Donald Trump

The Battle to Combat Recession Slowly Begins to Take Shape

Economists agree a recession is perhaps only months away. There is less agreement and discussion on how to combat the recession when it occurs. One think tank argues the cure is growing aggregate demand by addressing income inequality. [Illustration Credit: Ji Sub Jeong/Huffpost]

Economists agree a recession is perhaps only months away. There is less agreement and discussion on how to combat the recession when it occurs. One think tank argues the cure is growing aggregate demand by addressing income inequality. [Illustration Credit: Ji Sub Jeong/Huffpost]

The United States is enjoying its longest sustained economic expansion since World War II, but there are signs a recession could occur in the next 12 to 18 months. An emerging question is what weapons US policymakers will have at their disposal to combat an economic downturn.

Historically, the tools to dig out of recession have included higher spending, lower interest rates and tax cuts. However, those tools have been compromised and don’t have much headroom. Federal budget deficits are already at economic stimulus levels, interest rates remain low and taxes have been cut.

Many economists believe trade wars can tip US and global economies into recession and possibly make a recession deeper and longer. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 is credited with adding to the economic strain of the Great Depression by constricting international trade, lowering the gross domestic product and forcing job layoffs. The escalating US-China trade war has moved from a negotiating tactic to a policy preference by the Trump administration, with profound impacts on manufacturing, agriculture and other business sectors in a far more globalized economy than the 1930s. 

The Republican tax cut in 2017, which largely benefitted corporations and wealthier taxpayers, has failed to generate a sustained stimulus as new business investment has stalled, in part because of uncertainty about disruptions in international trade and global supply chains. Meanwhile, Congress and the White House have agreed to a budget package extending past the 2020 election that will raise the deficit and national debt even more.

image002.png

President Trump has applied continuous pressure on the Federal Reserve Bank to cut interest rates faster and deeper. Critics charge Trump wants to extend the current economic recovery past the 2020 election, even if it risks longer-term economic problems.

One tried-and-true idea to stimulate the economy that rarely gets mentioned is an infrastructure investment package. There has been big talk from the White House to Capitol Hill about investments ranging from $1 to $2 trillion. However, talk breaks down when it comes to paying for such investments in roads, bridges, water systems, public transit and expanded broadband.

Political dialogue about the economy has become as polarized as other hot-button issues such as immigration, health care and gun legislation. As the threat of recession rises, more politicos, especially those appearing on the 2020 election ballot, will have heightened interest in reversing a downturn. That may account for the relatively sparse public discussion of fighting a recession when one next occurs. 

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a nonprofit think tank that promotes economic policies benefitting low- and middle-income workers, offers some perspective on how to approach the next recession. In a report issued in April, EPI argues for “an effective fiscal boost to aggregate demand growth,” adding, “Policies should be constructed not only to be effective economically, but also to be effective politically, in order to ensure broad and engaged popular support.”

The EPI report says, “A key lesson from the Great Recession is that fiscal policy is the most effective tool for aiding recovery. Monetary policy can lay the groundwork for fiscal policy, but really cannot be relied on to play more than a supporting role for fighting recessions.” Notwithstanding record deficits and spiraling national debt, EPI believes the United States has the “fiscal space” for a substantial stimulus package.

According to EPI, the United States is ill-prepared for a looming recession because it has failed to address income inequality during the historically long economic expansion.  Worsening inequality, it claims, has put a “drag on aggregate demand growth.” Spurring demand, EPI says, is what will get the country out of recession.

A fiscal stimulus in the form of an infrastructure investment or tax cut that seeks to grow demand by shrinking income inequality is likely to be viewed quite differently by Republicans who control the Senate and White House and Democrats who control the House and are running for President. Expect sparks to fly as political campaigns get into full gear this fall.

If predictions hold true and the 2020 election comes down to a handful of swing states, as it did in 2016, the debate over a fiscal stimulus, which EPI favors, or monetary stimulus, which Trump prefers, could be a key factor in who working-class voters support.

The US-China trade war is surfacing as a political talking point on the economy, as Democrats point out the toll tariffs are taking on American farmers, businesses and consumers. However, most of the leading Democratic presidential candidates don’t have a solid trade policy alternative, which makes a recession-fighting fiscal stimulus a more inviting option, especially on the campaign trail.

TPP Offered Positive Alternative to US-China Trade War

There is no obvious end in sight to the escalating US-China trade war that has business owners, farmers, consumers and economists worried. It makes you wonder whether a trade war would have been necessary if the United States had remained in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and gained economic leverage in the Asia Pacific.

There is no obvious end in sight to the escalating US-China trade war that has business owners, farmers, consumers and economists worried. It makes you wonder whether a trade war would have been necessary if the United States had remained in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and gained economic leverage in the Asia Pacific.

The clatter surrounding the US-China trade war has further diminished the memory of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which was negotiated by President Obama and subsequently ditched by President Trump. If implemented as intended, TPP would have set the rules for 40 percent of the world’s trade. It may have offered an alternative to a trade war.

What has gone largely unnoticed, at least in the United States, is that the 11 other nations in the partnership kept talking and formed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership  (CPTPP or TPP-11). The new agreement has been ratified by a majority of signatory countries and went into effect December 30, 2018.

The terms in TPP-11 are largely the same as the original TPP, with notable exceptions.

The CPTPP omits key provisions sought by US trade negotiators, such as longer copyright terms, automatic patent extensions and unique protections for new technologies, including biologics.

The basic agreement eliminates or reduces tariffs, liberalizes cross-border service restrictions, opens markets to foreign investment, establishes e-commerce guidelines, makes it easier for small business to engage in trade and strengthens intellectual property protection and enforcement. TPP-11 also contains labor and environmental standards, transparency rules and restrictions on monopolies and state-owned enterprises. China was excluded from conversations leading to the TPP and is not one of the TPP-11 members.

The TPP’s origins date back to President George W. Bush who called for trade negotiations with the leading Pacific Rim economies. Obama took up the TPP as part of his pivot to the Asia Pacific – and as a counter-balance to China’s growing economic dominance and influence. Trump withdrew from TPP to keep faith with a campaign promise and to pursue bilateral trade negotiations chiefly aimed at reducing trade deficits. There are reports a US-Japanese bilateral agreement is near final agreement. The United States, Canada and Mexico have negotiated an updated version of the North American Free Trade Agreement, but it remains stalled in Congress.

Since withdrawing from the TPP, Trump has imposed rounds of tariffs to force China to modify its intellectual property rule, forced technology transfer policies and state-owned business advantages. US businesses are wary of a continuing trade war because of disruptions to supply chains that are deeply embedded in China. Meanwhile, hard-earned export markets for products such as soybeans and lobsters have shrunk as the Chinese have turned to Russian farmers and Canadian lobstermen.

At times, it seems as if the United States lacks real leverage to win Chinese concessions. Experts who track China say US views that its Asian competitor is merely a low-cost outpost for outsourcing overlook growing Chinese competence for turning innovation into products. An example is an investment by Johnson & Johnson, which invested $180 million in a factory and a science hub for “problem-solving scientists” in the bio-pharmaceutical sector.

Chinese leaders have loftier ambitions. They want to be innovators, not just implementers. They have set their sights on artificial intelligence as the next major disruption of technology and manufacturing. China is installing electric charging stations through its vast territory because it wants to be the world’s leading producer of electric vehicles. For years, China has sent many of its best minds to study at American universities. Now, it is actively recruiting for the return of many of those talented minds to support its innovation ambitions.

Along with its innovation agenda, China is investing heavily in infrastructure, with a massive Belt and Road Initiative, which involves investments in 152 countries in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, the Americas and Africa. Re-establishment of the Silk Road is a real-life metaphor for recreating historical land and maritime links that in the future will connect China’s industry to most of the rest of the world – and potentially isolate the United States. The Trump administration hasn’t seriously proposed a major infrastructure investment package and instead is fixated on building a border wall with Mexico, the third largest US trading partner behind China and Canada.

Which brings the conversation back to TPP or, more precisely, TPP-11. With the benefit of hindsight, a contemporary trade alliance with major Pacific Rim economies seems like a pretty good insurance policy to spreading Chinese influence and continuing intransigence on what America views as fair trade. 

The TPP-11 carefully dismissed US planks, referring to their deletions as “suspensions,” leaving an opening for the United States to rejoin the partnership. Trump briefly entertained rejoining, but he changed his mind. Then he launched his tariffs, trade wars and tirades against windmills.

As the US-China trade war shows no quick or obvious exit route, it is worth pondering whether another approach might have achieved better results. Economists warn the continuing trade war is slowing global economic activity, perhaps by as much as $585 billion by next year. The trade war’s unintended consequences include reducing US corporate investment, disrupting the stock market and threatening a recession. Economic studies predicted TPP would have boosted the US economy, adding $130 billion to US gross domestic product by 2030.

Opposition in both political parties led to the scuttling of TPP, largely over predicted losses in US manufacturing jobs. The studies indicated those job losses would have been offset by gains in the agricultural and service sectors. 

The future of manufacturing jobs is itself problematic, especially with advances in robotics and AI. One commentator said globalization has already “decapitalized” much US manufacturing, which he says is unlikely ever to return. 

US manufacturing employment began rebounding in the recovery following the Great Recession and continued in the first 28 months of Trump’s presidency (525,000 under Obama, 471,000 under Trump). However, manufacturing job growth has dropped off markedly in 2019. The aggregate number of hours worked in in US manufacturing has backed off to what it was last year. Forward-looking indexes predict a sharp retraction in manufacturing, in part due to the US-China trade war and rising tariffs. Manufacturing wage growth has lagged overall wage increases.

A fair assessment is that the United States is not experiencing a manufacturing renaissance under current trade and tax policies – and without the TPP.

As reported by the Council on Foreign Relations, “[TPP] would have expanded US trade and investment abroad, spurred economic growth, lowered consumer prices and created new jobs, while also advancing U.S. strategic interests in the Asia-Pacific region.” That’s a much rosier outlook than what’s on the horizon with continuing US-China trade war.

image005.png
Gary Conkling Image.jpg

Gary Conkling is principal and co-founder of CFM Strategic Communications, and he leads the firm's PR practice, specializing in crisis communications. He is a former journalist, who later worked on Capitol Hill and represented a major Oregon company. But most importantly, he’s a die-hard Ducks fan. You can reach Gary at garyc@cfmpdx.com and you can follow him on Twitter at @GaryConkling.

The Curiously Missing Debate on the US Economy

President Trump focuses on immigration and tariffs and only occasionally cites strong US economic performance. Democratic presidential candidates are trying to win over primary voters by discussing issues such as universal health care, college debt and social justice. The result is a missing debate on the state and future of the US economy, which polls show is the top priority of a majority of voters.

President Trump focuses on immigration and tariffs and only occasionally cites strong US economic performance. Democratic presidential candidates are trying to win over primary voters by discussing issues such as universal health care, college debt and social justice. The result is a missing debate on the state and future of the US economy, which polls show is the top priority of a majority of voters.

A surging stock market, continued job creation and historically low unemployment have led to rising levels of public approval of Donald Trump in the polls. 

On the flip side, soaring federal budget deficits, protracted trade wars affecting industrial and agricultural sectors and tariffs threatening higher consumer prices are posting warning signs of an impending downward economic cycle, perhaps just before the 2020 election. 

Despite the stakes, bread-and-butter economic policy has taken a decidedly back seat in political debates, even as polling shows the economy remains the top priority of voters. 

Skillfully or impulsively, President Trump focuses on immigration, ‘creeping socialism’ and denigrating Democrats, while only occasionally praising the economy he’s overseen for 2½ years. Democratic presidential candidates, many seeking to curry favor with the increasingly restive progressive wing of the party, talk about health care, immigration reform, college debt, wealth taxes, climate change, social justice and Trump. 

Democrats also campaign in the shadow of the Mueller report and growing calls to impeach Trump. At times it seems as if Trump and his media allies egg on articles of impeachment, which face an uncertain fate in the Democratic House, but certain death in the Republican Senate. 

Absent in most Democratic stumping is any serious, sustained criticism of Trump economic policy. If criticism was to occur, this is what it might look like: 

Budget Deficit: According to the Treasury Department, the federal budget deficit ballooned 77 percent in the first four months of 2019 to $310 billion, up from $176 billion during the same period a year earlier. That period included the largest single month deficit. One reason for the larger deficits was a sharp drop in tax revenue, attributed to the Trump tax cuts. Meanwhile, federal spending has increased 9 percent, including a 12 percent hike in military spending and a 16 percent rise in Medicare outlays.

The Congressional Budget Office has projected a $900 billion deficit this fiscal year. The Office of Management and Budget, which is overseen by the Trump administration, projects the deficit will reach nearly $1.1 trillion – and keep rising through the 2020 fiscal year.

The Trump administration has not pushed very hard for federal spending reductions, settling instead for sending Congress a budget with cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which are political non-starters.

Trump has seemingly walked away from his promise of a major infrastructure investment plan. His own advisers have warned he cannot boost military spending and build new roads and bridges at the same time, especially when congressional Republicans appear unwilling to vote for the taxes to pay for upgraded infrastructure.

The political punch: The economy is cruising along, but only because it is fueled by the equivalent of credit card debt on steroids. The tax cuts and spending spree have effectively ruled out long-term investments in roads and bridges. 

Trade Wars: True to his campaign promise, Trump has upset the trade apple cart by imposing tariffs, first on steel and aluminum, then more generally, with a special gusto for Chinese imports. Trump also has selectively imposed sanctions on Iran and Venezuela. His trade team succeeded last year in negotiating an updated version of the North American Free Trade Agreement, but it still hasn’t been approved by Congress.

The Congressional Budget Office shares its data about federal deficits, budget and revenue projections and marginal tax rates, as well as statistical information about many specific federal programs. If you want to be the smartest person in the room when it comes to the economy, check this out:  https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54918 .

The Congressional Budget Office shares its data about federal deficits, budget and revenue projections and marginal tax rates, as well as statistical information about many specific federal programs. If you want to be the smartest person in the room when it comes to the economy, check this out: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54918.

Trump claims his tariffs have revived the US steel and aluminum industries and produced substantial revenue. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation confirms tariff revenue reached $70 billion by the end of May 2019, while reducing the US Gross Domestic Product by $50 billion, lowering wages by .13 percent and resulting in a loss of nearly 156,000 American jobs. 

The Tax Foundation also computed the impact of tariffs Trump threatened to impose against China, automobiles and Mexican products. Estimated revenues would exceed $154 billion at a cost of $112 billion in lost GDP, .3 percent decline in wages and loss of nearly 350,000 US jobs.

Then there are retaliatory tariffs by the European Union, India, Turkey, Mexico, Canada and Russia. The US treasury receives no revenue from these tariffs, but lost GDP from them tops $21 billion, wages decline .05 percent and some 67,000 jobs disappear. 

“If all tariffs announced thus far were fully imposed, US GDP would fall by 0.74 percent ($184.07 billion) in the long run, effectively offsetting about 44 percent of the long-run impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Wages would fall by 0.48 percent and employment would fall 570,591,” according to the Tax Foundation. 

The tariffs have worked a particular hardship on American farmers who have seen foreign markets evaporate, income nosedive and price increases for new equipment. The Trump administration conceded the impact on farmers, won approval for a $12 billion bailout and is seeking another $16 billion to aid farmers. Adding injury to insult, the major beneficiaries of the first bailout flowed to larger corporate farms, not family farms and “patriot farmers.”

The political punch: Tariffs are taxing Americans, raising prices, lowering wages, hurting farmers, losing jobs and posing a threat to continued economic growth. And, they haven’t resulted, at least so far, in great trade deals either.

Looming Downturn: Signs are emerging that an economic downturn may be on the horizon. Economists warn an escalating trade war combined with slowing growth in China and internationally could tip the economy into recession.

There also are troubling indicators.

  • Historically and ironically, recessions occur just when retail sales, industrial production and employment peak, as they have. Household wealth and income also peak just before a downturn.

  • Another historical indicator of recession is when interest rates on long-term bonds are lower than interest rates for short-term bonds for three continuous months, as just happened. This isn’t just a US phenomenon; it is occurring in bond markets around the world. 

Sensing the possibility of a declining US economy heading into an election, Trump has been hectoring Jerome Powell, the man he chose to head the Federal Reserve Board, to cut interest rates. After resisting such action, Powell in congressional testimony last week hinted an interest rate cut may be in the offing as early as this month. 

Powell told Congress, “Based on incoming data and other developments, it appears that uncertainties around trade tensions and concerns about the strength of the global economy continue to weigh on the US economic outlook.”

The stock market was ecstatic and hit new record highs. Critics warned an interest rate cut now will limit the Fed’s ability to combat a recession when it inevitably occurs.

The political punch: With increased deficit spending, continuing tariffs and a demand for lower interest rates, the administration is playing with fire, dousing a fire and trying to light a fire all at once.

You heard it here, even if you won’t hear anywhere else.

 

WinRed Seeks to Mimic ActBlue Online Fundraising Success

Republicans play catch-up to successful Democratic online grassroots fundraising with the launch of WinRed, an unabashed, but for-profit imitation of ActBlue.

Republicans play catch-up to successful Democratic online grassroots fundraising with the launch of WinRed, an unabashed, but for-profit imitation of ActBlue.

Voters look at headlines, one-liners and policy positions. Political pros follow the money.

That’s why the biggest news of the campaign season, at least in the eyes of political pros, is WinRed, the belated Republican response to the highly successful ActBlue online fundraising platform.

ActBlue launched in 2004 and claims on its website to have raised more than $3.5 billion for Democratic candidates. In the 2018 midterm elections, ActBlue helped Democratic House and Senate candidate outraise their Republican counterparts by more than two to one because of tens of thousands small contributions.

WinRed, which is backed by the Trump re-election campaign, congressional leaders and top GOP committees, was launched in June and is a partnership between a nonprofit clearinghouse of Republican donors and a for-profit payment-processing firm.

In the last decade, there have been several unsuccessful GOP attempts to replicate WinRed. They faltered because Republican candidates tend to count mostly on large donors and were skeptical of relying on small-dollar donors. There also are competing for-profit fundraising platforms.

ActBlue operates as a nonprofit that is separate from the Democratic Party. In the 2016 presidential election, Bernie Sanders relied on the fundraising platform to generate $200 million from grassroots donors. His example caused many Democratic candidates to hop onboard in the 2018 midterm election.

NPR quoted Republican political strategist Josh Holmes in assessing ActBlue’s success. Democrats “built an ecosystem that helped everybody…they could fundraise off of each other and they could come to a centralized platform that ultimately lifted every single boat.”

The WinRed backers make no secret they are imitating ActBlue’s business model to counter what Trump calls the “Democratic money machine.” However, veteran GOP strategist Karl Rove warns that WinRed success will require processing fees from fundraising donations to be “reinvested in enhancements, algorithms and list building, rather than big consulting fees and salaries." 

With the advent of the internet, grassroots fundraising has become a viable alternative to relying on big donors and political action committees. Several 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls have staked their campaigns on pledges to accept only small-donor contributions.

An analysis in 2018 of trends by FiveThirtyEight and the Center for Public Integrity show that platforms like ActBlue make it easier and more common for interstate campaign contributions. For example, the groups reported, “Since the beginning of 2017, donors in states Clinton won have given $157 million to support House and Senate candidates running in states Trump won. That’s more than five times the amount of cash flowing from Trump states to Clinton states.”

image004.png

Momentous Week in Washington Touches on Core National Values

The Supreme Court ruled on gerrymandering and the Census citizenship question, Congress debated emergency border funding and set a date for testimony by former Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller, Trump flew to Japan for a G20 summit and Democratic presidential candidates debated in Miami. It was a pretty momentous week.

The Supreme Court ruled on gerrymandering and the Census citizenship question, Congress debated emergency border funding and set a date for testimony by former Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller, Trump flew to Japan for a G20 summit and Democratic presidential candidates debated in Miami. It was a pretty momentous week.

This has proven to be a momentous week in Washington, DC that touched on the nation’s core institutions and values and how they interrelate.

The Supreme Court, in separate 5-4 rulings, left untouched partisan-tinged congressional district gerrymandering and blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to place on a question about citizenship on the 2020 Census.

The high court’s majority said the US Constitution doesn’t bar politically influenced gerrymandering or allocate authority to the court to police it. In an impassioned dissent, the minority said the ruling is setback for democratic values.

Speaking for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said the Trump administration failed to make a persuasive argument that the citizenship question is needed to help enforce the Voting Rights Act. "If judicial review is to be more than an empty ritual, it must demand something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case," Roberts wrote. The Census Bureau has said it wants to start printing questionnaires next Monday. Calling the ruling “ridiculous,” Trump indicated he would try to delay the Census “for as long as it takes.”

Meanwhile, Congress struggled to reach bipartisan agreement on an emergency funding measure to address border migration issues before the July 4 recess. The Democratically controlled House and the Republican controlled Senate passed separate versions this week. Among the differences between the two bills is whether there will be specific directions on how the $4.5 billion can be spent. President Trump has threatened to veto the House version. 

The picture of the drowned bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande shocked the nation and accentuated calls for actions to address the humanitarian crisis on the border. (Photo Credit: Julia Le Duc/AP)

The picture of the drowned bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande shocked the nation and accentuated calls for actions to address the humanitarian crisis on the border. (Photo Credit: Julia Le Duc/AP)

Republicans and Democrats acknowledge there is a humanitarian crisis on the US-Mexico border, punctuated by the widely circulated photograph of a Salvadoran father and his young daughter clutching his neck who drowned in the Rio Grande trying to enter the United States without going through a port of entry.

The uproar caused by the photo and continuing coverage of child migrant holding facilities prompted John Sanders, acting head of US Customs and Border Patrol, to resign. Tellingly, he submitted his resignation to the acting head of Homeland Security.

As Trump flew to Japan for a G20 meeting on Wednesday, Democratic candidates sparred in Miami in the first of two debates in the 2020 presidential election. They talked about health care reform, immigration policy, climate change and economic policy. Trump, who watched the first night’s debate on Air Force One, called it boring as the first 10 candidates staked out largely progressive agendas that included moving away from private health insurance and increasing taxes on wealthy Americans.

The second set of hopefuls, which includes frontrunners Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, will debate Thursday night.

In Japan, Trump is expected to meet on the sidelines with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. His conversation with Xi will likely center on an escalating trade war that is taking its toll on both countries’ bottom lines. Trump snarled at reporters who asked what he will discuss with Putin, telling them it was “none of your business.” Heightened tensions in Iran and Russian military involvement in Venezuela are two probable topics.

Ahead of the summit, Trump lashed out at India, Japan and Germany over trade policy and “security freeloaders.” Trump is expected once again to object to any joint statement at the summit that references the Paris Climate Accord, which will further strain US-French relations. 

Congressional Democrats announced former Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller will testify publicly July 17 before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees. That suggests the two hearings will sequentially deal with Trump’s potential obstruction of justice and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election..

Questioning of Mueller is virtually certain to zero in on testimony provided to his investigation under oath by White House officials who have been barred from testifying in Congress by Trump’s attorneys. The interrogation could prove pivotal to a decision by House Democratic leaders to draw up articles of impeachment.

Another fight is brewing over foreign policy. Democrats insist Trump needs a congressional declaration of war before launching any military action in Iran. Trump, supported by Senate GOP leaders, says he doesn’t.

A bipartisan resolution calling on the Trump administration to suspend an $8 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia won’t stop the deal, according to Trump officials.

Under the radar, former Trump Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has been testifying in private to the House Foreign Affairs Committee. A transcript of his testimony released this week included Tillerson’s claim that Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner was in contact with world leaders without coordination with the State Department, often leaving him out of the loop on emerging policies. 

“Tillerson also described the challenge of briefing a president who does not read briefing papers and often got distracted by peripheral topics, noting he had to keep his message short and focus on a single topic,” according to a report in The Washington Post.

 

 

Congressional Appropriations in Full Swing, Sort Of, As Deadlines Loom

Fiscal deadlines loom again and the congressional appropriations process is moving ahead as the House prepares to vote on 12 measures that defy Trump cuts and include spending increases. The Senate is further behind and no time line is set for a vote to raise the debt limit.

Fiscal deadlines loom again and the congressional appropriations process is moving ahead as the House prepares to vote on 12 measures that defy Trump cuts and include spending increases. The Senate is further behind and no time line is set for a vote to raise the debt limit.

As fiscal deadlines loom, the appropriations process is now in full swing – at least in the House of Representatives.

The end of the current fiscal year is rapidly approaching and lawmakers are scrambling to avoid a breakdown in the appropriations process by reaching an agreement on topline spending levels for the next two years and to raise the debt ceiling.  

House appropriators have approved all 12 annual spending bills, with House leaders aiming to pass them out of the full chamber by the end of June. As expected, House spending legislation largely rebukes the Trump Administration’s proposed cuts and instead outlines large spending increases across the federal government. 

To speed up passage, House Democrats were planning to bundle five fiscal 2020 spending bills into a massive package for floor consideration this week. However, that package lost a leg when the Legislative Branch measure was dropped after a disagreement over a provision to raise lawmaker salaries. The House began debate today on the revised four bill package that combines the fiscal 2020 measures for Defense, Labor-HHS-Education, Energy-Water, and State-Foreign Operations.

The bundling decision underscored a determination by House Democratic leaders to avoid another breakdown in the appropriations process and allow enough time for negotiations with the Senate before the new fiscal year begins October 1. Just as Republicans did last year, the strategy includes combining the two biggest annual spending bills – Defense and Labor-HHS-Education. Congress was able to get those two bills, along with three others, signed into law last year before the start of fiscal 2019. 

But the strategy is hardly a cure-all. A dispute over funding for the border wall last year brought work on other spending bills to a halt and led to the longest partial government shutdown in history. And topline funding levels finalized in the ongoing bipartisan budget negotiations are unlikely to mirror the priorities of House Democrats. 

Without a bicameral budget agreement in place yet, Senate appropriators have yet to mark up any of their spending bills for fiscal 2020. Bipartisan negotiations to set funding levels for fiscal years 2020 and 2021 have stalled primarily over disagreement on the level of domestic spending and whether new spending will be offset by new revenues or cuts elsewhere. An agreement to raise spending limits is necessary to avoid severe cuts to both defense and non-defense discretionary spending imposed by a 2011 deficit reduction law.

Senate Republican leaders met Wednesday with the White House in hopes to solidify the party’s spending strategy, but early reports suggest no agreement was reached. Part of that strategy includes deciding whether or not to couple raising the debt limit with must-pass spending legislation. The deadline to lift or suspend the debt limit is fluid, but the Treasury’s borrowing authority can likely last through October before a default.

The bottom line: A breakthrough will need to happen soon to avoid a shutdown or stopgap spending resolution come October. There are just 21 legislative days scheduled before the August recess. After which lawmakers will return to Washington with only 13 scheduled legislative days before the end of the fiscal year on September 30.

 

 

Coffee Mugs Wake up America, Portray Prexy Preferences

Every 2020 presidential candidate, and even a few who aren’t running, have commemorative coffee mugs to make their supporters swoon over a hot mug of java. No one better befits the coffee mug motif than Cup of Joe Biden.

Every 2020 presidential candidate, and even a few who aren’t running, have commemorative coffee mugs to make their supporters swoon over a hot mug of java. No one better befits the coffee mug motif than Cup of Joe Biden.

Twitter is thick with tweets about trade problems with China, escalating Iranian threats and congressional subpoenas. You also can order your favorite mug from a 2020 presidential challenger.

Other than campaign buttons, coffee mugs are the most common medium to convey your current political convictions. And candidates are more than willing to oblige.

What might have been outrageous in 2016 seems placid in 2020. Trump’s re-election offers platinum contributors a ceramic coffee cup with the pedestrian “Trump 2020/Keep America Great.” You also can get a Trump bobble-head with an extra-long red tie or a Manhattan glass with “Give me another.”

John Delaney, one of the lesser known Democratic presidential hopefuls, offers a coffee mug where you can improvise your own text. Like, “Are you crazy. John Delaney for President.”

Bernie Sanders has the second-most quoted campaign slogan that emblazons his coffee mugs, “Feel the Bern/2020.” There is a subliminal alternative that features The Bern with Nixon “V” signs and a Trump-like extra-long tie. There also is the clever, “Hindsight is 2020.”

Beto O’Rourke can be celebrated with a mug that creatively says, “Beto.” The coffee mug for Mayor Pete Buttigieg is slightly more exciting, “Pete/2020.” On trendier websites, you can find “Pete is Neat” mugs and more mugs that say “Beto.”

For the less particular, yet highly motivated voter, there is the “Literally Anyone Else” coffee mug. Other options include “He’s not my President” and “Impeach Donald Trump.” 

The Kamala Harris mug echoes her campaign stump speech, “Kamala Kamala Kamala Kamala.” To show her Twitter cred, there is also a mug that says, “Kamala for Ptus.”

Elizabeth Warren’s presidential coffee mug is actual a set of encyclopedias. For the politically incorrect crowd, there is a Warren/2020 mug with an Indian arrow. For the true Warren believers, there is the mug, “PERSIST, Elizabeth Warren/2020.”

The Jay Inslee presidential mug is a disappointment because it doesn’t come with a Starbucks sleeve. 

To please people who will be distracted through much of the 2020 presidential contest, there are special mugs – “November is Coming” and “Pratt/Reynolds.” For self-medicating voters, you can grab a mug that says, “Kanye for President.”

The coffee mug motif is built for Biden. Despite the funny mugs with Biden’s name and a pair of hands groping the 0s in 2020, there are some cabinet-ready candidates, though none better than “Cup of Joe.” It is reminder of those Folger coffee and Dunkin’ Donut ads.

Of course, votes, not coffee cups determine the outcome of elections. Maybe none do as much justice to that ideal than cups bearing “Save us, Michelle” and “Alexandria Cortez-Ocasio.2024.” Sometimes coffee just needs to age.

Presidential candidate coffee mugs.jpg

 

 

Trump Trade Initiatives Face Stronger Headwinds

Regions like the Pacific Northwest rely heavily on international trade to bolster their economies. Concerns are growing the US economy may suffer because Trump administration trade initiatives such as the new NAFTA are foundering.

Regions like the Pacific Northwest rely heavily on international trade to bolster their economies. Concerns are growing the US economy may suffer because Trump administration trade initiatives such as the new NAFTA are foundering.

Trump administration trade talks with China remain in limbo and negotiations with the European Union have flatlined. Now Trump’s new NAFTA trade agreement is faltering in Congress. The absence of agreements and the continuation of tariffs are piling more stress on manufacturers and farmers. 

No one expected trade talks with China would be a cake walk. Bruised relationships with European political leaders may contribute to stalled negotiations with the EU over agricultural products. But Trump trumpeted his success in maneuvering Mexico and China into a trade deal only to see the agreement flounder amid bipartisan complaints.

The early onset of the 2020 presidential election only complicates the situation with trade policies morphing into trade politics.

Trump’s protectionism has begun to chafe with traditionally free-trade Republicans, many of whom represent agricultural interests that are paying the price of a trade war with lost sales and the prospect of lost markets.

Republican Senate Finance Chair Charles Grassley has flatly told Trump he won’t move the new NAFTA trade deal until Trump lifts steel and aluminum tariffs on Mexico and Canada. Canada has strongly objected to the continuing tariffs, which has become an issue in its upcoming elections. Trump trade officials believe Chinese steel producers are evading the tariffs by shipping through Mexico.

“The tariffs are going to come off because the president has a good agreement,” Grassley told The Washington Post. “It’s just a matter of his realizing that nothing’s going to happen until the tariffs go off. And so the tariffs come off if he wants to get a win.” Grassley said Trump has refused because he feels the tariffs have revived the domestic steel industry and is insisting on quotas as a fallback when tariffs are lifted.

The AFL-CIO has refused to endorse the trade agreement until the Mexican parliament approves promised labor reforms. House Democrats aren’t on board, either. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she won’t put the agreement on the House floor until she sees proof of tougher, effective enforcement provisions. 

Liberal Democrats say the deal is a nonstarter because of provisions they say codify exclusive 10-year rights to biologics, which they view as a “total giveaway to Big Pharma.”

Trump officials remain optimistic. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin posed for pictures late last week after a bargaining session with his Chinese counterparts that he deemed “productive,” even as several deadlines have come and gone. The International Trade Commission’s analysis of new NAFTA won’t be completed until mid-April, which starts the congressional clock on approval.

However, negotiations face a political clock as leading Democratic presidential contenders oppose the new NAFTA, heartland farmers grow restive as they see hard-earned global markets evaporate, the US economy begins to show signs of stalling and trade deficits keep climbing.

 

Senate Breaks Century-Old Precedent in Approving Seattle Judge

Seattle attorney Eric Miller was confirmed this week to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals over the objections of Washington’s two Democratic senators, breaking a precedent dating back a century and foreshadowing a continuing attempt by President Trump to place more conservative judges on the federal bench. [Photo Credit: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call file photo]

Seattle attorney Eric Miller was confirmed this week to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals over the objections of Washington’s two Democratic senators, breaking a precedent dating back a century and foreshadowing a continuing attempt by President Trump to place more conservative judges on the federal bench. [Photo Credit: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call file photo]

A Seattle-based Assistant US Attorney was confirmed this week by the Senate to a lifetime appointment on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It was the first time in a century that a federal judge was confirmed without the endorsement of at least one US senator from the nominee’s home state.

Eric Miller, 43, a presidential nominee who formerly clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, was confirmed on a party-line vote over the objections of Washington Democratic Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. They declined to return “blue slips” indicating support for Miller because of what they called his “hostility toward tribal rights.” Murray and Cantwell also complained Miller’s confirmation hearing was a sham because it was scheduled during a Senate recess and only two Republican senators attended.

Last summer, the White House withdrew a similar nomination of Assistant US Attorney for Oregon Ryan Bounds over objections by Oregon’s Democratic Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley. The Bounds’ nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was withdrawn after Republican Senators Tim Scott and Marco Rubio refused to vote for his confirmation. 

Placing conservatives on federal courts, especially the liberal-leaning 23-judge Ninth Circuit, has been a political goal of President Trump’s administration. Trump has often complained about unfriendly, liberal and “Obama” judges that have imposed legal impediments to his policy initiatives such as a Muslim travel ban and family separation on the US-Mexican border.

Ironically, Republican senators used the “blue-slip” prerogative to veto Obama judicial nominees. Under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate rules on judicial appointments were changed to allow simple majorities, instead of the previous 60-vote threshold, to confirm federal judges. Ignoring the absence of “blue slips” is another step down a slippery path of politicizing federal judicial confirmations.

Murray called the confirmation of Miller a “dangerous first.” Cantwell said it set a “damaging precedent.” California Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told The Washington Post, “It is regrettable and likely will result in more ideological nominees who don’t reflect the values of their home states. It’s hard to not see this action coming back to bite Republicans when they’re no longer in power in the Senate.”

On the Senate floor, Murray charged, “Abandoning the blue slip process and instead, bending to the will of a president who has demonstrated time and time again his ignorance and disdain for the Constitution and the rule of law is a mistake.” She noted Miller’s confirmation hearing included less than five minutes of questioning – “less questioning for a lifetime appointment than most students face for a book report.” 

According to Roll Call, more nominees are in the wings that lack endorsement by home-state senators in New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island. “I think it’s going to be very hard for folks who allowed the blue slip to evaporate to complain if wonderful New York judges start getting appointed into South Carolina, or Nebraska, or Louisiana or other places, because you’ve disarmed the one thing that gives you the ability to do something about that,” Rhode Island Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse told Roll Call.

McConnell praised Miller, who holds undergraduate degree from Harvard and a law degree from the University of Chicago. During his abbreviated confirmation hearing, Miller said as a US solicitor general he has argued a case before the Supreme Court defending tribal lands. Subsequently in private practice, he said he represented a client that opposed tribal interests. He described his previous roles as an advocate “not to advance my own views but to advance my client’s views.”  

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham said the blue slip tradition is more of a courtesy than a veto. Graham did say it was his intention to retain the blue slip process for US District Court judicial appointments.

 

Green New Deal is More of a Signal Than a Statute

The optics were unmistakable. A 29-year-old freshman member of Congress was a leading voice at the introduction of the Green New Deal resolution, which has little chance of passage, but presages an important political moment when the fears and wishes of a younger generation push up against the pessimism and patronization of an older generation in politics.

The optics were unmistakable. A 29-year-old freshman member of Congress was a leading voice at the introduction of the Green New Deal resolution, which has little chance of passage, but presages an important political moment when the fears and wishes of a younger generation push up against the pessimism and patronization of an older generation in politics.

The Green New Deal resolution just introduced in Congress is less a plan of action and more a barometer of a new political wind.

The incoming Democratic majority in the House radiates the energy and activism of younger voters who will face the perils of climate change and are demanding bold action now. The Green New Deal is the Democratic response.

The incoming Democratic majority in the House radiates the energy and activism of younger voters who will face the perils of climate change and are demanding bold action now.

Because the Senate remains in Republican control and the White House is occupied by someone who denies the science of climate change, Democrats can only point to policies that wean America off fossil fuels and accelerate a renewable energy future. It will be up to states such as Oregon, where Democrats are in solid control, to advance specific climate change legislation, whether in the form of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade regime.

The optics of the Green New Deal nonbinding resolution’s introduction were unmistakable. Long-time environmental crusader Ed Markey, D-Mass, shared the platform with freshman phenom Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Markey said, “Our energy future will not be found in the dark of a mine, but in the light of the sun.” Ocasio-Cortez added, “All great American programs, everything from The Great Society to the New Deal, started with a vision for our future.”

Critics called the plan unrealistic, lacking in specifics and too costly. They said advocates of the Green New Deal need to do a “whole lot more homework.” To youthful supporters, the criticism sounds a lot like patronizing parental pessimism.

Ocasio-Cortez shot back: “For 40 years we have tried to let the private sector take care of this. They said, 'We got this, we can do this, the forces of the market are going to force us to innovate.' Except for the fact that there’s a little thing in economics called externalities. And what that means is that a corporation can dump pollution in the river and they don’t have to pay, but taxpayers have to pay."

To be sure, there would be huge technical and significant economic challenges to reach a zero-carbon target in 10 years. For example, cars are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, but many people hold onto their cars as long as 10 years. One of the biggest sources of methane emissions are cows.

"Even the solutions that we have considered big and bold are nowhere near the scale of the actual problem that climate change presents to us," Ocasio-Cortez told NPR's Steve Inskeep.

Youthful supporters are undaunted by those challenges. Sunrise Movement held a web meeting with supporters from all over the country and pledged to amp up lobbying for the Green New Deal during February. One of the group’s leaders said sit-ins may occur in the offices of Members of Congress who don’t endorse the Green New Deal.

But “old-timers” chimed in, too. “The Green New Deal resolution is essential in building and sustaining momentum to deal with the climate crisis,” Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer wrote his constituents. “Its message is one of ambitious, achievable and necessary hope. That’s why I’m excited to partner with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to help write this resolution and define its goals for this Congress.”

Congressional insiders recognize the Green New Deal won’t move in any significant way in this Congress. What they miss is that Ocasio-Cortez is a Member of Congress with a voting card and someone with an outsized following on Twitter who is driving the progressive political agenda. The only US political figure with more Twitter interactions if President Trump.

“When a 29-year-old former bartender of Puerto Rican descent beats a senior Democratic leader of the House, and then proceeds to set the political agenda during her first week in office, it’s more than a cute social media story," wrote Antonio Garcia Martinez in Wired. “She’s a harbinger of a new American political reality.”

This is what separates the Green New Deal from other legislative initiatives. It has become a generational anthem, not just a piece of legislation.

 

Brexit, Border Wall Throttle Leading Democracies, Delighting Putin

Britain’s inability to negotiate an exit from the European Union and President Trump’s inability to win funding for his promised border wall have left the world’s two largest democracies in political limbo, to the apparent delight of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Despite enormous economic consequences, a smooth Brexit and an early end of the partial US government shutdown seem out of reach.

Britain’s inability to negotiate an exit from the European Union and President Trump’s inability to win funding for his promised border wall have left the world’s two largest democracies in political limbo, to the apparent delight of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Despite enormous economic consequences, a smooth Brexit and an early end of the partial US government shutdown seem out of reach.

Maybe it is coincidence or a case of bad karma extending across the pond as the United States and United Kingdom find themselves in shutdown mode – with seemingly no clue how to escape, despite enormous economic consequences.

The partial federal government shutdown is simple to understand. President Trump wants $5.7 billion for a border barrier and Democrats refuse, calling it wasteful spending on an ineffective deterrent to illegal immigration.

Trump has said the budget stalemate could be resolved in 15 minutes, which is true. The Democrat-led House has passed a nearly identical spending bill to what the Senate approved unanimously last year after Trump signaled his support. Then Trump changed his mind and demanded border wall money. He has refused to budge, other than to acquiesce to a steel instead of concrete barrier.

Federal employees and contractors caught in the cross-hairs of the border wall fight have been furloughed, forced to work without pay, not paid or encouraged to find new jobs. National parks have closed, airport security lines have lengthened and farmers haven’t gotten their subsidies to compensate for losses they incurred from the Trump trade war. Pre-season forest thinning and hurricane forecasting has been disrupted. A workplace training session for Oregon lawmakers was postponed. Federal income tax refunds could be delayed. 

As bad as all that is, it may pale in comparison to Britain’s predicament. The British Parliament on Tuesday rejected the Brexit deal that took Prime Minister Theresa May two years to negotiate with her reticent European Union counterparts. The 432-202 parliamentary defeat of the May Brexit plan is the most lopsided loss for a sitting government in British history.

Britain faces a March 29 deadline to withdraw from the EU. May, who survived a no-confidence vote by her own Conservative Party last year and faces another one by an opposition party, was given until next Monday to come up with a plan.

Unlike the US government shutdown that is stuck on a single issue, the UK is trying to disengage from an alliance. It is similar to a state like California trying to secede from the United States.

May faces a Rubix Cube of options, none of which is very promising. EU leaders have shown little inclination to grant further concessions to Britain. Asking the British people to vote a second time on Brexit risks having a second vote in favor of the pullout, with no more clarity on how to achieve it. Extending the deadline for the EU exit without a consensus game plan would be like a prisoner asking for more torture.  

That leaves Britain with the somber prospect of slipping out of the EU without a deal and without substitute bilateral trade deals with key trading partners such as the United States. The plan-less exit also would pose serious internal problems, such as how to manage the border between Ireland, which would still be in the EU, and Northern Ireland, which wouldn’t. This is a border that has a troubled history as a true humanitarian crisis. Many worry it could return to that troubled history.

From a wider angle, this is an awkward time for the world’s two leading democracies to indulge in self-inflicted combat. As one veteran traveler told a news reporter, this is bad time to visit either the United States or Britain because both appear to be in the middle of civil wars. Add to that the yellow vest protests that have rocked France and what you see is not a pretty picture of economic, social or political stability.

British unrest stems from a nationalist drive to maintain Britain’s sovereignty. French discontent pivots on restive attitudes about persistent income inequality. The US stand-off centers on an unmet campaign promise.

The US political stalemate would seem the easiest to resolve, but has been elevated to a larger political battlefield. Supporters have warned Trump, who brags about his deal-making prowess, that his presidency could effectively end if he fails to get money for the border wall. The newly elected Democratic majority in the House is disinclined to toll over to Trump demands. Trump’s threat of a presidential declaration of emergency that would go around Congress to find the money to build the border wall could trigger a constitutional crisis.

What seems missing in the United States and Britain is a sense of the bigger picture – a more aggressive Russia, China’s ascendancy as a world power and the rise of right-wing authoritarian governments. Any one of these could be the tinder box that sparks a major conflict engulfing the bickering and compromised democratic powers. It has happened before when there have been voids in international leadership.

Commentators are beginning to point to Russia as a culprit in both seasons of discontent. Sowing division among the major world democracies is a much cheaper foreign policy than a military build-up, and perhaps a defter strategy to undermine NATO, a major objective for Russian President Vladimir Putin. The shadow of Russia will grow longer as Special Counsel Robert Mueller moves to wrap up his investigation into Russian election meddling and potential collusion with the Trump campaign in 2016.

Whatever the reasons, there is no doubt Brexit and the border wall stalemates are causing economic pain, with little relief in sight.

 

Carter Offers New Year Advice on China Relationship

Former President Jimmy Carter offers advice on how to avoid a cold war with China based on his experience 40 years ago normalizing diplomatic relations with Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping that led the two countries to “become engines of global prosperity.”

Former President Jimmy Carter offers advice on how to avoid a cold war with China based on his experience 40 years ago normalizing diplomatic relations with Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping that led the two countries to “become engines of global prosperity.”

With all the division in Washington, DC, former President Jimmy Carter offered some useful historical perspective on how to find common ground with China, as opposed to putting a “critical relationship in jeopardy.”

Drawing on his own experience of normalizing diplomatic relations with Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping 40 years ago in an op-ed published by the Washington Post, Carter says the key is to identify common goals to address intractable global problems that require leadership by the world’s two largest economic powerhouses.

“While today’s leaders face a different world [than 1979], the cause of peace remains just as important,” Carter says. “Leaders must bring new vision, courage and ingenuity to new challenges and opportunities…. They also must accept our conviction that the United States and China need to build their futures together, for themselves and for humanity at large.”

Carter’s retrospective of his own dealings with China comes with a backdrop of President Trump engaging in a trade war with China. The negotiated 90-day pause in further escalation of the trade war affords an opportunity, Carter says, to recalibrate the relationship and the means to resolve disputes.

“The U.S. imposition of tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese good and China’s retaliatory tariffs contribute to the deteriorating relationship, hurting both countries,” he says, which could descend into a Cold War over the Pacific.

Carter recalls that establishing a normalized relationship with China put an end to three decades of hostility and “led to an era distinguished by peace in East Asia and in the pacific Region.” “China’s spectacular economic growth, in conjunction with its continuing integration with the much larger US economy, has enabled the two countries to become engines of global prosperity.”

Political and economic concerns over Chinese economic ascendancy, growing military power and resistance to full democratization can overshadow the opportunities the two nations could pursue together, Carter insists. “The 40thanniversary of this relationship is a testament to the ability of countries with different histories, cultures and political systems to work together for the greater good.”

He urges quick resolution of trade issues, including “trade imbalances, intellectual property theft, forced technology transfers and unfair barriers to US investments.”  Carter dismisses use of “national security” as a reason to obstruct to commercial relationships and claims, “China needs competition for its economy to innovate and grow. Pursuing a fair and reciprocal relationship is the only way for both countries to remain economically strong.”

While he doesn’t say as much in his op-ed, Carter implies that US negotiators must approach their Chinese counterparts differently than, say, European officials. The Chinese view themselves as the oldest nation on earth and the cradle of many of the world’s most important inventions. As such, they bridle at direct criticism and resist confrontational tactics. Cultural sensitivity is a must to get anywhere. Much of the debate over access to the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea can be traced to historical dominance by China of major trading lanes in Southeast Asia and Eastern Africa.

The current government in China is a post-WWII product and the winner of a civil war. While communist in name, China’s ruling party has moved from communal to a form of market-oriented economics, with a strong role for state-sponsored policies. Those policies can be very effective because of Chinese acquiescence to collective goals. However, Chinese officials are mindful that their way of doing business can rub the rest of the world the wrong way. The secret is to find approaches and compromises that don’t offend the Chinese, offer concrete resolutions to legitimate disputes and restore a level of comity between the two nations that will be major competitors and collaborators for the foreseeable future.

For its part, Carter says, the United States should return to the Paris climate accord to strike a collaboration with China on how to decrease greenhouse gas emissions in both the developed and undeveloped world. The US should continue to invite China to play an intermediary role in reducing, if not eliminating, the nuclear threat on the Korean Peninsula. And, the two countries should work hand in hand to develop Africa economically in ways that enrich its citizens, not dictators.

Other forms of collaboration might include joint space research. The Chinese currently have a robotic space probe on the dark side of the moon, the first such probe by any nation. Current US policy forbids exchange of space technology with China. A new space race would be costly and counter-productive, while collaborative efforts may advance knowledge and eventually colonization of the moon and Mars much faster. They might even have a benefit on earth, as the Chinese have announced plans to launch a man-made moon, which is actually a gigantic mirror designed to provide lunar lighting that cuts heating bills.

The two nations also could team up to deal with cyber-terrorism. Intelligence suggests there are state-sponsored cyber-hackers in China. An improved relationship with China may turn hacking into common defense against hackers and disinformation agents. While China still has censorship, its citizens are increasingly exposed to foreign ideas and ideals. Its economic aspirations lie closer to the United States than Russia, which could be persuasive for Chinese officials to join US efforts to combat Russian interference designed to create division and dysfunction.

As has often been the case in his post-presidency, Carter offers plenty to chew on in the new year. One of his signal achievements as President serves as a useful, timely reminder that the harder road to take can be the most productive – and peaceful.

 

A ‘Fringe Idea’ to Apply Term Limits to the Supreme Court

A ‘new’ debate is emerging on reforming the Supreme Court, including imposing term limits on justices. What has been a fringe issue may be moving into the mainstream and even the 2020 presidential race. Debating the size and composition of the Court could be a refreshing dip into a rich part of American history that has occurred when the nation was founded, grappled with nationhood, recovered from civil war and addressed the ravages of the Great Depression.

A ‘new’ debate is emerging on reforming the Supreme Court, including imposing term limits on justices. What has been a fringe issue may be moving into the mainstream and even the 2020 presidential race. Debating the size and composition of the Court could be a refreshing dip into a rich part of American history that has occurred when the nation was founded, grappled with nationhood, recovered from civil war and addressed the ravages of the Great Depression.

While the Capitol is buzzing with news about averting a government shutdown, criminal justice reform and a resolution to exit the Yemeni civil war, a new debate is quietly entering the stage that could radically change the US Supreme Court.

With two new conservative justices appointed by President Trump sitting on the high court, liberals are talking about ideas to apply term limits to justices, restrict when presidents can appoint new justices and add more justices to the court. Fivethirtyeight calls the conversation a “fringe idea” that is gaining mainstream attention.

As Fivethirtyeight recalls, court-packing isn’t new or novel. The Supreme Court’s size was shrunk by outgoing Federalists from six to five to prevent incoming President Thomas Jefferson from making an early appointment. Republicans quickly returned the Court to its original size and later added a seventh justice so another Republican could be named.

The Court was increased to nine justices to give President Andrew Jackson two additional seats to fill as part of his battle to end the national bank. Following President Lincoln’s assassination, a Republican Congress reduced the Court to seven to deny his successor, Democrat Andrew Johnson, any nominations that could interfere with their reconstruction plans. Franklin Roosevelt tried court-packing to remove judicial obstacles to his New Deal, but his transparent objective sank his attempt.   

The impetus for the latest spasm of interest in Supreme Court “reform” was the decision by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to deny a hearing or confirmation vote for President Obama nominee Merrick Garland in 2016. The spectacle surrounding Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings earlier this year didn’t squelch interest in reforms.

“The whole idea was born out of bleakness,” says David Faris who wrote “It’s Time to Fight Dirty,” which Fivethirtyeight describes as a “highbrow manual” to achieve institutional change. His book includes a chapter on changing the trajectory of the Supreme Court, with ideas Faris credits to Fix the Court, a group that says it is dedicated “to open up the most powerful, least accountable part of government.”

One of the group’s main ideas is to end lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices and impose 18-year term limits. It says that idea was originally suggested by none other than current Chief Justice John Roberts, who has served on the court since 2005.

“To paraphrase a John Roberts' 1983 memo, term limits would restore an important check on the most powerful, least accountable branch of American government, would increase the rotation of justices serving and would broaden the pool of potential nominees – all positive outcomes no matter where you stand politically.” He wrote the memo while working as associate counsel to White House counsel Fred Fielding during the Reagan administration.

According to Fivethirtyeight, the only elected official to express vocal support for Supreme Court justice term limits is freshman California Congressman Ro Khanna, who took his law degree from Yale University, has taught law and co-authored an amicus brief to the Supreme Court to allow race discrimination suits under the Fair Housing Act. Khanna, who worked in the Obama administration, doubts his former boss would favor the idea, but he thinks American voters might. “Americans love term limits,” he says.

For the idea to have any political legs, Khanna explains, it must be bipartisan. He and others who are intrigued by the idea of court reforms expect the issue to rise up in the 2020 presidential election as part of a broader debate over rehabilitating American democracy.

“Every presidential candidate should talk about their relationship to the Supreme Court, what they would do to reform the court, if anything, how they would go about selecting justices, and what they would do if there was a constitutional crisis,” Khanna told Fivethirtyeight. Polling has shown that candidate Donald Trump’s promises to appoint conservative justices was a factor in securing critical support, including from evangelical religious groups.

One of the other ideas being tossed around is limiting Supreme Court nominations to the first and third year of a presidential term, an idea ironically spawned by McConnell’s defense of ignoring Garland’s nomination in Obama’s final year in office. It also has been suggested to increase the size of the Supreme Court from nine to 11 or 13 justices – “depending on how many justices Trump winds up appointing.”

Term limits can cut both ways. Political conservatives might be thrilled to see Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who joined the Court in 1993 and the subject of a new film, gone. Political liberals would feel likewise about Justice Clarence Thomas, who took his seat in 1991 following a contentious confirmation hearing that featured Anita Hill and charges of sexual harassment.

A current-day debate over the Supreme Court would be like a refreshing dip into American history. The reforms would be newly expressed, but bound to the nation’s ever-evolving democracy over issues such as judicial review, racial discrimination and gender equality.

 

GOP Faces Unexpected Complications in Lame Duck Session

GOP congressional leaders were already struggling to meet a Friday deadline on a spending bill to avoid a partial federal government shutdown. The death of President George H.W. Bush, who will lie in state at the Capitol until a memorial service Wednesday, may extend negotiations a week or more.

GOP congressional leaders were already struggling to meet a Friday deadline on a spending bill to avoid a partial federal government shutdown. The death of President George H.W. Bush, who will lie in state at the Capitol until a memorial service Wednesday, may extend negotiations a week or more.

Congressional lawmakers have important work left to do before they head home for the holidays later this month, most notably completing the Fiscal Year 2019 spending legislation needed to avoid a government shutdown. 

Congress faces a Friday deadline to resolve disputes that include border wall funding in a spending package, but that date might be extended following the passing of former President George H.W. Bush. 

Bush 41 will lie in state at the Capitol before a memorial service is held Wednesday at the National Cathedral, complicating any efforts to hammer out a large-scale funding deal before Friday. GOP leaders, who remain in control of the lame duck session, are considering extending government funding for a week or two.

President Trump has said he is open to a short-term extension of spending talks if congressional leaders request one. But nevertheless, leaders will still need to reach an agreement to avoid a partial government shutdown of the agencies funded under seven out of 12 spending bills that haven’t been finalized.

Back in September, Congress approved five bills providing funding for defense, energy and water, labor, health and human services, the legislative branch and veterans affairs. Trump signed those measures, marking the first time in more than 20 years that Congress has passed a labor/health/human services funding bill prior to the end of the fiscal year, and the first time in more than 10 years it has passed a defense funding bill prior to the end of the fiscal year 

But Congress punted on the seven other spending bills with passage of a Continuing Resolution (CR) to keep the remaining federal government sectors open until December 7. Those bills include funding for the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Homeland Security, Interior, State, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, as well as several smaller agencies. If Congress is unable to avoid a government shutdown this month, those are the departments and agencies that would be affected.

The main issue at hand is whether or not to include $5 billion in border wall funding requested by Trump. House Republicans have backed Trump's call for $5 billion – the House Appropriations Committee approved the spending in July, but the Senate’s bill earmarked only $1.6 billion for the wall with bipartisan support.

Democrats have signaled that they’re not budging, arguing they already have reached bipartisan agreement in the Senate’s bill. But Trump has ratcheted up shutdown talk indicating he would “totally be willing” to shut down the federal government if Congress does not approve the full $5 billion for construction of a U.S.-Mexico border wall. In response, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has blamed Trump for intransigence on the issue.

Meanwhile, Republicans are also looking to pass another tax package before they cede power to Democrats in January when the next Congress convenes. Last week, House Republicans offered a bill that would combine corrections to their 2017 tax bill along with extensions of more than two dozen expired tax breaks and a revamp of the IRS.

Republican leaders had planned a vote on the tax bill last week, but pulled it to shore up support within the Republican caucus after hearing concerns over some provisions within the bill and its overall price tag. Getting the measure through the House now appears to be in question. And Senate Republicans have been lukewarm at best toward the measure, with some suggesting it may need to get scaled back. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has not yet named a tax bill as part of his year-end agenda. 

Congressional leaders also are working to wrap up work on a “Farm Bill,” which authorizes various Department of Agriculture programs including welfare (SNAP and WIC), crop insurance and federal forest management policies that House leaders have been trying to expand.

Senate and House leaders reportedly reached an agreement last week, several months after authority expired at the end of September. No text or details have been released yet, but indications are that it will largely pare back additional work requirements for receiving food benefits and forest management reforms that House Republicans had pushed in their version of the bill.

Dark Corners, New Lights Loom for Nation’s Capital

As the new year nears, darker economic possibilities lurk as a result of President Trump’s trade war with China, his threats to shut down the US-Mexican border and his kneecapping of Prime Minister Theresa May’s attempt to negotiate an exit from the European Union. The new year means Democrats regain control of the House, but a new bright light from Queens is already causing a stir in the nation’s capital as she pushes her agenda, fends off critics and waits for the keys to her congressional office.

As the new year nears, darker economic possibilities lurk as a result of President Trump’s trade war with China, his threats to shut down the US-Mexican border and his kneecapping of Prime Minister Theresa May’s attempt to negotiate an exit from the European Union. The new year means Democrats regain control of the House, but a new bright light from Queens is already causing a stir in the nation’s capital as she pushes her agenda, fends off critics and waits for the keys to her congressional office.

Congress returned for its lame duck session and faces a December 7 deadline to pass a spending bill to avoid a partial federal government shutdown. However, deeper economic rumblings presage more difficult times ahead, and there is a new tweeter in town.

General Motors stunned its workforce – and the White House – with a pre-holiday announcement that more than 14,000 employees will be laid off and five factories (four in the United States and one in Canada) will be shuttered. The news undermines President Trump’s boast that his economic policies will bring manufacturing jobs back to America. GM said it was restructuring as Americans abandon passenger cars and Trump’s tariffs eat into profitability.

Trump is threatening to shut down the US-Mexican border over continuing attempts by thousands of migrants to enter the United States and seek asylum. Even though US law permits migrants to enter the nation legally at ports of entry and apply for asylum, Trump is trying to prevent them from gaining entry, including use of force such as tear gas. A complete shutdown of the border would have severe economic consequences on the daily $1.7 billion movement of goods between the two countries.

A longer-term threat involves the United Kingdom’s unexecuted exit from the European Union. Prime Minister Theresa May has negotiated a complex pull-out deal that still must be approved next month by the British Parliament, which is not a foregone conclusion. Trump weighed in and undercut May’s bargaining position by raising doubt the agreement with the EU would permit a US-British bilateral trade deal, something the prime minister has touted as a positive payoff for Brexit. British officials deny the EU-exit agreement bars Britain from entering into bilateral trade deals.

Congresswoman-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hasn’t waited for the keys to her congressional office to stir the waters in DC with forceful advocacy of her progressive agenda and a savvy pushback to conservatives who seem mesmerized by her growing national prominence as a symbol of the new wave of women and more diverse political representatives.

Congresswoman-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hasn’t waited for the keys to her congressional office to stir the waters in DC with forceful advocacy of her progressive agenda and a savvy pushback to conservatives who seem mesmerized by her growing national prominence as a symbol of the new wave of women and more diverse political representatives.

The United States is still on a glide path to impose even more tariffs on Chinese goods on January 1, which would likely result in reciprocal tariffs on US exports to China. Trump trade officials insist China must act to end what amounts to an escalating trade war. Ahead of a summit this week, Trump’s officials also poured cold water on a suggestion that the G20 group of industrialized nations could play a role in resolving the dispute. For its part, China says it is opening up key markets such as banks, automobiles, aircraft, telecommunications and medical. It calls many US demands “unrealistic.”

While no one is exactly predicting an economic downturn, there are some cracks surfacing in the current economic boom. The US stock market has plunged from its dizzying record heights. There has been a slight uptick in unemployment filing. Interest rates continue to inch up, which could cool hot housing markets. Millennial trends away from car and homebuying are beginning to disrupt traditional industries and their extensive supply chains. In addition, China’s economy may be weaker than most economists thought. All of which suggests the international economy may be fragile and capable of slowing US economic growth.

Another drag on the US economy is higher-than-promised national deficits, mostly attributable to the GOP-backed tax cut. The beneficial effects of the tax cut may be mostly used up as the country heads into a new year.

In January, Democrats regain control of the House, which may add more complications to charting an economic path to avoid a downturn.

Then there is Congresswoman-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who as the youngest member of the new Congress is already stirring the DC pot with Twitter posts about Medicare-for-All, a Green New Deal, immigration and reducing student college loan debt. She has fended off criticism from conservatives, who have singled her out because of her potential political stardom. She has tried to avoid irking Democratic leaders while still extoling her more left-leaning positions (she announced she will vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker). She has traded tweets with Senator Lindsey Graham and the tweeter-in-chief. 

Ocasio-Cortez, who started the year working bar in New York, is part of a wave of more diverse congressional newcomers, but her quick rise to political prominence – matched by her quick wit and knowledge of social media – make her a force beyond her years, experience or congressional seniority.

 

Divided Government Could Lead to Infrastructure Collaboration

There has been lots of talk and even more anticipation over the last two years of a mammoth infrastructure initiative. The ascendancy of Democrats in control of the House will put Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio back in charge of the committee that deals with transportation and infrastructure. He wants a $500 billion package with “real money” sewed up in the first six months of 2019.

There has been lots of talk and even more anticipation over the last two years of a mammoth infrastructure initiative. The ascendancy of Democrats in control of the House will put Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio back in charge of the committee that deals with transportation and infrastructure. He wants a $500 billion package with “real money” sewed up in the first six months of 2019.

Infrastructure investment is one of the most promising areas of bipartisan collaboration in the new Congress. Oregon Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio is poised to explore the boundaries of that possibility.

With the Democratic takeover of the House, DeFazio is expected to assume the chairmanship of the House Transportation and infrastructure Committee. In that pending role, DeFazio is touting a $500 billion measure to fund highways, transit, airports and marine projects.

Unlike President Trump’s $1.5 billion infrastructure initiative that relied heavily on private investment, DeFazio is contemplating a measure backed by actual federal funding. Under DeFazio’s plan, Treasury would issue $500 billion in a new type of 30-year bonds that would be repaid by increased federal gasoline and diesel taxes to account for highway construction cost inflation and from lower fuel usage because of federal fuel-economy standards.

In 2017, the 30+year veteran on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee introduced a “Penny for Progress” bill that would pay for a $500 billion infrastructure package over 13 years. DeFazio says he isn’t wedded to that idea, but insists he wants to move an infrastructure investment bill before the middle of 2019. “I’m open to any and all options on how we get real funds for infrastructure. But it has to be real money.”

“Infrastructure has been delayed too long,” DeFazio says. “We’ve got to get it done. We’ve got to maintain it. We’ve got to modernize it and we’ve got to move people and goods more efficiently.”

DeFazio suggests airport improvements could be paid for by an increased passenger facility charge. The charge has been pegged at $4.50 per flight since 2000. He wants Congress to mandate spending the balance that exists in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain harbors and shipping channels.

There has been a lot of post-election commentary favoring bipartisan collaboration. Infrastructure investment has the support of mainstream Republicans and Trump, so could be an early test case for finding common ground to pass meaningful legislation in a divided government.

Congressman Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican who could become the Ranking Member on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has expressed interest in “presenting my vision for our transportation network” and might emerge as a partner to DeFazio in fashioning bipartisan legislation.

A wide array of transportation advocacy groups, including the US Chamber of Commerce, have applauded the idea of a bipartisan infrastructure measure and federal funding to pay for it. 

“We see this as good timing if Congress and the President can come together,” said Bill Sullivan, American Trucking Association’s executive vice president of advocacy. “Everybody knows that we need to invest in infrastructure, but they just haven’t hit that magic moment that Congress is willing to do it.” Maybe that time has arrived.

DeFazio’s position should be the good break needed to revive conversations to replace the I-5 Columbia River Bridge as part of the 2020 reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act, which his committee will oversee.

Dems Manage Only Blue Ripple in Midterm Election

The projected blue wave was reduced to a blue ripple as Democrats regained control of the House, but Republicans retained their hold on the Senate, setting the stage for split government and potentially more partisan bickering.

The projected blue wave was reduced to a blue ripple as Democrats regained control of the House, but Republicans retained their hold on the Senate, setting the stage for split government and potentially more partisan bickering.

What was perhaps the most anticipated midterm election in recent memory went largely as polls and pundits predicted it would – a sharp contrast from two years ago. Democrats leveraged their fury over President Trump to recapture the House, while Republicans expanded their majority in the Senate, a split verdict presaging divided government and partisan conflicts for the rest of Trump’s first term.

The campaign efforts of Trump and GOP members mobilized enough Republican voters to reduce a projected Democratic blue wave to something closer to a blue ripple. Presidential campaigning helped Republicans win hotly contested Senate races in Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas. Trump proclaimed the election outcome a “tremendous success” as Republicans held their grip throughout the South and in rural and exurban areas.

But Democrats – propelled by a rejection of Trumpism in the nation’s suburbs, and especially from women and minority voters – notched victories in areas that just two years ago helped Trump reach the White House. Incumbent Republicans fell in an array of suburban House districts, including one held by House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions in the Dallas area. And in West Virginia – where Trump is wildly popular and campaigned heavily for Republicans – the reelection of Democratic Senator Joe Manchin delivered a personal blow to the president.

In Washington’s 3rd District, 4-term GOP Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler squeaked out a victory over Democratic challenger Carolyn Long, who mounted a serious, well-funded challenge and sounded like she will try again in 2020.

Democrat Kim Schrier, a pediatrician making her first political run, defeated two-time GOP gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi in Washington’s open 8th District. Republican Congressman Dave Reichert chose not to seek re-election. The Schrier-Rossi contest was one of the most expensive House races in the nation. Her victory bumps up the double-digit Democratic margin in the House and further increases the number of women who will serve in the 116th Congress. The 8th District has never sent a Democrat to Congress before Schrier.

In the high-turnout election, Democrats picked up at least seven governorships, performing well across much of the upper Midwest and even in ruby-red Kansas, where Laura Kelly was elected governor over the President’s handpicked candidate, Kris Kobach.

In Wisconsin, Democrat Tony Evers bested Governor Scott Walker, once a Republican star who ran for president in 2016. Walker survived a hard-fought recall vote in 2012 and was reelected in 2014. Democrats failed to take over the Florida governorship left open by Rick Scott, who challenged incumbent Democrat Senator Bill Nelson and held a slight edge in a tight race that may be headed for a recount. Trump-backed Ron DeSantis narrowly defeated progressive Democrat Andrew Gillum in a race that might be a preview of the 2020 presidential election if Trump faces one of the more left-leaning challengers eying the race. 

House of Representatives 

As expected, Democrats regained control of the House for the first time since Republicans took the majority in 2010. Returns early Wednesday show Democrats poised to pick up more than the 23 House seats they needed to gain a foothold in Congress from which to counter Trump.

Democrats were projected to flip at least 29 districts currently held by the GOP, while they were on track to surrender only a few seats in the chamber. As of now, Democrats have taken 220 seats (enough for the majority) and Republicans have 194 seats. That leaves 21 seats still on the board, including the two close races in Washington. 

With Democrats in charge, Trump will face a different set of committee chairmen who seem poised to investigate alleged administrative corruption and will have subpoena power to push their investigations. Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff will ascend to the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee, which will translate into more discerning oversight into the potential of Trump team collaboration with Russian operatives in the 2016 presidential election, a sharp turn from the sycophantic role of GOP Congressman Devin Nunes. The Mueller investigation also will have a solid firewall.

Maybe the biggest irony of the 2018 midterm election was that defending Obamacare may have propelled Democrats back into control of the House after costing them their majority in 2010 following its passage.

Senate 

In the Senate, the GOP was able to take advantage of a favorable map heavily tilted toward Republican-friendly states where Trump remains popular. The GOP scored a series of wins in those states, with only a few setbacks. Incumbent GOP Senator Dean Heller of Nevada was unseated by Jacky Rosen. And in West Virginia, a state Trump carried by 42 points in 2016, incumbent Democrat Senator Joe Manchin retained his seat. 

But with GOP pickups in Indiana, Missouri, and North Dakota, and likely Florida, the GOP expanded its grip on the Senate for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, increasing the GOP’s narrow 51-49 seat majority. We can expect McConnell’s Senate to retain a focus on confirming Trump’s appointments to the judiciary over the next two years and ignore legislation sent over from the Democratic House that would undermine the Trump agenda.

It’s important to note that in 2020, the Senate map is nearly the exact opposite of this year with 21 Republican-held seats up for election compared to just nine Democratic seats.

Oregon and Washington Elections

There were no shockers in Oregon. The state’s five incumbent members of Congress were swept back into office. Suzanne Bonamici, Earl Blumenauer, Peter DeFazio, Kurt Schrader and Greg Walden, who have served a collective 69 years in the House, will return for another two years, but in a House chamber markedly different than in the previous eight years.

Perhaps the most interesting result was in Oregon’s 2nd District where Republican Greg Walden won his 11th term by defeating Jamie McLeod-Skinner 57.5 percent to 38.06 percent. Though he still won comfortably, the tally was a sharp decrease from the 69.9 percent Walden posted in 2016.

Senator Maria Cantwell cruised to victory as did GOP Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers and the remainder of Washington’s Democratic congressmen.

Congresswoman Jaime Herrera-Beutler is expected to eke out a victory in the 3rd District, while Democrat Kim Schrier leads Dino Rossi by 53 to 47 percent margin.

Legislative Prospects in the Next Congress 

With little chance of getting major legislation through the Senate, congressional Democrats will remain on the sidelines for federal judicial confirmations in the Senate, play the role as pesky thorn in the side of Trump in the House and, in turn, serve as a predictable foil in Trump’s anticipated 2020 re-election bid. 

Democrats may get an early start on their fall-guy role with a vote to restore Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, who has become a familiar political piñata at Trump campaign rallies.

Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio is on track to become chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which raises hope of a more serious effort to push a major infrastructure package in the next Congress – one of the few possible bipartisan legislative projects in a split Congress. 

Strong voter interest in health care expressed in the midterm elections might prompt bipartisan efforts to shore up popular provisions of the Affordable Care Act. 

It seems less likely bipartisan common ground can be found in the next two years on Medicare and Medicaid and on immigration reform, which may be headed for the 2020 presidential election as political wedge issues.

Walden will lose his chairmanship of the influential House Energy and Commerce Committee, but will continue as the Ranking Member. Walden has a track record of advancing legislation in divided government and may look for bipartisan wins to shore up support back home. 

With the GOP retaining control of the Senate, Washington Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell and Oregon Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley aren’t expected to take on any new committee assignments. But they will enjoy increased bargaining positions over appropriations and other legislation where they have a Democratic partner to dance with on the House side. 

The “lame duck” Congress now becomes very important to Republicans who will try to accomplish some political objectives before the 116th Congress convenes in January. An aggressive GOP push on contentious issues in the lame duck session could poison the well for any possible collaboration in the next Congress, but it could bolster Republican efforts to satisfy their political base.

  

NAFTA with a New Name

The Trump administration successfully negotiated an updated North American Free Trade Agreement with modernized provisions, concessions of value to farmers and automakers and, of course, a new name. However, politics could still undermine the deal when it goes to Congress and consternation remains among trading partners with continuing Trump tariffs on steel and aluminum.

The Trump administration successfully negotiated an updated North American Free Trade Agreement with modernized provisions, concessions of value to farmers and automakers and, of course, a new name. However, politics could still undermine the deal when it goes to Congress and consternation remains among trading partners with continuing Trump tariffs on steel and aluminum.

The Canadians agreed to final terms for a $1.2 trillion North American free trade agreement that gave President Trump a political triumph and NAFTA a new name. However, the deal doesn’t end a simmering trade war sparked by US tariffs on steel and aluminum and still faces a treacherous political road to passage.

Trade experts gave credit to the Trump administration for completing a three-way deal to update the 25-year-old trade that candidate Trump derided as terrible. Trump critics note the new trade pact is largely the same car with a rebranded nameplate to appease Trump. Peter Navarro, Trump’s trade adviser, said the foundation remains, but the superstructure is superior. 

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) still must be approved by Congress, which seems more likely after cliffhanger negotiations with Canada prevented Trump from submitting just a bilateral agreement with Mexico. The agreement also must be ratified by the respective legislative bodies in Canada and Mexico.

Most everybody agreed NAFTA needed a refresher, if for no other reason to account for a phalanx of digital industries and e-commerce that didn’t exist when it was signed. There also was a push to strengthen intellectual property protections, the underlying issue that has sparked a Trump-inspired trade war with China. There are reportedly 63 pages worth of provisions that address patents and trademarks, including two additional years of protection for biologic drugs, which Trump hailed as a key to US medical innovation.

A major sticking point was Canada’s barrier that prevents US dairy farmers from penetrating their market. The Canadians traded some of that protection to retain a trade dispute resolution provision that Trump wanted to scrap. Somewhat ironically, Canadians had agreed to a similar sized dairy concession in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Trump abandoned when he took office.

Domestic car manufacturing was a core reason why Trump pushed for a better North American trade agreement. The agreement reached earlier with Mexico increases the North American auto content requirements and requires more content from higher paid autoworkers to qualify for duty-free treatment. AFL-CIO leaders withheld their support for the change, saying they doubted the higher wages and better working conditions in Mexico can be enforced. The USMCA effectively requires unionization of Mexican autoworkers, which runs counter to state-level right-to-work laws, which political conservatives have pushed for in the United States.

Economists fret that higher wages will make North American vehicles more expensive and less competitive against vehicles imported from overseas, which face a nominal tariff. Trump is pledging to address the import tariff and potentially replace it with quotas. There also is a side letter to the agreement that preserves Trump’s ability to impose tariffs on automobiles assembled in Mexico or Canada. 

Trump sought a 5-year sunset clause on the deal. In the final agreement, the USMCA has a 16-year life span, with a review after six years.

A key element of the deal for the incoming Mexican president is a clause that restates Mexico’s claim of ownership of all hydrocarbons in its subsoil. The provision doesn’t prevent foreign companies from producing oil in Mexico.

While agreement on NAFTA modernization brought sighs of relief, there is still consternation over steel and aluminum tariffs – and their rationale: protecting US national security. The pretense for the tariffs has irked Canadians who don’t view themselves as security risks to the United States.

Looming elections that could flip control of the House to Democrats might complicate approval of the USMCA. Democrats may not want to bless a Trump achievement before the 2020 presidential election and Republicans may decide to poke the eye of unions, which have been a major force behind revamping NAFTA. That could leave the USMCA an agreement without a country and further muddy the waters on US trade policy.

 

2018 is Turning into a Political Moment for Women

A record-breaking 257 women will appear on the ballot this fall as candidates for House and Senate seats, forming what one observer calls a pink wave that could significantly alter the direction of key US policies going forward.

A record-breaking 257 women will appear on the ballot this fall as candidates for House and Senate seats, forming what one observer calls a pink wave that could significantly alter the direction of key US policies going forward.

With all state primaries concluded, there is a record-breaking 257 women running for the House and Senate. This is more of a movement than a blip.

Lisa Lerer, writing in The New York Times, calls this “A Moment for Women,” with millions of women marching and hundreds running for political office. They won’t all win, she says, but many will win.

There are 33 races in America that feature a woman running against another woman, including in Washington’s 3rd District where GOP incumbent Jaime Herrera Beutler is facing a competitive challenge from Democrat Carolyn Long. 

Women have successfully run for office in Washington and Oregon. Washington’s two US senators and four of its 10 representatives are women. Oregon has only one woman in its congressional delegation, but women hold the governorship and lead the Oregon House. 

Nationally, many women candidates are vying for seats held by someone from the opposite and often dominant party in their districts or states. They face an uphill battle, but have in many cases succeeded by turning normally slumbering re-election races into combative contests. In the first midterm election after a new President is elected, the party out of power in the Oval Office typically picks up House seats. That could bode well for the 197 Democratic women candidates who are running.

Lerer observes this year’s batch of women candidates differs from the past when women downplayed their gender. “Candidates today are embracing it. Kids roam the campaign trail. Some candidates breast-feed in their ads. And veterans, like Arizona’s Martha McSally, tout their barrier-breaking service.”

Reflecting the #MeToo movement, Lerer says women are openly talking about their own experience with sexual abuse. “Mary Barzee Flores, in Florida, tells voters about being groped by the night manager of a Pizza Hut as a teenager. Katie Porter, in California, has talked about surviving domestic abuse.”

Gender is a factor, Lerer reports, even in races where women face other women. “Women don’t vote as a monolithic block,” she says.

Clearly, the election of Donald Trump – and the defeat of Hillary Clinton – spurred millions of women to become “political” and, for some, to enter the political arena as candidates. They have been motivated by sustained challenges to their reproductive rights and lingering pay and job opportunity inequality. Many have run to combat anti-immigration policies and sexual discrimination. A succession of high-profile sexual abuse cases involving powerful men in media, entertainment and business has stoked the political movement.

Female candidates, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have unseated longtime incumbents in their own party by supporting bolder action on health care and higher education. Women have spoken out on gun violence, child care and social equity. Their advocacy and campaigns have attracted higher-than-normal Democratic voter turnouts in this year’s primaries. Lerer says the “pink wave” may be the power behind a potential “blue wave” in the general election.

Lerer also offers some perspective. “At the end of all this, women are still likely to be underrepresented. Even if all the female congressional candidates won (an almost impossible proposition), women would still make up less than half of the House and less than a third of the Senate.”

Despite that, women candidates and women voters may engineer a significant shift in political direction this fall. The war may continue, but the battleground and the warriors may change dramatically.

 

Bombshell Book, Op-Ed Turn DC into a Political Whodunit

More chaos wracked the Trump White House with a bombshell book by Bob Woodward, followed by an aftershock in the form of an anonymous op-ed published in the New York Times by someone only identified as a “senior official” in the administration. Trump’s reaction was reportedly volcanic and set off a desperate search for whodunit.

More chaos wracked the Trump White House with a bombshell book by Bob Woodward, followed by an aftershock in the form of an anonymous op-ed published in the New York Times by someone only identified as a “senior official” in the administration. Trump’s reaction was reportedly volcanic and set off a desperate search for whodunit.

Washington, DC has been a lot of things. Now it is the scene of a political whodunit.

Bob Woodward got the game going with his new book “Fear: Trump in the White House,” which chronicles audacious and embarrassing incidents during the Trump presidency, based on anonymous sources with good memories and a few purloined documents.

As shockwaves from Woodward’s book began to reverberate, The New York Times published an anonymous op-ed from a reputed “senior official” in the Trump administration who described the “resistance from within.”

News media sources, quoting anonymous administration sources, reported that President Trump’s reaction to the book and op-ed was “volcanic.” Trump called Woodward’s book “fiction” and a “joke.” He called the op-ed author a coward.

In was the perfect first act of a whodunit. The rest of the play presumably will center on finding some or all of Woodward’s sources and identifying who wrote the damning op-ed.

Trump demanded the Department of Justice, which seems to be his new “fixer” since his old fixer pleaded guilty to fraud, to conduct an investigation in the name of “national Security.” Presidential Press Secretary Sarah Sanders dismissed the op-ed as “gutless” and the Woodward book as bad journalism. According to Donald Trump Jr., the White House circle of trust just got a lot smaller.

Talk show hosts grilled talking heads for names or clues. Woodward was asked if he knew who wrote the NYT op-ed. “I don’t have any suspects,” he said. Stephen Colbert did an entire opening monologue speculating on the person Trump is “obsessed” with discovering.

Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and author Bob Woodward’s latest book – a tell-all about the Trump White House based on 100 “deep background” interviews – hit bookshelves today, even though its shrapnel already has been felt in pre-publication excerpts.  https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/11/17828300/bob-woodward-fear-trump-sources

Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and author Bob Woodward’s latest book – a tell-all about the Trump White House based on 100 “deep background” interviews – hit bookshelves today, even though its shrapnel already has been felt in pre-publication excerpts. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/11/17828300/bob-woodward-fear-trump-sources

A parade of Trump senior officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, released statements saying it wasn’t them. Pence even volunteered to take a lie detector test.

Trump supporters floated the idea the Times “concocted” the anonymous op-ed. Steve Bannon said the op-ed had multiple authors and represented a “soft coup.”

Chaos is no stranger to the Trump White House, and Woodward is not a stranger to harsh criticism of his coverage of previous presidents. Woodward isn’t the first – and probably not the last – to paint a picture of dysfunction and indulgence. Though, he might be the first to describe specific incidents in which aides spirited away documents from their boss before he could sign them to avoid even more chaos.

Efforts by the Trump team to downplay or deflect from the back-to-back bombshells may not be successful. As Anderson Cooper noted, “It’s not every day or every month or every year, or certainly every administration for that matter, that someone in the administration publishes a scathing criticism of the president of the United States. It’s not every day that someone in the administration claims that many officials in that administration are working to frustrate parts of the president’s agenda and his worse inclinations.”

It didn’t help that US intelligence sources revealed North Korea is expanding its nuclear weapons capability and that reports surfaced about US officials flirting with involvement in a potential coup to unseat Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Or former Clinton-era special prosecutor Ken Starr’s suggestion in an interview on NPR that Congress has another, cleaner weapon to express displeasure with a President – censure.

And all this on the heels of news that White House counsel Don McGahn gave 30 hours of sworn testimony to Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller, “sharing detailed accounts about the episodes at the heart of the inquiry into whether President Trump obstructed justice,” according to The New York Times.

Even memorials for 9/11 are unlikely to stop the inevitable blame game or interrupt the DC chase for whodunit. The hunt is already afoot.