Kansas tax-cut "experiment" fails . . . once again

This is a copy of a blog on Daily Kos by Egberto Willies, which is essentially a summary of a presentation by Chris Hayes on MSNBC about Kansas' "experiment" in tax cut budget "magic" that didn't work.   In fact, it had the opposite effect -- as most of us knew it would.    But Republicans refuse to believe it.   The question is, with the Kansas "experiment' now proving them wrong, will they finally admit they are wrong?

*     *     *     *     *

Chris Hayes used Kansas Governor Sam Brownback's words against him . . . as he tries to sell his failed tax plan to Donald Trump. . . .

"Sam Brownback, the Republican Governor, from Kansas, has some advice for the president-elect," Chris Hayes said. "Telling the Wall Street Journal that Trump should mimic his Kansas tax plan. Brownback's signature idea, eliminating the 4.6% state individual income tax for partnerships, limited liability corporations, and similar businesses.  When Brownback passed his steep income tax cut in 2012, he called it "a real life experiment."

Hayes then played a June 19th, 2012 clip of Brownback saying that on taxes the overall rate needed to come down, removing social manipulations -- read social safety net-- to create growth.

"We'll see how it works," Brownback said. "We will have a real life experiment. We are right next to some other states that haven't lowered taxes. You'll get a chance to see how this impacts a particular experimental area. And I think Kansas is going to do well."

Brownback set a benchmark. Chris Hayes pointed out that it is now beyond three years.

"It would seem logical to take the governor up on his offer," Chris Hayes said. "As economists have reported for years, that economic vision appears to be failing spectacularly in Kansas. The massive tax cut blew a massive hole in the state budget, and now [the] $350 million deficit is expected to grow; the state credit rating has been downgraded twice and falling [revenue has forced] cuts to higher education and Medicaid.

"Brownback used around $2 Billion designated for highway funding to cover the budget hole. Meanwhile, the tax cuts have done little to jumpstart Kansas' economy overall with growth for this year projected to be flat, compared with 2% GDP growth nationally. Today, we got one more economic indicator out of the region. Brownback claimed in 2012 you can measure his Kansas experiment against neighboring states which did not enact the same type of drastic income tax cuts like Nebraska."

Hayes displayed the charts showing Nebraska outperforming Kansas by quite a bit.

"Justin Fox from Bloomberg has been tracking employment growth between Kansas and Nebraska," said Hayes. "Today found that the gap has only grown this year. Kansas is that blue line. It has been stagnant, flat for two years, while Nebraska is pulling away. 

"So, why would Donald Trump follow the advice of the governor whose policies created massive budget deficits, credit downgrades, slowed economic growth and hiring? One possible selling point, the plan would probably be good for people like Donald Trump. As the Washington Post reported on Kansas earlier this year, the poorest 20% of households are now paying an average of about $200 more in state taxes according to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Meanwhile, the wealthiest 1% of households are saving an average of $25,000."

"The Laffer curve is a laugh. Look closely. It is an indirect transfer of wealth from the masses to the few."

*     *     *     *     *

Here's the thing though.   To those who respect facts and empirical data, the answer is obvious.  This just does not work.   But Republicans, in general, for decades have refused to believe anecdotal evidence that it doesn't work.    This goes a bit further.    Gov. Brownback predicted one thing and suggested Kansas be compared with neighboring states that didn't cut taxes.

Well, that's exactly what they've done.   And it shows the opposite of what he predicted from his theory.   The evidence shows that it doesn't work.    So what does he do?   Goes and tries to sell the idea to the president-elect, who has promised massive tax cuts.    So let's see what Trump does in the face of such evidence.

Ralph

The perfect pastor for a Trump inauguration -- a suspect televangelist who seems all about money

According to the talk going around, the Trump team has been having trouble coming up with A-list entertainers to perform at the inauguration.   Originally, they billed the headliners as a 16 year old girl who was runner-up on America's Got Talent competition (when she was 10) and Andrea Bocelli, the popular, cross-over classical/pop tenor.   Then Bocelli announced that he had never agreed to perform and wouldn't be able to.

Now it seems that maybe it's also not so easy to get any clergy to come give their prayers over The Donald.  There's been no mention of the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Jr., president of Liberty University that was founded by his late father.   He would seem the obvious choice, given that he's been a big Trump supporter, even saying that God had chosen Donald Trump to be our next president.    But there was no mention of him in the current news that says Paula White, the popular televangelist has been invited to pray at the inauguration.

Well, I guess that's OK, given that she and Trump seem to be cut from similar bolts of cloth -- and I'll leave that to your imagination as to how they match up.   But here are a few hints, gleaned from a Huffington Post article by Sebastian Murdock.

Paula White's popularity is due to television.  She has been criticized for preaching the "prosperity gospel," which is often interpreted as wealth being considered a reward for living a good life -- or that God is happiest when his followers are rich.

She actively promoted Trump's campaign on her television show, where she assured listeners that Trump "accepts Jesus as his Lord and savior."  She also encourages her followers to "get closer to God by sending money to her."

According to Murdock:  "In 2007, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) launched a congressional probe into the spending habits of White’s ministry, along with five other pastors. Grassley had questions regarding the televangelists’ use of church-owned airplanes and luxury homes. The Senate inquiry was eventually dropped, in part because White refused to cooperate with investigators.

"Years later, White declared bankruptcy on the church she initially ran with her then-husband that had been the subject of the probe, Politico reported.  But whatever fortune she’s amassed has been due in large part to her followers, who give her money to get in God’s good graces. On her website, she refers to sending money as giving a 'seed' to the almighty Himself:

I feel impressed of the Lord to ask you to do something that I believe will create a memory in the mind of God and this will change your future. I want you to give a seed offering that I call a “Gratitude” seed. This is an extremely powerful seed for you… especially at this time in your life. This seed will do two things for you. 

This seed will get God’s attention. Remember, God sits high and looks low. He is looking for faith on the earth. This seed will require strong faith.  This seed will be seen as a “Gratitude” offering. Gratitude always produces favor and favor will cause you to receive in a moment, more than some do in a lifetime!

"It’s a tactic that other religious leaders frown upon. Earlier this year, Southern Baptist leader and Trump critic Russell Moore tweeted out his distaste of White, Politico reported.  'Paula White is a charlatan and recognized as a heretic by every orthodox Christian, of whatever tribe,' the tweet read.

"White denied the assertion that she’s only trying to grift money in an interview with the publication.  'Do I believe that God is a sugar daddy? Not at all,'  White said."

*     *     *     *     *

There you have it, folks.   Central casting could not have come up with a more perfect type-casting choice to play Donald Trump's pastor to bless his presidency.    When a Southern Baptist leader calls a preacher a charlatan, we should listen.    And, if the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Jr. does not appear, after all his promotion of Trump the candidate, then I will want to know why.   What changed his mind?    I don't agree with his theology;   but I do not think he is a charlatan of the same order as Paula White.   If he has turned against Trump -- after saying he was God's choice -- then we should look at why.  And at what he knows that we may not.

But, if you want a first hand account of this show on January 20th, you'll have to watch for yourselves, dear readers.   I just don't think I can bring myself to watch what promises to be a vulgar display of a caricature of a presidential inauguration.

Ralph

Huffington Post headline calls out Trump's lie

I've been ranting about the lack of journalistic candor that simply repeats what people say without correcting obvious untruths.  So I cheered when I saw this headline on a Huffington Post article:

"Trump Claims All Of His Foundation's Money 

Goes To Charity.   That's A Lie."

Trump announced he would close the foundation to avoid future conflicts of interest.    But New York's Attorney General Eric Schneidermann said, 'Not so fast, buster.'   The AG's office has an ongoing investigation into the foundation's possible illegal practices, and you cannot close it down until those are settled.

We've seen reports of the business debts and lawsuits that Trump has settled, and the political contributions he has made, or the transfer of funds to himself -- all from the foundation account.  HP  is not going to let the president-elect get away with lying about it.

Ralph

John Kerry speaks truth to Israel: Two-state solution is in serious jeopardy due to occupation.

Saying that "friends need to tell each other the hard truths," Secretary of State John Kerry gave his valedictory address at the State Department yesterday.  He focused primarily on Israel, its occupation of Palestinian-claimed territory, and his conclusion that Israel's "endless occupation" and settlement building in the West Bank are "destroying hopes for peace."

Clocking in at more than an hour, Kerry's diplomatic language could not completely obscure his frustration that he had not been able to move the cause of peace toward any resolution.   That's no small wonder, given that the Netanyahu government had approved building even more housing units just before he gave the speech, which included Kerry's assertion that "Virtually every country in the world other than Israel opposes settlements."   The U.N. Security Council vote last week was 14 to 0 against them.

Kerry sees no chance for any reconciliation between Israel and Palestine without two separate, independent and autonomous states.    He declared that, under a one-state solution, "Israel can either be Jewish or Democratic;  it cannot be both."

Let's unpack that.   If the area becomes one state, including all that is now Israel and all that is Palestine, it will soon have a majority population that is not Jewish.    The only way to prevent that would be not to give full citizenship and equal rights to the Palestinians, which is essentially the case now.  Then it would not be a democracy.   On the other hand, if all occupants have equal rights and are all full citizens, it will not be a Jewish state.

Kerry acknowledges, as do I, that Israelis have a right to defend themselves and that terrorist attacks against them must stop, or be stopped.    But I also agree with Kerry that a peace process must begin with both sides acknowledging the needs of the other side.   Only if there is a mutual, constructive effort to meet the needs of both groups can the next step toward peace be taken.

Kerry was forthright in calling the occupation for what it is -- an occupation.   Neither side is going to unilaterally disarm, which means that the attacks from the Palestine side and the occupation restrictions must be ended simultaneously, as they move forward to craft a two state solution.   Since Prime Minister Netanyahu calls this a biased position against Israel, his claim that he favors a two state solution is simply empty rhetoric.

Although Kerry has a plan that could work -- if all parties would let it work -- his impassioned speech carried a note of pessimistic gloom because of the simple fact that Donald Trump has already made it clear that he will side totally with Netanyahu and Israel.   He blasted Obama as treating a "great friend" with "disdain and disrespect."

I believe that Obama and Kerry have a comprehensive understanding that their successors will not have, so it is doubly discouraging that they are having to leave this one unresolved -- and in the incapable (metaphorically small) hands of Mr. Trump.

Ralph

Obama's rush to complete his legacy before Jan 20

For someone who came into office with grand dreams and hopes for making a difference in the life of our country as its first African-American president, Barack Obama met with an almost immovable wall of resistance.   Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told his caucus in their first meeting that their goal would be to make sure that Obama was a one-term president.

They failed to achieve that, as Obama's eighth year as president winds down.   And there are some significant achievements, including:   the Affordable Care Act, which just had its biggest year yet of new enrollments;   saving the U.S. auto industry;   presiding over an amazing economic recovery -- amazing for Wall Street and the stock markets, but not so much for Main Street.   Nevertheless, the unemployment rate has fallen to almost half what it was early in his term following the inherited economic disaster.   He also oversaw significant reforms in bank regulations, in getting rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell;  and his administration supported SCOTUS' overturning the ban on same-sex marriage.    He made significant progress in ending the war in Iraq and winding down the one in Afghanistan.   And led the U.S. to become a signatory of the most comprehensive international climate control agreement

You wouldn't know it from the way President Obama was denigrated by the Trump campaign and the Republicans in general;  'cause that's politics.   But the American people know, and it shows in Obama's approval ratings.

Here in his last weeks in office, though, Obama is tying up a loose end here and there:   putting large areas of the northern coastlines, both in the North Atlantic and in the Artic regions, off limits for future oil drilling.

This one is symbolic in effect, in that it can be changed by his successor;   but the U.S. opted for an abstention rather than a veto this week as the United Nations Security Council voted on a resolution to condemn the Israeli settlement building on land claimed by the Palestinians since the 1967 war.    It has led to a spat, with President-elect Trump tweeting out that it will be different after January 20th, signalling his full-throated support for Israel, right or wrong.   But Obama at least finally got to assert his disagreement with Netanyahu about the settlements.   And all 14 other members of the Security Council got to cast a vote of condemnation too -- which had been denied when we always stepped in to veto it.

Obama has been obviously chafing at Natanyahu's antics and extremism for years now.   He had one last chance to act on it -- and he allowed our U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power to vote accordingly.   The final vote was 14 to 0 for the resolution, with the U.S.'s  abstention.   All other members voted yes.   Netanyahu is furious.   But it was important, both for Obama and for others of us who think the Israeli settlements are a block to peace negotiations for a two-state solution.

There will be lots of time, and books, to explore the Obama legacy.   These are only what come to my mind at this moment -- when the worry seems to be that Trump will undo most of what Obama has accomplished.

Ralph

Conservative radio host will end his show, saying: "The conservative media is broken and the conservative movement deeply compromised."

My favorite conservative political news commentator, and a frequent guest of MSNBC liberal news hosts Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow, is Wisconsin conservative, radio talk show host Charles Sykes, whose forthcoming book is titled Where the Right Went Wrong.   Sykes was a supporter of the #NeverTrump movement.

Charles Sykes is that rare Republican that I've always felt was what we need in an opposition party but so rarely find:   someone who is rational, who respects facts and reason, and who can discuss differences in ideas and policy without being divisive or extreme.  

Last week Sykes wrote an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times explaining his dismay at what has happened to the Republican Party and announcing that he will end his radio talk show at the end of the month.  Here are some excerpts from his Op-Ed.

*     *     *     *     *

"MILWAUKEE — After nearly 25 years, I’m stepping down from my daily conservative talk radio show at the end of this month. I’m not leaving because of the rise of Donald J. Trump (my reasons are personal), but I have to admit that the campaign has made my decision easier. The conservative media is broken and the conservative movement deeply compromised.

"In April, after Mr. Trump decisively lost the Wisconsin Republican primary, I had hoped that we here in the Midwest would turn out to be a firewall of rationality. Our political culture was distinctly inhospitable to Mr. Trump’s divisive, pugilistic style; the conservatives who had been successful here had tended to be serious, reform-oriented and able to express their ideas in more than 140 characters. But in November, Wisconsin lined up with the rest of the Rust Belt to give the presidency to Mr. Trump. . . . "

[Sykes then contrasts what Wisconsin conservates, such as Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Reince Priebus, and Ron Johnson, used to stand for -- like free trade, balanced budgets, character and respect for constitutional rights.   And he contrasted that with what happened in this campaign.   The simple, surface facts are that Trump's "improbable win in Wisconsin" was due to (1)] "big margins in rural, blue-collar counties and . . . the pivotal Green Bay area by double digits."  [And (2) Hillary Clinton's under-performing in the Milwaukee suburbs that Obama carried by large margins in 2012, which was due mainly to Democrats not turning out to vote.]

[Aside from those voting patterns, however, Sykes sees a change in the mentality of the Republican electorate.   He points out that earlier in the campaign, he had called Trump] "a cartoon version of every left-wing media stereotype of the reactionary, nativist, misogynist right [and, he said] I thought that I was well within the mainstream of conservative thought."  

[However, as the campaign went on, Republican voters seemed to become comfortable with embracing Trumpism, even though] "in Wisconsin, conservative voters seemed to reject what Mr. Trump was selling, at least until after the convention. . . .   Relatively few of my listeners bought into the crude nativism Mr. Trump was selling at his rallies.

"What they did buy into was the argument that this was a “binary choice.” No matter how bad Mr. Trump was, my listeners argued, he could not possibly be as bad as Mrs. Clinton. You simply cannot overstate this as a factor in the final outcome. As our politics have become more polarized, the essential loyalties shift from ideas, to parties, to tribes, to individuals. Nothing else ultimately matters.

"In this binary tribal world, where everything is at stake, everything is in play, there is no room for quibbles about character, or truth, or principles. If everything — the Supreme Court, the fate of Western civilization, the survival of the planet — depends on tribal victory, then neither individuals nor ideas can be determinative. I watched this play out in real time, as conservatives who fully understood the threat that Mr. Trump posed succumbed to the argument about the Supreme Court. As even Mr. Ryan discovered, neutrality was not acceptable; if you were not for Mr. Trump, then you were for Mrs. Clinton.

"The state of our politics also explains why none of the revelations, outrages or gaffes seemed to dent Mr. Trump’s popularity.

"In this political universe, voters accept that they must tolerate bizarre behavior, dishonesty, crudity and cruelty, because the other side is always worse; the stakes are such that no qualms can get in the way of the greater cause.

"For many listeners, nothing was worse than Hillary Clinton. Two decades of vilification had taken their toll: Listeners whom I knew to be decent, thoughtful individuals began forwarding stories with conspiracy theories about President Obama and Mrs. Clinton . . . . When I tried to point out that such stories were demonstrably false, they generally refused to accept evidence that came from outside their bubble.  The echo chamber had morphed into a full-blown alternate reality silo of conspiracy theories, fake news and propaganda.

"And this is where it became painful. Even among Republicans who had no illusions about Mr. Trump’s character or judgment, the demands of that tribal loyalty took precedence. To resist was an act of betrayal.

"When it became clear that I was going to remain #NeverTrump, conservatives I had known and worked with for more than two decades organized boycotts of my show. One prominent G.O.P. activist sent out an email blast calling me a 'Judas goat,'  and calling for postelection retribution. As the summer turned to fall, I knew that I was losing listeners and said so publicly.

"And then, there was social media. Unless you have experienced it, it’s difficult to describe the virulence of the Twitter storms that were unleashed on Trump skeptics. In my timelines, I found myself called a “cuckservative,” a favorite gibe of white nationalists; and someone Photoshopped my face into a gas chamber. Under the withering fire of the trolls, one conservative commentator and Republican political leader after another fell in line.

"How had we gotten here?

"One staple of every radio talk show was, of course, the bias of the mainstream media. . . . we had succeeded in persuading our audiences to ignore and discount any information from the mainstream media. Over time, we’d succeeded in delegitimizing the media altogether — all the normal guideposts were down, the referees discredited.

"That left a void that we conservatives failed to fill. For years, we ignored the birthers, the racists, the truthers and other conspiracy theorists . . . .  Rather than confront the purveyors of such disinformation, we changed the channel because, after all, they were our allies, whose quirks could be allowed or at least ignored.   We destroyed our own immunity to fake news, while empowering the worst and most reckless voices on the right.

"This was not mere naïveté. It was also a moral failure, one that now lies at the heart of the conservative movement even in its moment of apparent electoral triumph. Now that the election is over, don’t expect any profiles in courage from the Republican Party pushing back against those trends; the gravitational pull of our binary politics is too strong.

'I’m only glad I’m not going to be a part of it anymore."
       --   Charles Sykes

*     *     *     *     *

I think this is an important analysis of what happened that we wound up with Trump as president.  Yes, there were flaws in Clinton's campaign;   the relentless and effective demonization of Clinton for over 20 years took its toll;   and each new "revelation," whether from the FBI director or a right-wing Twitter tirade, added to that toll.

But two major factors have not gotten their due in the post-election analysis.   First, trying to win a third White House term in the same party is always an uphill climb;   it is major structural factor in some experts' prediction models.   Second is what Charles Sykes emphasizes in the latter part of his Op-Ed:  the sharp polarization and the vehemence of the tribal loyalty that has developed.   Many many thinking voters convinced themselves that nothing was quite as important as control of the Supreme Court.

I like to think that I would not have voted for Trump, even to achieve that.   But I did proclaim from the beginning that the single most important factor in this election is the Supreme Court.   From a liberal perspective, of course.    But it's not so hard for me to see why serious Republicans would feel that way too.   Viewed in this mirror, a conservative's vote for the Republican candidate, even if it was Donald Trump, does not seem quite as outrageous as it does when we only consider Trump, himself.   That's not very reassuring against a chaotic and dangerous presidency.   But it is not as much of a stretch as it once seemed

Ralph

Getting Merrick Garland confirmed on January 3rd.

It's not going to happen, but . . . 

Daily Kos is circulating a petition to urge Vice President Joe Biden and the Democrats to try this one way of getting Judge Merrick Garland approved by a Senate vote to sit on the Supreme Court.   Here is the text of their explanation and the petition:

*   *   *

Senate Republicans refused to give President Obama’s pick to replace Supreme Court Justice Scalia even the courtesy of a hearing. It was disrespectful, and historically unprecedented. But there is still something we can do to get Merrick Garland confirmed before Obama leaves office.

At 12:00 noon on January 3, 2017 (according to the Constitution), the terms of 34 U.S. Senators will expire. At that point, the Senate will briefly consist of 66 sitting senators—until Vice President Joe Biden, in his capacity as Senate president, begins swearing in the senators-elect.

Before Biden begins the proceedings, he has a chance to preside over a Senate that consists of 34 Democrats, 2 independents who caucus with Democrats and 30 Republicans—as the remaining Senators are in limbo of being newly sworn in. At this point, Democrats could ask to finish Senate business as it pertains to President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland.

For the past year, Republicans have claimed that the "American people" should decide the fate of that Supreme Court seat. Hillary Clinton got 2.7 million more votes than Donald Trump, and more Americans voted Democratic in the U.S. Senate races. Democrats are entirely justified to make this move, and it's the only way to guarantee that Garland will be confirmed.

Senate Democrats pulling off this move must be willing to proceed over the very loud, but still out-of-order objections from Republicans. That’s to say nothing of the Republican sore feelings that would come from Democrats winning the right to fill the SCOTUS seat the entire nation knew belonged to President Obama. But it's the right thing to do.

Now is the time. Sign the petition to Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Democrats: confirm Judge Merrick Garland on January 3rd.

Petitioning
Vice President Biden and Senate Democrats
Sponsored by Daily Kos

Our Message to Vice President Biden and Senate Democrats :

Senate Republicans pulled a historically unprecedented stunt to simply deny Merrick Garland a hearing for the past year. On January 3rd, while the Senate is temporarily in Democratic hands, please vote to confirm Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Are we closer to peace -- anywhere in the world -- than we were this time last year? And next year??

Today is not the day for politics.   Let's try peace.   Last December 25th, I wrote about the "Christmas Truce" of 1914.   Its worth repeating this year, because 2016 did not bring us any closer;  nor is Christmas 2017 likely to find us there either.   Here's the story:

*   *   *

'Last year, on the 100th anniversary of the "Christmas Truce of 1914," Time magazine published a story about that World War I pause in fighting.   Reflecting on the state of the world today, one wonders if such a thing could happen now.

'From Time magazne, Dec. 24, 2014: "Silent Night: The Story of the World War I Christmas Truce of 1914," by Naina Baiekal: 

"On a crisp, clear morning 100 years ago, thousands of British, Belgian and French soldiers put down their rifles, stepped out of their trenches and spent Christmas mingling with their German enemies along the Western front. In the hundred years since, the event has been seen as a kind of miracle, a rare moment of peace just a few months into a war that would eventually claim over 15 million lives. . . ."

'The idea had been suggested by the pope, but it was officially rejected by the commanders.   Yet, somehow, the troops themselves initiated the truce on their own. 

"To this day historians continue to disagree over the specifics: no one knows where it began or how it spread . . . .  [S]ome two-thirds of troops — about 100,000 people — are believed to have participated in the legendary truce. 

"Most accounts suggest the truce began with carol singing [by German soldiers] from the trenches on Christmas Eve . . . .  The next morning . . . .  allied soldiers came out warily to greet them. . . .  Over the course of the day, troops exchanged gifts of cigarettes, food, buttons and hats. The Christmas truce also allowed both sides to finally bury their dead comrades, whose bodies had lain for weeks on 'no man’s land,' the ground between opposing trenches. . . . 

"And of course, it was only ever a truce, not peace. Hostilities returned . . . . for many at the time, the story of the Christmas truce was not an example of chivalry in the depths of war, but rather a tale of subversion: when the men on the ground decided they were not fighting the same war as their superiors. . . .  Indeed, one British soldier, speaking in 1930, said:  '. . . if we had been left to ourselves, there would never have been another shot fired."

*     *     *

'This 1914 story reminds me of the poetry of Wilfred Owen, the British poet who was killed in battle in France one week before the 1918 armistice.   Unlike poets who glorified the heroes, Owen wrote of "the pity of war" and the tragedy of such human loss.  His poetry was immortalized in Benjamin Britten's "War Requiem," one of the most poignant arias being a duet between tenor and baritone soloists, representing a British and a German soldier who meet in the afterlife and sing, together, of their battle, ending with:  "I am the enemy you killed, my friend. . . ."   And then the consoling, beatific line that is repeated, again and again, shifting back and forth between tenor and baritone:  "Let us sleep now . . . let us sleep now."

'This Christmas Truce occurred in 1914, before the United States entered the war;   so we were not part of that Christmas Truce.   War today, 100 years later, is very different.    It's unlikely such a thing could happen at the ground level.    But let us take heart.    It has mostly been flying under the news radar, but high level talks are being held now about a cease fire in Syria.

'It's too complex a geopolitical situation for the simplistic answers being brayed about by Republican candidates, any of whom would only make a terrible situation even worse with their febrile apocalypticism, to use Josh Marshall's felicitous phrase.

With a heavy heart lacking much optimism, my Christmas wish this year would be for a lasting truce and, eventually, peace.'

Ralph
Dec. 25, 2015

Not even president yet, and Trump already creates chaos with calls for a nuclear arms race

TRUMP:   The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes. . . .  Let it be an arms race.  We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”

The first sentence is a twitter message Trump sent out a few hours after Russia's Putin had put out a similar call to strengthen his nation’s nuclear arsenal.   The two messages could have both been simply posturing -- or even a joint effort to establish Russia and the U.S. as the two strong nuclear partners in keeping the world in order.   Or uniting to intimidate China.  Who knows?   

Obviously, Trump's staff doesn't know what he means.   His new Press Secretary Sean Spicer tried to walk it back, saying "there is not going to be an arms race."   But Trump contradicted him, calling in to the same TV show (Morning Joe) to say:  "Let it be an arms race.   We will outmatch them . . . and outlast them all."

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore) is not amused.  In fact, he told MSNBC's Chris Hayes:  “We have an incoming president who has kind of the maturity of a five-year-old, wrapped by a massive ego.   And to have that just a second away from a nuclear trigger is very, very scary.”

It's not only that his comments stir fears about an arms race, even more fundamental than that is the fact that he's obviously making these pronouncements without any input from his advisers, and there is no indication that he even appreciates the impact of such statements.

Trump does not seem to understand the difference between a negotiating position in a business deal and the hair-trigger dangers of international conflicts that can inadvertently set off a war, scuttle a delicate treaty, or change the balance of world power.    In addition to those perils, there is the risk that rogue terrorist groups would take advantage of such an uncertainty to multiply the chaos and destruction.

That is not a world that should be ruled by a 5 year old mentality.

Sent out to try to undo the damage, Kellyanne Conway and Sean Spicer tried to explain that he didn't mean what he had said.   Frankly, I don't think Trump knows the difference.

Try to make sense of this exchange between Conway and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC:

*   *   *

"MADDOW:  Honestly, though, the American position on nuclear weapons worldwide for a very long time now . . . has been that we are trying to lead the way in reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world.  He’s saying we’re going to expand our nuclear capability.  

"CONWAY:  He’s not necessarily saying that.  

"MADDOW:  He did. He did literally say we need to expand our nuclear capability."

"CONWAY:  What he’s saying is we need to expand our nuclear capability, really our nuclear readiness or our capability to be ready for those who also have nuclear weapons."

*   *   *

But here is what Trump actually said:  "No, I really meant I am fine with more nukes. . . .  Let it be an arms race.  We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all."

And Sean Spice said this to Matt Lauer:  "But there’s not going to be [an arms race] because he is going to ensure other countries get the message he is not going to sit back and allow that. What’s going to happen is they will all come to their sense and we will all be just fine."

Political analyst for Huffington Post, Sam Stein, wrote this:

*   *   *

"There is such a thing as strategic ambiguity ― the concept that you benefit when your adversaries have to guess at your intentions. Trump certainly seems drawn to this concept. He chastised President Barack Obama repeatedly for being too forthcoming about his counter-terrorism strategies. He’s also moved quickly to shake up decades of U.S. policy to China without outlining a coherent replacement plan.

"But the downside of strategic ambiguity is that it can facilitate some unexpected, unwanted results. And in this case, that might include marching the world closer to a nuclear confrontation."

*   *   *

Whatever Trump means, or whether he even knows what he means, this is already getting too dangerous for comfort.   Does Trump also think it's a good thing for his own citizens to be scared of what he will do?    If so, then he is succeeding.

Ralph

Newt's retraction: "I made a big boo boo."

Well, in a Thursday afternoon breaking news story,  Newt seems to have gotten what he wanted:  Trump's attention.  By saying that "draining the swamp" was no longer an operative phrase in the Trump campaign, Newt was jumping up and down, pleading "I'm still here!   Remember me?"    But it didn't go well.

This was a little too close to telling the truth and exposing the lies of the Trump campaign.   So Trump did what he does best (and worst).   He sent out a tweet.

     @realTrump:   "Someone incorrectly stated that the phrase 'DRAIN THE SWAMP' was no longer being used by me.   Actually, we will always be trying to DTS."

OUCH !    That "someone" must have really hurt.   Poor Newt no longer even has a name in Trump world.   He quickly retracted, calling it "a big boo boo."    How embarrassing to offer to be the president's brain and then, rather than getting the gig, to fall further from favor.

Not that Newt is wrong about draining the swamp.    The cabinet choices look more like restocking the swamp with bigger critters, not draining it.  But Newt is singing from the wrong hymn book.    Because he's no longer an insider, if he ever was.

Ralph

New York City's Muslim surveillance program yielded exactly zero leads over five years

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) spoke with the President-elect, encouraging him to go forward with the Muslim surveillance program that Trump talked about during the campaign.    King is touting, as a model for a federal program, the one that began after 9/11  in New York under  Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and ran for five years.   

King was dismissive of arguments that it might be unconstitutional, saying "we can't worry about "political correctness."  Instead, King said, the NY program was highly effective in stopping terrorism.

But that is simply not true.   The Associated Press produced a series of Pulitzer-Prize winning reports on the Muslim surveillance program in 2011.   The New York Police Department had to acknowledge in a court hearing that the program had not produced a single lead that uncovered any terrorist activity.

A separate report from the City University of New York's Law School found that the program created "a pervasive climate of fear and suspicion, encroaching upon every aspect of [Muslims’] individual and community life.”    They also found that the program “severed the trust that should exist between the police department and the communities it is charged with protecting.”

New York City has been sued over the program both by the American Civil Liberties Union and by the Muslim Advocates and the Center for Constitutional Rights.  The settlement of one of the cases is still not completed.  However, the two basic questions have been settled -- whether such surveillance programs work (No) and whether they are permissible under the law (No).

Rep. King is just behind the times or, like so many of his colleagues, refusing to accept the truth.   It's like torture:  even with proof that it doesn't work and that it is not permissible, their fear demands it anyway.   In a rational world, that is not sufficient reason.

Ralph
(Based on Christopher Mathias' reporting for the Huffington Post.)

What Trump voters believe. And what now?

Newt Gingrich may not be the best one to say what's going on in Donald Trump's mind at this point.   Since Trump didn't leap at Newt's stated wish to be the great brain of his presidency, Newt hasn't seemed to have any role except as a sort of distant gadfly.

For what it's worth though, Newt decided to make some news himself today by telling NPR that, although Trump campaigned on cleaning up Washington -- "draining the swamp" -- he now says that "was cute" but he doesn't want to use it anymore.

It doesn't take inside information to know that.   Just look at his choices for cabinet positions.   At least three billionaires so far, Goldman Sachs alumni in the top finance positions, the CEO of the largest oil company in the world.   Retired generals galore.    Seems like just putting more alligators in the swamp instead of draining it.

The question is not what Newt thinks or even what Trump says at this point.   Because we know he does not intend to do many of the things he campaigned on.   The question is how soon are the Trump voters going to begin to realize that, once again, they have been duped, played for fools, manipulated by Republicans into voting for people who will act against their own needs and wishes.    In short, how soon will they realize that Donald Trump has been the biggest and best con artist of them all.

Let's start with what the Trump voters have said that they actually believe -- what misinformation they absorbed from the Trump campaign and how detached from reality they really are.  Rachel Maddow recently (MSNBC, 12/9/16) dissected some poll findings from the respected PPP poll, and here's what she found in the polling data that shows what Trump's voters believe:

1.  The stock market under the Obama administration has soared.   The Dow Jones average more than doubled, from 7,949 to 17,19,614.   But 39% of Trump voters think the market went down under Obama.

2.  Unemployment went from 7.8% to 4.6%.   But 67% of Trump voters believe unemployment increased.

3.  By 40% Trump voters believe Trump won the popular vote.   Clinton won it by close to 3 million votes.

4.  As many as 60% of them believe that millions of people voted illegally for Clinton.

5.  This is startling:   29% actually believe that the California vote should not be included in the popular vote total.

Here's Rachel's overall comment:

"I think it shows that even after the election, what Trump voters believe about the world is distinctively different from . . . what is true.  And this is an alternate reality that they are in, -- it is weird enough and specific enough that you can't say it just springs from broader misunderstandings or from a broader ignorance on issues that afflict the country. . . . 

"[T]his is a specific alternate reality that was created by the Trump movement for a political purpose. And it worked for that political purpose. And now as the Trump administration takes shape, they have to know that they are in power thanks to their voter base that has these false beliefs about the country. False beliefs about the country, false beliefs about the economy, false beliefs about the outgoing president, false beliefs about what California is. In terms of what happens next in our country, it seems important to know this incoming president basically created this fantasy life for his supporters."

So what happens now?    Will they realize they have been conned?    Taken advantage of?   And then what?

Ralph

PS:   I'm using "Trump voters" here to signify that particular type that attended his rallies so enthusiastically.   There's another type of voter who may not think highly of Trump but voted for him nevertheless, because we have become so polarized that preventing Hillary Clinton from becoming president took precedent over anything else.    I'll have more to say about these voters in a later post.      The poll stats quoted above, however, were inclusive of all who voted for Trump.

Warrant to examine Clinton's emails not justified

We already had doubts about whether FBI Director James Comey acted properly in announcing that his investigators had stumbled on some previously undetected emails that were sent through the Clintons' private email server.   They had been discovered in the completely unrelated investigation into the sexting scandal of Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of Huma Abedin, who is one of Hillary Clinton's top aides.

Comey's justification was that he had reasons to think that some of the FBI agents were going to leak the information;   so Comey himself sent a formal letter to congressional leaders -- and held a press conference, eleven days before the election.    Republicans of course ran with it portraying it as one more Clinton "scandal" that proves she is dishonest.  They claimed, falsely, that the FBI investigation of Clinton had "been re-opened."

And that was done even before Comey and the FBI knew what was in the emails, because they had not yet gotten a judicial warrant allowing them to examine the contents.     After getting a judge's approval and doing a quick survey of the connections and content, Comey released a second notice saying that they had found nothing new;   apparently the emails were either personal and insignificant or were duplicates of emails previously examined.

As in Comey's earlier statement last June, there was no evidence from which he could make a case for any criminal activity having taken place.

But Hillary Clinton lost the election anyway. 

No one can prove how much this debacle contributed to the surprise loss.    But it was piled on top of the Russian's hacking and Wikileaks' deliberate release of sometimes embarrassing, but neither illegal nor smoking gun evidence of wrong-doing.   All of this only reinforced the cloud of absurd accusations -- from murder of a friend to financial improprieties to running a child trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor -- that her opponents have tried to smear her with for 30 years.   None of it has been substantiated.

Now the application for the warrant has been unsealed.    Some lawyers for the Clinton campaign, but also some law professors, have said that granting this investigation was completely unjustified by the application itself.   No new evidence was presented, no reason for new suspicions that would counter the earlier judgment of the FBI Director and his unanimous staff that they had no case for criminal charges.   All they had were suspicions based on finding some new emails -- between the Secretary of State and her long-time, trusted aide fer cryin' out loud.   What's suspicious about some routine emails between a boss and her aide?

At the most, a few other attorneys have said it's not clear that they did have justification -- citing the tendency to grant such a request when it is a high profile case.   Others, however, have said that it actually violated Sec. Clinton's rights under the Fourth Amendment, which states that search and seizure can only be granted when proof of probable cause of criminal findings has been documented.

Professor Clark Cunningham, who holds the chair in law and ethics at Georgia State University, is one who says the Fourth Amendment was violated.  “The Fourth Amendment requires you to pretty much know that what you’re looking for is there ― not speculation. This is just speculation,” he said.

How can they say they have probable cause, when there is no reason to believe this contains anything other than the same kinds of communications that have already been deemed not to be "probable cause of criminal findings?"    The application fails to show why they thought they had something new and different.    And, especially, there is nothing to justify taking such action so close to the election of the President of the United States -- especially when they FBI was being completely silent about the evidence they were finding that Russia was behind the email hacks into the Democratic Party and the chairman of Clinton's campaign, and that is was known that Putin favored Trump.

We now know that the FBI is not the non-partisan, non-political organization we thought it had become since the days of J. Edgar Hoover.   That in itself is very disturbing.  But this case is pretty blatant interference in our political process not only by the Russian government but also by our own FBI and its Director.

Polling statistician Nate Silver says that “Comey had a large, measurable impact" and that Clinton "would almost certainly be president-elect if the election had been held” the day before Comey's letter.   He bases this on the fact that late-deciding voters in the critical states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania went strongly against her, where she had been leading among those who voted earlier.   But, of course, that does not prove that her lead would not have declined even without Comey's intervention.

This is such a consequential change in our presidency.   It's not only a major change in philosophy of government and a major change in policies, it is also a drastic turn-around in terms of experience and competence in running the apparatus of government.   To think that such a difference could be determined in this way is shocking and frightening -- especially when Clinton's final lead in the popular vote has reached almost 3 million votes.

Ralph