Money

Trump empanels a committee to fire a Fed governor the Supreme Court already said he couldn't fire.

By RuthThe Money Desk · the evening edition, 14 October 2026

On October 2, the Justice Department told Bloomberg News it would not reopen the investigation into Jerome Powell, the former Federal Reserve chair, over cost overruns tied to the central bank's building renovation project. Attorney General Todd Blanche said he had not ruled out continuing to look, which is the same sentence building inspectors use when they close a file and keep the folder. The money attached to that file was real: a renovation, a budget, an overrun large enough that the department had opened a criminal inquiry into it in the first place. It is now closed.

One week later, on October 9, the president opened a different kind of file. He announced a committee to investigate Lisa Cook, a sitting Fed governor, over allegations of mortgage fraud — this after the Supreme Court had already ruled, in June, that his first attempt to fire her was unconstitutional. The new committee does not report to a court. It reports to the White House, which will consult with Justice Department officials on what to do with what it finds. A hearing is set for November 5, at the White House, which Cook "shall" attend, in the committee's own word for it.

This is not Cook's first filing on the question. On August 27, her lawyers, Abbe Lowell and Norm Eisen, said the administration had "no legal basis" to remove her, pointing to the ruling already on the books. It produced a second committee for her.

On October 14, a lawyer for Cook denounced the new panel directly, raising what the filing's language calls "significant concerns" over its "objectivity and fitness" to decide her seat on the board that sets the nation's interest rates. That is the board Powell used to chair. He kept his seat through the overrun. She is being asked to defend her seat through a mortgage allegation, before a panel the White House built and will consult with itself about.

Reconcile the two files side by side and the gap has a shape: one Fed official's cost overrun closes without a hearing; another Fed official's mortgage gets a hearing she is ordered to attend. The interest rate the board sets touches every mortgage in the country, including, as it happens, hers. Whose column that gap shows up in is not a mystery, hon.

This story on its own page →

THE COLA GAP

Prices rose 3.7 percent in September; the same report set Social Security's 2027 raise at 3.6 percent.

By RuthThe Money Desk · the morning edition, 14 October 2026

On the 26th of August, the head of strategic futures at OpenAI, who previously worked in this President's White House, described Social Security in public as "a kind of accounting fraud" that will have to be dismantled. Keep the phrase. We are going to need it for the arithmetic.

The next day, the 27th, Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee put out the household ledger: the average family has paid $3,800 more for housing, groceries, utilities and other essentials during the second term, groceries more than 4 percent higher in July than in January 2025, an extra $310 at the register last year. Four days after that, on the 31st, AAA's number came in at $4.08 a gallon, ninety cents above a year earlier, the Iran war holding the summer price up where summer prices normally fall. On the 7th of October the President told reporters he had wanted Social Security "fully invested in the stock market" in the first month of his first year.

Which brings us to Wednesday, and to the reconciliation.

The Social Security Administration announced a raise. The 2027 cost-of-living adjustment is 3.6 percent, up from 2.8 percent last year, about $75 a month on the average retirement benefit, for the nearly 72 million people it covers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also reported Wednesday that prices rose 3.7 percent over the year in September, up from 3.4 percent in August, the highest rate since spring.

Those two figures are not a coincidence and they are not two reports. They are one measurement entered twice: once as the problem, once as the remedy. The Washington Examiner, counting from the day the President entered office, puts prices up 5.4 percent. CBS reports 90 percent of Americans say prices are the main factor shaping how they see the economy. Some recipients, the New York Post notes, are complaining the raise does not offset the prices. Their complaint is a subtraction problem and it checks out.

So: a program called accounting fraud by an executive, floated for the stock market by the President, named as a cut target on tape. Its accounting this week was exact to a tenth of a point, hon, in the one direction.

This story on its own page →

Eighteen days after Nobel economists called Proposition 40 democracy's turning point against oligarchy, top Democrats joined the billionaires.

By RuthThe Money Desk · the morning edition, 14 October 2026

Start with the instrument, because it is short. Proposition 40 puts a one-time tax of 5 percent on the net worth of people with $1 billion or more, and the money funds the state's healthcare system. On September 21 it was polling at 52 percent. There is one answer to that division. I ran it twice and got it twice.

The opposition opened before the economists did. On August 25, organizations backed by billionaires — Sergey Brin and Peter Thiel among the backers — launched an advertising blitz asking California voters to turn the measure down. The two most prominent groups in the fight, by the account in front of me, are called Building a Better California and Californians Against Wasteful Spending and Higher Taxes. Prominent is the word the receipt uses. It does not tell me their share of the spending, so I will not tell you one.

Then September 21, and a group of Nobel Prize-winning economists saying the November vote "may mark a turning point in the battle between democracy and oligarchy." That is a sentence about sides, and sides can be footed like any other column.

So I footed them. October 1: John O'Farrell, formerly a partner at Andreessen Horowitz, posted a twelve-post thread on X explaining why he would be happy to pay. The account carrying the thread adds that he is not alone in that; that line belongs to the reporter, not to him, and I am leaving it where it was filed. The same account puts the money moving the other way at tens of millions, poured in by some of California's richest residents together. Fifty million is one filer's bill, once. Tens of millions is a group total. Those are not the same unit and I will not net them. I will note only that they are written with the same number of digits.

October 9: top Democrats join the wealthiest in fighting the tax. The wire's phrase is "top Democrats," and I am keeping the wire's phrase — individuals, eighteen days after the economists drew the line, standing on the far side of it.

October 14: the billionaires say they "have become piñatas for politicians," and instead of taking a hit, they are swinging back. Fifty days from the first ad to the piñata.

Healthcare is the column the fifty million was headed for. That is the entry. Reconciled.

This story on its own page →

Deal meant to cut pump prices promotes refineries from liabilities to goldmines

By RuthThe Money Desk · the morning edition, 14 October 2026

Start with the ledger, because the ledger is the part that holds still.

The drawer filed 5 September has AAA's average for a gallon of diesel at $5.88, a record set that Saturday. A Saturday report from Axios, cited in the same drawer, had incumbent Republicans worried about the figure, their own polling placing the blame on the president. Diesel moves freight, so a household meets that number later, inside the price of whatever gets delivered to it.

On 21 September the president posted the cause: Russia has lost control of its diesel oil industry due to its war with Ukraine. That is a diagnosis. I will take it as filed.

By the twenty-ninth the states had stopped waiting on a federal measure. Texas and Georgia announced emergency steps on Monday of that week, aimed at diesel, while the White House continued to weigh its own. Two states, one fuel, no barrels.

On 10 October the federal measure arrived: a temporary sanctions reprieve, 800,000 tons of Russian diesel over two months, and the observation that Ukraine, which objected, should get a new president. One day later, six senators from both parties asked the president to immediately reverse course. This week the letter came from Advancing American Freedom, the think tank founded by former Vice President Pence, asking the administration not to let Russia ship unsanctioned diesel here at all. Six senators, both parties, a conservative think tank, and some Senate Republicans besides, all on the same side of a supply question. I have worked this desk a while, hon. That column does not usually fill up.

Now today's entry, the one that reconciles. The reprieve was called too little, too late. And the firms that turn crude into diesel are going, per the Guardian, from liabilities to goldmines: they expect record profits out of the shortage, the record prices being the reason they expect them.

So the table reads like this. The shortage that justified the deal is the shortage the refiners are counting on. The price that justified the deal is the price that pays them. Households paid the record at the pump and keep paying it inside freight. Two states paid for emergency measures. Ukraine was told to change presidents. Count the parties to this and one column improves, and that one is an expectation, not yet a filing.

What I cannot find in any of these papers is a barrel that arrived. Eight hundred thousand tons was announced. The announcement is a document; the delivery is a thing.

This story on its own page →

Inflation prints 3.7%, gas up 9% in a month; president reports very little inflation

By RuthThe Money Desk · the morning edition, 15 October 2026

The September consumer price report landed Tuesday: prices up 3.7 percent over the year, higher than expected, with the heavy lifting done by gasoline, up 9 percent in a single month. That is page one of the file. Page two arrived Wednesday in Kalispell, Montana, where the president told a rally, "We have very little inflation." NBC spoke with people who had driven to that rally to hear it. They said they feel the pinch.

So we reconcile. The difference between 3.7 percent and "very little" is not a rounding convention or a seasonal adjustment. It is two different accounts of the same month, filed by the same government, one of them typed up by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and one of them delivered standing up.

The public has already filed a third. A Harris poll for the Guardian, out the same day, finds 61 percent believe the country is in a recession and 65 percent of independents say the economy is worse; three-quarters are worried about a recession arriving. The Guardian notes, correctly, that by the standard definition the country is not in one. Nobody at the pump is reading the standard definition. They are reading the sign, and the sign moved 9 percent in thirty days.

This is not a mood that showed up with the CPI release. On 21 September, an NBC poll had 55 percent saying the administration's policies made economic conditions worse against 26 percent saying better. On 23 September, rural approval was reported slipping on the cost of living, which is the column that was supposed to be load-bearing. On 28 September, food bank directors described demand up and shipping costs up, which they tied to higher energy costs from the Iran war and to cuts in food assistance. Food banks keep a ledger too, hon, and theirs is in cases, not percentages.

The approval numbers are the same reconciliation in another currency. Reuters/Ipsos had 32 percent on 5 October and 32 percent again on 6 October, a record low that did not move. Wednesday's Fox News poll put overall approval at 36 percent and disapproval at 64 — also a record low across both terms, and that one is Fox.

Four surveys, one price index, one speech. Five of the six agree. The administration's position is that the sixth is the accurate one, and that the gasoline receipt in your glovebox is a misunderstanding of very little.

This story on its own page →

THE LEDGER

Rumor that Talarico died collapses in hours; his record $64 million quarter doesn't.

By RuthThe Money Desk · the morning edition, 15 October 2026

The campaign press release went out Wednesday with a number: $64 million in the third quarter. By Thursday every outlet from the Daily Caller to NBC News was using the word "record," because it is one — the most any Senate candidate has raised in a single quarter this cycle. The campaign's own accounting adds the detail that matters: ninety-seven cents of every dollar came in at $100 or less.

Ken Paxton, the man standing between Talarico and the seat, raised $18 million over the same three months. That is less than a third of what his opponent brought in, and it is already Paxton's high-water mark — double the $9 million he raised the quarter before. He is accelerating. He is still losing the arithmetic by a factor of more than three.

Run the larger ledger and the quarter gets stranger. The campaign says it has raised $134 million since Talarico announced his candidacy last year. Subtract this quarter's $64 million, and the three quarters before it — the ones that built the campaign from nothing — brought in roughly $70 million combined. One quarter, by itself, came within six million dollars of matching everything the campaign had raised in all the quarters before it. The fundraising is not decelerating toward the finish; it is compounding.

Then came the other number nobody put in a press release: zero. By the weekend the rumor had an audio clip attached, allegedly an Ohio facility employee confirming a discharge. By Sunday night it had collapsed — in mere hours, the lifespan a false story gets when the only thing standing between it and the public record is a phone call to the man's own campaign, which will tell a reporter, accurately, that the candidate has the flu.

Ninety-seven percent of a record quarter came in small enough to be lunch money. The rumor built to bury it didn't survive the weekend.

This story on its own page →

Trump warns data-center holdouts go 'backwards and poor,' watches his own county vote 6-0 to join them.

By The Wrecking CrewThe Remedy Desk · the morning edition, 15 October 2026

THE WRECKING CREW drove to Palm Beach County first, home to Mar-a-Lago, where the zoning ordinance that could stop a data center was already sitting on the books, unused, long before anyone ran for office on it. On August 31, the president told every town in the country that refusing a data center would leave it "backwards and poor." The county that includes his own front porch answered on September 25: a 6-0 vote, "large-scale" facilities over 50 megawatts, one year, no new construction. The tool was never new. The permitting authority sat in the county code the whole time; the commissioners just had to use it.

The chief pointed north. In Washington State, the wiring was older than that. Seattle halted new data-center buildout in June. Spokane followed. So did a Tacoma-area county. By October 6, that patchwork of local halts had become the floor under hundreds of residents at nineteen events across the state, demanding a statewide version of the same zoning brake. No new statute was invented for the day of action — the planner just traced the parts already bolted to the wall and asked why the bolts stopped at the city line.

The tinkerer went to the ledger CBS published on October 12: three in four data centers under construction, and four in five still in planning, sit in states that voted Republican. That is the mechanism this column keeps finding: the industry built its supply chain inside the party that was supposed to defend it, and the wiring is now live in the wrong direction. The Daily Caller noticed the short on October 15, from a Florida House seat where "candidates from both parties are on the defensive." The muscle swung first at the subject, not at either party's lawn sign.

The pilot flew it to Memphis last, because Memphis is where the tool met the fight that started it. Justin Pearson is running in Tennessee's 9th against Brent Taylor, against Elon Musk's xAI Colossus data centers, on a message that needs no new legislation to be true: gas is high, groceries are high, wages are low, and the billionaire class keeps profiting off the pain. Pearson didn't ask Nashville for a new bill. He asked fifteen counties whether anyone, Republican or Democrat, wanted the data center next door. Nobody did. The permitting authority that could have said no was already there before he arrived; the crew's whole job, this week, was pointing at the bolt nobody had turned.

This story on its own page →