The special counsel's probe into shenanigans in Washington is moving closer to the White House and the doings of its staffers.
The son of the president doesn't want to talk to the investigators, claiming his conversations with his father are privileged. That's not likely to pass muster, since neither is an attorney.
The next step would be to subpoena him -- the son, that is, and if he still declines, cite him with contempt.
Moreover, as the trail leads closer to the Oval Office, it's quite likely that the president himself will be invited for an interview with the investigators.
But what if he declines the invitation, claiming executive privilege as chief law enforcement officer of the country? As president, that is one of his responsibilities.
So if he refuses to talk voluntarily, will the special counsel subpoena the president, and will the president reject the subpoena on the same grounds, similar to the argument made last week that because he is the president, he cannot be accused of obstruction of justice because he is the president?
Round and round it goes, and where does it stop? To the courts, of course, and eventually to the Supreme Court.
Then we have a clash between the president and SCOTUS. The two are, according to the Constitution, co-equal branches of government, along with Congress.
Not according to the new guy, of course, who seems to feel he's the boss of everybody, and when you're the boss, you can do anything. It's sad enough that the members of his own party, the Republicans, have a slim margin in each house of Congress, and have been falling in line behind his leadership, such as it is.
But when the president rejects a request and defies a subpoena from an investigator into major wrongdoing on the ground that he himself is the nation's chief investigator and therefore can't be investigated, it's time for the nation's chief arbiter of the law and the Constitution to step in.
SCOTUS v. U.S. President, the case file will be.
And that story will dominate the news cycle for months.
Friday, December 15, 2017
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
Tapping the Economic Brakes
As expected, the Federal Reserve Board boosted interest rates a notch to prevent the U.S. economy from racing to an unsustainable growth speed.
The Fed decided to raise its target range for the federal funds rate -- its key rate to the largest borrowers -- to 1.25 to 1.5 percent.
Separately, the Fed estimated the national economic growth rate, as measured by Growth Domestic Product (total output of goods and services), to be 2.5 percent in 2018.
This contrasts with the president's announced hope that GDP with "rocket" to a growth rate of more than 3 percent, and the administration is hoping to touch that off through massive tax cuts in a plan now moving through Congress.
Delegates from the House and the Senate have reportedly reached a compromise on their versions of the tax reform bill, with a final vote perhaps next week and delivery to the president for his signature by Christmas.
Whether that happens or the bill is blocked by Democrats remains an open question.
Separately, economists are generally agreed that such a tax plan, to sharply cut taxes in the hope that this will fuel an economic takeoff, won't work, but will only fatten the purses of those who already have full wallets.
In addition, there is the likelihood that the Federal Reserve will step in to boost interest rates sharply to prevent the economy from accelerating too quickly.
In any case, even if the Republican plan moves forward, it will be several months before its effects, if any, can be measured. In turn, that means the Fed would be unable to act until then.
Meanwhile, consumers are faced with sharp increases in insurance premiums and other expenses that take effect with the start of a new calendar year.
The Fed decided to raise its target range for the federal funds rate -- its key rate to the largest borrowers -- to 1.25 to 1.5 percent.
Separately, the Fed estimated the national economic growth rate, as measured by Growth Domestic Product (total output of goods and services), to be 2.5 percent in 2018.
This contrasts with the president's announced hope that GDP with "rocket" to a growth rate of more than 3 percent, and the administration is hoping to touch that off through massive tax cuts in a plan now moving through Congress.
Delegates from the House and the Senate have reportedly reached a compromise on their versions of the tax reform bill, with a final vote perhaps next week and delivery to the president for his signature by Christmas.
Whether that happens or the bill is blocked by Democrats remains an open question.
Separately, economists are generally agreed that such a tax plan, to sharply cut taxes in the hope that this will fuel an economic takeoff, won't work, but will only fatten the purses of those who already have full wallets.
In addition, there is the likelihood that the Federal Reserve will step in to boost interest rates sharply to prevent the economy from accelerating too quickly.
In any case, even if the Republican plan moves forward, it will be several months before its effects, if any, can be measured. In turn, that means the Fed would be unable to act until then.
Meanwhile, consumers are faced with sharp increases in insurance premiums and other expenses that take effect with the start of a new calendar year.
Referendum
The people of Alabama have spoken, and the message is loud and clear.
They do not want an accused child molester, an ardent Trump supporter who defies court orders, to represent them in the U.S. Senate.
For the first time in 25 years, Alabama voters elected a Democrat, a former prosecutor who tracked down and convicted Ku Klux Klansmen who killed little girls in a church more than 40 years ago.
They rejected a bid by Roy Moore, a Republican judge who was ousted from his post on the state supreme court (twice) for defying federal court orders, and who was fully embraced by the president (himself an accused sexual predator) because, according to Donald Trump, any Republican is a better choice than a Democrat.
Despite a strong endorsement of Moore by the president, voters chose Democrat Doug Jones.
After hearing the results, the president said via Twitter that he knew it all along, that Moore could not win, and he started looking for someone else to blame rather than accept that he made a mistake in endorsing a loser.
It's reminiscent of a kid who is passed over for a slot on a pickup baseball game and insists that he "didn't want to play that stupid game anyway."
So was the vote a referendum on child molesters who defy court orders or an opinion of the president's attitudes and his embrace of a man who was banned from a shopping mall for his predatory behavior?
Or was it a referendum on the president himself?
Or was it a preference for a responsible, credible lawman? Or was it all of the above?
A larger question is this: What does this special election in Alabama portend for the nation as a whole?
We won't really know for another year, when Americans vote in the next regularly scheduled election for members of Congress -- all members of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate.
Meanwhile, the escapades -- sexual and otherwise -- of government officials, corporate executives and entertainers occupy headlines in national newspapers and dominate TV news coverage as more and more women come forward with accusations of misbehavior by men who fancy themselves powerful enough to do as they please with women and think they are immune from prosecution of their predatory behavior.
And this includes the president.
No one is above the law.
They do not want an accused child molester, an ardent Trump supporter who defies court orders, to represent them in the U.S. Senate.
For the first time in 25 years, Alabama voters elected a Democrat, a former prosecutor who tracked down and convicted Ku Klux Klansmen who killed little girls in a church more than 40 years ago.
They rejected a bid by Roy Moore, a Republican judge who was ousted from his post on the state supreme court (twice) for defying federal court orders, and who was fully embraced by the president (himself an accused sexual predator) because, according to Donald Trump, any Republican is a better choice than a Democrat.
Despite a strong endorsement of Moore by the president, voters chose Democrat Doug Jones.
After hearing the results, the president said via Twitter that he knew it all along, that Moore could not win, and he started looking for someone else to blame rather than accept that he made a mistake in endorsing a loser.
It's reminiscent of a kid who is passed over for a slot on a pickup baseball game and insists that he "didn't want to play that stupid game anyway."
So was the vote a referendum on child molesters who defy court orders or an opinion of the president's attitudes and his embrace of a man who was banned from a shopping mall for his predatory behavior?
Or was it a referendum on the president himself?
Or was it a preference for a responsible, credible lawman? Or was it all of the above?
A larger question is this: What does this special election in Alabama portend for the nation as a whole?
We won't really know for another year, when Americans vote in the next regularly scheduled election for members of Congress -- all members of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate.
Meanwhile, the escapades -- sexual and otherwise -- of government officials, corporate executives and entertainers occupy headlines in national newspapers and dominate TV news coverage as more and more women come forward with accusations of misbehavior by men who fancy themselves powerful enough to do as they please with women and think they are immune from prosecution of their predatory behavior.
And this includes the president.
No one is above the law.
Monday, December 11, 2017
Social Economics
We are witnessing a renewed clash between those who favor free market economics and those who prefer social economics, an effort by every segment of society to help ensure all citizens benefit from a healthy society.
In a fully free market economy, players follow only the rules they choose to observe, claiming that free and open competition will benefit society in such a way as to guarantee the survival of the fittest.
At the other extreme is an economy fully controlled by government, designed to guarantee the survival of everyone.
As part of the battle, free marketeers have made "socialism" a dirty word -- part of their strategy to win regardless of the cost to others.
It seems current free marketeers have learned little from history, and are likely to repeat it.
There are many folks still alive today who remember the disastrous years of the Great Depression, when those who believed in free market theory shrugged off the problems faced by those whose wages were cut or who lost their jobs as employers reacted to a decline in business.
The suggestion at the time that government intervention with public works projects to provide employment was contrary to basic economic theory because, to them, government had no role in managing an economy. According to this interpretation of this free market theory, reduced wages were a necessary function of a firm's responsibility to its owners and shareholders.
To them, the basic economic law of demand and supply applied equally to labor as to any other input, and labor union contracts fixing a pay level led to what they called "sticky wages," preventing a firm from adjusting its costs as sales declined.
Others have pointed out, however, that if employers had treated workers fairly to begin with, labor unions would not have been necessary as a way to force fair treatment and adequate wages.
It may be simplistic to say, but this clash between labor and management -- which began in the 19th Century -- resulted in some countries moving to strong government control of an economy and others, including the U.S. and most European nations, moving to what economists call a mixed economy, which is somewhere between a fully free market and full government control.
Now, the problem lies in determining where on the social economic spectrum a nation can best serve its people.
Full corporate freedom leads inevitably to labor action, strikes and sometimes violence to force fair wages and treatment. Full government control means arbitrary decisions by officials too often out of touch with the needs of producers as well as consumers.
Meanwhile, the pendulum swings between the two extremes, as consumer and labor oriented factions sometimes dominate government, alternating with profit oriented producer factions.
We now see a national government in the guise of the Republican Party favoring the needs, wants and desires of Big Business, often at the expense of wage and salary workers and consumers.
The current administration has been reducing or eliminating regulations that protect many natural resources so that producers can get at them to produce more and increase their profits.
But unless consumers maintain their ability to purchase the additional products and services, through reasonable wages and prices, the consequences can mean an economic catastrophe.
Too much emphasis on one side, from a government determined to bring back a free market economy, can easily cause some of the major social problems that government itself should set out to prevent.
Danger. That way madness lies.
In a fully free market economy, players follow only the rules they choose to observe, claiming that free and open competition will benefit society in such a way as to guarantee the survival of the fittest.
At the other extreme is an economy fully controlled by government, designed to guarantee the survival of everyone.
As part of the battle, free marketeers have made "socialism" a dirty word -- part of their strategy to win regardless of the cost to others.
It seems current free marketeers have learned little from history, and are likely to repeat it.
There are many folks still alive today who remember the disastrous years of the Great Depression, when those who believed in free market theory shrugged off the problems faced by those whose wages were cut or who lost their jobs as employers reacted to a decline in business.
The suggestion at the time that government intervention with public works projects to provide employment was contrary to basic economic theory because, to them, government had no role in managing an economy. According to this interpretation of this free market theory, reduced wages were a necessary function of a firm's responsibility to its owners and shareholders.
To them, the basic economic law of demand and supply applied equally to labor as to any other input, and labor union contracts fixing a pay level led to what they called "sticky wages," preventing a firm from adjusting its costs as sales declined.
Others have pointed out, however, that if employers had treated workers fairly to begin with, labor unions would not have been necessary as a way to force fair treatment and adequate wages.
It may be simplistic to say, but this clash between labor and management -- which began in the 19th Century -- resulted in some countries moving to strong government control of an economy and others, including the U.S. and most European nations, moving to what economists call a mixed economy, which is somewhere between a fully free market and full government control.
Now, the problem lies in determining where on the social economic spectrum a nation can best serve its people.
Full corporate freedom leads inevitably to labor action, strikes and sometimes violence to force fair wages and treatment. Full government control means arbitrary decisions by officials too often out of touch with the needs of producers as well as consumers.
Meanwhile, the pendulum swings between the two extremes, as consumer and labor oriented factions sometimes dominate government, alternating with profit oriented producer factions.
We now see a national government in the guise of the Republican Party favoring the needs, wants and desires of Big Business, often at the expense of wage and salary workers and consumers.
The current administration has been reducing or eliminating regulations that protect many natural resources so that producers can get at them to produce more and increase their profits.
But unless consumers maintain their ability to purchase the additional products and services, through reasonable wages and prices, the consequences can mean an economic catastrophe.
Too much emphasis on one side, from a government determined to bring back a free market economy, can easily cause some of the major social problems that government itself should set out to prevent.
Danger. That way madness lies.
Idyll Thoughts
When you have facts on your side, argue the facts.
When you have law on your side, argue the law.
When you have neither, pound the table.
Political bravery is an oxymoron.
Arrogance is its own reward.
Ignorance is its own punishment.
Name calling is no substitute for intelligent conversation or debate.
When arrogance joins ignorance in a single person, the result is a toxic, dangerous brew, especially concocted in a politician with an expert sales pitch.
Life is a series of if-then statements. If this happens, then I will do that. If that had not happened in the past, then I would not be stuck where I am today.
That's called rationalizing, and it's an insecure person's way of blaming others for his or her lack of success and threatening others unless they do what they're told.
What would happen if the U.S. tried to annex Canada, to "protect" its northern border? Statehood was, in fact, offered to Canadian provinces soon after U.S. independence, but the offer was rejected.
Building a wall is one way to keep out those who don't look alike and talk alike, but since Canadians can easily "blend," why not make it official?
Can you say, "Nonsense"?
Progress report: The Editor's Revenge blog attracts readers in ten countries every week, and has reached a total of some 100 nations over time.
As always, comments and reactions are welcome, especially from those who disagree.
Talk is safer and cheaper than violence.
When you have law on your side, argue the law.
When you have neither, pound the table.
Political bravery is an oxymoron.
Arrogance is its own reward.
Ignorance is its own punishment.
Name calling is no substitute for intelligent conversation or debate.
When arrogance joins ignorance in a single person, the result is a toxic, dangerous brew, especially concocted in a politician with an expert sales pitch.
Life is a series of if-then statements. If this happens, then I will do that. If that had not happened in the past, then I would not be stuck where I am today.
That's called rationalizing, and it's an insecure person's way of blaming others for his or her lack of success and threatening others unless they do what they're told.
What would happen if the U.S. tried to annex Canada, to "protect" its northern border? Statehood was, in fact, offered to Canadian provinces soon after U.S. independence, but the offer was rejected.
Building a wall is one way to keep out those who don't look alike and talk alike, but since Canadians can easily "blend," why not make it official?
Can you say, "Nonsense"?
Progress report: The Editor's Revenge blog attracts readers in ten countries every week, and has reached a total of some 100 nations over time.
As always, comments and reactions are welcome, especially from those who disagree.
Talk is safer and cheaper than violence.
Sunday, December 10, 2017
The Pot-Kettle Syndrome
Their names are well known. Likewise their political affiliation. The ironic part is that GOP goosers are honking at high decibel levels about the misdeeds of Democrats but make no apology for their own similar behavior.
Friday, December 8, 2017
Economic Leveling
Expect the Federal Reserve Board to carry out its intent to stabilize the U.S. economy as fresh data came in showing continuing health in the jobs market.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday that the nationwide unemployment rate held steady at 4.1 percent in November even as employers hired 228,000 more workers in the month. In addition, average earnings rose again, for a 2.5 percent increase from a year ago.
The jobless rate is the lowest in 17 years, and this level is what experts call full employment. Moreover, employers have hired more people every month for seven years.
And despite the president's bid to cut taxes and thus ignite a "rocket" economic takeoff, the independent Federal Reserve has repeatedly hinted it will boost interest rates to prevent just that. The danger of a too-rapid growth rate, experts say, is that it's too likely to result in a sudden, rapid decline. That's just what the Fed wants to prevent.
The president has been claiming credit for the healthy economy, even though he has been in office for less than a year, and economic growth has been steadily upward for some eight years.
The tax cut promise relies on the theory that increased corporate profit will trickle down to workers through more hiring and increased wages. Conservative politicians tout this promise regularly, but economist note that in reality, it does not work.
The national jobless rate of 4.1 percent is a good sign, of course, but unemployment figures are based on a monthly telephone survey and, while useful as a monthly snapshot, it is not as accurate as the payroll employment figure, which is based on hard data of the numbers of people actually employed.
In addition, the jobless figures vary widely by age, gender, region and race. For example, the latest figures show that the unemployment rate for black workers, at 7.3 percent, is double that for white workers, which is 3.6 percent.
In regions like coal-mining towns, the unemployment rate is far higher. And the overall figure can jump considerably in June and July, when students finish school and enter the work force.
Overall, however, the nationwide figure is considered to be a reasonably good barometer of employment health.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday that the nationwide unemployment rate held steady at 4.1 percent in November even as employers hired 228,000 more workers in the month. In addition, average earnings rose again, for a 2.5 percent increase from a year ago.
The jobless rate is the lowest in 17 years, and this level is what experts call full employment. Moreover, employers have hired more people every month for seven years.
And despite the president's bid to cut taxes and thus ignite a "rocket" economic takeoff, the independent Federal Reserve has repeatedly hinted it will boost interest rates to prevent just that. The danger of a too-rapid growth rate, experts say, is that it's too likely to result in a sudden, rapid decline. That's just what the Fed wants to prevent.
The president has been claiming credit for the healthy economy, even though he has been in office for less than a year, and economic growth has been steadily upward for some eight years.
The tax cut promise relies on the theory that increased corporate profit will trickle down to workers through more hiring and increased wages. Conservative politicians tout this promise regularly, but economist note that in reality, it does not work.
The national jobless rate of 4.1 percent is a good sign, of course, but unemployment figures are based on a monthly telephone survey and, while useful as a monthly snapshot, it is not as accurate as the payroll employment figure, which is based on hard data of the numbers of people actually employed.
In addition, the jobless figures vary widely by age, gender, region and race. For example, the latest figures show that the unemployment rate for black workers, at 7.3 percent, is double that for white workers, which is 3.6 percent.
In regions like coal-mining towns, the unemployment rate is far higher. And the overall figure can jump considerably in June and July, when students finish school and enter the work force.
Overall, however, the nationwide figure is considered to be a reasonably good barometer of employment health.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)