Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Friday, January 31, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 197)
Polls

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). (Photo: AdobeStock/bbourdages)

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). (Photo: AdobeStock/bbourdages)

After a week that saw a retirement and some of the biggest landmark case decisions in years, voters give the U.S. Supreme Court record high ratings. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds (43%) of likely voters rate the Roberts Court’s job performance as good (31%) or excellent (12%).

That represents a gain from 37% in total back in October of last year and matches the previous high, reached only one time before in April 2008. A 21% minority still say the court is doing a poor job.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, 82, a notable swing vote on the Roberts Court, just announced his retirement effective July 31, 2018. His replacement could alter the ideological lean of the Court to conservatism for generations to come.

Twenty-six percent (26%) of voters think the Supreme Court is too liberal, while 35% say it’s too conservative. These finding are virtually unchanged from last October, but in surveys for several years prior to that, voters tended to see the court as more liberal than conservative.

Thirty-one percent (31%) now rate the court politically as about right.

Rasmussen Reports will offer its first numbers on the battle to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy next week.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on June 27-28, 2018 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. See methodology.

After a week that saw a retirement

Economy

Key with business words and rig equipment graphic icons relative to the oil and gas industry. (Photo: PPD/AdobeStock/JEGAS RA)

Key with business words and rig equipment graphic icons relative to the oil and gas industry. (Photo: PPD/AdobeStock/JEGAS RA)

The Baker Hughes North America Rig Count rose by 7 rigs for the week ending June 22, again fueled by a recovery from recent declines in Canada. The U.S. rig count fell overall by 5, but was easily offset by the Canadian rig count, which rose by 12.

14 at 117

Rigs classified as drilling for oil in Canada increased by 14 to 117 and those classified as gas fell 2 to 55. In the U.S., rigs classified as drilling for oil fell by 4 to 858, while those classified as gas declined by 1 from 187.

The Gulf of Mexico, which is separate from the North America Rig Count, held steady at 18.

The Baker Hughes North America Rig Count

Economy

Group of friends sitting outdoors with shopping bags; several people holding smartphones and tablets. (Photo: AdobeStock/ OneInchPunch/PPD)

Group of friends sitting outdoors with shopping bags; several people holding smartphones and tablets. (Photo: AdobeStock/ OneInchPunch/PPD)

The Survey of Consumers, a closely-watched gauge of consumer sentiment, posted a still-elevated final reading of 98.0 for June. That’s slightly below the consensus forecast (99.0). The Current Economic Conditions rose 116.5 from 111.8 in May, while the Index of Consumer Expectations fell from 89.1 to 86.3.

The falloff in confidence was minor, as the Sentiment Index has been virtually unchanged for the past three months. The persistent strength has been due to favorable assessments of jobs and incomes.

“While consumers anticipated rising interest rates during the year ahead, those expected increases were associated with a modest decline in longer term prospects for the national economy,” said Richard Curtain, Chief Economist at Survey of Consumers. “For the year ahead, consumers still anticipated that the economy would produce small additional declines in the unemployment rate as well as higher wage gains.”

Indeed, the Personal Income and Outlays report by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) continued to show increased wages and salaries. What was new this month was the gain in inflation to the target set by the Federal Reserve.

“Consumers also anticipated an uptick in inflation during the year ahead, partly due to rising energy prices and partly due to tariffs,” Mr. Curtain added.

The Survey of Consumers, a closely-watched gauge

Economy

SUV parts are fabricated in the stamping facility at the General Motors Assembly Plant on June 9, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)

SUV parts are fabricated in the stamping facility at the General Motors Assembly Plant on June 9, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)

The MNI Chicago Business Barometer surged to 64.1 on the strength of new orders, easily beating the 60.1 forecast. That’s the highest level since January, a 5-month high. Four of the 5 Barometer components got stronger on the month, leaving the Barometer up 0.8% on the year.

“Stronger outturns in May and June left the MNI Chicago Business Barometer broadly unchanged in Q2, running at a pace similar to that seen throughout 2017,” Jamie Satchi, Economist at MNI Indicators said. “While impressive, supply-side frustrations are undermining firms’ productive capacity.”

“Confusion surrounding the trade landscape continues to breed uncertainty among businesses and their suppliers and has led to many firms’ altering their immediate purchasing decisions.”

New orders are also at a 5-month high and the demand is likely to help production next month, which lost ground for the fourth time since hitting a high in December. Firms report being stifled by issues higher up in the supply chain.

The Employment indicator rose for the second month in a row in June. However, hiring sentiment did slide somewhat on the quarter.

The first special question asked whether ongoing trade talks were having an impact on short-term purchasing. Just under a quarter reported they were having a significant impact, while an additional 39.2% said yes but only to a minimal extent up until now. Only 17.7% said they had no impact and the remaining 19.6% were unsure.

The second question asked firms if they had increased starting salaries to attract and secure prospective employees. A 61.4% majority of firms said they have not, while a still significant 38.6% said that they have.

The MNI Chicago Business Barometer surged to

Economy

People count money at Macy's Herald Square store during the early opening of the Black Friday sales in the Manhattan borough of New York, November 26, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)

People count money at Macy’s Herald Square store during the early opening of the Black Friday sales in the Manhattan borough of New York, November 26, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Personal Income and Outlays report shows inflation is now where the Federal Reserve wants it to be. Personal income gained $60.0 billion (0.4%) in May.

Disposable personal income (DPI) rose by $63.2 billion (0.4%) and personal consumption expenditures (PCE) gained $27.8 billion (0.2%). Real DPI increased 0.2% in May and Real PCE decreased less than 0.1%. The PCE price index rose 0.2%. Excluding food and energy, the PCE price index increased 0.2%.

With inflation at the Fed’s target, we can expect less stimulus and a rising rate schedule. However, the gain in consumer spending is not consistent with either the Fed’s claim it was “picking up” this month or other data.

Meanwhile, there’s more good news on the wage front.

The increase in personal income in May primarily reflected increases in wages and salaries, personal dividend income, and nonfarm proprietors’ income. Personal outlays increased $29.2 billion for the month. Personal saving was $482.0 billion in May and the personal saving rate, personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income, was 3.2%

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Personal

Politics

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein denied threatening to retaliate against lawmakers if they continued to investigate abuses of government surveillance programs. In the hot seat on Thursday before the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Rosenstein was pressed on reports claiming he threatened to subpoena their phone and email records if they didn’t back off.

“Mr. Rosenstein, did you threaten staffers on the House Intelligence Committee? Media reports indicate you did,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asked pointedly.

“Media reports are mistaken,” he responded.

“Did you threaten to subpoena their phone calls and messages,” Rep. Jordan pressed.

“No sir, and there’s no way to subpoena phone calls,” he responded, which drew laughter from Democratic lawmakers and liberal members of the leftwing media.

In February, multiple sources told People’s Pundit Daily (PPD) that Mr. Rosenstein expressed frustration with the committee’s oversight investigation during a meeting that took place on January 10. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Christopher Wray, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and others were present at the meeting.

Mr. Rosenstein said he was done “dealing with the intelligence committee” investigation and threatened to subpoena call and text message records. The claims in the report were later mirrored by Fox News, which ran a story with documented supporting emails earlier in June.

The meeting in question took place before the highly-anticipated release of a memo prepared by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and other Republicans on the committee. It detailed government surveillance abuses by Mr. Rosenstein, fired former FBI director James Comey, his fired deputy director Andrew McCabe and other former Obama Administration officials.

These officials used false information to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Team Trump via peripheral advisors Carter Page and (later) George Papadopolous.

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows intelligence agencies to collect information on foreign targets abroad. However, as PPD also previously reported, it has been “routinely” abused and misused to spy on domestic targets, including President Trump, his associates and other U.S. citizens.

The FISA court was not explicitly made aware that the dossier(s) came from political opposition research funded by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the campaign for Hillary Clinton.

Senators Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., sent a a criminal referral to Mr. Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray to investigate dossier author Christopher Steele, citing potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, or making false statements to investigators particularly regarding the distribution of claims contained in the dossier.

But Mr. Rosenstein fought tooth and nail to keep the memo secret, claiming it would damage national security by exposing sources and methods. According to sources, the January 10 meeting was not the only time the deputy attorney general told lawmakers there would be consequences for continuing the investigation or for releasing the memo.

In a meeting with House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., which took place in the speaker’s office before the memo was released, Mr. Rosenstein attempted to convince the man who is third in line to the presidency to call off Chairman Nunes and to suppress the release of the memo.

Speaker Ryan refused and the memo was released. It did not contain anything damaging to national security. But it did damage the reputation and credibility of the leadership at the FBI and DOJ, including Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein.

The deputy attorney general, who serves as the acting attorney general in the Russia probe, signed off on an additional FISA warrant even after all the information was brought into the light. Mr. Rosenstein appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller against DOJ policy and the laws governing special counsels.

In his testimony before Congress, he refused to explain his actions or even confirm his role in the FISA applications, citing it as an ongoing investigation.

Under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, it’s a crime for law enforcement officials acting under “color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

The House of Representatives is preparing to vote Thursday on a measure condemning the Justice Department for withholding and stonewalling. While unenforceable, it will demand the agency turn over all requested documents by July 6.

The next step, which Republicans will take, is to impeach Mr. Rosenstein. Facing impeachment, Mr. Rosenstein was forced to allow Chairman Nunes to view the memo that served as the genesis of the Russia probe.

It was written by Peter Strzok, the former head of the FBI counterintelligence team who conducted the investigations into Hillary Clinton and then pivoted his focus to the Russia probe. DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz testified under oath that “it’s clear” Mr. Strzok “had a bias state of mind.”

When pressed by Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., about Mr. Strzok, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein admitted that the text messages between him and his lover “clearly do indicate bias.”

“I certainly agree with the findings of the inspector general report,” Mr. Rosenstein said. “I think those messages clearly do indicate bias.”

The highly-anticipated IG report uncovered text messages between Mr. Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom he was having an affair. In one of the more damning messages, Mr. Strzok, who was at the center of both  vowed to prevent Donald Trump from becoming the 45th President of the United States.

Lisa Page: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

Peter Strzok: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

These messages were excluded from a disclosure from the same text string, which was previous handed over to members of Congress.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein denied threatening

Politics

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announces the indictment of 13 Russian nationals for election meddling among other crimes on February 16, 2018. Mr. Rosenstein noted there was "no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announces the indictment of 13 Russian nationals for election meddling among other crimes on February 16, 2018. Mr. Rosenstein noted there was “no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein struggled to answer lawmakers’ questions about corruption and bias at the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Mr. Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the explosive findings of DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

When pressed by Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., about Peter Strzok — the head of FBI counterintelligence team who conducted the investigations into Hillary Clinton and then pivoted his focus to the Russia probe —Mr. Rosenstein agreed text messages between him and his lover “clearly do indicate bias.”

“I certainly agree with the findings of the inspector general report,” Mr. Rosenstein said. “I think those messages clearly do indicate bias.”

The highly-anticipated IG report uncovered text messages between Mr. Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom he was having an affair. In one of the more damning messages, Mr. Strzok, who was at the center of both  vowed to prevent Donald Trump from becoming the 45th President of the United States.

Lisa Page: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

Peter Strzok: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

These messages were excluded from a disclosure from the same text string, which was previous handed over to members of Congress.

Mr. Rosenstein’s admission comes after Mr. Horowitz himself testified “it’s clear from the text messages” that Mr. Strzok “had a bias state of mind.”

Previously obtained text messages also show the two lovers discussed needing to talk to “Andy” about an “insurance policy” in the event President Trump defeated Mrs. Clinton, a reference to then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40,” Mr. Strzok wrote to Ms. Page.

Mr. Horowitz also confirmed to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the IG believed “Andy” was a reference to Andrew McCabe, who has since been fired. The inspector general referred Mr. McCabe to the U.S. Attorney for criminal charges after concluding he lacked candor (lied) under oath.

Ms. Page, along with FBI lawyer Jim Baker, both of whom worked closely with fired former FBI director James Comey, resigned from the agency in May. Mr. Strzok has been relieved of his post as head of the counterintelligence department and reassigned to Human Resources (HR).

Mr. Strzok was escorted out of the bureau last week and, while he appeared before Congress on Wednesday, he has yet to testify in public under oath. Multiple sources tell People’s Pundit Daily (PPD) that lawmakers found his answers, which came not under oath, to be inconsistent with facts and unbelievable.

Worth noting, Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page both worked on the Democrat-dominated team assembled by Special Counsel Robert Mueller III. They were fired last summer before members of Congress conducting oversight and the media learned of the content of the messages.

Mr. McCabe has requested immunity from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Ia., in exchange for testimony and emails damaging to his former boss, Mr. Comey.

Meanwhile, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., who has been reluctant to attack or even criticize the ethical conflicts of interest pertaining to those conducting the special counsel investigation, tore into the acting attorney general in the case.

“We’ve seen the bias. Now we need to see the evidence,” Rep. Gowdy told Mr. Rosenstein. “Whatever you got, finish it the hell up. This country is being torn apart.”

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified text

Policy

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, center, talks with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, left, and President Donald Trump during a family photo with G7 leaders at the Ancient Greek Theater of Taormina during the G7 Summit, Friday, May 26, 2017, in Taormina, Italy. (Photo: AP)

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, center, talks with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, left, and President Donald Trump during a family photo with G7 leaders at the Ancient Greek Theater of Taormina during the G7 Summit, Friday, May 26, 2017, in Taormina, Italy. (Photo: AP)

Last week, I shared a graph showing that there are more guns than people in the United States, and I wrote that it was the “most enjoyable” chart of the year, mostly because it gets my leftist friends so agitated.

But I’m more likely to share gloomy visuals.

  • The “most depressing” chart about Denmark, which shows a majority of the population lives off government.
  • A “very depressing” chart about the United States, which shows how big business profits from cronyism.
  • The “most depressing” chart about Japan, which shows that the tax burden has nearly doubled since 1965.

Now it’s time to add to that list. There’s a website called “Our World in Data,” which is a great resource if you’re a policy wonk who likes numbers. But some numbers are quite depressing.

For instance, if you peruse the “public spending” page, you’ll find a chart showing the dramatic expansion of redistribution spending as a share of economic output.

 

These numbers are very similar to the table I shared from Vito Tanzi back in 2013, which isn’t surprising since Professor Peter Lindert is the underlying source for both sets of data.

While the above chart is depressing to a libertarian, it’s nonetheless instructive because it confirms my argument that the western world became rich when government was very small and redistribution was tiny or even nonexistent.

For instance, nations in North America and Western Europe largely made the transition from agricultural poverty to middle-class prosperity during the “golden century” between the Napoleanic wars and World War I. And that was a period when redistribution spending basically didn’t exist and most nations didn’t even have income taxes (the U.S. didn’t make that mistake until 1913).

And even as recently as 1960, welfare states were very small compared to their current size. Indeed, redistribution spending in western nations averaged only about 10 percent of economic output, about half the size of today’s supposedly miserly American welfare state.

These points are important because some folks on the left misinterpret Wagner’s Law and actually try to argue that bigger government is good for growth.

Our World in Data shows the dramatic

Policy

The U.S. Capitol Building in Washington D.C.

The U.S. Capitol Building in Washington D.C.

I wrote yesterday about the continuing success of Switzerland’s spending cap.

Before voters changed the Swiss constitution, overall expenditures were growing by an average of 4.6 percent annually. Ever since the “debt brake” took effect, though, government spending has increased by an average of just 2.1 percent.

For all intents and purposes, Switzerland is getting good results because it is now complying with fiscal policy’s Golden Rule.

golden-rule

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the United States. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just released its new long-run forecast of the federal budget.

The most worrisome factoid in the report is that the overall burden of federal spending is going to expand significantly over the next three decades, jumping from 20.6 percent of the economy this year to 29.3 percent of economic output in 2048.

And why will the federal budget consume an ever-larger share of economic output? The chart tells you everything you need to know. Our fiscal situation is deteriorating because government is growing faster than the private sector.

 

Actually, the chart doesn’t tell you everything you need to know. It doesn’t tell us, for instances, that tax increases simply make a bad situation worse since politicians then have an excuse to avoid much-need reforms.

And the chart also doesn’t reveal that entitlement programs are the main cause of ever-expanding government.

But the chart does a great job of showing that our fundamental problem is growth of government. Which presumably makes it obvious that the only logical solution is a spending cap.

The good news is that there already is a spending cap in Washington.

But the bad news is that it only applies to “appropriations,” which are a small share of the overall federal budget.

And the worse news is that politicians voted to bust that spending cap in 2013, 2015, and earlier this year.

The bottom line is that we know spending restraint works, but the challenge is figuring out a system that actually ties the hands of politicians. Switzerland and Hong Kong solved that problem by making their spending caps part of their national constitutions.

Sadly, there’s little immediate hope of that kind of reform in the United States.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just released

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe