Latest news with #post-Washington
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Peters offers optimistic outlook for Michigan Dems in 2026 Senate Race
U.S. Sen. Gary Peters (D-Bloomfield Twp.) at the Mackinac Policy Conference, May 30, 2024 | Anna Liz Nichols Following the conclusion of his term in 2027, U.S. Sen. Gary Peters (D-Bloomfield Township) said he plans to remain active in public policy. Earlier this year, Peters, who has served in the U.S. Senate since 2015, announced he would not seek reelection in 2026, to the shock of many. While sitting down with the Michigan Advance at last month's Mackinac Policy Conference, Peters said his post-Washington plans are still up in the air, but stressed that he's not retiring. 'I'll have a lot more control over my life when I'm not in the Senate, because it gives me a lot more flexibility to do a variety of things. But I'm going to stay active,' Peters said. With a year and a half left in the Senate, Peters said he remains focused on the Great Lakes, specifically on securing funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and additional appropriations for the U.S. National Guard's Great Lakes Oil Spill Center of Expertise in Sault Ste. Marie, which he helped establish. Alongside serving in the U.S. Senate, Peters also chaired the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from 2021 through 2025, with U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) taking over the role for the 2026 campaign cycle. While Peter's decision not to run for reelection created uncertainty for Democrats' pathway back to a majority in the Senate, Peters said he's confident his party will retain the seat. 'Actually, that was part of my decision, because I want to make sure that the seat continues to be Democratic,' he said, pointing to two key factors that he said give the Democrats good odds. First, 2026 will be a good year to be a Democrat, Peters said, with the party out of power typically performing better during midterm elections. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'You have that historical precedent. Plus just the increased chaos we're seeing out of the Trump administration will mean that people are going to be voting Democratic, and next year, I think you're going to see that similar to what we saw in the last Trump administration,' Peters said, referencing the 2018 mid-term election where Democrats were able to take control of the U.S. House of Representatives. In another benefit, Democrats also have a deep bench of candidates, Peters said, noting that while others may declare for candidacy, the four Democratic candidates that have already jumped into the race 'are all very talented people.' The Democratic slate is currently made up of U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Birmingham), state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-Royal Oak), former Michigan House Speaker Joe Tate (D-Detroit) and former Wayne County Health Director Abdul El-Sayed. Former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-White Lake) is currently the only Republican candidate, however reports say U.S. Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Zeeland) is also weighing a run, though he has yet to make a formal announcement. That said, Democrats can't take anything for granted as Michigan is set to be a top battleground state, Peters said. 'The challenge for a race – Senate race in particular – when you have a primary is that you don't get your nominee till fairly late into August. And this race, it'll go from zero to 100 miles an hour within hours of the election,' Peters said. However, the 2024 election illustrated a clear divide in the Democratic Party between its moderate members and the more progressive wing, best illustrated by the party's split over Israel and Gaza. When looking for a pathway forward, Peters said Democrats need to remain focused on economic issues like affordable health care, job opportunities and voters' ability to save for and live a dignified retirement. 'All those issues are the most powerful. And you should always be focused on those. And that's not going to change,' Peters said. When you think about the previous presidential election – where former Vice President Kamala Harris lost to Trump by just over 80,000 votes – a presidential loss would typically bring a Senate election loss with it, Peters said. However, that didn't happen in Michigan. 'We won here in Michigan. And if you look at Elissa Slotkin's campaign, it was focused on those bread and butter economic issues. We won Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin, and Nevada and Arizona and all of those Senate candidates, that's what they focused on. They outperformed the top of the ticket and they won,' Peters said. Democrats still have to work to excite their base and cannot ignore them, but those economic issues are just as important to Democratic voters as they are to independents, Peters said. As President Donald Trump works to radically reshape the federal government, congressional Democrats are tasked with both resisting the president and the Republican majority, and delivering results for their constituents. While bringing home results for constituents is difficult, the Democratic minority has to use its position to call out Republicans' actions and paint a contrast in the minds of voters, Peters said, emphasizing elections are all about contrast. Trump has violated pretty much every major norm of democracy, alongside several laws, Peters said, and while the judicial system has repeatedly been a check on the president, Democrats need to be aggressive in calling that out. 'I think we definitely have to be extremely aggressive in calling out just the blatant corruption we're seeing from the Trump administration,' Peters said, pointing to his decision to accept a $400 million jet as a gift from Qatar as well as his meeting with investors in his cryptocurrency business. 'We can't normalize that in any way, not just for the short term of getting rid of President Trump, but we can't normalize it for future administrations as well. The United States needs to be the place where corruption is never tolerated,' Peters said. However, Democrats still need to walk and chew gum by retaining their focus on the economic issues, Peters said. 'I think those issues too are going to play out as we look at tariffs, which will increase costs. When people start paying more for the everyday goods that they have, they're going to realize that Donald Trump's promise that he was going to lower inflation on day one is not the case,' Peters said. He also pointed to Republican's tax and spending bill, warning the plan would increase the nation's deficit by trillions of dollars, prompting higher interest rates. 'So you pay more for your car, you're going to pay more for your mortgage, your credit card, all those costs as a result of what I believe is completely irresponsible fiscal policy from the Republicans right now,' Peters said. As some Democrats have called on their officials to do more to resist the president, arguing they could do more to be a thorn in Trump's side, Peters said Democratic lawmakers are using the tools they have. While they've been able to use procedures to delay votes on legislation, those efforts are only delays, Peters said. 'We currently live, and I hope we always live, in a democracy and that means the majority rules in a democracy, yep. And if, if the majority have the votes, you can't stop it,' Peters said, noting that Republicans were in a similar position during the first half of former President Joe Biden's term. This is where elections have consequences, Peters said, prompting Democrats to put their energy into next year's election. Given the current political circumstances, Peters predicts Democrats will take back control of the U.S. House in 2026. The chamber is currently split 220-212, with three open seats. 'When you take back the House, then the dynamic changes dramatically in Washington. And Donald Trump, we'll be able to stop him, because he won't be able to pass things through the House,' Peters said. While retaking the Senate would prove more challenging, it's not something Democrats can write off, Peters said. The chamber is currently split 53-45 with two independents Senators, Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) and Angus King (D-Maine), caucusing with Democrats. While he understands the frustration among activists, Peters reiterated Democrats' limited options. 'You can slow down the majority, but eventually majority wins,' he said.
Business Times
29-04-2025
- Business
- Business Times
The spectre of dollar doomsday still looms
IN 2019, I wrote a column about the coming 'dollar doomsday scenario' in which a fundamental shift in globalisation and towards a post-Bretton Woods system would lead to a fall in both the value of the US dollar and dollar assets. This would raise bond yields, as well as the price of gold and various foreign currencies. And here we are. The S&P may rise and fall on President Donald Trump's daily mood swings, but the die for a new era has been cast. While I have never been great at predicting the timing of big market shifts – as a child of immigrants, I tend to de-risk too early – I do have a strong world view. I hold fast to the idea that the entire paradigm for investing is changing, and that rebalancing away from the US market is important. This will be the case with or without a trade war. Even if Kamala Harris were in office today, we would be in a post-Washington consensus world (the Biden White House said as much). We would also be heading, albeit more slowly than we are now, to a multipolar world in which the US dollar and dollar assets are no longer the only game in town. Few big investing stories hold for much more than a decade, and the US has been on top for far longer than that. The highly financialised, concentrated, debt-driven model that put it there is tapped out in ways that go beyond Trump and his antics. I would point to three fundamental issues, starting with an over-reliance on asset price-driven economic growth. Nearly all major US economic decisions of the past half-century have been about bolstering asset prices – from interest rate deregulation in the late 1970s to the legalisation of share buybacks to tax-favoured 'performance pay' in shares, which created Silicon Valley's massive paper wealth. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Trump and his aides talk about how Main Street does not care about stock prices. But the fact that asset price growth has so wildly outstripped income growth means we are all more reliant on capital markets. The exposure of US households to stocks is near an all-time high (equities and mutual funds represent 26 per cent of total household assets), which implies much more vulnerability to any market downturn, for both individuals and the overall economy. Consider that since 1995, 'equities have become the marginal driver of US federal tax receipts', according to a January presentation by analyst Luke Gromen. 'If stocks fall too far and stay down, US consumer spending and GDP (gross domestic product) will go into recession, sending deficits up,' he wrote. This would come at a time when inflation remains a worry and risk premiums that investors are demanding for US assets are rising. Tariffs or not, most analysts believe there is a bigger US share price correction to come. US stocks are still overvalued relative to their peers. And the International Monetary Fund's latest financial stability report tagged this as a big risk to global markets. Another significant concern I have about US markets is the sharp increase in private-sector debt and leverage over the past few years. Corporate borrowing from private credit markets has been booming, particularly from companies that would have been considered too risky for bank loans. Many of the private credit funds doing the lending have maturity dates, meaning a period at which they can no longer roll over loans, that will come due between now and 2027. As Corey Frayer, a former senior US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adviser on financial stability and now director of investor protection at the Consumer Federation of America, pointed out to me: 'If you had a downturn in the business environment at the same time that a lot of private credit comes due, you may see multiple bankruptcies.' This could eventually result not only in shadow banking failures but problems in the formal banking sector, which is far more exposed to non-bank entities than it was in 2008, when the global financial crisis erupted. The final point to make concerns the introduction of additional risk into the US financial system in the form of cryptocurrency, at a time when the Trump administration has taken a lax attitude towards regulatory enforcement, actively cut staff at the SEC and gutted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Republicans and Democrats alike have supported the Genius Act, which would open the floodgates to the use of crypto in the real economy, potentially amplifying the risks laid out above. The Biden government was already forced to de facto support the crypto platform Circle when Silicon Valley Bank failed. The new legislation, which recently passed initial hurdles in both the Senate and House of Representatives, would encourage more formal and informal players to get into crypto, which is of course an area that both Trump and his consigliere Elon Musk have a vested interest in. I am not necessarily predicting that a corporate debt or crypto-fuelled liquidity crunch will take down the US economy – although I would not be surprised if the next financial crisis came from those areas. Rather, my point is that you do not have to believe that a trade war is imminent to see that American asset markets are increasingly risky and still overpriced. Add to this the trust deficit created by Trump, and I would say the dollar doomsday scenario still has room to run. FINANCIAL TIMES
Asia Times
15-04-2025
- Politics
- Asia Times
Japan must begin a process of strategic decoupling from America
The geopolitical landscape shifted dramatically over the past five years. America's hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 followed by its deepening entanglement in the Ukraine war – now widely understood as a grinding proxy conflict between NATO and Russia – laid bare the limits of US power. In the Middle East, Washington has struggled to rein in crises involving the Houthis, Iran and Syria, while continuing to underwrite Israel's genocide in Gaza. In East Asia, its commitments are increasingly strained by a rising China and a more assertive North Korea. At home, inflation, border insecurity, and social fragmentation have all contributed to the growing sense that American primacy – both global and domestic – is faltering. No country stands to be more affected by America's relative decline than Japan. Since the end of World War II, Japan has remained tethered to Washington – militarily, politically, even psychologically. Its defense is largely outsourced; its politics, heavily influenced by American interests. Its media class repeats Washington talking points verbatim. As Washington stumbles, the postwar establishment in Japan has stumbled, too, clearly unable to envision a world in which Washington is no longer supreme. But that post-Washington world is coming quickly, and is in many ways has already arrived. If Japan is to prepare for the rapidly emerging multipolar world, it must begin a process of strategic decoupling from America. This does not mean a reckless severance of ties overnight, but a clear-eyed and deliberate effort to reassert autonomy in key areas of diplomacy, military and economics. First, Japan should consider initiating dialogues with leaders and entities typically seen as unaligned with the so-called Washington-led liberal international order. Such meetings would signal Japan's intent to diversify its diplomatic options but also serve as pragmatic steps toward resolving longstanding regional challenges. Japanese officials could, for instance, quietly open communication channels with North Korea. A key objective would be the resolution of the abductee issue – a humanitarian matter that has lingered unresolved for decades. For far too long, pro-Washington elements within Japan's conservative establishment have relied on the US to lead negotiations over the abductions. The issue has often been subsumed under broader strategic aims, such as the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula or curbing the North's ballistic missile capabilities. North Korea, however, has little incentive to cooperate under the current framework. North Korea understands that returning the abductees is tied to denuclearization, Washington's priority, so the issue is stalemated. Entrenched interests in Japan ensure that Tokyo and Pyongyang will never meet bilaterally, effectively devaluing the abductee issue by making it subordinate to Washington's geopolitical prerogative. This treachery by the Japanese 'conservative' political class only guarantees that the abductees will never come home and that Japan will never pursue an independent course in East Asia. A direct, Japan-led initiative – reminiscent of former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's approach – could help reenergize dialogue, not only on the abductee issue but also on the broader question of normalizing bilateral relations. If Japan were to reach out to North Korea directly, without acting as Washington's cupbearer or message-bringer, then North Korea might respond more favorably to such overtures. Second, Japan should re-engage with Russia, despite the current geopolitical tensions. Quiet, pragmatic diplomacy with Moscow could serve several objectives: securing energy resources, mitigating economic fallout from sanctions, and more critically, reopening dialogue on the status of the Northern Territories. While immediate resolution of territorial disputes may be unlikely, recognizing certain political realities, such as Russia's control of Crimea and other regions in Ukraine, could serve as bargaining chips in negotiations that prioritize Japan's national interest. Tokyo should not rush to violate sanctions, but rather assess carefully whether incremental divergence from Washington's stance could yield strategic benefits. Third, Japan must begin to reassess the long-term presence of US military bases on its soil. While the alliance with the US remains foundational to Japan's security framework in the minds of defense planners in Tokyo, a more autonomous defense posture should be part of a broader defense strategy. 'Double containment' is a phrase that Japan's pro-Washington establishment needs to learn post haste. Japan could start by increasing its operational control and logistical oversight of select bases under the pretext of burden-sharing. Over time, a phased and transparent renegotiation of the base structure could lay the groundwork for greater sovereignty in defense affairs, without triggering unnecessary confrontation. In parallel, Tokyo should also begin a national conversation on revisiting the Three Non-Nuclear Principles. But it must be kept in mind that nuclear sharing is not a suitable long-term goal. Japan must work toward nuclear armament as a bedrock of Japanese sovereignty. Fourth, Japan's financial relationship with the United States, particularly its role as a major holder of US Treasury bonds, also warrants reevaluation. While an abrupt sell-off would be risky and self-damaging, a gradual diversification of Japan's reserve assets and a reduction in exposure to US debt could serve as a long-term hedge against future volatility. Bond markets are in turmoil and Japan is in very risky territory. More so given that the appetite in Washington for more debt appears insatiable. This is a losing proposition for creditor nations like Japan, so a reconfiguration is now an urgent task for Tokyo. Fifth, any realignment of strategic posture must be accompanied by a national reckoning. Japan must hold a truth and reconciliation commission to bring to light the extent to which Japanese politicians, the Japanese media, and other people and institutions have collaborated with Washington during the postwar era. Washington has not been Japan's ally, but its overlord. Long after decolonization movements swept Asia, Africa, and Latin America, Tokyo has remained a slavish camp follower of Washington's murderous foreign adventures. The Japanese people deserve to know exactly who has sold their country out to Washington as a first step toward taking Japan back from its colonial master. Japan's strategic decoupling from Washington will not be only a military, fiscal or political exercise. It must also be a time of soul searching, an opportunity to heal Japanese society by telling the truth about the past and allowing the Japanese people to digest the enormity of the crime their leaders have committed against them. Co-author of The Comfort Women Hoax: A Fake Memoir, North Korean Spies, and Hit Squads in the Academic Swamp , Jason M. Morgan is an associate professor at Reitaku University in Kashiwa, Japan, an editorial writer for the Sankei Shimbun newspaper in Tokyo, a managing editor at the news and opinion site JAPAN Forward and a researcher at the Japan Forum for Strategic Studies in Tokyo, the Moralogy Foundation in Kashiwa, and the Historical Awareness Research Committee also in Kashiwa.
