is inadequate. Jamelle Bouie expands on that for Slate:

… since the 1970s, working-class labor has shifted from “making stuff” to “serving people,” a product of globalization, technological change, and a policy regime that prioritized the flow of capital above all else. Increasingly, the typical working-class American looks more like a fast food worker or paid caregiver—jobs held predominantly by white women and people of color—than someone who wears a hard hat to the job site. And while most definitions of “working class” center on workers without college degrees, there are many laborers with college diplomas whose prospects are now similar to those without them.

Teacher pay in West Virginia is ranked 48th in the nation, and striking teachers are demanding a 5 percent raise, something to which the governor and the House of Delegates have agreed. State Senate Republicans countered with 4 percent, stalling any agreement. Teachers vow they will not budge. Their health insurance premiums are rising fast enough to erase the pay raise anyway.

Jenny Craig, a middle school special education teacher tells the New York Times’ Michelle Goldberg the cost of insurance means she takes home less today than six or seven years ago. Craig now is spending her time picketing at her school and protesting at the state capitol.

Goldberg writes:

Yet if the strike is rooted in the specific conditions and history of West Virginia, it’s also part of a nationwide upsurge in intense civic engagement by women. “As a profession, we’re largely made up of women,” Amanda Howard Garvin, an elementary school art teacher in Morgantown, told me. “There are a bunch of men sitting in an office right now telling us that we don’t deserve anything better.” In the wake of Donald Trump’s election, she said, women across the country are standing up to say: “No. We’re equal here.”

Of course, Trump won West Virginia overwhelmingly, with nearly 68 percent of the vote. Still, Craig described the anti-Trump Women’s March, as well as the explosion of local political organizing that followed it, as a “catalyst” for at least some striking teachers. “You have women now taking leadership roles in unionizing, in standing up, in leading initiatives for fairness and equality and justice for everyone,” she said.

Outside the D.C. funhouse where federal witnesses drunk-dial(?) national news programs and an “unglued” president starts trade wars when he’s not letting the Kremlin make his hiring decisions, teachers see the world quite clearly.

Teachers in Oklahoma may follow the lead of their sisters and brother in West Virginia in striking for better pay. Oklahoma ranks at the bottom in teacher pay according to 2016 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Like the Parkland students unwilling to settle for thoughts and prayers, teachers are no longer content with promises from those elected to lead. Goldberg concludes that “if a spirit of revolt really is sweeping across the country — it will be the one way Trump has helped make America great again.”

You don’t know me but I’m your brother
I was raised here in this living hell
You don’t know my kind in your world
Fairly soon the time will tell
You… Telling me the things you’re gonna do for me
I ain’t blind and I don’t like what I think I see

* * * * * * * *

Request a copy of For The Win, my county-level election mechanics primer at tom.bluecentury at gmail.

The blue collar billionaire doesn’t mingle with hoi polloi

The blue collar billionaire doesn’t mingle with hoi polloi

by digby

Politico made note of something over the week-end that has always struck me as illustrative of Trump’s essential monarchist point of view:

In his 14 months as president, Trump hasn’t yet followed his predecessors’ habit of dropping by local watering holes (even though he’s made no secret of his love for junk food) or public service events either at home or on the road. He hasn’t gone to a baseball game or stopped at a soup kitchen. On Saturday, he ventured out of the White House to attend the annual Gridiron Dinner, taking a baby step into Washington’s elite social scene. But his appearance at the white-tie event did little to bring him closer to ordinary Americans.

Outside Washington, Trump follows a careful routine of visiting factories or local law enforcement headquarters. When he stopped recently in Parkland, Florida, on his way to Mar-a-Lago, he took a smiling photo with a girl who had been shot at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, a sharp contrast to images of Obama sitting in a small room with his head in his hands grieving with the parents of first-graders killed at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012.

Trump promised the night of his victory to govern on behalf of “the forgotten men and women of our country.” Yet as president, he rarely comes into contact with regular people except in the structured setting of the White House or during tightly orchestrated events set up by staff, including a West Wing listening session last month with Stoneman Douglas families that featured some attendees who were critical of his proposals. His announcement last week of new tariffs, the timing of which surprised even some senior staffers, came at a table packed with industry executives rather than at a Rust Belt steel mill.

This is not an oversight. Trump believes that it would be bad if he mingled with the riff raff. They would lose respect for him:

Don’t forget that when I ran in the primaries, when I was in the primaries, everyone said you can’t do that in New Hampshire, you can’t do that. You have to go and meet little groups, you have to see — cause I did big rallies, 3-4-5K people would come . . . and they said, “Wait a minute, Trump can never make it, because that’s not the way you deal with New Hampshire, you have to go to people’s living rooms, have dinner, have tea, have a good time.”

I think if they ever saw me sitting in their living room they’d lose total respect for me. They’d say, I’ve got Trump in my living room, this is weird.

He once said:

I’m sitting in an apartment the likes of which nobody’s ever seen. And yet I represent the workers of the world. And they love me and I love them. I think people aspire to do things. And they aspire to watch people. I don’t think they want to see the president carrying his luggage out of Air Force One. And that’s pretty much the way it is.

He’s better than everyone. And that’s what everyone loves about him.

He may be right. So let’s hear no more about the “guy you’d like to have a beer with.” It was always BS. Right wingers yearn to be subjects.

Paul Manafort are you reading the papers?

Paul Manafort are you reading the papers?


by digby

I’m sure this is nothing. Pay no attention. These sorts of incidents couldn’t possibly be what they seem to be:

One of the two people critically ill in hospital in Salisbury after “suspected exposure to an unknown substance” is a Russian man who was exchanged in a high-profile “spy swap” in 2010, the Guardian understands.

Sergei Skripal, 66, was one of four Russians exchanged for 10 deep cover “sleeper” agents planted by Moscow in the US.

Wiltshire police said that a man in his 60s and a woman in her 30s were found unconscious on a bench in the Maltings shopping centre in Salisbury on Sunday afternoon.

Temporary Ast Ch Con Craig Holden said: “The pair, who we believe are known to each other, did not have any visible injuries and were taken to Salisbury district hospital. They are currently being treated for suspected exposure to an unknown substance. Both are currently in a critical condition in intensive care.

“Because we are still at the very early stages of the investigation, we are unable to ascertain whether or not a crime has taken place. A major incident has been declared today and a multi-agency response has been co-ordinated.

“Alongside our partner agencies, we are conducting some extensive enquiries to determine exactly what led to these two people falling unconscious and clarify whether or not any criminal activity has happened.”

Skripal’s sudden and unexplained illness will invite comparisons with the poisoning in 2006 of another Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko.

Litvinenko – a former officer with the FSB spy agency – fell ill after drinking a cup of tea laced with radioactive polonium. He met his killers on 1 November 2006, in a ground-floor bar of the Millennium hotel in Mayfair, central London.

The pair were Andrei Lugovoi – a former KGB officer turned businessman, who is now a deputy in Russia’s state Duma – and Dmitry Kovtun, a childhood friend of Lugovoi’s from a Soviet military family.

Litvinenko’s murder caused international scandal and led to years of estrangement between Moscow and London. Putin denied all involvement and refused to extradite either of the killers from Moscow.

A painstaking investigation by Scotland Yard revealed that the assassins took three attempts to kill Litvinenko, with two botched plots the previous month. They eventually succeeded by putting a tiny amount of polonium-210 in a teapot. Litvinenko drank only three or four sips and died in agony 23 days later.

Detectives were able to reconstruct the killers’ movements across London – after discovering radioactive traces in hotels, restaurants and a nightclub in Soho. the killers disposed of excess polonium by pouring it down the u-bend of their hotel sink.

Christopher Steele – then a senior MI6 officer and the subsequent author of the Trump dossier – led an inquiry by government into the killing. He swiftly concluded that the Kremlin was behind the assassination. Only Russia had the capacity to produce polonium, which can only be obtained from a nuclear reactor.

It’s nice that half the US government is vilifying Steele as a lying foreign agent of Russia himself in order to protect The Miscreant.
I’m old enough to remember when they thought this kind of stuff was a bad thing. Now they’re all on board.

I have no doubt that Manafort is worried about this. Who wouldn’t be?

.

Lets do the time warp again

Lets do the time warp again


by digby


It seems like a good time to take a look at how Trump has evolved over the past 30 years. Hint: he hasn’t.

Here is the ad he bought in newspapers around the country in 1987:

In this letter he berated Japan and now it’s China. It’s all the same to him. You will notice that he’s never changed his basic rhetoric about the US being “laughed at.” In 1987, the United States was at the top of the world, at least on the terms Trump is talking about. Nobody was laughing at it.

The world is certainly laughing (nervously) at America today but not for the reasons he has been stating for decades.

He is a simpleton not an isolationist. He wants to run the world and have all the other “little” countries pay for it. That’s the extent of his foreign policy “philosophy.”

.