"Get with the program and be part of the team!" goes the mantra of many single-minded politicians, especially including the current denizens of the Whine House.
Once again, the president is demanding that members of Congress side with him without question, despite their supposed allegiance to the voters who elected them.
However, there are increasing signs of independence from Congress, led by leading senators who now cite their duty as members of a separate and equal branch of government.
The declaration of independence is met with outrage from the twitter in chief, who threatened to fight them in next year's election cycle "if they don't get on the team, & fast."
The target this time was members of the House Freedom Caucus, conservative Republicans who blocked the Chief Twit's effort to dismantle the health care program set up during the previous administration.
Meanwhile, leading members of the Senate, who are more secure in their seats because they serve staggered six-year terms compared to House members, all of whom face re-election every two years, have served notice on the president that they will pursue their investigation of the alleged Russian connection to the Trumpian campaign no matter where it leads.
Thursday, March 30, 2017
National Health Report
Despite the political claim that America is in failing health and only a totally free-enterprise economy can revive it, the total value of all goods and services produced in the U.S. grew again in the fourth quarter, according to government statistics.
The Commerce Department said Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 2.1 percent in the final three months of 2016. That's down from the third quarter rate of 3.5 percent, but that the economy has grown in all but one fiscal quarter for the past four years.
Meanwhile, domestic income increased by 1 percent, the agency said.
The slowdown in GDP reflected downturns in exports and in federal spending, the agency said, as well as a rise in imports.
The total value of all goods and services produced yearly in America remains well above the $18 trillion level, rising 1.6 percent during 2016.
The Commerce Department said Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 2.1 percent in the final three months of 2016. That's down from the third quarter rate of 3.5 percent, but that the economy has grown in all but one fiscal quarter for the past four years.
Meanwhile, domestic income increased by 1 percent, the agency said.
The slowdown in GDP reflected downturns in exports and in federal spending, the agency said, as well as a rise in imports.
The total value of all goods and services produced yearly in America remains well above the $18 trillion level, rising 1.6 percent during 2016.
Big Brother Comes to Washington
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it. -- Old Irish warning.
There is no privacy on the internet. -- Pug Mahoney
"Big Brother is watching you." -- "1984," by George Orwell
Congress took a big step toward ending all privacy rights for stuff people put on their computers. That includes stuff like medical and financial data, the comments you make on chat sites, your emails, and anything else you may store on your computer, including your internet browsing.
As it is, whenever you shop around or get curious about something, that info is stored in the internet carrier's database, and advertisers use it to focus their ads on potential customers based on what the customers have been looking at.
The Federal Communications Commission, however, has held that common carriers such as AT&T and Verizon must protect users' privacy. Other internet providers are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission, which has looser privacy regulations.
Now the Republican-controlled Congress wants to streamline all the rules, putting them under the jurisdiction of the FTC, instead of the competing rules of the FCC.
It may sound efficient, but at stake is the privacy rights of computer users. Already, these rights are much more strongly protected in Europe. Removing them for American consumers will rebound to an international trade clash.
So while advertisers would dearly love to have more detailed information about who's looking at what while they browse the internet, including whether these browsers have good financial resources and a bunch or friends with similar resources, as well as political views, or any and all of their other interests, this question comes up: What right does corporate America -- or anyone else -- have to butt into my affairs?
European nations say consumers have wide rights of privacy. If the GOP has its way, American consumers will have virtually none, unless they stop using computers entirely.
Time was, Americans worried about what the neighbors would think. Now, either they don't care, or they believe their desktop computers, their smart phones or other devices are safe from spying by government or corporate busybodies.
They ain't. There is very little, if any, privacy on the internet. Now Congress is removing what little is left.
This sets up a clash with European standards, and in turn will affect trade relations, customer relations, and political relations.
Big Brother is pleased.
There is no privacy on the internet. -- Pug Mahoney
"Big Brother is watching you." -- "1984," by George Orwell
Congress took a big step toward ending all privacy rights for stuff people put on their computers. That includes stuff like medical and financial data, the comments you make on chat sites, your emails, and anything else you may store on your computer, including your internet browsing.
As it is, whenever you shop around or get curious about something, that info is stored in the internet carrier's database, and advertisers use it to focus their ads on potential customers based on what the customers have been looking at.
The Federal Communications Commission, however, has held that common carriers such as AT&T and Verizon must protect users' privacy. Other internet providers are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission, which has looser privacy regulations.
Now the Republican-controlled Congress wants to streamline all the rules, putting them under the jurisdiction of the FTC, instead of the competing rules of the FCC.
It may sound efficient, but at stake is the privacy rights of computer users. Already, these rights are much more strongly protected in Europe. Removing them for American consumers will rebound to an international trade clash.
So while advertisers would dearly love to have more detailed information about who's looking at what while they browse the internet, including whether these browsers have good financial resources and a bunch or friends with similar resources, as well as political views, or any and all of their other interests, this question comes up: What right does corporate America -- or anyone else -- have to butt into my affairs?
European nations say consumers have wide rights of privacy. If the GOP has its way, American consumers will have virtually none, unless they stop using computers entirely.
Time was, Americans worried about what the neighbors would think. Now, either they don't care, or they believe their desktop computers, their smart phones or other devices are safe from spying by government or corporate busybodies.
They ain't. There is very little, if any, privacy on the internet. Now Congress is removing what little is left.
This sets up a clash with European standards, and in turn will affect trade relations, customer relations, and political relations.
Big Brother is pleased.
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
Brexit Report
From our Dublin correspondent:
Today the UK government formally filed the Brexit papers to leave the European Union.
As a nearby observer I don't think the British ever really liked the idea of getting involved in any process where they do not have absolute control.
One of the programs of the EU is to support the development of local or national critical infrastructure projects.
Every member of the EU contributes to the fund and payments are made from that fund to help finance local projects. The idea is that poorer countries will benefit and raise the overall EU standard. Every EU member country gets something, but the poorer members get more proportionally than the wealthier members.
For a while Ireland got more in payments than it paid in. That, however, has changed and Ireland now pays more annually than it receives. The money is often used to pay for hospitals, road improvements, railway improvements, sea port improvements, etc.
There is a condition that a sign must be put up saying the work is partly funded by the EU, but these signs rarely went up in the UK.
I think the politicians wanted to say new hospitals or roads or whatever were going up but taxes weren't. A few years ago the EU told the UK to put the signage up or be fined.
The UK politicians chose to pay the fines but then complained to their electorate that the EU were taking money that should be used in Britain for hospitals or roads or whatever.
A few years ago I had an English business visitor here in Dublin and he was amazed at the number of signs around proclaiming EU support for one thing or another. He told me that the Irish really knew how to milk the EU cash cow.
He seemed unaware of the aid the British received for their projects.
Today the UK government formally filed the Brexit papers to leave the European Union.
As a nearby observer I don't think the British ever really liked the idea of getting involved in any process where they do not have absolute control.
One of the programs of the EU is to support the development of local or national critical infrastructure projects.
Every member of the EU contributes to the fund and payments are made from that fund to help finance local projects. The idea is that poorer countries will benefit and raise the overall EU standard. Every EU member country gets something, but the poorer members get more proportionally than the wealthier members.
For a while Ireland got more in payments than it paid in. That, however, has changed and Ireland now pays more annually than it receives. The money is often used to pay for hospitals, road improvements, railway improvements, sea port improvements, etc.
There is a condition that a sign must be put up saying the work is partly funded by the EU, but these signs rarely went up in the UK.
I think the politicians wanted to say new hospitals or roads or whatever were going up but taxes weren't. A few years ago the EU told the UK to put the signage up or be fined.
The UK politicians chose to pay the fines but then complained to their electorate that the EU were taking money that should be used in Britain for hospitals or roads or whatever.
A few years ago I had an English business visitor here in Dublin and he was amazed at the number of signs around proclaiming EU support for one thing or another. He told me that the Irish really knew how to milk the EU cash cow.
He seemed unaware of the aid the British received for their projects.
King Coal Dethroned
"The war on coal is over." -- Vice President Mike Pence
"We will cancel job killing regulations." -- Donald Trump
Clean coal is an oxymoron. -- Pug Mahoney
There is no such thing as "clean coal." The term contradicts itself, just like the terms dry water, hot ice, or for many veterans, Army intelligence.
The problem with overturning rules dealing with pollution is that it benefits owners rather than miners. For many decades, homes throughout America have abandoned coal as a heating source in favor of oil or gas. And for cities and industries, another method is wind or solar power.
Coal long ago fell out of favor as an energy source, largely for economic reasons. It was too expensive to dig up, transport and store, and the equipment used to burn it for its energy was too inefficient. Add to that the cost of pollution control and you have several reasons for its decline.
In an attempt to regain some small margin of market share, the industry came up with the concept of "clean coal." Except that without very expensive equipment to trap and dispose of the pollutants generated by the massive furnaces, coal remains a very dirty energy source.
Major cities such as London were notorious for the deadly effects of the carbon-filled clouds that blanketed the city as a result of home heating furnaces and fireplaces using coal.
After coal was replaced by other heating sources, the air over the city became breathable again, and healthy citizens applauded.
So the politicians in Washington may promise many things with fancy phrases, but the reality is that economic and social pressures far outweigh their oratory.
"We will cancel job killing regulations." -- Donald Trump
Clean coal is an oxymoron. -- Pug Mahoney
There is no such thing as "clean coal." The term contradicts itself, just like the terms dry water, hot ice, or for many veterans, Army intelligence.
The problem with overturning rules dealing with pollution is that it benefits owners rather than miners. For many decades, homes throughout America have abandoned coal as a heating source in favor of oil or gas. And for cities and industries, another method is wind or solar power.
Coal long ago fell out of favor as an energy source, largely for economic reasons. It was too expensive to dig up, transport and store, and the equipment used to burn it for its energy was too inefficient. Add to that the cost of pollution control and you have several reasons for its decline.
In an attempt to regain some small margin of market share, the industry came up with the concept of "clean coal." Except that without very expensive equipment to trap and dispose of the pollutants generated by the massive furnaces, coal remains a very dirty energy source.
Major cities such as London were notorious for the deadly effects of the carbon-filled clouds that blanketed the city as a result of home heating furnaces and fireplaces using coal.
After coal was replaced by other heating sources, the air over the city became breathable again, and healthy citizens applauded.
So the politicians in Washington may promise many things with fancy phrases, but the reality is that economic and social pressures far outweigh their oratory.
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
Presidential Diss List
Scholars and pundits will soon -- if they haven't already -- start selecting candidates for the bottom slot in presidential rankings.
James Buchanan has held that position as the worst American president ever, according to some historians. Others in the running -- or stumbling -- are John Tyler, Millard Filmore, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, and Warren G. Harding (no relation to this writer, who wouldn't admit it anyway).
Now the issue is whether Donald Trump will edge out James Buchanan for the honor of holding last place on the diss list.
Certainly political affiliation will affect the judgement of many folk in considering where to put the Donald in historical perspective. Some will immediately name Barack Obama as the worst president in American history. Others will insist that a president's competence in leading the country during wartime or during an economic recovery are important factors.
The corollary to that is whether a president held office when the nation entered a war, or began an economic slide. The hard part would be to discount personal popularity as a deciding factor.
James Buchanan, for example, has been ranked last because of his supposed ineptness that may have helped precipitate the Civil War. Warren G. Harding occupied the Oval Office while his cohorts indulged themselves in the Teapot Dome scandal. And Herbert Hoover is often blamed for the economic collapse of the Great Depression that began just as he was finishing his term in office.
The list of "best presidents" gathered among historians includes such names as Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt at the top, along with Harry S. Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt.
So after fewer than 100 days in office and a resounding defeat of his first major legislative effort, the attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Health Care Act, also known as Obamacare, Donald Trump is already being considered for a ranking among the worst presidents America has ever seen.
It's really too early to tell, since his accomplishments have yet to be listed, and his list of failures has only one item -- health care reform -- on it.
But other presidents have achieved a high rank during prosperous times and a low rating when the nation struggled. If America prospers over the next few years, Trump may get the credit. If not, he will get the blame. Given past behavior, he will claim the first, but assign the second to others.
Who's on your diss list? Comments welcome.
James Buchanan has held that position as the worst American president ever, according to some historians. Others in the running -- or stumbling -- are John Tyler, Millard Filmore, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, and Warren G. Harding (no relation to this writer, who wouldn't admit it anyway).
Now the issue is whether Donald Trump will edge out James Buchanan for the honor of holding last place on the diss list.
Certainly political affiliation will affect the judgement of many folk in considering where to put the Donald in historical perspective. Some will immediately name Barack Obama as the worst president in American history. Others will insist that a president's competence in leading the country during wartime or during an economic recovery are important factors.
The corollary to that is whether a president held office when the nation entered a war, or began an economic slide. The hard part would be to discount personal popularity as a deciding factor.
James Buchanan, for example, has been ranked last because of his supposed ineptness that may have helped precipitate the Civil War. Warren G. Harding occupied the Oval Office while his cohorts indulged themselves in the Teapot Dome scandal. And Herbert Hoover is often blamed for the economic collapse of the Great Depression that began just as he was finishing his term in office.
The list of "best presidents" gathered among historians includes such names as Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt at the top, along with Harry S. Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt.
So after fewer than 100 days in office and a resounding defeat of his first major legislative effort, the attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Health Care Act, also known as Obamacare, Donald Trump is already being considered for a ranking among the worst presidents America has ever seen.
It's really too early to tell, since his accomplishments have yet to be listed, and his list of failures has only one item -- health care reform -- on it.
But other presidents have achieved a high rank during prosperous times and a low rating when the nation struggled. If America prospers over the next few years, Trump may get the credit. If not, he will get the blame. Given past behavior, he will claim the first, but assign the second to others.
Who's on your diss list? Comments welcome.
Monday, March 27, 2017
Knight of the Long Lies
"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated." -- Donald Trump
"We learned a lot about arcane rules." -- Donald Trump
You should have learned the rules before you got into the game.-- Pug Mahoney
If at first you don't succeed, go away.
The president lamented his loss when his "repeal and replace" health care plan collapsed after only 18 days, blaming Democratic opposition for the failure.
Fact check: Democrats in Congress were uniformly opposed to the Trumpcare disaster from the get-go, and it was a fractured Republican party that refused to cave in to the dictates of the amateur president, leading to the collapse.
The GOP spent seven years ranting about repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare because it was put in place during the administration of President Barack Obama. But in all that time, they didn't get around to formulating a plan. Moreover, the new president, Donald Trump, vowed during the campaign that it would be overthrown immediately once he was in office.
Didn't happen. Despite all the arm twisting and threatening, House Republicans did not fall in line and bow to the demands of the Trumpster. When it became clear that there were not enough votes among Republicans in the House to overcome solid Democratic opposition, the master salesman gave up and walked away.
Instead, he went off to play golf.
As a result of his many trips to his own hotels and resorts -- for which the government picks up the tab -- the Secret Service has asked for another $60 million for its current budget to cover security costs for the First Family. This would include the Florida resort trips as well as the family residence in Manhattan, where Mrs. Trump is staying so their son can finish the school year.
And have you noticed that many of his trips around the country include stays at Trump-owned hotels and other facilities? This brings a lot of free publicity as well as revenue for the family businesses.
Also, daughter Ivanka has received top security clearance with an office in the West Wing, and her husband Jared Kushner remains close by for contacts with the many foreign dignitaries, bankers, developers and others who come to visit.
Meanwhile, a top government official has ruled that it's OK for a Trump-owned hotel to remain in the old Post Office building in Washington, despite a contract provision that says no government official can benefit from a lease of government-owned space in the building. The official said it's OK because Trump has agreed not to take any profit from the lease arrangement. Not personally, anyway. The family gets the revenue.
Sounds OK until you remember that the government official who approved the arrangement is himself a Trump appointee.
Can you say Conflict?
Meanwhile, news media folk of all kinds -- straight news reporters, investigative journalists, pundits and opinion writers -- are having a field day every day uncovering the long string of falsehoods, inaccuracies, misleading comments, inappropriate or unethical if not illegal contracts and agreements, as well as flat-out lies -- that leading members of this Whine House crew attempt to foist on the American electorate.
An informed public is the best defense against demagogues and dictators.
"We learned a lot about arcane rules." -- Donald Trump
You should have learned the rules before you got into the game.-- Pug Mahoney
If at first you don't succeed, go away.
The president lamented his loss when his "repeal and replace" health care plan collapsed after only 18 days, blaming Democratic opposition for the failure.
Fact check: Democrats in Congress were uniformly opposed to the Trumpcare disaster from the get-go, and it was a fractured Republican party that refused to cave in to the dictates of the amateur president, leading to the collapse.
The GOP spent seven years ranting about repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare because it was put in place during the administration of President Barack Obama. But in all that time, they didn't get around to formulating a plan. Moreover, the new president, Donald Trump, vowed during the campaign that it would be overthrown immediately once he was in office.
Didn't happen. Despite all the arm twisting and threatening, House Republicans did not fall in line and bow to the demands of the Trumpster. When it became clear that there were not enough votes among Republicans in the House to overcome solid Democratic opposition, the master salesman gave up and walked away.
Instead, he went off to play golf.
As a result of his many trips to his own hotels and resorts -- for which the government picks up the tab -- the Secret Service has asked for another $60 million for its current budget to cover security costs for the First Family. This would include the Florida resort trips as well as the family residence in Manhattan, where Mrs. Trump is staying so their son can finish the school year.
And have you noticed that many of his trips around the country include stays at Trump-owned hotels and other facilities? This brings a lot of free publicity as well as revenue for the family businesses.
Also, daughter Ivanka has received top security clearance with an office in the West Wing, and her husband Jared Kushner remains close by for contacts with the many foreign dignitaries, bankers, developers and others who come to visit.
Meanwhile, a top government official has ruled that it's OK for a Trump-owned hotel to remain in the old Post Office building in Washington, despite a contract provision that says no government official can benefit from a lease of government-owned space in the building. The official said it's OK because Trump has agreed not to take any profit from the lease arrangement. Not personally, anyway. The family gets the revenue.
Sounds OK until you remember that the government official who approved the arrangement is himself a Trump appointee.
Can you say Conflict?
Meanwhile, news media folk of all kinds -- straight news reporters, investigative journalists, pundits and opinion writers -- are having a field day every day uncovering the long string of falsehoods, inaccuracies, misleading comments, inappropriate or unethical if not illegal contracts and agreements, as well as flat-out lies -- that leading members of this Whine House crew attempt to foist on the American electorate.
An informed public is the best defense against demagogues and dictators.
Friday, March 24, 2017
The Excalibur President
"I am your king. The Lady of the Lake presented me with the sword Excalibur."
"King, eh? I didn't vote him. Just because some watery tart launched a scimitar in his general direction is no basis for a system of government."
-- Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Legislators answer to voters, not to the chief of state.
The current president of the United States has been acting as if he holds a magical sword of government, granting him special powers others don't have.
Threats may work in the private sector or within the Whine House, but there are three co-equal, separate and independent branches of government of the U.S. The Constitution was arranged so that members of Congress would answer to voters, not to a president. And federal judges, members of the judicial branch, have life tenure, so they answer to no one but their consciences as they understand legal issues.
But that has not stopped the current president from attacking, criticizing and threatening members of the other two branches of government who dare to disagree with him.
Today, however, that bullying strategy did not work, despite last minute efforts to threaten members of the House of Representatives to support his health care bill "or I'm coming after you."
After several days of intense pressure on fellow Republicans, both moderate and conservatives who wanted special treatment, the proposed new health care bill was withdrawn. And rather than admit defeat, the president looked for ways to blame others, especially Democrats. "This was not our bill, but their bill," he said.
No amount of threats to "come after" recalcitrant Republicans worked, because legislators have become increasingly aware of opposition from voters.
A reporter I know heard a similar telephone threat from a corporate executive, who warned that he would "come after" the journalist if he didn't get the story right -- read: sympathetic to the executive. The reporter's response was to lean over so the threatener could hear the computer keyboard clacking and say, "How do you mean, you'll come after me ?"
The exec withdrew the threat.
In the real world of business and journalism, a person answers to the one who signs the paycheck. In politics and government, office holders answer to voters and taxpayers, because they are the ones who sign the paychecks.
Threatening journalists especially does not work, because they can write down and report exactly what a politician says and exactly how he says it, without cleaning up the grammar to help him sound more credible and competent than he really is.
That approach is more in use recently, as the current president assails as "fake news," items that contradict his proclamations. But politicians don't sign newsroom paychecks.
And rather than acknowledge an error on his part -- intentional or accidental -- this president doubles down on his assertions, in the process making his rantings more obviously false.
Now it seems the would-be imperial president's sword is stuck in a stone of his own making.
"King, eh? I didn't vote him. Just because some watery tart launched a scimitar in his general direction is no basis for a system of government."
-- Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Legislators answer to voters, not to the chief of state.
The current president of the United States has been acting as if he holds a magical sword of government, granting him special powers others don't have.
Threats may work in the private sector or within the Whine House, but there are three co-equal, separate and independent branches of government of the U.S. The Constitution was arranged so that members of Congress would answer to voters, not to a president. And federal judges, members of the judicial branch, have life tenure, so they answer to no one but their consciences as they understand legal issues.
But that has not stopped the current president from attacking, criticizing and threatening members of the other two branches of government who dare to disagree with him.
Today, however, that bullying strategy did not work, despite last minute efforts to threaten members of the House of Representatives to support his health care bill "or I'm coming after you."
After several days of intense pressure on fellow Republicans, both moderate and conservatives who wanted special treatment, the proposed new health care bill was withdrawn. And rather than admit defeat, the president looked for ways to blame others, especially Democrats. "This was not our bill, but their bill," he said.
No amount of threats to "come after" recalcitrant Republicans worked, because legislators have become increasingly aware of opposition from voters.
A reporter I know heard a similar telephone threat from a corporate executive, who warned that he would "come after" the journalist if he didn't get the story right -- read: sympathetic to the executive. The reporter's response was to lean over so the threatener could hear the computer keyboard clacking and say, "How do you mean, you'll come after me ?"
The exec withdrew the threat.
In the real world of business and journalism, a person answers to the one who signs the paycheck. In politics and government, office holders answer to voters and taxpayers, because they are the ones who sign the paychecks.
Threatening journalists especially does not work, because they can write down and report exactly what a politician says and exactly how he says it, without cleaning up the grammar to help him sound more credible and competent than he really is.
That approach is more in use recently, as the current president assails as "fake news," items that contradict his proclamations. But politicians don't sign newsroom paychecks.
And rather than acknowledge an error on his part -- intentional or accidental -- this president doubles down on his assertions, in the process making his rantings more obviously false.
Now it seems the would-be imperial president's sword is stuck in a stone of his own making.
Monday, March 20, 2017
Twilight of the Gauche
"Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
-- Dylan Thomas
Better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.
-- Origin unknown
The dark money holders who helped elect a real estate mogul with no experience in politics or government will soon want a return on their investment.
Meanwhile, the president is shifting more military decision-making from the Oval Office to the Pentagon. This may be a good thing, since it puts the responsibility in the hands of experts, even as it supplies an out for the commander in chief, who can then deny any guilt if war-like missions fail.
If they succeed, of course, the president can claim credit for the wisdom and foresight of delegating decision to others.
But by not bothering with military and national security issues, the president can focus on other things more important to him, namely making money for himself, his family and his friends, in that order.
During the election campaign, he promised to drain the swamp in Washington. Instead, he is setting out to drain the Treasury.
-- Dylan Thomas
Better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.
-- Origin unknown
The dark money holders who helped elect a real estate mogul with no experience in politics or government will soon want a return on their investment.
Meanwhile, the president is shifting more military decision-making from the Oval Office to the Pentagon. This may be a good thing, since it puts the responsibility in the hands of experts, even as it supplies an out for the commander in chief, who can then deny any guilt if war-like missions fail.
If they succeed, of course, the president can claim credit for the wisdom and foresight of delegating decision to others.
But by not bothering with military and national security issues, the president can focus on other things more important to him, namely making money for himself, his family and his friends, in that order.
During the election campaign, he promised to drain the swamp in Washington. Instead, he is setting out to drain the Treasury.
Sunday, March 19, 2017
Wolfpack at the Gate
Just as wolves surround a potential victim who appears wounded, the journalistic pack is snapping at the heels of Donald Trump, and no amount of howls of rage and fuming criticism by him or his press secretary, Sean Spicer, is chasing them away.
And the more he complains about the media being unfair, dishonest, biased, etc., the more the media wolves broaden their search for falsehoods and misleading claims that he insists are true despite offering no evidence to back up his assertions.
Meanwhile, the Trump presidency is losing whatever support it had from congressional members of his own party, especially those who may face re-election in the future.
Rather than focus on maintaining, modifying and rebuilding his base of support among government officials, this president continues to stress his own rightness, demanding support for whatever he says on no other ground than that he says it.
In short, he has been caught so many times crying wolf when he had widespread support that now when there really are wolves at the Whine House gate, no amount of yowling will make them go away.
Instead, he is being trapped in a web of lies of his own making.
Daily print and broadcast news media reports expose an increasingly wider net of falsehoods he has perpetrated to soothe his ego.
And given the choice of whom to believe, journalists or the viral virulence of the president's defensiveness, political, governmental and congressional leaders are opting out of the "alternative facts" offered by Trumpians and selecting the solid evidence reported in the news media.
Three cheers for the First Amendment, bastion of a free democratic republic
And the more he complains about the media being unfair, dishonest, biased, etc., the more the media wolves broaden their search for falsehoods and misleading claims that he insists are true despite offering no evidence to back up his assertions.
Meanwhile, the Trump presidency is losing whatever support it had from congressional members of his own party, especially those who may face re-election in the future.
Rather than focus on maintaining, modifying and rebuilding his base of support among government officials, this president continues to stress his own rightness, demanding support for whatever he says on no other ground than that he says it.
In short, he has been caught so many times crying wolf when he had widespread support that now when there really are wolves at the Whine House gate, no amount of yowling will make them go away.
Instead, he is being trapped in a web of lies of his own making.
Daily print and broadcast news media reports expose an increasingly wider net of falsehoods he has perpetrated to soothe his ego.
And given the choice of whom to believe, journalists or the viral virulence of the president's defensiveness, political, governmental and congressional leaders are opting out of the "alternative facts" offered by Trumpians and selecting the solid evidence reported in the news media.
Three cheers for the First Amendment, bastion of a free democratic republic
Saturday, March 18, 2017
Jobs Fallout
How many jobs will drown in the wave of government budget cuts?
The State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) each face reductions of nearly one-third of their annual budgets. Other agencies will not be hit as hard, but the fallout from budget cuts will spread from government employment rosters to consumer and business entities that government agencies serve.
Economics 101 specifies three main elements in any economy -- consumer consumption, government spending and business investment. In addition, there is the value of net exports -- that is, the total value of exported goods, minus the value of imports, since they are not produced in the home country.
The idea is to measure the total value of all goods and services produced in any economic entity during a given period of time. This is called Gross Domestic Product, and is expressed in the formula C + G + I + (Ex-Im).
Clearly, when one element takes a hit, the rest react accordingly and the result can be an overall recession throughout the entire economy.
Conversely, when one part of an economy surges, the benefits spread to others. That's why government intervenes during economic downturns, to counterbalance any drop in consumer or business investment activity by sponsoring public works projects that put people back to work, paying wages that enable them to buy food, clothing and shelter, in turn boosting business activity, which in turn increases government tax revenue and everybody benefits.
Without government intervention, a downward spiral worsens and an economic downturn becomes a full-blown recession or depression.
In short, that's the theory behind government spending in the 1930s, which rescued the nation from the Great Depression. The same theory has been in play in subsequent downturns.
But while deficit spending can be a disaster for a household or a business, it's less of an issue for government. Why? Because, in effect, the economic bottom line is that government debt -- read, taxpayer debt -- is owed to taxpayers themselves. Put another way, government sells bonds to raise funds for its projects, and buyers of the bonds are typically citizens of that same government, who are financing the projects that put other citizens to work, providing wages that go to purchases of products made by businesses, both of whom pay taxes that reimburse the government which is then able to redeem the bonds that stimulated the economic rescue plan in the first place.
Then, when the economy returns to health, government can trim its make-work projects, reduce its debt and redeem the bonds.
So government is an important player in guaranteeing overall economic health, injecting money to stimulate activity when other elements of the economy -- consumption and investment -- don't do enough.
The tricky thing, however, is not to overdo in either circumstance. The U.S. economy has been doing reasonably well for the past several years, with the help of government spending while the private sector regains its footing.
Now, however, instead of easing back slowly, the federal budget for the coming fiscal year proposes massive cuts in federal spending, the elimination of many programs in numerous areas, the cutoff of government funds for things like education, health and welfare, as well as research and development, plus wide trimming of the government workforce.
All of which will mean lost jobs throughout government as well as the private sector that benefits from government aid.
Instead of stimulating economic health by providing jobs and funding for government as well as private sector workers, the federal government is, in effect, about to trip up the national economy and send it into an economic recession.
Unless, of course, the $54 billion additional funding for the military will entice many out-of-work Americans to enlist, because that's where the jobs will be.
Perhaps we'll see a recruiting office on Sesame Street, since the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, having lost federal funding, will rent office space to some military contractors.
The State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) each face reductions of nearly one-third of their annual budgets. Other agencies will not be hit as hard, but the fallout from budget cuts will spread from government employment rosters to consumer and business entities that government agencies serve.
Economics 101 specifies three main elements in any economy -- consumer consumption, government spending and business investment. In addition, there is the value of net exports -- that is, the total value of exported goods, minus the value of imports, since they are not produced in the home country.
The idea is to measure the total value of all goods and services produced in any economic entity during a given period of time. This is called Gross Domestic Product, and is expressed in the formula C + G + I + (Ex-Im).
Clearly, when one element takes a hit, the rest react accordingly and the result can be an overall recession throughout the entire economy.
Conversely, when one part of an economy surges, the benefits spread to others. That's why government intervenes during economic downturns, to counterbalance any drop in consumer or business investment activity by sponsoring public works projects that put people back to work, paying wages that enable them to buy food, clothing and shelter, in turn boosting business activity, which in turn increases government tax revenue and everybody benefits.
Without government intervention, a downward spiral worsens and an economic downturn becomes a full-blown recession or depression.
In short, that's the theory behind government spending in the 1930s, which rescued the nation from the Great Depression. The same theory has been in play in subsequent downturns.
But while deficit spending can be a disaster for a household or a business, it's less of an issue for government. Why? Because, in effect, the economic bottom line is that government debt -- read, taxpayer debt -- is owed to taxpayers themselves. Put another way, government sells bonds to raise funds for its projects, and buyers of the bonds are typically citizens of that same government, who are financing the projects that put other citizens to work, providing wages that go to purchases of products made by businesses, both of whom pay taxes that reimburse the government which is then able to redeem the bonds that stimulated the economic rescue plan in the first place.
Then, when the economy returns to health, government can trim its make-work projects, reduce its debt and redeem the bonds.
So government is an important player in guaranteeing overall economic health, injecting money to stimulate activity when other elements of the economy -- consumption and investment -- don't do enough.
The tricky thing, however, is not to overdo in either circumstance. The U.S. economy has been doing reasonably well for the past several years, with the help of government spending while the private sector regains its footing.
Now, however, instead of easing back slowly, the federal budget for the coming fiscal year proposes massive cuts in federal spending, the elimination of many programs in numerous areas, the cutoff of government funds for things like education, health and welfare, as well as research and development, plus wide trimming of the government workforce.
All of which will mean lost jobs throughout government as well as the private sector that benefits from government aid.
Instead of stimulating economic health by providing jobs and funding for government as well as private sector workers, the federal government is, in effect, about to trip up the national economy and send it into an economic recession.
Unless, of course, the $54 billion additional funding for the military will entice many out-of-work Americans to enlist, because that's where the jobs will be.
Perhaps we'll see a recruiting office on Sesame Street, since the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, having lost federal funding, will rent office space to some military contractors.
Friday, March 17, 2017
Shredding the Budget
By now, anyone interested -- and even many who are not -- will have seen a breakdown of the president's proposed budget and the effects of sharp funding cuts, reductions, eliminations and shredding of many programs aided by the U.S. government.
The consequences are also clear. Not only will many agencies, such as the State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, have to eliminate many of its operations, but many people will also be put out of work.
That part isn't mentioned by supporters of the president, who promised a major surge in jobs under his leadership. And his response to criticism of the budget was to attack what he persistently calls the "fake, dishonest" news media. Oddly, journalists have based their stories on the budget itself, looking at the numbers and calculating the reductions that would result. The Whiner in Chief did not have much to say about the Congressional Budget Office, the bipartisan agency that reports to the House and Senate on potential repercussions of legislation being considered, and which was the source of many news articles on the proposed budget.
And the bottom line remains that the proposed budget is just that -- a proposal. Congress actually has the final say when it comes to authorizing funds for government operations. And a president, as chief executive, is also just that -- the one whose responsibility it is to carry out the wishes of Congress.
A president does, of course, have veto power. But where would the government be if this president vetoed the very budget that he himself proposed, on the premise that Congress changed too much of it?
And typically, rather than admit a miscalculation -- much less a mistake or an error -- on his part, the Whiner in Chief is blaming everyone else when he doesn't get his way.
Meanwhile, he has left the Whinery at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in Washington for yet another weekend of golf in Florida, at a cost to taxpayers of several million dollars a day for Secret Service protection and other activities that surround a president wherever he goes.
Since becoming president, he has missed only one weekend for golf. Compare that to the number of times he roundly slammed his predecessor for his occasional golf outings. Remind me, did Barack Obama abandon the Oval Office every weekend, or did he stay in town to tend to business?
The consequences are also clear. Not only will many agencies, such as the State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, have to eliminate many of its operations, but many people will also be put out of work.
That part isn't mentioned by supporters of the president, who promised a major surge in jobs under his leadership. And his response to criticism of the budget was to attack what he persistently calls the "fake, dishonest" news media. Oddly, journalists have based their stories on the budget itself, looking at the numbers and calculating the reductions that would result. The Whiner in Chief did not have much to say about the Congressional Budget Office, the bipartisan agency that reports to the House and Senate on potential repercussions of legislation being considered, and which was the source of many news articles on the proposed budget.
And the bottom line remains that the proposed budget is just that -- a proposal. Congress actually has the final say when it comes to authorizing funds for government operations. And a president, as chief executive, is also just that -- the one whose responsibility it is to carry out the wishes of Congress.
A president does, of course, have veto power. But where would the government be if this president vetoed the very budget that he himself proposed, on the premise that Congress changed too much of it?
And typically, rather than admit a miscalculation -- much less a mistake or an error -- on his part, the Whiner in Chief is blaming everyone else when he doesn't get his way.
Meanwhile, he has left the Whinery at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in Washington for yet another weekend of golf in Florida, at a cost to taxpayers of several million dollars a day for Secret Service protection and other activities that surround a president wherever he goes.
Since becoming president, he has missed only one weekend for golf. Compare that to the number of times he roundly slammed his predecessor for his occasional golf outings. Remind me, did Barack Obama abandon the Oval Office every weekend, or did he stay in town to tend to business?
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Fed Bucks the Whinery
As expected, the Federal Reserve kicked its key interest rate up a quarter-point, to a range of 0.75 percent to 1 percent to prevent the U.S. economy from growing too quickly.
Investors approved, sending the stock market higher. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 20,950, up 54 percent, or 112.73 points for the day.
How the Fed's action to control the nation's economic growth path will clash with the president's preference for a growth rate of as much as 4 percent is clear. The Fed prefers a growth rate of about 2 percent. What's not clear yet is how the president will react. He did not touch on the issue during his campaign-style rally speech Wednesday evening in Kentucky.
He did, however, attack the federal judge in Hawaii who stopped the latest version of the Trump travel ban because it discriminates against Muslims. President Trump defended his executive order on the legal ground that a president can establish limits on any group that threatens the security of the nation.
The court, however, held to the Constitution's First Amendment protection of religious freedom and its prohibition of religious preferences.
Investors approved, sending the stock market higher. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 20,950, up 54 percent, or 112.73 points for the day.
How the Fed's action to control the nation's economic growth path will clash with the president's preference for a growth rate of as much as 4 percent is clear. The Fed prefers a growth rate of about 2 percent. What's not clear yet is how the president will react. He did not touch on the issue during his campaign-style rally speech Wednesday evening in Kentucky.
He did, however, attack the federal judge in Hawaii who stopped the latest version of the Trump travel ban because it discriminates against Muslims. President Trump defended his executive order on the legal ground that a president can establish limits on any group that threatens the security of the nation.
The court, however, held to the Constitution's First Amendment protection of religious freedom and its prohibition of religious preferences.
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Pants On Fire
Citizen: "How dumb do those politicians think we are?"
Pug Mahoney: "Very."
When you say something strange enough, loud enough, long enough, to enough people and you attack anyone who disagrees, soon many people will begin to believe you. Or at least be afraid to disagree.
It's called the Big Lie Technique, and this is how dictatorships begin.
The Whine House and its supporters claim that under current law, people "don't have the ability to shop around" for health insurance, to quote spokesman Sean Spicer, who added that with Trumpcare, companies and customers will be able to cross state lines when signing up for policies.
News flash. That's possible now, and has been for years. For example, a couple in Pennsylvania can have a policy from Mutual of Omaha (last I heard, that company is in Nebraska), and another from United HealthCare, based in Atlanta. For those weak in geography, that's in Georgia.
And in rejecting the conclusions and estimates of the Congressional Budget Office, Spicer called the agency "consistently wrong."
If that be so, perhaps Congress should abolish the CBO, thus saving money on research and advice for government officials considering new legislation.
Spicer also claimed the CBO estimated a 10 percent reduction in health care premiums. Correction: What the bipartisan experts said was that premium increases would fade by 10 percent. That is, instead of rising 5.5 percent, costs would go up by 5.0 percent. That's not a decrease, but a slower increase. And in other contexts, where will be substantial increases as well a sharp drop in the number of people covered.
Another tactic employed by backers of Trumpcare is criticizing the idea of a "mandate" that every have a health care policy, implying that a mandate is inherently evil, and government has no right to interfere in people's lives, telling them what to do.
Another news flash: There are already many government laws that mandate action by citizens. For example, those who own cars must buy auto insurance. Drivers must have licenses. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, bankers, stock brokers, real estate brokers, pharmacists, railway engineers, airline pilots, plumbers and electricians also are required to have licenses.
As for mandatory insurance programs run by government programs, there is unemployment insurance, Social Security retirement funds, and Medicare health insurance for retirees, all paid for through payroll deductions while folks are working.
And when it comes to government "interfering" in people's lives, telling then what they can and cannot do, consider zoning laws, building codes, traffic laws, food and drug quality standards, plus environmental and anti-pollution laws.
In short, without government there be chaos.
With government there can be universal health care at reasonable cost to citizens and reasonable compensation to practitioners. Else there be greed.
The U.S. is the only major developed country without universal health care. Candidate Donald Trump promised during the campaign that he would make it so. Now he waffles.
Time was, some say, that such programs did not exist, and this is true. It is also true that at that time people died a lot.
Pug Mahoney's advice to politicians is this: When your pants are on fire, you get burned.
Pug Mahoney: "Very."
When you say something strange enough, loud enough, long enough, to enough people and you attack anyone who disagrees, soon many people will begin to believe you. Or at least be afraid to disagree.
It's called the Big Lie Technique, and this is how dictatorships begin.
The Whine House and its supporters claim that under current law, people "don't have the ability to shop around" for health insurance, to quote spokesman Sean Spicer, who added that with Trumpcare, companies and customers will be able to cross state lines when signing up for policies.
News flash. That's possible now, and has been for years. For example, a couple in Pennsylvania can have a policy from Mutual of Omaha (last I heard, that company is in Nebraska), and another from United HealthCare, based in Atlanta. For those weak in geography, that's in Georgia.
And in rejecting the conclusions and estimates of the Congressional Budget Office, Spicer called the agency "consistently wrong."
If that be so, perhaps Congress should abolish the CBO, thus saving money on research and advice for government officials considering new legislation.
Spicer also claimed the CBO estimated a 10 percent reduction in health care premiums. Correction: What the bipartisan experts said was that premium increases would fade by 10 percent. That is, instead of rising 5.5 percent, costs would go up by 5.0 percent. That's not a decrease, but a slower increase. And in other contexts, where will be substantial increases as well a sharp drop in the number of people covered.
Another tactic employed by backers of Trumpcare is criticizing the idea of a "mandate" that every have a health care policy, implying that a mandate is inherently evil, and government has no right to interfere in people's lives, telling them what to do.
Another news flash: There are already many government laws that mandate action by citizens. For example, those who own cars must buy auto insurance. Drivers must have licenses. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, bankers, stock brokers, real estate brokers, pharmacists, railway engineers, airline pilots, plumbers and electricians also are required to have licenses.
As for mandatory insurance programs run by government programs, there is unemployment insurance, Social Security retirement funds, and Medicare health insurance for retirees, all paid for through payroll deductions while folks are working.
And when it comes to government "interfering" in people's lives, telling then what they can and cannot do, consider zoning laws, building codes, traffic laws, food and drug quality standards, plus environmental and anti-pollution laws.
In short, without government there be chaos.
With government there can be universal health care at reasonable cost to citizens and reasonable compensation to practitioners. Else there be greed.
The U.S. is the only major developed country without universal health care. Candidate Donald Trump promised during the campaign that he would make it so. Now he waffles.
Time was, some say, that such programs did not exist, and this is true. It is also true that at that time people died a lot.
Pug Mahoney's advice to politicians is this: When your pants are on fire, you get burned.
Monday, March 13, 2017
Charity Begins ...
Candidate Donald Trump promised he would take no salary if elected. Now, as president, he says he will donate his $430,000 salary to charity.
Reporters asked press secretary Sean Spicer whether any decision was made as to which charity would get it.
Spicer said no decision had yet been made, and asked those in the press briefing room for suggestions as to where the president should put it.
Silence.
One can only admire the restraint among the reporters for not responding.
Eventually, however, someone suggested a scholarship fund for journalists.
Given the president's recent comments on media coverage, that doesn't seem likely.
By the way, by accepting the salary and then donating it to charity, he gets a tax deduction. So the U.S. Treasury gets hit twice. So much for looking out for the public interest over his own.
Reporters asked press secretary Sean Spicer whether any decision was made as to which charity would get it.
Spicer said no decision had yet been made, and asked those in the press briefing room for suggestions as to where the president should put it.
Silence.
One can only admire the restraint among the reporters for not responding.
Eventually, however, someone suggested a scholarship fund for journalists.
Given the president's recent comments on media coverage, that doesn't seem likely.
By the way, by accepting the salary and then donating it to charity, he gets a tax deduction. So the U.S. Treasury gets hit twice. So much for looking out for the public interest over his own.
Trumpcare (Not)
As expected, the Trumpians had lots to complain about when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its preliminary cost estimate of the proposed revision of the health care law.
"I disagree strenuously" with the CBO report, said Tom Price, head of the Health and Human Services department. "The CBO has it wrong," Price said, and the report "is not believable."
The CBO said more than 14 million Americans would be uninsured by next year, and a total of 24 million over the next ten years would lose their health insurance coverage.
At the same time, the legislation would reduce the federal budget by $337 through the year 2026, largely by cutting Medicaid and expenses and eliminating subsidies under the present Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
The biggest costs, the CBO added, would come from repealing changes in the federal tax code that brought in revenue from high income earners as well as fees imposed on health insurers.
Instead of a government subsidy to low income citizens enabling them to buy health insurance, the new plan would provide a tax credit.
The problem here is that there will be no mandate that everyone buy a health insurance policy, so those who cannot afford a policy will simply go without. If they then get sick, will likely go to a hospital emergency room, where they will be treated for free. The costs are then passed on to other patients and their insurors.
In addition, a tax credit to help buy a health insurance policy is of little or no use to low income individuals and families, since they don't make enough money as to be taxable anyway.
Democrats were quick to condemn the proposed act.
"Trumpcare will be a nightmare," said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York. It will lead to 58 million Americans without health care coverage, he said, and will bring premium increases of as much as 25 percent. Moreover, the government would spend "twice as much on tax cuts for the wealthy as credits for others."
As a candidate, Donald Trump promised that everyone will be covered and costs will go down, Schumer noted. But the Trumpcare plan would also cut $170 million from the Medicare budget, Schumer noted.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California charged the proposed act as "immoral, indecent, and wrong," adding the hope that Republican sponsors pull the bill.
Trump supporter Mick Mulvaney, the federal budget director known to be a fierce advocate of spending cuts, in defending the plan, insisted that "competition lowers costs."
But if potential buyers have little or no money to spare, they simply drop out of the market.
Finally, it's important to note that the House of Representatives approved the Trumpcare bill last week during an all night session, before the CBO analysis of the proposal became available.
Typically, important legislation is not voted on until after members of Congress have had input from the CBO.
This time, they didn't wait.
"I disagree strenuously" with the CBO report, said Tom Price, head of the Health and Human Services department. "The CBO has it wrong," Price said, and the report "is not believable."
The CBO said more than 14 million Americans would be uninsured by next year, and a total of 24 million over the next ten years would lose their health insurance coverage.
At the same time, the legislation would reduce the federal budget by $337 through the year 2026, largely by cutting Medicaid and expenses and eliminating subsidies under the present Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
The biggest costs, the CBO added, would come from repealing changes in the federal tax code that brought in revenue from high income earners as well as fees imposed on health insurers.
Instead of a government subsidy to low income citizens enabling them to buy health insurance, the new plan would provide a tax credit.
The problem here is that there will be no mandate that everyone buy a health insurance policy, so those who cannot afford a policy will simply go without. If they then get sick, will likely go to a hospital emergency room, where they will be treated for free. The costs are then passed on to other patients and their insurors.
In addition, a tax credit to help buy a health insurance policy is of little or no use to low income individuals and families, since they don't make enough money as to be taxable anyway.
Democrats were quick to condemn the proposed act.
"Trumpcare will be a nightmare," said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York. It will lead to 58 million Americans without health care coverage, he said, and will bring premium increases of as much as 25 percent. Moreover, the government would spend "twice as much on tax cuts for the wealthy as credits for others."
As a candidate, Donald Trump promised that everyone will be covered and costs will go down, Schumer noted. But the Trumpcare plan would also cut $170 million from the Medicare budget, Schumer noted.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California charged the proposed act as "immoral, indecent, and wrong," adding the hope that Republican sponsors pull the bill.
Trump supporter Mick Mulvaney, the federal budget director known to be a fierce advocate of spending cuts, in defending the plan, insisted that "competition lowers costs."
But if potential buyers have little or no money to spare, they simply drop out of the market.
Finally, it's important to note that the House of Representatives approved the Trumpcare bill last week during an all night session, before the CBO analysis of the proposal became available.
Typically, important legislation is not voted on until after members of Congress have had input from the CBO.
This time, they didn't wait.
Sunday, March 12, 2017
Busy Week
Journalists are eager for the week to begin, with a plethora of stories about to break about the American economy, its government and how they clash.
Monday is the deadline for a Congressional demand for proof from the White House that Trump Tower was bugged on the orders of former President Barack Obama. The allegation was made by the current occupant of the White House, Donald Trump, but no evidence was offered and senior FBI officials have asked the Justice Department to refute the allegation.
Also on Monday, the nonpartisan and independent Congressional Budget Office is to release its estimate of the costs of the proposed revision of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, to be replaced by something called the American Health Care Act, also known as Trumpcare. But it's not a good sign that criticism of the report has already been launched, even before its release.
Later in the week, the Federal Reserve Board meets, and it's widely expected to increase its target range for its key interest rate, the Federal Funds rate. This rate has been near zero for a long time, and as the economy shows increasing signs of health, the Fed will likely nudge interest rates upward a bit to prevent overheating of the economy.
And we can expect further repercussions from the firing of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, whose jurisdiction in New York includes Wall Street and Trump Tower. If there is any truth to the allegation that there was wiretapping of Trump Tower, it would be up the that office to investigate for any criminal acts.
To bug the phones legally would require a court warrant. If there is one, that would mean there was something going on that would persuade a judge to issue the warrant. If the Trump Organization offices were wiretapped without a warrant, that would mean illegal activity by the government. And if there was no surveillance, legal or otherwise, that would mean President Trump made a serious allegation of criminal activity by his predecessor, without evidence or proof.
Add that to the previous pile of unproven allegations, falsehoods, innuendoes, slurs and full-blown lies and you get an impending constitutional crisis.
So is the president being investigated? The White House denies it, and the Justice Department and the FBI both have no comment. But that's standard. The FBI never comments on any investigation. They don't even acknowledge that there is one.
Meanwhile, one wonders who's in charge at the White House?
Monday is the deadline for a Congressional demand for proof from the White House that Trump Tower was bugged on the orders of former President Barack Obama. The allegation was made by the current occupant of the White House, Donald Trump, but no evidence was offered and senior FBI officials have asked the Justice Department to refute the allegation.
Also on Monday, the nonpartisan and independent Congressional Budget Office is to release its estimate of the costs of the proposed revision of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, to be replaced by something called the American Health Care Act, also known as Trumpcare. But it's not a good sign that criticism of the report has already been launched, even before its release.
Later in the week, the Federal Reserve Board meets, and it's widely expected to increase its target range for its key interest rate, the Federal Funds rate. This rate has been near zero for a long time, and as the economy shows increasing signs of health, the Fed will likely nudge interest rates upward a bit to prevent overheating of the economy.
And we can expect further repercussions from the firing of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, whose jurisdiction in New York includes Wall Street and Trump Tower. If there is any truth to the allegation that there was wiretapping of Trump Tower, it would be up the that office to investigate for any criminal acts.
To bug the phones legally would require a court warrant. If there is one, that would mean there was something going on that would persuade a judge to issue the warrant. If the Trump Organization offices were wiretapped without a warrant, that would mean illegal activity by the government. And if there was no surveillance, legal or otherwise, that would mean President Trump made a serious allegation of criminal activity by his predecessor, without evidence or proof.
Add that to the previous pile of unproven allegations, falsehoods, innuendoes, slurs and full-blown lies and you get an impending constitutional crisis.
So is the president being investigated? The White House denies it, and the Justice Department and the FBI both have no comment. But that's standard. The FBI never comments on any investigation. They don't even acknowledge that there is one.
Meanwhile, one wonders who's in charge at the White House?
Saturday, March 11, 2017
Presidential Displeasure
Prez to U.S. Attorney:
"You're Fired!"
Evidence is piling up that there were, in fact, improper relationships between Donald Trump, his staffers, and foreign political and business entities before and after Election Day.
Several days ago, government monitors asked U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, whose jurisdiction in New York City includes Trump Tower and Wall Street, to investigate whether Trump violated the Constitution by accepting benefits from foreign powers.
On Thursday, conservative talk show host Sean Hannity called on the president to "purge" holdovers from the previous administration and remove "saboteurs" from the Justice Department who were allegedly leaking documents intended to harm Trump.
As if on cue, the next day Trump demanded resignations from 46 U.S. attorneys, effectively immediately. Bharara refused, and Trump's response was: "You're fired!"
It's not uncommon for presidents to replace multiple appointees when a new administration takes office, but typically the replacements are spread out over time, especially when there are continuing investigations. But to demand that all leave immediately is an extraordinary move.
Moreover, Trump had already asked Bharara, a Democrat, to stay on as U.S. attorney in Manhattan to continue working on important cases. Bharara has a reputation for being strong on prosecuting corruption no matter where found.
All of this raises the key question of whether the president's many business interests in America and around the world may be running afoul of U.S. law and the constitutional ban on accepting benefits of any kind from any foreign power.
Already, members of the Trump team have been accused of frequent contact with Russian officials before and after the election, and there are strong indications that the meetings were more than social or business calls.
Meanwhile, the Irish Times in Dublin carried a report from its Beijing correspondent that the government of China has granted 38 new Trump trademarks, which will enable the U.S. president to expand his range of businesses using his name in that country.
An attorney for the Trump Organization said the group has been "actively enforcing its intellectual property rights in China for more than a decade," according to the Irish Times report, and these new trademarks are part of that effort.
However, the newspaper also noted that the trademarks were granted by the Chinese government with unusual speed, which experts said raised the issue of conflict of interest between the president and business interests in China, as well as a violation of the U.S. Constitutional ban known as the emoluments clause.
Having a conflict of interest -- potential or real -- is not in itself a bad thing. But acting on that conflict, to the detriment of others you supposedly represent, can easily fall into the trap of being illegal, unethical, or even treasonous.
Now there are increasing questions from journalists, academics and government officials as to the propriety of using an official government position -- such as the presidency -- to tout the products and services of Trump-related businesses.
Ignoring the questions, ejecting journalists who ask the questions, and even firing prosecutors charged with enforcing laws, does not make the questions go away.
It does, however, heighten the curiosity of more citizens, voters, and lawyers who see more and more smoke and ask, where's the fire?
So if there is collusion between the current administration and foreign powers with interests that conflict with American ideals and practices, it's time to investigate and stomp out the fire.
"You're Fired!"
Evidence is piling up that there were, in fact, improper relationships between Donald Trump, his staffers, and foreign political and business entities before and after Election Day.
Several days ago, government monitors asked U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, whose jurisdiction in New York City includes Trump Tower and Wall Street, to investigate whether Trump violated the Constitution by accepting benefits from foreign powers.
On Thursday, conservative talk show host Sean Hannity called on the president to "purge" holdovers from the previous administration and remove "saboteurs" from the Justice Department who were allegedly leaking documents intended to harm Trump.
As if on cue, the next day Trump demanded resignations from 46 U.S. attorneys, effectively immediately. Bharara refused, and Trump's response was: "You're fired!"
It's not uncommon for presidents to replace multiple appointees when a new administration takes office, but typically the replacements are spread out over time, especially when there are continuing investigations. But to demand that all leave immediately is an extraordinary move.
Moreover, Trump had already asked Bharara, a Democrat, to stay on as U.S. attorney in Manhattan to continue working on important cases. Bharara has a reputation for being strong on prosecuting corruption no matter where found.
All of this raises the key question of whether the president's many business interests in America and around the world may be running afoul of U.S. law and the constitutional ban on accepting benefits of any kind from any foreign power.
Already, members of the Trump team have been accused of frequent contact with Russian officials before and after the election, and there are strong indications that the meetings were more than social or business calls.
Meanwhile, the Irish Times in Dublin carried a report from its Beijing correspondent that the government of China has granted 38 new Trump trademarks, which will enable the U.S. president to expand his range of businesses using his name in that country.
An attorney for the Trump Organization said the group has been "actively enforcing its intellectual property rights in China for more than a decade," according to the Irish Times report, and these new trademarks are part of that effort.
However, the newspaper also noted that the trademarks were granted by the Chinese government with unusual speed, which experts said raised the issue of conflict of interest between the president and business interests in China, as well as a violation of the U.S. Constitutional ban known as the emoluments clause.
Having a conflict of interest -- potential or real -- is not in itself a bad thing. But acting on that conflict, to the detriment of others you supposedly represent, can easily fall into the trap of being illegal, unethical, or even treasonous.
Now there are increasing questions from journalists, academics and government officials as to the propriety of using an official government position -- such as the presidency -- to tout the products and services of Trump-related businesses.
Ignoring the questions, ejecting journalists who ask the questions, and even firing prosecutors charged with enforcing laws, does not make the questions go away.
It does, however, heighten the curiosity of more citizens, voters, and lawyers who see more and more smoke and ask, where's the fire?
So if there is collusion between the current administration and foreign powers with interests that conflict with American ideals and practices, it's time to investigate and stomp out the fire.
Friday, March 10, 2017
Pencil Sharpeners
Refusing to answer a question and ejecting the questioner does not make the question go away.
Yet that seems to be the policy of the Trump organization as it moves from campaign mode to governing mode.
On Friday, aides escorted Andrea Mitchell of NBC News out of the room where a senior Mexican official was speaking to journalists after she asked several questions that supposedly were not permitted.
Nevertheless, she persisted, and was soon ousted.
Earlier, it was revealed that news media would not accompany Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on an official visit to Asia. This after the State Department finally began holding press briefings, the first since the change of administrations. Eventually, the department said it would reconsider, after major news organizations objected.
Meanwhile, the State Department press spokesman admitted he was unaware that the senior Mexican government official was in Washington. All this as Tillerson seems to be boxed out of policy meetings with the president.
During the election campaign, there were several instances of journalists being barred from political events featuring the candidate. Among these was the time Jorge Ramos of Univision was forcibly ejected from a meeting because the candidate supposedly did not like the way Ramos was covering the campaign.
The moral of this collection of incidents is that you can't run a government the way you run a company. When a senior executive doesn't like the way an employee behaves, or objects to the kinds of questions the employee asks, he can fire the employee.
But journalists assigned to cover the doings of the chief executive of the United States government do not work for that executive. They may be paid by the publisher of their news outlet, and in that sense they can be fired by the editor, but in a larger sense they work for the citizens of the country.
They do not work for government officials, and any attempt to force them to cover a story the way the government wants it slanted is doomed to failure. Meanwhile, the question does not go away, but continues to be asked by other members of the media.
And the more a politician rants, and the louder he protests about "fake news," the more reporters believe they are closer to the real story.
Yet that seems to be the policy of the Trump organization as it moves from campaign mode to governing mode.
On Friday, aides escorted Andrea Mitchell of NBC News out of the room where a senior Mexican official was speaking to journalists after she asked several questions that supposedly were not permitted.
Nevertheless, she persisted, and was soon ousted.
Earlier, it was revealed that news media would not accompany Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on an official visit to Asia. This after the State Department finally began holding press briefings, the first since the change of administrations. Eventually, the department said it would reconsider, after major news organizations objected.
Meanwhile, the State Department press spokesman admitted he was unaware that the senior Mexican government official was in Washington. All this as Tillerson seems to be boxed out of policy meetings with the president.
During the election campaign, there were several instances of journalists being barred from political events featuring the candidate. Among these was the time Jorge Ramos of Univision was forcibly ejected from a meeting because the candidate supposedly did not like the way Ramos was covering the campaign.
The moral of this collection of incidents is that you can't run a government the way you run a company. When a senior executive doesn't like the way an employee behaves, or objects to the kinds of questions the employee asks, he can fire the employee.
But journalists assigned to cover the doings of the chief executive of the United States government do not work for that executive. They may be paid by the publisher of their news outlet, and in that sense they can be fired by the editor, but in a larger sense they work for the citizens of the country.
They do not work for government officials, and any attempt to force them to cover a story the way the government wants it slanted is doomed to failure. Meanwhile, the question does not go away, but continues to be asked by other members of the media.
And the more a politician rants, and the louder he protests about "fake news," the more reporters believe they are closer to the real story.
Make the White House Real Again
What's all this about lost and stolen jobs being hijacked to other countries even as the U.S. economy totters on the brink of catastrophe?
That was the campaign rant for months. Now, 50 days into the new administration, here's a reality check:
Over the past three months, job gains have averaged 209,000 per month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In February, U.S. employers hired 235,000 workers, as the nationwide unemployment rate posted 4.7 percent, down from 4.9 percent a year ago.
Coupled with other recent reports that overall economic growth has been steady, and Americans continue to buy more imported stuff than U.S. firms export, all signs point to a healthy and growing economy.
All this also means the Federal Reserve is likely to raise its key interest rate when its Open Market Committee meets next week, as its way of preventing a too-strong economic surge.
Ironically, these continuing signs of a healthy and growing economy put the Trump Administration in a bind. After months of campaigning on dire warnings of an economic apocalypse, the White House now can claim credit for rescuing America and making it great again, after just a few weeks in office.
Press Secretary Sean Spicer led his daily press briefing with the news of healthy job growth and low unemployment, making the point that this was just 50 days since Donald Trump was inaugurated, on January 20.
As if he was personally responsible for February's good news.
But the reality is that this is part of a continuing economic recovery that goes back ten years, after the Great Recession that took place during the last Republican administration under President George W. Bush, and the recovery under a Democrat, President Barack Obama.
But while correlation is not necessarily causation, it's also true that once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times or more is a pattern. A brief look at history shows that economic downturns occur more often during a Republican Administration than when a Democrat occupies the Oval Office.
Not that this is a prediction, but if the current president succeeds in his announced plans to cut taxes and increase spending, it doesn't take a wizard to see a potential problem.
That was the campaign rant for months. Now, 50 days into the new administration, here's a reality check:
Over the past three months, job gains have averaged 209,000 per month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In February, U.S. employers hired 235,000 workers, as the nationwide unemployment rate posted 4.7 percent, down from 4.9 percent a year ago.
Coupled with other recent reports that overall economic growth has been steady, and Americans continue to buy more imported stuff than U.S. firms export, all signs point to a healthy and growing economy.
All this also means the Federal Reserve is likely to raise its key interest rate when its Open Market Committee meets next week, as its way of preventing a too-strong economic surge.
Ironically, these continuing signs of a healthy and growing economy put the Trump Administration in a bind. After months of campaigning on dire warnings of an economic apocalypse, the White House now can claim credit for rescuing America and making it great again, after just a few weeks in office.
Press Secretary Sean Spicer led his daily press briefing with the news of healthy job growth and low unemployment, making the point that this was just 50 days since Donald Trump was inaugurated, on January 20.
As if he was personally responsible for February's good news.
But the reality is that this is part of a continuing economic recovery that goes back ten years, after the Great Recession that took place during the last Republican administration under President George W. Bush, and the recovery under a Democrat, President Barack Obama.
But while correlation is not necessarily causation, it's also true that once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times or more is a pattern. A brief look at history shows that economic downturns occur more often during a Republican Administration than when a Democrat occupies the Oval Office.
Not that this is a prediction, but if the current president succeeds in his announced plans to cut taxes and increase spending, it doesn't take a wizard to see a potential problem.
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
Crossing the Line
"If this be treason ... " -- Patrick Henry
"An it be so, it were a grievous fault." -- Shakespeare
And grievously shall we all pay for it.
News media are finally having an attack of conscience, after realizing they were taken in by the shiny showman who played on the basic courtesy of interviewers to foist his alluring message on listeners eager for a promise of good news and increasing prosperity.
The reality that good news and increasing prosperity were already on the way did not deter the salesman to pitch the benefits of his product and urge listeners to ignore potential risks.
He honed his skills on the gossip sheets and tabloids, which helped build his reputation as "a good interview" who could always supply "good copy."
And this skill at manipulating media helped propel him to bigger and bigger audiences, then to voters and eventually to the White House.
But how far is too far? What does it matter when someone crosses the proverbial line and nothing happens, especially when the line keeps moving?
How many times does the line have to move until the public, encouraged finally by an awake media, finally says, "Enough. No more. You've gone too far."
Answer: When the public feels betrayed, and members of Congress believe their own positions are in danger of forfeit for tolerating outrageous behavior on the part of a president.
Journalists are now pushing more aggressively for answers to questions that should have been asked forcefully long ago, and academics are joining in, posting their knowledge of constitutional law and giving examples of how the president may well have violated the law and should face impeachment, trial, conviction and removal from office.
The latest scandal emanating from the Oval Office is the allegation the President Barack Obama was behind a scheme to wire tap communications at Trump Tower. The current president provided no evidence, and his charges were refuted by several leading present and former officials, who noted that such an action would be illegal.
And whether the allegation were true or not, wiretapping someone without a warrant is a criminal offense. Either way, "False and defamatory speech isn't protected by the First Amendment," according to Noah Feldman, professor of constitutional and international law at Harvard University, writing on Bloomberg.com.
Moreover, "the constitutional remedy for presidential misconduct is impeachment," Feldman added.
Adding to that suggestion is George Lakoff, distinguished professor of cognitive science and linguistics (retired) at the University of California at Berkeley, who raises this question about Donald Trump's "Russian connections and his unwavering support" for that country. "Is treason the reason?" Lakoff asks.
The president's tax returns "could show of Trump is deeply involved in debt to Russians or if he is involved in illegal financial activity," Lakoff writes on his blog, https://georgelakoff.com.
More importantly, Trump has created a distraction from his own issues by accusing Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower. So, "faced with the biggest scandal in American history -- presidential treason -- Trump, with a tweet, accuses Obama of a scandal bigger than Watergate."
Fortunately, an aroused news media will not be distracted by this diversion strategy, but will actively and forcefully cover both stories.
Why? Because they are both related. Whether the story of unauthorized, illegal presidential wiretapping is true or not, the very allegation may be an impeachable offense.
Who's making book on the odds of the current president leaving or being ousted by the end of this year?
"An it be so, it were a grievous fault." -- Shakespeare
And grievously shall we all pay for it.
News media are finally having an attack of conscience, after realizing they were taken in by the shiny showman who played on the basic courtesy of interviewers to foist his alluring message on listeners eager for a promise of good news and increasing prosperity.
The reality that good news and increasing prosperity were already on the way did not deter the salesman to pitch the benefits of his product and urge listeners to ignore potential risks.
He honed his skills on the gossip sheets and tabloids, which helped build his reputation as "a good interview" who could always supply "good copy."
And this skill at manipulating media helped propel him to bigger and bigger audiences, then to voters and eventually to the White House.
But how far is too far? What does it matter when someone crosses the proverbial line and nothing happens, especially when the line keeps moving?
How many times does the line have to move until the public, encouraged finally by an awake media, finally says, "Enough. No more. You've gone too far."
Answer: When the public feels betrayed, and members of Congress believe their own positions are in danger of forfeit for tolerating outrageous behavior on the part of a president.
Journalists are now pushing more aggressively for answers to questions that should have been asked forcefully long ago, and academics are joining in, posting their knowledge of constitutional law and giving examples of how the president may well have violated the law and should face impeachment, trial, conviction and removal from office.
The latest scandal emanating from the Oval Office is the allegation the President Barack Obama was behind a scheme to wire tap communications at Trump Tower. The current president provided no evidence, and his charges were refuted by several leading present and former officials, who noted that such an action would be illegal.
And whether the allegation were true or not, wiretapping someone without a warrant is a criminal offense. Either way, "False and defamatory speech isn't protected by the First Amendment," according to Noah Feldman, professor of constitutional and international law at Harvard University, writing on Bloomberg.com.
Moreover, "the constitutional remedy for presidential misconduct is impeachment," Feldman added.
Adding to that suggestion is George Lakoff, distinguished professor of cognitive science and linguistics (retired) at the University of California at Berkeley, who raises this question about Donald Trump's "Russian connections and his unwavering support" for that country. "Is treason the reason?" Lakoff asks.
The president's tax returns "could show of Trump is deeply involved in debt to Russians or if he is involved in illegal financial activity," Lakoff writes on his blog, https://georgelakoff.com.
More importantly, Trump has created a distraction from his own issues by accusing Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower. So, "faced with the biggest scandal in American history -- presidential treason -- Trump, with a tweet, accuses Obama of a scandal bigger than Watergate."
Fortunately, an aroused news media will not be distracted by this diversion strategy, but will actively and forcefully cover both stories.
Why? Because they are both related. Whether the story of unauthorized, illegal presidential wiretapping is true or not, the very allegation may be an impeachable offense.
Who's making book on the odds of the current president leaving or being ousted by the end of this year?
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Gaming Numbers
The international trade deficit is rising, the federal budget deficit is rising, and the government will reach its borrowing limit on March 16.
But does all this mean the U.S. is about to stumble into bankruptcy? No, because despite what some politicians warn of, "deficits don't matter," to quote Dick Cheney, the former vice president.
The Commerce Department reported that the trade deficit in January stood at $48.5 billion, a 9.6 percent rise from December. Imports rose to $240.6 billion from $235.4, and exports increased to $192.1 billion from $191.0 billion.
And the Census Bureau, part of the Commerce Department, pointed out that exports and imports were both at a three-year high. The top exports of goods were automotive parts and accessories, passenger cars, and pharmaceuticals.
Top exports of services were for travel, business services, and charges for the use of intellectual property.
Imports were led by passenger cars, crude oil, and cell phones and other household goods.
Simply put, this happened because Americans buy more stuff than we sell, mostly because we have more money.
The reverse, selling more stuff than we buy, would require that we make more stuff, in excess of what we need. But the beneficiaries of that arrangement would not be factory workers, who get paid the same hourly wage whether they produce enough for domestic consumption or for export, but senior management, who gain extra profit from increased overseas sales.
This is not to say that a trade surplus is a bad thing. But it is to say that it benefits a few, not the many. Likewise, trade deficits harm that same few, not the factory floor many.
Over time, moreover, international trade payments always balance. If they don't, that means somebody is cheating. In addition, closing borders and raising tariffs only closes markets, and both sides suffer.
That doesn't stop the current administration from whining about the imbalance, since their emphasis on "America First" translates to a winner-take-all business.
In announcing the trade figures, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the data shows "there is much work to be done." He added that "correcting this imbalance is an important step," and the government "will renegotiate bad trade deals" in defense of "all hard-working Americans."
That, however, reflects the same conservative mercantile winner-take-all attitude, and tries to extend it to wage earners as well as senior management traders.
Separately, the Congressional Budget Office noted that for the first time since 2009, the federal budget deficit rose in relation to total output. And over the next ten years, deficits will continue to rise, partly due to "increased spending for retirement and health care programs targeted to older people, as well as rising interest payments on the government's debt, accompanied by only modest growth in revenue."
So the current administration wants to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, cut taxes, and spend lots more on the military.
Meanwhile, the Treasury Department will top out on its ability to issue bonds as a way of raising money to fund government projects. Unless it uses "extraordinary measures" to continue raising cash. Even so, these measures could be exhausted by autumn.
Does this mean the government will go bankrupt? Probably not, because Treasury bonds and notes are typically bought mostly by Americans, so in a sense we owe that money to ourselves.
Nonetheless, all these negative numbers provide plenty of ammunition for conservatives to hammer the need for spending reductions, less regulation and fewer taxes, in the hope that all this freedom will encourage spectacular economic growth.
But the CBO also forecast that growth over the next two years will stay close to the modest rate of about 2 percent since the end of the Great Recession in 2009.
Nevertheless, the CBO noted, economic growth will be faster than growth in potential. Result: More jobs, higher wages and some upward pressure on inflation and interest rates.
All in all, things look pretty good. Unless the new guy screws things up. Even so, the Federal Reserve will monitor everything to make sure things don't go wild. And Congress, which traditionally also cherishes its independence, may block some of the new guy's stranger plans.
But does all this mean the U.S. is about to stumble into bankruptcy? No, because despite what some politicians warn of, "deficits don't matter," to quote Dick Cheney, the former vice president.
The Commerce Department reported that the trade deficit in January stood at $48.5 billion, a 9.6 percent rise from December. Imports rose to $240.6 billion from $235.4, and exports increased to $192.1 billion from $191.0 billion.
And the Census Bureau, part of the Commerce Department, pointed out that exports and imports were both at a three-year high. The top exports of goods were automotive parts and accessories, passenger cars, and pharmaceuticals.
Top exports of services were for travel, business services, and charges for the use of intellectual property.
Imports were led by passenger cars, crude oil, and cell phones and other household goods.
Simply put, this happened because Americans buy more stuff than we sell, mostly because we have more money.
The reverse, selling more stuff than we buy, would require that we make more stuff, in excess of what we need. But the beneficiaries of that arrangement would not be factory workers, who get paid the same hourly wage whether they produce enough for domestic consumption or for export, but senior management, who gain extra profit from increased overseas sales.
This is not to say that a trade surplus is a bad thing. But it is to say that it benefits a few, not the many. Likewise, trade deficits harm that same few, not the factory floor many.
Over time, moreover, international trade payments always balance. If they don't, that means somebody is cheating. In addition, closing borders and raising tariffs only closes markets, and both sides suffer.
That doesn't stop the current administration from whining about the imbalance, since their emphasis on "America First" translates to a winner-take-all business.
In announcing the trade figures, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the data shows "there is much work to be done." He added that "correcting this imbalance is an important step," and the government "will renegotiate bad trade deals" in defense of "all hard-working Americans."
That, however, reflects the same conservative mercantile winner-take-all attitude, and tries to extend it to wage earners as well as senior management traders.
Separately, the Congressional Budget Office noted that for the first time since 2009, the federal budget deficit rose in relation to total output. And over the next ten years, deficits will continue to rise, partly due to "increased spending for retirement and health care programs targeted to older people, as well as rising interest payments on the government's debt, accompanied by only modest growth in revenue."
So the current administration wants to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, cut taxes, and spend lots more on the military.
Meanwhile, the Treasury Department will top out on its ability to issue bonds as a way of raising money to fund government projects. Unless it uses "extraordinary measures" to continue raising cash. Even so, these measures could be exhausted by autumn.
Does this mean the government will go bankrupt? Probably not, because Treasury bonds and notes are typically bought mostly by Americans, so in a sense we owe that money to ourselves.
Nonetheless, all these negative numbers provide plenty of ammunition for conservatives to hammer the need for spending reductions, less regulation and fewer taxes, in the hope that all this freedom will encourage spectacular economic growth.
But the CBO also forecast that growth over the next two years will stay close to the modest rate of about 2 percent since the end of the Great Recession in 2009.
Nevertheless, the CBO noted, economic growth will be faster than growth in potential. Result: More jobs, higher wages and some upward pressure on inflation and interest rates.
All in all, things look pretty good. Unless the new guy screws things up. Even so, the Federal Reserve will monitor everything to make sure things don't go wild. And Congress, which traditionally also cherishes its independence, may block some of the new guy's stranger plans.
Monday, March 6, 2017
Believability Quotient
When print and broadcast news media compile lists of the "alternative facts," half-truths, misleading comments, falsehoods and flat-lies perpetrated by a president who peppers his speeches with the plea, "Believe me," and attacks every report that he doesn't like as "fake news," readers and viewers must deal with this question: Who is more believable?
Should they continue to believe an individual with a proven record of deception and untruths, or come to accept multiple information sources with a record of reliability going back many years?
Even the conservative sympathizers at Fox News regularly tout the slogan, "We report, you decide."
Or when dealing with claims of wire tapping of a presidential candidate when the FBI, the CIA, numerous senior officials at major intelligence agencies point out that such a move could not happen without a warrant, and if it did, that would mean the FBI, for example, was breaking the law, what is the believability quotient for each? Law enforcement agencies or an individual who refuses to provide evidence or proof to back up his claims?
The White House now says the president won't divulge his source for the wiretap information in order to protect the confidentiality of his sources.
Yeah, right. And I have it on good authority that the moon is made of green cheese, the lunar landings were faked -- they were filmed at a movie studio in Brooklyn -- and Walter Cronkite fibbed.
Should they continue to believe an individual with a proven record of deception and untruths, or come to accept multiple information sources with a record of reliability going back many years?
Even the conservative sympathizers at Fox News regularly tout the slogan, "We report, you decide."
Or when dealing with claims of wire tapping of a presidential candidate when the FBI, the CIA, numerous senior officials at major intelligence agencies point out that such a move could not happen without a warrant, and if it did, that would mean the FBI, for example, was breaking the law, what is the believability quotient for each? Law enforcement agencies or an individual who refuses to provide evidence or proof to back up his claims?
The White House now says the president won't divulge his source for the wiretap information in order to protect the confidentiality of his sources.
Yeah, right. And I have it on good authority that the moon is made of green cheese, the lunar landings were faked -- they were filmed at a movie studio in Brooklyn -- and Walter Cronkite fibbed.
Sunday, March 5, 2017
Xenophobia Goes Viral
Economic nationalism equals colonialism reborn, and colonialism leads to breakup.
The fear of foreigners immigrating to new countries is spreading, and the echoes of Trumpism are spreading to other major nations, especially the United Kingdom and France.
The U.S. president wants to cancel the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as well as the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), along with efforts to keep out newcomers and deport more recent immigrants, even those with minor legal offenses such as traffic tickets, as part of his dream to keep the country safe and "make America great again."
Similar efforts are being promoted in the United Kingdom, where political leaders want the country to leave the European Union, and in France, where presidential candidate Marine Le Pen wants "borders that we control," charging that "globalization is a catastrophe" for most people in France.
But when everyone fears foreigners, no one has a safe home.
Breaking up international trade agreements and striving for a form of economic nationalism where the winner takes all and the loser goes hungry is a return of colonial era mercantilism.
There's enough hunger in the world without deliberately making the crisis worse through predatory trade practices.
The fear of foreigners immigrating to new countries is spreading, and the echoes of Trumpism are spreading to other major nations, especially the United Kingdom and France.
The U.S. president wants to cancel the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as well as the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), along with efforts to keep out newcomers and deport more recent immigrants, even those with minor legal offenses such as traffic tickets, as part of his dream to keep the country safe and "make America great again."
Similar efforts are being promoted in the United Kingdom, where political leaders want the country to leave the European Union, and in France, where presidential candidate Marine Le Pen wants "borders that we control," charging that "globalization is a catastrophe" for most people in France.
But when everyone fears foreigners, no one has a safe home.
Breaking up international trade agreements and striving for a form of economic nationalism where the winner takes all and the loser goes hungry is a return of colonial era mercantilism.
There's enough hunger in the world without deliberately making the crisis worse through predatory trade practices.
Presidential Five Ws
"Believe me." -- Donald Trump
Just because you say so doesn't make it true. -- Pug Mahoney
The president stunned the world early Saturday with his allegations that his predecessor Barack Obama wire-tapped communications systems at Trump Tower during the election campaign.
Trump gave no details and offered no evidence, and while several of the standard Five Ws plus How (who, what, where, when, why and how) were included in the presidential Tweets, the information was skimpy enough to fit into the 140-character format.
Briefly, here are the presidential five Ws:
Who -- Barack Obama
What -- Tapped communication devices
Where -- Trump Tower in New York City
When -- Before the election
Why -- not given
How -- not given
Here, then, are some follow-up questions, based on the same journalistic Five W format:
Who or what is your source for the information leading to the allegations?
What evidence shows that there was in fact unwarranted wire tapping?
Where was the tapping originated, in what agency, and by whom?
When specifically was the tapping done?
Why was the surveillance done?
How, specifically, was it done?
Wire tapping can only be done legally after approval by a court. Who, in which court, approved? If the tapping was done without a warrant, the current president, Donald Trump, is alleging criminal behavior on the part of the president at the time, Barack Obama.
If the allegations are true, then an official investigation should determine the facts of the case, and file charges accordingly.
If the allegations are not true, then that same official investigation will determine that, and file charges accordingly.
Either way, investigate, always remembering that the most important of the Five Ws is the last one: Why?
Meanwhile, after the furor over the early Saturday morning allegations, a White House spokesman on Sunday issued a statement calling for a congressional investigation as part of its probe of Russian meddling in the election. There was still no evidence offered that the tapping actually occurred.
Just because you say so doesn't make it true. -- Pug Mahoney
The president stunned the world early Saturday with his allegations that his predecessor Barack Obama wire-tapped communications systems at Trump Tower during the election campaign.
Trump gave no details and offered no evidence, and while several of the standard Five Ws plus How (who, what, where, when, why and how) were included in the presidential Tweets, the information was skimpy enough to fit into the 140-character format.
Briefly, here are the presidential five Ws:
Who -- Barack Obama
What -- Tapped communication devices
Where -- Trump Tower in New York City
When -- Before the election
Why -- not given
How -- not given
Here, then, are some follow-up questions, based on the same journalistic Five W format:
Who or what is your source for the information leading to the allegations?
What evidence shows that there was in fact unwarranted wire tapping?
Where was the tapping originated, in what agency, and by whom?
When specifically was the tapping done?
Why was the surveillance done?
How, specifically, was it done?
Wire tapping can only be done legally after approval by a court. Who, in which court, approved? If the tapping was done without a warrant, the current president, Donald Trump, is alleging criminal behavior on the part of the president at the time, Barack Obama.
If the allegations are true, then an official investigation should determine the facts of the case, and file charges accordingly.
If the allegations are not true, then that same official investigation will determine that, and file charges accordingly.
Either way, investigate, always remembering that the most important of the Five Ws is the last one: Why?
Meanwhile, after the furor over the early Saturday morning allegations, a White House spokesman on Sunday issued a statement calling for a congressional investigation as part of its probe of Russian meddling in the election. There was still no evidence offered that the tapping actually occurred.
Friday, March 3, 2017
Here It Comes
Senior Fed officials, including Chair Janet Yellen, were surprisingly specific Friday in talking about a boost in interest rates when the Federal Reserve Board's Open Market Committee meets later this month.
Several times in recent weeks, readers of this blog have seen predictions of a rate hike to come soon. Now, speeches by Fed leaders have led with talk about the need to draw back on the program of low interest rates to stimulate the nation's economy.
Now that the economy has been on a slow but steady growth path, as measured by Growth Domestic Product (GDP), it's time for the Fed to pull back from its low interest rate strategy and tap on the economic brakes to prevent a rapid growth rate rise that could lead to a quick fall.
The Fed has been focusing on a growth rate of about 2 percent. For the past two fiscal quarters, GDP has been growing at 1.9 percent, accompanied by labor shortages as companies hire more people. Moreover, the unemployment rate has been below 5 percent for some time now, another indicator of a healthy economy.
The Fed's Open Market Committee is scheduled to meet March 14-15, when it will decide on a change in its interest rate policy. Its key rate, the federal funds rate, has been below 1 percent for many months as the Fed has tried to encourage borrowing to rescue the economy from the Great Recession of ten years ago.
Raising interest rates now will put the Fed on a collision course with the president, who has talked of a surge in economic growth of as much as 3 percent, powered by lower taxes, fewer government regulations and increased federal spending.
Several times in recent weeks, readers of this blog have seen predictions of a rate hike to come soon. Now, speeches by Fed leaders have led with talk about the need to draw back on the program of low interest rates to stimulate the nation's economy.
Now that the economy has been on a slow but steady growth path, as measured by Growth Domestic Product (GDP), it's time for the Fed to pull back from its low interest rate strategy and tap on the economic brakes to prevent a rapid growth rate rise that could lead to a quick fall.
The Fed has been focusing on a growth rate of about 2 percent. For the past two fiscal quarters, GDP has been growing at 1.9 percent, accompanied by labor shortages as companies hire more people. Moreover, the unemployment rate has been below 5 percent for some time now, another indicator of a healthy economy.
The Fed's Open Market Committee is scheduled to meet March 14-15, when it will decide on a change in its interest rate policy. Its key rate, the federal funds rate, has been below 1 percent for many months as the Fed has tried to encourage borrowing to rescue the economy from the Great Recession of ten years ago.
Raising interest rates now will put the Fed on a collision course with the president, who has talked of a surge in economic growth of as much as 3 percent, powered by lower taxes, fewer government regulations and increased federal spending.
Thursday, March 2, 2017
What Mess?
"I inherited a mess," says the Whiner in Chief, and "Only I can fix it." Moreover, who better to fix an economic "disaster" than a successful businessman, he notes.
But if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Other presidents have inherited economic or political messes, but rather than whine about them they set about fixing them.
As for the current alleged "mess," the latest comment from the Federal Reserve on the overall economic health of the nation says all twelve districts in the system reported expansion as the year started.
The Beige Book report from the Fed noted a "modest to moderate pace" of economic improvement in January and February. Labor markets "remained tight," the report said, "with some districts noting widening labor shortages."
This, however, can be a good sign, that demand for workers has risen because companies are hiring.
Earlier, the Commerce Department reported that total output of goods and services -- Gross Domestic Product, or GDP -- grew at a rate of 1.9 percent in the fourth quarter of 2016.
That's not a roaring rate, certainly, but a slower but steadier rate of expansion is a better sign of health than super-dooper-whiz-bang growth that can easily stumble over itself and quickly collapse.
To prevent a too-rapid expansion, the Fed has repeatedly indicated it would apply its economic brakes, perhaps as soon as its next meeting.
If that sounds like a conflict with the president's hopes to finance his growth program through a combination of lower taxes on a booming base, you're right.
But if GDP growth does not hit the president's preferred target of 3 percent, lower revenue and higher spending will indeed match the president's description of "disaster."
So it will not be a disaster that he inherited. Rather, it will be one that he created.
But if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Other presidents have inherited economic or political messes, but rather than whine about them they set about fixing them.
As for the current alleged "mess," the latest comment from the Federal Reserve on the overall economic health of the nation says all twelve districts in the system reported expansion as the year started.
The Beige Book report from the Fed noted a "modest to moderate pace" of economic improvement in January and February. Labor markets "remained tight," the report said, "with some districts noting widening labor shortages."
This, however, can be a good sign, that demand for workers has risen because companies are hiring.
Earlier, the Commerce Department reported that total output of goods and services -- Gross Domestic Product, or GDP -- grew at a rate of 1.9 percent in the fourth quarter of 2016.
That's not a roaring rate, certainly, but a slower but steadier rate of expansion is a better sign of health than super-dooper-whiz-bang growth that can easily stumble over itself and quickly collapse.
To prevent a too-rapid expansion, the Fed has repeatedly indicated it would apply its economic brakes, perhaps as soon as its next meeting.
If that sounds like a conflict with the president's hopes to finance his growth program through a combination of lower taxes on a booming base, you're right.
But if GDP growth does not hit the president's preferred target of 3 percent, lower revenue and higher spending will indeed match the president's description of "disaster."
So it will not be a disaster that he inherited. Rather, it will be one that he created.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)