But i think that the idea now is that we have to hit back hard, we have to hit back strong if were going to finally put this dual crisis of the pandemic and the economic pain that is engendered behind us. With respect to larrys point, one thing is just wrong, which is that our team is dismissive of inflationary risks. Weve constantly argued that the risks of doing too little are far greater than the risk of going big. Providing families and businesses with the relief they need to finally put this virus behind us. Second, i want to quote fed chair Jerome Powell who strongly reiterated this view the other day, i think it was just a week or so ago, that inflationary risks are also asymmetric right now. Im much more afraid of people losing their careers and life that they built because they dont get back to work in time. Im more concerned about what that will do not just to their lives but to the American Economy. Im more concerned about that than which exists with higher inflation. In our
the interagency process which jared sort of runs along with h.r. mcmaster and dina powell with plug-ins from state with the secretary tillerson and secretary mattis and it is a functional interagency policy process. it s unclear to me how involved the president has been in the specific policy announcementes that we re going to hear on this trip. i don t know if that s part of why there won t be press availabilities but it s certainly one theory. the other is they don t want to get off script. it does make it curious that they think they re going to get attention on these foreign policy announcements with the whole sort of white house and all of washington engulfed in scandal. by the way, folks tuning in, 4:42 eastern time, to see deadline white house as hosted by nicolle wallace, we ve been covering this rolling breaking news and that means today s white house event. one more question, eugene robinson is standing by to join our conversation, but the desk officers at the state de,
but third, remember, the state department and the u.s. government is a giant bureaucracy, and it wouldn t work if every ambassador was e-mailing the secretary every day. instead what you have is an interagency policy process. it starts with, i m going to use a lot of acronyms here, the icp, the interagency policy committee. for me, that was russia. then the deputy s committee, the principal s committee. and you interact with your colleagues to formulate policy and deal with issues, including diplomatic security issues, which were an issue for me as ambassador out in moscow. that s a chain of command, if you will, that then goes up to the secretary, up to the president ultimately for them to make decisions. that s the way the system works. maybe it should be changed. but then we should have a debate about the system of communication in the u.s. government, because i m sure it worked this way when i was in government for five years, and i know it probably worked the same
appointed by the president of the united states. so you also have a channel to the president and to the national security staff. but third, remember, the state department and the u.s. government is a giant bureaucracy, and it wouldn t work if every ambassador was e-mailing the secretary every day. instead what you have is an interagency policy process. it starts with, i m going to use a lot of acronyms here, the icp, the interagency policy committee. for me, that was russia. then the deputy s committee, the principal s committee. and you interact with your colleagues to formulate policy and deal with issues, including diplomatic security issues, which were an issue for me as ambassador out in moscow. that s a chain of command, if you will, that then goes up to the secretary, up to the president ultimately for them to make decisions. that s the way the system works. maybe it should be changed. but then we should have a debate about the system of