Speaker 1: And greetings everyone. Hello, how are you happy Wednesday to you?
Today is the fifth day of November, year of our
lower twenty twenty five. My name is Tom Sullivan, and
very busy day today. We always when elections come around,
we always talk today before elections about what do you
think is going to happen? And our election day we
scramble around to talk about what's happening, and then the
day after, which is today, we analyze. Yeah, and so
we'll do some analysis of that. We've also got what
is being described as the biggest case of the year
before the Supreme Court today. It is about tariffs and
does the president have the authority to issue tariffs? So
it has a lot of repercussions on that one about
the elections. What I took away from it was the
one word affordability. So I want to get into that
with you today as well. The president's talking about trying
to get rid of the filibusters so they can just
go ahead and reopen government again. There was a horrific
crash last night at Louisville United Parcel Service as their
big hub line taking off from there for Honolulu crashed
on takeoff and we got an unofficial Jobs Report. They
always come out with it every month is ADP, and
they have their private sector unemployed report out to share
with everybody. Today shut down Day thirty six and well,
Sean Duffy, the Transportation Secretary, summed it up this way.
Speaker 2: Many of the controllers said, a lot of us can
navigate missing one paycheck, not everybody, but a lot of
us can. None of us can manage missing two paychecks.
So if you bring us to a week from today, Democrats,
you will see mass chaos. You will see mass flight delays,
you'll see mass cancelations, and you may see us close
certain parts of the airspace because we just cannot manage it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he sounds pretty dire, but he's right. I mean,
it's going to be large chunks of the airspace that
they're just going to have to close. So that he
says a week from today, that will be what we're
going to be looking at. So it's getting pretty close
to let's see, that's the twelfth of November. We're getting
closer and closer to the holidays. So hopefully I think
they will have a solution within the next couple of days.
I've repeated my theory endlessly about the fact that after
the elections then a lot of the political gamesmanship will
be reduced and maybe they can sit down and get
something done. I think within the next couple of days.
I don't have any inside on this is just it
just makes sense to me that that's what's going to happen.
Let's start with the Supreme Court today and the hearing
about does the president have the authority to issue tariffs
on foreign countries? And this goes back there's quite a
bit to talk about regarding tariffs. A group of small
businesses and a group of states are the ones that
are suing over Donald Trump's authority. There is law, not
to get too far in the weeds, but what the
president and his administration is using as their authority, because
it says in the Constitution that Congress is the one
who taxes and issues tariffs, not the executive. But Congress does.
But in nineteen seventy seven they came up with the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, they call it IEPA because
it's just another name. Nineteen seventy seven, and in that
they gave some authority to the president regarding some specific,
targeted temporary tariffs. And that is what the Trump administration
is using and that is what's before the court. So
we'll see what happens from here. But let's listen to
we have. We got a bunch of legal brains, Joan Biscup.
She is a Supreme Court reporter who can give us
a kind of a summary of what they're looking at today.
Speaker 3: This is the most important Trump case to reach the
Supreme Court in his second term. The amount of money
at stake Already ninety billion dollars have been collected from
his tariffs. Potentially trillions could be collected. So that's a
lot of money for the US Treasury, but it's also
a lot of paying for consumers who've had to be
paying more, a lot of uncertainty for small businesses and
for businesses across the board with these tariffs, and that
goes to the people who've challenged this.
Speaker 4: A group of states have.
Speaker 3: Challenged these tariffs, as well as small businesses and educational
toy maker and a wine importer, saying that President Trump
exceeded his powers when he imposed these emergency tariffs. The
Constitution gives the tariff power to Congress, just as it
gives the taxing power to Congress. But President Trump has
invoked something called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. And
for anybody who's going to listen today at ten o'clock,
they'll hear the abbreviation AIPA said repeatedly, and that law
does give the president emergency economic powers at times, but
it does not mention tariffs. It's usually been used for
economic sanctions, and lower courts have all ruled against President
Trump in this case. Now he is saying that the
law is written broadly enough to encompass the powers that
he's used here. But I also have to say that
the kind of rhetoric that you're going to hear from
President Trump's lawyer today will be almost of the nature
that you see in that social media post that you
referred to about this being a matter of life and death.
And let me just tell you what has emerged in
one of the legal filings. One year ago, the United
States was a dead country. And now because of the
trillions of dollars being paid by countries that have badly
abused US, America is strong. One last thing, let me
tell you who to listen for. Two of Donald Trump's
own appointees, Neil Gorsich, his first appointee, and his third,
Amy Cony Barrett. They will probably be pivotal in this case.
Listen for how they parse the separation of powers of
what the president can do and what Congress can do.
And one last thing, when you hear questions from them,
they usually are legitimate. Sometimes the others might be throwing
you a bit.
Speaker 1: So she mentioned ninety billion has been collected. Others that's
the right number. The president like, yes, he does like
to exaggerate. He's talking about trillions and trillions of dollars
have come in. No, it's ninety it's a lot. It's
ninety billion dollars have been collected. Those are taxes that
are paid for mostly by Americans. And well, that's another
whole debate about all of that. Michael Moore, former US
Attorney for Georgia, this is his view.
Speaker 5: Yeah, well, I'm glad to be with you. This is
an important case. But I wouldn't state that on what
the president says. I mean, he has a tendency to
speak and sort of adjuration and hyperbole. I mean, if
you think about it, everything that happens as an emergency,
and anybody who disagrees with him as a criminal. So
I just I think he's sort of stretching there. But
it's a big case because Supreme Court is not just
have to be thinking about this president, but the next
president coming, and so how much is the Court willing
to expand or give executive authority to a president? And
that's that's the test. It's not simply about this case though. Frankly,
this is going to be the line of we'll see
whether or not the conservative justice is actually want to
stand by the language and the Constitution, or whether or
not they're going to try to find a loophole to
sort of support their side of the team. So the
case really is just about can a president go out
under some emergency power and say I'm going to now
regulate trade by imposing these terrafs. And so the other
side is saying, look, wait a minute, A tariff is
actually a taxed because the American citizens end up absorbing
that cost. You're basically taxing us. You're not putting a
penalty on the producer country or the shipping country. You're
actually taxing me by raising the price of goods. And
everybody's seeing that in every store they go in throughout
the country. And so the question will be whether or
not the tariff will be seen as attack or not.
And this is not a novel point if you think
about it. And remember that John Roberts when he was
writing the opinion dealing with the Affordable Care Act, when
he was making the point that even the penalty they
called it, he considered that to be a tax because
if that's how he was able to sustain the Affordable
Care Act. So the definition of tariff, the definition of
regulate under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act that the
President is using, those are going to be definitions that
I think you'll see some fighting on both sides of
the bench as the lawyers make their arguments to the
court today. Well, when we've talked about conservative justices that
you know, typically they've held themselves out as being textualists.
They read the Constitution, they say that the Framers intended
to have limited government and checks and balances and those
kinds of things. But lately you've seen those justices sort
of set the idea of checks and balances by coequal
branches of government aside and give great deference to the executive.
And so the question will be whether or not they
stand by that view of the Constitution, or whether or
not they now look for a wording in a congressional statue.
The wording they'll be deciding is regulate, because the the
only way that Trump is able to even move these
terrors forward is to say I have powers under a
congressional statute that says I can regulate trade in the
case of some emergency. Well, the Constitution says, you know
that only Congress can tax. And so if they decide,
in fact that they're going to give more deference to
a term of called regulate than they are to the
terms in the Constitution itself and what those men at
the time and what the subsequent legislation has done to
define those powers, you know, that's that's going to be
a different bridge for them. You know, they typically like
to come down and say, look, we just like the
Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is sacred. Nobody can do
anything to it because it says this, no matter what
people argue about it. Well, now they want to twist
a little bit and say, well, under the Constitution, you know,
the power to tacks may mean something a little different
than we think it meant. After all, So this will
be a needle they'll have to thread. They'll have to
come back on some things that they've written in the past,
and Jesus that they've talked about to try to make
this opinion make sense, even though it may be divergent
from what they've articulated in past opinions.
Speaker 1: He sounds like he knows that the Supreme Court is
going to rule in favor of the president's ability to
lay tariffs. We're still going along road to figure that out.
Shannon Breem covers the Supreme Court for Fox. He's a lawyer.
Here's her view. Well, and by the way, to remember
about this, this isn't just about President Trump. This is
the Supreme Court trying to determine presidential authority. This president,
the next president, the president after that. How much authority
do they have versus congressional authority? Who has the authority
to tariff? You're Shannon bring So it.
Speaker 6: Gets to this, what does the text of the law
really mean when it grants President Trump or any president
executive wide sweeping powers to deal with emergency situations?
Speaker 4: Does it mean he can.
Speaker 6: Levy wide ranging tariffs to any country anytime he wants to. Well,
they've lost all the decisions at the lower court. So
I asked Treasury Secretary Scott Passon who will be here
today for the arguments. Why he's feeling so optimistic. Here's
what he told me on Fox New Sunday.
Speaker 7: I'm quite optimistic, and Shannon, what I can tell you
is that because of what the Chinese did on October
eighth of threatening to put export controls on any rare
earth products that they produce that had point zero one
percent of rare if produced in China, that they were
going to try to control those, and the President was
able to push back using his AEPA powers.
Speaker 6: So he went on to say, if that's not the
use of emergency powers in an emergency situation, he doesn't
know what is. So now we'll be up to do
the justices decide if they agree with him. Now, the plaintiffs,
which includes some small businesses, aren't buying the administration's argument
that the President has the power to simply levy tariffs
in any amount at any time he'd like to.
Speaker 4: This is from one of their briefs.
Speaker 8: They say that is.
Speaker 6: A breathtaking assertion of power, and one would expect to
see an unequivocal grant of authority from Congress to support it,
if the Constitution permits it at all. Yet the statute
the President invokes never mentions tariffs, and in fifty years,
no other president has used it for that purpose. So
they have given extra time today to this case. They've
given it eighty minutes. It'll probably go two or three hours.
Then they have a first vote behind closed doors this Friday.
We won't know the result of that until they get
this opinion out. They have fast tracked this case, so
I don't think this is going to be a situation
where this ends up in June with all the big headliners,
like maybe normally it won, but now we will just
watch and wait us through those arguments as start at
tennam Eastern.
Speaker 1: So we don't have to wait for June like most cases.
But we don't know when. And they're going to have
a vote sit on Friday, just kind of a preliminary vote,
so we should hopefully hear pretty soon. I mean, the
meter is running. They're collecting terriffs for every screw bolt, bicycle, whatever, toys,
whatever is coming in at the ports are getting assessed
tarriffs and tariffs and being collected by the Treasury Department.
Steve Vladik is a George Washington University Law School professor
who has written extensively on the whole business about tariffs.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I think that's going to be the really big
question that we're all going to be listening for us.
There are a bunch of other statutes that specifically authorize
the president to impose tariffs. During his first term, President
Trump relied on several of them. But now he's relying
on this statute AIPA, which hasn't been invoked for tariffs
in the forty eight years it's been on the books.
Are the justices really going to be okay with that,
especially when one of the real common themes from the
Supreme Court during the Biden administration was that if statutes
didn't specifically authorize programs with what the Court called vast
economic or political significance, then the Court would say they didn't.
Are we going to see that play out again or
the Court going to try to find a way to
distinguish those earlier cases. But there are two problems with
applying to the tariff's cases specifically. The first is that
Congress has not said nothing about tariffs. It has provided
specific tariff authority in other statutes. But the second, and
I think even bigger problem for that view, is that
the Court rejected it in the student loan cases. I mean,
let's remember that in the student loan cases, the statute
that the Biden administration was relying upon was about powers
granted to the Secretary of Education to deal with national emergencies,
in that case, the emergency caused by the COVID pandemic.
I guess it's really hard to under understand how this
Supreme Court could somehow distinguish between a national emergency caused
by a global health pandemic and a national emergency, in
this case, caused by long term trade deficits. The latter
doesn't seem any more grave to me than the former. Yeah,
I mean, I think the keys are going to be
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Cony Barrett. If
they are tipping their hand in the argument this morning,
if they are hostile towards this listener, General John Sower,
I think that's a sign that President Trump's in for
a rough go of it. If they're quieter, if they're
more conciliatory, and I think it's a close call, And
with the Supreme Court, you just never know.
Speaker 1: So we wait. The hearing was today, but we'll find
out fairly soon. I'm sure whether the President has the
authority to do tariffs. If not, we have to pay
back all those tariffs that were collected from American businesses,
ninety billion dollars worth. What a mess that will be.
Or Trey Goudy weighs in on the fact that if
this goes down in flames, they've got plenty of other
ways to do tariffs.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I think you framed the issue exactly right. This
is not about whether the Supreme Court likes tariffs or
things they raise revenue. It's about whether or not that
was a constitutional delegation that Emergency Powers Act where Congress
just said, look, this is really our job, but we're
going to give it to you executive branch. Was that
a proper delegation of power? And here's the good news
for the president. I mean, look, he really believes in
tariffs as a revenue producer, as a playing field leveler,
he believes in them. But even if these tariffs don't
survive this particular act, there are other acts to use.
And god forbid that Congress actually weigh in and get
involved with tariffs. I mean, Congress can ratify and validate
these tariffs tomorrow. So it's not like the tariffs have
to go away even if the Supreme Court rules against it.
You know, the president has a lot of great qualities.
Subtlety is not always one of them. I think what
he was getting at was, if you would talk more
about the success we've had, we would not have had
a bad night last night. I mean, there's no way
to put a sugarcoat on what happened last night. I mean,
Glenn Younk in that flip New Jersey wasn't closed New York.
I mean those of us in South Carolina really didn't
follow that race, and we're not surprised at it, but
it does impact y'all. I think what the presidents saying is, look,
y'all got to talk more aggressively and persuasively about the
success we have had and do not get distracted. I mean,
you look at the headlines recently, and you got an
apoplectic congress woman who's having a psychotic episode in Charleston
at an airport. You got this debate over white nationalism.
I think Trump is saying, Republicans quit talking about all
of that. Start talking about the best ten months in
any president has ever had in our history. And maybe
we have a chance in the midterm. Yes, well it
was the number one issue. And look, crime matters to
me a lot, but I saw that it pulled pretty
low last night. So as much as on my light
talking about it, it's not what the jury wants to
hear about.
Speaker 1: Well, I like Trey, but I disagree with him and
the president on this business about just talk about all
the successes. No, the number one issue in the election
last night was affordability. Ma'am, Donnie, just beat the affordability
thing home. It was also a big repeat over and
over again in New Jersey and Virginia. It's it's affordability.
Prices are going up, people are feeling it. There. We
have what's being described as a K economy, the letter K.
One arm goes up, one arm goes down. There's people
the upper income people in this country are doing fine,
but there's a whole bunch of them that are on
that lower part of the K which you're pointing down.
And that is going to be what Republicans, in my
humble opinion, have to figure out how to turn around
the affordability issue. And if I may about ma'am donnie,
promising free buses, free child care, free all these things
politicians have always promised, all kinds of things that never
come to fruition. So I mean, it's got him elected,
but if I was a betting person, I would not
I would bet on the fact that a lot of
what he promised is not going to come around at
all and people will be disappointed. But affordability, that is
where President Trump drove home that point. Got elected a
year ago today on the fact that he was going
to bring down prices. Prices have gone up, they haven't
gone down. So I know he wants to talk about
all of his successes, but he's got to pay attention
to this affordability issue. Roger Raltman, who is the founder
of Evercore, Big Wall Street guy. He's I don't know,
one hundred years old, seems like he's been around a
long time, and he's a very astute, very smart man.
This is his take on what happened here in election
night last night.
Speaker 11: There are three I think there are three main points here.
One is it's an amazing political win. So this guy
has a lot of political talent and you have to
shake your hat off to him. Number Two, we just
in the city endured twelve years of Deblasio and Adams,
who in my view, were both incompetent, and yet the
city prospered in many respects, and so I think it's
hard to imagine that he's going to be worse than
they were. Hard to imagine. In addition, you know, the
mayoralty has its limits. No tasking authority, Port authority runs
the airports in the ports. MTA is a separate entity.
It's a fairly limited job.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 11: The other way to look at it is, of course,
what a crapshoot. He's thirty four years old. He's never
had a serious job. He's never managed popil, he's never
managed any organization, and it's probably going to be pretty
chaotic in the early going. But the city is a
resilient place and an amazing place, and if it survived
twelve years of de Blasio and Adams, it will survive Mamdani.
Anybody who met with Bill de Blasio and who was
in the business or sector or Wall Street, you know,
he wasn't exactly a warm and cuddly presence, and I
had that experience, and so yes, it will function. An
early sign will be who he surrounds himself with. If
you look back at the night Eric Adams was elected,
and you look at who was standing around him on
the stage. In retrospect, it was a very bad sign. Now,
I don't know what the result of the I don't
know what decisions Mam Donnie will make and whether the
dynamic between Jesse Jish, for example, Mom Donnie will be
an acceptable one or not. But an early sign will
be who he chooses. And initially he's been surrounded by
a lot of form Farmer de Blasio people, at least
as I've seen it.
Speaker 1: Well, a couple of his points I thought were worthy
of playing. One of them is the mayor's powers are
limited Albany. The state capital controls the subways, the MTA,
the Port Authority controls the airports in the ports. I mean,
it goes on and on and on that the mayor
always complains that they don't have any say over this,
that or everything else. So even though it's a city
and there's a mayor, a lot of it is run
by the state capitol in Albany. So and second point
he may was about, let's see who he is arounds
himself with. I just I think he's got a lot
of the promises that he made are not going to
be able to be kept. Speaking of Bill de Blasio,
he waged in a little bit this morning as well.
Speaker 12: She's right in the sense that if Democrats cling to
what we did in twenty twenty four, w left behind electorally.
In twenty twenty four. I'm sad to say this. We
appeared to be a Washington based, consultant driven elitist party,
didn't seem to be in touch with what people are
going through. I hate saying it, but Donald Trump seemed
angrier at the status quo in America than Kamala Harris did. Now,
I think what AOC is saying is Democrats have to
be on the side of working people, middle class people, saying,
you know what, you shouldn't have to struggle this much
to pay the bills. There's got to be a better
way to do this than the richest country in the world.
And if they have that kind of energy, like we're
not going to accept things the way they are, I
think we can prevail going forward. But a Democrat tries
to explain things away and says everything's okay is going
to lose fascinating realities. It's kind of flipping.
Speaker 8: Now.
Speaker 12: Now you have Trump supporters saying, well, look at all
these great economic indicators, but people when they try and
pay the bills, it doesn't feel some great It's almost
like Biden Biden onmics all over again. Right, Biden made
that huge mistake. All the economy, the indicators are great,
but people were hurting. That's kind of flipping. Now Democrats
have the opportunity to say people are hurting, we're going
to fight for them.
Speaker 1: So we've talked a lot about ma'm donnie. But it
was the same with I watched the acceptance speeches last
night of both the governor elect in Virginia and New Jersey,
and they're doing the same thing. They're promising the moon.
All politicians do it. Rarely do they actually come to fruition.
So a lot of promises, let's see what they do.
I'm not expecting much, but that's just me. Mark Short,
who was Vice President Pence's chief of staff, his view
about from the Republican side about the elections last night.
Speaker 13: I think that the energy Democrat Party is in the
Mamdanie aoc Bernie camp. That's where their energy is. And
I think Donald Trump was really affected by bringing blue
collar workers into the republic importance. But I think that
the answer is not going to be more government ownership.
If you have government owning grocery stores, government interfering in businesses,
you're going to people flee. In New York City, You're
going to have businesses leave the Democrat Party. And so
I think that the challenge for Republicans, though, is to
offer an alternative and not be offering the same proposals
of more government and a bigger government. In the economic policy, well,
I think what he's going to come in on it,
because you know you've already seen, he's going to say
they weren't close enough to me, they didn't stick with me,
these are not maga candidates, and he's going to be
hammering the Republicans need to kill it with filibuster. I
think that's all inside baseball. There's been no administration that
has ever seen a present more willing to engage in primaries.
So it's hard to sit here and say these weren't
my candidates. But I think that the message, I think
has to be to say that we're going to lower prices,
but we're going to do that by allowing actually trade.
I think that the policies they're pursuing are the ones
that are continue to try up prices.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's Mark Shore, a Republican and says that his policies,
President Trump's policies are in fact driving up prices. It's
the tariffs. I don't know how else to say it.
On more about about New York City, Marcus Lamonas, he's
the CEO of He's the CEO of Camping World. He's
had a show on CNBC, The Propherty. He's got one
on Fox Business, The Fixer. Very wealthy guy, and he
is a business man doing business in New York City.
This is what he said in Miami.
Speaker 4: As I mentioned earlier, And when I got out of college,
I made the mistake of trying to run for office
in South Florida and my aria was Little Havan in
Miami Beach, and I ran as a Democrat. I was young, dumb,
didn't know a lot, and I didn't realize that the
folks that made up the bulk of the population of
Miami were from Cuba, and those folks had seen and
experienced communism, which is a which is what I think
we're going to potentially see here in New York, not socialism.
And I lost I lost in a very big way,
and it was a great reminder to me that this
country was built on the American dream. But hard work
not entitlement. Nobody's owed anything. I'm not owed anything. You're
not own anything. We have to work for it. I
worry what New York needs to go through to understand
what the folks that live in Miami that now know
Cuba are going to experience. I worry about that. Well.
Speaker 1: I worry about it too. But we'll see if any
of what he has to promise actually comes to fruition.
I'm very skeptical. There's another debate going on in the
Republican Party about the filibuster. The filibuster in the Senate
requires sixty votes in order to pass something. It gives
the minority party some power. For example, the Democrats right
now have a lot of power over the shutdown because
we need sixty of them to sign to open the government.
But back up, it was the same when the Democrats
were in power and the Republicans were the minority. I
think it would be. It's one of those things where
Donald Trump is very much transactional. He wants a deal
right now. He doesn't play chess very well about what's
coming up down the road. Someday the Democrats will be
in the majority in the Senate, and you don't want
them to have a filibuster gone. You want the filibuster
to be there to prevent a problem. Josh Holmes, long
time Republican consultant, He has same observation.
Speaker 14: Yeah, Look, I understand deeply why President Trump wants to
do it. It is a very bad idea to do so.
For a number of reasons.
Speaker 2: One is just the.
Speaker 14: Makeup of the two political parties. Republicans by and large,
like this country. They want to improve this country. They
want to make sure the economy works for the American
people and they can have a lot in life that's
better off than the one they were born into. Democrats
don't see it that way. If you were to nuke
a filibuster, it provides them all of the opportunity to
do exactly what it is that they're talking about when
Mom Donnie is talking about eliminating capitalism at some point,
getting rid of any kind of rules protecting businesses, all
these environmental extremism point points, and then if you think
about the real dangerous stuff, it all comes within the
first Supreme Court decision that they disagree with. They have
said out loud they would like to remake the Supreme Court,
add seats to it. They have said they want to
add Puerto Rico in DC as states into our union,
giving them four new Democratic senators. Those things fundamentally remake America,
And but for the filibuster, they would have already done it.
Speaker 1: Josh clearly in favor of keeping the filibuster. Here's the president,
though he he wants to throw it away.
Speaker 15: It's ship for Republicans to do what they have to do,
and that's terminate the filibuster. It's the only way you
can do it. And if you don't terminate the f
you'll be in bad shape. We won't pass any legislation.
There'll be no legislation passed for three and a quarter.
We have three dund of quarter years, so it's a long.
Speaker 1: Time they'll pass legislation. But you don't want to have
because someday the Democrats are going to be in charge
of the Senate. You do not want that to happen. John,
you former deputy Attorney general, big Republican guy, listen to him.
Speaker 16: Let me take my hat off as a former Supreme
Court clerk and put my other one on where I
was General counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I have
no doubt if the Democrats get back in power and
control the White House and the Senate, they will get
rid of the philip They will want to get rid
of the philibuster. It will require Democrats to stop them,
and they will want to pack the Supreme Court. And
I think one thing that President Trump should think about is, Yes,
the short term win on the budget and other things
he wants could be done without the filibuster. But think
about the future. Think about Democrats taking power sometime. And
they all said they are all their nominees for president
other than by and the last election, said they would
pack the Supreme Court, they would get rid of the filibuster.
Speaker 1: I take them at their word. I do too, So
I can't find anybody that agrees with the President on
doing away with the filibuster from the Republicans side. The Democrats, yeah,
they would love that. Jobs. We don't have a job
report because the government's shut down, but ADP is they
come out with a private sector jobs report number and
their report was issued today for the month of October.
Their report shows forty two thousand jobs were created last
month versus twenty two thousand that were estimated, so it
was much stronger than estimated, but still it's a very
weak job report. We used to get one hundred thousand
to two hundred thousand new jobs a month, so forty
two thousand is better than September. It's not what anybody
was really looking for. Goods producing jobs last month nine thousand.
Service sector added thirty three thousand. The places when you
look at the businesses that hired small business people with
less than fifty employees, they lost ten thousand jobs last month.
Medium sized businesses fifty to five hundred thousand employees lost
twenty one thousand. The largest companies more than five hundred
thousand jobs, they gained seventy three thousand. But when you
look at small and medium sized businesses losing jobs, I
think it's totally the tariff effect. That's who's getting hurt
the most by the tariffs. In the jobs categories trade,
transportation and utilities up forty seven thousand, Education and health
up twenty six thousand. The rest of the job categories
all lost jobs. It basically shows what every economist is
talking about. There's very little hiring, very little firing going on.
There's a little bit of both going on. Niel Richardson,
who is a chief economist at ADP, kind of sums
it up this way.
Speaker 17: I think the first thing to note is the tepid recovery.
We saw a loss in September. We actually put out
a weekly Pulse number last week showing and signaling a
direction of tepid recovery. Now, as Steve mentioned, this is
not the hiring rates that we saw at the beginning
of the year, far from it, but it is a recovery.
It is not broad based. We did see some gains
in education and healthcare. We did note the gains in trade, transportation,
and utilities, but there's some weakness. You see it in
professional services, you see it in information services, and when
you think about the consumer, you see it in leisure
and hospitality. And then the final point again Steve mentioned it,
I'll put a little bit more data into it, is
that three fours three and every four workers in the
United States work in a company with less than two
hundred and fifty employees. And so while big companies make headlines,
you know, small companies drive hiring, and so to see
that weakness at the small company level is still a concern,
and I think that's one of the reasons why the
recovery has been so tepid.
Speaker 1: She has a nice way of saying that the recovery
is tep in other words, at job market is very,
very weak. We also got another economic report out today,
the ISM Report the Institute for Supply Managers, and they
have an index that if fifty or above means they're
purchasing more, the economy is growing. If it's below fifty,
the economy shrinking. Their number was fifty two point four,
so slightly positive. It's the eighth time this year that
it's been above fifty, so good for the Institute for
Supply Managers. Big crash last night in Louisville, United Parcel
Service UPS. It was an MD eleven, which I had
a cousin that flew MD eleven's for Delta and he
was not a fan. He said, it's the MD ten. Basically,
they expanded the plane but they didn't change the wings,
so it's a little bit I don't want to say unstable,
but it's a dicey plane. It was taking off last
night from Louisville, which is the main hub for UPS.
That's where most of your packages will go through Louisville
and on takeoff. There's lots of video out there today
of the left wing looked like around the engine was
maybe on fire. And now they after the crash, they
found the engine from the left wing just off the runway,
so it fell off, and it's an exact duplicate of
the worst passenger jet crash in US history was American
Airlines out of Chicago O'Hare. They were taking off. It
was a DC ten, basically the same kind of plane.
The crash occurred when the left engine fell off the
wing during takeoff, causing it to lose control and it
rolled over on its left side and crashed into the ground.
Two hundred and seventy three people were killed with the
UPS jet last night. There's a crew of three. It's
a cargo plane and all three of them were killed.
Plus total of nine killed, eleven injured, and sixteen families
are reporting someone missing because when it took off, the
fuel was on fire and it went almost a mile
past the airport fence where there's a lot of it's
an industrial area around the airport and a lot of
those industrial companies were hit by the plane or by
the debris. One of the companies in auto parts warehouse,
the owner of that, was speaking today how.
Speaker 8: What had happened was the power to go off in
our offices. Everybody heard a loud noise and then traditional rumbling,
and then it felt like an earthquake. Surean outside had
the phone on and there there was a huge fireball
right in the center of our facility. Her initial thought
was some that that our facility had exploded.
Speaker 1: Yeah, pieces of the plane debris went into buildings all
around that side of the airport. Mary Schiaivo, the former
Department of Transportation Inspector General. She always everybody asked her
what she thinks when there's a crash.
Speaker 18: Yes, and that's a very important video. The NTSB often
collects and does collect and asks for videos that anyone
might have of accident scenes. And of course yesterday with
all the big fires burning, we couldn't see that detail.
But the fact that that engine came off of the
plane before the final impact in fireballs suggests that whatever
initially started that engine failure probably what's called an uncontained
engine failure, where the engine itself starts to disintegrate and
Speu's parts cause that to detach. The engines are attached
with pylons with you know, structures that hold it on,
but something caused that to detach. And of course after
that there was really not you know, anything that the
poor pilots could do. So that's a huge clue and
does give us the NTSB a pretty good idea of
what started this all off. And that's why why this
engine having detached before the final fireball will be so important.
That fireball is thirty six thousand gallons of jet fuel burning.
But they will have the maintenance records most importantly, they
will go back and there's some indication that this has
just had a major maintenance, so had major maintenance work
done in October. They will see what was done to
the engines, in particular what new parts or replacement parts
or maybe even used parts will put on that plane
the most recent maintenance, because it was clearly an engine failure.
Engine detachment will be the focus of the start of
the investigation. And I'm sure the NTSB has already pulled
those kept electronically pulled those records already and that will
give the biggest clue. But the final impact, because they
do have that engine will be a big help here.
Speaker 1: What she said. It went under major maintenance last month,
in the month of October. I don't know if it
was last week or it was four weeks go, but
its reason and the crash of the MD ten out
of Chicago O'Hare back in nineteen seventy nine. They later
determined it was somebody in maintenance made didn't do something
right and the plane crashed because of that. So we'll
wait for the NTSB. They had a hearing, a brief
press hearing today. I'll give you just a part of
it here. There were three soles on board the plane.
After being cleared for takeoff, A large plum of fire
in the area of the left wing occurred during the
takeoff roll. The plane lifted off and gain gained enough
altitude to clear the fence at the end of runway
seventeen R. Shortly after clearing that fence, it made impact
with structures and the terrain off of the airport property.
A post impact fire in zuit which covers approximately almost
a half of a mile, and we have viewed airport
CCTV security coverage which shows the left engine detaching from
the wing during the takeoff roll. This and other videos
along with evidence we were finding our very valuable asset
to our investigators and helping us hone further which areas
we were going to be focusing on as we move
into further days of the investigation. So Wall Street today
did some recovery from yesterday's sell off. It wasn't the
end of the world yesterday, but it was a negative day. Today.
The Dow Jones industrials turned around, finished up two hundred
and twenty five points to forty seven thousand, three eleven
s and P up twenty four. NASDACK up one hundred
and fifty one. The price of gold up thirty three
dollars to thirty nine to ninety three, and oil down
a dollar today, down to fifth. It has a five
in front of it again, fifty nine dollars for a
barrel of oil. That's it for today. Thank you for
coming by. We'll be back again tomorrow. Hope to see
you them