Tag: leadership
Jerome Powell

'True Leadership': Stark Contrast Between Jerome Powell And Donald Trump

Every year around this time, the Kansas City Regional Federal Reserve Bank hosts its symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, where the big event is the Fed chair’s speech. Chair Powell has given that speech every year since 2018, expect for the pandemic years, and he did so again this morning. It was almost surely his last such speech, as his term as chair ends next May and President Trump can’t wait to replace him (I mean, legally, he kinda has to wait, so I expect Powell to serve out his term, but we’ll see).

The fact that Trump is so anxious to replace Powell is one of the many things that speak highly of the Fed chair, and I’ll use this post as a chance to say more about his tenure in a moment. But first, a few words on the speech itself.

Markets were expecting Powell to tee up a rate cut for their next meeting in mid-Sept, and that’s what he did, leading to a melt-up in the Dow, up almost 900 points at this moment (almost 2%). He mentioned the stagflation Ryan and I wrote up the other day, underscoring the challenges posed by tariffs and deportations. This ‘graf struck me as both key and correct:

Overall, while the labor market appears to be in balance, it is a curious kind of balance that results from a marked slowing in both the supply of and demand for workers. This unusual situation suggests that downside risks to employment are rising. And if those risks materialize, they can do so quickly in the form of sharply higher layoffs and rising unemployment.

We’ll see what the jobs and inflation data show between now and the Sept meeting but assuming they’re broadly consistent with the recent dataflow, I’d expect a quarter-point rate cut at that meeting, which I’d consider to be the right move.

Powell also delivered a review of the Fed’s update to their framework. Every five years, they release a “Statement of Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy,” aka their consensus statement which “describes how we pursue our dual-mandate goals…designed to give the public a clear sense of how we think about monetary policy.”

This was actually the more interesting part of the speech as it gave Powell a chance to reflect on changes in large and important structural trends, most notably the shift from inflation consistently coming in below target and interest rates stuck at historically low levels (he waxed about the threat of the “ELB”—the effective lower bound, meaning situations where even interest rates at zero are insufficiently stimulative) to the pandemic-induced inflationary shock, rising global interest rates, the fading of the ELB threat, and the challenge in getting inflation back down to their target.

The new framework thus reverts back to more traditional balancing of two sides of their full-employment-at-stable-prices mandate. Most notably, the former framework allowed inflation to run hotter if it had been below target for a while, their so-called “makeup strategy”:

…we returned to a framework of flexible inflation targeting and eliminated the “makeup” strategy. As it turned out, the idea of an intentional, moderate inflation- overshoot had proved irrelevant. There was nothing intentional or moderate about the inflation that arrived a few months after we announced our 2020 changes to the consensus statement…

I’ll have more to say about this is a forthcoming post. It could be interpreted as a slightly hawkish turn in Fed policy, one that would tolerate more labor-market slack, but I don’t think that’s the case. Instead, I think the former framework turned out to be too specific to a particular moment in time and the new one avoids that mistake.

Okay, enough about the speech. Let me offer a few reflections on Chair Powell’s tenure on this occasion of his last symposium keynote in the (bear-infested) Tetons (I’ve been there and they seem to make a point of freaking out us non-outdoorsy city dwellers with excessive bear warnings).

Much ink will be spilled on Powell’s tenure, and it’s certainly been quite a ride. Did your dance card have him donning a hard hat and touring the Fed renovation with Trump, cuz mine sure didn’t!? But I’m confident his time as chair will be remembered very fondly, for the following reasons.

—No one protected the independence of the institution with such relentless vigor. Speaking of bears, the dude was (and will remain) a mama-grizzly when it came to staving off Trumpian and other political interference. And that interference often turned absolutely vicious. Another person might have said “screw it, I’m out” but Powell views protecting the integrity of the central bank as the most important part of his job right now, far more historically consequential than a rate tweak.

—Data driven: I’m not saying the Fed under Powell didn’t make mistakes. He admitted as much today re misinterpreting the pandemic inflationary spike. But if there are two words Powell will be remembered for, they might well be “data-driven.” The reason I consider this so important is because my own work, undertaken with many great colleagues, has stressed that we can’t know in real time precisely what constitutes maximum employment, capacity GDP, and the slope of the Phillips Curve (the correlation between inflation and unemployment). Therefore, we must be driven by what the data tell us, or we risk, as earlier Feds did, setting u* (the unemployment rate at full employment) too high, at tremendous cost to economically vulnerable people.

“Data-driven” is even more important today, as the Trump administration clearly intends to try to cook the data. By stressing “data-driven,” Powell and his colleagues are saying facts matter when crafting economic policy. It’s a simple truth, but we’re seeing in real time the damage that’s meted out when it is ignored.

—Earnest communication. Chair Powell has never forgotten that while monetary policy can be an arcane subject, the Fed has a foundational responsibility to explain its thinking and its work in clear language to anyone willing to listen.

Even more importantly, and this is the most important and venerable aspect of Powell’s tenure, I always heard, in virtually every speech and every presser, a genuine concern and mindfulness about the regular, working people who bear the brunt of the Fed’s policies.

In today’s speech, he stressed that the “past five years have been a painful reminder of the hardship that high inflation imposes, especially on those least able to meet the higher costs of necessities.” I’ve heard countless similar references around the importance of running tight labor markets to give those same vulnerable workers a bit more bargaining clout.

I firmly believe, and in fact I know from my personal interactions with Chair Powell, that he never forgot for whom he’s ultimately working, i.e., not the politicians who showboat at his hearings, certainly not the president, not the press. It’s the people in the workforce, the people trying to stretch their paychecks to meet their family budgets, the folks just trying to keep their heads down, work hard, and get ahead.

Especially in today’s America, such true leadership—leadership that stands in stark contrast to what we’re seeing on a daily basis from most of the rest of Washington—should be recognized, elevated, honored, and replicated.

Jared Bernstein is a former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Joe Biden. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Budget and Policy Priorities. Please consider subscribing to his column for free at Jared's Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Chuck Schumer

'Delusional': Schumer Under Growing Pressure After Hayes Interview

Senate Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, in an attempt to cauterize the self-inflicted wound from his decision to help Republicans pass their “CR,” continuing resolution, last week—a move backed by President Donald Trump—may have only deepened what some rank-and-file Democrats see as a crisis of leadership.

In what some are calling a “devastating” interview on Tuesday evening with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, the Democratic leader appeared unwilling to grasp the full extent of the current threat level to American democracy, that our democracy is now at a crossroads—a fact well-documented by experts on democracy, and proclaimed by a Democratic U.S. Senator—and struggled to acknowledge that the nation is facing a constitutional crisis.

Trying to defend what is being seen as a lack of strategy, an inability to grasp the gravity of this moment in American history, and a refusal to fight the battle that is actually before him, Schumer made his argument to Hayes.

President Donald Trump’s approval “numbers have started to go down, from 51 to 47. If we keep at it and keep at it and keep at it, his numbers will be much lower. He will not only be less popular, but less effective,” Schumer insisted.

Schumer additionally claimed that “we will find the moments where we shouldn’t give them votes.”

But Schumer was sitting in Hayes’s studio exactly because he did give Republicans votes. He canceled his book tour that was supposed to start this week, reportedly due to security threats, and instead has been hitting the talk shows and cable news defending his decision — and his leadership position.

“There’s this weird asymmetry right now,” Hayes observed, noting that Republicans “are acting in this totally new way, in which they are ambitiously trying to seize all power and create a presidential dictatorship in the United States of America, and the Democratic opposition is acting like, ‘Well, if we can get their approval rate down a few points.’ Then what? Then what happens?”

“Well,” Schumer, still in defensive mode, declared, saying that “what happens is, look, first, we get it way down, he’s gonna have much like we—this worked in 2017.”

For some on social media, that appeared to be the inflection point—the moment that Schumer exposed that he is using the old playbook that the Trump administration, MAGA, The Heritage Foundation, and Project 2025 burned long ago.

“You say now it’s a different government,” Schumer acknowledged.

“It’s different, though,” Hayes pressed.

“Oh, it is different, but health care: we beat them. Taxes: we beat them, and guess what we did? Guess what we did, Chris? We took back the House and won in the Senate, and that got and then we were allowed to do all those good things.”

Hayes also honed in on Schumer’s 2017 reference.

“I don’t disagree with that, but the difference to me between 2017 and now,” he explained, is that it “is a full-fledged assault on the Constitutional order that has not been seen.”

And Hayes asked, “but then the question becomes, what is the role of the minority in resisting that, that’s distinct from ‘we’re gonna beat them on health care, we’re gonna beat them on spending with Medicaid.'”

Then Schumer said, “If our democracy is at risk—”

“It is at risk,” Hayes declared.

“Sorry. It is certainly at risk,” Schumer acknowledged, after Hayes made that declaration, but then he ignored Hayes’s question: “Do you believe” it is at risk?

Schumer moved on, appearing to say that if the federal courts ultimately fail to hold Trump, “we’ll have the court of public opinion, and if that happens, as you pointed out, we have had rule of law since the Magna Carta, okay?”

“The people will have to rise up, not just Democrats, not just Republicans, not just, you know, people everybody. But our democracy will be at stake then,” he said, again, not appearing to grasp that, as experts say, it is right now.

“And if the people make their voices heard as strong and stand up, and we join them, I believe we can try to beat that back.”

“We can beat that back, but it’s it’s it’s up on that one, if democracy is at risk, that’s a little different than what we’re talking about now — even a shutdown as horrible as it is.”

“We’ll all have to stand up and fight back in every way,” Schumer concluded.

Critics, and rank-and-file Democrats, and some elected Democrats, say the fight should have started when Trump was elected.

The Atlantic’s Dr. Norman Ornstein, a noted political scientist, responded to a clip of Hayes’ interview with Schumer, declaring, “Chuck is delusional.”

That word has repeatedly surfaced.

“‘This worked in 2017’ is all you need to hear. I can understand Schumer’s logic on the shutdown, but he’s delusional if he thinks that’s a winning strategy,” observed Cosmopolitan editor Olivia Truffaut-Wong.

“You know, I watched Sen. Schumer on Chris Hayes and really tried to hear him defend his actions in good faith,” wrote Charlotte Clymer, a former Human Rights Campaign press secretary who has called for Schumer to resign, “but by the end of their discussion, it just felt impossible for me to avoid this very deep sense of dangerous foreboding. Big ‘tempting fate’ energy in the worse way. Honestly scary.”

One day before Schumer’s MSNBC interview, Clymer on Monday had already made the case for “Why Chuck Schumer Should Step Down.”

“We have lost our way not because of what we believe in,” she wrote, referring to rank-and-file Democratic voters, “but because of our party leadership’s reluctance to fight for what we believe in.”

Sam Seder, the progressive political commentator and host of “The Majority Report with Sam Seder,” declared Schumer’s interview with Hayes was “devastating for Schumer. ..ignoring the criticism from all corners of the party..can’t articulate a strategy. It’s bizarre. He thinks it’s 2017.”

He also wrote that Schumer was “trying to justify his lack of leadership and strategy on his failed dirty CR. He’s panicked and should be. He is not up to the era. Instead of fighting against every other Democratic leader he should resign for the sake of the country.”

Emma Vigeland, Seder’s co-host, wrote that Hayes “nailed Schumer at the end of tonight’s interview by getting him to equivocate about whether or not we are currently at risk of losing our democracy. This is entirely out of step with how the base feels and saying this on MSNBC could (and should!) cost him his leadership.”

Elected Democrats are starting to break their wall of silence and call for Schumer to resign as Senate Democratic Leader.

Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-MD) on Tuesday, as C-SPAN reported, said: “I was deeply disappointed that Senator Schumer voted with the Republicans. You know you’re on bad ground when you get a personal tweet from Donald Trump thanking you for your vote…I’m afraid it may be time for the Senate Democrats to pick new leadership…”

Christopher Webb, a social media political commentator with a strong multi-platform following, posted edited video of the interview and also called it “devastating.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Vivek Ramaswamy

Billionaires Herding GOP Into Revolt Against Spending Bill

Led by billionaires who have been appointed by Donald Trump to wield massive influence over his incoming administration, Republican members of Congress are rejecting a last-ditch spending bill just days before a possible government shutdown.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has had to reach across the aisle for Democratic assistance to pass the continuing resolution legislation ahead of Friday, the last day before funding dries up. But hard-line Republicans in his own party have voiced their opposition to the bill, which contains economic aid for those hit by recent hurricanes and some relief for farmers.

It looks like they’re taking their cues from the likes of failed presidential candidate and billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy, who Trump appointed to lead the advisory (and completely unofficial) Department of Government Efficiency alongside multibillionaire Elon Musk. The obscenely wealthy duo wants the bill killed.

In a TikTok video, Ramaswamy claimed that he read the entirety of the 1,500-page bill released Tuesday night “that blows away your taxpayer money.”

@vivekramaswamy

Congress wants to waste your money without telling you, make sure that doesn’t happen

“Real-time advice to Congress: go back to the drawing board, start with a blank slate & do this the right way,” Ramswamy later wrote.

Musk also voiced his displeasure with the bill Tuesday, writing, “This bill should not pass.”

In a Wednesday morning appearance on Fox News, Johnson disclosed that he had been involved in a text chain with Musk and Ramaswamy overnight, trying to assuage their concerns over the legislation. Following that conversation, both billionaires have continued to attack the bill. Ramaswamy has even posted what he says should be a one-page “clean” funding bill that isn’t a “pork-fest” like the current legislation.

Echoing the billionaires, Texas Sen. John Cornyn asked, “How on earth did a 3 month Continuing Resolution grow into this Cramnibus.” In response, Musk called it “a nightmare bill.”

“Any member of the House or Senate who votes for this outrageous spending bill deserves to be voted out in 2 years!” Musk wrote in a separate post. Musk spent at least $250 million to help elect Trump and has said he will put more of his immense fortune into molding the Republican Party in his image.

Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene jumped on the bandwagon, writing, “I agree with @elonmusk and @VivekGRamaswamy 100% on the CR!”

Similarly, Florida GOP Rep. Kat Cammack said she was against the bill and claimed the deal is “doing credible damage” to the party.

Incredibly, even Trump is now reportedly expressing his opposition to the bill, according to Axios, while Politico reports that Johnson is already weighing a spending Plan B—which leads one to wonder who is truly wielding the most influence over the GOP.

Not only is the current rebellion a headache for Johnson’s immediate concerns about the bill passing, but it could hurt his bid to be reelected speaker in January, when Congress reconvenes.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) told reporters that he will not vote for Johnson, and if others follow suit the process could echo the multiple rounds of voting that former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) had to endure.

The billionaires have made their demands known and some of the Republican Party’s most prominent figures are giving them what they want—even if working-class Americans have to suffer the consequences.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Mike Johnson

Right-Wing Rage Over Budget 'Dumpster Fire' May Endanger Speaker

Speaker Mike Johnson may face a leadership challenge in the new year after angering conservatives in the House.

Republicans are running up against the Dec. 20 deadline to pass a stopgap appropriations bill to fund the federal government, or else a partial shutdown could be triggered. Despite operating with a Republican majority since the 2022 election, the party has been unable to pass the legislation in a timely fashion.

Congressional leaders are negotiating over the size of disaster and farm relief, which is needed to respond to recent hurricanes and other natural disasters, as well as continuing trade issues triggered by Donald Trump’s trade war with China started when he was last president.

But the disorganized process of agreeing to the bill’s contents is provoking derogatory comments from the most conservative House members. South Carolina Republican Rep. Ralph Norman of the right-wing Freedom Caucus told Politico that his fellow conservatives are “frustrated with the outcome.” A tentative deal on the new spending prompted Republican Rep. Eric Burlison of Missouri to describe it as “garbage” and a “total dumpster fire.”

Texas Rep. Chip Roy was even more blunt, calling the agreement “negotiated crap” and complaining “we’re forced to eat this crap sandwich” because of the hurried process and the looming deadline.

Johnson will need the votes of at least some of the members put off by the process when the new Congress is seated in January and leadership elections are held. Despite the party’s success in the 2024 elections, the maximum number of seats they are projected to hold is 222 of the 435 seats in total.

In January of this year the party had an extremely contentious race for the speakership, with then-Rep. Kevin McCarthy surviving 15 rounds of voting before eventually prevailing. That turned out to be the least of McCarthy’s worries, because by October he had been ousted in a vote sparked by conservative Republicans.

In spite of Republican political success, the party’s time in charge of Congress has been marked by turmoil. The majority has had to rely on votes from Democrats to keep basic government functions operational, which has in turn angered the most conservative factions of the Republican caucus.

Johnson emerged from the McCarthy mess as leader, but he was clearly not the first choice but rather someone the party settled on. Now he will need to rely on that lukewarm support and fresh feelings of resentment to keep him in the presidential line of succession.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World