OPINION - Capehart and Abernathy 2/4/2022

"Capehart and Abernathy on the GOP censuring its members, Fed nominees, rising crime rates" PBS NewsHour 2/4/2022

Correction:  During this segment, we referred to Sarah Bloom Raskin as an economist.  She is an attorney who has long worked on economic policy.  She previously served as a deputy secretary of the Treasury, a former member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and a former financial regulator.

SUMMARY:  Jonathan Capehart and Gary Abernathy, both columnists for The Washington Post, join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including Pence's pushback against Trump, Republican Party’s censuring of two members of Congress, President Biden's nominees to the Federal Reserve Board, and rising crime rates.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And we now turn to the analysis of Capehart and Abernathy.  That is Jonathan Capehart and Gary Abernathy, both columnists for The Washington Post.  David Brooks is away.

It's very good to see both of you on this Friday.

Jonathan, I want to start with some news that former Vice President Pence made today.  He made a speech.  A lot of people were watching to see what he would say.  And he — what caught our attention is, he said President Trump is wrong to say that he could have overturned the results of the 2020 election.  He said it's time to turn — turn to the future.

What does this say about the state of the Republican Party, when you also have, what, the Republican National Committee today censuring Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, the only Republicans working on the January 6 investigative committee?

Jonathan Capehart, The Washington Post:  Well, Judy, to me, it says that the Republican Party is still undergoing a huge identity crisis.

Former Vice President Mike Pence has been saying what he said today in various forms over the last year with less heat than he did today.  But saying flat out that Donald Trump is wrong, and that he had — and that Vice President — then-Vice President Pence had no ability, no power whatsoever to overturn the will of the American people is the clearest break we have seen between the two.

And it says to me that the former vice president has decided:  Whether I run for president or not, I can't win over Donald Trump.  I can't win over his people.  And so right now the focus is stay in the party and do everything I can to shore up that side of the party.

And it's that side of the party, Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney, both Republican members of Congress, who today were censured by the national party, but that is the fight.  It's the Pences, the Cheneys, the Kinzingers, and I'm sure a whole lot of other unnamed folks vs. Donald Trump and all of those people within the Republican Party who are taking it down a very dangerous road, not just for the party, but for the country.

Judy Woodruff:  Gary Abernathy, an identity crisis, as Jonathan said?

Gary Abernathy, The Washington Post:  I agree with most of what Jonathan said.  I think that that's right.

There's been a lot of talk lately about, what does the Republican Party stand for?  And I wrote a piece last week saying it doesn't really need to figure that out this year, except that it needs to spend 2022 divorcing itself from Donald Trump slowly, but surely.

I think Pence — I have always admired Pence for saying what he's always said.  And he said it again very strongly today.  I think the party's wrong to try to discipline Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.  I just think that's a mistake.

So I think that the party is slowly, but surely trying to — there are more and more people.  I think — I disagree with Jonathan on one thing.  I think Pence does have a chance to peel away some folks.  I mean, people have to give Mike Pence a lot of credit for the role he played in helping elect Donald Trump, in the successes that Trump had as president.

But, yes, there's no doubt the Republican Party is trying to figure out what it is and what it's going to be going forward.  And I think, as time goes by, it will come to the conclusion, painfully for a lot of people, that it can be the party of Trumpism, but not with Trump.

Judy Woodruff:  But just quickly to both of you, so this — Jonathan, this doesn't put an end to questions about what the Republican Party is going to do with Donald Trump?

Jonathan Capehart:  Oh, no.

And the fact that there are still arguments over — within the party over whether — over what to call the January 6 insurrection just goes to show, just in high relief, what this identity crisis is.

You have the Kinzingers, the Cheneys — and the Cheneys in particular who are making it clear that what happened on January 6 was an affront to the Constitution and an affront to American democracy, and that a functioning national party should have no — shouldn't give it any quarter, should not give it any — anyone who subscribes to that any comfort.

And the fact that we are even having this conversation just goes to show how far gone the Republican Party is.

Judy Woodruff:  Gary Abernathy, turning to something else we were watching this past week, a few weeks ago, President Biden nominated three economists to join the Federal Reserve Board, and this at the same time there's so much attention to who he may appoint to the Supreme Court to succeed Stephen — Justice Stephen Breyer.

Of course, the President has said it will be a Black woman.  He did appoint three economists.  We're going to remind you who they are.  Sarah Bloom Raskin is one.  Lisa Cook is another, Philip Jefferson.  Again, they're all economists with a string of credentials to their names.

But Republicans in the Senate, Gary, have gone after all three of them, questioned their qualifications, and especially gone after Lisa Cook and questioned whether she has the credentials to be a member of the Federal Reserve Board.

What does it say about the ability of a President to argue, I want diversity on the Federal Reserve?

Gary Abernathy:  Well, I think it's OK to go question people.

These are high-profile positions.  And it's fine to ask tough questions.  I don't think that necessarily implies or insinuates anything, other than differences, political, ideological differences, that Republicans tend to have with whoever President Biden is going to nominate.

But, Judy, I'd like to see us get back to the place where partisanship is OK when it comes to when you win elections.  When you win elections, you also win the right to do certain things.  You win the right to make appointments to boards and to the courts of people who you want.

And I'd like to see us get back to the day where the opposition party respects that and says, even though that's not who we would appoint, that's not who I would like to see there, I respect the fact that you have won the right to make the appointment of whoever you want.

And I'd like to see us get back to where we don't have to worry, gee, is this a 50/50 Senate when it comes to approving appointments, because you respect the process, you respect the fact that Joe Biden won this election, so he can make the appointments that he wants.

And I'd like to see — when a Republican is President again someday, I'd like to see Democrats say, we know you're going to appoint conservatives to these boards and to the courts, but you know what, you won, we're going to respect that and we're going to vote for that person.

Judy Woodruff:  But, Jonathan, that's not where we are.  We are watching just a lot of criticism of these three nominees and, as we said, especially Lisa Cook.

Jonathan Capehart:  Yes.

Why is it, Judy, that whenever a person of color is nominated to one of these prominent positions, the immediate first question is, are they qualified, or their qualifications are questioned, when that person of color, in particularly Lisa Cook, are overwhelmingly qualified?

It is galling.  And it is ridiculous.  And these questions to start to morph from, are they qualified to serve in these positions to questioning their humanity.

I mean, in Lisa Cook, we're talking about somebody with a BA from Spelman, a BA from Oxford, a Ph. D from the University of California at Berkeley, the Obama White House Council of Economic Advisers.  She's on the Federal Reserve board in Chicago.

I mean, this is someone who is eminently qualified.  And yet, when we're talking about someone's qualifications, it's all focused on her.  And I don't think — it is not coincidental that she is Black.  And it's not coincidental that she's also a Black woman who's being put through this.

And I just have to say, as an American, and certainly as an African American, it pains me to see someone who worked so hard, who's given so much to the people and the institutions she's worked with, but also to her country, to then have to sit before members of the Senate who question who she is, what she's done, and what value she — she brings.

How these folks, anyone who sits before these confirmation hearings, is able to sit through that and not just lose it to defend themselves and defend where they come from and who they are is a testament to why they should be confirmed to the positions that they have been nominated to.

Judy Woodruff:  The last thing I want to turn both of you to, and that is a subject in the news this past week, rising violent crime in the country, especially homicide.

In New York City, Mayor Eric Adams had President Biden come and meet with him and talk to him about what's going on and what to do about it.

Here is just an excerpt of what President Biden had to say when he was in New York City this week.

President Joe Biden:  Mayor Adams, you and I agree.  The answer is not to abandon our streets.  That's not the answer.

The answer is to come together, police and communities building trust and making us all safer.  The answer is not to defund the police.  It is to give you the tools, the training, the funding to be partners, to be protectors, and community needs you.

Judy Woodruff:  How do you see, Gary, the — how this discussion has evolved?

Because, after the death of George Floyd, a lot of conversation about the need for police reform.  Of course, Mayor Adams is coming at it from a different — with a different approach.  Where are we headed on this — on these issues — on this issue?

Gary Abernathy:  

But I also thought it was kind of sad that he had to say it.  I think it's unfortunate when a President — and presidents may rule here when it comes to this, is setting the tone.  And you need to say, you know what?  We support our police departments.  When someone calls 911, we want someone to come.

And the fact that there were members of his party calling a couple of years ago for defunding the police, both in Congress and at the city level, and he has to come out and say — and, to his credit — I mean, to be fair, I have never heard President — President Biden's always said, we don't need to defund the police.

But it's a shame he's in the position he has to do that.  He also talked a lot about gun control.  I don't think guns are the problem.  People using the guns are the problem.  A gun has never gotten up and walked out and killed anyone.

So, gun violence, it's the people who would use guns for violence, Judy.  And we need to look at the root cause of that.  We know we have a drug problem.  I was looking at an article just a little while ago about record number of fentanyl coming across our border.  We need to shut that down.  That leads to gun violence.

So I'm glad President Biden said what he said yesterday.  Again, I think it's unfortunate that he has to be a guy saying, we shouldn't defund the police, because that should be obvious.  Of course, we shouldn't defund police.

Judy Woodruff:  Jonathan, just — I know it's a big subject.  Just 30 seconds left to talk about how this debate has shifted.

Jonathan Capehart:  It shifted in that, one, on defunding the police, no one serious out there wants to defund the police.

I think what President Biden and certainly Mayor Eric Adams are trying to do, they are trying to walk this line of support supporting the police, but also supporting communities who have serious concerns about how the police do their jobs in terms of protecting the community.

I think the two of them want to make the police and the community partners.  And in a lot of places around the country, they are.

But, as we have seen, especially tonight in Minneapolis, with William Brangham's report, there are serious issues.

Judy Woodruff:  It's such a big subject.  And I know we're going to be coming back to it.

Thank you both, Jonathan Capehart, Gary Abernathy.

Jonathan Capehart:  Thanks, Judy.

Judy Woodruff:  Have a good weekend.

Gary Abernathy:  You too.

COMMENT:  Note that 'defunding police' has never been about actually defunding.  It is about reallocating police funds to help with the other issues police departments have to deal with, like (example) training on handling psychiatric people.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 2/2/2018

"Shields and Brooks on the Nunes memo aftermath, Trump’s State of the Union bump" PBS NewsHour 2/2/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the disputed document alleging missteps by the FBI in the Russia investigation, President Trump’s first State of the Union address, and the legacy of outgoing Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  And now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Gentlemen, we’re going to get to that memo, but I first want to ask you about Janet Yellen.  She — we were very privileged to have the only interview she did today that aired, David.

But it’s very interesting to look back at her tenure over the last four years.

DAVID BROOKS, New York Times:  Well, it’s interesting to see a normal person as a public servant, who isn’t, like, screaming some manic red-vs.-blue fight.

And it’s a good reminder.  People have their views.  And she had a more of a liberal view than some of her predecessors.  But being a Fed chairman, like a lot of politics, is about balance, trying to expand growth, expand labor markets, while reducing inflation.

And so it’s a problem.  And you are trying to find the right balance for the moment.  And whatever philosophy you go in, you’re presented with a specific problem and you’re trying to find the right balance.  And you’re not driven by ideology.  You’re driven by data, your best judgment.

And that’s the way a lot of government is.  And even the Supreme Court works that way.  People have red and blue, but they’re also just trying to do the job well.  And that happens a lot in the bureaucracy.  And we get a false view of politics based on what Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi are screaming each other.  But, in reality, there are a lot of people like Janet Yellen.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  She’s getting, Mark, high marks from economists for her record, for what she talked there at the end about employment.

But she said she is worried about productivity.  And I thought she was very candid about the lack of women in her field.

MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist:  I did, Judy.  Let me just establish first at the outset there is no moral parity between Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump.  And David, I think, would like to withdraw that analogy or comparison.

The fact is that Janet Yellen was refreshing.  She brings a candor to it.  She is an economist with a human passion for economic justice.  I mean, she doesn’t talk in abstractions.  And she’s got a hell of a resume as she leaves.

I mean, she really — it’s been impressive.  I think David’s right about her leadership.  And the fact that she was the first woman, certainly, as a pioneer, she’s a pretty strong example for more.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  That, we will see.  I mean, she’s succeed by Jay Powell.  He starts on Monday.

But let’s go back now to our lead story, David.  And that is that memo, that long-awaited memo finally released today by the House of Representatives, Republicans in the House.

We see it.  What do we make of it?  Is it the blockbuster we thought it would be?

DAVID BROOKS:  No.  It’s like a mini, mini little buster, whatever you call a mini-buster.

You know, it’s not great that the FBI apparently didn’t tell the courts that — where their information came from, that it came from the Steele dossier and that was funded by the Democrats.  You would like to think, as a part of a normal process, they would say, we have this information, this is how we got it.  That seems like the way the system should work.

But as something that’s going to derail the investigation or as something that makes the FBI look particularly bad, it really doesn’t.

To me, the main effect is, it undercuts one of the main Trump narratives.  And the main Trump narrative has been that this got started because some mixture of FBI partisans, Obama-Clinton people had this Steele dossier, and that launched this investigation.

But what we learned in the last paragraph of this memo is the investigation got launched, nothing to do with the Steele dossier.  It had to do with this conversation this guy George Papadopoulos had with an Australian diplomat in London at a wine bar.

And he blabbed, oh, the Russians have this stuff on Hillary Clinton.  When the stuff started coming out, as my newspaper reported about a month, the Australians said — went to the Americans and said, hey, what’s going on here?  And that was the beginning.  And so that undermines the main narrative that this whole investigation is premised on some Democratic partisan work.  It’s not true.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  If that’s the case, Mark, what did the Republicans accomplish by getting this out there?

MARK SHIELDS:  Well, they have destroyed one of the last islands of non-strident partisanship in Washington, which had been the gang of eight.

The gang of eight, Judy, are the four leaders of the Congress, two of each party, and the four ranking member and chairs of the Intelligence Committees.  That has been over — historically, a rather remarkable aberration from the strident partisanship that has possessed our city, sadly.

And that’s now destroyed.  I mean, the idea that this could not have been done in regular order, there were doubts about how the FBI and their sources, whether — they didn’t question the substance.  Now they’re going back to the source, you know, on Steele, which really is sort of a reach.

We learned today that Devin Nunes, the author — and I put that in quotes — of this memo, because there are strong suggestions that it was not — he wasn’t unaided in this effort, that there may have been collusion with those other places in government, that it’s — actually never even read the basic material.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  He apparently said that in an interview.

MARK SHIELDS:  At FOX News.  He subcontracted that to Trey Gowdy, a colleague in the House.

So, I just think it’s — I think it does nothing but damage.  And let’s be very blunt.  What it reveals more than anything else is that this President will do anything, and leave any wreck in his wake, to avoid and to somehow stop what is an authorized investigation by his administration of Russian influence in the last election.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  You agree with that?

DAVID BROOKS:  Yes, Well, I mean, the two acts of Nunes’ complete malpractice is not reading the underlying material.

I mean, he can let Trey Gowdy read it, but they can make two copies.  You can — two people can read something.

And it seems to me, if this is the main thing your job is, like, spend a couple of days, read the stuff.

Second, not inviting the FBI in for the — to actually ask them questions.  This is, like, not complicated statecraft.  It seems to me the basic you would do if you were trying to do something fair.

But the premise has been, I think for him and for Trump himself, that there are no fair players here, there’s no process to be respected here, there’s no constitutional order that we live within.  It’s just they’re out to get me, and I’m out to get them.

And Trump has made that just his M.O. for the last — since this whole thing is going on.  I remain a skeptic that there’s a lot of big scandal underlying here, but it’s certainly Trump — Donald Trump is acting as if there is.

And every single real problem he’s created, he’s created for himself.

AMERICAN ECONOMY - Wall Street Sell-Off

"What does Friday’s sweeping sell-off mean for Wall Street?" PBS NewsHour 2/2/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Stocks plunged on Friday over fears that the Federal Reserve will accelerate interest rate hikes.  The sell-off was driven by news that the economy added a net of 200,000 jobs in January, with wages rising at the fastest pace in more than eight years.  Judy Woodruff gets analysis from Liz Ann Sonders, chief investment strategist of Charles Schwab.

"Yellen sees long-term growth as she leaves the Federal Reserve, despite bad day for the Dow" PBS NewsHour 2/2/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The job market and the economy are growing stronger and at a healthy pace, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen told PBS NewsHour’s Judy Woodruff [on] Friday as she wrapped up her four-year term on a momentous economic day.

The day started with a solid jobs report showing 200,000 new jobs last month and better wage growth.  But the Dow Jones continued plunging during a brutal week, finishing the day down more than 665 points or about 2.5 percent.  It capped the worst week for the Dow in two years.

But Yellen was focused on the long-term picture, saying that for “almost all groups in the American economy … you’re seeing plentiful jobs and wages beginning to rise at a slightly faster pace.”

In the NewsHour interview, recorded before the stock market closed, Yellen also warned that stock market valuations are elevated beyond their usual historic levels, including the ratio of price to earnings.  Yellen stopped short of characterizing the market’s rise in recent months as a bubble.

Even as the market was dropping, Yellen stressed that the financial system is more resilient now than it was during the financial crisis of 2008.  Still, she said, “investors should be careful and, I would say, diversified in their investments.”

Yellen also struck a sober tone on other trends in the economy.  She said productivity — a key barometer watched by the Fed — has been weaker than hoped.  She also said the pace of new firms being created over the past decade was slower than usual.

TRUMP AGENDA - Making Banking More Risky for Consumers

"Outgoing Fed official sees room for banking rule changes, but fears financial crisis forgetfulness" PBS NewsHour 4/6/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Federal Reserve governor Daniel Tarullo was central to the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act, which imposed tougher regulations on banks in the wake of the financial crisis.  Though his term isn't up until 2022, Tarullo is now stepping down, just as President Trump is expected to scale back much of the regulation put in place.  Tarullo joins economics correspondent Paul Solman for a conversation.

PAUL SOLMAN (NewsHour):  Federal Reserve Governor Daniel Tarullo has been called one of the most powerful U.S. banking regulators since Alexander Hamilton.  Appointed by President Obama in 2009, Tarullo was central to the implementation of the 2010 Dodd-frank Act, which imposed tougher regulations on banks in the wake of the financial crisis.

Under his watch, the Fed has sought to curb banks' reliance on short-term loans and to increase the amount of capital they must keep on hand.  But President Trump is expected to try to scale back much of what was put in place.

On our visit to the Fed last week, Tarullo's wasn't the only empty office we found.  Since Senate Republicans refused to vote on two of President Obama's nominees, there are now three openings on the seven-member board of governors.  That means President Trump will have a chance to put his mark on Fed policy going forward.

Daniel Tarullo, welcome to the program.

DANIEL TARULLO, Federal Reserve Governor:  Good to be with you.

PAUL SOLMAN:  Your appointment's through 2022, right, so why are you leaving now?

DANIEL TARULLO:  Well, you know, eight years is a long time.  I came here, along with other people, with a sense of the need to rebuild the financial regulatory system.

I think we have made a lot of progress towards that end.  And I think there comes a time where everybody individually wants to do something else, and where it's time to let other people try their hand at the job you have been occupying.

PAUL SOLMAN:  Well, in this case, try their hand at dismantling what you in particular have been doing.

DANIEL TARULLO:  Well, I don't really expect that there's going to be a dismantling of some of the major accomplishments that we have had.  And I certainly hope not.  And I don't think it would be something the American people would want to see, Democrats or Republicans, particularly with respect to the additional requirements that we and the other banking agencies have placed on the largest, most systemically important financial institutions, those that almost failed during the crisis.

I think there's a broad-based view that stronger capital requirements and better oversight is something that's needed there indefinitely.