Double punishment

The economy is teetering precariously on the brink of recession now.  We'll just go ahead and mention that this is a deliberate policy goal. Hopefully I'll have time to say more about that later.  For now, it's worth noting that the policy choice is not only being made at the Fed where they're leaning hard on the monetary lever.  But it has also already been enacted on the fiscal side as well by a feckless President Biden and the Democratic controlled congress. 

In other words, the United States is currently undergoing a great deal of austerity. Indeed, President Biden has repeatedly bragged that the government will reduce deficits by about $1.5 trillion this fiscal year.

By itself, this austerity will have negative effects on the economy, including job loss and wage reductions, which is not at all good. But it should also substantially ease the pressure on Powell to hike so quickly. With fiscal policy pressing hard on the economic brakes, there is less reason for him to be doing the same thing, especially because the Fed can’t affect half the reasons inflation is happening except by making them worse. There is also no reason for President Biden to listen to advisers who reportedly want to counter the effects of canceling some student loan debt by restarting remaining student loan payments. Since we’ve had no payments on these loans for over two years, from a current policy baseline this would translate into even more austerity, in the form of a substantial tax hike on approximately 30 million people.

There’s also a looming health insurance price spike coming this fall, as subsidies for Affordable Care Act exchanges expire. When asked whether he was concerned about this severe inflationary action, Senator and Emperor for Life Joe Manchin (D-WV) responded, “you gotta start paying down debt” to fight inflation, and “there’s only so many dollars to go around” to … prevent inflation in health insurance rates. The Fed shouldn’t be aiding and abetting steel-trap logic like this by pushing very hard with its economic lever in the same direction to bring investment, hiring, consumer spending, and economic activity to a halt.

And, of course, after the Republicans take back control of Congress this fall (and assuming the Supreme Court continues its radical agenda of dismantling the state entirely) the prospects for doing anything besides accelerating the pace of this double punishment are slim to none. 

It seems like forever ago but we did say at the start of the Biden Administration that these were the stakes.  

This is all so so much cart before the horse. If Biden and the current Congress fail to pass the PRO Act and the For The People voting rights reform, then the resurgent right is going to burn everything down in a few years. https://t.co/ZOWbBa6I3e

— skooks (@skooks) March 27, 2021

How is all that going?

So what is it all about?

There isn't much to say about this that isn't already in the text of the dissent. So let's highlight a few things. (full opinion can be found here)

And no one should be confident that this majority is done with its work. The right Roe and Casey recognized does not stand alone. To the contrary, the Court has linked it for decades to other settled freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships, and procreation. Most obviously, the right to terminate a pregnancy arose straight out of the right to purchase and use contraception. See Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972). In turn, those rights led, more recently, to rights of same-sex intimacy and marriage. See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003); Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). They are all part of the same constitutional fabric, protecting autonomous decisionmaking over the most personal of life decisions. The majority (or to be more accurate, most of it) is eager to tell us today that nothing it does “cast[s] doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66; cf. ante, at 3 (THOMAS, J., concurring) (advocating the overruling of Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell). But how could that be? The lone rationale for what the majority does today is that the right to elect an abortion is not “deeply rooted in history”: Not until Roe, the majority argues, did people think abortion fell within the Constitution’s guarantee of liberty. Ante, at 32. The same could be said, though, of most of the rights the majority claims it is not tampering with. The majority could write just as long an opinion showing, for example, that until the mid-20th century, “there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain [contraceptives].” Ante, at 15. So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.

We start with Roe and Casey, and with their deep connections to a broad swath of this Court’s precedents. To hear the majority tell the tale, Roe and Casey are aberrations: They came from nowhere, went nowhere—and so are easy to excise from this Nation’s constitutional law. That is not true. After describing the decisions themselves, we explain how they are rooted in—and themselves led to—other rights giving individuals control over their bodies and their most personal and intimate associations. The majority does not wish to talk about these matters for obvious reasons; to do so would both ground Roe and Casey in this Court’s precedents and reveal the broad implications of today’s decision. But the facts will not so handily disappear. Roe and Casey were from the beginning, and are even more now, embedded in core constitutional concepts of individual freedom, and of the equal rights of citizens to decide on the shape of their lives. Those legal concepts, one might even say, have gone far toward defining what it means to be an American. For in this Nation, we do not believe that a government controlling all private choices is compatible with a free people. So we do not (as the majority insists today) place everything within “the reach of majorities and [government] officials.” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 638 (1943). We believe in a Constitution that puts some issues off limits to majority rule. Even in the face of public opposition, we uphold the right of individuals—yes, including women—to make their own choices and chart their own futures. Or at least, we did once.

The majority would allow States to ban abortion from conception onward because it does not think forced childbirth at all implicates a woman’s rights to equality and freedom. Today’s Court, that is, does not think there is anything of constitutional significance attached to a woman’s control of her body and the path of her life. Roe and Casey thought that one-sided view misguided. In some sense, that is the difference in a nutshell between our precedents and the majority opinion. The constitutional regime we have lived in for the last 50 years recognized competing interests, and sought a balance between them. The constitutional regime we enter today erases the woman’s interest and recognizes only the State’s (or the Federal Government’s).

And one more thing to share just to drive home the point.

The criminalization of a woman’s right to choose is only the precursor to states removing other freedoms based in privacy. As one freedom is removed from the table, a myriad of others become jeopardized by future government overreach- to which, set by this dangerous precedent,

— del (@so_del_icious) June 24, 2022

Okay and one more in case we want to know what Democrats are doing about it.

As protesters can be heard in the back chanting outside SCOTUS, House Democrats sing “God Bless America.” pic.twitter.com/MjW0cSZ6nY

— Farnoush Amiri (@FarnoushAmiri) June 24, 2022

What's it all about, then? Well, it's about denying basic healthcare to millions of women and putting their lives in danger. It's about denying Americans' fundamental right to privacy insofar as it is understood by anyone born after the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. But one thing it can't possibly be about is holding the middle managers our broken political system entrusts with defending any of this responsible. Why would anyone think that? I mean, aren't the Republicans really the problem?

to me it's like being in New Orleans during Katrina, and shit is flooding, and there's nowhere to go and no help coming, and yelling at the hurricane about it. The Republicans are the hurricane in this analogy for any democratic strategists reading this

— tinybaby (@tinybaby) June 24, 2022

Lock him up!

Looks like Clay didn't do so well in court this morning.

While he was on the witness stand, the judge zeroed in on Schexnayder, one of the state's most powerful leaders.

The most dramatic moments of the hearing took place when Dick asked the speaker why he should not be held legally accountable because he filed a bill that mirrors the current map the judge rejected, not one with a second majority-Black district that she ordered.

She noted that federal penalties for failing to follow a court order include imprisonment and fines.

Unfortunately, by now, we should all know that putting politicians in prison is too much to hope for.  Which is why I have no idea why anyone is even watching the January 6 hearings this week. I mean they couldn't even put Mitch Landrieu under house arrest.  What makes anyone think they would actually put Trump in jail?  It should be clear we're well beyond even the pretense that anyone in our elevated political class will be held accountable for anything anymore.  It's pretty much granite countertops for all from here on out. 

So Clay might as well go on bucking the judge's orders.  Otherwise, why spend all this money on lawyers you aren't going to use?

About midway through the first redistricting session in February, the Illuminator reported that GOP leadership contracted with a private law firm for “redistricting advice” at taxpayers’ expense, which the contract now places at $60,000 per month. Few details have been made public about the work BakerHostetler is doing for lawmakers, and only a few select GOP legislative leaders have been given access to their counsel.

Always be pumping forward

S&WB really needs to take that backward pumping option off of the machine. 

A crucial oversight by Sewerage & Water Board workers at a Gentilly pump station worsened nearby street flooding on Friday, when intense rains pounded New Orleans at rates far beyond what the drainage system can quickly handle.

As operators attempted to fire up the five pumps at Drainage Pump Station No. 4 along the London Avenue Canal, they neglected to open a sluice gate that ensures water flows in the right direction, according to an S&WB after-action report. Failure to open the gate forced three of the pumps to trip offline, and they remained out of service for more than two hours.

Looks like they are trying to do that, anyway. 

S&WB Executive Director Ghassan Korban said he did not know how the gate was overlooked, but added that “there was no questionable behavior” on the part of employees.

“They were running like crazy trying to do so much stuff at the same time,” Korban said in an interview Wednesday morning after an S&WB meeting. “There are checklists, there are procedures, and something was overlooked. Obviously the checklists are designed to prevent that from happening. Nonetheless, it did happen.”

But it's hard to stick to the procedures and checklists and stuff when things are "running like crazy." For example, what if it is raining?  Anyway, they gotta put some tape over the reverse button or something.  It's not like this is the first time this has happened. 

And then what happens?

 The Louisiana Legislature is the Bad Place

The Senate initially opted not to accelerate debate on bills by Fields and Hewitt, the latter of which mirrors the current map.

"I have a bad taste in my mouth on how we just started this short session," said Sen. Gerald Boudreaux, D-Lafayette. "I think we are in a bad place."

After a plea from Cortez, the Senate voted to send both bills to the Senate & Governmental Affairs Committee, which Hewitt chairs.

On Friday at 10 a.m. the House & Governmental Affairs Committee will hear four bills, including measures to create a second majority-Black congressional district by Duplessis and one by Schexnayder that mirrors the current outline.

They've got six days to either do what the court ordered them to do and make a fairer map that better represents the electorate or.. not do that and see what happens.  It's hard to imagine they're very worried about what might happen.

What did John Bel know and when did he know it?

Maybe the feds will find out.  

Top U.S. Justice Department officials from Louisiana and Washington, D.C. are scheduled to appear at an 11 a.m. news conference in Baton Rouge today to announce “the opening of a civil rights investigation.”

A news release did not specify the nature of the investigation, only that it involves Louisiana. Speculation in legal circles surrounded a possible federal pattern-or-practice probe into Louisiana State Police. All three U.S. attorneys from Louisiana are scheduled to appear, along with Kristen Clarke, assistant attorney general for the DOJ's civil rights division.

The Legislative Black Caucus and other critics for months have clamored for a wide-ranging federal probe into constitutional policing at the state’s premier law enforcement agency, after grim details of the fatal May 2019 arrest of Ronald Greene and allegations of a coverup became public last year. 

The easy way

There are many questions I would ask of the bullies and authoritarian egomaniacs making embarrassing displays of their susceptibility to propaganda and fetish for "respect" this week.  But I think the first thing to ask is, what was the death toll?  How many people were killed or even injured by these TikToks and Instagram videos right wing online trolls and local TV stations are making sure everyone sees this week?  I don't see any injury reported to anything other than the egos of officialdom. 

Such stunt shows are nothing new to New Orleans or other urban centers in America, having grown into a social media-fueled craze that has left cities groping for answers. What made Sunday’s incidents different, Ferguson said, was the “total disrespect” patrons showed to police.

Ferguson said Mayor LaToya Cantrell was out of town Monday, but in a statement, Cantrell described the stunt shows as "reckless criminal behavior."

"These brazen actions have accelerated to a complete disregard and blatant disrespect for law enforcement. This ends now!" the statement read. "My administration stands with the New Orleans Police Department as they seek to increase criminal penalties associated with this type of behavior, and as they relentlessly pursue all perpetrators who place the public at risk."

What is the public being placed "at risk of"?  More to the point, where does it say the public owes "respect" of any sort to the police? If the events of the past week in Texas alone show us anything, it is that none of us owes police anything but scorn.  Heck, even the viral videos going around show police putting people at risk by plowing into spectators with their vehicles.  The "attack" on the car Chief Ferguson has been complaining about in the media is a direct result of this provocation.   

The only act of violence and actual harm to anyone I see in the video is when @NOPDNews drove a police cruiser into a crowd of people.

Maybe our local politicians missed this part? I see it’s been edited out of the clips that the media is circulating: https://t.co/KoOxrjAO99 pic.twitter.com/AfXtIjEEhO

— Hope (@HopeAPhelps) June 7, 2022

And hey look it worked!  The instant reaction triggered by a little viral copaganda is already paying off.

With the vast majority of police officer job candidates in New Orleans dropping out of the hiring process at an early stage, the City Council is poised to increase the budget for an outside non-profit’s recruiting effort.

New Orleans Police and Justice Foundation leaders told the council at a budget hearing Tuesday that the bump, from $500,000 per year to $900,000, could help them increase the share of applicants who make the cut and halt the police force's rapid decline in size.

There is no crisis the powers that be can manufacture in this city that can't be met with an immediate transfer of public dollars to one private non-profit or another.

Last week we were told the city can only afford to operate 5 of its 15 public swimming pools this summer.  But thank god there is money to pay a private foundation to do "police recruiting." That seems more useful.  After all, what do lifeguards even do?  Save people from drowning? Maintain a safe environment so that kids can have some healthy recreation instead of getting run over by NOPD provocateurs in the streets?  How can that possibly compare to what police do?  What do police do? 

Alex Pareene offered a theory this week. He says they do what is easiest. 

But even judged by their own cruel standards the police are extraordinarily lazy and incompetent. A study summarized by sociologist Brendan Beck in Slate earlier this year made a convincing case that more officers were associated mainly with more misdemeanor arrests. That is, the unimportant shit. It is nice to imagine that additional police spending will go to an army of Columbos solving the trickiest crimes. We are currently doing this experiment, with the real police, in real life, and it is proving that they are spending the money on throwing the belongings of homeless people into dumpsters.

It is easier to arrest a child for stealing chips than it is to apprehend an armed adult shooter. It is easier for several dozen police officers to arrest two unarmed people than it is for a cop to stop any single armed person. It is easier for hundreds of cops to kettle a largely unarmed left-wing protest than it is for an entire department to stop any armed right-wingers from entering a government building. It’s easier to clear homeless encampments than it is to investigate sexual assault. It’s easier to coerce confessions than it is to solve crimes. It’s easier to try to pull a guy over than it is to offer any sort of help when he crashes his car. It’s easier to arrest a mango vendor in the subway than to stop someone from bringing a gun into the subway. It’s easier to arrest a fifth grader than it is to save one’s life.

But it's not enough to say that police only do what is easiest. Of course they do that. Who can blame them, or anyone, for taking the easiest path to accomplishing whatever it is they are charged with? The overriding question is still about function.  Contrary to popular illusion, police do not prevent crime. Their actual task is to "serve and protect" the brutal regime of state enforced poverty and austerity we suffer under for the benefit of the rich. Police are the muscle that punishes us for resisting that regime. Why not spend $900,000 recruiting lifeguards instead?  At least they do something positive.

Politicians and media who derive their own corrupt wealth and status from obeisance to the regime have no moral standing to advise on this at all. These bullies who serve at the pleasure of the wealth class are angrily demanding you "respect" their police. You don't need to do that. Let them worry about it themselves.  The mayor and council, who can't agree on a whole lot lately, are now arguing over who loves cops the most correctly. 

Mayor LaToya Cantrell has proposed offering $5,000 bonuses for every five years of service. Council member Lesli Harris wants to offer annual 2% pay increases for officers.

I'm sure they'll work it out. In the meantime, they can still bask in their having come together to deliver nearly half a million dollars to a foundation. It's by far the easiest mission to accomplish.