Mediaboss Marketing

Photo-Illustration: Intelligencer. Photo: Getty Images

Groundhog Day came a bit early, and a bit retro, for Democrats this year. Bill and Hillary peek their heads out, reads the headline of Fridays Politico Playbook. It goes on to report that former president Bill Clinton and former presidential nominee Hillary Clinton have emerged from their hibernation and saw an opportunity to insert themselves back into political life. With President Joe Bidens agenda stalled, the pair hopes to flextheir centrist, dealmaking brand of politics to usher it through Congress and deliver Democrats from midterm disaster. Per Politico:

Bill Clintonhas relished the opportunityto whip on behalf of the White House. In addition to pressing Manchinon the filibuster, Clinton suggested that he should salvage Build Back Better by zeroing in on the few elements the West Virginia senator really wants.

I told Joe, Break it up, pick one or two [pieces] you can swallowand then run on the rest, Clinton recalled of their phone call, a person with knowledge of the conversation told Playbook. The idea is drawing interest among party leadership.

Clinton also spoke with Sinemarecently, according to one of the people familiar with the call, and said afterward, I dont know her, but I like her.

The Clintons have gotten a lot of flak for their efforts to remain relevant despite Hillarys 2016 loss and the reappraisal of Bills conduct in light of the Me Too movement as well as new revelations about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. These efforts are often cringe-inducing, like Hillarys MasterClass on the power of resilience or their new idea to revive the Clinton Global Initiatives annual star-studded confab, as reported in Playbook. But their attempt to rescue Bidens imperiled agenda actually seems fine? Even smart? It puts their connections and influence to good use, and the Democrats filibuster reform and Build Back Better initiatives are in such bad shape that things cant get much worse.

However, there is one small potential drawback that Biden should keep in mind when letting the Big Dog loose to plug his agenda: He can be a little too eager. Clinton memorably demonstrated this in December 2010 when he was invited to join then-President Barack Obama in the White House Briefing Room. It seems the plan was for Clinton to make a quick cameo to plug Obamas tax-cut deal with Republicans. Im going to let him speak very briefly, Obama said after delivering his own stiff remarks for a few minutes.

Instead, Clinton took over the podium and held court for about half an hour, hanging around well after Obama exited to attend a holiday party.First of all, I feel awkward being here, and now youre going to leave me all by myself? Clinton joked, drawing a laugh from Obama. The former president said he still spent about an hour a day trying to study this economy and went on to prove it, pontificating about the deals benefits for about nine minutes before taking his first question from a reporter.

Obama, who had been standing off to the side of the podium with an amused look on his face, took the opportunity to make his exit. Ive been keeping the First Lady waiting for about half an hour, so Im going to take off, he said.

Well, I dont want to make her mad, Clinton joked. Please go.

As he left, Obama said Robert Gibbs, his press secretary, would call last question. It turns out this was a smart move because Clinton kept going, leaning over the podium as he comfortably called on reporters by name. For the next 20 minutes, Clinton fielded about a dozen questions on a variety of topics from Haiti to a new START treaty. One reporter noted that Clinton seemed to be more comfortable giving advice than governing. Oh, I had quite a good time governing, Clinton responded. I am happy to be here, I suppose, when the bullets that are fired are unlikely to hit me, unless theyre just ricocheting.

It doesnt seem Obama, famously less extroverted than his predecessor, minded being upstaged. Two years later, Obama turned to Clinton to help boost his 2012 reelection bid, famously dubbing him his secretary of explaining stuff. Clinton made campaign appearances across the country, helmed fundraisers, and delivered an impressive convention speech; at the time, one top Obama aide described it to New York as the most important moment of the campaign so far.

Biden should remember that deploying Clinton as your unofficial understudy can be quite effective. Hes prepared, hes smooth, and hes usually available. You just have to tell him when to take a bow.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

Read the original here:
The Time Clinton Took Over Obamas White House Podium and Stayed Awhile - New York Magazine

President Joe Biden has grappled for months with soaring inflation under his watch. And as 2022 kicks off, it hasn't fallen as quickly as the administration hoped.

White House officials long contended that the spike in consumer prices would be short-lived as the economy rebounded last year, but it hasn't played out like that. A federal report issued Wednesday showed prices rose a still-elevated 7% in December compared to a year ago, the fastest pace in nearly four decades.

Supply chains are still broken with consumer demand surging for all types of goods like used cars and groceries. The Biden administration is pinning the blame for rising prices on corporations like meat processors for profiting off the pandemic. But many economists, including one that served in the Obama administration, aren't buying it.

"Corporate greed is a bad theory of inflation," Jason Furman, a former top economist for President Barack Obama, said in an interview, adding, "I think almost everything other than the Federal Reserve is a sideshow when it comes to the dynamics of inflation."

Furman noted that demand outstripping supply is a far more important driver of inflation. "The main reason prices go up is companies are trying to make as much as they can, they just can't make enough to satisfy everything that people want," Furman, now a Harvard University professor, said. "When that happens, prices go up. If they didn't go up, we'd have worse shortages right now."

Republicans are hammering Biden for rising prices, which poses a fresh political obstacle as Democratstry to safeguard their narrow Congressional majorities in this year's midterms. A Quinnipiac Poll University poll released Wednesday found that 54% of Americans believe the economy is getting worse.

"This crushing report shows Democrats' spending has pushed Bidenflation to achieve the highest prices in 40 years, killing family budgets and wiping out three years of wage gains," Rep. Kevin Brady, the top Republican on the tax-writing House Ways and Means panel, said in a Wednesday statement after the latest inflation data.

The GOP has blamed the $1.9 trillion stimulus law for stoking inflation. Research from the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco published in October suggested its effects would be modest and brief. Other indicators like a falling unemployment rate and rising wages reflect an economy that's rebounding.

The White House and many Democrats on Capitol Hill have touted the $2 trillion Build Back Better plan as a key measure to hold down everyday costs for Americans, includingestablishing new prescription drug price controls and new childcare subsidies.

But Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia put a dagger into the package last month. Without him, Democrats can't muscle the plan through over unanimous GOP opposition in the 50-50 Senate.

Manchin has signaled he won't revisit his position in the near future and has often cited inflation as a reason to pump the brakes on the social and climate spending bill. "Inflation is a concern for every American, especially in West Virginia," Manchin told Insider on Wednesday. "It's hitting us very hard."

Furman pushed back against Manchin's argument. "I think inflation is a bad reason to not want to pass Build back Better," Furman said. "It's mostly paid for. It's a medium and long-term agenda and would have a negligible impact on inflation."

The rest is here:
Former Obama economist throws cold water on Biden inflation argument - Business Insider

Steph Curry might be the most prolific 3-point shooter in NBA history, but does he have a "prettier" shot than his fellow Splash Brother in Klay Thompson? Former President Barack Obama doesn't believe so, and Curry agreed as he responded to fan questions on GQ's "Actually Me" Youtube series.

"That is an actual fact he said that, and I would also argue that he's right," Curry said. "I would definitely classify Klay's jumper as prettier. There are a lot of different ways to get it done, and if you look at the greatest shooters in history, everybody shoots differently. So you have to master your own form and your own shot."

To say Curry has mastered the art of shooting from behind the 3-point line is putting it incredibly mildly. Steph is on pace to easily lead the NBA in 3-pointers made for the second consecutive year and seventh time in the past decade.

Curry's current career total of 3,018 is the NBA record, and will continue to grow as his decorated career continues.

Thompson's jumper often is described as the ideal form for shooting a 3-pointer, and Klay himself has made some NBA history of his own from behind the arc. Thompson still holds the NBA record with 14 3-pointers in a single game, and also has the best single quarter scoring performance in league history with 37 points.

Even after over two years away from the NBA, Thompson's jumper looks just as it did before his two major lower-body injuries. Klay clearly is brushing off the rust a bit through his first two games, but still has made five of his first 13 attempts from the 3-point line.

President Obama couldn't have gone wrong with either Steph or Klay's jumpers, but it is somewhat surprising to see Curry so willing to assert that his partner in crime has a "prettier" shot than he does.

Download and follow the Dubs Talk Podcast

Continue reading here:
Steph Curry, Barack Obama agree that Klay Thompson has 'prettier' shot - NBC Sports Bay Area

Over the weekend, Jason Furman, a former top economist for President Barack Obama, threw cold water on Sen. Elizabeth Warrens claim that corporate greed is driving inflation.

"Corporate greed is a bad theory of inflation," Furman bluntly told Business Insider in an article published Sunday.

Furman, currently a professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and a Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said the surging inflation in the US economy has a simple explanation.

"I think almost everything other than the Federal Reserve is a sideshow when it comes to the dynamics of inflation," Furman said.

Warren, a populist progressive from Massachusetts, has hit the cable shows in recent weeks to argue that inflationwhich in December saw a year-over-year increase of 7 percent, its biggest leap clip since 1982is the fault of greedy corporations.

Prices at the pump have gone up. Why? Because giant oil companies like @Chevron and @ExxonMobil enjoy doubling their profits, Warren tweeted. This isn't about inflation. This is about price gouging for these guys & we need to call them out.

Warren has used the corporate greed talking point to argue for antitrust legislation, saying businesses like Kroger should be broken up, which would lead to lower prices.

Furman isnt the only Obama economist to point out that Warrens arguments are not grounded in sound economics.

In December, Lawrence Summers, who served as the director of Obamas National Economic Council from January 2009 until November 2010, had harsh words for those claiming antitrust legislation could be used to curb inflation.

The emerging claim that antitrust can combat inflation reflects science denial, Summers tweeted. There are many areas like transitory inflation where serious economists differ. Antitrust as an anti-inflation strategy is not one of them.

Could corporate greed really be behind inflation? Put aside for a moment the economic modeling. Theres an even more obvious reason Warrens suggestion is silly, my colleague Brad Polumbo pointed out.

Senator Warrens attempt to pin the blame for rising gas prices on corporate greed makes little sense. Are companies greedy in the sense that theyre focused on increasing profits? Yes, absolutely, he writes.

He continues:

But it does not in any way explain the current increase in gas prices that is hurting Americans. Chevron and Exxon are no more or less greedy or profit-focused than they were last year. Or the year before that. Or 20 years ago. Theres simply no reason to believe that they suddenly became extra greedy this year, or something.

The true causes of high gas prices are complicated, and ultimately, prices are set by supply and demandnot by the whims of individual companies. (Otherwise, theyd always set them as high as they could. But other suppliers and customer demand keep companies prices in check).

Okay, so if corporate greed is not driving inflation, then what is? Well, Furman is mostly correct when he said almost everything other than the Federal Reserve is a sideshow when it comes to inflation.

After all, an authority no less than Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman noted that inflation is primarily a phenomenon stemming from monetary policy.

Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output, Friedman famously noted.

The reality is, the Federal Reserve has been printing money at an alarming rate. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, by his own admission, said the central bank flooded the system with money. As a result, 35-40 percent of dollars in total circulation have been printed in the last 22 months.

Still, theres another quote often attributed to Friedman that deserves attention.

Inflation is caused by too much money chasing after too few goods, the quote goes.

Money here is part of the equation; the other part is too few goods. While monetary policy is the elephant in the room when it comes to inflation, its also true that policies that discourage or frustrate the production of new goods or the ability to get them to market can also influence prices.

So while the Feds money printer is the primary culprit, lockdownswhich disrupt supply chainsand policies that discourage workers from working (such as ultra-generous unemployment benefits) also presumably played an inflationary role, though to what degree is unclear.

Whatever the case, many Americans unfortunately are experiencing significant inflation for the first time, a phenomenon that tragically falls hardest on the poor. If inflation continues to grow worse, claims that corporate greed are causing it will undoubtedly grow louderwhich could spur calls for even more government action.

But if we want a solution that actually works, its imperative that the true culprit is identified. And in this case, the culprit is the usual one.

I do not think it is an exaggeration to say history is largely a history of inflation, the Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek observed in The Denationalization of Money, and usually inflations engineered by governments for the gain of governments.

Its just as they say: the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Read more from the original source:
(Another) Top Obama Economist Offers Harsh Assessment of Elizabeth Warren's Inflation Theory | Jon Miltimore - Foundation for Economic Education

Voting rights advocates and Democratic lawmakers have been pushing to get voting rights bills passed amidst unanimous opposition from Republicans. GOP Senator Bill Cassidy was pressed on the partys opposition, citing the election victories of former President Barack Obama and vice president Kamala Harris as the reasons.

In an appearance on CNNs State of the Union over the weekend, host Jake Tapper pressed Cassidy on the voting rights bills that are set to be taken up in the evenly divided Senate. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act is one of the bills that are set to be taken up at the upper chamber. The bill would restore the protections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act against discriminatory election laws.

Tapper noted that at the time, the law was passed unanimously in the Senate. The CNN host then proceeded to press Cassidy why the Republicans are against restoring the protections now. Cassidy said that the environment at the time is different from the environment now.

Weve had an African-American elected president of the United States, and an African-American elected to the vice presidency and African-American elected to the Senate in South Carolina. If anyone cant see the circumstances have changed, theyre just not believing their lying eyes, said Cassidy.

The reality is that in Louisiana, we have the highest percentage of African-American officials in the nation, Cassidy continued. Weve had a white mayor of a predominantly Black city and a Black mayor of a predominantly white city. Theres been incredible progress in our country.

Cassidy, however, admitted that more work has to be done, but maintained that the times have changed since 1965.

Republicans in the Senate have blocked debate on the voting rights bills four times through the use of the filibuster. While most Democratic Senators have argued to carve out the filibuster to pass voting rights, two lawmakers from the party Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have staunchly defended keeping the senate tradition.

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer revealed his last-ditch effort to force the Senate to go into a debate on voting rights, temporarily evading the filibuster. In an internal memo to congressional Democrats, Schumers plan involves making several obscure maneuvers that already started Wednesday night last week in the House. The text from an unrelated NASA bill would be replaced with the text from the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

The legislation would then be brought to the Senate as a message that allows Democrats to open a debate on the measure without the need for 60 votes.

View post:
GOP Senator says Barack Obama, Kamala Harris' election victories reason for opposition to voting rights bill - EconoTimes