Let me try once more:

Imagine that you are one of two Co-Presidents of a large and complex corporation. You are both very smart and very effective in your different styles. There is jealousy between you. Both of you aspire to lead the corporation. Sometimes you fear and detest each other. Your Co has risen rapidly in recent years, and now seems to be threatening your status. Some subordinates support you, others your colleague, while others straddle the fence, as they fear and feel dependent on both of you.

Sometimes you imagine you can dislodge the other, but she/he’s too strong. Much as you feel negative about your Co-President, you see that she/he contributes greatly and that the corporation is more successful with her/him, than without. You see that you are interdependent in certain ways.

The bottom line is that you are forced to co-exist.

The corporation is the world. The Co-Presidents are the US and China. We cannot dislodge China, already equal to the US in economic power, already deeply engaged in trade and development with many other countries all over the world. 

Regardless of our justified frustrations with human rights, stealing of intellectual property, currency manipulation; regardless of our zeal to promote democracy vs authoritarianism; regardless or our fear of “Communism;” regardless of dozens of other grievances, the reality is that we are both here to stay. No other country comes close to either of us in all the markers of global dominance.

This is terribly frustrating because we disagree on so much. It is painstaking to achieve agreement on critical global issues, such as global warming, climate change, nuclear safety, and other major issues.

Nevertheless, regardless of all this, it is clear that the future of the world for decades to come depends on what each of us does or doesn’t do in terms of global needs and development, in terms of global security and global leadership. If we can find a way to cooperate, the world will be better off. It we do not, the scenarios are potentially devastating, including the possibility of a 3^rd World War.

Many of my friends disagree with my views regarding China, feeling China is most definitely out to get us, out to destroy the US, to create a world dominated by China, to destroy our way of life and everything we hold dear.

I disagree. China only wants the respect it deserves and wants a prominent seat at the global table.

But regardless of whether my friends are right, or I am right, our attitudes and behavior will be determinative in whether one or the other scenario turns out. 

Given the reality or co-dependence, wouldn’t it be better, isn’t it obvious, that some form of managed cooperation between the two superpowers is the right way to go, the only way to go?

What do I know? I’m no expert, but I have been all over China. I have worked there and I have lived there. I have made more than 30 trips. I studied the economic development of China for a year at the University of London. I am a continuous student of China, as I see understanding this country and how it will affect the future of this world as perhaps the most critical determinant of global peace and advancement for generations behind me.

For a more studied examination of all the issues surrounding this major global problem and opportunity, please do refer to this very balanced view in a superb book published just earlier this year, available on Audible also.

Bergsten argues that critical to our sustaining our co-equal status is for us to work on our own house–education, discrimination, violence, polarization, poverty and inequality, and more. I agree.

The United States vs. China, C Fred Bergsten, 2023, a distinguished economist and founder of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and policy adviser to administrations.

I’m choosing to post here the excellent argument provided by the CEO of Beneficial State Bank, where I have the honor to serve as one of the Directors of the Board. I agree with these sentiments.

From Randell Leach, CEO:

Earlier this month, as Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank failed in rapid succession, federal regulators took the extraordinary measure of waiving the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) deposit insurance limit of $250,000 for those two institutions. Citing a “systemic risk exception,” the move protected uninsured depositors–but only at these two banks. Absent a more permanent policy change, many depositors fear that their money won’t be guaranteed unless it’s in a large, “systemically important” bank.

In order to restore confidence in the banking system and stem the dangerous outflow from regional and community banks, Congress must act now to raise the FDIC insurance limit to $10 million. This threshold would provide meaningful protection to small and medium-sized businesses and ensure a solid base of deposits that aren’t susceptible to bank runs.

Two of the primary policy goals of FDIC insurance are to provide confidence and stability in the banking system. Exception-based coverage undermines these objectives. It signals to depositors that they might get some extra protection at a systemically important bank. As a result, larger depositors are moving their balances out of regional and community banks and into the biggest national banks, further consolidating our financial system into the hands of a few institutional giants.

Commercial deposits are a primary funding source for commercial banks. Unless the insurance limit is raised, we could see more commercial banks fail, leading to a permanent reshaping of the banking landscape–one that reduces competitiveness, hinders the ability of small businesses to operate, and restricts the availability of capital. As more deposits are moved up to the largest banks or out of the banking system altogether, regional and community banks will be starved of liquidity, which will cause irreparable harm to the economy.

A robust and diverse banking system is vital to American small businesses and the health of our economy overall. According to the Federal Reserve, “small business loans play a larger role in the portfolios of small banks than they do in the portfolios of large institutions.” During the pandemic, community banks made 60% of all Paycheck Protection Program loans and 72% of the loans to minority-owned businesses. Increasing the deposit insurance level would allow businesses to retain their deposits with regional and community banks, ensuring these banks have the liquidity needed to lend to the small businesses that power our economy.

Making it incumbent on large depositors to move their money if they perceive risk can, in fact, compound that very risk and create a downward spiral of deposit exits, as we have seen this month with SVB and other regional banks. Expanded deposit insurance will allow depositors to have greater confidence in banks and add resiliency to the banking system overall by reducing the volatility of deposits. 

Some are advocating for unlimited deposit insurance, but this has its own pitfalls. Banks are strongest when they have a diversity of funding sources. Concentrating a bank’s liquidity among just a few very large deposits could cause banks to be over-reliant on those accounts. Having a meaningful cap is important for managing deposit concentration risk.

Fortunately, some policymakers have already stated their intentions to consider raising the FDIC insurance limit, which requires a resolution from Congress. While the exact amount may be up for debate, there’s no doubt that this is the right move.

During the 2008 financial crisis, the FDIC deposit insurance limit was raised to $250,000 with the idea that individuals and businesses with deposits above that amount are more sophisticated about investments and their ability to handle risk.

However, we can’t reasonably require small businesses to properly underwrite individual banks and assess systemic-level risk–especially when bankers, investors, and regulators were themselves unable to do so during the last two crises. What’s more, as a commercial deposit limit, $250,000 is almost meaningless, barely covering the operating cash for many small businesses, let alone for a medium business or large corporation.

Federal leaders must act now to bolster confidence in the banking system. This will strengthen regional and community banks and limit the systemic risk of fewer and larger “too big to fail” mega-banks, provide clearer expectations for depositors, and ensure that money is circulating, especially to the small businesses that keep our economy vibrant.

Randell Leach is the CEO of Beneficial State Bank, a state-chartered, federally insured, and for-profit bank whose economic rights are majority-owned by the nonprofit Beneficial State Foundation, which is in turn permanently governed in the public interest. Beneficial State Bank is one of the world’s top Certified B Corporations.

The relationship between the US and China has been tense for some time now, but it doesn’t have to be this way. It’s time for the US to change its approach to China and work towards a more cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship.

Firstly, there is no evidence to suggest that China is interested in war or conflict with the US. This has never been characteristic of China’s long history, and all China wants is respect, a ranking seat at the global table, and continued flexible trade relations. However, there are forces in the US that are determined to make the situation worse for various reasons, which is unnecessary, counter to our own aims and interests, and very dangerous.

We need to ask ourselves why we feel so threatened by the growth and power of China. What’s wrong with sharing the number one spot? Why do we need to impose our human rights beliefs on other countries, including China, when this practice has only led to trouble for us in the past? It’s time for the US to accept that China may well surpass us in most of the considerations determining global leadership and dominance.

Instead of trying to restrain China’s growth, we should welcome them to the global table and work together on issues such as climate change, nuclear proliferation, support to developing countries, and much more. Of course, we should insist on intellectual property protection and other legitimate grievances, but we need to be careful to restrain our rhetoric regarding the “One China” policy and our attitude towards Taiwan.

The US should also work to preserve and enhance free trade as it’s to the mutual benefit of both countries. We should not focus on trying to better or restrain China but rather work collaboratively with them. This will greatly profit and advance our position as the two shared superpowers for decades ahead.

Furthermore, we should stop acting and talking as if communism is some kind of evil or danger to our democracy. It’s time to rein in all the negative views of China which have been promulgated by hawks and others who harbor an unjustified fear of communism or of the Chinese.

Instead, we need to focus on ourselves and our own issues. We should demonstrate that we have the best government and system, protect human rights in our own country, and develop our institutions, educational system, infrastructure, policies, technology, health, and environmental improvements. We need to focus on social needs and work to assure a living wage and opportunity to all Americans. These things will make us the country everyone envies and wants to visit or move to. If we aspire to remain #1 globally, it’s how well we manage our own country which will determine that.

Published piece, Sept 12, 2022

Democrats should ignore their specious arguments and, instead, use this tax initiative as a rallying cry for the upcoming midterm elections

President Joe Biden recently signed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) into law, making it the Democrats’ signature healthcare, climate, and tax reform package. This historic achievement will likely be remembered as one of Biden’s most significant legislative victories. Many aspects of the IRA make it a big win for tax fairness, but by far the most notable is the 15% minimum tax that the bill levies on America’s biggest and most profitable corporations.

Most Americans desperately want to see taxes raised on the wealthy and corporations.

Unfortunately, not everyone in America is celebrating the IRA’s 15% corporate minimum tax as a “win.” Conservative politicians and high-profile media pundits have wasted no time in bemoaning its passage. Republican Senator Mike Crapo, a ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, promised that a corporate minimum tax would burden American manufacturingand fall as an “increased tax” on low-income Americans.

Since the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered the corporate tax rate and created new tax loopholes, billion-dollar corporations have been getting away with murder when it comes to paying taxes. In 2020, no fewer than 55 companies—including household names like Nike, FedEx, and Salesforce—paid nothing in corporate income taxes. The 15% corporate minimum tax ends this egregious behavior and finally forces corporations to start paying the taxes they rightfully owe.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The only Americans that will “suffer” under such a tax will be ultra-wealthy C-suite executives and corporate investors—ordinary Americans and American manufacturing will be just fine.

According to an analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), roughly half of the revenue raised from the corporate minimum tax over the next decade will come from companies in the manufacturing industry. Senator Crapo claims this is unfair, as these companies are “already struggling with inflation, supply-chain disruptions, and an impending recession.” But in reality, the new corporate minimum tax will only affect companies that make at least $1 billion in profits and that currently pay significantly less than the current corporate tax rate. These sorts of companies can hardly be considered “struggling.”

Senator Crapo would also have Americans believe that the corporate minimum tax would spell the end to domestic manufacturing. But the facts suggest otherwise. According to a separate analysis from the JCT, about half of the manufacturing companies subject to the tax will be textile, apparel, leather, pharmaceutical, and electronic companies that produce most of their products abroad. Rather than pushing manufacturing abroad, the new corporate minimum tax could actually incentivize more domestic manufacturing as it cracks down on companies that choose to shift profits and operations overseas.

Democrats shouldn’t be scared by Republican pushback; they should sell this new tax to the American people as a serious win. Call me crazy, but I believe that most Americans agree that corporations should be paying taxes in the country where they’re based and sell most of their products. They don’t deserve free rides any more than anyone else in America.

Corporations rely on our publicly funded infrastructure—our streets, highways, roads, and bridges—to move their products around just like the rest of us. They rely on our public schools to educate their workers just like the rest of us. They rely on our publicly funded courts to sue foes just like the rest of us. And for these reasons, it’s time that they finally start paying for it all, just like the rest of us.

The corporate minimum tax, as written in the IRA, is not perfect. It differs in some critical ways from the 15% global minimum tax that over 130 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries agreed upon last year. And it certainly doesn’t go far enough to reverse the trend that is the corporate consolidation of wealth and power in America. But it nonetheless is an important first step in stopping the worst of corporate tax dodging and putting an end to stories of mega-corporations like Nike and FedEx paying nothing in taxes.

Even though the corporate minimum tax is now the law of the land, Republicans like Senator Crapo will not stop their attacks. Democrats should ignore their specious arguments and, instead, use this tax initiative as a rallying cry for the upcoming midterm elections. Most Americans desperately want to see taxes raised on the wealthy and corporations. The corporate minimum tax won’t completely undo the immense inequality in our tax code, but forcing some of the country’s most profitable corporations to pay more taxes is certainly a great start in giving voters what they want.

---

Published by Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org), Sept 12, 2022. Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

DALE WALKER

Dale Walker is a former financial services executive living in San Francisco and is an active member of the Patriotic Millionaires.

We Democrats have a lot of problems!

The polarization between the extremes within our party is a major problem. The issue is not our diversity of opinion, but rather, our failed process to reach agreement. Agreement must be reached sufficiently prior to the election to allow time for proper messaging, campaigning, and media, all of which should present a clear and unified point of view–without the extremes complaining they didn’t get all they wanted. This failure occurs repeatedly by Democrats–inability to reach a consensus. Differences are often aired from our own extremes, and this has the likelihood of drawing off voters, especially independent voters, from trusting the wisdom of the party in terms of the precise legislation which is brought to the floor. Take the examples of Manchin and Sinema in the latest round of negotiations. We can’t be airing our own grievances right up to the ballot box. We claim we want unification? Demonstrate it yourselves, our Democratic representatives!

It’s one thing to stand on principal, but at the end, the alternative is loss of the legislation, and/or living with the Republican proposal, likely far worse.

Joe Biden. He’s a great President, especially for these times. bi-partisan, centrist, politically experienced, honorable, with high integrity. However, he’s also a burden to the Democratic Party. He’s old, sometimes stumbles verbally. He’s unpopular because he’s up against a high level of inflation, partly inflicted by his own legislation, and exacerbated by global issues beyond any President’s control. Let’s face it, even we Democrats yearn for a younger John Kennedy type who could rally people equally with Trump–or better.

Messaging is another problem for Democrats. Take the border. Yes, we are allowing more people to cross the border, seeking asylum. Republicans focus totally on the illegality, the dangers of crime, etc. We Democrats should be messaging the plight of specific families. We should be messaging the need for immigrant workers. We should be illustrating why and how we can accommodate more immigrants. We should be making specific proposals for streamlining our legal immigration process. We should be preaching Christian charity to Republicans, who claim to be highly religious. We should be arguing that Republicans just don’t care about the needs of our factories and farmers, and about the desperate needs of our black and brown immigrants, vast majority of whom are obeying all laws, working, paying taxes, and contributing mightily to our great nation. We seem paralyzed by the Republican issue–just whether we have enough control of the border.

And, do we demonstrate what we preach when we have the authority to do so? Take housing policy. In the 18 states in which Democrats control all three seats of government, do we actually manage to create affordable housing? In California, we do not. We are locked in nimby-ism here. Furthermore, we don’t have the most progressive taxing systems in those Democratic controlled states. Some Republican controlled states are more progressive than we are in California or Washington. Third, we allow school funding by districts, resulting in the kids with the greater needs having the least resources. There are other examples.

All this said, how about the Republican Party? Wow, the comparison would astound a cosmic visitor. Mistakes and shortcomings for the “liberal” party of the US pale by comparison to those of the “conservative” party. There was absolutely nothing of significant positive value to the nation contributed by Donald Trump Presidency. There is nothing of value contributed by Trump continuing to wield power over the Republican Party. That is, except for the benefit to the Democratic Party, as voters examine Trump’s weak candidate endorsements in the upcoming midterms, and his mounting legal troubles. Yes, all of this is likely to deny Republicans control of both Houses of Congress in the midterms, now only 60 days away.

So, Democrats need to get-it-together. Lots of mistakes. But Republicans are caught in a suicide pact with Donald Trump

If it comes down to two old guys in 2024, the same two, I’ll take our guy. He’s head and shoulders above and beyond Trump, and even a good case of dementia would not change that ranking.

In President Biden’s historic speech in Poland yesterday, he said Putin cannot remain in power!

 The State Department rushed to assure we are not calling for regime change, Russia being a democracy, albeit one overseen by an autocrat who jails dissidents, and clearly far short of fair elections during the Putin regime. 

That statement wasn’t a “gaffe.” This is what everyone in the free world is thinking. Putin must go. It would be easy to “walk back” more effectively than our State Department did, by the President himself stating today, “What I am saying is this: I am urging the Russian people to exercise their democratic rights and select a better President for their great country.” Then let the Russian people decide how to do that—by protesting, by leaving Russia, or whatever means they find the courage to take. 

The world has listened to diplomats, politicians, newscasters on the ground, and Western military experts. We have gone via media into the front lines with Ukrainian military. We have met displaced families, often separated from husbands and brothers who remain, and we have toured field hospitals filled with wounded children. And with all this, for the first major war the world has been able to watch on TV 24/7, we all have opinions as to the best strategy. 

I have opinions:

The larger question at this time is this: Should the Ukraine compromise to save thousands of lives not yet lost; or should they hold out at all costs, to prevent the risk of a crazed dictator moving on to endanger Europe and the world? That would be an enormous sacrifice on behalf of all the people of Eastern Europe.

This decision is for Volodymyr Zelensky and his Ukrainian leadership, but my own leanings are in hopes that Ukraine hold out to the end, no concessions, not even one square mile of Donbas to be surrendered to Putin. They will certainly retain their territory and their sovereignty. They are winning this war with their sheer determination. They will survive to live again as the independent Ukraine.

Perhaps even more important for Russia and the world, the victory of Ukraine over Russia will yield the end of a tyrant who would otherwise claim victory and possibly survive politically in Russia, using a series of repressive measures against any activists who might criticize the Ukrainian offensive and with his autocratic and corrupt control. In his misguided intent to re-establish the Soviet Union of pre-1989, he is in fact destroying the country he leads. In his action to take advantage of a weakened NATO, he has experienced unintended consequences: He has emboldened and strengthened NATO.

 As President Biden said in Poland yesterday, the Russians are a great people and they are not a people who want to invade and force the subjugation of a sovereign state which clearly does not welcome such.

What should the West do next, what should NATO do, and what should the US do? 

I argued for a no-fly zone in the previous post. I still hold that we should have a no-fly zone, either operated by NATO, or under the aegis of the United Nations, which has provisions for such. What about the risk of triggering World War III or a nuclear war? Given the behavior of Putin, nothing we can withhold prevents that occurring, as it increasingly seems clear Putin is cornered and will go to any extreme to prevent a loss in his “special military operation.” 

What else? We must continue and increase humanitarian aid and military aid. We need to assure the immediate transport of MIGs to Ukraine, where Ukrainian pilots are showing great aerial skill. We should also provide advice to Ukrainian military, as well as intelligence. Neither requires us to have Americans on the ground in Ukraine. And, we need to urge/insist that all global democracies join us in such assistance–not limited to NATO members.

The President has announced willingness to accept 100,000 from Ukraine for temporary asylum. That is totally inadequate and globally embarrassing, considering almost 4 million are seeking asylum, with millions of those already in Poland, a country much smaller than the US, struggling valiantly to welcome, shelter, and feed them. We should take at least 1 million. At least 1 million. We have the capacity. Work it out! Let’s save the debate of why refugees from Ukraine vs those from S America, etc. That’s a longer discussion. This tragedy overrides such delaying debates.

We need to continue tightening sanctions and working to assure they are enforced throughout NATO. We need to sanction every member of the Russian State Duma and Federation Council—a total of 628 members, who vote unanimously in favor or whatever actions Putin proposes—or else. 

There is always more we can find to do. Let’s do it!

Are we seeking regime change? Yes, of course we are! We are urging Russians to seek regime change!

Going back two years, nothing has been going according to plan for me, nor for you. Our plans for health safety, personal freedom, travel, shopping and much more, were upended by Covid.

Vladimir Putin claims his assault on his neighboring country is “going according to plan.” But, Ukrainians have been putting up a fierce fight, far short of the hearty welcome he said he was expecting. And, even his global “friend” China abstained from voting in the UN General Assembly’s condemnation of Russia’s actions against the Ukraine. Abstention from the second most powerful economy and power in the 21 Century sends a powerful message of caution for the Russian autocrat. China didn’t veto.

Now in power for 20 years, in pursuit of a futile dream of reassembling the original pre-1989 Soviet Union, this is looking like anything but “according to plan.” It’s looking like a massive miscalculation, likely to mark the beginning of his autocratic decline.

No matter whether he succeeds in destroying and conquering the Ukraine, his mission appears to portend the likely end of his absolute control of his country and also his influence over other countries. A very heavy toll will be exacted by Western powers, and those won’t end when the fighting ends. His home popularity will certainly wane as his countrymen suffer from the Western response to his autocratic decisions. Money, prices, food, movies, etc. for the common folk. Yachts, villas, foreign bank accounts and travel for oligarchs–and their families.

One is reminded of the later years of Adolph Hitler’s reign of terror. What are the Russian generals and oligarchs really thinking? What are they telling him–only what they think he wants to hear? What are their motives? I assume those motives are fear of reprisal if he succeeds, and hoped continued protection of their finances. They have to know this is not “going according to plan.” They have to know how it went in War Crimes trials for those serving Hitler.

And, for all of us, it’s not going according to plan. We were expecting to start about now to enjoy “normal” lives, due to the decline of Covid viruses. We were hoping to go to the theatre, discard our masks, dine out, and travel to our favored next destinations, which for some might have included Russia or the Ukraine, or neighboring countries. Not going to happen. Instead, we’re going to have to pay more at the pump.

What is the best response for civilized humanity? How to help? What can our wealthy nation do?

1. We could install a no-fly zone immediately, along with allies. If NATO won’t authorize and support, there are provisions in the UN Charter to enable such a decision. Some fear this would trigger a nuclear war, but the President of the Ukraine is asking for that, and he knows the odds. Furthermore, Russians have already risked equivalent destruction by their wanton shelling of two nuclear reactors in the Ukraine. It is time to take action. And, we can send weapons, along with those of our allies–fast!

2. We certainly can fly hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians out of Poland to the US. We are better prepared to host them temporarily, than are the neighboring countries. We have the apparatus for the visa process, learned from evacuating Afghanistan refugees.

3. We can contribute our $ to help the people of the Ukraine. That takes discretion as to what charitable organizations to trust, and worry as to how long it will take for the money to get there. That shouldn’t prevent contributing. Let’s do it!

If we did this, all of these, the hoped for result is that any military action continuing would have to be ground only, and the US would only risk its share of drones, aircraft, and airmen, along with those of allies, closely coordinated. Losses for western allies would be limited. Russia would have to fight a ground war with people who are fighting for their country and their freedom, along with their homes and possessions. Refugees would sleep in warm beds with food for their families while their futures are decided.

And, Vladimir Putin would likely see the beginning of the end of his mismanaged and personally aggrandizing control of a great country, and a chance for it to be great again…

… just not his way.

Lately, Fox News is reveling in the discovery that a huge swath of America doesn’t want to be vaccinated, or doesn’t want to wear masks. So, they’ve worked to turn this into a Democrats vs. Republicans issue, with Republicans respecting individual freedom and Democrats demanding government control citizens. And the more Fox promotes this crime on Americans, the more previously comfortable citizens are persuaded to join the outraged.

This demand for individual rights has migrated, spread like the pandemic, and is now in the classrooms of our schools across America. Just exactly what Republicans don’t want taught is far from unanimously agreed. In fact, it is far from understood at all by most–just that something might be taught that I wouldn’t like. So, let’s march and protest and claim that parents are not being respected, and that somehow, our teachers have suddenly turned into enemies of the children and the parents–these same teachers who only a year or two ago were personal friends in the neighborhood and were teaching the right things. Then, suddenly, something happened to those teachers, or their principals, or the school board. Seems like brainwashing. Oh, yes, it was probably the federal government, and most certainly it was the President who set all this in motion.

And, that’s not the only complaint we have against this President. Another complaint is inflation. He must be responsible, because the buck stops there. All bucks stop there. And, I hear the gas prices might get even worse if Putin invades the Ukraine. And if Putin does, it means the President did something wrong in foreign policy too, that led to this happening. I’m sure Trump wouldn’t let Putin invade the Ukraine. Just don’t tell me Presidents can’t control the economy or inflation, because they should. Don’t tell me it’s about the pandemic and the supply chain. He should fix it. That’s all there is to it.

So, all in all, there has been lots of fodder for Fox News hosts to keep merchandising–Hannity, Pirro, Watters, Carlson, and all. It’s been a field day for them, especially discovering that parents are easily aroused over the very idea of having no say, no importance, in their children being vaccinated, wearing masks, and even what they’re taught. This seems even better than complaining about the border.

But, what if…? What if the pandemic subsides, as it appears to be already? What if it is virtually gone well before November? What if no one is forced to be vaccinated or to wear masks well before the midterms? And, what if The whole hullaballo about what’s taught also gets old, gets largely resolved throughout school districts all over the country?

Worse yet for Fox, what if we see a significant reduction in inflation, a downward trend line because Covid is resolved and truckers go back to work and supply chains free up?

I’m just saying….What will you find to fill your network hours, which seem at least 50% devoted to something other than “news.” Something like a polemic against Democrats and Biden, filled with half-truths or total un-truths. What’s left to promote, if the above loses interest for your viewers?

Hilary Clinton spied on Trump. Could that work? No, guess not. We made that claim for weeks, until it turned out we did not read John Durham’s work carefully. That was a little embarrassing, but, oh well, we’ll just keep say that “maybe” she really did.

Can we just go back to hours of video at the border? By the way, which President across the last 50 years was able to do a really good job about immigration and the border? Which? The answer is none, and certainly not Biden’s predecessor. But let’s not get into that ancient history. Here’s the video from today. Horrible, isn’t it? Rapists, criminals, drug dealers, child predators, all being let in across our Southern border! Yes! If government controls over individual freedom no longer sells, That’s what we’ll sell! That one will never get resolved–by anyone! The border will always be our backup plan, because we know no one can resolve that one.

But we’ll keep looking for anything that doesn’t work perfectly, because the buck always stops with the President, especially if he’s not a Republican President. If a Republican succeeds Biden, well, most of his problems were simply inherited from failed Biden policies.

We’re good.

The pollsters say his future prospects will be determined by Covid and inflation–two factors a President has little influence over. That’s what will determine the mid-terms and the Presidency in 2024.

So, it won’t be about the roaring economy. Leading economists estimate GDP growth for 2021 at 5.7% and 2022 at 4.1%. This compares to Trump era GDP for 2017, 2018, and 2019 of 2.3%, 3%, and 2.2% respectively—far short of the 4%+ Trump promised in his campaign, well below the Biden era GDP.

And it won’t be about the stock market. The S&P is up 25.82% YTD 2021. 

And it won’t be about wages, which have skyrocketed during Biden’s first year. Wages in accommodations and services are up a whopping +18.4%, information services 12.3%, finance and insurance 9.8%, retail trade 8.4%, health care and social assistance 6.3%, construction 5.7%, and on and on. 63% of private sector workers saw at least a 5% increase 2^nd quarter 2021 vs 2nd quarter 2020. Wages under Trump had increased at about a 3% annual rate.

Inflation is estimated by S&P at 5.5% for 2021, 3.9% for 22, 2.7% for 23 and 2.3% for 24. As inflation subsides, the wage increases likely will not—they will sustain. So, workers who are complaining about gas prices will (a) get relief soon in 2022, and (b) should take note of their significant wage increases, which will continue in their paychecks, well beyond inflation subsiding. 

It won’t be about getting out of our longest foreign war, or about preserving world peace during his administration. 

It won’t be about turning a kind eye (vs. a blind one) to those in distress at our border.  

It won’t be about two historic pieces of legislation already enacted—the stimulus to deal with Covid relief and the infrastructure bill promised but not delivered by any previous administration (totaling $2.9 Trillion). These are historic legislative and reformist accomplishments exceeding anything done before, and bringing critical benefits to our people and our economy.

And it won’t be about President Biden’s refusal to blame our problems on government or on foreign countries or immigrants–a ridiculous claim which was believed by many who are not reading or doing any critical thinking.

There are abundant positives in the short time of Biden’s Presidency–some for which he should be credited and others Presidents usually claim, and often get undeserved credit for–such as the economy.

I never expected Joe Biden to be a charismatic President. I knew he was prone to gaffes. He is aging—you can see it in his hair, his face, and his walk. I never expected him to be perfect. Was Trump?

And, I never expected Republicans to do anything other than what they do—criticize every statement and action any Democratic President makes, exaggerate everything to the negative extreme, and claim the Democratic President should have solved problems for which they excused Republican Presidents as “having nothing to do with the President.”

Biden inherited a Covid crisis his predecessor handled poorly. He inherited a foreign war no predecessor had the courage to terminate. No one expected inflation to surge early on his Presidency, not even Jerome Powell. No one expected the Omicron variant to surface in Africa and race around the world.

It seems to this American that the real problems of the Biden Presidency are these: A divided and highly partisan Congress; a national distrust in government and institutions; white supremacy; nationalism; a heightened American pursuit of individualism (at the expense of the collective good); the relentless scheming of the Right to manipulate voting rights to their advantage; and the stream of criticism from the Right, example Fox News, in stoking public discontent and laying blame where it is not deserved.

Seems the likes of Fox have convinced the blue collar guy at the gas pump that he should be angry, that inflation is Joe Biden’s fault. Of course, there is no mention whatsoever of wages on Fox. I know. I watch to see what the ultra-Right is teaching the vulnerable.

I guess facts don’t count, and misinformation abounds.

No matter how 2022 and 2024 turn out, I believe this President will have one of the greatest Presidential legacies–one exceeding that of all the Presidents during my lifetime, with the possible exception of FDR and Lyndon Johnson. He’s achieved far more in one year than Trump did in four!

Already, President Joe Biden has enacted two unprecedented pieces of legislation: The fiscal stimulus of 2020 and the Infrastructure Bill, a combined total of $2.9 Trillion in investment in the Covid impact on Americans and in our universally agreed aged and dangerous infrastructure. Administrations before Biden have been talking infrastructure needs for decades, but no one before has actually done anything. He’ll have a great legacy, even if only this is accomplished before the Congress makes its regular mid term shift to the opposition party.

Now pending is Build Back Better, which I predict will get enacted in 2022, in some form not radically different than already approved by the House of Representatives. This prediction stands, notwithstanding the position held by Senator Manchin.

This bill has the following major elements:

$555B fighting climate change—mostly tax credits for solar installations, plus 330,000 jobs to restore forests and wetlands

$400B for universal pre-k—for all 3 and 4 year olds

$200B for child tax credits—this is not a new benefit, but extends the expiration one more year

$200B for 4 weeks of paid leave—we are one of the few industrialized nations without one

$165B for health care

$150B for in-home health care

$150B for affordable housing–provides assistance to those unable afford our costly rental housing

Liberal views: Critical assistance to our underprivileged, in a country with the weakest social support system among developed countries, and with the highest inequality.

Conservative views: Adds too much to the national debt and will increase inflation.

Manchin view: The priority elements of the program need to be funded for the full 10 years, and not dependent on future Congresses extending them. He may require a smaller bill if Democrats cannot agree on additional funding. That funding would be available by increasing taxes on the wealthy, so the Democrats have work to do among their own Senators and Representatives.

Notably, none of the Conservative pundits criticize the need or value of these programs–just “we can’t afford it.” They criticize adding taxes, and constantly inaccurately complain that the proposed tax increases will be applied to working class folks and small businesses. That’s not true–just attempts to garner American sentiment against–thus making the polls suggest the bill is unpopular. In fact, all of the social service elements of the bill are extremely popular and in great need.

The facts:

First, the Republican history: No Republican President has reduced the national debt during his term. Most recently Donald Trump dramatically increased it by enacting his tax cut which went 80% to the wealthy and was not financed by any savings elsewhere. The debt rose by $7.8 Trillion during Trump’s term. So the Conservative hype about debt concerns is highly hypocritical.

By comparison, the Congressional Budget Office, non-partisan, estimated BBB’s $1.75 Trillion ten year spend will be short only $250 Billion in accompanying sources of funding–primarily from increased taxes on the ultra wealthy and establishing a minimum 15% tax on corporations, many of which have used a variety of legal loopholes to pay nothing, for years.

Is it a perfect bill? No. Is there ever a perfect bill in our highly divided Congress, where each representative is beholden to frequent returns to the ballot box and to the demands of their constituents? No. Trump’s tax cut bill was abysmally imperfect. Larry Summers said, “I think it’s a serious policy error that will make middle class Americans poorer.” And, Manchin is right that it would be ideal to fund all elements for the full 10 years.

A fan of the Biden’s BBB, Summers thinks it should tax the wealthy more and close tax loopholes. Original plans did so, but so called “moderate” Democrats opposed some of these provisions, regrettably. I belong to Patriotic Millionaires which fights for higher taxes on the wealthy of us.

Will this bill lead to inflation? No. Our inflation is largely Covid driven, and when the supply chain and Covid issues are resolved, we will return to reasonable inflation.

Time Magazine on BBB and inflation: “The major ratings agencies Moody’s and Fitch both agree that BBB and the recently enacted infrastructure legislation would not add to inflationary pressures. Also, many leading economists have concluded that BBB would not make the Fed’s task of controlling inflation more difficult and should not stand in the way of enacting the needed investments in BBB, which would expand the economy’s capacity to produce goods and services in the longer term, strengthen economic growth, and ease future inflationary pressures.”

Larry Summers on BBB inflation:  “Because that [BBB} spending is offset by revenue increases and because it includes measures such as child care that will increase the economy’s capacity, Build Back Better will have only a negligible impact on inflation.”

There you have it. Needs adjustments to satisfy Democrats, including Manchin. A critical piece of legislation that needs to get approved. President Biden’s approval ratings notwithstanding, his legacy is written and it looks equivalent to that of Lyndon Johnson (a one term President) and even to FDR. By comparison, Donald Trump was a legislative failure of great proportions.