If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do. -- Pug Mahoney
People don't vote on issues. They vote on strength. -- Bill Maher
Ignorance is strength. -- George Orwell, "1984."
The current occupant of the Oval Office combined all three of these principles for success, first in business and then in politics.
Tuesday, June 11, 2019
Saturday, June 8, 2019
Exit Doors
The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
There can be no harder fall than to be ousted in disgrace from the Oval Office. But will that happen to its current occupant? That's the major question facing America these days.
There are several possibilities, but if any one of them fails in its mission, the president will have another victory to praise about himself.
The worst case would be for him to be voted out of office, then prosecuted for criminal offenses perpetrated while he was in office, convicted and imprisoned.
That would make him the ultimate loser, a term that is anathema to his ego.
Impeachment this year carries several major risks, and failure would enable still more cries of "Victory!"
1/ Such a move may not pass the House of Representatives, and would be branded a partisan effort by Democrats.
Result: Victory number one.
2/ Even if the House does impeach him, the Senate may not convict and order him out office.
Result: Victory number two.
3/ Impeachment efforts in the past have failed to result in conviction, and in the case of President Bill Clinton contributed to his re-election, which may happen for the current president.
Result: Victory number three.
Now consider some alternatives.
Wait while the evidence of wrongdoing accumulates, persuading Republican supporters to abandon him and support impeachment by the House, conviction by the Senate and removal from office.
Or support efforts to defeat a re-election bid, after which he could be prosecuted for federal crimes allegedly committed. Department of Justice policy now does not allow prosecution of a sitting president.
Meanwhile, he could be prosecuted for state offenses, but that would bring more howls of partisan bloviating.
If he be successfully impeached this year and removed from office, what would prevent him from running again in the election to be held in November 2020?
Easy answer: No, says the Constitution. Article 1, Section 3 states, "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, trust or profit under the United States."
In addition, the Constitution specifies that "the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
In short, unlike what the president seems to believe, impeachment and the legal process are entirely separate. He was heard saying that he would watch as impeachment efforts "go through the courts."
So could he run for office again if he defeats an impeachment move?
Possibly, unless he is also prosecuted and convicted in federal court or in a state court, which would bring a criminal record. Not a good background to have for a political candidate. Keep in mind, however, that this would likely be characterized as persecution by political opponents, and resoundingly denied by the candidate.
Moreover, even if he is impeached and removed from office, Constitutional scholars suggest that the Senate would have to separately disqualify him from holding another office.
So what's the best course to take? That's up to voters and congressional delegates to decide.
Perhaps the best choice would be the one most likely to end with the term "Loser" attached to his name. Any one of the above would serve that purpose well.
There can be no harder fall than to be ousted in disgrace from the Oval Office. But will that happen to its current occupant? That's the major question facing America these days.
There are several possibilities, but if any one of them fails in its mission, the president will have another victory to praise about himself.
The worst case would be for him to be voted out of office, then prosecuted for criminal offenses perpetrated while he was in office, convicted and imprisoned.
That would make him the ultimate loser, a term that is anathema to his ego.
Impeachment this year carries several major risks, and failure would enable still more cries of "Victory!"
1/ Such a move may not pass the House of Representatives, and would be branded a partisan effort by Democrats.
Result: Victory number one.
2/ Even if the House does impeach him, the Senate may not convict and order him out office.
Result: Victory number two.
3/ Impeachment efforts in the past have failed to result in conviction, and in the case of President Bill Clinton contributed to his re-election, which may happen for the current president.
Result: Victory number three.
Now consider some alternatives.
Wait while the evidence of wrongdoing accumulates, persuading Republican supporters to abandon him and support impeachment by the House, conviction by the Senate and removal from office.
Or support efforts to defeat a re-election bid, after which he could be prosecuted for federal crimes allegedly committed. Department of Justice policy now does not allow prosecution of a sitting president.
Meanwhile, he could be prosecuted for state offenses, but that would bring more howls of partisan bloviating.
If he be successfully impeached this year and removed from office, what would prevent him from running again in the election to be held in November 2020?
Easy answer: No, says the Constitution. Article 1, Section 3 states, "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, trust or profit under the United States."
In addition, the Constitution specifies that "the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
In short, unlike what the president seems to believe, impeachment and the legal process are entirely separate. He was heard saying that he would watch as impeachment efforts "go through the courts."
So could he run for office again if he defeats an impeachment move?
Possibly, unless he is also prosecuted and convicted in federal court or in a state court, which would bring a criminal record. Not a good background to have for a political candidate. Keep in mind, however, that this would likely be characterized as persecution by political opponents, and resoundingly denied by the candidate.
Moreover, even if he is impeached and removed from office, Constitutional scholars suggest that the Senate would have to separately disqualify him from holding another office.
So what's the best course to take? That's up to voters and congressional delegates to decide.
Perhaps the best choice would be the one most likely to end with the term "Loser" attached to his name. Any one of the above would serve that purpose well.
Friday, June 7, 2019
Warning Signs
A recession is when you lose your job.
A depression is when I lose mine. -- Pug Mahoney.
"Things look great, but ..." was the key phrase of my last posting about the U.S. economy, as noted by the International Monetary Fund.
Then came a report that only 75,000 jobs were added in America last month. Earlier this year, the average monthly gain was double that rate -- 164,000 -- and last year it was nearly triple -- 223,000.
But you wouldn't know it from the opening paragraph of the government announcement, which touted the gain but didn't mention the comparison until the tenth paragraph.
The unemployment rate, meanwhile, held at 3.6 percent in May, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said, and the total of unemployed people was little changed at 5.9 million.
So what does it all mean? As suggested in other reports, this is evidence that the economy may well be slowing, after the longest stretch of growth in many decades.
Is it time, then, for things to take a break, and will the Federal Reserve Board step in to lower interest rates as its way of staving off a serious problem?
That, as the saying goes, remains to be seen, and there will be no predictions from this corner.
However, it is highly likely that the White House will claim credit for what it will call a continuing boom, and will blast any suggestion of a slowdown as "fake news," even as it faults the Fed for any attempt to stall any major gyration in the economy.
A depression is when I lose mine. -- Pug Mahoney.
"Things look great, but ..." was the key phrase of my last posting about the U.S. economy, as noted by the International Monetary Fund.
Then came a report that only 75,000 jobs were added in America last month. Earlier this year, the average monthly gain was double that rate -- 164,000 -- and last year it was nearly triple -- 223,000.
But you wouldn't know it from the opening paragraph of the government announcement, which touted the gain but didn't mention the comparison until the tenth paragraph.
The unemployment rate, meanwhile, held at 3.6 percent in May, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said, and the total of unemployed people was little changed at 5.9 million.
So what does it all mean? As suggested in other reports, this is evidence that the economy may well be slowing, after the longest stretch of growth in many decades.
Is it time, then, for things to take a break, and will the Federal Reserve Board step in to lower interest rates as its way of staving off a serious problem?
That, as the saying goes, remains to be seen, and there will be no predictions from this corner.
However, it is highly likely that the White House will claim credit for what it will call a continuing boom, and will blast any suggestion of a slowdown as "fake news," even as it faults the Fed for any attempt to stall any major gyration in the economy.
Thursday, June 6, 2019
Boring But Important
One of the skills needed for good writing is to take a topic or development that on the surface is boring, but translate it into something that grabs the attention of the reader and tells an important story.
Example: A report from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) gave the U.S. high praise for the longest period of economic growth in its history, but added warnings that must be heeded to avoid a problem.
Unfortunately, much of the mainstream media will ignore the report and leave it to business and economic journals to pass it on. But the reality is that the story needs to be passed to the general readership, and that's where the skill of clear writing comes in.
Fortunately, much of the report is indeed clear, but few people make a habit of reading comments from the IMF. More's the pity.
In any case, here's a summary of the report.
Things look great, but ...
Specifically, the U.S. got high praise for the longest period of economic growth in its history, but there are warnings.
In July, the report says, "The U.S. economy will have achieved the longest expansion recorded in U.S. history." Moreover, real growth of gross domestic product (GDP) "is expected to grow at an annual rate of 2.6 percent this year, before moderating to around 2 percent in 2020."
Now comes the but.
Despite this, the benefits of this ten-year expansion "have not been widely shared," and a broader look shows "a more sobering picture."
For example, life expectancy is declining, suicide rates and deaths from drug overdoses are rising, median income for U.S. households is only 2 percent than it was in the 1990s, even as GDP person is 23 percent higher.
Wealth and income distribution "are increasingly polarized," the report said, with the poorest 40 percent of American households having a level of wealth that is lower now than it was in 1983, and a growing share of the population earn less than half the median income.
Note: Don't confuse median and average. The median is the thing in the middle, while the average is calculated by dividing the total by the number of participants.
Next, the IMF points out that the poverty rate is about the same as it was before the financial crisis ten years ago, and socioeconomic mobility has steadily eroded. For example, half the young adults today earn less than their parents did at a similar age. Forty years ago, only 10 percent of young adults had this problem.
What to do about it? That will take action on many fronts, the IMF says, including raising the federal minimum wage and boosting social assistance programs.
Perhaps more important, the national public debt "is on an unsustainable path" upward.
Warning, the IMF says: "There has been little institutional response to counter these growing risks."
Meanwhile, we can expect the current Administration to tout the virtues of the nation's economic health as noted at the beginning of the IMF report, and to ignore the warnings.
Example: A report from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) gave the U.S. high praise for the longest period of economic growth in its history, but added warnings that must be heeded to avoid a problem.
Unfortunately, much of the mainstream media will ignore the report and leave it to business and economic journals to pass it on. But the reality is that the story needs to be passed to the general readership, and that's where the skill of clear writing comes in.
Fortunately, much of the report is indeed clear, but few people make a habit of reading comments from the IMF. More's the pity.
In any case, here's a summary of the report.
Things look great, but ...
Specifically, the U.S. got high praise for the longest period of economic growth in its history, but there are warnings.
In July, the report says, "The U.S. economy will have achieved the longest expansion recorded in U.S. history." Moreover, real growth of gross domestic product (GDP) "is expected to grow at an annual rate of 2.6 percent this year, before moderating to around 2 percent in 2020."
Now comes the but.
Despite this, the benefits of this ten-year expansion "have not been widely shared," and a broader look shows "a more sobering picture."
For example, life expectancy is declining, suicide rates and deaths from drug overdoses are rising, median income for U.S. households is only 2 percent than it was in the 1990s, even as GDP person is 23 percent higher.
Wealth and income distribution "are increasingly polarized," the report said, with the poorest 40 percent of American households having a level of wealth that is lower now than it was in 1983, and a growing share of the population earn less than half the median income.
Note: Don't confuse median and average. The median is the thing in the middle, while the average is calculated by dividing the total by the number of participants.
Next, the IMF points out that the poverty rate is about the same as it was before the financial crisis ten years ago, and socioeconomic mobility has steadily eroded. For example, half the young adults today earn less than their parents did at a similar age. Forty years ago, only 10 percent of young adults had this problem.
What to do about it? That will take action on many fronts, the IMF says, including raising the federal minimum wage and boosting social assistance programs.
Perhaps more important, the national public debt "is on an unsustainable path" upward.
Warning, the IMF says: "There has been little institutional response to counter these growing risks."
Meanwhile, we can expect the current Administration to tout the virtues of the nation's economic health as noted at the beginning of the IMF report, and to ignore the warnings.
Monday, June 3, 2019
News Control
The fastest way to get your name in the paper is to try to keep it out. -- Pug Mahoney
The president struck a new low in pettiness when he called for a consumer boycott over what he perceives as unsympathetic news coverage.
Specifically, while on a state visit to London, he was unable to tune in to his favorite station -- the Fox news operation, unavailable in England -- and had to settle for CNN International.
Result: He tweeted a call for Americans to boycott AT&T (which owns CNN) to force the company to change its coverage of presidential activities.
Note that Fox commentators are avid supporters of the president, while many of the CNN commentators are not.
Otherwise, CNN's news coverage tends to the non-partisan center even as its commentators are liberal, and often opponents of the president. Moreover, in the Fox operation, there are real journalists who report straightforward information, as well as commentators with their strong pro-presidential views.
For a government official, especially a president, to urge a consumer boycott of a news operation because he dislikes their coverage is beyond outrageous. It is also unconstitutional and actually downright stupid.
Why? Because reporters will only sharpen their pencils and delve even further into reports of presidential misbehavior. The fastest way to get your name in the paper is to try to keep it out.
The president struck a new low in pettiness when he called for a consumer boycott over what he perceives as unsympathetic news coverage.
Specifically, while on a state visit to London, he was unable to tune in to his favorite station -- the Fox news operation, unavailable in England -- and had to settle for CNN International.
Result: He tweeted a call for Americans to boycott AT&T (which owns CNN) to force the company to change its coverage of presidential activities.
Note that Fox commentators are avid supporters of the president, while many of the CNN commentators are not.
Otherwise, CNN's news coverage tends to the non-partisan center even as its commentators are liberal, and often opponents of the president. Moreover, in the Fox operation, there are real journalists who report straightforward information, as well as commentators with their strong pro-presidential views.
For a government official, especially a president, to urge a consumer boycott of a news operation because he dislikes their coverage is beyond outrageous. It is also unconstitutional and actually downright stupid.
Why? Because reporters will only sharpen their pencils and delve even further into reports of presidential misbehavior. The fastest way to get your name in the paper is to try to keep it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)