[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. You just heard our opening usual theme, but one piece of music isn't sufficient to start the show today. We also need to add this one and see if you can figure out why.

[MUSIC - Fergie, Q-Tip & GoonRock: A Little Party Never Killed Nobody (All We Got)]

Brian Lehrer: Yes, that's Fergie with A Little Party Never Killed Nobody from the 2013 movie version of The Great Gatsby. You know this. As you may have heard in the news, as the Trump administration was ordering SNAP benefits to expire at midnight Friday night and the government shutdown at the end of Halloween, the President was having a Great Gatsby themed 1920s-themed Halloween party at the White House, with the theme song that you heard there as the party's theme. A Little Party Never Killed Nobody.

Some people might ironically celebrate the concentration of wealth in the so-called Gilded Age just before the depression in the 1920s. In this case, maybe not so ironic. Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy posted, "The way he rubs his inhumanity in American's face never ceases to stun me." He said this on X. "He's illegally refusing to pay food stamp benefits while he throws a ridiculously over-the-top Gatsby party for his right-wing millionaire and corporate friends." The take from Chris Murphy.

Our first guest this week also posted about the suspension of SNAP benefits and what looks like a cruel threat that came with it to grocery stores. We'll explain what that is. Our guest is Catherine Rampell, who recently left her perch as a Washington Post columnist, as part of the exodus there, and starts officially today as economics editor at The Bulwark. She is also co-host of the show The Weekend: Primetime on MSNBC. Catherine, always good to have you to talk economics and politics. Congratulations on the new gig and welcome back to WNYC.

Catherine Rampell: Great to be back.

Brian Lehrer: Can I ask you about you first? You're at The Bulwark now, which I think is usually described as a 'Never Trump' conservative site with Charlie Sykes, who our listeners may know, and people like that. From reading your columns over the years, I wouldn't label you conservative. You're also an MSNBC host. How do you fit in as the new economics editor at The Bulwark?

Catherine Rampell: [chuckles] Fair enough. The Bulwark was founded by a core group of, I guess 'Never Trump' Republicans, but actually, they have expanded and hired people with all sorts of political persuasions and have really invested in more reporting. I think that's where I fit in. I think of what I do as reported opinion. In some ways, I think I would be characterized as left of center, in some ways not. I try to do a fair amount of reporting and research, talking to experts, talking to people on the ground affected by various policies, and then build an argument out of that.

There are some other folks there who I think of as doing similar work, like Jonathan Cohn, who's an excellent longtime healthcare reporter who does more analytical stuff but would not necessarily or, really, in any way be considered part of the core 'Never Trump' Republican group. It's a small but growing publication. They're trying to invest in people who are solidly experts in their fields and whose, I guess, unifying theme is more pro-democracy than any other ideological bent.

Brian Lehrer: That's a good way to put it. Did you leave The Washington Post after 11 years as an opinion columnist because of-- I know you took the buyout. Was it because of Jeff Bezos' declaration that the opinion pages would emphasize what he calls free-market points of view?

Catherine Rampell: Here is what I will say about that. I did have some concerns about that. I consider myself very free-market oriented, by the way. If you look at what I've written over the years, I generally am in favor of markets and using markets to solve problems when possible. Markets fail, and sometimes interventions are needed to correct a market failure, but generally, markets are, I think, the most efficient way to allocate resources. It's not necessarily that I was against that in principle. However, I was a little bit concerned about whether the kinds of things that I write might be censored.

Like, I'm in favor of markets, but are carbon taxes free market? I don't know. Is supporting a robust social safety net through things like Medicaid sufficiently free-market? I don't know. I was concerned about what the no-fly zones might be. I also had some concerns about, even if I weren't censored, would my work be viewed through that lens? Like people might not believe that I was saying something in favor of free markets, or for that matter, criticizing the left, which I have done because I believed it, or would they assume that it was about just--

Brian Lehrer: A mandate?

Catherine Rampell: A mandate, right, exactly. My credibility is important to me. Those were my concerns. I don't hold it against anyone who decided to remain. I really do hope that the Post continues as a strong publication. I think that the news side in particular has continued to have really good scoops and investigative work. I still have colleagues on the opinion side whom I respect and support. The Washington Post has been a great institution for many years and an important check on power and a source of accountability. I hope it continues to remain that, whatever direction the new leadership takes.

Brian Lehrer: It's interesting that you ended with that because you're now the second former Washington Post columnist who has said on the show, "Don't dismiss the accountability journalism that they're still doing on the news pages." We take note of that.

All right. SNAP benefits are off for now, as of what would have been the 1st of the month. Benefits distribution on Saturday. I see that what you emphasized on X was this order from the Trump administration for grocery stores not to offer special discounts to people who usually shop there with SNAP cards but don't have money on them. Now, that shocked me when I learned about it from your post. I hadn't known about that. Can you explain their rationale, or if there's a law or previous policy behind that?

Catherine Rampell: There is a regulation that predates this shutdown that basically says vendors, retailers who accept SNAP benefits, who participate in the SNAP program, cannot treat SNAP recipients any differently from anyone else. The general understanding of that rule in the past is that SNAP recipients can't be charged more money for what they're buying. That you, you don't want to create a system in which retailers, effectively, defraud the government by saying, "Okay, you're paying with taxpayer dollars. I guess that means we can charge you a little extra for that milk," or for those vegetables, or what have you. That's the general motivation behind this regulation.

Now, it does mean, I guess, if you read it to the letter or you could interpret it this way, that you also can't charge them less, or you can't otherwise stigmatize them by treating them differently if they're paying with an EBT card versus cash or any other means of paying for groceries. Really, I think the original motivation was about you can't charge them more. Now that the shutdown has happened and benefits have lapsed, there are a lot of Americans, 40 million Americans, who are worried about whether they will be able to afford their grocery bills. Some grocery stores had stepped in and said, "Look, we know you're struggling. We're going to give people a special discount if they can attest or otherwise demonstrate that they are one of these affected households."

Actually, a store that I shop at sometimes had offered this as a special temporary discount to people who might otherwise be having difficulty. The administration sent out an email on the 30th, I believe it was, saying, "As a reminder, you can't treat SNAP recipients any differently, that includes meaning you cannot give them a discount." Now again, there are different ways to interpret this regulation and what it was intended to do or what it restricts, but if you are a grocery store and you got this seemingly threatening email, I can understand why you might say, "We think we have a case like for giving people discounts and offering some kindness but we are worried that the administration will interpret this differently and punish us."

If you're a store in, for example, one of the lower-income areas that is more affected by the lapse in benefits, this is pretty scary because you may not be able to continue operating in the future. You may not have a financially viable business model if, in fact, you are punished by being kicked out of the SNAP program. Look, we don't know what the motivation was behind this email going out. The optics are poor, I'll put it that way. It looks like it's restricting businesses from offering a little kindness during a difficult time. A consequence of it is certainly going to be that it is more difficult for businesses to offer greater generosity when they might be otherwise inclined to do so.

Brian Lehrer: You kind of touch on another level of impact of cutting off SNAP benefits that's getting a little press, but not that much. Obviously, it affects the people with the EBT cards that are not going to have benefits reloaded, but it also affects grocery stores where people shop with those cards.

Catherine Rampell: Absolutely.

Brian Lehrer: They're going to lose customers, so they're going to lose revenue.

Catherine Rampell: Yes, stores are affected, certainly. Some of them are going to be big chains like Walmart, which does have a lot of customers who are SNAP beneficiaries. Some of them are going to be smaller mom-and-pop grocery stores, particularly in, again, more rural areas, more lower-income areas that do rely on their customers' ability to access social safety supports like this in order to continue operating.

It's not just retailers in the long run. The changes to SNAP program, whether we're talking about this temporary lapse or the changes, the cuts to SNAP affected by the so-called big beautiful bill earlier this year, that will affect lots of other industries too, including farmers. Right? If it means that fewer households can afford the amount of groceries that they've been buying in the past, that goes all the way up the supply chain to those who are producing the food and then selling it on to wholesalers and retailers, and ultimately, consumers.

Brian Lehrer: You posted that you, yourself, were aware of at least two stores that had offered struggling customers a discount, then withdrew it after receiving this email from the government. Do you think they'd really do it? I realize there's no way to know, but do you think they'd really cut off grocery stores from being able to accept SNAP benefits as payment in the future because they're helping some poor people?

Catherine Rampell: I think the problem is we don't really know. Again, if you're a small business, you don't want to take that risk. Maybe there are other ways you can try to find to help low-income people who are struggling to afford food. Maybe they can donate more food to food pantries or whatnot. That's not as efficient; it's just helping people get the food at the cash register. I think it is a reasonable concern, particularly since, again, the government is shut down. They're not supposed to be doing a whole lot of activities unless they are considered accepted activities. You know, they're critical, they're necessary or essential functions.

This administration thought it was critical or essential enough to send out this email during a shutdown, when lots of other functions are not happening at the Department of Agriculture, which is who sent out this email. Again, you can infer from that what you will. I would infer that that means they take this seriously, and they sent out this email for a reason, that it is at least a significant enough risk that, yes, they might decide to kick people out or to kick businesses out of the program if they offer a little kindness.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, this can be one of our call-in topics for Catherine Rampell, now economics editor at The Bulwark, former Washington Post columnist, also an MSNBC Weekend: Primetime host. If you receive SNAP benefits and did not get your November 1st distribution, what are you doing differently today for food, or what is anyone you know with EBT cards doing differently? 212-433-WNYC. 433-9692.

Or if you own or work at a grocery store, have you been tempted to offer discounts to customers you know, who usually use their EBT cards, their SNAP cards, to shop there? What do you think, legally or morally, about this warning from the federal government not to? Has it stopped you in your tracks from considering it? 212-433-WNYC. Call or text. Or anything else about the economy right now, because we are going to get to some other things with Catherine.

Tariffs in the news, inflation in the news, interest rates in the news. All for Catherine Rampell, now economics editor at The Bulwark 212-433-WNYC. 212-433-9692. Call or text. Catherine, I didn't see you post specifically about the Trump Gatsby party as the clock was about to strike midnight on SNAP on Friday night. One correction, by the way, I said it was at the White House. It was actually at Mar-a-Lago, which I guess is fitting. I guess the Gold Lamè East Room, Donald J. Trump Ballroom, wasn't finished yet. As economics editor and columnist, what does the party signify to you? If you have any thoughts.

Catherine Rampell: Man, this is a little too on the nose. That was my reaction. It's like you could not design a starker split screen between the president partying in a roaring '20s, notoriously a time of very high income inequality, when the economy looked great but was really teetering on the brink. There was a bubble that was about to burst. Split screen of a celebration of that era. By the way, Gatsby also has this famous line about careless people. "They were careless people." That was about one of the central themes of the book. For those of us who remember reading it in middle school or high school, one of the themes was about careless, spoiled rich people who are basically indifferent to the suffering that they cause among the little people whom they think don't matter. This is literally what the book is about.

Anyway, that split screen between a celebration of that book, those themes, and 40 million people on the verge of going hungry. If this had appeared in an episode of The West Wing or some other political drama, I would have said, "It's too broad, too on the nose. Do something a little subtler." I think the only way that it could have been broader or could have been more on the nose is if they had had, like, a Versailles-themed party, for that matter.

It's funny in a way, in that I am old enough to remember when the former Democratic speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, having a fridge full of fancy ice cream was considered too out of touch and tone deaf, and, I don't know, too callous. Why is she frittering away money on fancy ice cream when people are struggling in the country? This is just orders of magnitude more tone deaf and somehow is not getting the same outcry from some of the same people who were mad about the fancy ice cream. It's a bad look. I don't know that it was deliberately designed to rub it in people's faces. I know a lot of people were like, "Oh, this is like trying to show off how little they care." I don't think that was it. I think it was just obliviousness. That's how I would interpret that.

Brian Lehrer: That many people oblivious to what The Great Gatsby was about?

Catherine Rampell: Maybe.

Brian Lehrer: And how it relates--

Catherine Rampell: I mean, the characters in The Great Gatsby were pretty oblivious.

Brian Lehrer: I guess.

Catherine Rampell: Maybe it's timeless.

Brian Lehrer: Here is Jim in Hunterdon County, who I think supports the idea of prohibiting grocery stores from giving discounts to people whose SNAP benefits have been cut off. Jim, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Jim: Hi. Thanks. If you were in the grocery store and you're working hard [inaudible 00:19:41] family, you wife, your husband, whatever, and you're struggling, but you're doing okay, and the person in front of you, out of nowhere, receives a whatever, 20% discount because they're on SNAP benefits but they don't have their card [inaudible 00:19:57] whatever. Fairness, how could anyone justify that? I think that's the real reason behind the email going out. That you just can't do that. It's just going to create a lot of animosity and just unfairness.

Brian Lehrer: Jim, how about if you lost your private sector job all of a sudden and the income that came with it, and you were shopping at a grocery store where they knew you, and they wanted to give you a discount temporarily to tide you over until you got back on your feet. Would you object to that?

Jim: I would because I'm prepared for that. You could say I'm one of the few or whatever, but I spend my money wisely, I save my money wisely. I don't think it would be the grocery store's place to say who gets a discount and who doesn't. It should just be across the board. What it is. No, I don't agree with that.

Brian Lehrer: Okay, fair enough. Thank you for calling in. We appreciate that. Catherine, who knows, maybe the Trump administration will have majority political support on this. If Jim's calling-- We have one other like it. I don't need to go through call after call. It wasn't hard here, even in blue New York City, to find people calling in right away to say, "Well, you know--" on that policy.

Catherine Rampell: To be clear, when people are paying with SNAP benefits, it's the same thing. They are getting a discount, effectively, because they have--

Brian Lehrer: Well, they're getting a subsidy.

Catherine Rampell: They're getting a subsidy.

Brian Lehrer: They're not getting a discount on what they're charged.

Catherine Rampell: No, but it's arithmetically the same. How much are they paying out of pocket? Right. The whole idea behind this program is to help people afford food when they're in a situation where they're not pulling in enough income to afford food on their own. I think it's, effectively, the same thing. In fact, it's probably less of a discount if they're getting 10% off versus getting a cash infusion to help pay for groceries.

In fact, if we're talking about the grocery store that's making the decision, no one would be making the grocery stores offer a different price to some customers versus others. They do price discrimination of all kinds: if people bring in coupons or senior citizens. There are lots of different ways that private stores are allowed to offer different prices to different customers, so long as they're not discriminating against particular protected classes. If the store thinks it's going to create animosity among their customers, they can make that judgment for themselves and say, "You know what? We're going to alienate too many of our customers. We don't want to do that." Why is it the government's role to decide how a store runs its business and figures out what to charge customers? Again, as long as it's within the confines of the law.

In this particular case, the government has the ability to do it because there are some strings attached to participation in the SNAP benefit program. That's how they're legally allowed to do it. I think philosophically, it seems like stores should have the ability to offer discounts to people if they want to. Again, as long as they're not discriminating against any protected classes. That's the whole reason we have SNAP benefits in general, so that we can help subsidize people who temporarily need the help. Why not let private stores decide how to price for themselves?

Brian Lehrer: Anthony in Brooklyn may be one of those people who needs the help. You're on WNYC, Anthony. Thank you for calling in.

Anthony: Good morning. I'm on SNAP benefits. I'm also on Social Security disability. I don't believe that you can talk about the loss of SNAP benefits without talking about the loss of my disability check.

Brian Lehrer: Talk about it.

Anthony: Well, I'm on two programs. I'm on HASA, HIV/AIDS Services Administration, where I receive my SNAP benefits. My Social Security check goes towards rent and my living expenses. Without my Social Security disability check, I can't pay my rent, and I can't make up the funds that I lose for my SNAP benefits. It's hard to talk about. Simply being that I fought all three arms of our government during the AIDS epidemic. [sobs] To see this happening now is infuriating.

Brian Lehrer: If you want to continue, Anthony, and obviously everybody can hear the emotion in your voice and how personal this is for you, and from the last thing you said, I'm sure you knew a lot of people who suffered and probably perished in the past as a result of what you probably see as government inaction at that time. What's your plan for the moment to compensate, if you have one?

Anthony: Well, I'm fortunate enough not to be a consumer. [chuckles]

Brian Lehrer: What does that mean?

Anthony: That means I don't spend money, other than what I need. In order to keep my HASA benefits, which is a city-run program, I was taking money out of my account and storing it cash. I'm fortunate to have some cash that will be able to support my grocery needs and some of my bills for a short period of time.

Brian Lehrer: But wait, did you just say you were hiding your income in order to get benefits?

Anthony: Are you trying to get me in trouble? [laughs]

Brian Lehrer: I'm trying to understand because people will hear what you just said a certain way.

Anthony: In order to keep my HASA benefits, I have been saving some disability money, with the expectation that this was going to be happening, and that I would lose my benefits.

Brian Lehrer: You were just being smart. You were saving for the coming government shutdown rainy day?

Anthony: Absolutely. After the big bill passed, I started doing this.

Brian Lehrer: Aha. By the way, one other thing. Just in case you're not receiving benefits that you could be receiving, my producer just posted an article that says "Social Security disability benefits." I don't know if that's the particular kind you're getting.

Anthony: Yes.

Brian Lehrer: They're covered by mandatory spending, which means- I'm quoting from the article now- that 'The funding for the program has already been approved by Congress without an expiration date. As a result, Social Security recipients, including retirees, disabled Americans, and dependents of deceased workers, would not see an interruption in their monthly payments if the government shuts down.'

Anthony: Well, then, why haven't I received my payment yet and my disability check?

Brian Lehrer: Good question. Catherine, can you help him with that at all? Maybe he's got an avenue here to get that going again.

Catherine Rampell: I would suggest reaching out to legal aid. I don't know which is the best legal aid group for where you live. In other states, I know that they have been effective at helping people navigate the system when they are due benefits that have not been awarded. That would be my suggestion.

Brian Lehrer: Or maybe your member of Congress, even, since it's a federal benefit. Anthony, good luck. Thank you very much for calling in. One more on this, before we pivot to some other economic news that Catherine has an eye on, all this other stuff that's happening, tariffs, inflation, interest rates, but still on the grocery stores giving discounts or wanting to give discounts to some people whose SNAP benefits are cut off for the moment, and being told by the Trump administration that they better not do that because it's considered discrimination. Harry in Forest Hills has a story. I think. Harry, you're on WNYC.

Harry: Hello, Brian. Long time no speak.

Brian Lehrer: Hi. Hi, Harry.

Harry: Long time, no speak. How you doing?

Brian Lehrer: Glad you're on. Good.

Harry: I'm a senior. For the past seven years, I've been getting a discount from Key Food. They give 5% discount to seniors every Wednesday. Also, laissez-faire means hands off, which is what the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute stand for. They're both conservative think tanks. I think this should be thrown back in their face.

Brian Lehrer: Hands off. What private sector stores want to do. I hear you. Yes, Catherine, it's an interesting analogy. The 5% off from his supermarket for seniors. I think I've heard somebody object. I don't know if there was a lawsuit or if it went that far, but to the senior discounts on the MTA, for riding the buses and the trains in the New York City area, as somehow discriminatory. There are other things like this.

Catherine Rampell: Right, exactly. Senior discounts are quite common. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that that is perfectly legal. You can't discriminate to harm people. I think the age cutoff for what is counting as age discrimination is over age 40, which is going to include me pretty soon. In any event, you can't discriminate in a way that harms customers that skew older, but it's perfectly fine to give them discounts.

This is true for movie theaters. This is true for grocery stores. Certainly, lots of vendors are able to do this. That's sort of my point, that stores, private businesses can offer discounts to people who, in broad categories, would be able to afford only lower prices. That might be seniors, that might be students, that might be lots of different categories of people who have less disposable income. I think it is reasonable to believe that people who are low enough income to qualify for SNAP would be a category that businesses might say, "It's not just about kindness. This is about our self-interest. We want to get those customers in the door, and the only way we can get them in the door is by saying like, hey, here's a price you can afford during this hopefully temporary period when your food stamps have run out."

I think it's a totally rational business strategy. As far as I know, would be totally kosher, if not for this regulation, that stores that participate in SNAP have to abide by, which basically says no treating SNAP customers any differently from anybody else.

Brian Lehrer: More with Catherine Rampell on other economy news right after this.

[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC, as we continue with Catherine Rampell, who some of you may know as a Washington Post columnist for the last 11 years. She recently left there and starts today as economics editor at The Bulwark. She is also co-host of the show The Weekend: Primetime on MSNBC. Let's go on to some other issues that your economic expertise can help us with. There's a big Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday about President Trump's tariffs. I know you're not a lawyer, but do you get what the constitutional question is before we get to the economics?

Catherine Rampell: Yes. The constitutional question is basically what are the limits on the executive's power? There is this law, IEEPA, which basically says that the president can do certain things when there is a state of national emergency. The question at issue here is what counts as a national emergency, and what are the things that the president can do contingent on a national emergency. This case revolves around those four questions. It's not only about tariffs, although the case obviously was brought because of tariffs. To give some flavor of what's at issue here, the tariffs that have been threatened or implemented against places like Brazil or Canada, those are justified by the president on these national emergency grounds. What are the national emergencies? Well, in the case of Brazil, it's that Brazil has apparently been mean to Trump's Buddy Bolsonaro, a former leader of Brazil who has been charged and convicted of various bad behavior.

Brian Lehrer: Oh, election rigging.

Catherine Rampell: Yes, yes.

Brian Lehrer: A right-wing populist who claimed an election was rigged when it wasn't. Yes, just a certain little point.

Catherine Rampell: Yes, without going down-- Yes. There are reasons why he might be particularly sympathetic to Bolsonaro. In any event, is that a national emergency for the United States that requires not just action, but this particular action of tariffing Brazilian goods? Well, I would say probably not, but I'm not a lawyer. It'll be up to the Supreme Court to decide.

Similarly with Canada. Originally, the national emergency with Canada was partly about the fentanyl that was supposedly pouring over the border. Although if you look at the government's own statistics, there is basically no fentanyl coming over the border from Canada. It's a problem coming from other places, including Mexico and further up the supply chain in China, but not Canada.

Brian Lehrer: Venezuela, I hear, but that's another show. Go ahead.

Catherine Rampell: Yes, yes. Probably there's more fentanyl heading across the border the other way from the US to Canada, but no matter, that's supposedly the national security. Most recently, he has said the reason why the President of the United States, Trump, had cut off trade negotiations with Canada is that an Ontario government official placed a TV ad showing Ronald Reagan talking in support of free trade. Is that a national emergency? That there's a Reagan ad in favor of free trade and against tariffs? Apparently, it is, in Trump's eyes.

The question is, are there any constraints on the president's ability to basically do as he likes, inflict whatever economic pain that he likes, based on what he, himself, gets to declare a national emergency? Again, not a lawyer, I need to keep saying that. I think historically, courts have offered a lot of deference to the executive, that they say it's not their place to decide what is in the nation's national security, for example, that it's the executive branch's ability to make those kinds of judgments, not the judicial system.

From talking with lots of people who are legally trained, my impression is that the widespread expectation is that the court is more likely to knock these tariffs down. You can see that in stock market pricing. Part of the reason why markets have held up is partly on this expectation that the tariffs that we have so far, or those that have been threatened, are not long for this world because they will be struck down. Does it mean that they won't-- Pardon?

Brian Lehrer: I was just going to ask, what about the 47% tariff on China, which I think they could make a decent case that that is based on trade policy, not other considerations.

Catherine Rampell: Even if these tariffs are struck down, the administration is likely to find other legal justifications for other kinds of tariffs. It's not like we would be out of the woods entirely if the Supreme Court decided, "Look, the IEEPA tariffs are not lawful, can't do them." There are lots of other ways that the president could impose tariffs. They would be structured a little bit differently. They might be more often on particular sectors as opposed to countries.

In fact, the administration has already put in place some of these sectoral tariffs on things like steel, for example. That's a tariff that's on the product, as opposed to a particular country, although they can carve out for particular countries. It's not like the tariffs would go away entirely, but that process is a lot more slow going. It's through a different part of the law, and it requires basically more homework from the administration to put them in place. Yes?

Brian Lehrer: I get you want to finish the thought there, but I think we got it.

Catherine Rampell: I was just going to say, at least companies might have more time to adapt.

Brian Lehrer: Right. On the economics of the tariffs, you know the monthly inflation report came out recently. It was around a 3% rate, not much of a change from earlier in the year. The administration touted that the inflation spike from tariffs that their opponents have been predicting did not materialize. Meanwhile, the government is taking in billions of dollars from the tariffs, they say, and more companies are succumbing to the pressure to move production to the United States. Do they have a point?

Catherine Rampell: It is true that we have not seen a huge spike in prices. You can see it, actually, in some products that prices have gone up because of tariffs, but it's not nearly as big as had been expected. That's for a few reasons. One is that a lot of companies stocked up in advance of the tariffs. I've talked with companies that, right after last year's election, well before Trump was even sworn in, they started front-loading a lot of inventory from China and other countries where they could. Auto parts, for example, artificial Christmas trees, things like that, things that are durable, not perishable, and will last them for a while. Companies were stocking up. That's part of the story.

Part of the story is also that if these tariffs get struck down or never materialize in the first place, because, remember, Trump has also backtracked on a lot of his tariffs. He's announced them, he's paused them, he's delayed them, et cetera. Some of the tariffs have not actually had any bite yet. There's some assumption that maybe the tariffs won't be effective. As you point out, there is more tariff revenue being collected because some of the tariffs have been implemented.

If there is this expectation that the Supreme Court is going to strike all of those tariffs down and rebate the money back to companies, a lot of those companies are saying we just got to grit our teeth and absorb the cost for now because we don't want to tick off our customers with higher prices. We have to just keep our fingers crossed and hope that that money comes back to us.

Brian Lehrer: Interesting.

Catherine Rampell: I think that's part of what's going on, that companies are saying, "We're going to try to wait it out and hope that the tariff money gets paid back to us, and in the meantime, hold onto our customers and then we can operate business as usual on the other side of this."

Brian Lehrer: The tariffs still may cause a spike in inflation. TBD. Last thing, and we just have a minute left, because with this comes the Federal Reserve Board's decision to cut interest rates a quarter of a point, with one Fed governor wanting even more of a cut to boost economic growth when it's been slowing down, and one saying there should have been no cut because of the inflation rate remaining above their target 2%. How would you have voted if you were on the Federal Reserve Board, if you're willing to say?

Catherine Rampell: Oh, I'm glad I don't have that job. Honestly. They have an impossible, impossible job. Not only because they're flying blind right now, with government data not coming out. You mentioned one inflation report coming out, but most of the data is not-- depending on how much longer the shutdown continues, they may not get another inflation report. The last one was special because there was some other deadline. They're flying blind.

More importantly, tariffs just make their job so much harder because they affect both sides of what is known as the Fed's dual mandate. The Fed has two jobs: one is stable prices, and one is maximum employment. Those things are sometimes in tension with each other. The policy that would help keep prices more stable, have less inflation, that's raising interest rates. That same policy will hurt employment, job growth, and economic growth because you have higher interest rates, and it makes it harder for companies to invest and expand, and all of that. Tariffs make both of those harder by raising prices and slowing down economic growth, and therefore, making it harder to hire.

Whatever the Fed does, it's kind of the wrong decision. Their job right now is to just figure out which decision is less wrong, which decision is less bad. I think reasonable people can disagree. The better solution to all of this, the one weird trick that would help the economy along, certainly help the Fed make its decision easier, would be to just have the tariffs go away. If you look at where the economy was at the beginning of this year versus where it is now, in terms of inflation, jobs, and expectations for the trajectory of the economy, it's worse. It's not so bad that we're in recession, but it is definitely worse. If you look at the Fed's projections before Trump took office versus today, they thought inflation would be doing a lot better by now, but tariffs have made it worse and have, as I said, made their job basically impossible.

Brian Lehrer: Catherine Rampell, now economics editor at The Bulwark and co-host of the show The Weekend: Primetime on MSNBC. Catherine, we really appreciate it, as always. Thank you very much.

Catherine Rampell: Thanks for having me.

 

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.