Our impulsive Imp in Chief

Sometimes he does act more like an imp than a commander.   A couple of days ago, writing about the Republicans passing their tax cut scam, I wrote that there was discussion of having the president wait until January to sign the tax bill.

Here's why that might be a good idea (for them).   If he signs it in December, it immediately triggers a requirement to cut spending to offset the decrease in revenue.   If he waits until January, that requirement does not trigger until January of 2019, which gives the Republicans an extra 12 months to figure out how to do it with less devastating effects.

Unsaid, but probably the main factor behind Republican closed doors:   politics.   If he signs it now, what little temporary tax cuts the middle income people will get, will be overshadowed by all the news of popular spending programs being slashed -- right in the middle of the midterm elections, when every member of the House is up for re-election and a number of senators as well.

However, if he waited just 10 days, it would be 2018 and they could maybe slide through the election cycle on "tax cuts" without those annoying cuts to popular programs until 2019.

So what does Donald Trump do?    Here's how he described it himself.   "You know I was listening to the news this morning, and they were saying:   'I wonder if he'll keep his promise to sign a tax cut bill by Christmas.'    So I said to myself, 'I have to keep my promise.   And I called downstairs and told them to get the bill ready.  I have to sign it now."

And that's exactly what he did.

Never mind what all his advisers might have told him.  Never mind the formal signing ceremony planned for when Congress is back in town.  Never mind what Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan might think.  The little imp has to have his way.  And his way is what will make him popular on Fox News.

Of course, as a Democrat, this does not distress me -- at least not as far as the political problem he may have caused for his party.    Let them lose every seat, and I'll cheer like crazy.

But what it says about the president's lack of capacity to consider more than one factor at the time, no matter how weighty the issue -- that scares the bejeebers out of me.

Ralph

U.N. rebukes Trump for Jerusalem move

President Trump, as we well know by now, announced the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and said we would begin preparations to move our embassy there.   This set off worldwide outrage, even among our allies.

Then it was brought up at the United Nations Security Council, where every other member of that body voted against the U.S. position.   Because of the peculiar set-up of that body, any of the five permanent members can veto a resolution.   And that's what the U.S. ambassador Nikki Haley did -- killed the otherwise unanimous opposition to our position with a veto.

The General Assembly of all U.N. member nations then took up a resolution to condemn the U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.  Without the possibility of a veto in the General Assembly, the non-binding resolution to condemn was approved by a vote of 128 to 9.   Voting for it -- condemning our resolution -- were our allies the United Kingdom and France.   Thirty-five countries abstained, including the U.S., Canada, and Australia.

Trump's argument that he is merely recognizing the reality -- that Jerusalem is in effect actually the capital -- is absurd.   Yes, there is some practical truth in that, but that's not the point.

It is powerfully symbolic, as well as almost unanimously agreed, that the status of Jerusalem would be part of the peace process negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, the idea being that Jerusalem would be the capital of both -- with Israel having control of West Jerusalem and Palestine control of East Jerusalem.

Trump, in effect, made a preemptive strike that probably destroyed any chance of a peace process going forward, at least as long as he is president.   The Palestinians promptly said that they would no longer talk with the U.S. concerning peace negotiations.   They no longer consider us an honest broker.

With Trump as president, they are correct.    Who controls Jerusalem is not just about Jerusalem.   Saying that it is Israel's capital, period, is like dealing Israel all the aces in the deck, when they already hold the winning hand.  Taking an even-handed position about the capital would be an indicator that we would look out for Palestinians' interests and not just Israelis' interests.

Trump did the opposite.

Ralph

Tax bill passed and sent to Trump

Republicans finally approved their massive scam of a tax code revision that transfers wealth from the middle in order to give tax cuts to corporations and to the very wealthy.   They had to detour the bill back to the House to vote again on several things that had to be changed because they violated Senate rules for what can be in a tax bill.   Supposedly now it passes the parliamentarian's scrutiny -- even if it does not meet the smell test of the American people.

Here's some of what it does, as reported by the Washington Post:

1.  Permanently cuts the corporate tax from 35% to 21%.

2.  Temporarily cuts individual household taxes by token amounts which will expire in seven years.  After that a large part of the middle class would then be paying more.   [Does that sound like "bait and switch" to you, too?]    A Republican suggestion that future Congresses can fix that rings rather hollow.

3  Trump could sign the bill now, but they're considering waiting until January, which would avoid triggering the "pay-as-you-go" law that requires spending cuts to Medicare and other programs if the bill adds to the deficit.  [Which it will to the tune of over $1 trillion, according to multiple tax analysts.]   Signing it in January will give more time to gather support for a waiver to the spending cuts requirement.

4.  Republicans are defiant in insisting that the tax cuts will lead to increased growth and thus more tax revenue -- despite nearly universal estimates from non-partisan economic analysts that it will not happen.

5.  They also insist that businesses will put the money saved in taxes into hiring more workers and into higher wages.   They also claim that lower corporate taxes will lure many corporations back to the U.S., with greater manufacturing locally and more competition with foreign goods.

     This is despite the fact that, when asked, many CEOs say that they will use the money to buy back stock and to boost shareholder's dividends.  In other words, the savings would go to investors, not workers.  Others do say that they will hire more -- but it is far from a majority who say the latter.

6.  Even if it does stimulate some growth, almost no one -- except the most partisan proponents of the bill -- claims that the deficit will not increase, at least some.  The most respected analytic agencies, like the Tax Policy Center, put that figure at $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion.

7.   The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that, in 2018, taxpayers earning less than $25,000 -- the ones most likely to spend it -- will get a tax cut of $60.   Those earning between $49,000 and $80,000 would get an average cut of about $900.   Those earning more than $733,000 would get an average cut of $51,000.  Over the ten years this covers, that's over half a million dollars saved.

8.  The bill also raises the threshhold for estate taxes, so that a couple can pass on up to $22 million in assets without any taxes.  And it eliminates the alternate minimum tax, which had required rich people to pay some tax, even if loopholes gave them enough exemptions to owe none.

9.  It also eliminates the Individual Mandate on the Affordable Care Act, which is the main incentive to get young and health people to buy health insurance.   The effect is expected to raise premiums, yet again, by at least 10% and thus price more people out of the market, thus destabilizing the exchanges and resulting in another 13 million without insurance.  This of course is the Republicans' motive.   President Trump is already tweeting that he has effectively repealed Obamacare.

10.  Mitch McConnell supposedly promised Sen. Susan Collins that there would be something to offset this -- but then of course it didn't wind up in the final version, because the House wouldn't have approved it.   She voted for it anyway, despite being scammed by her own party.

That's just one example of the side "deals" to gain votes.    They bought Sen. Murkowski's vote by approving drilling for oil in the Arctic tundra -- an unnecessary and devastating environmental destruction.  And then there is the very special deal that benefits real estate developers, like Sen. Bob Corker, who came on board.   Guess what other big real estate developer will personally benefit (by the millions) -- but who claims the opposite, that the bill is going to cost him a ton of money.

Who knows what all else they'll find that did and didn't make it into the bill, when people finally have a chance to read a bill that is this important -- but got passed without a single hearing -- not one single hearing -- not one -- to hear from experts or opponents with points to make.

Here's how MSNBC's Chris Matthews described the bill the Republicans passed:  "The largest transplant of money in the history of the Republic.   Trillions of dollars shoved up to the top, the joint where most of it already sits."

Translation:   It was the billionaire donors that demanded this.   They put out the word:   give us our tax cuts, or no more campaign contributions.

Here's something else these Republicans left town for the holidays without accomplishing -- renewing the CHIP program that provides health care for millions of children whose families fall between Medicaid eligibility and ability to afford private insurance.

If the Democrats can't make use of all this to defeat Republicans in the 2018 elections, then we're doing something very wrong.

Ralph

FBI told Trump that Russia would try to infiltrate campaign. Instead of reporting contacts, team Trump welcomed them.

NBC News has reported that, soon after becoming the Republican nominee in July 2016, Donald Trump was warned by the FBI that foreign adversaries, including Russia, "would likely try to spy on and infiltrate his campaign."    NBC has multiple sources familiar with the matter who have confirmed the facts.

Hillary Clinton received a similar briefing, which was given in the form of a high-level counter-intelligence briefing by senior FBI officials.   They emphasized that this is a standard part of helping to educate presidential candidates and their top aides.    Officials said that the candidates were urged to report any suspicious overtures to the FBI.

Trump's first such briefing was on August 17, 2016.  He was specifically warned at that session about "potential espionage threats from Russia," according to two former officials familiar with the sessions.

A source close to the White House said they are maintaining that at the time Trump was unaware of the contacts between his campaign and the Russians;  and it's unclear whether the warning to Trump was passed on to other campaign officials.

Of course, we know now that by this time there had been multiple contacts, including the infamous meeting in Trump Tower with the Russian lawyer and her entourage, peddling dirt on Clinton.   Sessions had had meetings with the Russian ambassador, and campaign manager Paul Manafort was a two-way train to both Ukraine and Russia.   If Trump hired him as campaign manager and didn't vet him enough to know that, then that alone disqualifies him from being president.

Of course we now know -- and our counterintelligence officials knew at the time of the August briefing -- that there had already been at least seven contacts which our surveillance teams were beginning to monitor.   The fact that Trump did not mention any of these during the briefing must have raised questions in the minds of the briefers, who knew about the meetings that Trump wasn't telling them.

I'm just now remembering, when that first briefing was reported contemporaneously in the media, that Trump was accompanied by Chris Christie and Mike Flynn.  It was reported that Flynn became very testy and demanding in the meeting and that Christie had tried to calm him down.   I remember concluding that Flynn should not be made National Security Adviser.  It all makes sense now.   Flynn already knew he was guilty of colluding and was being defensive.   There is no public evidence that Trump reported any of this to the FBI.    Whether he knew, at that time, is an open question.   But Flynn certainly knew what he had done.

This may not be a smoking gun -- but it is one more piece of a big puzzle that adds to the column of behavior by the Trump campaign consistent with guilty knowledge that they were at least playing with fire -- and perhaps it was far more than that.

At the very least, it shows a lack of curiosity and a lack of concern.    But it could also be explained by the fact that it was not news to them and that they, in fact, welcomed the Russians as "helpers," rather than as adversaries.

Every little bit of additional culpability that comes out now about Trump and his team may convince one more person not to believe the false narratives being proliferated by Fox News and Breitbart and talk radio -- their false claims about the "deep state" establishment, that Mueller is dangerously biased against Trump, and that the whole investigation is the most corrupt witch hunt every propagated against a sitting president.  That's the defensive story they're trying to sell -- so they must know there's a lot of truth they have to try to smother.

I'm willing to let Trump have his blessed superlatives -- let him say that it's the greatest witch hunt ever -- if only we can get rid of him from the office of president and commander-in-chief.

Ralph

Trump credited with "Lie of the Year":

The nonpartisan PolitiFact service that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution uses to check on the factual basis of statements made by politicians and government employees chooses an annual "Lie of the Year."

For 2017 the dubious honor goes to President Donald J. Trump.  In PolitiFact's own words:

"Trump continually asserts that Russia's meddling in the 2016 election is fake news, a hoax or a made-up story, even though there is widespread, bipartisan evidence to the contrary.

"When the nation's commander-in-chief refuses to acknowledge a threat to U.S. democracy, it makes it all the more difficult to address the problem.  For this reason, we name Trump's claim that the Russia interference is a hoax as our Lie of the Year for 2017."

This same presidential lie was also chosen by PolitiFact's readers as their choice for "Lie of the Year."

Trump so badly wanted to be Time magazine Person of the Year.  He even went so far as to tweet out the false info that Time had contacted him to say they wanted to name him, but that he had turned it down because he didn't have time for the photo shoot they required.    A spokesperson for Time said that's not the way they operate, and that the president's statement was false.

Does he not know that we will know that he's lying when he makes up something like that?    Perhaps there's a tiny segment of his base who will believe anything he says.   But they're not enough to re-elect him.   And how long will it take them to notice that, with this tax bill, he has completely abandoned any pretense of populism and being for the working man -- and bringing back the coal jobs.  That was all part of his bunkum con game.

Ralph

PS:   In case you missed it, Time's Persons of the Year choice was the "#MeToo" movement of women coming forward to accuse men who have sexually harassed or abused them.  How ironic that Trump claimed that he was Time's first choice, which would mean their first choice was one of the perpetrators who their second choice was honored for exposing.    You really can't make up this stuff.  It has to be true;  it's too weird for fiction.

"The Real Russia Scandal"-- Bret Stephens

Pool photo by Mikhail Klimentyev

Bret Stephens is a regular op-ed columnist for the New York Times, writing from a conservative point of view.   His latest subject is the curious reversal of Mike Flynn's position on Russia and what that has to do with Donald Trump.

Stephens quotes from a 2016 book co-authored by Michael Flynn and Michael Ledeen, in which they state that "there is no reason to believe that Putin would welcome cooperation with us;  quite the contrary, in fact. . . .  [Russia and Iran are] the two most active and powerful members of the enemy alliance;  and . . . [Putin's deep intention is to] pursue the war against us."

And yet, by the end of 2016, Flynn was Donald Trump's designated National Security Adviser, courting the Russian ambassador with hints of lifting sanctions against Russia after Trump's inauguration.

Stephens suggests two factors to explain this shift:  "some combination of financial motives -- at least $65,000 in payments by Russian-linked companies -- and political ones -- a new master in the person of Donald Trump, who took precisely the same gauzy view of Russia that Flynn had rejected in his book."

But what were Trump's motives?    That is the more important question that has engaged journalists Greg Miller, Greg Jaffe, and Phillip Rucker of the Washington Post, who give "a stunning description of the president's curious uncuriousness" about the Russians' interference in our election.   They follow this with "a catalog of all the many ways [Trump] sought to appease the Russian dictator.

Stephens postulate five possible explanations for Trump's attitude toward Russia and Putin:
1.  He is infatuated with authoritarians,  at least those who flatter him;  and Putin knows exactly how to do it.
2.  He is neurotically obsessed with proving that he actually won the election on his own.
3.  He is ideologically sympathetic to Putinism.
4.  He's stupid.
5.  He's vulnerable to Russian blackmail.

Stephens concludes:   "each explanation is compatible with all the others.  For my part, I choose all of the above -- the first four parts being demonstrable while the last is logical.   But let's have that conversation at another time.   There's no need to obsess about electoral collusion when the real issue is moral capitulation."

*     *     *     *     *

And I would add that all five are compatible with what we are seeing now in the Republicans' frenzy to discredit Bob Mueller and his investigation -- which is a sure sign that the noose is tightening around the president -- and they are afraid they will be forced to act to impeach him.    Or else, go down in an even more ignominious defeat in November 2018 than they are already set for.

Of course, their immediate purpose is to shut down the investigations before Flynn can spill all the dirt on Trump.   But, folks, Flynn has already talked.  Mueller is no fool.   He already knows what Flynn knows.

Yes, there will be more.   But he's also already spent two days interviewing Hope Hicks, Trump's closest and most trusted aide.   And Priebus, Spicer, McGahn, and Kushner.

We thought that the books and tv specials and movies about the Richard Nixon scandal were great drama.   Trump may get his wish to be the "greatest" at something.   How about "the greatest fall from power?"

Ralph

PS:   Look at that photo again -- the gleam in Putin's eye.   I don't think that's a flash of admiration.   To me, it's a look of triumph that says:   "You just fell into my trap.  I own you, you stupid fool!"

Semi-correction: re CDC's "no no words"

Regarding the post below about the CDC being told by the HHS not to use certain words in their budget requests, a former federal official suggested that it was not a ban on using the words in scientific publications.   Rather it was more like a recommended strategy to get funding requests accepted.   Whether the reference was to officials at the Department of Health and Human Services, which controls the CDC budget, or to Congress who would decide on the budget -- was not clear.

Whichever, it is a sad commentary about the Luddites in charge of our government.

Gag order on the CDC -- "7 no-no words"

The Washington Post reports that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has, for the first time in anyone's memory, issued a list of words and phrases that the Trump administration has prohibited from use in any official documents that will be used in preparing next years budget requests.

Here is the forbidden list:  "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," transgender," "fetus," "evidence-based," and "science-based."

In some cases, alternatives were suggested.   For example, instead of "science-based," they suggest:  "CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes."  That last phrase is code for the creationists, "religious freedom" (aka freedom to discriminate) proponents, anti-vaccine zealots, and other dubious ideas that reflect religious belief or junk science.

One person attending the presentation said the reaction in the room was "incredulous," . . . "are you kidding?"    The presenter informed them that she was merely "relaying the message."

In the first place, there was no mention of the issues that have actually caused the most trouble during the Trump administration's first year:  sexual orientation, gender identify, and abortion rights.   And how will they ask for funds for continued research into birth defects caused by the Zika virus without using the word "fetus"?

The CDC is part of the Department of Health and Human Services;  and this attitude seems to come at least from that level, given that the HHS website has removed any references to gay, lesbian, and transgender -- for example, no longer collecting statistics on numbers of LGBT individuals, nor providing information about services available to help prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and related diseases among individuals and their families.

The massive CDC programs have a budget of about $7 billion and more than 12,000 employees working across the nation and around the world on issues like food and water safety, heart disease and cancer, and infectious disease outbreak prevention.   Usually it has strong bipartisan support, although there was a politically motivated ban, during the Bush II administration, against any research on gun violence as a public health problem.

But even that pales in comparison to this word censorship.   Maybe the CDC/ HHS folks are the good guys who know there are some right-wing kooks in Congress that would torpedo their budget if the wrong words set them off.

But what kind of world have we become when our elected lawmakers can't be told that some recommendation is "based on scientific evidence?"

We progressives like to point to the lack of any major legislation passed by the Trump administration as a measure of its failure.   We're fooling ourselves that they are ineffective.    They are accomplishing a quiet but major upheaval in what they are undoing and destroying.

Ralph