2 - White House News in Chinese (weebly.com)
Brian Christopher Deese (born February 17, 1978) is an American economic and political advisor who is the 13th Director of the National Economic Council, serving under President Joe Biden.[1] He also served as a senior advisor to President Barack Obama.[2] Earlier in the Obama administration, Deese served as the deputy director and acting director of the Office of Management and Budget. Deese also served as deputy director of the National Economic Council.[3] Deese served as the Global Head of Sustainable Investing at BlackRock. from Wikipedia
"...Brian Deese is currently serving as Assistant to the President & Senior Advisor. His duties include overseeing climate, conservation and energy policy and advising the President on a range of domestic and international policy issues.
Previously, Mr. Deese served as Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, where he helped to oversee the development of the President’s Budgets – including their focus on economic growth and fostering opportunity for working families – and the President’s efforts to deliver a smarter, more innovative and more accountable government..." quoted from
"...Brian Deese is currently serving as Assistant to the President & Senior Advisor. His duties include overseeing climate, conservation and energy policy and advising the President on a range of domestic and international policy issues.
Previously, Mr. Deese served as Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, where he helped to oversee the development of the President’s Budgets – including their focus on economic growth and fostering opportunity for working families – and the President’s efforts to deliver a smarter, more innovative and more accountable government..." quoted from
US federal agencies were asked to look into how much they depend on imports for semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, automobile batteries and rare earth elements.
White House to discuss supply chain review results, but there’s no ‘magic bullet’ for US reliance on China and other countries, Biden administration says
Jun. 5 - The Biden administration said on Friday it has found some concrete solutions in addressing America’s reliance on foreign countries such as China for critical products, but there is not an instant remedy to solve broad supply chain issues.
White House top economic adviser Brian Deese told reporters at a briefing that the administration will discuss supply chain problems more next week when the results of the 100-day review are released. The findings were due on Friday.
US President Joe Biden in February ordered federal agencies to look into how much they depend on imports for semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, automobile batteries and rare earth elements that are crucial to tech and defence. The agencies were also asked to find ways to increase domestic production in these four areas.
Deese said to address the semiconductor supply chain problems, “we’ve been spending enormous amount of time with industry participants up and down the semiconductor supply chain” and “have identified some very concrete solutions”.
White House to discuss supply chain review results, but there’s no ‘magic bullet’ for US reliance on China and other countries, Biden administration says
- Biden administration says it will discuss the results of a review examining America’s reliance on foreign countries such as China for critical products
- ‘Some very concrete solutions’ were identified in the semiconductor supply chain, says White House’s top economic adviser
Jun. 5 - The Biden administration said on Friday it has found some concrete solutions in addressing America’s reliance on foreign countries such as China for critical products, but there is not an instant remedy to solve broad supply chain issues.
White House top economic adviser Brian Deese told reporters at a briefing that the administration will discuss supply chain problems more next week when the results of the 100-day review are released. The findings were due on Friday.
US President Joe Biden in February ordered federal agencies to look into how much they depend on imports for semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, automobile batteries and rare earth elements that are crucial to tech and defence. The agencies were also asked to find ways to increase domestic production in these four areas.
Deese said to address the semiconductor supply chain problems, “we’ve been spending enormous amount of time with industry participants up and down the semiconductor supply chain” and “have identified some very concrete solutions”.
US President Joe Biden vows China “will not win this race” amid electric vehicle rivalry
The review will also address short-term bottlenecks seen in recent months in housing, construction materials, transport and logistics, said Deese.
“As we anticipate those to be short-term, they’re still causing bottlenecks in different sectors of the economy,” said Deese. “You can expect the administration to be really laser focused on those places.”
“In short, I would say that a lot of these issues, there is no immediate magic bullet,” he said... more
The review will also address short-term bottlenecks seen in recent months in housing, construction materials, transport and logistics, said Deese.
“As we anticipate those to be short-term, they’re still causing bottlenecks in different sectors of the economy,” said Deese. “You can expect the administration to be really laser focused on those places.”
“In short, I would say that a lot of these issues, there is no immediate magic bullet,” he said... more
Jobs report shows gains, but is it good news for the economy?
June 5 - The pace of hiring in the U.S. picked up in May, but Friday's good-but-not-great jobs report is prompting some to ask why workers are still holding back, even as businesses across the country reopen to something close to pre-pandemic levels. Brian Deese, the Biden administration's director of the National Economic Council, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.
Read the Full Transcript
Judy Woodruff:
We dig in now to today's U.S. jobs report and broader questions about the economy.
I spoke a short time ago with Brian Deese. He's the Biden administration's director of the National Economic Council.
Brian Deese, welcome back to the "NewsHour."
Let's talk about that jobs report today, 559,000 jobs created in the month of May. It's twice what we saw in April, but it was still less than what some, if not many, economists predicted. Does that temper the celebrating Americans should be doing?
Brian Deese:
I think this job report is really good news for the economy and good news for the American people.
We have seen now consistent job growth of about 500,000 jobs a month over the last four months, which is the strongest job growth we have seen in quite a long time. In the three months prior, we were averaging job growth at about 60,000 a month. So we have seen a significant pickup.
And we saw — the good news was that that job growth was broad-based across sectors and industries. And also, importantly, wages increased. They increased last month. They increased this month again. That's good news, good news for American workers. more
June 5 - The pace of hiring in the U.S. picked up in May, but Friday's good-but-not-great jobs report is prompting some to ask why workers are still holding back, even as businesses across the country reopen to something close to pre-pandemic levels. Brian Deese, the Biden administration's director of the National Economic Council, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.
Read the Full Transcript
Judy Woodruff:
We dig in now to today's U.S. jobs report and broader questions about the economy.
I spoke a short time ago with Brian Deese. He's the Biden administration's director of the National Economic Council.
Brian Deese, welcome back to the "NewsHour."
Let's talk about that jobs report today, 559,000 jobs created in the month of May. It's twice what we saw in April, but it was still less than what some, if not many, economists predicted. Does that temper the celebrating Americans should be doing?
Brian Deese:
I think this job report is really good news for the economy and good news for the American people.
We have seen now consistent job growth of about 500,000 jobs a month over the last four months, which is the strongest job growth we have seen in quite a long time. In the three months prior, we were averaging job growth at about 60,000 a month. So we have seen a significant pickup.
And we saw — the good news was that that job growth was broad-based across sectors and industries. And also, importantly, wages increased. They increased last month. They increased this month again. That's good news, good news for American workers. more
All the Ways to Cut The U.S. Defense Budget that China and Russia Would Love
The idea that Congress can continue to increase pay and benefits while cutting everything else will create a hollow force unable to achieve its missions.
Jun. 5 - Almost weekly there is a new letter calling for impossible defense cuts that may make for good headlines but are actually poor policy borne on the backs of those in uniform. In order to be productive, this year’s defense budget debates demand a baseline reality check for increasingly vocal and aligned groups of policymakers and stakeholders who would see the military undergo steep cuts at a time when no other federal agency is on a fiscal diet. It is fair to ask the Department of Defense to find efficiencies in an over-$700 billion budget. However, suggesting the Pentagon could accommodate a 10 percent reduction to its budget is political theater—not realistic or responsible policymaking.
During the negotiations for the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021, proposed amendments from Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Mark Pocan to cut the defense budget by 10 percent were roundly defeated. Just last year, President Joe Biden’s Deputy Secretary of Defense Kath Hicks wrote that a 10 percent cut would render the U.S. a regional power, break U.S. alliances and partnerships, and increase nuclear proliferation. Yet the urge to beat a dead horse with a familiar stick is alive and well.
On March 16, 2021, the Defense Spending Reduction Caucus wrote a letter to President Joe Biden, advocating a “significantly reduced Pentagon topline.” Just over a week later on March 24, a coalition of organizations sent a separate letter to the leaders of the armed services and appropriations committees in Congress, citing the Defense Spending Reduction Caucus letter, and detailing a series of budget cut proposals for the Pentagon’s budget request for 2022.
Unsurprisingly, the coalition letter heavily relied on the Congressional Budget Office’s report, Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2021-2030. The most glaring challenge with leaning on this source, as discussed when the CBO originally published its option menu in December of last year, is that none of the program cuts were bound by (or moderately reflective of), with or to U.S. defense strategy objectives. Nor did the CBO discuss the consequences of such program tradeoffs, but it is obvious they would be steep. This is the opposite of strategy-based budgeting.
For proof, look no further than the struggling Navy. The coalition suggested reducing the naval component of the nuclear triad to eight submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles (SSBNs) and canceling all Ford-class aircraft carriers. Setting aside the projected savings estimations, the underlying strategic logic is tenuous for both proposals.
The value of the American aircraft carrier fleet has been debated in theory for fifty years. But in practice, the existing carrier fleet is in tremendously high demand and consistently overworked. Just this month, the Pentagon diverted a carrier from the Pacific to the Middle East to support Afghan troop withdrawals--leaving a gap in coverage of a critical region to national interests... more
The idea that Congress can continue to increase pay and benefits while cutting everything else will create a hollow force unable to achieve its missions.
Jun. 5 - Almost weekly there is a new letter calling for impossible defense cuts that may make for good headlines but are actually poor policy borne on the backs of those in uniform. In order to be productive, this year’s defense budget debates demand a baseline reality check for increasingly vocal and aligned groups of policymakers and stakeholders who would see the military undergo steep cuts at a time when no other federal agency is on a fiscal diet. It is fair to ask the Department of Defense to find efficiencies in an over-$700 billion budget. However, suggesting the Pentagon could accommodate a 10 percent reduction to its budget is political theater—not realistic or responsible policymaking.
During the negotiations for the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021, proposed amendments from Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Mark Pocan to cut the defense budget by 10 percent were roundly defeated. Just last year, President Joe Biden’s Deputy Secretary of Defense Kath Hicks wrote that a 10 percent cut would render the U.S. a regional power, break U.S. alliances and partnerships, and increase nuclear proliferation. Yet the urge to beat a dead horse with a familiar stick is alive and well.
On March 16, 2021, the Defense Spending Reduction Caucus wrote a letter to President Joe Biden, advocating a “significantly reduced Pentagon topline.” Just over a week later on March 24, a coalition of organizations sent a separate letter to the leaders of the armed services and appropriations committees in Congress, citing the Defense Spending Reduction Caucus letter, and detailing a series of budget cut proposals for the Pentagon’s budget request for 2022.
Unsurprisingly, the coalition letter heavily relied on the Congressional Budget Office’s report, Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2021-2030. The most glaring challenge with leaning on this source, as discussed when the CBO originally published its option menu in December of last year, is that none of the program cuts were bound by (or moderately reflective of), with or to U.S. defense strategy objectives. Nor did the CBO discuss the consequences of such program tradeoffs, but it is obvious they would be steep. This is the opposite of strategy-based budgeting.
For proof, look no further than the struggling Navy. The coalition suggested reducing the naval component of the nuclear triad to eight submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles (SSBNs) and canceling all Ford-class aircraft carriers. Setting aside the projected savings estimations, the underlying strategic logic is tenuous for both proposals.
The value of the American aircraft carrier fleet has been debated in theory for fifty years. But in practice, the existing carrier fleet is in tremendously high demand and consistently overworked. Just this month, the Pentagon diverted a carrier from the Pacific to the Middle East to support Afghan troop withdrawals--leaving a gap in coverage of a critical region to national interests... more
监听风暴加剧 美在俄边境亮“杀器”加码较量？20210604 |《今日关注》CCTV中文国际
Jun 5, 2021
Jun 5, 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment