August 10, 2021
The shocking revelations from former acting attorney general Jeffrey A. Rosen about former president Trump’s direct efforts to use the Department of Justice to overturn the 2020 election, along with the horrors of spiking Covid among the unvaccinated, drove out of the news cycle a revelatory piece of news.
Last Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of Labor released the jobs report for August 2021. It was stronger than economists had predicted, and even stronger than the administration had hoped.
In July, employers added 943,000 jobs, and unemployment fell to 5.4%. Average hourly wages increased, as well. They are 4% higher than they were a year ago.
Harvard Professor Jason Furman, former chair of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, tweeted: “I have yet to find a blemish in this jobs report. I've never before seen such a wonderful set of economic data.” He noted the report showed “Job gains in most sectors... Big decline in unemployment rate, even bigger for Black & Hispanic/Latino… Red[uctio]n in long-term unemp[loyment]... Solid (nominal) wage gains.”
“Still a long way to go,” he wrote. “[W]e're about 7.5 million jobs short of where we should have been right now absent the pandemic. But we've made a lot of progress.”
Michael Gapen, chief U.S. economist at Barclays, told New York Times reporter Nelson D. Schwartz: “It’s an unambiguously positive report…. Labor market conditions are strong. Unemployment benefits, infection risks and child care constraints are not preventing robust hiring.”
The jobs report is an important political marker because it appears to validate the Democrats’ approach to the economy, the system the president calls the “Biden Plan.” That plan started in January, as soon as Biden took office, using the federal government to combat the coronavirus pandemic as aggressively as the administration could and, at the same time, using federal support to restart the economy.
In March 2021, the Democrats passed the American Rescue Plan, a $1.9 trillion economic stimulus package. In addition to strengthening healthcare systems to combat the coronavirus, it provides economic relief primarily to low- and middle-income Americans by extending unemployment benefits and the child tax credit; funding schools, housing, and local governments; providing help for small businesses; and so on.
Polls indicated that the measure was enormously popular. A Morning Consult poll from February showed that 3 out of 4 voters liked it, and local governments and state governors, including a number of Republicans, backed the bill.
But every single Republican lawmaker in the House of Representatives voted against the measure, saying it was too expensive and that it was unnecessary.
Since 1980, Republican lawmakers have opposed government intervention to stimulate the economy, insisting that private investment is more efficient. Rather than use the government as presidents of both parties from Franklin Delano Roosevelt through Jimmy Carter did to keep the playing field level and promote growth, modern-day Republicans have argued that the government should simply cut taxes in order to free up capital for wealthier Americans to invest. This, they said, would create enough growth to make up for lost tax revenues.
President Ronald Reagan began this trend with major tax cuts in 1981 and 1986. President George H.W. Bush promised not to raise taxes—remember “Read my lips: No new taxes”—but found he had to increase revenues to address the skyrocketing deficits the Reagan cuts created. When he did agree to higher taxes, his own party leaders turned against him. Then President George W. Bush cut taxes again in 2001 and 2003, despite the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in 2017, Republicans under President Donald Trump cut taxes still further.
In 2017, Trump claimed the cut would be “rocket fuel for the economy.” Then–Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin echoed almost 40 years of Republican ideology when he said: "The tax plan will pay for itself with economic growth." And then–Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said: "After eight straight years of slow growth and underperformance, America is ready to take off.” (In fact, while Trump’s tax cuts meant tax revenues dropped 31%, they yielded only 2.9% growth, the exact same as the economy enjoyed in 2015, before the cuts.)
Laws like the American Rescue Plan should, in the Republicans’ view, destroy the economy. But Friday’s booming jobs report, along with the reality that the Biden administration has created an average of 832,000 new jobs per month, knocks a serious hole in that argument.
It may be that the pendulum is swinging away from the Republican conviction that tax cuts and private investment are the only key to economic growth.
Today, the Senate passed a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill by a vote of 69 to 30. The bill repairs roads and bridges, invests in transit and railroads, replaces lead pipes, and provides broadband across the country, among other things. In the next ten years, it is expected to create nearly 3 million jobs.
Nineteen Republicans voted in favor of the bill. There were many reasons to do so. The measure is popular with voters, and Republicans were embarrassed by their unanimous opposition to the American Rescue Plan. Indicating a willingness to work with Democrats might also undercut the Republicans’ image as obstructionists and help to protect the filibuster (a factor I’m guessing was behind McConnell’s yes vote).
But that Republicans felt they needed to abandon their position and vote yes for any reason is a big deal. "For the Republicans who supported this bill, you showed a lot of courage,” Biden told them. “And I want to personally thank you for that."
The bill now goes to the House, which will take it up after the Senate passes a $3.5 trillion infrastructure measure through the reconciliation process, which Democrats can do with a simple majority and without Republican support. The larger package addresses climate change, child care, elder care, housing, and so on. Moody Analytics, which provides economic research and modeling, says that, if it is combined with the bipartisan bill, it will add close to 2 million jobs a year over the next ten years.
Yet, Republicans say it is a “reckless tax and spending spree.”
In contrast, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said: “My largest concern is not: What are the risks if we make these big investments? It is: What is the cost if we don’t?”
—-
Notes:
https://www.bls.gov/bls/history/home.htm
https://morningconsult.com/2021/02/24/covid-stimulus-support-poll/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/06/business/economy/july-2021-jobs-report.html
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-legacy-of-the-2001-and-2003-bush-tax-cuts
https://www.npr.org/2021/08/10/1026081880/senate-passes-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/10/senate-passes-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-503265
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/28/politics/infrastructure-bill-explained/index.html
https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2021/macroeconomic-consequences-infrastructure.pdf
The true threat to our Democracy is conservatism and its brethren, libertarianism. These philosophies argue for a minor role of government. Allow the “Invisible Hand” to guide the market place. "Government is an intrusion! Starve this beast!,” stated conservative ideologue Grover Norquist during his time as the ‘general manager’ of the Reagan revolution in the 1980s
The “beast” happens to be our government, which redistributes (taxes) wealth to fulfill human needs. Government is vital because capitalism DOES NOT fulfill human needs. Government is vital because our “free market” system DOES NOT care for the earth, or provide for healthy and safe citizens. Capitalism simply provides for the creation of private wealth. The conservative mantra of less government means 1) Less taxation, 2) Less Regulation, 3) Less Responsibility. Less government. Less opportunity. Less liberty and justice.
Private profits MUST be taxed to simply to correct the negative symptoms of capitalism: the exploitation of humans and the earth, our source of all life on this planet. Understandably, NOW we need MORE government. The term “government" is now being used interchangeably with “Democracy” by our wise Elder, President Biden. Democracy (our government) is meant to insure the rights of people, as established in the Preamble to the Constitution.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Let’s add to this one more line ....
The moral underpinning of the US (in my humble opinion) is our last line of the Pledge of Allegiance, “for liberty and justice for all.” Let’s combine the Preamble and the Pledge - THIS is our moral compassion! This is progressivism or liberalism. To ensure Basic Human Needs.
The generation, or creation, of wealth MUST be taxed at a rate commensurate to fulfill the societal needs AND for the protection of the Earth, our home to all life. Massachusetts has the highest tax rates AND the highest average incomes, highest college graduation rates and highest percentage of post graduate degrees. High incomes. Spending on the Common Good (as opposed to Corporate Greed). In the future, I hope to see an America which guarantees universal health care; universal college education; and a safe planet for all peoples and creatures. Let us take care of our home )Mother Earth), as we do our own home.
So, let America tax and spend, on the healing of society and our Mother Earth!
"The shocking revelations from former acting attorney general Jeffrey A. Rosen about former president Trump’s direct efforts to use the Department of Justice to overturn the 2020 election…"
From my perspective, the use of the word 'shocking' is entirely overdone. Angering, certainly. Distressing, obviously. Enraging, a bridge too far, simply because we do not know the man, who at the last moment, apparently remembered his oath of office, and refused to cave into Trump's demands to subvert the recent election.
The real villain of the piece is one Jeffrey Bossert Clark, the then-acting chief of the Civil Division who acted on behalf of President Trump, prepare draft letters to state officials in Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere that expressed official concern that the recent election had been manipulated and that the vote counts in those days should not be honored. Had Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue acceded to Clark's suggestion, and sign the draft letters that Clark had prepared, the Trump coup d'état would likely have been successful. Subsequent news reports indicated that division chiefs within the Department of Justice at Jeffrey Clark's grade level had no independent authority to contact the White House on their own motion. Clark comes off as a scheming adventurer, a freebooter on the make, who sought to leverage his subordinate position, important enough as it was, into something much grander. Jeffrey Clark has since left the Justice Department, and according to Wikipedia, he currently serves as the Chief of litigation and Director of Strategy at the conservative-libertarian New Civil Liberties Alliance. But that may not last.
How long he remains with the New Civil Liberties Alliance remains to be seen. I, for one, am looking forward to seeing Clark exchange his bespoke suits for prison khakis or an orange jumpsuit. Understandably, Dr. Richardson is not a lawyer, but I would wager there are enough lawyers in her fanbase who would be able to comment authoritatively on the treasonous behavior that we have witnessed emanating within the Justice Department as knowledge of their sordid acts gradually became public. As of right now we do not know the lengths to which Acting AG Rosen or Associate Deputy AG Donoghue went to fend off President Trump's requests, until it became obvious that they were being asked to sign their names to a letter that was subversive in purpose and treasonous in content. It is our collective good fortune that they resisted. We know that Jeffrey Clark was scheming with the president to replace Jeffrey Rosen with himself. Several weeks ago, it was reported Rosen and Donoghue had threatened to resign in protest if Trump went ahead with his scheme. Eventually, this will all be sorted out, whether it will be as part of the House of Representatives ongoing investigation into the January 6 insurrection, a report by the Department of Justice Inspector General, or a grand jury indictment. I believe the latter will be the case, and here is why. I believe that the facts will support an indictment against Jeffrey Clark for conspiracy to commit fraud against the United States, as defined by 18 U.S.C. 371. One of the public resources that I have used over the years in my law practice, and elsewhere, is an online document titled the Justice Manual, a compilation of Department of Justice policy statements along with a Criminal Resources Manual that describes in detail the elements of various crimes, the facts that need to be proved, and the burden of proof.
Without getting into a lengthy dissertation, it is sufficient to say that Mr. Clark, based upon numerous authoritative press and media reports, has apparently put himself in legal jeopardy with a high potential for prosecution. This is the most egregious case that I have come across in the 53 years that have passed since I graduated law school, where a government official, falsely and with knowledge of the facts, sought to achieve an illicit end by manipulating a government agency to take action and had no business doing. The closest example I can recall was when Richard Nixon told his Attorney General, whom I recall to be Richard Kleindienst, to warn off the FBI from investigating the Watergate break-in on the spurious grounds that it was a CIA operation. Here we have Jeffrey Clark preparing an array of draft correspondence addressed to election officials and political bodies in various states that were hotly contested in the 2020 election, the gist of which letters was that the Department of Justice had determined that the election returns in those states were fraudulent. In law school, we were taught that the substantive crime of conspiracy involves the agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime. The substance of the crime is the agreement in and of itself, supported by an 'overt act', which act itself might not necessarily need to be criminal, but which indeed was intended to further the objective of the conspiracy, such as an arsonist purchasing a quantity of gasoline that would then be used as an accelerant in the subsequent fire that followed. We have an agreement between President Trump and Jeffrey Clark to overturn the election by misleading election officials in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and other states where Trump was contesting the vote count, where the purpose of such misdirection was to put the moral and political weight of the United States Department of Justice behind the false allegation that those state elections and their results were tainted by fraud, when no proof of the alleged frauds existed anywhere. How do we know that there was an agreement? We know, because the news reports had Trump and Clark linked together, with Clark on track to supplant and replace Jeffrey Rosen, with Clark being in personal communication with Trump, and taking direction from him, resulting in the draft warning letters that he asked his superiors, Rosen and Donoghue to sign and transmit to their respective addressees. Like pieces of an intricate jigsaw puzzle, the pieces of evidence fit together in only one way, because without the other pieces which they were connected, none of them make any sense standing alone. That rules out any sort of innocent explanation for what was going on.
It follows, then, that the agreement between Clark and Trump was intended to disrupt the official counting of the ballots of those contested states as reflected in the recorded votes of those states in the Electoral College. On January 6, Congress would be counting, ceremonially at least, the ballots of every state in order to determine the winner of the 2020 election. It follows further that Clark and Trump intended to inject confusion and ambiguity into that vote counting, with the hope and expectation that the final vote would be pushed into the House of Representatives where each state delegation was entitled to cast a single vote. With most state delegations favoring Trump, Trump's reelection would have been assured. That was the purpose of staging the January 6 insurrection and invasion into the Capitol building on that same date that Congress was tallying the Electoral College ballots. And it almost succeeded!
I believe it is imperative that we get to the bottom of this. And Jeffrey Clark is a key figure in that accounting. Undoubtedly, Clark will not be spending a great deal of time overseeing the litigation schedule of his new employer; rather, I strongly suspect he will be looking to hire the best criminal defense lawyer he can afford to avoid going to prison for the foreseeable future, possibly decades. By linking his fortunes to that of Donald Trump, Clark has made himself criminally accountable for whatever criminality, and punishment, that the ex-president has created for himself. On his own account, Clark may have incriminated himself in a variety of crimes stemming from his conspiratorial agreement with Trump. Right now, I anticipate that Justice Department attorneys and their investigators are conducting interviews and compiling evidence to see where that evidence leads, and identify the individuals to be held accountable. And in Jeffrey Clark's case, the sheer outrageousness of what he did may, in and of itself, to be sufficient to indict him and bring them to trial. But, as the saying goes, the wheels of justice grind slowly, but exceedingly fine, and we may yet see an entire laundry list of criminal acts that Jeffrey Clark may be called to account for. I certainly hope so, and that it not take too long.