Open thread April 30, 2019 Dan Crawford | April 30, 2019 7:46 am Tags: open thread Comments (7) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
EPOP is where it was in 1996 and in 2006. It seems to me we are right where the Fed would like to be for a soft landing.
GDP growth exceeds population growth plus productivity. Jobs are being added faster than population growth. Clearly we are going to overshoot.
And Trump wants the Fed to stimulate the economy.
I get Dean Baker’s point that keeping the brakes on has hurt the people who need help the most, but if we grow a bubble, won’t the following recession hurt those same people? (Not that I have read Dean complaining lately).
[caption id="attachment_49837" align="alignnone" width="300"] Employment – Population Ratio vs Participation Rate[/caption]
Employment–population ratio up over the year; labor force participation rate changed little
Labor force participation: what has happened since the peak?
Summary: “The labor force participation rate is the percentage of the civilian non-institutional population 16 years and older that is working or actively looking for work. It is an important labor market measure because it represents the relative amount of labor resources available for the production of goods and services. After rising for more than three decades, the overall labor force participation rate peaked in early 2000 and subsequently trended down. In recent years, the movement of the baby-boom population into age groups that generally exhibit low labor force participation has contributed to the decline in the overall participation rate. From 2000 to 2015, most of the major demographic groups saw a decrease in labor force participation. Teenagers experienced the largest drop in participation, which coincided with a rise in their school enrollment rate. Young adults 20 to 24 years also showed a decline in labor force participation, but the decrease was not as steep as that for teenagers. The labor force participation rate of women 25 to 54 years also fell, with the decrease more pronounced for women who did not attend college. The labor force participation rate of men 25 to 54 years continued its long-term decline. As in the past, the decrease in participation among men with less education was greater than that of men with more education. However, labor force participation rates of men and women 55 years and older rose from 2000 to 2009 and subsequently leveled off. “
It is past time for House Dems to go after these people. When you follow in the footsteps of John fen Mitchell, you need to held responsible.
“On March 22, 1973, President Richard Nixon had his attorney general, John Mitchell, over to the White House for a wee chat. Nixon was concerned that, in various courtrooms and law offices around the District, the ratlines off his administration were getting crowded. He proposed that Mitchell might want to do something about that. This is what he said.
‘ I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover up or anything else, if it’ll save it—save the plan. That’s the whole point.’
46 years later, Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered his report into the Russian ratfcking of the 2016 presidential election, and into the attempts of the current administration* to obstruct the investigations into such matters, to Attorney General William Barr. Two days later, Barr released his now-infamous four-page summary that let the president off a number of hooks and that set a narrative—albeit a cheesy and half-true—for a crucial few days. Now, thanks to the Washington Post, we learn that Barr’s little memo got crossways with the special counsel.
‘ Days after Barr’s announcement, Mueller wrote the previously undisclosed private letter to the Justice Department, laying out his concerns in stark terms that shocked senior Justice Department officials, according to people familiar with the discussions.’
“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”’
One of the more egregious episodes of malfeasance in Barr’s most recent stint as AG came on April 10, when Barr was appearing before another Senate committee and was asked by Senator Chris Van Hollen whether Mueller supported Barr’s conclusion in his memo regarding Mueller’s opinion on whether the president* obstructed justice. Barr said he didn’t know. Now we know that Mueller had written to Barr more than a week earlier and informed him that he didn’t support Barr’s conclusion at all………
And on Wednesday, Barr is supposed to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, with its Republican majority. He’s supposed to appear before House Judiciary, with its Democratic majority, the next day, but he’s balking because, he says, he doesn’t want to be questioned by anyone except the committee members, which makes Barr much more of a coward than either Mitchell or, for that matter, Christine Blasey Ford, for whose examination before the SJC the Republicans flew in a separate lawyer.
My guess? He will stonewall the Senate and continue to duck the House, which should end with his being impeached and removed from office. But the most critical aspect of Tuesday night’s events is that the White House and its various henchpeople are on their way to leaving the Congress no remedy except impeachment to get to the truth of this administration’s corruption. What I am sure of is that no congressional Republican is going to take that leap. It’s a eunuch choir over there, and everybody’s still on key. But events are driving themselves now, and the tension within the institutions of government is destabilizing the whole damn thing.”
Combine Barr’s acts with trump taking Congress to court, and impeachment should have started yesterday.
On my ride this PM the radio played a lot of the Barr testimony. Funny there were no republican question!
Let the house run an impeachment debate!
Fastest way to get to the bottom of the democrat coup attempt!
The House neeeds to subpoena him as fast as possible, and when he ignores it because trump, hold him in contempt of Congress and arrest his sorry butt. Course, that is beyond problematical, as has been shown several times. And that’s why impeachment must be started asap.
“Every now and then, this truth would pop out: Barr, saying that the president* had a right to fire Mueller if he’d decided to because the president was an innocent man getting bad press; Barr, dueling with Senator Amy Klobuchar over the definition of the word “obstruction”; and Barr, explaining to Senator Cory Booker that there was no contact between anyone in the Trump campaign and any representative of the Russian oligarchical state, apparently blissfully unaware of the episode in which Paul Manafort shared swing state polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik.
And, finally, when Senator Kamala Harris got hold of him and left his innards all over the committee room’s floor.
HARRIS: Has the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone?
Barr was up a tree. He asked Harris to repeat the question. He twisted around in his chair, apparently looking for a trap door. Finally, he decided, preposterously, to quibble with the word, “suggest.”
BARR: Yeah, but I’m trying to grapple with the word, suggest, I mean there have been discussions of matters out there. They have not asked me to open an investigation…I don’t know. I wouldn’t say suggested.
BARR: I don’t know.
HARRIS: Inferred? You don’t know? Okay.
Harris then pried out of Barr the day’s most startling, and revelatory, admission: namely that, before his now-infamous March 24 memo, in which Barr summarized Mueller’s report in—shall we say?—the most favorable light possible, neither he nor Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein had read the underlying material on which the report was based.
HARRIS: My question is, in reaching your conclusion, did you personally review all of the underlying evidence?”
HARRIS: Did Mr Rosenstein?
BARR: No. We accepted the statements in the report as factually accurate.
HARRIS: So you accepted the report as the evidence?
HARRIS: You did not question or look at the underlying evidence that supports the conclusions in the report?
HARRIS: I think you’ve made it clear, sir, that you’ve not looked at the evidence. We can move on.
I wish the Dems would be more subtle. They do noy have to announce a subpoena will be coming if something does not occur. This allows them to prepare for it publically and personally. Quietly issue it and after it is served, explain why it was issued. Let Barr twist in the wind. Barr knows what the House can do to him so why announce it ahead of time?
I was not talking about announcing it, I was talking about doing it.
Sadly, this can be a long process, and often unsuccessful. But they have to do it now, and then they have to hold him in contempt of Congress when he ignores.
And that, sadly, will be unsuccessful. Like impeachment.
However, the purpose is to get Dem voters excited about voting these cretins out in 2020. These acts will do that.
And maybe, just maybe, a few GOP senators will grow a spine and at least demand action by the government to defend our election system from foreign powers.