Unemployment is down, output is up, and consumer spending is rising as people become more confident in their economic health.
Meanwhile, the administration issued a one-page outline of its proposed tax reform plan, which analysts said would give a major tax break to the top 1 percent of American households but much less, if any, to lower and middle income workers.
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, however, praised the plan as a way to "put more money in every working family's pocket, bring back cash that is trapped overseas," as well as "unshackle American businesses, which are hobbled by an oppressive tax rate that is the highest in the developed world."
Another analysis documented the results of previous corporate tax breaks and concluded that they did not, as proponents claimed, lead to more jobs. Instead, it led to increased stock prices, more profit to the company and higher salaries to senior executives.
Moreover, experts disputed the notion that profits are "trapped overseas," calling the delay in bringing back the cash an accounting gimmick that enables firms to avoid taxes even as they are able to use the money as guarantees for loans, the interest on which is deductible.
Generally, the American economy continued its recovery in the second quarter, as output rose at an annual rate of 3.0 percent, up from 1.2 percent in the first quarter, but still shy of the president's announced goal of a 4 percent growth rate.
Complicating this otherwise rosy picture is the storm disaster in Texas, where many of the nation's oil resources are located. Offshore drilling rigs have shut down, as well as refineries on the mainland. Already, gasoline prices are rising as supplies are suddenly reduced because of the storm damage and facility shutdown.
The result could quickly impact production and boost prices nationwide on a wide variety of products and services.
Separately, the Labor Department said unemployment rates were lower in July in 340 of the 388 metro areas around the U.S. The agency said 31 regions had jobless rates of less than 3 percent, only three had rates of 10 percent or more.
So while things look good for now, the proposed tax reform plan may well widen the wealth gap between the many working households and favored few in the president's crony corner.
Wednesday, August 30, 2017
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
UN Warns the U.S.
A UN committee has demanded that the U.S. "reject and condemn racist hate speech and crimes in Charlottesville and throughout the country."
The statement was issued August 23 from UN headquarters in Geneva, and called on the government "as well as high-level politicians and officials" to speak out, noting that "there should be no place in the world for racist white supremacist ideas or any similar ideologies that reject the core human rights principles of human dignity and equality."
That was a week ago, but there has been little, if any, response from Washington, nor has the UN complaint received much exposure in the American news media.
It could be, of course, that journalists were more focused on Hurricane Harvey and the president's pardon of ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio, but the UN warning could easily have been inserted in the Arpaio story, whose past record of discrimination led to a federal court order to stop (which he ignored), as well as followup stories about the violence in Charlottesville.
The UN protest was immediately picked up by news media in Europe, which pointed out that similar warnings have been issued to countries like Burundi, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan and Nigeria.
The principles of equality and human rights are specified and guaranteed in the founding documents of America, and the U.S. ratified the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1994.
The statement was issued August 23 from UN headquarters in Geneva, and called on the government "as well as high-level politicians and officials" to speak out, noting that "there should be no place in the world for racist white supremacist ideas or any similar ideologies that reject the core human rights principles of human dignity and equality."
That was a week ago, but there has been little, if any, response from Washington, nor has the UN complaint received much exposure in the American news media.
It could be, of course, that journalists were more focused on Hurricane Harvey and the president's pardon of ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio, but the UN warning could easily have been inserted in the Arpaio story, whose past record of discrimination led to a federal court order to stop (which he ignored), as well as followup stories about the violence in Charlottesville.
The UN protest was immediately picked up by news media in Europe, which pointed out that similar warnings have been issued to countries like Burundi, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan and Nigeria.
The principles of equality and human rights are specified and guaranteed in the founding documents of America, and the U.S. ratified the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1994.
Monday, August 28, 2017
Fiscal vs Monetary Policy
Which is the better choice to encourage economic growth and forestall calamity? Is it fiscal or monetary policy?
That's not a question for a course in Economics 101, but one that citizens should consider as they wonder about their jobs and their futures, because what government does can seriously affect a nation's economic health.
A related question is whether it's better for government to do nothing while the economy reaches a balance on its own, or to intervene with spending projects to kick-start a stalled economy.
In just a few brief sentences, that's the key difference between totally free market capitalism at one extreme and an economy fully controlled by government at the other.
The reality is that neither works well. America and other leading Western nations operate somewhere in the middle, in a mixed economy.
Before the rise of government intervention to inject spending and create jobs in government-sponsored projects, as well as the rise of central banks to control the money supply, which in turn moderates extremes in inflation (rising prices) and unemployment, businesses and banks were free to take whatever risks management wanted to. The result was a series of wild fluctuations, resulting in a boom and bust cycle that left millions of workers and their families hungry and homeless.
The Federal Reserve was founded in December 1913 to help end that cycle of runaway inflation and high unemployment by controlling the supply of money available. That's called monetary policy.
Fiscal policy, on the other hand, is what government does in its spending activities. This reached a critical high point in the 1930s, as the federal government sponsored many thousands of projects so workers would have jobs, earning money for food, clothing and shelter. In turn, this rippled through the rest of society as the cash flow increased and others benefited from more economic activity.
Before the Great Depression, standard economic theory stipulated that left alone, every aspect of an economic system would eventually, over time, in the long run, find a balance of all the elements of the system and everything would be hunky-dory.
Government, the traditionalists believed, should focus on a balanced budget and not intervene. In the long run, everything will work out. But in the words of economist John Maynard Keynes, "In the long run run we are all dead."
In the worldwide economic disaster of the 1920s and 1930s, it was a burst of government spending that helped America recover from the Great Depression. Assisted, of course, by the Second World War, when government spending on armaments and military uniforms boosted the manufacturing sector and provided employment for millions of workers who otherwise would be hungry and homeless. In addition, there were the many millions in military service -- another form of employment. Unfortunately, that particular type of employment carried the risk of being shot. Conclusion: War is a terrible waste of resources, both material and human.
Even so, there are still many conservatives who hold to the belief that government regulation of any kind is harmful, and the private sector should be left alone to work out any problems that might arise, based on the conviction that free and open competition is the best way to ensure the survival of the fittest in every aspect of society.
A return to that kind of economic system, however, would require canceling Social Security pensions, unemployment benefits for those out of work, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and other social benefit programs, as well as government regulation of air pollution standards, preservation of national parks that prohibit mining, government inspection and approval of potentially harmful drugs, and finally, the elimination of the
Federal Reserve, the nation's central bank, which is charged with moderating the money supply to prevent inflation and unemployment.
To those who read newspaper headlines and listen to television news programs, much of this will sound familiar, as free-market conservatives move toward minimizing government involvement in the economy.
But reality has an unsettling way of stepping in to block some of the best laid plans. In this case, the fiscal spending plans of a central government are often at odds with the monetary policy goals of a central bank.
America now has a mixed economy, somewhere between an uncontrolled capitalist system and an economy fully controlled by government. The danger of an unfettered economy is wild inflation, soaring joblessness, hunger, starvation and violence. The danger of full government control is an autocratic despotism.
Meanwhile, any attempt by government to take control of an otherwise independent central bank can only increase the likelihood of a dictatorship.
This has already happened in other countries, and the casualty has been the death of freedom for both business and workers.
That's not a question for a course in Economics 101, but one that citizens should consider as they wonder about their jobs and their futures, because what government does can seriously affect a nation's economic health.
A related question is whether it's better for government to do nothing while the economy reaches a balance on its own, or to intervene with spending projects to kick-start a stalled economy.
In just a few brief sentences, that's the key difference between totally free market capitalism at one extreme and an economy fully controlled by government at the other.
The reality is that neither works well. America and other leading Western nations operate somewhere in the middle, in a mixed economy.
Before the rise of government intervention to inject spending and create jobs in government-sponsored projects, as well as the rise of central banks to control the money supply, which in turn moderates extremes in inflation (rising prices) and unemployment, businesses and banks were free to take whatever risks management wanted to. The result was a series of wild fluctuations, resulting in a boom and bust cycle that left millions of workers and their families hungry and homeless.
The Federal Reserve was founded in December 1913 to help end that cycle of runaway inflation and high unemployment by controlling the supply of money available. That's called monetary policy.
Fiscal policy, on the other hand, is what government does in its spending activities. This reached a critical high point in the 1930s, as the federal government sponsored many thousands of projects so workers would have jobs, earning money for food, clothing and shelter. In turn, this rippled through the rest of society as the cash flow increased and others benefited from more economic activity.
Before the Great Depression, standard economic theory stipulated that left alone, every aspect of an economic system would eventually, over time, in the long run, find a balance of all the elements of the system and everything would be hunky-dory.
Government, the traditionalists believed, should focus on a balanced budget and not intervene. In the long run, everything will work out. But in the words of economist John Maynard Keynes, "In the long run run we are all dead."
In the worldwide economic disaster of the 1920s and 1930s, it was a burst of government spending that helped America recover from the Great Depression. Assisted, of course, by the Second World War, when government spending on armaments and military uniforms boosted the manufacturing sector and provided employment for millions of workers who otherwise would be hungry and homeless. In addition, there were the many millions in military service -- another form of employment. Unfortunately, that particular type of employment carried the risk of being shot. Conclusion: War is a terrible waste of resources, both material and human.
Even so, there are still many conservatives who hold to the belief that government regulation of any kind is harmful, and the private sector should be left alone to work out any problems that might arise, based on the conviction that free and open competition is the best way to ensure the survival of the fittest in every aspect of society.
A return to that kind of economic system, however, would require canceling Social Security pensions, unemployment benefits for those out of work, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and other social benefit programs, as well as government regulation of air pollution standards, preservation of national parks that prohibit mining, government inspection and approval of potentially harmful drugs, and finally, the elimination of the
Federal Reserve, the nation's central bank, which is charged with moderating the money supply to prevent inflation and unemployment.
To those who read newspaper headlines and listen to television news programs, much of this will sound familiar, as free-market conservatives move toward minimizing government involvement in the economy.
But reality has an unsettling way of stepping in to block some of the best laid plans. In this case, the fiscal spending plans of a central government are often at odds with the monetary policy goals of a central bank.
America now has a mixed economy, somewhere between an uncontrolled capitalist system and an economy fully controlled by government. The danger of an unfettered economy is wild inflation, soaring joblessness, hunger, starvation and violence. The danger of full government control is an autocratic despotism.
Meanwhile, any attempt by government to take control of an otherwise independent central bank can only increase the likelihood of a dictatorship.
This has already happened in other countries, and the casualty has been the death of freedom for both business and workers.
Sunday, August 27, 2017
Media Matters
"I don't believe in leprechauns at all," said the old woman from County Kerry. "But they're there, all the same."
An informed citizenry is the best defense for a free society.
You may choose not to believe what you read in the papers or hear on the news broadcast, but that doesn't mean it's not true. You have the right to ignore information given you by mainstream news outlets, and you may choose to focus on sources that reinforce your own predetermined views and opinions, and refuse to pay attention to any information that contradicts what your favorite politician preaches.
But you do so at peril.
News media will report what politicians say and do. When politicians deny having said or done something, broadcast news outlets can simply roll the video. And as many times as the politician denies it, that's the number of times TV replays the video.
As public relations professionals routinely advise their clients, sometimes it's better to say nothing and let the story slide slowly away. Similarly, sometimes it's better not to strike back at an opponent's jibe. Such a tactic shows you have a thick skin and are able to take criticism if constructive and to ignore it when it's not.
The insistence on striking back at any and every negative comment shows an obsession with message control, and a petty need to be always right, about everything, in every detail, all the time.
No human is capable of that.
Journalists are human, They try hard to report accurately what is newsworthy, and when they miss, they issue corrections or clarifications to explain the context.
The very act of choosing what is newsworthy is subjective, as is deciding how to handle a story, which aspect to emphasize and which to leave out. This leaves reporters and editors open to the potential for incompleteness and criticism from those who disagree with the choices.
Nevertheless, they try.
There are, of course, some publications and broadcast outlets that lean strongly one way or another to certain political or economic views, and typically will emphasize different aspects of any given news event. Or they will ignore the event entirely, on the theory that their readers or viewers may not be interested in alternate viewpoints.
But there is no such thing as an alternative fact. There may well be different opinions as to its importance, relative to other sets of facts, but either something is true or it is not.
When a public figure insists on proclaiming something true, it is the duty of news media either to publish additional information to provide context, or to provide contrary information to show its falsehood.
Media matters, and responsible journalism is essential to maintaining a free society. That's why the founders of the American republic saw fit to guarantee that freedom. We allow government leaders to undermine that freedom at the peril of losing other freedoms along the way.
An informed citizenry is the best defense for a free society.
You may choose not to believe what you read in the papers or hear on the news broadcast, but that doesn't mean it's not true. You have the right to ignore information given you by mainstream news outlets, and you may choose to focus on sources that reinforce your own predetermined views and opinions, and refuse to pay attention to any information that contradicts what your favorite politician preaches.
But you do so at peril.
News media will report what politicians say and do. When politicians deny having said or done something, broadcast news outlets can simply roll the video. And as many times as the politician denies it, that's the number of times TV replays the video.
As public relations professionals routinely advise their clients, sometimes it's better to say nothing and let the story slide slowly away. Similarly, sometimes it's better not to strike back at an opponent's jibe. Such a tactic shows you have a thick skin and are able to take criticism if constructive and to ignore it when it's not.
The insistence on striking back at any and every negative comment shows an obsession with message control, and a petty need to be always right, about everything, in every detail, all the time.
No human is capable of that.
Journalists are human, They try hard to report accurately what is newsworthy, and when they miss, they issue corrections or clarifications to explain the context.
The very act of choosing what is newsworthy is subjective, as is deciding how to handle a story, which aspect to emphasize and which to leave out. This leaves reporters and editors open to the potential for incompleteness and criticism from those who disagree with the choices.
Nevertheless, they try.
There are, of course, some publications and broadcast outlets that lean strongly one way or another to certain political or economic views, and typically will emphasize different aspects of any given news event. Or they will ignore the event entirely, on the theory that their readers or viewers may not be interested in alternate viewpoints.
But there is no such thing as an alternative fact. There may well be different opinions as to its importance, relative to other sets of facts, but either something is true or it is not.
When a public figure insists on proclaiming something true, it is the duty of news media either to publish additional information to provide context, or to provide contrary information to show its falsehood.
Media matters, and responsible journalism is essential to maintaining a free society. That's why the founders of the American republic saw fit to guarantee that freedom. We allow government leaders to undermine that freedom at the peril of losing other freedoms along the way.
Saturday, August 26, 2017
Reaganomics Redux
Look for the president to attempt remaking the Federal Reserve Board in his own anti-regulation ideology.
He has repeatedly shown his preference for trickle-down economics and less government regulation, based on the theory that tax breaks for the wealthy and major corporations will trickle down to workers and lead to stronger economic growth.
Eventually. In the long run. Assuming the beneficiaries of the tax cuts actually spend the money and don't just sock it away to increase their own net worth.
Soon the president may have an opportunity to widen his assault on regulation from his current efforts on the fiscal side of government to include fresh faces on the monetary side at the Federal Reserve, the nation's central bank.
The current chair, Janet Yellen, has warned that easing government regulations will endanger the economic recovery the nation has enjoyed since the Great Recession nearly ten years ago.
It's rare for members of the Fed to speak out on political matters, but Yellen did just that at a meeting of the world's major central bankers in Jackson Hole, Wyo. She noted that memories of the financial crisis of 2007-2009 may be fading, but to succumb to that and dismantle recent financial reforms could be disastrous to the economy.
The president has been vocal in urging a loosening of government regulations on business, and generally endorses free-market capitalism and its theoretical tendency to find its own balance.
For many decades, however, economists have insisted that some regulation is essential to help prevent crises or at least encourage a faster recovery.
Yellen's term on the Federal Reserve Board expires in February, and she told the gathering of bankers that she would not change her opinion on financial reforms that Republicans want to cancel.
She insisted that stronger financial regulations have helped the economy recover, and should be maintained.
But such a position is contrary to the president's tendency to favor less regulation, and that could well mean he will choose someone else when Yellen's term expires.
Couple that with all the other recent government moves to ease or cancel government regulations and controls in virtually every aspect of the American economy, and the question becomes whether this freedom will lead to rapid growth or an equally fast stumble and fall into a serious depression even worse than that of the early 1930s.
He has repeatedly shown his preference for trickle-down economics and less government regulation, based on the theory that tax breaks for the wealthy and major corporations will trickle down to workers and lead to stronger economic growth.
Eventually. In the long run. Assuming the beneficiaries of the tax cuts actually spend the money and don't just sock it away to increase their own net worth.
Soon the president may have an opportunity to widen his assault on regulation from his current efforts on the fiscal side of government to include fresh faces on the monetary side at the Federal Reserve, the nation's central bank.
The current chair, Janet Yellen, has warned that easing government regulations will endanger the economic recovery the nation has enjoyed since the Great Recession nearly ten years ago.
It's rare for members of the Fed to speak out on political matters, but Yellen did just that at a meeting of the world's major central bankers in Jackson Hole, Wyo. She noted that memories of the financial crisis of 2007-2009 may be fading, but to succumb to that and dismantle recent financial reforms could be disastrous to the economy.
The president has been vocal in urging a loosening of government regulations on business, and generally endorses free-market capitalism and its theoretical tendency to find its own balance.
For many decades, however, economists have insisted that some regulation is essential to help prevent crises or at least encourage a faster recovery.
Yellen's term on the Federal Reserve Board expires in February, and she told the gathering of bankers that she would not change her opinion on financial reforms that Republicans want to cancel.
She insisted that stronger financial regulations have helped the economy recover, and should be maintained.
But such a position is contrary to the president's tendency to favor less regulation, and that could well mean he will choose someone else when Yellen's term expires.
Couple that with all the other recent government moves to ease or cancel government regulations and controls in virtually every aspect of the American economy, and the question becomes whether this freedom will lead to rapid growth or an equally fast stumble and fall into a serious depression even worse than that of the early 1930s.
Friday, August 25, 2017
The Lawless President
Call it a Friday night news dump, a strategy long used by organizations when they attempt to bury controversial news by waiting until late Friday until announcing it, in the hope it will be buried by other stories.
The president tried a hat trick by taking three actions as news outlets were covering the landfall of a major hurricane hitting the coast of Texas.
First, he issued an executive order barring transgender people from military service. This raises a constitutional issue of gender discrimination, which conflicts with previously settled questions of whether gay people can serve in the military, and whether women can serve equally with men, including in combat units.
Then, at 8 p.m. Friday evening, he issued a presidential pardon to ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, praising the former law officer for his career, despite his conviction for defying a federal court order that he stop discriminating against Latinos in Maricopa County.
In pardoning the former sheriff, who was defeated in a re-election bid last November, the president did so on his own, without consulting the Department of Justice, which has traditionally been standard practice for presidents considering pardons.
Legally, a president can pardon anyone, for any reason, at any time. But this time, he pardoned a law enforcement officer who has a long record of illegal actions against Latinos in his district, but who has also been a fervent supporter of this president.
And in issuing the pardon, the president apparently flipped a middle finger to the New York Times, which had strongly opposed such a maneuver in its lead editorial Friday morning.
Moreover, commentators pointed out that this president's action sent a strong signal to other renegade police officers that if they were a close and strong enough supporter of the president, they could ignore the law with impunity, confident that they would soon be pardoned for their offenses.
All this happened on a Friday in the midst of extensive coverage of a major disaster hitting the coast of Texas. Typically, Friday has been a slow news day, and Saturday's editions are usually smaller than other days. Some smaller daily newspapers, in fact, do not publish at all on Saturday.
The flaw in that approach, however, is that broadcast journalism works a 24-hour news cycle, so there is plenty of time to cover all the stories, even splitting the screen to cover several at once.
And newspapers, while they might not have as much space for complete coverage in their Saturday editions, actually gain an extra day to prepare even more coverage for the Sunday paper.
Nice try, Mr. President. But if you keep throwing bad pitches, the journalistic umpires will call you out every time.
The president tried a hat trick by taking three actions as news outlets were covering the landfall of a major hurricane hitting the coast of Texas.
First, he issued an executive order barring transgender people from military service. This raises a constitutional issue of gender discrimination, which conflicts with previously settled questions of whether gay people can serve in the military, and whether women can serve equally with men, including in combat units.
Then, at 8 p.m. Friday evening, he issued a presidential pardon to ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, praising the former law officer for his career, despite his conviction for defying a federal court order that he stop discriminating against Latinos in Maricopa County.
In pardoning the former sheriff, who was defeated in a re-election bid last November, the president did so on his own, without consulting the Department of Justice, which has traditionally been standard practice for presidents considering pardons.
Legally, a president can pardon anyone, for any reason, at any time. But this time, he pardoned a law enforcement officer who has a long record of illegal actions against Latinos in his district, but who has also been a fervent supporter of this president.
And in issuing the pardon, the president apparently flipped a middle finger to the New York Times, which had strongly opposed such a maneuver in its lead editorial Friday morning.
Moreover, commentators pointed out that this president's action sent a strong signal to other renegade police officers that if they were a close and strong enough supporter of the president, they could ignore the law with impunity, confident that they would soon be pardoned for their offenses.
All this happened on a Friday in the midst of extensive coverage of a major disaster hitting the coast of Texas. Typically, Friday has been a slow news day, and Saturday's editions are usually smaller than other days. Some smaller daily newspapers, in fact, do not publish at all on Saturday.
The flaw in that approach, however, is that broadcast journalism works a 24-hour news cycle, so there is plenty of time to cover all the stories, even splitting the screen to cover several at once.
And newspapers, while they might not have as much space for complete coverage in their Saturday editions, actually gain an extra day to prepare even more coverage for the Sunday paper.
Nice try, Mr. President. But if you keep throwing bad pitches, the journalistic umpires will call you out every time.
Choices
There is always a choice.
"My head's made up. You can't confuse me with the facts." -- Chester A. Riley
Administration officials are facing what for many is a tough decision -- whether to stay on the job and accept or tolerate the racist rantings of the nation's chief executive, attempt to change his mind and persuade him to speak for all Americans rather than focus on his base of rabid supporters, or resign and walk away, thus leaving an opening for the Bigot in Chief to add more True Believers to his corps of advisor/supporters.
In addition to the pressure brought by the president's comments on the violence in Charlottesville, there is the report that the government will cut back on protection of federal parks in favor of mining and other commercial use of forest land.
The latest is a move by the administration to recast the terms used to describe global warming, to dull the edge of the realities and make it seem like there is no danger to what is happening. That all the scientists are wrong. That the report that permafrost in Alaska is no longer permanent is untrue. That the historic record of increases in temperatures over time is false.
As it is, an increasing number of experts and advisors are heeding their moral principles, Constitutional and legal obligations, and are resigning.
All 17 members of an advisory committee on the arts and humanities resigned, and the first letter of each paragraph of their resignation document spelled out the word "RESIST."
Several members of the council on manufacturing resigned, prompting the president to disband the council before the tide of resignations was complete.
On Friday, the science envoy to the State Department resigned, citing the president's comments on the violence in Charlottesville. The letter by Daniel Kammen followed the pattern set by the Arts and Humanities Council, with the first letter of each Kammen paragraph spelling out the word IMPEACH.
Several members of the president's infrastructure advisory council have also resigned.
Gary Cohn, the White House economic advisor, openly criticized the president's anti-Semitic and racist equivocations about the Charlottesville incidents, and reportedly drafted a resignation letter because of the president's comments.
In every difficult situation, people have to decide whether to change it, learn to live with it, or leave it.
Wisdom is in knowing the difference.
"My head's made up. You can't confuse me with the facts." -- Chester A. Riley
Administration officials are facing what for many is a tough decision -- whether to stay on the job and accept or tolerate the racist rantings of the nation's chief executive, attempt to change his mind and persuade him to speak for all Americans rather than focus on his base of rabid supporters, or resign and walk away, thus leaving an opening for the Bigot in Chief to add more True Believers to his corps of advisor/supporters.
In addition to the pressure brought by the president's comments on the violence in Charlottesville, there is the report that the government will cut back on protection of federal parks in favor of mining and other commercial use of forest land.
The latest is a move by the administration to recast the terms used to describe global warming, to dull the edge of the realities and make it seem like there is no danger to what is happening. That all the scientists are wrong. That the report that permafrost in Alaska is no longer permanent is untrue. That the historic record of increases in temperatures over time is false.
As it is, an increasing number of experts and advisors are heeding their moral principles, Constitutional and legal obligations, and are resigning.
All 17 members of an advisory committee on the arts and humanities resigned, and the first letter of each paragraph of their resignation document spelled out the word "RESIST."
Several members of the council on manufacturing resigned, prompting the president to disband the council before the tide of resignations was complete.
On Friday, the science envoy to the State Department resigned, citing the president's comments on the violence in Charlottesville. The letter by Daniel Kammen followed the pattern set by the Arts and Humanities Council, with the first letter of each Kammen paragraph spelling out the word IMPEACH.
Several members of the president's infrastructure advisory council have also resigned.
Gary Cohn, the White House economic advisor, openly criticized the president's anti-Semitic and racist equivocations about the Charlottesville incidents, and reportedly drafted a resignation letter because of the president's comments.
In every difficult situation, people have to decide whether to change it, learn to live with it, or leave it.
Wisdom is in knowing the difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)