2017 American Political Scene

[GVChamp]

I might just have to vote for whoever promises to nationalize Equifax.

[tbm3fan]

I might just have to vote for whoever promises to nationalize Equifax.

What a nightmare that is going to be

[JAD_333]

I might just have to vote for whoever promises to nationalize Equifax.

Maduro?

[Double Edge]

Revolving door continues. we'll know soon enough whether this is true or not

Where’s Rex? | FP | Sept 5 2017

U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley steps in as America’s de facto diplomat-in-chief.

Haley’s high profile on pressing international issues, including Iran and North Korea, raised fresh questions about the influence and political future of the secretary of state. Tillerson has been strangely absent from the public spotlight, even amid mounting tensions with North Korea, and Haley has stepped in to fill the void.

“It is oddly conspicuous that the secretary of state has not been saying anything publicly about the latest events,” said Michael Fuchs, the former deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs in the Barack Obama administration.

With the world watching for Washington’s response to North Korea’s nuclear test, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke to reporters in front of the White House on Sunday after taking part in a meeting of Trump’s national security team. But Tillerson was not in sight of the cameras.

Rex seemed reasonable, Haley will be like another Hillary

[DOR]

This is more about American politics than actual economics

The “China Shock”, Exports and U.S. Employment: A Global Input-Output Analysis

by Robert C. Feenstra, University of California, Davis and NBER; and Akira Sasahara, University of Idaho. August 18, 2017: http://cid.econ.ucdavis.edu/Papers/F...a_Sasahara.pdf

Abstract
We quantify the impact on U.S. employment from imports and exports during 1995-2011, using the World Input-Output Database. We find that the growth in U.S. exports led to increased demand for 2 million jobs in manufacturing, 0.5 million in resource industries, and a remarkable 4.1 million jobs in services, totaling 6.6 million. Two-thirds of those service sectors jobs are due to the export of services themselves, whereas one-third is due to the intermediate demand from manufacturing and resource – or merchandise– exports, so the total labor demand gain due to merchandise exports was 3.7 million jobs. In comparison, U.S. merchandise imports from China led to reduced demand of 1.4 million jobs in manufacturing and 0.6 million in services (with small losses in resource industries), with total job losses of 2.0 million. It follows that the expansion in U.S. merchandise exports relative to imports from China over 1995-2011 created net demand for about 1.7 million jobs. Comparing the growth of U.S. merchandise exports to merchandise imports from all countries, we find a fall in net labor demand due to trade, but comparing the growth of total U.S. exports to total imports from all countries, then there is a rise in net labor demand because of the growth in service exports.

[much technical analysis ensues]

6. Conclusions
This paper has examined the employment effect of U.S. exports, imports, and imports from China on the U.S. labor market by applying an input-output analysis. We find that the growth in U.S. merchandise exports over 1995-2011 led to demand for 1.9 million jobs in manufacturing, 0.45 million in resource industries, and 1.3 million jobs in services, totaling 3.7 million. In comparison, U.S. merchandise imports from China over 1995-2011 led to reduced labor demand of 1.4 million jobs in manufacturing and 0.6 million in services (with small losses in resource industries), for total job losses of 2.0 million. It follows that the expansion in U.S. merchandise exports relative to imports from China over 1995-2011 led to the net demand for about 1.7 million jobs. Comparing the growth of U.S. merchandise exports to merchandise imports from all countries, we find a fall in net labor demand due to trade, but comparing the growth of total U.S. exports to total imports from all countries, then there is a rise in net labor demand because of the growth in service exports.

It is surprising that our estimates of the job impacts of trade are not that different from existing literature, which uses industry (or commuting zone) regressions to infer the equilibrium impact on employment. The added demand for 1.9 million jobs in U.S. manufacturing exports that we have found much the same as the equilibrium increase of 1.9 million jobs for a 12 year period, 1999-2011, estimated by Feenstra, Ma and Xu (2017). That added demand for manufacturing jobs explains about one-half of the overall demand increase of 3.7 million jobs due to merchandise exports. The offsetting reduction in labor demand of 2.0 million jobs due to imports from China, mainly manufactures, is very close to Acemoglu, Autor, Dorn, Hanson and Price (2016), who find about 1.0 million manufacturing jobs lost in equilibrium during 1999-2011, and another 1.0 million jobs lost by intermediate demand throughout the economy.

Because the input-output analysis relies exclusively on the demand side of the labor market, one might have expected to get considerably larger shifts in demand that would then be offset by upward-sloping labor supply curves to obtain the (smaller) equilibrium changes. Instead, our findings are that the demand shifts from the input-output analysis are similar to the equilibrium changes in employment identified by regression analysis. There are two possible explanations for this result. The first is that there are near-horizontal labor supply curves at the regional level, reflecting movement in and out of unemployment or labor force participation, or movement between regions. But that is an unrealistic explanation: generally there is limited mobility across regions, except for immigrants who do respond to wages difference across regions (Caneda and Kovak, 2016) . A different explanation for this finding is that regions with negative employment shocks from imports also have positive shocks from exports, so that the net shocks in regions are smaller than the gross (export and imports)shocks. That explanation is explored further in Feenstra, Ma and Xu (2017). Caliendo, Dvorkin and Parro (2015) and Dix-Carneiro and Kovak (2017) also incorporate careful specifications of the employment decisions and regional movement of individuals.

While we have not attempted to close our model with labor market equilibrium, we have begun to address another criticism of input-output analysis, namely, that the changes in the trade and production values as well as the input-output coefficients are all endogenous since they are equilibrium values each year. That criticism is of the first-order when using regressions since the coefficient estimates are then biased, and it is addressed with instrumental variables. We have attempted here to address the same issue here, within input-output analysis, by breaking up the total change in the endogenous trade values into exogenous portions due to various causes. In particular, we have tried to exploit the changes in bilateral tariffs– including the reduction in the uncertainly on U.S. tariffs facing China after it joined the WTO – to predict the changes in trade flows. We have been only partially successful in this attempt. Using our structural equation for U.S. exports and imports to identify the exogenous portion of these changes, we explain nearly two-thirds of the measured employment impacts for both U.S. exports and for imports from China. It should be recognized that explaining even that amount in an input-output framework is an achievement: Caliendo, Dvorkin and Parro (2015)also use WIOD, for example, and they rely on an assumed productivity shock in China rather than the tariff changes to explain the surge in exports. It can be hoped that the identification of exogenous factors leading to changes in trade and the associated labor demand, and their incorporation into a general equilibrium framework, can be improved in future work.

[astralis]

the real underlying issue is stagnant wages, and not unemployment.

the former is a structural problem, and has been since the end of growth in the 1990s (which itself was muted compared to the period from the 1940s-1970s), while the latter is cyclical.

[JRT]

Drive-by post copy/pasted text from email...

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, September 27, 2017
Contact: Barron YoungSmith: 202.226.5662
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Smith, Velázquez Lead House Democrats in Demanding Trump Provide Better Maria Response

145 Lawmakers Call on President Trump to Deploy Life-Saving Military Resources

Washington, D.C. — Today, House Armed Services Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA) and Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez (D-NY) led 145 Members of Congress in writing a letter to President Trump demanding that the Department of Defense deploy additional resources to aid recovery efforts in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Lawmakers are calling for the appointment of a senior general to oversee all recovery efforts, the deployment of life-saving military capabilities that would otherwise be unavailable to the relief effort, deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln, and an increase in personnel to assist local law enforcement.

“President Trump’s effort to aid Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands has been wholly inadequate to date,” said Smith. “When a hurricane hits in the continental United States, you can send massive aid via roads, the National Guard can arrive from neighboring states, and people can leave the affected area. None of that is true here. There is no National Guard Navy, and more than 3.5 million American citizens are isolated and unable to access the most basic supplies. The U.S. military has unique capabilities that can help alleviate this situation, and the President must exercise the proper leadership to make that happen.”

“3.5 million American citizens in Puerto Rico are facing a dire humanitarian crisis,” said Velázquez. “I have heard from seniors whose medical needs are not being met due to power outages, children who are suffering from extreme heat in the crowded airport and families who are still unable to contact their loved ones. These are matters of life and death.”

“While the situation on the ground remains desperate, President Trump held a press conference yesterday congratulating his Administration on their response,” Velázquez added. “If President Trump doesn’t swiftly deploy every available resource that our country has, then he has failed the people of Puerto Rico -- and this will become his Katrina. Every second in this effort counts and the stakes are too high for further delay, inaction or inefficiency.”

The full text of the letter is below and online here with a list of signatories.

For a PDF, click here.

September 27, 2017

President Donald J. Trump
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Trump:

On September 20th, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands endured a direct impact from Hurricane Maria. With winds up to 160 mph, Hurricane Maria devastated these islands, caused significant power outages, destroyed telecommunications infrastructure, and thereby paralyzed the region. Given the impact of the damage and the population of 3.6 million American citizens affected, we are concerned that federal efforts to date have been insufficient to address the severity of the situation. We know there are DOD elements helping today, and all the service members involved are working very hard, but we are concerned that the scale of DOD assets supporting the operation are inadequate. Thus, we write to urge you to further mobilize the Department of Defense to immediately deploy additional assets in support of Puerto Rican and U.S. Virgin Island recovery efforts.

As you know, the Department of Defense has additional capabilities that could help alleviate suffering in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and prevent this catastrophe from worsening. First and foremost, a senior general officer must be appointed to work with FEMA to manage a joint response assist with the recovery effort on the ground, and enable local constituencies to have a single point of contact. This was done in response to Hurricane Katrina, and we feel the same approach is warranted now for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

As we are sure you are aware, in both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, there are numerous municipalities that are inaccessible from the ground, which is where DOD engineer and aviation assets would be most helpful. With millions of U.S. citizens stranded in remote areas without basic necessities, engineers are needed first to clear the roads. Additional aviation assets are needed to get relief supplies to isolated locations. Additionally, substantial ground and air logistics support is required to get aid to the islands, rescue stranded citizens, and provide them with supplies and thereafter assist with the restoration of power and telecommunications infrastructure if needed. To fulfill DOD's mission, we believe the aircraft carrier, USS Abraham Lincoln, should be sent to the region, similar to its deployment to Miami following Hurricane Irma.

DHS has indicated it has "provided more than 1.5 million meals, 1.1 million liters of water, nearly 300 infant and toddler kits, and nearly 12,000 emergency roofing kits to the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico since Hurricane Maria's landfall." While these meals and resources are profoundly needed, unfortunately, there is a large portion of the population that has been underserved.

Lastly, DOD has critical resources that could assist with addressing security issues. We have heard reports that the ongoing supply shortages are causing looting and crime. We were recently informed of armed gangs ransacking a warehouse that distributes food and supplies. Defense Department personnel could provide essential support to local law enforcement in both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands to ensure relief supplies are delivered to those most in need- and that those that have already been immensely devastated by the hurricane, do not need to fear for their lives when filling up their gas at the pump or securing food for their family.

We thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Please feel free to contact us with any questions.

We look forward to your timely response.

Sincerely,

Nydia M. Velazquez

Adam Smith

Hoyer
Crowley
Lawson
Nadler
Holmes Norton
Wasserman Schultz
Meeks
Linda Sanchez
Higgins
Sires
Evans
Raskin
Napolitano
Meng
Roybal-Allard
Castro
Capuano
Dingell
Quigley
Larson
Thompson
Watson Coleman
Carolyn Maloney
Frederica Wilson
DeGette
Deutch
Kildee
Carbajal
Matsui
Langevin
Takano
Price
McCollum
Welch
Doyle
Adams
Crist
Tsongas
Engel
Veasey
Hanabusa
Schakowsky
Cohen
Blumenauer
Connolly
Sablan
Murphy
Lowey
Slaughter
McGovern
DeLauro
Torres
Pallone
Castor
Gomez
Tonko
Norcross
Correa
Sean Patrick Maloney
Polis
Serrano
Costa
Lujan
Cleaver
Shea-Porter
Blunt Rochester
Robert Brady
Barragan
Chu
Castor
Beyer
Jackson Lee
Lee
Demings
Yarmuth
Boyle
Neal
Lowenthal
Beatty
O’Halleran
Gutiérrez
Moulton
Espaillat
Bonamici
Himes
Ryan
Cicilline
Kaptur
Kilmer
Rice
Lipinski
Schneider
Soto
Suozzi
Ellison
Courtney
Speier
Cárdenas
Keating
Pascrell, Jr.
Clarke
Waltz
Heck
Lowey
Gabbard
Titus
Lujan Grisham
Clay
Carson
DeSaulnier
McEachin
Foster
Al Green
Plaskett
Schiff
Payne, Jr.
Sarbanes
Pingree
Lawrence
Lynch
Lieu
Kennedy
Scott Peters
Jefferies
Grijalva
Delaney
Bustos
David Scott
Brownley
Gene Green
Bass
Cummings
Doggett
Khanna
Calderon
Eshoo
Vargas
Susan Davis
Aguilar
Bobby scott
Panetta
Visclosky
Gallego
Bera

Cc: The Honorable James Mattis, Secretary of Defense

###

Barron YoungSmith
Director of Communications / Counsel
House Armed Services Committee Democrats
Office: 202.226.5662 | Cell: 202.225.2803
2216 Rayburn House Office Building

...

[snapper]

When is impeachment starting?

[DOR]

When is impeachment starting?

the day after the words "President Pence" don't cause wide spread gagging among Democrats.

[astralis]

well, more accurately, the day after congressional -Republicans- think that chucking Trump under the bus will save their political skins, not doom them. which is to say, not going to happen.

[JAD_333]

If his approval sinks to 20 minus, Katie bar the door. At the moment Asty is right; only the threat of political demise will move GOP in Congress to act.

[tbm3fan]

I can't see him ever dropping below 35% as there are simply that many true hard core believers. He was right when he said he could kill someone and those hard core 35% would say the victim had it coming. Just like after Kent State when a majority said the students had it coming and too bad more were not shot by the Guard.

[astralis]

i used to think that was him being facetious and his usual braggadocio self, but honestly the nature of polarization is such that it was one of the more honest things he said.

Mueller could find a voicemail from him to Putin promising Putin control of the US nuclear arsenal in exchange for cash, and Trump probably would still have 25% support.

[surfgun]

USNS Comfort and support ships arrived at San Juan to compliment LHD's 1 & 3.
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/55545...an-puerto-rico

[snapper]

Can't Mueller initiate criminal action?