"If I've lost Walter Cronkite, I've lost Middle America." -- President Lyndon Johnson, after the CBS newscaster spoke in opposition to the war in Viet Nam.
"If you lose the Wall Street Journal, you're bleeped." -- MSNBC anchor Nicolle Wallace, a former GOP operative, after the conservative-oriented newspaper opposed Donald Trump's policies.
President Trump's approval rating continues to plummet, yet he carries on blasting those who disagree, and blames others for all his failures.
Most recently, he accused Democratic party leaders of "blocking my people," referring to the dozens of vacant ambassadorships as well as all 93 U.S. attorney openings.
The reality is that he fired half the federal prosecutors soon after inauguration, the other half resigned, and he has yet to nominate any replacements.
So how can Democrats block nominations that have not been made?
Meanwhile, Congress is about to hear testimony from James Comey, the FBI director who was fired after he refused to halt an investigation into the Trump campaign's alleged ties with Russia.
Clearly, Donald Trump is in over his head, and keeps thrashing about, refusing to grab lifesavers from those few who still want to help, and blaming them for his inability to swim.
Will the nation survive this charade of a presidency? Yes, but it may take a while for Congress and voters to agree on a plan to close down the show. Perhaps a comparison to TV ratings will help. When people stop listening and watching, and no longer believe the star of the show is doing anything worthwhile, or that continuing to support the charade will yield any benefits, the star will be replaced.
Either way, the nation will endure, just as producers abandon a flop and move on, auditioning other actors.
Tuesday, June 6, 2017
Monday, June 5, 2017
Privatizing Government
"That way madness lies." -- Shakespeare, "King Lear."
"That government is best that governs least," said Henry David Thoreau. The logical next step would be to say the best government is one that governs not at all.
That seems to be the president's strategy -- to leave all stabilizing influence on the economy to free and open market forces. How else to explain his proposal to privatize the national air traffic control system and the Federal Aviation Agency, putting the system out to bid for a single company to operate what he calls a "modernized" system?
The new company, he claims, would be a self-financing, non-profit entity with access to markets and investors.
What's next, privatizing the Tennessee Valley Authority, which brought electricity to many thousands of families in Appalachia?
How about eliminating the Federal Reserve Board, and relying on self-correcting free-market forces to revive a crashed economy? The Fed was formed in 1914, to help regulate financial cycles and to serve as a central bank to rescue troubled banks. Or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), which protects the savings of ordinary citizens when a bank fails?
It's ironic that the president would adopt a Thoreau-type attitude, since Thoreau was jailed for civil disobedience when he opposed war and a military draft. Then again, it's unlikely that this president has even read Thoreau or is familiar with his work.
There is a role for government to play in any national enterprise, because government can and should do things that the private sector either cannot or will not do. Some of these are construction projects and industry regulations that benefit all citizens.
Example: If not for Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the U.S. would not have its network of interstate highways, which were largely funded by federal money.
Meanwhile, the president wants to transfer infrastructure building and maintenance -- roads, highways, bridges, etc. -- to states and cities, so the federal government would have little or no role in this activity.
Economics 101 teaches that government has a major role in any economy, as shown by the formula C+G+I = GDP -- Consumer spending plus Government spending plus Investment equal Gross Domestic Product, the total value of all goods and services produced in a given year. To sharply reduce Government activity, especially when an economy is skirting the edge of a downturn, is to invite a full collapse.
Conversely, when a nation's economy is in difficulty, government spending, even at the expense of debt, can rescue a country from disaster. This happened in the early 1930s, when the Great Depression brought havoc and poverty worldwide. It has happened periodically since then, as government stepped in to stimulate economic activity, and trimming its spending as the economy recovered.
But to cut government input too soon can only send the economy tumbling again. This happened in the mid-1930s, when government pulled back, and the economy stumbled just as it was beginning to recover.
Today, the national economy is clawing its way back from the Great Recession, but to sharply reduce government support may well spell more disaster for American confidence.
That way madness lies.
There is no such thing as a totally free market, just as there is no such thing as a totally managed economy. Therefore, neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism can exist in the real world.
Those who hail the virtues of competition do so on the premise that they will win, at the expense of all others. Therefore, there is little real competition, because the strongest or the dominant player fixes the rules in order to retain and enhance dominance.
Likewise, pure socialism can only exist in a small commune, wherein everyone contributes for the benefit of all, and everyone shares the benefits of cooperation even with those who are unable to contribute, such as children, the old, the sick and the unskilled.
Communal societies were attempted in America in the 19th Century, and some survived well into the 20th Century. But they were never large, and eventually faded as more ambitious members abandoned the commune to try for success in the larger, competitive nation.
This is not to say that competitive systems are always better in every way. It is to say that greed plays a role as some try to accumulate more for themselves at the expense of others.
A better system combines features of each, so there is room for competitiveness and achievement as well as consideration and sympathy for those less able.
It may well be true that over time, in the long run, a totally free market finds ways to correct itself and recover from difficulty. But the issue instantly becomes, how long will that take and what will the many millions of people without massive financial reserves do until that happens?
Human kindness and ethics says we should help others in need.
Otherwise, as John Maynard Keynes succinctly put it, in the long run we are all dead.
"That government is best that governs least," said Henry David Thoreau. The logical next step would be to say the best government is one that governs not at all.
That seems to be the president's strategy -- to leave all stabilizing influence on the economy to free and open market forces. How else to explain his proposal to privatize the national air traffic control system and the Federal Aviation Agency, putting the system out to bid for a single company to operate what he calls a "modernized" system?
The new company, he claims, would be a self-financing, non-profit entity with access to markets and investors.
What's next, privatizing the Tennessee Valley Authority, which brought electricity to many thousands of families in Appalachia?
How about eliminating the Federal Reserve Board, and relying on self-correcting free-market forces to revive a crashed economy? The Fed was formed in 1914, to help regulate financial cycles and to serve as a central bank to rescue troubled banks. Or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), which protects the savings of ordinary citizens when a bank fails?
It's ironic that the president would adopt a Thoreau-type attitude, since Thoreau was jailed for civil disobedience when he opposed war and a military draft. Then again, it's unlikely that this president has even read Thoreau or is familiar with his work.
There is a role for government to play in any national enterprise, because government can and should do things that the private sector either cannot or will not do. Some of these are construction projects and industry regulations that benefit all citizens.
Example: If not for Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the U.S. would not have its network of interstate highways, which were largely funded by federal money.
Meanwhile, the president wants to transfer infrastructure building and maintenance -- roads, highways, bridges, etc. -- to states and cities, so the federal government would have little or no role in this activity.
Economics 101 teaches that government has a major role in any economy, as shown by the formula C+G+I = GDP -- Consumer spending plus Government spending plus Investment equal Gross Domestic Product, the total value of all goods and services produced in a given year. To sharply reduce Government activity, especially when an economy is skirting the edge of a downturn, is to invite a full collapse.
Conversely, when a nation's economy is in difficulty, government spending, even at the expense of debt, can rescue a country from disaster. This happened in the early 1930s, when the Great Depression brought havoc and poverty worldwide. It has happened periodically since then, as government stepped in to stimulate economic activity, and trimming its spending as the economy recovered.
But to cut government input too soon can only send the economy tumbling again. This happened in the mid-1930s, when government pulled back, and the economy stumbled just as it was beginning to recover.
Today, the national economy is clawing its way back from the Great Recession, but to sharply reduce government support may well spell more disaster for American confidence.
That way madness lies.
There is no such thing as a totally free market, just as there is no such thing as a totally managed economy. Therefore, neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism can exist in the real world.
Those who hail the virtues of competition do so on the premise that they will win, at the expense of all others. Therefore, there is little real competition, because the strongest or the dominant player fixes the rules in order to retain and enhance dominance.
Likewise, pure socialism can only exist in a small commune, wherein everyone contributes for the benefit of all, and everyone shares the benefits of cooperation even with those who are unable to contribute, such as children, the old, the sick and the unskilled.
Communal societies were attempted in America in the 19th Century, and some survived well into the 20th Century. But they were never large, and eventually faded as more ambitious members abandoned the commune to try for success in the larger, competitive nation.
This is not to say that competitive systems are always better in every way. It is to say that greed plays a role as some try to accumulate more for themselves at the expense of others.
A better system combines features of each, so there is room for competitiveness and achievement as well as consideration and sympathy for those less able.
It may well be true that over time, in the long run, a totally free market finds ways to correct itself and recover from difficulty. But the issue instantly becomes, how long will that take and what will the many millions of people without massive financial reserves do until that happens?
Human kindness and ethics says we should help others in need.
Otherwise, as John Maynard Keynes succinctly put it, in the long run we are all dead.
Saturday, June 3, 2017
Miners Get Shafted
Clean coal is an oxymoron
Coal is, by its nature, a dirty fuel. And just as many folks remember ice skating as local ponds froze over, these same folks can remember growing up in homes heated by coal furnaces. Others can remember, as young men at military basic training camps, living in barracks heated by coal furnaces, sometimes poorly attended by fellow soldiers, and waking up covered with coal dust.
But the local firms that delivered coal to homes have either gone out of business or now pump oil to fuel renovated furnaces.
And on the same day that President Trump announced that the U.S. is leaving the Paris climate accord, three coal-fired power plants -- two in New Jersey and one in Massachusetts -- reported they will be shut down. The Los Angeles Times quoted Jeff Tittel, director of the environmentalist New Jersey Sierra Club, as saying that "no matter what the president does, the country is moving towards cleaner sources of energy."
In addition, home owners have switched to gas heat or electric heat generated by hydroelectric plants or by solar power. In fact, entire cities have worked hard to cut back on the use of coal because of the dangers caused by coal emissions that generated often-fatal smog, including London and San Francisco.
So why all the fuss about bringing coal back as a major contributor to job growth and the national economy?
One answer could be that coal mine owners are major donors to and financial supporters of political campaigns. An estimated 97 percent of coal industry contributions last year went to Republicans, according to Nobel economist Paul Krugman, writing in the New York Times.
As for the miners, those who actually do the dangerous work of digging out the coal, breathing coal dust and risking black lung disease (will that be covered by Trumpcare?) as well as accidents like being trapped when tunnels collapse, they continue to be shafted by mine owners who fail to provide safe working conditions and adequate health benefits when they do get sick from coal-related diseases.
Despite the president's claim that he will bring back jobs for coal miners, the reality is that there were only about 76,000 coal industry jobs remaining in America in 2014, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Since then, that number has shrunk to 50,300 as of February 2017, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And many of them are not miners, but others working in administrative jobs.
So who hires more workers than mine owners? Government statistics show that individual companies employ more. Walmart, for example, has 2.2 million employees, nearly 30 times the number of people working in the coal industry. And J.C. Penney, another retail chain, has 114,000 employees.
Moreover, coal industry experts agree that these jobs are not coming back. Even a museum in West Virginia dedicated to the coal industry and its history, has switched to other energy sources.
Technology and alternate sources that supply more efficient, less expensive, cleaner, healthier, and safer power to more people, have joined to bring major changes to the energy industry.
The danger to health is clear. Not only dangerous to the miners, but also to the nation and the world because of pollution generated by the burning of coal. And as alternate energy becomes more available at less cost, many are switching. The U.S. began changing over years ago. And now, less developed nations are switching, including India and China,
The economic bottom line is this: The future of job creation in America will be in technology and service industries, along with related businesses that support the major companies.
Manufacturing will still be there, but those jobs will require more skills than ever before.
Coal is, by its nature, a dirty fuel. And just as many folks remember ice skating as local ponds froze over, these same folks can remember growing up in homes heated by coal furnaces. Others can remember, as young men at military basic training camps, living in barracks heated by coal furnaces, sometimes poorly attended by fellow soldiers, and waking up covered with coal dust.
But the local firms that delivered coal to homes have either gone out of business or now pump oil to fuel renovated furnaces.
And on the same day that President Trump announced that the U.S. is leaving the Paris climate accord, three coal-fired power plants -- two in New Jersey and one in Massachusetts -- reported they will be shut down. The Los Angeles Times quoted Jeff Tittel, director of the environmentalist New Jersey Sierra Club, as saying that "no matter what the president does, the country is moving towards cleaner sources of energy."
In addition, home owners have switched to gas heat or electric heat generated by hydroelectric plants or by solar power. In fact, entire cities have worked hard to cut back on the use of coal because of the dangers caused by coal emissions that generated often-fatal smog, including London and San Francisco.
So why all the fuss about bringing coal back as a major contributor to job growth and the national economy?
One answer could be that coal mine owners are major donors to and financial supporters of political campaigns. An estimated 97 percent of coal industry contributions last year went to Republicans, according to Nobel economist Paul Krugman, writing in the New York Times.
As for the miners, those who actually do the dangerous work of digging out the coal, breathing coal dust and risking black lung disease (will that be covered by Trumpcare?) as well as accidents like being trapped when tunnels collapse, they continue to be shafted by mine owners who fail to provide safe working conditions and adequate health benefits when they do get sick from coal-related diseases.
Despite the president's claim that he will bring back jobs for coal miners, the reality is that there were only about 76,000 coal industry jobs remaining in America in 2014, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Since then, that number has shrunk to 50,300 as of February 2017, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And many of them are not miners, but others working in administrative jobs.
So who hires more workers than mine owners? Government statistics show that individual companies employ more. Walmart, for example, has 2.2 million employees, nearly 30 times the number of people working in the coal industry. And J.C. Penney, another retail chain, has 114,000 employees.
Moreover, coal industry experts agree that these jobs are not coming back. Even a museum in West Virginia dedicated to the coal industry and its history, has switched to other energy sources.
Technology and alternate sources that supply more efficient, less expensive, cleaner, healthier, and safer power to more people, have joined to bring major changes to the energy industry.
The danger to health is clear. Not only dangerous to the miners, but also to the nation and the world because of pollution generated by the burning of coal. And as alternate energy becomes more available at less cost, many are switching. The U.S. began changing over years ago. And now, less developed nations are switching, including India and China,
The economic bottom line is this: The future of job creation in America will be in technology and service industries, along with related businesses that support the major companies.
Manufacturing will still be there, but those jobs will require more skills than ever before.
Friday, June 2, 2017
Economic Consequences of Isolationism
Where have all the tariffs gone?
Gone with business every one.
When will they ever learn?
Isolationism breeds contempt, both for others and others against the isolationist.
The lesson that protectionist tariffs as a way of preserving one nation's dominance in international trade dooms the isolationist to sharp losses in trade and income apparently must be learned anew in every generation of politicians.
The Smoot-Hawley Act of the Great Depression not only failed to protect America's export tradition by imposing high tariffs on imports, but was countered with retaliatory taxes imposed by other nation's against American exports.
Result: Both sides lost business, and the world plunged into the Great Depression.
That was only one of the factors that caused the economic crisis, of course, but the lesson is there, and it's time the current administration in Washington paid attention to some basic economic history.
NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, enables firms in the U.S., Canada and Mexico to do business across the borders without having to deal with import and export taxes (aka tariffs) that only increase the costs paid by consumers.
Similarly, free trade agreements among European Union nations enable them to manufacture and sell products for and to each other without having to pay tariffs that pass on the costs to consumers.
To destroy these agreements in the name of "free competition" returns national economies to the cutthroat years of attempted dominance by one nation against all others.
As Adam Smith, the founder of modern economic theory, wrote in the 18th Century, free trade and comparative advantage benefits all participants.
Gone with business every one.
When will they ever learn?
Isolationism breeds contempt, both for others and others against the isolationist.
The lesson that protectionist tariffs as a way of preserving one nation's dominance in international trade dooms the isolationist to sharp losses in trade and income apparently must be learned anew in every generation of politicians.
The Smoot-Hawley Act of the Great Depression not only failed to protect America's export tradition by imposing high tariffs on imports, but was countered with retaliatory taxes imposed by other nation's against American exports.
Result: Both sides lost business, and the world plunged into the Great Depression.
That was only one of the factors that caused the economic crisis, of course, but the lesson is there, and it's time the current administration in Washington paid attention to some basic economic history.
NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, enables firms in the U.S., Canada and Mexico to do business across the borders without having to deal with import and export taxes (aka tariffs) that only increase the costs paid by consumers.
Similarly, free trade agreements among European Union nations enable them to manufacture and sell products for and to each other without having to pay tariffs that pass on the costs to consumers.
To destroy these agreements in the name of "free competition" returns national economies to the cutthroat years of attempted dominance by one nation against all others.
As Adam Smith, the founder of modern economic theory, wrote in the 18th Century, free trade and comparative advantage benefits all participants.
Heroic Assumptions
When a president speaks, the news media has an obligation to report what he says. But when what he says is untrue, or is based on false assumptions, journalism has an equal obligation to report facts and valid assumptions.
These are not "alternative facts," but true facts. And that is not a redundancy.
In announcing a pullout from the Paris accord on climate change, the president cited a study that cited the loss of millions of American jobs. But that study, by a partisan group, assumed that the U.S. would do everything recommended by the agreement, and that every other nation would do nothing.
Picking and choosing data to support an argument or position already decided on, and ignoring every other piece of information that does not support that position enables you to "prove" nearly anything.
As for the danger of the American economy in imminent danger of collapse, consider this: Employment rose by 138,000 jobs in May, and the unemployment rate faded to 4.3 percent, the lowest since 2001, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Perhaps the president should listen to his own government agencies and their official reports before rattling on about coming disasters and loudly crying wolf.
Separately, the Commerce Department reported a o.3 percent drop in American exports, to $191 billion in April, and a rise in imports of 0.8 percent, to $238.6 billion, making for a 5.2 percent increase in the international trade deficit, to $47.6 billion.
But this is called free competition, a doctrine strongly endorsed by conservatives. Perhaps they mean free competition is a good thing only if they win.
These are not "alternative facts," but true facts. And that is not a redundancy.
In announcing a pullout from the Paris accord on climate change, the president cited a study that cited the loss of millions of American jobs. But that study, by a partisan group, assumed that the U.S. would do everything recommended by the agreement, and that every other nation would do nothing.
Picking and choosing data to support an argument or position already decided on, and ignoring every other piece of information that does not support that position enables you to "prove" nearly anything.
As for the danger of the American economy in imminent danger of collapse, consider this: Employment rose by 138,000 jobs in May, and the unemployment rate faded to 4.3 percent, the lowest since 2001, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Perhaps the president should listen to his own government agencies and their official reports before rattling on about coming disasters and loudly crying wolf.
Separately, the Commerce Department reported a o.3 percent drop in American exports, to $191 billion in April, and a rise in imports of 0.8 percent, to $238.6 billion, making for a 5.2 percent increase in the international trade deficit, to $47.6 billion.
But this is called free competition, a doctrine strongly endorsed by conservatives. Perhaps they mean free competition is a good thing only if they win.
Thursday, June 1, 2017
Climate Change
The U.S. has pulled out of the worldwide climate accord and is now one of only three nations that are not part of the agreement to do something about climate change. The others are Nicaragua and Syria. Nicaragua did not sign the accord because they felt it didn't go far enough.
The president ignored decades of evidence by dozens of scientists as well as strong opposition by many of America's allies and corporations.
He announced that "as of today," the U.S. was out of the accord. Nevertheless, he said he was willing to renegotiate terms of the accord and various trade agreements so they would not "disadvantage" the U.S. These changes, the president claimed, would enable the country to resume economic growth of as much as three or four percent.
And Scott Pruitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, maintained that leaving the climate accord would "restore U.S. economic independence."
Economists, however, pointed out that a three or four percent growth rate was unrealistic, if not impossible or even dangerous, since such a bubble will inevitably burst.
Moreover, many of a certain age don't need reams of scientific papers to persuade us that the climate has changed. We can see it. Time was, we could go ice-skating on local ponds. Can't do that anymore, because the ponds don't freeze over long enough and hard enough to allow skating.
We remember watching geese fly south for the winter. The birds see no need to do that anymore.
We also remember a time when mockingbirds were never seen north of Virginia. Now they are in Northern New Jersey year-round.
People in other parts of America remember glaciers that are far longer then they are today. And some see empty valleys that once held glaciers.
Where did all the glaciers go? They melted, because the climate is warmer.
Some even insist that the glaciers are really just as big as they ever were. These are the same folks who claim the inauguration crowd on the National Mall in Washington DC was bigger last January than it was four years and eight years earlier, when a different president was inaugurated.
For these True Believers, no amount of evidence, pictorial or otherwise, will persuade them. The climate is not changing, they say. It's a hoax, perpetrated by the fake news media.
Yet others, especially those of us who remember skating on frozen ponds as teenagers, don't need reams of scientific studies and volumes of comparison photographs. We know the climate has changed because we have seen it change, in our lifetimes.
Go back a few more years, and you will find photographs of people ice-skating on Central Park Lake in Manhattan.
So why go to all the trouble of denying a self-evident problem? One answer could well be greed. Reducing harmful emissions may be expensive, and cut into corporate profits.
For such deniers, that's reason enough.
The president ignored decades of evidence by dozens of scientists as well as strong opposition by many of America's allies and corporations.
He announced that "as of today," the U.S. was out of the accord. Nevertheless, he said he was willing to renegotiate terms of the accord and various trade agreements so they would not "disadvantage" the U.S. These changes, the president claimed, would enable the country to resume economic growth of as much as three or four percent.
And Scott Pruitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, maintained that leaving the climate accord would "restore U.S. economic independence."
Economists, however, pointed out that a three or four percent growth rate was unrealistic, if not impossible or even dangerous, since such a bubble will inevitably burst.
Moreover, many of a certain age don't need reams of scientific papers to persuade us that the climate has changed. We can see it. Time was, we could go ice-skating on local ponds. Can't do that anymore, because the ponds don't freeze over long enough and hard enough to allow skating.
We remember watching geese fly south for the winter. The birds see no need to do that anymore.
We also remember a time when mockingbirds were never seen north of Virginia. Now they are in Northern New Jersey year-round.
People in other parts of America remember glaciers that are far longer then they are today. And some see empty valleys that once held glaciers.
Where did all the glaciers go? They melted, because the climate is warmer.
Some even insist that the glaciers are really just as big as they ever were. These are the same folks who claim the inauguration crowd on the National Mall in Washington DC was bigger last January than it was four years and eight years earlier, when a different president was inaugurated.
For these True Believers, no amount of evidence, pictorial or otherwise, will persuade them. The climate is not changing, they say. It's a hoax, perpetrated by the fake news media.
Yet others, especially those of us who remember skating on frozen ponds as teenagers, don't need reams of scientific studies and volumes of comparison photographs. We know the climate has changed because we have seen it change, in our lifetimes.
Go back a few more years, and you will find photographs of people ice-skating on Central Park Lake in Manhattan.
So why go to all the trouble of denying a self-evident problem? One answer could well be greed. Reducing harmful emissions may be expensive, and cut into corporate profits.
For such deniers, that's reason enough.
Loser in Chief
America First may become America Alone
The U.S. stands to lose its leadership as a world power, largely due to the actions of its current president.
Insulting, stalling and badgering may work well when negotiating real estate construction or lease contracts, or when trying to get out of obligations rather than pay what you owe. But this often leads to other firms -- banks and contractors, for example -- refusing to do business with you.
Similarly, using these tactics against sovereign nations means they, too, will abandon you.
As Angela Merkel, prime minister of Germany, put it, it's time for European nations to look to their own destiny, since they can no longer expect cooperation and support from America.
As for the president's plan to negotiate a new trade pact with Germany alone, apart from the European Union, he can't. Germany, as part of the EU, can only participate in trade agreements that involve all other EU member nations.
That would be like Kansas arranging a trade pact with another nation without the approval of Congress. They can't. It's in the Constitution. Look it up. Free copies are available online.
Unless, of course, the president's real goal is to destroy the European Union, just as he wants to shatter the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Trans Pacific Partnership regional trade pact.
America First may well become America Alone.
And speaking of clods --
The U.S. stands to lose its leadership as a world power, largely due to the actions of its current president.
Insulting, stalling and badgering may work well when negotiating real estate construction or lease contracts, or when trying to get out of obligations rather than pay what you owe. But this often leads to other firms -- banks and contractors, for example -- refusing to do business with you.
Similarly, using these tactics against sovereign nations means they, too, will abandon you.
As Angela Merkel, prime minister of Germany, put it, it's time for European nations to look to their own destiny, since they can no longer expect cooperation and support from America.
As for the president's plan to negotiate a new trade pact with Germany alone, apart from the European Union, he can't. Germany, as part of the EU, can only participate in trade agreements that involve all other EU member nations.
That would be like Kansas arranging a trade pact with another nation without the approval of Congress. They can't. It's in the Constitution. Look it up. Free copies are available online.
Unless, of course, the president's real goal is to destroy the European Union, just as he wants to shatter the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Trans Pacific Partnership regional trade pact.
America First may well become America Alone.
And speaking of clods --
No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
-- John Donne
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)