Getting to a Safe Market Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Cash

By Stephen Macaulay

Although Christmas 2020 is behind us, the current situation vis-à-vis the COVID-relief bill brings Dickens’ classic holiday horror story to mind. While most of us remember that there are the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future, there is also the ghost of Ebenezer Scrooge’s former partner, Jacob Marley. Marley is condemned to wander the earth wearing heavy chains because of his counting house-based greed and ill-will.

Donald Trump claimed that he didn’t want to sign the bill that was many months in the making and passed by both houses of Congress because, he belatedly claimed, the $600 that will go to adults with an adjusted gross annual income, in 2019, of up to $75,000 is too paltry. He wanted, as the Democrats had been working toward before they thought the best was the enemy of the good and negotiated it down, $2,000.

One wonders whether Saturday night during still another vacation at Mar-a-Lago he’d been visited by Jacob Marley. Or whether he wanted his Sharpie signature to be on something more robust. Bigly.

Without going all Scrooge, there is something that isn’t discussed a whole lot in light of the prevailing pandemic situation: the national debt.

If you want to see something that is both inexplicable and scary, go to usdebtclock.org and watch the number roll up at a rate that is probably best viewed on a gaming machine because it has a video card better capable of handling this rate of change.

As I am writing this the U.S. national debt is $27.5-trillion. By the time you read this, it may be higher.

So the question is, what’s a few trillion dollars more?

The first CARES Act was passed March 27, 2020. That was long before, arguably, the pandemic really hit the fan.

Let’s not just put Trump in the corner for his belated action on the demand for the increase in family funding. Congress is more than derelict in its response to the pandemic.

But here’s the thing. If $600 is too little, is $2,000 enough? Would $4,000 be better? How about more?

What is perhaps not recalled is that the CARES Act provided $1,200 per adult whose income was less than $99,000 and $500 per child under 17, or up to $3,400 for a family of four.

As Nic Woods points out, the economy is not going to get back into full swing unless people feel safe in the market. People — well, this is perhaps too broad a brush, because the images of the people filling airports during the holiday indicates that there are plenty who just don’t care or believe the danger — will not feel safe-ish until the pandemic is under control.

Citizens who are following the rules — wearing a mask, social distancing, washing hands frequently — with a Trump-signed check for $2,000 aren’t likely to spend that money at their local small business as they might have, say, last February, because they know what the consequences can be. So they order from Amazon. Which is good for Jeff Bezos, but how about the local economies?

What is really needed is Operation Warp Speed Squared in terms of getting the vaccines into arms so that people can truly be safe and then more likely to go out in the world in a more normal way, as well as testing that doesn’t require idling in a car for a few hours.

Of course, there is nothing normal about current conditions.

Let’s make sure that those who have been blindsided by the pandemic get help, whether they are individuals or owners of a family bakery. Let’s make sure that the first responders as well as those who are on the front lines, from medical personnel to teachers to the people who are working in grocery stores, are given additional support: that woman who is ringing a register at Kroger hour after hour sure as hell didn’t sign up for a job that puts her life at risk. That young guy who is emptying bed pans and pushing people in wheel chairs probably didn’t imagine that his main concern is keeping his parents safe when he gets home from work.

But let’s make sure we are providing money to create the conditions that will make the market safe so the economy can get back on its feet. Vaccinations. Testing. Rinse. Repeat.

That debt clock is still racking up numbers. At some point we’re going to have to pay it down. But unless the virus is controlled, there will be continued strains on people: Do you go to work if your kid is sick? On the health care system: Do we really expect all of those hospital employees to continue to work as hard as they have for the past many months? And there will be continued strains on the economy as a whole.

It isn’t necessarily about spending more. It is about spending better. There is a real cost to all of this. We can’t ignore it.

—–

It’s Official, Again, for Now, as Electoral College Votes

By Todd Lassa

California’s 55 electors formally cast their votes for longtime U.S. senator and former Vice President Joe Biden Monday, putting him over the 271 he needed to become president, and on to a 306-232 victory over incumbent President Trump.

Now, finally Trump will end his challenges against the presidential election outcome, based on unfounded claims of ballot fraud primarily in Democratic-majority urban areas, right?

Not so fast. While electors met in 50 states plus the District of Columbia Monday, a joint session of Congress meets January 6 to count those votes, and hardcore Trump Republicans are still threatening to overturn Electoral College votes, NPR reports.

The latest of Trump’s more than 50 failed court cases came in Wisconsin Monday just one hour before the state’s 10 electors were escorted by police into a statehouse chamber to cast their votes for Biden. The state Supreme Court rejected the incumbent president’s bid challenging four types of ballots in Milwaukee and Dane counties after the first recount there added about 130 votes to Biden’s 0.6% margin.

Monday’s Wisconsin Supreme Court decision was close; 4-3, with one conservative justice joining the court’s three liberals.

Michigan’s presidential electors met in the Lansing statehouse at 2 p.m. Eastern time Monday, in chambers closed because of safety precautions. Prior to the vote, Michigan Republican leaders stripped state Rep. Gary Eisen, R-St. Clair Township, of his committee assignments after he made comments on a local radio station that hinted he was part of a group that planned to undermine or overturn Biden’s 16 Electoral College votes from the state, the Detroit Free Press reports.

And this all comes after the U.S. Supreme Court late last Friday rejected Texas’ Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton’s suit demanding that 20 million ballots from Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin be thrown out. The court’s unsigned ruling prompted sometimes violent demonstrations in several U.S. cities Saturday, including Washington, D.C., where attendees included former national security advisor Michael Flynn, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and members of the right-wing Proud Boys, who have ties to white nationalism.

A group of 126 Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives backed Paxton’s suit to reverse the vote of the four “swing” states Biden won November 3, which left 74 House Republicans who declined to back President Trump’s effort. Or, 73 if you count out retiring Rep. Paul Mitchell, R-Mich., who announced Monday he would leave his party.

Please address comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

A New Hat For America

By Jim McCraw

While it is maddening to know that President-elect Biden couldn’t get a really good start on 2021 between President Trump’s recalcitrance and COVID-19, there will eventually be a Biden administration, and it will be in trouble up to its hips from Day One.

Herewith, a suggestion for Biden/Harris I believe is important, and eminently doable. As Congress fights over both short- and long-term follow-up bills to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES), which ends the day after Christmas, I think it might be time for something as ambitious (though relatively easy, considering the big funding levels already proposed) and quick to do as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), circa 1933. Let’s call the new one the American Reconstruction Corps (ARC).

Lord knows there are plenty of skilled and unskilled people out of work. And there are plenty of American infrastructure projects, largely ignored by the previous administration, that need doing.

Biden is not FDR, and we do not have a modern Robert Moses, the mid-20^th Century “master builder” of New York, Long Island, Rochester and Westchester counties (it’s certainly not Donald J. Trump).

We are not Frank Lloyd Wright, the Ford Motor Company Whiz Kids, nor the first seven astronauts. We are just Americans who recognize a need to get a lot of things done by a mass of people willing to work. There has got to be a way to do this.

With widespread distribution of COVID-19 vaccines likely coming with warmer weather next summer, why couldn’t we dispatch squadrons of out-of-work Americans to do road, tunnel and bridge repairs that have been waiting years for funding and final approvals? And not just men, which is how the original CCC operated. Skilled and unskilled women need work, too. At, say, $20 per hour.

Why not send platoons of the willing into every one of the national parks to do repairs and cleaning?

While the original CCC troops had uniforms, meals and housing, I humbly suggest self-provided work clothing, bring-your-own meals, work near home, and ARC baseball caps in red, white and blue.

There will be periodic need for FEMA supplies and equipment after summer storms, so why not divert some FEMA funding, vehicles and materiel to help Americans fix the things that are already broken?

Yes, men and women working and sweating in close quarters for eight-hour days may be problematic from a health standpoint, but with masks, distancing and frequent washing and spraying, I think it could work. Let’s get some guys from Amazon, Apple, AT&T, Ford, Google and Tesla to volunteer, put them in a room and see if they can figure this out while Biden and Harris get on with the rest of the recovery.

—–

When Will the Whining Stop?

By Stephen Macaulay

In 1997 Frank Costanza brought his holiday to the attention of the world: Festivus. The airing of grievances. And a demonstration of feats of strength.

Festivus occurs on December 23, thereby getting a jump on Christmas.

On December 2, Donald Trump held his own Festivus. But there was no un-decorated pole. Rather, there were the trappings of the Office of the President of the United States.

To be sure, Trump is still the president. But the clock is running on his occupancy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

And he doesn’t like it.

Trump’s airing of grievances took the form of a 46-minute video shot in the Diplomatic Reception Room. Diplomats are supposed to be deft handlers of situations. There was nothing particular deft about his Facebook rant about the “rigged election”

Christopher Krebs was the director of the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency until Trump fired him by tweet (the new diplomatic channel?), because Krebs said that the election was not at all rigged or otherwise unduly influenced by dead Venezuelan politicians or whatever the conspiracy of the day might be.

Right now, William Barr, the attorney general whose actions over the past several months show that he would probably be more than glad to pick up Trump’s dry cleaning and shave his back, is reportedly on the edge of losing his job because he said the Department of Justice has uncovered nothing that would be voter fraud of the magnitude to change the outcome of the election.

The “Seinfeld” show broadcast on December 18, 1997, was and remains funny.

There is nothing amusing about the man who should be representative of all that is good and noble in this great country making it sound as though the United States is some third-world dictatorship.

Please address comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–
An airing of grievances before Festivus.

Georgia and the GOP Need Trump’s Support

By Bryan Williams

During our four years with President Trump, I had a rule of thumb: Pay attention to what he does, not what he says (or tweets).

I would check his twitter feed every once in a while for a laugh, but I would pay close attention to his official actions from the (supposedly) unbiased media reports, or from news broadcasts of his impromptu Q&A time with the media on his way to Marine One.

Since the election last month things have gotten weird. During my time in politics, we knew there was some shenanigans going on, but it was always so difficult to prove, and the local district attorney could not prove any fraud. So, I believe there may have been some election fraud last month in all the battleground states, but even I don’t buy the Trump campaign argument that it’s on the scale of thousands of votes, or part of some strange international conspiracy.

Now the Trump camp is telling Republicans in Georgia to not vote because of the rigged nature of the election as a way to boycott the "corrupt" system down there.

Say what? I'm sorry but if I was registered to vote in Georgia, no one would tell me not to return to the polls. Corrupt or not, fraud or not, you need to show up and vote. Elections are a numbers game. If you don't vote, you will only hurt your candidates, ideals, and party. It's not like a business that will lose profits from a well-organized boycott.

If any Republican in Georgia is reading this, please vote. Do you really want the Democratic Party to control both houses of Congress and the White House? And to President Trump: Use your popularity to rally folks to vote. People love you, and the GOP needs your energy one more time.

—–
Georgia Republican Party needs you to vote.

The Decline in Standards

By Stephen Macaulay

Marco Rubio did not attend an Ivy League school. After graduating from South Miami Senior High School, he went northwest, to Missouri, where he spent a year at Tarkio College, as he received a football scholarship. Then it was back to Florida, Gainesville, where he attended what was then Santa Fe Community College. That was followed by attendance at the University of Florida, where he received a BA in political science in 1993. Then he attended the University of Miami School of Law in 1996.

Using what seems to be the communication tool of choice for Trump wannabes, Twitter, Rubio tweeted out that Joe Biden’s cabinet nominees “went to Ivy League schools, have strong resumes, attend all the right conferences & will be polite & orderly caretakers of America’s decline.”

There’s a lot to break down there. And we’ll give Rubio the benefit of the doubt that he’s not simply annoyed that he didn’t make that league.

But let’s start with the conclusion. That America is in decline. And who has been the president for the past four years? Who has failed to rally the American public to do the right things to stop the coronavirus in the way that a leader who has lost more than a quarter million of his people would? Whose lack of response has led to not only high rates of unemployment right now, but what is likely to get worse as the fall turns to winter. . .and the funding and restrictions against evictions run out?

Oh, and who had control of the Senate?

If America is declining, we can see where it started. And would it have been better to reinforce that decline by re-electing the person who has gotten the proverbial ball rolling?

Are manners now a thing of the past, politeness something that is to be demeaned?

If you are a parent and have a high school student, odds are it would be your fondest dream for them to attend an Ivy League school. You would be so very proud if they can achieve a strong resume. It would be something to brag about if they were able to attend the right conferences. And regardless of all of that, you want them to be polite and orderly.

When people start calling out other people for being smart and good mannered, there is evidently decline.

A decline in standards.

And we can clearly identify when that started: June 16, 2015.

—–

Culture Wars Go to College

By Todd Lassa

A bit like an NCAA football rivalry, the Culture Wars have stumbled onto the battlefield of the college and university alumni of presidential candidates’ staff and cabinet. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., fired an early shot as the former vice president began announcing his choices to staff the White House. Rubio expressed concern about people who received degrees from Ivy League schools, presumably in an effort to appeal to the Trump wing, as one of Trump’s biggest demographic constituencies consisted of non-college educated white males.*

Then the Biden transition team launched a trial balloon, or canary in the Senate coalmine if you will with Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress, nominated to become director of the Office of Management and Budget. Tanden was a longtime confidant of Hillary Clinton tipped to potentially be her chief of staff, background that has drawn some opposition from supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who believe she helped torpedo his 2016 Democratic nomination bid. When Trump won instead, she took to Twitter with the “#Resistance” hashtag. Since Biden announced his intention to nominate her, she has deleted more than 1,000 tweets from over the last four years, according to the New York Post.

Her tweets’ alleged nastiness has drawn the ire of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham and Texas Sen. John Cornyn, both Republicans, though one might presume that as far as Rubio is concerned, she won’t be among the “polite & orderly caretakers” of the nation’s decline.

What’s more, Tanden has a law degree from Yale.

The other intended cabinet are mostly ivy leaguers. They include Ron Klain (chief of staff; Georgetown University and Harvard Law), Janet Yellen (Treasury; Pembroke College of Brown University and Yale), Antony Blinken (State; Harvard and Columbia), John Kerry (special envoy for climate; Yale, though he had “low grades”), Alejandro Mayorkas (Homeland Security; University of California-Berkeley and Loyola Law), Linda Thomas-Greenfield (United Nations ambassador; Louisiana State and University of Wisconsin-Madison, a “public ivy”) and Jake Sullivan (national security advisor; Yale). [Hat tip to Wikipedia and New York magazine’s Intelligencer.]

Biden will be the first non-Ivy grad to take the White House since Ronald Reagan in 1980 and ’84. He attended the University of Delaware and Syracuse University for law. Trump is an Ivy League grad with an economics degree from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Reagan? Eureka College. According to Lou Cannon writing in a piece for the UVA Miller Center (https://millercenter.org/president/reagan/life-before-the-presidency) “He majored in economics but was an indifferent student, graduating with a "C" average in 1932.”

Sounds like Rubio’s kind of guy.

*It should be noted that Rubio (along with Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson) is considered a lead Republican candidate for president in 2024, assuming the party remains centered on its Trump populist wing and that no members of the outgoing president’s family—Don Jr., Eric, Ivanka, and son-in-law Jared Kushner—announce they’re running (which could explain the rumored pre-emptive pardons). To say nothing of Trump himself announcing another run in ’24 (which could also explain the rumored self-pardon).

Please address comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

GM is Dialing it in for the Dollars

By Michelle Naranjo

In 2008, then-President Barack Obama set a goal of 1 million electric vehicles on U.S. roads by 2015, but that goal was hardly met. Fewer than 400,000 EVs had been sold. Plug-in vehicles accounted for less than 1 percent of all vehicle sales, about the same as the number of convertibles sold in the nation annually.

Despite the looming warnings from climate scientists, car buyers were more concerned with range anxiety and the cost to buy an EV.

General Motors joining other automakers to follow more progressive Biden-led goals is admirable, but it is truly nothing short of GM seeing dollars.

The President-elect sees his climate change policy to be an opportunity to create more jobs for millions of Americans. His vision includes investments in infrastructure, the auto industry, transit, the power sector, buildings, housing, and agriculture.

Setting sights on a national standard is the right thing to do. The challenge will be to unite consumers into understanding that it is the right thing to do and holding the automakers accountable.

Case in point, several manufacturers - including GM - have made vehicles for years that, while not plug-ins, were an attempt at bettering emissions, but they absolutely failed in following up with any significant customer education or marketing. Take any PZEV (partial zero-emissions vehicle). Most car buyers aren’t aware of what they are buying. In GM’s case, they had a mild hybrid system in the Buick LaCrosse, for example, but were almost afraid to tell that story to car buyers.

But those car models were not the bread and butter that supports a global company, so there wasn’t much effort from the marketing companies.

Globally, EV sales are on the rise. Chinese EV sales currently total more than every other country in the world, combined. More than 60 percent of vehicle sales in Norway are plug-ins. Numerous countries have set dates to end the sales of traditional internal combustion engines.

“The cost of energy from wind power has dropped by a factor of 10,” energy analyst Ramez Naam said on the Orange and Outrageous podcast, by Former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres. “The cost of electricity from solar power has dropped by a factor of 30.” In an even more dramatic statistic about the future affordability of electric-powered cars, BloombergNEF, estimates the cost of lithium-ion battery packs has dropped 87 percent between 2010 and 2019.

GM can’t afford to not side with Biden.

—–

Business Community Pivots from Trump

By Todd Lassa

General Motors CEO Mary Barra (pictured) has announced that by the end 2025 there will be some 20 electric vehicles available to customers in the U.S. — 40 percent of all products on offer in its showrooms — which will go a long way toward the automaker meeting strict 2026 California fuel economy standards. But Barra waited until Michigan certified its 16 Electoral College votes would go to President-elect Joe Biden, to announce the automaker would separate from President Trump’s three-year plus legal proceedings to end the state’s special waiver allowing its own emissions laws.

The California standard eases the Obama administration’s federal 54.5-mpg average by 2025, to about 51-mpg by 2026, while the Trump administration has sought a 40-mpg standard instead. GM, Toyota Motor and Fiat Chrysler signed on with the administration. Toyota, which built a reputation for low emissions and high fuel efficiency with its Prius hybrids, had said it joined Trump’s legal efforts because it prefers a single federal standard, no matter what the level.

Historically, until now, the standard set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has been tougher than the federal standard. California has had a waiver from the federal government to set its own rules since the late 1960s, and 16 high-population Eastern states long ago signed on. It must be noted that the corporate average fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards, whether 40 mpg or 54.5 mpg, do not literally mean automakers must meet those numbers – there are very complicated formulas for determining each car or truck models’ average.

But with its fleet of zero-emission EVs on the way over the next few years, GM could reasonably have joined Ford Motor Company, BMW, Volvo, Volkswagen Group (which has aggressive plans for a fleet of its own EV models) and Honda (which is partnering with GM on EV projects) when they signed on with California on its 51-mpg average.

Legal efforts to lower the future standard undoubtedly will end with Biden’s inauguration Jan. 20, when the president-elect will add a special envoy for climate to his cabinet. Biden has chosen John Kerry, Obama’s second secretary of state, who helped negotiate the Paris Agreement on climate change (another accomplishment that Trump reversed), for the post.

Trump often attacked Biden as beholden to the Democratic Party’s progressive wing and a commitment to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal.” In the second presidential debate, held in late October, Trump predicted that Biden would lose Pennsylvania’s electoral votes for his commitment to turn the United States into a net-zero producer of climate-warming pollutants by 2035, and to cut total emissions to zero by 2050. For the time being, at least, Biden appears to be carving out a middle road between climate change activists and the fossil fuel industry.

Barra’s announcement Monday coincided with the administrator of the General Services Administration, Emily W. Murphy, acknowledging nearly two weeks after the fact that former Vice President Biden had won the election, which in turn allowed the transition process to commence. It also coincided with the efforts of “160 top American executives” who signed a letter to the Trump asking him to acknowledge Biden’s victory and begin an orderly transition, The New York Times reported Nov. 24. Some of the signatories also threatened to withhold campaign contributions to Sens. Kelly Loefler and David Purdue, two incumbent Republicans seeking re-election in a January runoff in Georgia. If they both lose, the Democrats will gain majority control of the Senate.

It seems fairly clear that the business world has moved on from Trump and his policies.

Please address comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–
PHOTO CREDIT: General Motors

GM Moves on to the Next Administation

By Bryan Williams

The news of General Motors retreating from the Trump Administration’s fight with the California Air Resources Board and joining Ford, BMW, VW, and Honda isn’t a surprise. President Trump was peculiarly involved in the auto industry.

He berated the domestic brands for outsourcing assembly to other countries, especially Mexico. He also fought my home state of California over its stricter-than-federal fuel economy standards. Taking a hardline pro-business stance on the auto industry was supposed to win Trump votes in Michigan in 2020. We know how that turned out.

GM bailing out of Trump’s legal efforts against the California Air Resources Board (CARB), to me is just a business decision to curry favor with the next administration. That Detroit automakers have been based in otherwise deep-blue Michigan, complicit in union inefficiencies for decades, and receptive to government bailouts – three realities that follow the Yellow Brick Road to a preference for the Democratic Party -- is a story for another day.

But what about two sets of fuel economy standards? When President Obama abruptly dictated an astronomical increase in fuel efficiency, I thought there was no way the automakers could meet them by 2025. How do politicians expect a business with such long development time, such as the auto industry, to turn on a dime when platforms and engines are designed for seven- to 10-year product cycles?

There should be one national standard, and it could be the California standard as long as the automakers are given enough time to implement them, without throwing mandates or lawsuits around in an attempt to appease the political base.

The auto industry will be able to meet the California fuel economy standard, which at 51 mpg by 2026 still reflects a bit of a break from the Obama administration’s 54.5 mpg by 2025. But let’s choose one national mandate and stick with it for a while. It would provide the regulatory stability businesses need.

—–

The Democratic Party Will Not Be a United Dinner Party

By Michelle Naranjo

My grandmother would always make Sunday dinner for my extended family, and she always made sure to cook specific dishes for every member of the family. Fried chicken for me, chicken fried steak for my brother, glazed green beans for my mother, and so on. Weekly, she spent hours in the kitchen, making all of these dishes, and in the end, we all ate together.

The Democratic Party, for the most part, appeared to unify behind Joe Biden for president. But in the days following Nov. 3, 2020, the cracks began to show. It would seem that the party was holding a collective breath to keep up appearances before exhaling the deep-seated division that has been grumbling under the seams for years.

While former Democratic presidential candidates Michael Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Andrew Yang threw their weight behind the Biden/Harris ticket, hitting campaign rallies (many of which were on Zoom because of concerns about COVID-19), their supporters mostly followed along. They decided that unification mattered, and a career moderate politician was the direction that the Left needed to go to defeat President Trump.

But there are still echoes of “Me! Me! Me! Pick me!”, resounding among the diverse voters.

During an era when people choose to support by how a candidate’s platform appeals to the individual themselves as a voter -- which insinuates more of an emotional commitment to a candidate than one that is pragmatic for the greater good -- it is no surprise that “true feelings” built up to an almost explosive level post-election.

Add to that equation the Republicans who came into the Biden fold through The Lincoln Project, and the fire gets even more fuel.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of the Squad immediately began to criticize the former Republican operatives that founded The Lincoln Project for collecting funds that supported their anti-Trump state-targeted advertising campaigns instead of funding their own Democratic campaigns. Many of The Lincoln Project supporters -- some of whom do not qualify as Republicans but tend to be voters who don’t vote party lines every election -- fought back that The Squad is anti-Semitic because of their human rights for Palestine stance.

Black allies don’t like Pete Buttigieg because of his hiring record. Progressives complained that there wasn’t enough recognition given to women, Black people, the Latinx, and Native American voters in Biden’s success. Moderates Democrats thought that the “abolish the police” slogan lost support for state and local candidates. And progressive parties like the Working Families Party are beginning to run their own candidates, sometimes as Democrats, and increasingly under their own party name.

As Chuck Rocha, a Texas-raised Democratic strategist who runs Nuestro PAC, a super PAC focused on Latino outreach, stated to NBC, “Biden won, and that’s great, but everything underneath Biden was a huge catastrophe.” [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/huge-catastrophe-democrats-grapple-congressional-state-election-losses-n1248529]

Will Joe Biden be able to pull together all of the disparity, especially when the Democratic party performed so poorly down-ballot? With so many trying to raise their individualized voices, it appears that Biden will have an ongoing struggle with pleasing all of the people all of the time. Is this going to be a family-style dinner with a seat for everyone?

Beyond a strategy to combat the coronavirus and affected economy, Biden’s top initiative is climate change. Despite the currently divided rhetoric about the yet to be announced presidential cabinet, issues like this will be the grounding displays that will surely win some unity.

Boston Consulting Group (BCG), one of the three largest strategy consulting firms globally, sees Biden as capable of making headway in leading the shift required to address climate change. BCG states, “President-elect Biden campaigned on the most ambitious climate platform of any presidential candidate in history—and he has indicated that his administration will move quickly to pursue that policy. A transition to a low-carbon economy can have enormous benefits for U.S. businesses, creating thousands of jobs across the country while positioning the U.S. to be a driving force and innovation leader both domestically and abroad. Companies that are prepared to participate in the green recovery can reap substantial rewards.” [https://www.bcg.com/publications/2020/new-course-for-climate-in-united-states]

That’s possible only if Biden can successfully and positively affect special interest groups, even those across the aisle, with initiatives that address the plethora of issues at hand.

Will this stop splinter groups from trying to build a new third party? Or even a fourth and fifth? Unlikely.

But as a collective restaurant under a President Biden, multiple dinners for the many “party of one” at least gets everyone in the same room.

—–

Can Biden Work with The Squad and Centrist Republicans?

By Todd Lassa

As moderates and traditionalists continue to wrestle the Republican Party from the hands of President Trump and his most faithful populist followers, the Democratic Party is mirroring its cross-aisle rivals with a similar struggle. President-elect Joe Biden and his transition team, though hobbled by Trump’s aversion to conceding the election, are working hard to take the middle road and avoid concessions to The Squad led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., as well as voters who would rather have voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., as the Democratic Party’s nominee.

Democrats this election season have been uncharacteristically low-key compared with the GOP about infighting between centrists and their respective hardline wings. Biden’s record 79-million-plus votes Nov. 3 certainly includes both an unknown number of centrist Republicans who never would have voted for Sanders, or for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), for that matter, as well as young Democrats who would have preferred Sanders.

But the 2020 “Blue Wave” never happened. Biden must govern from the White House with Republicans increasing their minority in the House of Representatives by at least six seats and with Senate leadership depending on Georgia’s special January runoff elections for both of its seats. Democratic candidates must win both runoffs for a 50-50 count in the Senate, with Vice President-elect Kamala Harris to serve as the tie-breaker. Even if that long-shot happens, Biden will face a recalcitrant Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who infamously vowed 12 years ago to make Barack Obama a one-term president and will undoubtedly lead his fellow Republican senators in key filibusters.

Already, Capitol Hills pundits are talking about how Biden will have to rule by executive order, where he can, to reverse some of the policies that Trump is rushing to implement in his waning time as president, including efforts to begin the final process of leasing parts of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil companies.

The future of the fossil fuel industry and potential for alternatives to gain prominence is central to both sides, of course, including traditional pro-business Republicans and Democrats like Ocasio-Cortez, who with Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., unveiled the Green New Deal shortly after she took office in early 2019.

At presstime, President-elect Biden’s cabinet picks were beginning to emerge and they are largely considered centrists. Anthony Blinken will be nominated for secretary of state according to Bloomberg, Linda Greenfield-Thomas will be tapped for United Nations ambassador and Jake Sullivan, former aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, will be national security advisor. The Biden transition team already has confirmed that longtime advisor Ron Klain will be the 46^th president’s chief of staff.

Please address comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

Whither the Democrats? The Answer Doesn’t Matter

By Stephen Macaulay

The question of what does the Democratic Party do now is a rather premature one, I think, as Trump has yet (as of this writing) to admit that he didn’t win another landslide.

But let’s face it: Pundits have to write about something political because we like to think that nature abhors a vacuum of pithy observations.

The question is one that breaks down this way: Who runs the show? It would seem that the obvious answer to that is Joe Biden, based on his proclamation during the first debate with Trump: “I am the Democratic Party right now.” A centrist. An institutionalist. A regular Joe.

But then there is the counter to that, one that has it that the more progressive wing of the Party ought to take flight and lead efforts to create what they presume is a more equitable society, not one that gives, as the slogan has it with surprising accuracy, “tax breaks to the rich.”

This would include the likes of Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, and the members of The Squad—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) —who aren’t going to take any guff from anyone. Biden, presumably, included.

That there was no “Blue Wave” is generally attributed to the idea that “Defund the Police” and the word socialism played so broadly in the campaign runup.

What I find to be rather remarkable is that for presumably being the party of smart, pointy-headed people (or so it is widely presumed in many places across the country, both rural and otherwise), a party where there are top-notch marketers and professorial linguists, the Democrats surely do a—dare I say?—crappy job when it comes to language. (Trump has used more extreme language, so I am hopeful this passes muster at The Hustings.)

Consider “Defund the Police.” That is a scary thought for many urbanites and suburbanites, especially the latter, who are afraid that there are going to be marauders coming into their cul de sacs.

The term is the audible version of “bad optics.”

Why isn’t there some clever Democrat who comes up with an explanation that people might be able to understand? Like the Nathan Fillion TV show “Castle”, where a mystery writer partners with an NYPD detective and manages to solve cases. In the case of “Defund the Police,” it could be on calls where there are undoubtedly mental health issues, joining the police might be a mental health professional. The funding is shifted.

Seem like a stupid example? Maybe. But it is something that regular people can understand. Regardless of party affiliation. (“Hey, Dot, did you hear they’re pulling a ‘Castle’ at the police department? Now they’re getting somewhere.”)

As for the socialist* charge: Let’s face it, there are a whole lot of Boomers who might fondly remember their days in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s when they knew of people in the SDS but who have now 401Ks that they’re concerned with and the notion of wealth distribution is something that is now anathema to them. Given that there are Democrats who openly self-define as socialist, this is going to be a tough one to shift.

But here’s the thing: none of this may matter. If McConnell maintains control of the Senate, there is going to be very little happening that isn’t caused by executive order.

After all, as Biden might say (though in English): l'état c'est moi.

*One of the missed opportunities that the Democrats had was to brand Trump a “Stalinist.” Seriously. Stalin created a cult of personality. Check. Stalin wanted to concentrate power within the state, including the separation from other countries. Check.Stalin called those who weren’t with him “enemies of the people.” Check. Stalin purged high-ranking officials who didn’t hew to his line. Check. And there are several more examples. This is not to say that the real Donald Trump is a murderous thug who was responsible for the deaths of millions as Stalin was (although when history is written, there are going to be numbers of deaths from COVID-19 that will be ascribed to Trump’s behavior). It is to say that in a world that seems to be defined by unreality (“The election was rigged!”), simple labels can have consequences.

—–

An ‘Agenda’ Filled With Executive Orders

By Bryan Williams

Copious amounts of ink have been spilled since Joe Biden became president-elect about his vision for the country. Some have even said he has a mandate based on the record 78.7 million people who voted for him. Really? 50.9 percent is a mandate?

I expect a lot of Joe's first 100 days -- or even the first two years of his term -- will be government by executive order. We have a divided government, and that will most likely still be the case after Georgia choses its two U.S. Senators in its runoff elections in early January. Divided government is good in that no one person or party can steamroll through a partisan agenda. Look at what the Democrats did with Obamacare when they owned the White House and the Capitol building, or what the Republicans did with the tax cuts early in President Trump's term.

I think we too often look towards the government to define American life and history when we should look more towards our people: no government told Henry Ford to build a car, no government told Jeff Bezos to sell books online, and no government told Andy Warhol to paint.

Joe Biden will most likely be a caretaker president and won’t make any sea changes. One area he may have a slight effect is in foreign affairs. There is a lot of work to do to re-engage America in the world after Trump's retrenchment. I am a bit fearful of what Biden may do regarding foreign affairs. I mean, he advised against sending in the strike team that killed Osama bin Laden. I'm sure he'll bring the US back into the Paris Accords, but last time I checked, the skies in my neighborhood wasn't so much polluted by CO2 released by humans as it was by massive forest fires that no international accord could account for.

Here's to governmental gridlock. May Joe Biden's term shift the focus to the innovators and people that fill our great fruited plain with ideas, hard work, and hopes and dreams.

Williams is a mental health professional and former Republican party official in California.

—–

Still No Concession from Trump

By Nic Woods

Some important members of the Trump administration – including Donald J. Trump himself – are in denial over last week’s election result and so America must suffer the consequences of rejecting four more years of him.

In just one 24-hour post-election news cycle the week after former Vice President Biden was declared winner:

• News organizations had to cover not one, but two, press conferences where ranking administration officials acted like an election never happened, much less that their boss lost.

• Attorney General William Barr handed to Justice department prosecutors the authority to investigate claims of voter fraud.

• Emily Murphy, head of the General Services Administration, refused to sign papers to release to Biden $6.3 million of $10 million set aside for his transition because it’s unclear to her who had won.

•Federal agencies have been told to proceed with Trump’s fiscal 2022 budget.

•Trump fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper and demoted Federal Energy Regulatory Committee Chairman Neil Chatterjee in a spree of administration figures deemed not sufficiently loyal.

•Installed Mike Ellis as general counsel to the National Security Agency, making him more difficult to fire (except Trump may not remember issuing an executive order that would, in fact, make him easier to fire).

There are many more examples that seem like random individual meltdowns, but they all matter – they are as complex a power play the Trump administration can muster in its three-pronged strategy, along with fighting math in the courts and working up the base with baseless claims of voter fraud.

This strategy – using the war on election math to hinder Biden’s transition as much as bureaucratically possible – is what is left if the other two don’t work and it offers valuable insight into the administration and what they really think of their opponent, Joe Biden.

About this time four years ago. Chris Christie, then the governor of New Jersey and a late-to-the-bandwagon Trump supporter, volunteered for the thankless task of heading the transition team of the newly elected Donald J. Trump.

It was an offer Trump initially rejected because, according to Michael Lewis, author of “The Fifth Risk,” which talks about the missed opportunities of Trump’s own transition, “why did anyone need to plan anything before he actually became president?”

Well, Christie said, it was required.

The Presidential Transition Act, which Congress first passed in 1963 and has been amended four times -- as recently as 2019 – to “recognize the increasing complexities of presidential transitions” was passed to ease and promote the orderly transfer of power because “any disruption occasioned by the transfer of executive power could produce results detrimental to the safety and well-being of the United States and its people.”

The act has key national security implications as well that involve background checks for the high-level members of the new administration so they could be done by the inauguration. The president-elect, under the act, is required to be given a classified summary as soon as possible after the election on national security threats, covert military operations and pending decisions on possible uses of military force.

So yes, the transition is a big deal and while Trump didn’t know that four years ago, he knows it enough now to try to impede Biden’s administration by pretending there remains some way the courts can shake out a few votes that Joe Biden will just give up and leave. And, if Biden’s stubborn enough to stay, well, he’ll be behind the eight-ball, won’t get anything accomplished and half the country will be against him.

But Biden isn’t some outsider who doesn’t know how Washington works. He’s spent 36 years in the Senate and ran for president one time more than Trump has. He has connections, including Trump’s predecessor, many of whom are experts in their field.

Unlike Trump four years ago, Biden knows the act and what he should be getting from it. Biden will listen to the experts, though they are being purged from the Trump administration at a rapid rate.

Joe Biden also has the resources and knowledge base to still have a functional government and a peaceful transfer of power the third week of January, regardless of what Trump does.

Please address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–