OPINION - Brooks and Capehart 4/1/2022

"Brooks and Capehart on Biden’s shifting immigration policy, the Jan. 6 investigation" PBS NewsHour 4/1/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including President Biden's decision to tap the country's strategic petroleum reserve, a return to pre-pandemic border policies and the latest on the Jan. 6 investigation.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  What you were just hearing about, that return to pre-pandemic border policies, President Biden's attempt to reduce pain at the pump, and the January 6 investigation all heating up.

To discuss another busy week, we turn to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.  That is New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post, new position.

Congratulations.

Jonathan Capehart (Washington Post):  Thank you, Judy.  Thank you.

Judy Woodruff:  So good to see both of you.  And there is a lot to talk about.

Let's start, David, with the report that we just heard Amna talking to a reporter about.  And that is the Biden administration rescinding this rule that was handed down under President Trump, the argument being that COVID — we're in a different place with COVID, this is the humane thing to do.  Is it the right thing to do?

David Brooks (New York Times):  Intellectually, yes.

I mean, it was — there seems to be a bipartisan agreement, Republicans and Democrats, saying the reason it was put in place for COVID reasons doesn't pertain anymore.  It's just not — it's not a health matter.  It's become an art of convenience to simplify what goes on at the border.

The question is what plan they have in place.  And we're at a rate now where there are two million encounters at the borders a year.  Like, two million times, U.S. officials are encountering immigrants or people are trying to get in.

And it's just flooding the system.  And there's a lot of skepticism that there's a system in place, if we not get rid of 42, that they will be able to have the hearings, do all the stuff we normally do with asylum seekers.

And so, as we just heard, it's just a gigantic political issue.  And in the bumper, that little quote there, that 21 percent of Americans say immigration is the highest, if you think about the dominant issues right now, inflation is number one, immigration is probably number two.  Probably education and crime are three or four.

These are all nightmare issues for Democrats right now.  And so Republicans put up this long fact sheet.  And I don't want to vouch for its veracity.  It's a partisan fact sheet.  But you see the ads writing themselves, chaos at the border, drugs coming in, record opioid deaths.

Republicans are going to go to town on this one.

Judy Woodruff:  So, Republicans against it, Jonathan.  Even some Democrats are saying they think it's the wrong thing.

Jonathan Capehart:  Right.  And I think the — what it points to is the lack of a comprehensive immigration overhaul.

And this is something that's vexed Republican presidents.  I remember when President George W.  Bush wanted to do something.  It's vexed Democratic presidents.  President Obama wanted to work with Congress.  And Congress gave him the stiff-arm.  And that's what pushed him to do DACA, after saying over and over again that he had no power to do anything about immigration.

This is a political problem for the President, for the White House, for Democrats.  In a normal, functioning Congress, the White House and the House and the Senate would be able to get in the room, get together, and come up with a solution.

But there's no political will on the part of Republicans.  And it's great that they put out what — you called it a fact sheet, but a fact sheet with no policy prescriptions.  A functioning party would say, Mr. President, you're in trouble, the country's in danger.  Here's what — here's our proposal.

I have yet to hear what the Republican proposal is, other than fearmongering.

David Brooks:  Build a wall.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  Oh, yes, there's that.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

David Brooks:  Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

Judy Woodruff:  But we just — yes, we just seem stuck on this issue.

David Brooks:  Yes.

Well, it's a complicated moral problem.  People are coming here not because their lives are great back home.  They're coming here because situations in a lot of Latin American countries are deteriorating.  And some of them are genuinely in horrific circumstances.  And one's heart leaps out to them.

And yet they're coming in such large numbers, it's probably beyond our capacity to absorb all the people who want to come.  And a lot of people are coming for economic opportunity.  I don't blame them.  My ancestors came for economic opportunity.  And they — I wish they would go through the regular means.

But it takes a morally complicated government or a policy or a collective mind to say, we're going to help the people we are capable of helping.  How many people are we capable of helping?  And how do we help them humanely?  And how — for those who can't, how do we say sorry, but how do we do it humanely?

And that kind of moral nuance is not something we have seen a lot of in American policymaking for a while.

Judy Woodruff:  We're not seeing that.

Jonathan Capehart:  No.

And it's made more complicated because the party opposite the President, instead of lending a hand, is hurling brickbats and not being part of the solution.  The only way we get to this nirvana you're talking about, David…

(LAUGHTER)

Jonathan Capehart:  … is if the Republican Party wanted to be a true negotiating partner wanting to get something done.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, another hot issue, I think it's fair to say, that surface this week, and it's something the president announced yesterday, David, and that's that he said, yes, the jobs numbers are looking good.  And we had more proof of that today.

But the administration is still very worried about inflation, very worried about the price of gas.  The president announced he's going to release 180 million barrels from what's called the Strategic Petroleum Reserve just to try to get gas prices down a little bit.

Is this — is this a good move at this moment?

David Brooks:  It's hard to know.

Presidents always do this.  They always release from the reserve, and it never works.  Now, in Biden's — to his credit, this release is way bigger than any other President has done.  And so they're trying to dump stuff on the market.  And they're saying that it may produce a 10, 15, 20 percent gain per gallon at the pump.

And so that would have some effects.  That is far from certain, because when we release from the reserve, the markets think, well, they're releasing now, but they're going to have to put back in the reserve.  And so the markets can think long term and think, well, that's not going to really reduce demand.

Second, we're not the only people producing oil, in this country.  OPEC could say, we want to keep prices up.  If they're releasing, we will just limit our supply for a little while.  And so there are plenty of other actors who have the chance to mess with our plans.

And so I remain, I guess I would say, guardedly skeptical…

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  … that this is going to do — that this is going to do much for the people who are paying 60, 70 bucks to fill up their tank.

Judy Woodruff:  How do you size this up?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, the key thing you said, David, is that markets think long term, but Presidents think in short — well, they try to think long term, but when presidents go to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, this is short-term thinking.

There is short-term pain that the President has to deal with.  And the reports I saw showed that this release would/could lead to 10 cents per gallon, up to 35 cents per gallon for consumers.  When you — when you are a consumer, and you're saving 10 cents, that adds up; 35 cents, that's huge.

And gas prices is — they are the one thing that consumers feel immediately.  And so, if you're a White House looking at tough economic news, and the American people are angry about inflation and everything, if you can give them something where they're saving in the short term, you will go with it.

But David is right.  The market does think long term and think, yes, they're releasing it, but they're going to have to buy it back.  So — but I think administrations always do this, but I think it's the right thing to do for their political calculus right now.

Judy Woodruff:  They're saying it's — excuse me.  They're saying it's for six months.  I looked at the calendar.  That's right about November, David.

David Brooks:  Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  Do you think — do you think this is going to matter in the elections this year?

David Brooks:  Oh, yes.  Oh, absolutely.

Judy Woodruff:  Hello.

David Brooks:  As Jonathan said, you look at the — you drive down the street, you see the gas prices.

And I was out in California, and it's like, whoa.

Jonathan Capehart:  Oh.

David Brooks:  And so it's definitely going to matter.

The — substantively, the better policy, in 2015, Barack Obama and Paul Ryan, the Republican House speaker, did a deal where they increased production, which the Republicans wanted, lightening regulations on producers, but then, in exchange, increased money for green energy, which the Democrats wanted.

And Joe Manchin saying, let's do that all over again.  And that sounds like a good idea.  But it probably won't help Joe Biden between now and November.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.  That's the question.

Do you think it helps Democrats at all between…

Jonathan Capehart:  Which…

Judy Woodruff:  Between now and the midterms.

Jonathan Capehart:  David — what David was just talking about, it's long term.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.

Jonathan Capehart:  So, in the short term, no, it's not going to help them.

But I do think the SPR, that will help.

Judy Woodruff:  The January 6 Committee, two developments this week, David.

One of them, there's this seven-and-a-half-hour gap in the phone records from the White House on January the 6th.  There appears to be a gap.  The committee's still figuring out what that's all about, whether that was deliberate where it was an accident.  We will see.

The other is that the members of the committee — I ended up talking to two of them this week, Adam Schiff and Zoe Lofgren, who are just more openly critical of the Justice Department for not picking this up and running with it and moving towards some kind of prosecution of people like Mark Meadows, the former White House Chief of Staff.

Zoe Lofgren said to me yesterday — what did she say?  What he [Trump] did was completely lawless, she said.

David Brooks:  Yes.

Well, first, on the gap, it sparked a bunch of conspiracies, reminded us all the Watergate, so we could all plug and play on that one.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.

David Brooks:  But is he using a burner phone secretly?

And I think CNN seems to have the most plausible explanation, which is, when — the record-keeping in the Trump administration is not always meticulous, was 'not always meticulous' which I know was a shocker for everybody.  And — but, apparently, when he went into the Oval Office, he didn't use the White House phone system, and then it wasn't recorded.

That could be it.  They were just bad record-keepers.  It is weird that it happened to be at the crucial moment on January 6.  So I assume we will find out here.

To be honest, I trust Merrick Garland.  The political players on Capitol Hill are political players.  And they're going to go maximalist.  They have no incentive to be balanced.  Merrick Garland and the Justice Department have an incentive to be like prosecutors.  And my overall approach to this whole deal, there have been a lot of extremely questionable things that have been done.

But the Trump administration does us a favor by doing most of their questionable things out in the open.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  And I haven't seen much that would make me think that there's some hidden, gigantic scandal, like, there's some phone call somewhere where Donald Trump was saying, storm the Capitol.

If that call exists or that e-mail exists or that tweet exists, then we're in a whole new ball game.  But it's easy for people who want to delegitimize Donald Trump to get excited that they have got something and get a little overpoliticized about it.  So, right now, my trust would be of the Justice Department.

Judy Woodruff:  How do you read all this?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, when it comes to the Attorney General, I think what Chairman Schiff and Congresswoman Lofgren, their upset with him over the contempt charges, I think, are — they're valid.

They have passed out of the House.  They're sitting at DOJ.  And no one knows what's happening with them in terms of prosecution.

Where I agree with David in terms of trust Merrick Garland is on the call from the — from Democrats and folks on the left for the DOJ to investigate Donald Trump.  And I think these are two separate things.  And when it comes to investigating the former President, I — it would be, I was about to say, insane if Merrick Garland telegraphed that this was happening before he had all the I's dotted and the T's crossed.

This has been — there are lots of former prosecutors out on television who keep saying the same thing you're saying.  Trust — they trust — they trust Merrick Garland.  But, at some point, that trust is going to erode.

But, right now, when it comes to the contempt charges, I say, Mr. Attorney General, what are you doing?  But when it comes to the overall issue of, should Donald Trump be investigated, I'm willing — I'm willing to wait, because I want DOJ, I want the attorney general to be as careful as possible, to make his case as bulletproof as possible, if there is one, so that it doesn't make things worse by falling apart.

Judy Woodruff:  Their focus right now seems to be Mark Meadows, but we will see.

Jonathan Capehart:  Yes.

Judy Woodruff:  We will see.

Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, thank you both.

Jonathan Capehart:  Thanks, Judy.

IRAN - Crackdown

"Behind the protests and brutal government crackdown in Iran" PBS NewsHour 11/28/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  For two weeks, thousands of Iranians have taken to the streets in what began as protests denouncing a hike in fuel prices.  But the uprising quickly turned political, with demands that top officials step down, and the government blacking out internet in response.  Meanwhile, Iranian leaders accuse the U.S. of fomenting the unrest.  Special correspondent Reza Sayah joins Amna Nawaz to discuss.

CALIFORNIA - Gas Price Inquiry

"Newsom wants inquiry into gas prices" by John Myers, San Diego Union-Tribune 10/22/2019

NOTE:  This was copied from the e-newspaper, so no link to article.

Governor’s request to Becerra comes after report on cost to drivers

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday asked the state attorney general to investigate whether California’s leading oil and gas suppliers are involved in price-fixing or other unfair practices related to high pump prices.

The request, which Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s office said it would accept, comes amid growing frustration with high prices charged in communities across the state.  The investigation has the potential to trigger the most consequential review of California’s gas prices in years.

“Simply stated, name-brand gas retail outlets in California are charging more for a gallon of gas compared to their unbranded, hypermart competitors,” Newsom wrote in the letter.  “There is no identifiable evidence to justify these premium prices.”

Newsom’s request came on the heels of a report released by the California Energy Commission on the cost of retail gasoline in California.  The document, prepared after the governor asked the agency in April to examine the issue, concluded that the state’s drivers spent $1.5 billion more than those in other states for gasoline in 2018 — even though there was no determinable difference in the gasoline being sold by different retailers.

“The name-brand stations, therefore, are charging higher prices for what appears to be the same product,” wrote commission officials.  “The CEC received no response from the name-brand retailers in response to a request for information to support their product claims.”

In May, state officials concluded that “market manipulation” may explain the mystery surcharge imposed on California drivers.  They promised additional details this month, though Monday’s report leaves a number of questions unanswered.  Those unknowns included why so many residents choose higher-priced fuel instead of cheaper alternatives available in some locations.

“Consumers may be purchasing higher-priced gasoline brands for convenience, credit card acceptance or other reasons,” researchers wrote.  “However, if competitors decide collectively to fix prices, this may be unlawful.”

Severin Borenstein, a professor at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business who has been studying what he calls the “mystery surcharge” on gas sold in California, applauded Newsom’s decision.  “It’s really time to find out the reason,” he said Monday.  “Consumers have spent many billions of dollars over the years.”

Borenstein’s research found that even after accounting for the state’s high gasoline taxes and unique environmental rules that impose stricter refining standards, Californians still paid roughly 40 cents per gallon more by the end of 2018 than did drivers in other states — double what it had been in most years since 2015.

The state’s average price for a gallon of regular gasoline on Monday was $4.14 and San Diego County’s average price was $4.12, according to AAA.  The national average was $2.65 per gallon.

State energy commission officials said in their report that refinery challenges, refining standards and occasional shutdowns or incidents at individual locations do not explain the cost differential.  And the report concluded the most noticeable uptick had been in prices paid at retail gas stations since 2012 operated by companies that include Chevron and Shell.

“These price increases occurred without significant changes in the overall market share of these brands at the retail level,” the report said.

Researchers found Chevron’s retail gasoline sales in California resulted in almost $1.6 billion in revenue in 2018, more than double what those sales generated earned in 2010.  Shell’s total retail sales hit $818 million in 2018, up from $421 million in 2010.

A Chevron spokesman referred questions to an oil industry group.  A request for comment from Shell wasn’t immediately returned.

While energy commission officials wrote they “found no evidence of unlawful activities” by major oil companies, they also acknowledged they lacked the expertise to conduct a more thorough investigation — a shortcoming apparently resolved by Newsom’s request for Becerra to get involved.

“The mystery surcharge adds up, especially for cost-conscious, working families,” the governor wrote in his letter to Becerra.  “If oil companies are engaging in false advertising or price fixing, then legal action should be taken to protect the public.”

Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, said the industry trade group is reviewing the CEC report.  But she said it was important to note California’s fuel taxes and standards, which are more strict than other states, account for the first $1.07 per gallon at the pump.

“Everyone has to have a seat at the table to ensure policies provide adequate, affordable, reliable energy to the communities we serve,” she said.

While California is known for its environmentally conscious fuel standards, the state was the seventh-largest producer of crude oil in the country in March.  The oil industry is a powerful force in California politics, working to halt legislation in the Assembly earlier this year that would have limited new oil and gas production around homes and schools.

But Newsom has expressed a desire to take on the oil industry during his first year in office.  In July, he fired the state’s top oil and gas regulator for doubling the state’s fracking permits this year.

“This is the first time a governor has requested an investigation and prosecution by the attorney general in modern history into the oil industry,” said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, which has criticized the oil industry.  “I think it’s a pretty big step.”

Myers writes for the Los Angeles Times.  The Associated Press contributed to this report.

AUTOS - Response to Low Gas Prices

"How automakers and car buyers are responding to low gas prices" PBS NewsHour 1/12/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Since last year’s Detroit Auto Show, gas prices have dropped by nearly a third.  With the new lower prices, demand has gone up for big new SUVs and sedans, but automakers have also switched gears to develop more fuel-efficient cars.  Gwen Ifill speaks with John Toll of The Wall Street Journal about the tension between the two trends and convincing car buyers to think long-term.

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  One year ago, when automakers held their big show in Detroit, a gallon of gas went for an average of $3.31.  Now, as the auto show gets under way again, it’s dropped by a third, all the way down to $2.13 a gallon.

And that presents some intriguing challenges this year.  On one hand, manufacturers like GM are creating more fuel-efficient cars, like the Volt, a new electric-powered concept car which is designed to get 200 miles from a single charge.

But on the other end of the spectrum, big new SUVs and sedans are rolling off production lines for buyers now less worried about gas prices.

John Toll is the global auto editor for The Wall Street Journal, and he joins me from Detroit.

After all the bright, shiny things at the auto show, John, what are the trends you’re seeing?

JOHN TOLL, The Wall Street Journal:  Well, the trend is definitely back toward big trucks and SUVs, in terms of the conversation right now that we’re having about the immediate environment.

The economy is doing well.  Gas prices, as you mentioned, are down to $2 a gallon or less, and there is a lot of what a lot of automakers think is a natural progression toward the SUV and truck body style in most of America.  So they’re catering to that right now.

At the same time, you have this tension.  While dealers want more and more trucks and SUVs, regulators want more vehicles like the Chevrolet Volt or the Nissan Leaf, or the Tesla Model S, vehicles that can run on electricity or batteries and — or can get significantly better fuel economy.

CAUTION:  Gas prices are NOT going to stay low.

GAS PRICES - Why the Drop?

"What’s behind the sudden drop in US gas prices?" PBS NewsHour 10/18/2014

Excerpt

HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour):  As you no doubt know, gas prices have fallen sharply in recent weeks.  According to AAA, the average price of a gallon of regular was $3.52 in late July.   Now, less three months later, it’s $3.12.

For more, we are joined now by Isaac Arnsdorf.  He is an energy and commodities reporter with Bloomberg News.

So we’ve seen it decline a lot and sometimes there’s a lag between the price of oil and the price of gas.

So are we likely to see the price of gas go lower?

ISAAC ARNSDORF, Bloomberg News:  It could continue to tick down a little bit.  We are seeing oil prices start to stabilize, significantly lower than they were this summer, but it depends sort of where oil goes from now.  If oil continues to its freefall, really, or finds a floor around $80 a barrel.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  And is it likely to last?

I mean, there are so many different factors that are pushing it down.

ISAAC ARNSDORF:  Absolutely.  We’ve got very soft demand globally and expanding supply from the U.S. and really all eyes are on OPEC now to see if they cut back supply or continue to add supply and let prices continue to fall.

ECONOMY - Gas Prices 3/2012

"How Uncertainty, Speculation Factor Into Gas Prices" PBS Newshour 3/13/2012

Excerpt

RAY SUAREZ (Newshour): The U.S. economy gave off new signs of momentum today, from retail sales to the Federal Reserve's latest outlook. They provided reasons for optimism, even as rising gas prices gave cause for concern.

American shoppers are picking up the pace. Retail sales rose more than 1 percent in February, the most in five months. That news followed Friday's report that employers added another 227,000 jobs in February. Consequently, the Federal Reserve said today the economy is expanding moderately.

But the Fed also warned that the spike in gas prices will feed inflation, at least temporarily. In fact, with gasoline up 30 cents a gallon in the past month, President Obama is feeling the political heat. He acknowledged as much yesterday in Washington.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: As long as gas prices are going up, people are going to feel like I'm not doing enough. And I understand that, because people get hurt when they're going to that gas station and seeing those prices rise every day.

COMMENT: Truth, there's little ANY President can do when it comes to prices for anything.

ECONOMY - Gas Prices and Spoiled Americans

"As Gas Prices Rise, White House Goes on Offensive, Defensive" PBS Newshour 2/21/2012

Excerpt

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour): The price of oil on world markets climbed again today, closing above $106 a barrel. That and the rising price of gas at the pump provided political fuel for Republican presidential hopefuls.

Just as the U.S. economy shows signs of strengthening, the price of gas is starting to hit American drivers where it hurts -- again.

MAN: It's crazy. It's expensive. It's going up and up.

WOMAN: It's ridiculous.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The average price for regular reached $3.58 a gallon this week, according to the Energy Department. That's up about 40 cents from a year ago, with most of the increase coming since New Year's.

Geesh.... are we Americans spoiled.

See:

• "Energy Statistics > Gasoline prices (most recent) by country"
  (U.S. 101/141, high-to-low listing)


• "Gas prices around the world" CNN
  
  Excerpt
  

  
  Think you pay a lot for gas? Perhaps you'd prefer to live in Venezuela.

  
  (see table in article)