Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and his Disastrous Choice to Run Again

Jake Tapper, & Alex Thompson, Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and his Disastrous Choice to Run Again, (New York: Penguin Press, 2025), ISBN 9798217060672, $32.00 

 I was given a copy of Original Sin and read it wondering what it could tell me of the Biden saga that I did not already know? We know Joe Biden was 82 for the 2024 presidential election and would be 86 at the end of a second term. How much more information did I need since I could see he had aged just looking at him on television and then he accepted a debate with Trump, which ended any doubt about another term given the blank pauses and fumbling speech. In the Author’s Note they tell readers “Our only agenda is to present the disturbing reality of what happened in the White House and the Democratic presidential campaign in 2023-2024, as told to us by approximately two hundred people, including lawmakers and White House and campaign insiders, . . .” 

 The book has 19 chapters and runs 314 pages and I can testify the authors did an impressive job organizing the material from all those interviews and writing a clearly worded narrative. The primary story they tell shows Joe Biden, his wife Jill and his loyal White House advisors unable to face the very real doubts of a second term; there was denial and a loss of objectivity but nothing Joe Biden did could be called a cover up, a term that connotes legal misconduct. Since presidents have to be visible, their family and advisors have no duty to offer any doubts they might have to the public; the public must expect to make up their own mind. 

The authors interviewed Democratic and Republican office holders, party officials, pollsters and other journalists, both necessary and appropriate, but they added related personal and family history to the primary story. I tried to connect the discussion of the Biden family troubles of sons Beau, and Hunter and daughter Ashley, but that discussion always felt tacked onto their stated purpose: “Our only agenda is to present what happened in the White House and the Democratic presidential campaign.” 

 I found it difficult to construe the loss of son Beau to cancer and Hunter’s legal missteps as part of President Biden’s Decline, or his decision to press on for a second term. The discussion of these matters feels especially callus and unnecessary given just the facts the authors provide. They explain “The Plea Deal.” Hunter would plead guilty to evading $200,000 in income taxes and illegal possession of a fire arm. Biden opponents howled their objections and the federal judge in the case, Maryellen Noreika, a Trump appointee, refused to accept the plea deal, dragging out the case further. 

As I recall President Biden promised to allow his appointed Attorney General, Merrick Garland, to go ahead and prosecute Hunters case as part of his general promise to avoid interfering with federal law enforcement, but that was before losing the 2024 election and listening to Trump make repeated threats to him and his family with claims the Biden’s were part of an “organized crime family.” Recognizing the harassment Trump would create for his family he used his pardon power to protect them at the last moments of his term. In doing so, he was defensive and suggested toxic politics had something to do with the outcome of the case and his need to give blanket pardons. For this decision, the author’s make sweeping condemnation; they quote the prosecutor characterizing the pardons as “gratuitous and wrong” and that Merrick Garland was “tremendously disappointed” and that “To many Democrats, this was another ignominious act by a president who repeatedly put the interests of his family ahead of those of this party and country.” These conclusions feel sanctimonious and hypocritical given Trump’s pardons of hundreds of the January 6 felons. To some of us Hunter Biden’s crimes feel trivial compared to assaulting the U.S. Capital and refusing to accept the 2020 election results. 

I struggle to find a purpose for writing the story of Joe Biden’s Decline. A four page conclusion chapter asks “What if a president is unable to discharge their duties but doesn’t recognize that fact?” The authors admit those close to President Biden were always ready “to attest to his ability to make sound decisions if on his own schedule.” There is a suggestion Congress could legally require the president’s physician to certify to Congress the president is fit to serve, but so far in U.S. history only death assures a president will be unfit for office; there is no mention that anyone in Congress has offered such legislation. The authors mention several other questionable presidents, but offer no solution to future presidents and evaluating their qualification for office. 

 If there was a lessen for the future in the Joe Biden case I could not find it in Original Sin. I make note that both authors have worked in corporate media and wonder if they could keep their jobs writing a similar book about Donald Trump? .

Coming Up Short

Robert B. Reich, Coming Up Short: A Memoir of My America, (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2025), $30.00, ISBN 9780953803288

In his newest book, Coming Up Short, author Robert Reich offers readers a unique combination of personal memoir, U.S. history and policy discussion condensed into 350 pages. Born in 1946 he grew up as a founding member of the boomer generation. He lived through the Civil Rights and Vietnam War era while a student and then took an active role in politics, serving in judicial and administrative appointments during the Ford, Carter and Clinton administrations. While he never held political office, he made an unsuccessful run for governor of Massachusetts and served as an informal advisor to political candidates and office holders during his years as a professor in academia.

The narrative follows a rough chronology through his life divided into six parts that serve as chapters.  Since he met bullies growing up in South Salem, New York and attending Lewisboro elementary school, standing up to America’s rich corporate bullies becomes a theme guiding the narrative. Education at Dartmouth College, Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar and Yale Law School and his work as a clerk to a federal judge, Assistant Solicitor General to Robert Bork, policy director at the Federal Trade Commission, and Secretary of Labor allowed him to meet dozens of future and current politicians and write opinion informed by personal experience.

Reich expresses his support for equal rights and social justice with the stories of his encounters with dozens of politicians and celebrities he met during his career. Boomers especially get a chance to reconsider old events in a new perspective. In 1965, as Dartmouth class president, he met Hillary Rodham, then a student at Wellesley College, and then introduced her to Bill Clinton six years later while they and Clarence Thomas were all Yale law students. While still a student  he was an intern for Robert Kennedy, then volunteered for the Gene McCarthy presidential campaign, traveled to England with Bill Clinton to be Rhodes scholars and figure out how to evade the Vietnam draft. He met Robert Bork while his law school student and then worked for him when Bork was Solicitor General. A 22-page saga of Bork’s career and the origins of the term “Borked” follow. Reich suggests Bork deserved better than he got from the press and Congress.

Reich titles Part III, The Giant U-Turn, that identifies a 1971 letter of attorney and later Supreme Court justice Lewis Powell to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recommending a shift of corporate America to “mobilize for political combat.”  Before describing some of the resulting abuses and characteristics of corporate misconduct, Reich describes his work with the Carter administration and defends President Carter as not as bad as we think. In two other sections he discusses his relationship with John Kenneth Galbraith and a professorial tenure battle of his wife while at Harvard.

Part IV has eighty pages, the longest in the book, which Reich entitles Failure. It describes his work as a Democratic party advisor to Senator Gary Hart, Governor and presidential candidate Michael Dukakis, and Bill Clinton.  After Clinton wins the presidential election he becomes Secretary of Labor, which he hoped would allow him to pursue an agenda to benefit the working class. Reich describes his failed efforts as Secretary of Labor by narrating his bureaucratic policy battles with Secretary Robert Rubin and with stories of Alan Greenspan and others.

One of his failures occurred at a Bridgestone tire plant in Oklahoma where a failure to install safety cutoff switches had killed and injured workers and remained as a risk to injure more. Reich responded to the failure by seeking an emergency order to require installation of cutoff switches and imposed a $7.5 million fine. The company denied all wrong doing and threatened to close the plant. Reich backed down: “The bullies won. I am haunted by our failure. All I had considered was the moral superiority of my position and the thrill of the spectacle. I hadn’t imagined Bridgestone would take hostage the livelihoods of more than a thousand people.” He was haunted because he made the wrong decision to give in! He left the job at the end of Clinton’s first term to spend more time with his kids; a claim we can believe but readers might conclude, as I did, that he was worn out with Bill Clinton and his Wall Street tilt.

In the gathering storm, the title for Part V, readers get subtitled commentary on episodes of misconduct and cowardice by individuals in positions of leadership. Reich quotes from a speech he made to the Democratic Leadership Council where he warned them of a two tiered society of winners and losers. After the warning come stories of people who promoted or acquiesced in the two-tier society: Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Barak Obama, Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin and others.

About midway through Part V Reich switches to the aftermath of the Bush recession to discuss the tea partiers, occupiers and other angry people.”  There is special mention of the cowardice of Clinton and Obama: “Both Clinton and Obama stood by as corporations busted trade unions, backbone of the working class.” Recall Obama did not prosecute the Bush era banking looters. Reich recounts visits to Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Missouri, and North Carolina and the anti-establishment rage he found there. He goes on to discuss the end of the American Dream and the end of the Republican party as a political party. The final subsection offers the five elements that make fascism. He finishes with “Americans can preserve our democracy and share our prosperity only by attacking and countering concentrated wealth and the political corruption that accompanies it.” 

Part VI, The Long Game, ends the book with a smorgasbord of personal stories, a few suggestions, and a tiny slice of optimism. One story was his failed campaign for Massachusetts governor. As a political advisor he thought he knew elective politics but running for office taught him the essential personality traits he does not have: narcissist, extrovert, method actor, thick skin, and also avoid consultants and be respectful of media. He concluded “Running for office made me even more keenly aware of the role and responsibility of mainstream media in a democracy in danger of coming apart.”

Other stories describe an aborted appearance with “Dr. Phil,” his friendship and admiration for Bernie Sanders, the pleasure of seeing and remembering some of his students. The last pages have some broad suggestions for restoring capitalism, reclaiming patriotism, creating better workplaces, and sharing profits. The book ends with thoughts on growing old, 79, and the need for the younger generation to take over and restore democracy.

The Reich book is built on the same ethical principles as similar books and commentary by others like Arlie Russel Hochschild, Heather Cox Richardson, and recent books of Steven Brill and David Leonhardt. However, his 60 year career in politics and academia required him to confront an unusually long list of political disputes and meet an unusually long list of people who became colleagues, friends and adversaries. Unlike political memoirs in my experience Reich agonizes over his failures. Unlike corporate media he calls evil by its true name: campaign finance is bribery, Trump Republicans are liars, enablers and accessories to crimes against the constitution. Anita Hill was right, Justice Alito is the most cognitively dishonest justice since Roger Taney, Democrats Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Barak Obama are cowards; the Democratic party has failed for decades to protect the working class, and more.

In a section titled “My Illicit Affair” Reich describes his friendship with Republican Senator Allan Simpson of Wyoming, a political opponent he admired for “his sincerity and passion for democracy.”  Still friends in 2016, Reich asked why more Republicans weren’t speaking out against Trump.

“They’re scared,” he said.

“Scared of Trump?”

“No,” he said, lowering his voice. “They’re scared of the kind of people Trump is attracting and what he’s bringing out in them.”

“You mean they’re scared of being physically harmed?”

“Friend it only takes one nut case?”

Enough said.

The Original Meaning of the 14th Amendment

 

Randy E. Barnett, Evan D. Bernick, The Original Meaning of the 14^th Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit, (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press, 2021), 382 pages, ISBN 9780674257764

The book’s introduction begins “Nothing in the Constitution of the United States is more important to contemporary American law and politics than the Fourteenth Amendment. The book that follows gives a “comprehensive account of the original meaning and purposes” of its key components, which are Section 1 and Section 5. The authors organized the history around the three key clauses of the second sentence to Section 1. Part I has The Privileges or Immunities of Citizenship Clause, Part II has The Due Process of Law Clause and Part III has The Equal Protection of Laws Clause. A conclusion of 14 pages ends the book. Be sure to read the March 12, 1871 letter of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Bradley reproduced in the preface. It foreshadows what to expect from American courts.

The Introduction explains the origins of originalism and begins developing the original public meaning of the 14^th Amendment from 1868.  To do this the authors review historical writing of legal scholars that develops a distinction between the public meaning of the original text in contrast to how the text is applied later in constitutional disagreements. While the Constitution has some indeterminant words and phrases Barnett and Bernick argue it conveys an original spirit: “Where the letter of the Constitution is unclear, fidelity to the Constitution’s design requires that judges, legislators, and other constitutional decision makers turn to the law’s original spirit.”

The Privileges or Immunities of Citizenship Clause discussion in Part I makes up the longest section of the book with 217 pages. The clause as written in the Fourteenth Amendment rephrases the original Article IV, Section 2 from the 1787 Constitution. As originally written it was “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the several States.” The Fourteenth Amendment adds the phrase “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the Privileges or Immunities of Citizens of the United States.

The original phrase suggests states are free to define rights for their citizens and apply them to residents and all others traveling into, or through, their state; citizenship varies by state. The Fourteenth Amendment applies to Citizens of the United States, hoping to establish some uniform rights to U.S. citizens. Neither phrase defines Privileges and Immunities, which remains open to interpretation.

Barnett and Bernick narrate and document the history of the chaotic contest to define the Privileges and Immunities of Citizens. From 1787 to 1868 the demands of southern slave holders to exclude black people - free blacks, slaves - from any rights of citizenship dominant the narrative. The federal courts took the southern side – Barren v. Baltimore, Dred Scott v. Sandford to wit – which helped generate the rise of the Republican Party.

Southern secession in 1860-61 left the federal government with northerners determined to redefine and guarantee a national citizenship for all.  Chapter 4 and 5 provide a thorough discussion of the Congressional debate to define privileges and immunities of citizens and to embody them into the 13^th Amendment in 1865 and 14^th Amendment in 1868.

Ratifying the two amendments did not end the citizenship debate. Chapter 6, entitled Enforcing Citizenship, is the longest chapter in the book at 49 pages. It narrates the continuing debate that brought passage of the 15^th Amendment to guarantee the right to vote and for the need to enforce the 14^th Amendment. The 14^th Amendment includes Section 5 that gives Congress the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of Article 1. Barnett and Bernick give a thorough account of the Congressional debate of enforcement efforts leading to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Enforcement Acts in 1870-71, legislation intended to quell the violence of southern groups such as the KKK.  

The second half of Chapter 6 reviews the depressing and disruptive role that the federal courts took to redefine the privileges and immunities of citizenship to suit the racist South. In their preface the authors remind readers of the Supreme Court case of Barren v. Baltimore, which claimed the first eight amendments constrained only the federal government, but not state power. This ruling allowed the southern states to pursue their racist agenda with impunity. After winning the Civil War, northern politicians were determined to define and apply the Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship to everyone, everywhere. Again though, the Supreme Court went to work to neutralize these efforts. The most notorious of these came after the legislature of Louisiana granted a monopoly to a New Orleans slaughterhouse, denying the right of citizens to choose their occupation as a fundamental part of citizenship.  

In the Slaughterhouse cases that ended in 1873 the District Court ruled against the monopoly, but a 5 to 4 majority of the Supreme Court reversed that ruling as a radical interference with states rights.  Justice Samuel Miller writing for the majority, decided overruling a state grant of monopoly would “fetter and degrade the State governments by subjecting them to the control of Congress in the exercise of powers heretofore universally conceded to them of the most ordinary and fundamental character.” … “We are convinced that no such results were intended by the Congress which proposed these amendments, nor by the legislatures of the States which ratified them.” The opinion by Justice Miller intends to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment by judicial decree and return to what Justice Bradley wrote in dissent as “that spirit of insubordination and disloyalty to the National government …”

After the judicial review Barnett and Bernick return to the evidence they argue defines citizenship and the original meaning of the 14^th amendment.  Chapter 7 reviews the debate and views of contemporary academics, which includes five separate theories of U.S. citizenship before moving onto Implementing the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Chapter 8. Barnett and Bernick argue historical evidence establish an operational definition of Privileges and Immunities of citizenship, which are “a set of rights that preexists the interpretation and application of the clause by a judge. We maintain that, in 1868, a preexisting set of privileges and immunities was locked into the Constitution by the original meaning of the 14^th Amendment.”

The authors list and summarize these rights as those enumerated in the Constitution of 1868, the enumerated rights in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and those enumerated rights added to the constitution after 1868. In addition, they list other unenumerated rights. Here they suggest that if individual citizens have for at least a generation of thirty years been entitled to enjoy a right as a consequence of accepted practice it can become a privilege and immunity of citizenship. The authors give examples as part of a thorough discussion of how this should work in practice, arguing in sum that judges should “discover the law” rather than “make the law.” Part I ends with “We can state with confidence that the original public meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause does “lock in” certain identifiable rights; that it does not lock in others; and that it does not delegate to Congress or the federal courts unbounded discretion to specify the rights that states cannot abridge.”

From here the book moves to a 53 page historical discussion of Due Process of Law and 52 page Part III on the Equal Protection of the Law. Both phrases apply to persons in contrast to the Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship. The narrative here traces the long history of the Due Process of Law back to its British origins. Discussion defines and distinguishes procedural due process and substantive due process. The spirit of substantive due process “impose a duty on both state and federal judges to make good-faith determinations of whether legislation is calculated to achieve constitutionally proper ends.” Historical discussion includes a review of legislative debate, legal cases and academic interpretations to bar arbitrary power and the proper ends of legislative power.

The Equal Protection of the Laws narrative also traces the meaning of equal protection through history. Again, Barnett and Bernick review the legislative debate, legal cases and academic writing. At a minimum equal protection guarantees a duty to protect against physical violence, but also entitles people to equal access to courts and nondiscriminatory enforcement of state and federal laws intended to protect life, liberty and property.

The Original Meaning of the 14^th Amendment combines many elements of a textbook with a well-organized historical discussion used as evidence to support tightly focused argument.  Barnett and Bernick appear to recognize the complexity of their effort and so use standard textbook devices to help readers.  The introductory chapter includes a seventeen-page “Preview of Our Findings.” Chapters begin with summaries of what will come and chapters end with summaries of major points. Part and Chapter titles and many sub headings resemble a textbook’s emphasis on orderly presentation. Important legal and constitutional terms are explained. While the writing is clear and avoids academize, serious readers will feel a need to go back and reread sections as they move along in what is not light reading.

I looked for, but did not find, a discussion of the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co. from May 10, 1886, in which Chief Justice Waite declared "corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." This declaration was not made as part of the case opinion but declared as true by proclamation in a case head note. To my knowledge it has never been disputed by Congress or a federal court, but has justified many judicial favors for corporate America, along with the prostitution of the 14^th Amendment.

Barnett and Bernick make a good case to justify their conclusions already cited above. The founding fathers accepted slavery as a condition of getting the constitution ratified. Even so Congress retained the power to abolish slavery in the territories and the District of Columbia while northern states could protect free blacks and escaped slaves. There was a begrudging acceptance of slavery for what was initially an immoral Constitution, but Barnett and Bernick establish the politicians that drafted and steered the 14^th Amendment to ratification intended to correct that, but they wanted more than that. The record cited establishes they wanted to construct privileges and immunities of citizenship known and protected equally for all. Since 1868 many judges and justices in the courts seem to think their personal interpretation will be a good substitute for the confines of positive law.  Barnett and Bernick sound as tired of that as the rest of us.

Our New White House - Coming Soon

It should be obvious to one and all that Trump intends and expects to demolish the entire White House and have his rich looting friends build him whatever he wants. No lawful means exists in this disintegrating country for opponents to prevent it.

The -911,000 and the Washington Post

 

The -911,000 and the Washington Post

On September 9, 2025 the Washington Post posted a headline “U.S. employers added 911,000 fewer jobs than first reported, new BLS data shows.” BLS is the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which reported the number on its website as a preliminary benchmark revision of its CES establishment data.

As BLS makes abundantly clear the data is for one month and one month only: March 2025: “The preliminary benchmark revisions in table 1 are calculated only for March 2025 for the major industry sectors.” Table 1 has the 911,000 breakdown by ten private sector industries and government employment. Further BLS explains “Official establishment survey estimates are not updated based on this preliminary benchmark revision.” In other words, the establishment employment data reported before March 2025 and after March 2025 remain the same, unchanged.  It will be February 2026 before new data will be published.

Nothing can be inferred about month to month changes in employment from this report, but the Washington Post decided to give the White House an opportunity to attack the Biden administration and justify their attack on BLS: “Today, the BLS released the largest downward revision on record proving that President Trump was right: Biden’s economy was a disaster and the BLS is broken.” Fresh crapola from the Washington Post, publisher of Trump propaganda.

The already reported and published BLS data shows the last 12 months of the Biden economy generated just over 2 million jobs while the first 7 months of the Trump economy generated 385 thousand jobs.

Trump, his District of Columbia Invasion, and the U.S. Constitution

 Trump, his District of Columbia Invasion, and the U.S. Constitution

Anyone following the news this August 2025 knows Trump has taken over the police force of the District of Columbia and sent in National Guard troops. He does have authority to do that although no reason exists for it. It is a completely different story for the states. Recall Trump claimed authority to control California National Guard troops and direct them and Federal Troops into Los Angeles without consulting California Governor Gavin Newsom. I have watched or read various media stories that report comments about it, or justifications for it, but I have not found a story that reports those parts of the Constitution that addresses what Trump has done and threatens to do. One of the parts would include Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, which I quote exactly below.

The U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4 – The United States shall guarantee to every state in the union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Also include Article II as relevant. Article II, Section 2 makes the President “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and the militia of the several states if called into service of the United States;” If the United States is threatened with invasion or foreign attack the president is authorized to call out militia forces from some or all of the states to join in the defense of the United States. “Service of the United States” does not include domestic violence or a domestic disturbance separately identified in Article IV, Section 4. Service to the United States does not suggest authorizing the president to “federalize” state National Guard troops and use them in opposition to an elected governor against state residents.

State sovereignty, or states rights, were a major stumbling block to getting our Constitution ratified back in 1787. To get the Constitution ratified by the states the founding fathers had to make concessions to states rights advocates. The states were quite afraid an oppressive federal government would do exactly what Trump is doing, which is use military force to violate their independence and overwhelm them. Some parts of our Constitution are a little vague, but not Article IV, Section 4: the federal government can send troops upon request by state officials and only if they declare there is domestic violence they cannot control.

Article IV, Section 4 did not go far enough to convince states right advocates to ratify the Constitution. To get the constitution ratified it was necessary to include amendments later known as the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment reads: A well- regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The gun rights advocates have quoted just the last half of the Second Amendment for so many decades they have all but made the first part disappear. The Second Amendment ratified as part of our Constitution had nothing to do with the private ownership of firearms. Our actual constitutional right to bear arms comes through the same constitutional right we have to drive a car, drink beer, wear a blue shirt or spit on the sidewalk. These are often known as unenumerated rights. For example, it has not been necessary to enumerate the right to drive a car such as “Driving a car, being necessary for the economy of a free state, the right of the people to drive a car shall not be infringed.” Gun rights are just like all our rights, which means Congress or the state legislatures can regulate them, which gun people work so hard to deny.

The legal case of DC v. Heller from June 26, 2008 vindicates this view. By a 5 to 4 vote the U.S. Supreme Court declared the DC gun regulation as too restrictive and therefore an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion for the court, provided his views. His gun rights were the “rights of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”

Justice John Paul Stevens reviewed the history of the Second Amendment in his DC v. Heller dissent. He wrote “The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States.”

Justice Stevens wrote further “Similarly, the words ‘the people’ in the Second Amendment refer back to the object announced in the Amendment’s preamble. They remind us that it is the collective action of individuals having a duty to serve in the militia that the text directly protects and, perhaps more importantly, that the ultimate purpose of the Amendment was to protect the States’ share of the divided sovereignty created by the Constitution.”

The Second Amendment remains just as it was in 1787. It provides constitutional authority for states to maintain and deploy militia troops in combat against other state militia or federal troops that might invade their state without their express Article IV, Section 4 approval. Our corporate media, the well-to-do and elected officials like Trump have successfully avoided mention of these state rights. For Trump to invade a state with unauthorized military forces brings a confrontation over state sovereignty and the Second Amendment rights for states to have military forces ready to repel them. Trump has authority to deploy the DC National Guard, but our state governors have a right to fight back with military force. Remember our Civil War and how it started; be suspicious Trump would like a repeat?

Sherburn on Cowardice Old and New

 

Sherburn on Cowardice Old and New

Colonel Sherburn – a proud looking man about 55 – and he was a heap and the best dressed man in that town.

Do I know you? I know you clear through. I was born and raised in the South, and I’ve lived in the North; so I know the average all around. The average man’s a coward. In the North he lets anybody walk over him that wants to, and goes home and pray for a humble spirit to bear it. In the South one man, all by himself, has stopped a stage full of men in daytime and robbed the lot. Your newspapers call you a brave people so much that you think you are braver than any other people – where as you’re just as brave and no braver. Why don’t your juries hang murderers? Because their afraid the man’s friends will shoot them in the back, in the dark – and it’s just what they would do.

. . . The average man don’t like trouble and danger. But if only half a man – like Buck Harkness there – shouts ‘Lynch him! Lynch him!’ you’re afraid to back down – afraid to be found out for what you are – cowards – and so you raise a yell, and hang yourself onto that half-a-man’s coattail, and come raging up here, swearing what big things you’re going to do. The pitifulest thing out is a mob; that’s what an army is – a mob; they don’t fight with courage that’s born in them, but from courage that’s borrowed from their mass, and from their officers.

------------From Colonel Sherburn’s slow and scornful speech, Chapter 22, of Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.  

Arthur Schlesinger's Imperial Presidency

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. The Imperial Presidency, (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1973) 0-395-17713-8

Some may doubt the need, or use, to review a book about the powers and duties of U.S, presidents published 52 years ago in 1973. But wait! Allow me to quote from page 418 of this 419 page book. “If the Nixon White House escaped the consequences of its illegal behavior, why would future Presidents and their associates not suppose themselves entitled to do what the Nixon White House had done? . . . We have noted that corruption appears to visit the White House in fifty-year cycles. This suggests that exposure and retribution inoculate the Presidency against its latent criminal impulses for about half a century. Around the year 2023 the American people would be well advised to go on alert and start nailing down everything in sight.”

Arthur Schlesinger passed away in 2007 but not his relevance to Trump. The book has eleven chapters that start with two chapters outlining the 1787 constitutional debate defining the executive power of the president. Narrative for the next five chapters follow a historical chronology of events almost entirely confined to the war making and foreign policy powers in the presidential office. The last three chapters discuss democracy in relation to foreign policy, the uses and abuses of presidential secrecy and a discussion of the future of the presidential office.

The founding fathers did not want the president to have the sole power to declare war. After long debate they adopted the Alexander Hamilton proposals that the Senate will have the sole power of declaring war and the executive will direct the war authorized by Congress. There would be a separation of power: Congress would declare war, the President would be commander and chief. The 1787 debate assures no one considered the president’s role as commander in chief as a source of independent authority.

From the beginning the separation of power generated a history of struggles with the President asserting authority to make foreign policy decisions without consulting Congress, or in direct opposition by it. Except for making treaties and nominating ambassadors with the advice and consent of the Senate, Schlesinger explains the Constitution has nothing else to say about foreign affairs and diplomacy. Nothing written guides recognizing foreign governments, declaring neutrality in international disputes, the status of executive agreements or the gathering or sharing of foreign intelligence.  No sections clarify authority in military emergencies. Many of the contested decisions involve military deployment in disputes that fill chapters 3 through 7 where Schlesinger narrates the Constitutional disputes between Congress and the many Presidents from colonial times to Richard Nixon.

The presidents often got their way in foreign policy by easily exploiting a divided Congress such as John Tyler and James K. Polk with Mexico and Abraham Lincoln with the Civil War. While the Constitution provides Congress with separate powers to restrain a defiant president, these powers tend to be hard to use such as impeachment, veto of a treaty, or refusal to vote funds; consensus can be hard to assemble. Schlesinger narrates many of these episodes like the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson and the battle over Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations after WWI. Separate chapters narrate disputes between Congress and Franklin Roosevelts in WWII, between Congress and President Truman in the Korean War, and between Congress and Presidents Johnson and Nixon in the Vietnam War.

After this thorough historical review, the narrative reaches Chapter 8 where Schlesinger characterizes the Imperial Presidency and then applies these characteristics to Richard Nixon.  He argues Nixon ignored his cabinet and brought an unprecedented exclusion of Congress, the Press, and public opinion from governmental decision making and concentrated power in the White House. Nixon asserted absolute authority over the Vietnam War and foreign policy and then expanded the imperial presidency to take over domestic policy as well.

Schlesinger lived through the Nixon era as an active and informed historian and journalist. In the Imperial Presidency he characterized Nixon as a man with “revolutionary dreams,” a “sense of life as a battlefield” and a president “whose inner mix of vulnerability and ambition impelled him to push the historical logic to its extremity.”

In domestic policy, Nixon, like Trump after him, proposed corporate tax relief, made offers of subsidies, threats of tariffs, and various lucrative deals to reward the politically compliant and punish the unregenerate. Nixon, like Trump after him, used the executive order to alter legislation, or change the authority of boards or agencies to suit his purpose. Nixon expected to shape policy by impounding funds for Congressionally approved projects he did not like. In July 1969 his Administration released a statement they would not enforce Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He appointed an Office of Economic Opportunity director to dismantle the agency that Congress had voted to continue.

Nixon asserted power to revoke legislation such as the Family Practice of Medicine Act passed Congress by overwhelming veto proof majorities December 14, 1970. He declined to return the bill to Congress with his veto within the required 10 days but instead waited eight days and declared a five day holiday recess gave him authority to defeat the bill with a pocket veto. Republican Senator Jacob Javits declared the bill “illegally vetoed” and commented “If the pocket veto clause applies to a five-day adjournment, why should it not also apply to an adjournment of three days, or a weekend, or one day, or overnight.”

Nixon expanded executive privilege to new levels, often rejecting formal requests for documents or requests for administration officials to testify before Congress. He made unprecedented use of executive privilege to thwart investigation into his Watergate misconduct and expected to keep secrets from Congress and the country like bombing South East Asia during and after the Vietnam War.

Chapter 8 ends the narrative as historical chronology. By Chapter 9 readers have studied dozens of examples of presidents doing as they please and Congress unable to use their power to stop him. In the last three chapters Schlesinger wants to know “how a government based on the principle of the separation of powers could be made to work.” These chapters are topical rather than chronological but there are no answers, only more examples of the failure of the separation of powers to hold a president accountable.

Schlesinger’s Imperial Presidency gives readers little reason to believe our Constitution and the separation of powers can maintain democracy. In 1973 Schlesinger thought the Vietnam War proved our Constitution was obsolete and left presidents to exercise unchecked power. By the end of the book Schlesinger doubted the Constitution would be adequate to limit presidential misconduct “if the people themselves had come to an unconscious acceptance of the imperial presidency.” The country survived Nixon, but in 2025 the Nixon connection to Trump should be easy to feel. I find nothing that assures the country will survive Trump. After reading his book I feel certain Arthur Schlesinger would agree.

 

 

 

 

 

Public School Teacher Salaries in Fairfax, Virginia

Public School Teacher Salaries in Fairfax, Virginia

Recently I reviewed the Fairfax County Public School pay schedules for its classroom teachers. Fairfax County has one of the biggest school districts in the country.  The published schedules have pay for steps that have pay for each year of experience in the Fairfax County schools. The pay goes up from step to step to reflect individual seniority.

If a teacher moves up year by year, presumably from a satisfactory performance rating and also gets the cost of living adjustment for the adjusted pay schedules, then a teacher that stays in the system will get pay increases that raise their buying power, a.k.a. real wage. For example, a teacher fresh out of college at step one in 2020 received pay of $50,000. If five years later they were at step five in the 2025 cost adjusted pay scale they would earn $68,145, which provides a 10.7 percent increase in their real wage. That also equals 6.4 percent annual percent increase, more than the inflation rate for the period.

However, the story changes for those that enter teaching in later years or who enter the system with experience in other school systems. As the years have gone by the new pay scales do not keep with inflation. If I compare the step 5 salary in 2020 with the step 5 salary in 2025 for someone coming into the system, their 2020 was $58,492. For someone entering the system as a step 5 in 2025 their salary would be $63,005.  The 2025 salary is a cost adjusted salary drop in the real wage of 12.52 percent over the 2020 salary.

The decline also applies the more years of experience someone brings into the system. Someone at step 20 in 2020 received a salary of $79,469. Someone at step 20 in 2025 would receive a salary of $88,111. To keep up with inflation and keep a stable buying power the salary would need to be $97,856 in 2025. The $88,111 is a 9.96 percent decrease in the real wage for someone entering the system at step 20.

The pay scales are designed to encourage teachers to stay in the system and they will advance over time if they do, but since all new teachers have started at a systematically lower real wage year by year, they are advancing from a continuously lower real wage from the years before. In Fairfax County, Virginia, the public school teachers sink farther and farther down the economic ladder.

Trump’s Tariff Netherworld

Trump’s Tariff Netherworld

Forecasting the amount of economic change caused by a change in tariff rates requires a chain of data. The data would be prices and quantity of sales preferably by the month and over many years. When forecasters predict a change in sales from a price change the price changes typically come in modest or small changes. The percent change in quantity of sales per month is divided by the percent change in price, which economists define as elasticity.  Elasticity mostly varies by a small amount above or below -1. An elasticity of -1.5 would forecast a 1.5 percent decrease in quantity from a one percent increase in price. Applied to Trump’s 25 percent tariff the forecast would be a 37.5 percent decline in quantity. However, an immense change like 25 percent is totally outside the range of data or any experience for more than a 100 years. It is not a legitimate forecast. It could be much more or much less. The only reasonable forecast if tariffs go forward will be a steep decline into depression and more in the United States than elsewhere.

Trump talked and tweeted his way through his first term while others like Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell managed the economy. Corporate America got what it wanted in his first term and had the media promote him daily through Biden’s term, which put him in office for a second term. Corporate officials have made only tepid public comment against Trumps erratic trade war threats. No president at least since the end of reconstruction in 1877 has ever been able to defy corporate America. The recent 90-day tariff suspension suggests some positive influence, so it remains hard to think America’s CEO’s will sit by for him to ruin the economy, but we continue waiting for a more frank response.

Since January 20, 2025 the Trump tariff announcements have come day by day with erratic and often draconian changes in no apparent pattern or detectable plan. They have no resemblance to an economic policy. Always announcements come with his fabricated belief that other countries cheat the United States; beliefs without basis in history or fact. Given he thinks of the United States as an extension of his himself and his ego, his unpredictable paranoia has become a substitute for managing the economy. 

Trump appears increasingly deranged pushing conspiracies while corporate media refuses to call evil by its true name and corporate America refuses to employ its money bags to put a stop to it. Don’t be fooled, their money and determination put him in office and they can put him out. We can only wonder how far the economy and what remains of civil society will descend if they do not.

David Leonhardt, Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream

 

David Leonhardt, Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream, (NY:  Random House, 2023), 395 pages, $32.00

In his new book New York Times journalist David Leonhardt gives readers the origin of the term “American Dream.” It derives from an 1880’s book of history by an author I have never heard of named James Truslow Adams. A lengthy quote from the book, titled The Epic of America, describes the better, richer and happier life future progress will bring to Americans. As you might guess the Leonardt book writes about the disappearing American Dream.

The book has an Introduction, a Part I entitled “The Rise” with four chapters and a Part II entitled “The Fall” with six chapters, followed by a Conclusion of 26 pages. For no obvious reason the Introduction is numbered in roman numerals, ix- xxxiv, which often signals something readers might skip over.  Here though the Introduction should be read as part of the book.

Halfway into the introduction Leonhardt explains “For almost forty years now, the United States has been doing a worse job than any similar country of keeping its citizens healthy and alive.” How true, but he does not blame our failure on capitalism. Instead, he writes “My central argument is that capitalism remains the best system for delivering rising living standards to the greatest number of people – but only a certain type of capitalism.” He fills in this argument by defining three forces he argues generate the rise and fall of Democratic Capitalism as practiced in the United States. He gives brief discussion of Power, Culture, Investment.

The four chapters of Part I, The Rise, offer quite disparate people and events intended to trace the rise of the American Dream. Discussion stays within the 1920’s up to the early 1960’s.  The first chapter gives a sketch of depression era labor history and union organizing using the 1934 Minneapolis Teamsters strike as an example of working-class effort and success.  In chapter two readers meet businessman Paul Hoffman and a selection of other businessmen including automobile executive and Michigan Governor George Romney as examples of people who worked as trustees of the common welfare. Leonhardt contrasts the career and sacrifice of George Romney, the father, with his son Mitt Romney who opted for money making at Bain Capital. Chapter three does much the same for another selection of people that stayed in long run careers. Include here Dwight Eisenhower, computer pioneer Grace Hopper and some discussion of the government’s move to support long term research. Chapter 4 features the efforts of A. Philip Randolph of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and his early struggles for racial equality.

Next, begins the six chapters of Part II, the Fall, that starts with chapter five entitled “The Young Intelligentsia.” Here readers meet C. Wright Mills, Tom Hayden, Betty Friedan, Raph Nader and follow their careers along with a supporting cast of people Leonhardt defines as New Left. He narrates their efforts and successes before shifting to the careers of people he defines as the old left, primarily four labor union leaders of the 1950’s and 1960’s: George Meany, Cesar Chavez, Walter Reuther and Jerry Wurf. Leonhardt takes six pages describing Meany’s failure to expand the labor movement, and while more charitable with the others they too failed to unify the working class.

Chapter Six starts describing a few celebrated crimes of the 1960’s and a plot of crime data that documents the increasing crime rate.  There follows a discussion of the academic and political response to crime.  Here Leonhardt provides the reaction to crime of Spiro Agnew, Richard Nixon, George Wallace and a much longer discussion of Robert Kennedy. Kennedy confronted the crime issue to unite the working class, something Democratic politicians have avoided ever since.

Chapter 7 and 8 develops the evolution of conservative ideology following Richard Nixon’s election. Many are mentioned in this effort in Chapter 7 but it primarily follows the Chicago School and the efforts of Milton Friedman and Robert Bork. Chapter 8 follows with the October 1973 Middle East oil embargo, which Leonhardt treats as the beginning of an era that “Clears the Track for Business.” Here Leonhardt follows the Ronald Reagan era and those in the anti-tax movement and the de-regulators like lobbyist Charls Walker, Congressman Jack Kemp, deregulator Ann Gorsuch and a little more of Robert Bork. The closing pages describe the Democrats response and evaluates the economic success of Republican “Neoliberals.”

Chapter Nine, “This Little Village Called America,” gives the historical background and politics of immigration. Narrative starts with 1924 and moves forward to Edward Kennedy and the 1965 immigration law, then onward to Congresswomen Barbara Jordan and the 1986 amendments and on to Bill Clinton, Bernie Sanders and the present immigration troubles. Chapter Ten, the last chapter before the conclusion, describes the decline in education spending, the rise of health care and income support subsidies and the failure to invest in the future or address inequality of income and wealth.

The designation of the first four chapters as Rise and the last six chapters as Fall feels out-of-place; all ten chapters feel like Fall.  Possibly the editors at Random House wanted something that feels good to include, but I found that quite difficult to find. For example, the Rise chapters included the 1934 Minneapolis Teamsters strike where employers made public calls to organize a “citizen army” of vigilantes to end picketing as a first response. Continuing the strike required a dangerous, deadly and ferocious battle to fight the employer’s organized violence until finally the intervention of Governor Olsen as impartial mediator got employers to the bargaining table. While the strike ended with some wage and labor gains, they amounted to a hiccup; I cannot find a consistent Rise through any periods in America’s labor relations.

Think of the above as a minor criticism to an otherwise well written book of important economic and public policy subjects. The book makes a rough progression through time, where chapter narratives are primarily topical and treat the people and events in the narrative as evidence for drawing conclusions. Leonhardt offers censure across the political spectrum such as “What the New Left tried to do, it often succeeded at doing. Yet, the movement never made much of an attempt to improve pay, benefits, and job conditions of the working class, . . .” How true.

Before narrating the chapter 7-8 Nixon-Reagan era, Leonhardt suggests “By the late 1960’s, millions of American workers had no political home.” How true and a perfect introduction for describing the corporate agenda that leaves the working class with declining real wages and greater inequality by 2025. Be sure to read the immigration chapter carefully, it provides a thorough and excellent discussion of the evolving controversies of immigration law and policy, the best chapter in my opinion.

The Conclusion chapter returns to the American dream and the power, culture, investment forces that he mentioned at the beginning. He writes “If there is a central reason for the decline of the American dream over the past half century, it has been the lack of a strong political movement dedicated to protecting that dream.”  Lack of a strong political movement translates to a failure of the always-divided Democratic Party to be an opposition party and defend the working class.

The need for change and new direction dominates the conclusion narrative: “Think about how different American society might be if there were also strong movements to reduce corporate concentration, raise taxes on the wealthy, lower medical costs, create universal pre-K education and increase middle class pay.” He advises progressives interested in building a movement for change needs to know it “requires making the left less upscale than it now is and more inclusive of people who are not white collar professionals” and he counsels for a reinvigorated labor movement and listening more to the working class. In the last two paragraphs of the book Leonhardt expresses outrage for the past up to the present but hope for the future. After finishing the narrative, I can agree America is not hopeless, but I found precious little hope for a shining future.

 

The Trump Recession Watch

Update December 11, 2026

The government shut down ended shortly after my update below but the economy continues in decline with a combination of eroding job market and tariff generated inflation. Republicans outside the Whitehouse appear to be recognizing Trump's vulgar, dehumanizing racial bigotry and his threat to these groups will not be play will in the voting booth. This Republican worry helps highlight the disconnect between Trump and the party that put him office, as I suggested below.  I hear nothing in the news suggesting he intends to stop or moderate this talk. The bizarre and irrelevant comments keep coming and suggest he will continue his deportation policies without regard to any politics. 

Update November 9, 2025

The economy continues in mordant and mournful decline, but apparently not fast enough for the wrecking crew in the White House, hence the federal "shut down." The evidence continues to pile up that Trump has disconnected from the Trumpers running his administration. He keeps fabricating benefits from his tariffs so we will feel good about him. He is disappointed he didn't get the peace prize! He wants to rebuild the White House in his image and have the new DC football stadium named after him? He worries about his image and seeks fame, praise, eternal recognition as a genius while directing revenge toward objectors. Meanwhile the true White House hate group makes the decisions, and they are the ones that oppose ending the filibuster and want the shutdown to continue. These people are serious about getting rid of health care and SNAP and the social safety net as I suggested on August 19 below. The shutdown will tell the story; the longer it goes the more severe the coming recession. This shutdown could go on and on and on; nobody knows, but ending the shutdown will not stop the relentless attacks on health care and SNAP.

Update August 19, 2025

Trump has disconnected from his Trump administration; Trump's voice is a voice alone. His public pronouncements show someone who believes the economy will prosper and affirm his policy genius. He wants acclaim and prizes; a peace prize? In contrast the people who make the decisions and actually do something in his administration know the economy will flounder with what they are doing. They need a steep recession to get rid of the social safety net and all the things and people they hate. The signs continue to show they are succeeding. 

Update June 9, 2025

The erratic announcements continue with new and higher tariff announcements coming in what feels like an equal number of announcements suspending them. The "Big Beautiful" budget debate has focused on spending cuts, especially in Medicaid, but it should be noted that the budget deficit is money borrowed that will be put back into the spending stream. A recession comes with a slow down in spending but a monster budget deficit puts billions back into the spending stream and brings a high potential for inflation and higher interest rates. Nothing I can find in public discussion suggests any coherent policy or anything remotely responsible. Recession? Inflation? Stagflation? Corporate America has split in two. Half wants to keep the profits flowing and so does not want tariffs, but the other half wants a depression. For them a depression generates an entertaining class warfare as a perk of their wealth and the upper class status. Chaos is still a good forecast. 

Update April 26, 2025

All financial and economic news has correctly predicted recession of severe proportion as we have listened to the belligerent Trump making daily threats and watch the stock market gyrate. I cannot understand how anyone could vote for Trump after the January 6 events; what did anyone think? Suspending the tariffs in random and unpredictable fashion is corporate America reasserting control over economic policy and Trump's unfiltered dribble, but they say nothing in public to challenge his legal or constitutional misconduct. The tariffs must be suspended permanently or the economy will fall into chaotic decline. Social security, Medicare and Medicaid must be sustained or a similar decline will result. 

Update April 6, 2025

I have not tried an update for so long given the bizarre and erratic announcements that appear to express the daily whims of Trump but nothing even approximating a coherent policy. Based on early announcements I thought tariffs would be on a selection of steel, aluminum, automobiles and automobile parts between Canada, Mexico and the United States and with continued tariffs on China. Instead we have a delusionary announcement of draconian tariffs of high and varied tariff(tax) rates for most of the rest of the world. 

Current production and trading worldwide reflects close to fifty years of continuous and successful efforts to lower tariffs. As I stated below economies need a stable flow of transactions to generate stable production, income and employment. If the U.S. actually goes ahead to collect these tariffs a stable economy will become unstable and there is no previous basis to predict how far the economy will fall; it will be a long way down. Since corporate America put Trump in office and owns Congress, we have to wonder what they plan to do with the Trump tariff delusion.

The Trump Recession Watch Update - March 16, 2025

There will be a nasty recession if the tariffs go forward as Trump demands. Jobs are vulnerable to even a modest recession because so many of the jobs that have replaced the lost manufacturing jobs are in vulnerable discretionary industries like leisure and hospitality at restaurants, accommodations, travel, and a variety of optional business services and in retail. In 1990 manufacturing jobs were 13.08 percent of establishment employment. If they were still 13.08 percent instead of 8 percent there would be 20.7 million manufacturing jobs instead of 12.6 million. Jobs will melt away in a recession, which is strictly optional. Where are the oligarchs? They may have gotten to Schumer and convinced him to keep the government operating as they want but we can hope in exchange for some limits to federal cuts. Our rich oligarchs do not want us to know how put off they are with Trump but I have to think they still expect to control him and they do not relish a recession. Time will tell.

The Trump Recession Watch Update - March 6, 2025

Suspending the tariffs for a month is a sign that corporate America remains in charge of the economy and does not want, or expect to benefit from, a recession. Every single thing Trump proposes will set off a recession, or worse, and so it cannot be at all certain recession/depression is not what is intended.

The Trump Recession Watch Update - March 5, 2025

The tariffs alone should be enough to set off a recession. If the federal share of Medicaid is slashed as threatened there will be a grimy and nasty recession. It is impossible to pull that much money out of the spending stream and keep the economy going. Employment will be falling; unemployment rising. We might wonder why corporate America with its reported 12,000 lobbyists would sit by wringing their hands, when it was their money bags that bought the Republicans and Congress. Either corporate America intends what is going on or they are cringing cowards.

The Trump Recession Watch – February 25, 2025

Before predicting a Trump recession, it is useful to remember the George W. Bush recession that began in the fall of 2008 and did not recover until early 2010. Recall it was W’s Crony’s that depressed the economy looting the banking system with speculative gambling in home mortgage innovations. By the third quarter of 2009 the Gross Domestic Product was down $450.1 billion dollars seasonally adjusted at annual rates. For an economy approaching $15 trillion of GDP in 2009 that was only a 3.4 percent decline. However, the quarterly average of seasonally adjusted employment was down 6,692,000 jobs. Jobs just melted away in a 3.4 percent GDP downturn.

Since an economy is nothing but a flow of transactions measured over time, Trump might take a hint from the Bush debacle and avoid depressing the economy. As February 2025 ends Trump has allowed Musk to dismiss probationary federal employees, but news reports put the number losing their jobs at 200,000, significant, but small compared to 6.692 million. So far Trump is all talk but no serious action toward a recession.

However, that could change given the talk of draconian cuts to health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid. The Bureau of Economic Analysis that produces the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) reports in their Table 3.12 an annual Medicaid budget of $878 billion dollars for 2023. Table 3.12 reports a Medicare budget of $1.009 trillion. From the beginning of Trump’s first term to eight years later at the end of Biden’s term health care provided 3.163 million new jobs or 27 percent of all new jobs, more than any other sub sector.

Some of the worthies in Congress have discussed eliminating the $878 billion Medicaid budget, a good way to start a recession. While the amount remains to be negotiated, it is worth remembering the beneficiaries of Medicaid do not receive a dime of that budget. All of the Medicaid budget goes directly to corporate health care venders in what is only the first round of a spending decline. Payroll cuts to doctors and nurses and revenue cuts to medical suppliers bring a second round of decline to the spending stream. The initial cuts reduce production, income and employment by three to four times the initial amount; economists call it a multiplier effect.

Managing the economy requires making sure the flow of transactions remains steady and increases with the growth of population and our productive capacity. That is an important point because recessions in the modern economy are strictly optional and can be readily avoided with cooperation of the Federal Reserve Bank and the United States Treasury.

Back in the 19th and early 20th century recessions were a regular occurrence like the recessions and depressions of 1873-1878, 1881-1884, 1893-1897, 1907, 1913-14, 1920-1921. In those days it was tough to manage the economy without a central bank and corporate America determined to hang onto the gold standard. Once the Great Depression of 1929 got under way the Franklin Roosevelt administration threw out the gold standard and with the Banking Act of 1935 introduced the modern tools of monetary and economic policy.

Today’s monetary management makes recessions optional like the George W. Bush recession where rogues and scoundrels had enough concentrated power to pursue their own agenda. It is easy to notice Trump and Musk have their own agenda and any economic decline will be caused as their option. Trump threatened many depressing economic policies before his inauguration and his policy pronouncements since January 20 have been universally depressing. Corporate America has pursued lower tariffs for at least 60 years because they learned, slowly but surely, that tariffs bring retaliation. A 25% tariff on Canada, our biggest trading partner, will bring retaliation and depress both economies. Mass deportation, as opposed to slowing immigration, will be economically depressing as will draconian cuts in Medicaid and Medicare or in food stamp aid or AID with its food for peace program.

Since corporate America has been the primary force making economic policy in the United States since the 19th century, we might wonder who is in charge here? Corporate America made all economic decisions during Trump’s first term, which is why tariffs remained low and immigrant labor, documented or not, remained cheap and plentiful and the economy did well. Corporate America has been restrained and somewhat subdued so far, but going along with DEI pronouncements, beating up on the federal workforce or taking over the Kennedy Center does not threaten the larger economy.

Corporate America has always expected Presidents to serve corporate power, not the other way around. Since WWII corporate America has preferred a stable economy, but never assume as economists like to do that corporate America can be counted on to just maximize profits. America’s labor history proves a segment of corporate America and the wealthy like class warfare. In 2025, Musk represents the warfare segment of the wealthy who know a depressed economy generates inequality as a perk of the upper class. If Trump wants his second term economy to go as well as his first, he will opt out of recession. The upcoming budget debate will tell the story. Watch the policy fight coming up, but expect corporate America still has the unity to neutralize the budget ax, tariffs, deportations and Musk. Updates!

Trump versus Biden on Jobs

Trump versus Biden on Jobs

To compare jobs in the economy during the Trump years of 2017 to 2021 with the Biden years of 2021 to 2025 requires allowing for the job losses from the Pandemic quarantine, which recall started in the early spring of 2020. In the jobs data for March 2020 establishment employment reached 150.898 million jobs. A month later in April 2020 establishment employment declined to only 130.421 million jobs, a decline of 20.477 million jobs.

Both presidents were in office for 48 months, the usual four year term. In the first 39 pre-Pandemic months of Trump’s first term in office, establishment employment increased by 5.262 million jobs. The Pandemic job decline of April 2020 and slow job recovery restored the Pandemic job losses by February 2022, the thirteenth month into the Biden Administration. While many continued to wear face masks and be wary of spreading Covid, the pharmaceutical industry had a vaccine available and jobs had returned to their pre-Pandemic total and a semblance of normality. This leaves the last 35 months of the Biden administration as a normal and comparable period for review with the first 39 months of the Trump administration.

In the first 13 months of the Biden Administration jobs increased just under 7.960 million to 150.876 million jobs, which restored the remaining Pandemic job losses left from the Trump term. In the last 35 months of the Biden administration beginning with February 2022, national employment increased by 8.660 million jobs. Therefore, the Trump economy that generated 5.262 million new jobs during the 39 months the pre-Pandemic months did not do as well creating jobs as the post Pandemic Biden economy that generated 8.660 million jobs in 35 months.

The Biden administration’s superior performance on jobs resulted primarily from a selection of industries where the Biden economy did much better.

Health Care and Education

Start with health care where Trump created 1.326 million health care jobs in 39 months while the Biden economy created 2.691 million jobs in 35 months. Move to education where the Trump economy created 90 thousand jobs in private education, while the Biden administration created 256 thousand jobs. In state supported public education the Trump economy created 84 thousand jobs while the Biden economy created 192 thousand jobs. In the local public schools the Trump economy created 130 thousand new jobs where the Biden economy created 457 thousand new jobs.

Leisure and Hospitality

Leisure and hospitality did much better during the Biden Administration and in all its sub sectors: performing arts, spectator sports, museums, historical sites, amusements, gambling, recreation, accommodations, restaurants and related food services. The combined changes were 284 thousand more jobs for Trump in 39 months while the Biden economy added 1.527 million jobs in the last 35 months of his administration.

Government

In government employment, excluding education, Biden and the Biden economy created more jobs and did so in all three levels of government: federal, state and local. The first 39 months of the Trump administration brought a combined increase of 313 thousand government jobs, with 80 thousand of those jobs in the federal government, not counting the post office. Under Biden the total increase was 879 thousand.

Trade, Transportation and Utility

Retail trade employment during the first 39 months of the pre-Pandemic Trump economy dropped 440 thousand jobs, but more jobs in the courier and messenger sub sector Trumps pre-Pandemic economy created 216 thousand new jobs. The result undoubtedly reflects the general decline of sales at the cashiers check out in exchange for home delivery of Internet sales. The combined increase of courier and messenger jobs and 366 thousand new jobs supporting home delivery in the warehouse and storage sub sector during the first 39 months of the Trump administration were large but not as large as a recovery of trade jobs, modal transportation and utility employment during the Biden economy. The combined trade, transportation, and utility sector, a.k.a. NAICS 40, had 345 thousand new jobs during the pre-Pandemic Trump years but 465 thousand new jobs during the post Pandemic Biden economy.

In those sub sector industries where remote work is possible Pandemic job losses were small and quick to recover. These were primarily in finance and banking, and the professions such as law, accounting, computing, engineering and various management consulting and research industries. Job gains in these sub sectors were comparable for Trump and Biden as, for example, in management and technical consulting services where there were 164 thousand new jobs during the 39 pre-Pandemic months of the Trump administration, but 142 thousand new jobs during the 35 post-Pandemic months of the Biden administration. The Trump economy did somewhat better in goods production – natural resources, construction manufacturing - in the pre-Pandemic period than the Biden economy in the post-Pandemic period: Trump 1.082 million jobs, Biden 811 thousand jobs.  It should be mentioned that goods production was 21.96 percent of establishment production in 1990 that has declined continuously to 13.58 percent by 2025, a decline of 8.38 percent in a decline that shows no sign of ending.

The superior job performance during the Biden economy came in part because of much higher job growth, but especially in the jobs of the future. New jobs will have to come in health care and education as they have been. Otherwise, replacement jobs for the millions of manufacturing jobs corporate America has moved abroad have been coming in leisure and hospitality and government service and will have to continue given remaining service industries continue to grow so slowly they have a declining share of national employment.

During his first term Trump liked to brag about the new jobs on the Bureau of Labor Statistics monthly jobs report and take credit for creating them. As his second term gets under way, he appears determined to enlarge the unemployed as fast as he can. For the new unemployed among us beware of ventilating politicians and union officials advising obedience to the “law.” Try hard to understand the significance of January 6.

The Vice President’s Job

The Vice President’s Job

Amendment Twelve of our U.S. Constitution defines the Vice Presidential office to be a person waiting to succeed as president, but for one reason: death of the President. We can excuse the founding fathers for wanting someone a heart beat away, as the saying goes, to become president given the primitive state of medicine and the opportunities for death in 1787. Still designating the next president in advance unmistakably resembles monarchy, or royal succession, not democracy. The founding fathers had nothing for their V-P to do, just like a British Prince, and so gave him, and lately her, a vote in the Senate in the event of a tie. As the office remains in 2025, the vice president gets a salary of $250,000 for a job that neither requires, nor allows, work defined in the Constitution.

From 1837 when Vice President Martin Van Buren succeeded Andrew Jackson until 1989 when Vice President George H.W. Bush succeeded Ronald Reagan, no vice president succeeded a president by election. Death, assassination and one resignation have given us six accidental presidents since 1877 that include Chester Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Gerald Ford. These six men, like all ambitious politicians, had to confront the reality that party bosses choose vice presidential candidates to "balance the ticket" as an aide to electing someone else. Once installed as vice president, they typically get assigned some empty task the President defines for them and then get shoved aside. They seldom give sign of independence and refuse to say anything controversial for fear of offending their President and jeopardizing a faint and evanescent hope of presidential office or a political career. Vice Presidents do too much of what they are told: Mike Pence to wit.

The vice-presidential office should be abolished. If we are a democracy we should prefer voting for all our presidents, but we should also make the best of what Amendment Twelve defines.  Our vice presidents have a unique place in American politics precisely because he or she lives a heart beat away and can become the president in an instant. That threat makes them hard to ignore if they do not choose to be ignored. Since they have no boss or defined political power and little or no future as a politician, they can and should get the attention they need to aggressively confront controversial matters suppressed or ignored by corporate America and the politicians they own and control. Democrats take note.

 

The Back to the Office Movement of 2025

The Back to the Office Movement of 2025

The motive for the Back to the Office movement touted by Trump and the Republicans comes to us as a legacy of slavery. Recall slaves worked as farm labor, domestic servants and gradually some of them as craftsmen trained by their owners to exploit as contract labor. Historian Ron Cherno reports George Washington hired out his surplus slaves.

The slaves of 1787 to 1860 made up a significant minority of the population in a country of small farmers, independent tradesmen but minimal manufacturing limited to textiles and some iron smelting. Before 1860 slaves were the working class given the white population primarily earned a living as farmers or self-employed entrepreneurs. Southern plantation owners needed a mass labor force to harvest cotton and tobacco, which concentrated employment among a limited number of wealthy employers. Where the modern corporation hires the working class for wages, the antebellum plantation owner had working class slaves paid-in-kind.

Recall slaves worked and lived under arbitrary rule in a system of forced labor; resistance brought immediate reprisal as physical abuse and corporal punishment from colonial times. These habits of arbitrary rule over slave labor have made it easy for America’s capitalists to expect obedience for the hired help long after slavery ended. It can be no surprise the south provides the greatest resistance to job rights and union organizing. The lingering effect of more than a century of arbitrary rule during slavery make it easy for contemporary capitalists to expect they have arbitrary authority over today’s employment and the right to devise various types of reprisals against working class demands for a measure of respect and the job rights to go with it. Slavery lives in the employer expectations of today.

The Back to the Office movement comes to us as an especially petty example of corporate contempt and class war politics. Recall how Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker had an easy time getting the angry working class to support his attack on school teachers as a lazy and overpaid group deserving wage cuts and union busting. Now we see how  Trump has an easy time getting his angry and contemptuous base to support the hardship and expense back to the office creates for government employees. The politics of contempt.

Since managers and supervisors have had laptop computers and the Internet to pressure employees to be available at home in the evening and on weekends for many years, the suggestion they must be at “work” 9 to 5 on weekdays appears especially idiotic. Commuting imposes financial costs on employees and also the time and energy squandered getting “there” that cannot be defended as good for productivity or profits. Never assume as economists like to do that corporate America wants to maximize profits; divided social classes generate inequality as a perk of the upper class.

America’s corporate autocrats have always known the arbitrary, abusive and demeaning use of authority directed down through a hierarchy to the farm fields, the shop floor, the cashiers check out, or the secretary’s desk brings anger and resistance from some, but fear and hesitation from others. Corporate America promotes these internal divisions when they look the other way and encourage or ignore the abuses of supervisors and managers. The more assertive will fight the abuses, while the timid and cowardly withdrawal or adopt the stance of their authoritarian employers. The historical record of union busting documents the deliberate use of intimidation and verbal deceit for dividing the working class.

Sowing division among the working class through dissension on the job has worked well as a continuous disruptive force in opposition to the working class and their political and economic solidarity. Journalist and author William Allen White wrote of the Republicans of the 1920’s era as “shocked to tears at anything that tore apart the identity of wealth with brains.” Such a view follows from an upper class hope for an acceptable justification for their wealth. Contrast that with today’s wealthy and well placed that delight in showing their contempt for the working class with a political campaign that includes Back to the Office.