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

Campaign Finance Reform, Then Third-Party Success

By Chase Wheaton

Sentiment that the current political system in the United States is extremely flawed and broken is not new to true progressives. Progressive Democrats have been advocating for serious campaign reform for many years, saying our current political system does not benefit the majority of people in our country in the way that it was meant to, but instead favors wealthy elites and upper-class folks who can use their wealth to influence the platforms and positions of the candidates that run for office and get elected.

Often, political candidates who lose elections can’t blame their party affiliation or their policy positions, but instead lost because they lack the finances and fundraising required to run a legitimately successful campaign in this country’s political system. Perfect examples are the third-party candidates who run for president every four years. Millions of Americans probably identify more closely with such candidates than with either of the two major party candidates, but sadly these third parties do not have the cross-country fundraising efforts necessary to promote their platforms, positions, and ideas, and therefore they struggle to recruit voters to support their candidacy.

I believe that a multi-party system could improve voter turnout and overall engagement within our democratic process and create much more significant and tangible change in our country than we’ve seen from any previous major party candidate. However, I also believe we need to reform our political process before we can have a successful multi-party system that doesn’t simply reward the wealthiest candidates who outspend their opponents on the way to victory. Unfortunately, the Democratic and Republican party establishments are powerful entities that benefit from this current system, which is why it should be no surprise that the only major candidate in the last two presidential primaries who has fought for serious campaign finance reform is Bernie Sanders, a registered independent.

Serious political reform will only happen when a substantial number of our officials are elected after spending grassroots donations, and not massive donations from millionaires and billionaires, as these are the only politicians that will be willing to push and vote for campaign finance reform. Once campaign finance laws are changed, I don’t think it’ll be long before we see other major changes to our political process, including allowing for a multi-party system. Sadly, until that happens, some of the fiercest advocates for a multi-party system that I personally know are in the greatest peril of having their human rights stripped away under another Trump or GOP presidency.

While some voted for third party candidates in 2016 when they were more confident Trump would lose, this year, the need to vote for a viable presidential candidate who doesn’t disregard basic human rights was more important than the desire to make their vote a statement about the country’s political process.

Wheaton is a higher education professional working in university housing, based in Greenville, N.C.

-30-

Why Just Two?

By Stephen Macaulay

A friend of mine said to me yesterday that he’d cast his ballot some weeks earlier. He said, “I didn’t vote for either of those two. As the father of a daughter I couldn’t vote for Trump. As the owner of a small business I couldn’t vote for Biden.”

He voted for Jo Jorgensen, Libertarian candidate for president. Not that he had any illusion that she would win. He just wanted to participate in our democracy.

He told me that this is the second presidential cycle he’s done that.

Mind you he is a well-educated owner of a profitable, family-owned business. Twenty years ago he might have been a Democrat. Now that he is in his 50s, I would have guessed Republican.

His position isn’t exactly “a pox on both of your houses.”

It is more of “I can’t see how either of these people is going to help me.”

As we wait for the results, there is undoubted feeling of rancor among both sides.

Many Trump supporters undoubtedly think that Biden supporters are a bunch of latte-sipping snowflakes who don’t understand the meaning of the word freedom.

And on the Biden side they’re seeing a gang of overweight patrons of outlet malls.

Neither is correct.

Both sides are Americans. Both sides are participating in the electoral process. Both sides think their guy is the right one for the country.

One side is going to be pissed when the last ballot has been counted. Or the last lawsuit settled.

If one wins with the majority of the popular vote but loses the Electoral College, there will be an outcry to abolish that mechanism. Undoubtedly there will be some action.

But is that enough?

Why is it that people like Jo Jorgensen don’t have a snowball’s chance?

Why is it that there are just two parties that seem to matter?

Maybe instead of just going for direct voting there should be more adjustments made to the system as it exists.

Perhaps we should take a page from the British system, which has campaigns running for four weeks. People and parties that are less well-funded than the Republicans and Democrats would not be at the huge disadvantage that they are now. While some would say that the wealthy candidate would just pour it on for those 30 or so days, let’s look at it this way: If you have a glass that you fill with water, at some point it is full and no matter how much more you put in it there won’t be more. Arguably the same could be said for political ads.

You won’t be happy today.

I won’t be happy today.

But do you know who won’t be unhappy?

My friend who voted Libertarian.

Macaulay is The Hustings’ pundit-at-large.

—–

Coal, Jobs & Cronies

By Stephen Macaulay

In 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump was barnstorming with a message about coal.

“Clean coal,” he called it. Which, as is sometimes said, “isn’t a thing,” but we will let that go.

Trump would proclaim: “We’re going to get those miners back to work . . . the miners of West Virginia and Pennsylvania . . . Ohio and all over are going to start to work again, believe me.”

“We’re going to have an amazing mining business.”

They believed him. Trump won West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. And how did those miners do? According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in November 2016 there were 50,400 people employed in the U.S. coal industry.

How did he do? How many of those people did he get back to “an amazing mining business?”

In September 2020, the number of people involved in the coal-mining industry is 44,500.

Note that this is not a COVID-19 phenomenon. Coal jobs have been on a decline throughout the Trump presidency. What’s more, in October 2019, Murray Energy, the “country’s largest privately held coal miner” filed for Chapter 11 in October 2019, according to NS Energy, which covers the coal industry among other energy-related subjects. It became “the eighth U.S. coal producer to file for bankruptcy in the past year.”

NS Energy noted that company owner Bob Murray “has long advocated for government support for his industry and was a strong critic of the country’s former president Barack Obama, whose time in office he described as ‘eight years of pure hell.’”

“The coal tycoon has long been a supporter of President Donald Trump, and is believed to have played a major role in the reshaping of environmental policies over the past three years… .”

One might change the verb in that statement to “dismantling.”

Still, that did not seem to work out so well. According to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, renewables, which it defines as “utility-scale solar, wind and hydropower,” is increasingly important. “Renewables have now generated more electricity than coal on 131 days in 2020 — more than three times the 2019 results and with some 80 days left in the year.”

IEEFA concludes, “the data show coal power’s economic viability continuing to shrink … .”

Working people need to take his claims about coal into account when he talks about the jobs he has created and will create. Trump undoubtedly created more wealth for his cronies than for the stalwart men and women who once worked the mines can ever imagine.

—–

The Coal Industry Continues to Falter, but Trump Can Still Rally the Miners

By Todd Lassa

Near rural Salisbury, Pennsylvania, just north of the Maryland border, there is a large building just off the state highway with a sign, “Trump Digs Coal.”

It’s a standout sign in this rural area filled with pro-Trump signs and campaign banners, the single sign calling out an industry that has helped define this part of the country for more than a century. There are far more “Pro Life, Pro-Trump” signs on lawns on the roads to Meyersdale, where we spoke with a Trump and a Biden supporter earlier this month [“Talking to Trump and Biden Supporters in Small-Town Pennsylvania,” Oct. 5].

The Biden supporter we interviewed, Jennifer Clark, said she thought it was time for locals to move beyond the coal industry and train for jobs in a modern industry. Because of natural gas production, spurred in recent years by the fracking process, the coal industry is declining on its own, independent of President Trump’s support for the electrical power source.

Pennsylvania is the third-biggest state for coal production according to a September 2018 report in Mining Technology [ https://www.mining-technology.com/features/five-largest-coal-producing-states-us/]. Wyoming was first with 297.2 million st/year. Even the next four biggest producers in the U.S.; West Virginia (at 79.8 million st), Pennsylvania (45.7 million st), Illinois (43.4 million st) and Kentucky (42.9 million st) don’t add up to the production from the nation’s least-populous state.

According to The New York Times’ recent deep-dive into the industry [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/us/politics/trump-coal-industry.html?searchResultPosition=1] 145 coal-burning units at 75 power plants have been idled since the president’s 2017 inauguration, enough to power about 30 million US homes. “Another 73 power plants have announced plans to close,” the Times reports, including the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, which went offline October 2019, months before the coronavirus pandemic shut down major parts of the country and led to reduction in the burning of fossil fuels.

A positive effect of these shutdowns is that sulfur dioxide emissions are down nearly 30% for the first three years of the Trump administration, according to the Times. Coal burning accounts for about 20% US electricity production, down from 31% in 2017. Meanwhile, renewable energy, spurred by Obama administration policies, accounts for about 17%, NPR reports [https://www.npr.org/2020/10/19/925278651/what-would-a-2nd-trump-term-mean-for-the-environment].

Mining coal long has had a reputation as a dirty, dangerous, and life-shortening job. Former Murray Energy CEO Robert Murray has filed an application with the US Labor department for black lung benefits, according to West Virginia Public Broadcasting and Ohio Valley ReSource [https://ohiovalleyresource.org/2020/09/30/bob-murray-who-fought-black-lung-regulations-as-a-coal-operator-has-filed-for-black-lung-benefits/].

Despite the potential dangers, coal miners have prospered over the years, and the biggest threat to small towns and rural communities might be the wages lost. According to the Times report, miners at the Navajo station that closed late in 2019 earned an average of about $117,000/year.

Please address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

Coal Miners are the Blue Collar Superdelegates that Still Support Trump

By Bryan Williams

How many years have we been hearing about “green jobs” that will employ blue-collar workers in obsolete smokestack industries, and how they will transform the American economy while curing the climate “emergency”?

Every election cycle, politicians say they will help foster more green jobs, which usually involves spending billions. This time, it’s $2 trillion if Democratic candidate Joe Biden gets to implement his plan. Four years ago, Hillary Clinton even went so far as to promise she would “destroy” the coal industry and then help the miners find training or new employment.

How did she expect this to play out in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and other blue-collar job states, such as Michigan and Wisconsin? She practically handed that to Donald J. Trump, who shrewdly swooped in to rescue the coal miners.

There were about 90,000 coal miners in the US, according to The Guardian (U.K.), and about half that – about 45,000 – currently.

Why all the hubbub over so few workers? I think it comes down to this – coal miners are superdelegates for all blue-collar workers.

Since I started paying attention to politics in the early 2000s, I have heard politicians of all stripes make claims that we must transition our economy and provide training for workers in obsolete blue-collar jobs. Twenty years later, what have we got?

I’m sure there are success stories of coal miners who have transitioned to green jobs. But for nearly a generation, politicians have told these workers, “I have a plan for you. It will take away your job. There might be some money to retrain you and then you might get a new job after.” That rings pretty hollow and is disingenuous.

Along comes populist Trump in the 2016 presidential race, promising to save blue-collar jobs and revitalize American manufacturing. Since his inauguration he has done quite a few things that many other presidents and elected officials have not.

Has he been successful? Not in the case of the coal industry. The market has helped kill coal, but so have government policies. I have a cousin who used to work at a coal plant here in California. The company had invested millions in clean coal technology to burn the fuel with minimal pollutants. The plant’s officials tried for years to get Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and then Gov. Jerry Brown to take a tour and see how their stringent environmental policies weren’t necessary. Neither governor would even send a representative, and my cousin finally moved to Texas to find work. How many coal miner families can relocate? The political abandonment was felt – my cousin felt it deeply as well, I’m sure, by coal miners and their families in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

Trump may not have been successful in bringing back those obsolete jobs, but what’s more important, I think, to those coal miners is they finally feel like someone powerful has their back.

They will vote for him again.

—–

Biden Holds a Big Lead Over Trump, but How Reliable Are The Polls This Time?

By Todd Lassa

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden holds an 8.9-point lead over President Donald J. Trump (51.2 percent to 42.3 percent) according to an average of major political polls by Real Clear Politics. It is reasonable to ask whether the president’s Friday morning tweet slamming Sen. Susan Collins helps or hurts the Republican senator from Maine now fighting for her political life, who has said she will not vote in favor of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Collins faces a daunting challenge from Democrat Sara Gideon, Maine’s House speaker, in the Nov. 3 elections.

The president’s Friday tweet reads, “There is a nasty rumor out there that @Susan Collins of Maine will not be supporting our great United States Supreme Court Nominee. Well, she didn’t support Healthcare or my opening up 5000 square miles of Ocean to Maine, so why should this be any different. Not worth the work.”

Closing in on two weeks before the Nov. 3 national elections, the real threat of a Blue Wave accompanying a Biden win would entail a big swing from the GOP’s 53-47 Senate majority, and potentially has Democrats building on their 233-196 majority in the House. Even relatively secure Senate Republicans may be hedging their bets.

Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Nebraska, as a member of the Judiciary Committee handled Supreme Court nominee Barrett with kid gloves earlier this week but criticized President Trump’s Thursday night Town Hall on NBC in a conference call to constituents, the Washington Examiner reports.

Trump “kisses dictators’ butts,” “sells out our allies” and “trash-talks evangelicals behind their backs,” Sasse reportedly said. He further slammed the president for “mistreating women” and initially “ignoring COVID.” Trump supporters will note that Sasse is considered an early contender for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, a race Donald Trump Jr. may fight if the GOP balance of power remains in his family’s orbit.

While having brushed off polls showing a huge deficit to former Vice President Biden for many weeks, Trump himself has predicted a repeat of his 2016 campaign performance, which means he’s closing in, especially in the final week. Four years ago Trump gained on Hillary Clinton after the former secretary of state led many polls only by four or five points, often within statistical error of a tie. This year, Trump must overcome landslide-style deficits nationally as well as large margins in battleground states, and even in erstwhile Republican strangleholds like Arizona and North Carolina, where Sens. Martha McSally and Thom Tillis face potential losses to their Democratic challengers.

Our right-column pundit thinks President Trump has a big chance of pulling off another upset, and our left-column pundit, having been gobsmacked by the 2016 election worries the argument holds many valid points.

—–

Trump, China, COVID and the Absence of Leadership

By Stephen Macaulay

Let’s say for the sake of argument that Donald Trump is right, that COVID-19 is the “China virus,” that it was a deliberate release into the world. It seems as though all the Administration has going for it as a reaction was that they “banned” travel from China into the U.S. Which isn’t entirely true. That is, according to the Associated Press, because there was no restriction from the more than 8,000 Chinese and foreign nationals came in to the U.S. during the first three months of the “ban” from the administrative zones of Macau and Hong Kong. In addition to which, more than 27,000 Americans who were in mainland China returned during the first month. So let’s not put too much stock in that claim’s effectiveness.

And it wasn’t until March 11 that Trump banned travel to the U.S. from Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland—a.k.a., the Schengen Area. In making that proclamation, Trump wrote, “The Schengen Area currently has the largest number of confirmed COVID-19 cases outside of the People’s Republic of China.” That’s right—more than a month after the alleged China travel “ban” there were still people coming in from an area where there was apparently the second-largest number of confirmed cases. In addition to which, you’ll note that the U.K. wasn’t on the list. Oops. It made the list on March 14. Diligence.

“[I]t's China's fault, it should have never happened,” Trump said during the presidential debate (and several other times).

But it did happen. And what is he doing about it? Making fanciful claims and maintaining it will go away. As recently as Oct. 10 Trump said from the balcony of the White House in an Evita-like moment, “but it’s going to disappear, it is disappearing.” There are 7.7-million confirmed cases in the U.S. Disappear.

According to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, there have been 4,739 COVID-19 deaths in China. There are 1.393-billion people in China. Let’s say they’re lying. Let’s say there are 10 times as many deaths. 100 times as many deaths. What are we doing? Pretending.

There is the continuing myth of what a great business man Trump is. A myth that is beginning to dissolve as The New York Times reports on his massive losses and looming loans becoming due. According to the Congressional Budget Office, FY 2020 will have a U.S. deficit of $3.13 trillion. That means the U.S. debt is greater than the GDP. The last time this was the case was in 1946. The year after World War II ended.

Most Americans will lose a year of freedom in their lives. Freedom to do what they want. Sure, people cando it. But has been shown that unless people do things like distance and wear masks and practice good hygiene, they can die. But no one thinks they will die. It is someone else. Old people. Obese people. People with an underlying condition. Even though there are people of those characteristics in other countries, the U.S. level of death is dwarfing them. Why? Because the leaders of those countries are leaders.

Trump?

Macaulay is a cultural commentator based in Detroit.

Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

View from the Left: Talk with a Biden Supporter in Rural Pennsylvania

Jennifer Clark, of Meyersdale, Penn., did not vote in the 2016 presidential election, but now supports former Vice President Joe Biden.

“It’s more so anti-Trump,” Clark says of her favored candidate. “Anti the man. I as I’ve gotten older, I can very much see both sides. For years I was a huge listener of right-wing talk radio. It drove my deceased husband crazy. I really believe that I’m pretty well-informed on both sides. I’m not a slave to MSNBC. I used to watch Fox News.

“Some key core values of the Republican party I don’t jell with. Those deep-seated abortion things. The Supreme Court is terrifying me right now.” Meyersdale voters are more concerned about economic issues than abortion, Clark believes.

“Even before he was elected,” Clark was troubled about “the way he talks about women. I’ve been through some of that. The way a white rich man in power thinks he can speak that way to anybody.”

Clark is “a little bit concerned” about Biden’s age. “I respect what he’s saying, what he stands for. But when Kamala got on board, I was really like, yes, this could be a positive change.”

She doesn’t believe Hilary Clinton “was the way to go” in 2016. Clark considers Kamala Harris sufficiently center-left “to bring people together,” and was encouraged to find a substantial number of members on a Facebook group page for Democratic women in Somerset County, where Meyersdale is located.

“I love talking politics to people who are like, Trumpsters,” she says, adding,“I’ve heard so many crazy conspiracy theories” about the coronavirus pandemic, and the president’s response. “Even the mask-wearing, and it makes me so mad because my kids go to school.”

Clark’s 15-year-old daughter returned to school Sep. 1, and often argues politics. She and her classmates must wear masks at school, but Clark often runs into her fellow parents, who do not.

Clark fears what the post-pandemic economy would be under Trump. “What are you going to do about that, Mr. Trump?” she says, noting that most Meyersdale residents do not play the stock market. She feels it’s time for Meyersdale voters still connected to the stagnant coal economy to find new lines of work.

President Obama and Vice President Biden “jumpstarted” the economy, Clark believes, “and (Trump) just comes along riding on the shirttails of that.”

Please address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

Talking to Trump and Biden Supporters in Small-Town Pennsylvania

By Todd Lassa

MEYERSDALE, Penn. -- “Make American Great Again,” “Keep America Great,” “Trump Digs Coal” and “Pro-Life, Pro-Trump” signs prevail in and near this small town in Southern Somerset County, just north of the Maryland border in the important swing-state. It is conceivable that some of these signs have been up since before November 2016.

Just after Labor Day weekend, campaign signs for Joe Biden began to appear on lawns in this one-time coal town of about 2,000 residents. Driving on the Mason-Dixon Highway leading into town, we spotted a Biden sign on a lawn just north of a lawn featuring a Trump sign. Could The Hustings, in the interest of civil discourse, talk two neighbors into a socially distanced friendly discussion together?

Not this time. A widow who lives at the Trump-signed home says she put up the sign for her late husband, a much more fervent supporter of the president, and she doesn’t like to talk politics. Neither does her Biden-supporting neighbor, who says she has two signs in case the first one is stolen.

In Meyersdale, The Hustings found a Trump supporter on her front porch on Main Street, in front of her large Trump campaign sign, on a street where at least half of homes feature pro-Trump banners. After striking out with the single Main Street home with a Biden sign, we found a Biden supporter a couple of blocks away who says she loves to talk politics.

Our Trump supporter is Terri Walker, a retired employee of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Walker voted for President Trump in 2016 and says that while she grew up in a Democratic household (which she says still prevails in Meyersdale), registered as a Republican about 30 years ago due to her support for President Ronald Reagan.

Our Biden supporter is Jennifer Clark, a costume designer who returns to her job in Maryland October 15 when the Cumberland Theater reopens. Clark is recently widowed. Her husband voted for Hilary Clinton in 2016, though she sat out that presidential election, after voting for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. She has a 15-year-old daughter and 10-year-old son.

The Hustings spoke to Walker and Clark just prior to the first presidential debate. Their comments, in the right and left columns, respectively, are edited for clarity and length.

Please address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–