Category Archives: Politics

What other conclusion is there?

Posted on by
Reply

I’d like to believe that we live in a county where “diversity of opinions” is a good thing.  I really would like to believe that.  But I cannot.

With the onset of the Great Recession we saw the origins of the Tea Party movement, ostensibly a group of conservatives who were very concerned about our national debt, the budget deficit and government spending.  They were successful at handcuffing then speaker Paul Ryan from negotiating any progress with progressives in the house.  With a republican majority and speaker, it was all but guaranteed nothing would get done.  Week after week they would appear on the Sunday News shows and express their outrage over government spending!

The problem for the Tea Party now is that they appear to have selective outrage.  When a republican holds the White House, subsidies for farmers is suddenly okay.  The vote for massive tax cuts for the wealthy on the promise that they will pay for themselves with a booming economy.

The problem is twofold.  1)  The promise of the tax cuts paying for themselves was a lie and they knew it, and 2) Republicans suck at math.

Debt and deficits have grown at worse rates under republican leadership since Ronald Reagan introduced his infamous Trickle Down theory.  Tax rates for the ultra wealthy went from 70% down to 39% and with capital gains at 15%, what we’re seeing is the upper tier pays less in percentage (~23%) than their hired help does.

Today they are fully trained in the New Gingrich mold of switching the conversation to “entitlements” as the root cause.  The problem here is, social security isn’t an entitlement.  We paid into that program and are owed the money.

No, the problem is that corporations and the wealthy haven’t been paying their fair share.  70% down to 23%.  Do the math.

But they are the job creators comes the rallying cry from the peanut gallery!  Bullshit.  The lessons of the past 4 decades have told a different story.  They haven’t created living wage jobs.  If anything they have outsourced more.

And now with a Republican holding the White House and record deficits, the Tea Party is conspicuously absent from the conversation about debt and deficits.  In fact, they vote in block to expand the very thing they were reportedly enraged about: big government spending.

I can only draw one conclusion from this: Tea Party Republicans are full of shit.

It’s Time to Shun

Posted on by
Reply

First, I’d like to differentiate between republicans who may have voted for Trump vs. members of the Trump cult.  There is a difference.  That latter group, despite 3 years of hard evidence of corruption, incompetence, racism, misogyny, and lies that are demonstrably false on a daily basis, continue to support him.  It’s Bhagwan-esque.

I have several friends in the first group and we clearly disagree but remain friends.  The Trump cult members however, are beyond any kind of redemption.  Nothing gets through.  He literally could shoot someone on 5th Ave. and they would continue to support him because that’s what cult members do.

The one and only way to deal with cult members is a total shun.  It gave me great pleasure to read about Alan Dershowitz complaining “I can’t go to parties anymore.  Nobody will talk to me!”  Right, Alan.  You’re being shunned.  And it’s well deserved.

This is my strategy moving forward.  I recently unfriended a Trump cultist on Facebook for the offense of being a Trump cultist.  When it comes to social media, for me it’s quality not quantity.  Nothing sends the message better than telling someone to go affiliate with their other cult members and GTFO.

 

 

 

 

 

A lot of hot air

Posted on by
Reply

It wasn’t even a week ago the bloviator in chief promised to die on the hill of $5B for his border wall or shut down the government. Predictably, that was all bullshit. I feel it’s my responsibility to point this out.

With a ballooning deficit because tax receipts are falling short and the Dow Jones down a full 6% since the tax cut for millionaires was enacted, Trump is feeling the heat of the one and only issue he could stand on slipping away: the economy.

Investor psychology is real and at the moment volitility in securities and rising interest rates are driving psychological sentiment negative. And once negative, it takes quite awhile to turn that bus around. And I didn’t even mention the asinine tarrifs that are killing jobs in the auto and farm industries.

Bring on the recession post haste. We’re overdue, so let it happen on Trump’s watch. Let it happen tomorrow. I’m bearish on 2019 and plan to profit off it by betting against companies with high debt who boosted their stock prices in 2018 with stock buy backs fueled by their exorbitant republican tax cut.

An offer he cannot refuse

Posted on by
Reply

Trump is meeting with “Chuck and Nancy” today. The main topic is reportedly to get a deal in the works for funding the border wall. Trump wants $5B unconditionally. Rumor has it that Chuck and Nancy are offering 1.5B in exchange for dealing with the Dreamer’s Act.

Since Trump has zero leverage, I’m thinking Chuck and Nancy should take a page out of The Godfather II when Michael Corleone is “negotiating” with senator Pat Geary over a gaming license in Las Vegas. (Geary wants $250,000 plus a 5% cut from the hotels. The gaming license fee is normally $20,000).

Senator? You can have my offer now if you like. My offer is this: nothing. Not even the fee for the gaming license which I would appreciate if you would put up personally.

Same answer holds true for Kevin McCarthy, Mr. “Benghazi is good for the polls” himself on democrats having restraint on impeachment.

Um, no.

Democrats are 3 weeks away from an impeachment vote. The conversation should go like this:

Mr. President? You can have our answer now if you like. Our offer is this: nothing. Not a red cent for the wall. And we would appreciate your leadership on passing the Dreamers Act by the end of the year.

Midterm footnote

Posted on by
Reply

One of the underreported stories of the week is 15 congressional seats where members had A+ ratings with the NRA were replaced with members with an F rating. I give some credit to Parkland survivor David Hogg for this. Parkland…. Parkland…. Oh right. The was 6 mass shootings ago I almost forgot.

Hogg has been relentless on Twitter with his anti NRA / “young people will win” message, taking on people in positions of power like Dana Loesch and vitriol spewing Fox News anchor Laura Ingraham Angle, whose show is barely afloat since Hogg’s efforts to boycott her advertisers have been largely successful. 24 advertisers have left so far.

Hogg, along with fellow Stoneman Douglas classmates, were organizers of the March for our Lives which drew 1.2 million protesters.

Most conservatives read as far as “gun measures” and make the leap that it’s an article about some left wing loon who wants to confiscate all guns, so let’s be clear about who David Hogg is.

The fact is he’s a strong supporter of the second amendment. His father is a federal agent and carries. His official positions include strong support for the right to bear arms, but with some common sense restrictions. Background checks, banning bump stocks, raising the minimum age to 21, prohibitions on people with mental illness, a criminal history and domestic violence. All very reasonable suggestions, worthy of public discussion but the mear mention of any gun law changes somehow causes the NRA to start the tyranny messaging.

Indeed we did see a spike in the 18-25 voting block. Many of those races changed hands by close margins 51/49. All I can say is, thank you David Hogg.

Those God Damned Republicans

Posted on by
Reply

The main mentor of my adulthood was clearly David Aldrich, a Berkley grad who majored in history and philosophy.  An activist, and writer like no other.  Dave passed away a year ago but you can still read his extensive blog at http://davald.wordpress.com 

One of my favorite stories from Dave was when he talked about his father.  I played some golf with Dave and his dad up in Everett, Washington many moons ago.  His dad was a character indeed.

Dave, like myself, grew up in a traditional Catholic family home with reasonably progressive values.   The senior Aldrich was a union member and strong advocate of democratic principles.

One of Dave’s strongest memories of his father were times when his dad was watching the news or reading the paper, decipher what they were up to and would just holler out “Those God Damned Republicans.”

That’s exactly how I feel most days.

 

 

Smoot-Hawley

Posted on by
Reply

I’m always struck by when conservatives decide to come forward and warn about Trump’s next shoot from the hip plan.  Today, Americans for Tax Reform leader Grover Norquist proffered this tweet:

@GroverNorquist  In 1930, 1028 American economists signed a statement against the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. It passed. Trade war started. Depression followed. The statement was printed in the Congressional Record with 1028 economists signatures below.

What’s interesting to me about this is that it’s further evidence that Trump is simply “winging it” when it comes to economic and foreign policy.  He has no thought out plan, just impressions from watching too much television over the years.  “We’re getting ripped off” is the over-simplified theme that seems to be coming from the White House.

Several key Republicans disagree including Speaker Ryan and Senate Majority leader McConnell.  That’s the difference between being smart enough to understand that an issue is complex verses someone like Trump who thinks every issue is easy and can be painted as black and white.

Are there enough Senators to stand up to the anointed one?  I doubt it.  Fasten your seat-belts it’s going to be a rough ride.

Smoot-Hawley From Wikipedia:

The Act and following retaliatory tariffs by America’s trading partners were major factors of the reduction of American exports and imports by more than half during the Depression.  Although economists disagree by how much, the consensus view among economists and economic historians is that “The passage of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff exacerbated the Great Depression.

From the link above:

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 Significantly raised import re-strictions, reduced trade and prosperity, provoked protectionist retaliation by for- eign governments, and damaged the spirit of peace, cooperation, and goodwill.

Economists mustered a remarkable protest to the bill. The chief author seems to have been Paul H. Douglas. In his memoirs, In the Fullness of Time (Har- court Brace Jovanovich, 1972, 71), Douglas wrote:

The six months at Swarthmore were crowded with activity. With Clair Wilcox I drafted an appeal to President Herbert Hoover urging him to veto the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which raised duties to their highest levels. In this we pointed out how the increase in duties on imports decreased the ability of other countries to buy goods from us. Also, it would provoke them to retaliatory tariffs. No fewer than 1,028 economists signed the appeal, and I think poor Hoover wanted to take our advice. His party was so strongly committed to protection, however, that he felt compelled to sign the bill, with the result that all our predictions came true. The Depression deepened and the Western democracies fell apart. Our letter did make it somewhat easier for Congress later to pass Cordell Hull’s reciprocal-trade bill, and thus helped to lead the way to a reversal of our trade policy.

The text below is in the Congressional Record, signed by 1028 economists.  I’ve highlighted a few key statements in bold.

The undersigned American economists and teachers of economics strongly urge that any measure which provides for a general upward revision of tariff rates be denied passage by Congress, or if passed, be vetoed by the President.

We are convinced that increased protective duties would be a mistake. They would operate, in general, to increase the prices which domestic consumers would have to pay. By raising prices they would encourage concerns with higher costs to undertake production, thus compelling the consumer to subsidize waste and inef- ciency in industry. At the same time they would force him to pay higher rates of profit to established firms which enjoyed lower production costs. A higher level of protection, such as is contemplated by both the House and Senate bills, would therefore raise the cost of living and injure the great majority of our citizens.

Few people could hope to gain from such a change. Miners, construction, transportation and public utility workers, professional people and those employed in banks, hotels, newspaper offices, in the wholesale and retail trades, and scores of other occupations would clearly lose, since they produce no products which could be protected by tariff barriers.

The vast majority of farmers, also, would lose. Their cotton, corn, lard, and wheat are export crops and are sold in the world market. They have no important competition in the home market. They can not benefit, therefore, from any tariff which is imposed upon the basic commodities which they produce. They would lose through the increased duties on manufactured goods, however, and in a double fashion. First, as consumers they would have to pay still higher prices for the products, made of textiles, chemicals, iron, and steel, which they buy.

Second, as producers, their ability to sell their products would be further restricted by the barriers placed in the way of foreigners who wished to sell manufactured goods to us. Our export trade, in general, would suffer. Countries can not permanently buy from us unless they are permitted to sell to us, and the more we restrict the importation of goods from them by means of ever higher tariffs the more we reduce the possibility of our exporting to them. This applies to such exporting industries as copper, automobiles, agricultural machinery, typewriters, and the like fully as much as it does to farming. The dif culties of these industries are likely to be increased still further if we pass a higher tariff. There are already many evidences that such action would inevitably provoke other countries to pay us back in kind by levying retaliatory duties against our goods. There are few more ironical spectacles than that of the American Government as it seeks, on the one hand, to promote exports through the activity of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, while, on the other hand, by increasing tariffs it makes exportation ever more dif cult. President Hoover has well said, in his message to Congress on April 16, 1929, “It is obviously unwise protection which sacri ces a greater amount of employment in exports to gain a less amount of employment from imports.

We do not believe that American manufacturers, in general, need higher tariffs. The report of the President’s committee on recent economics changes has shown that industrial ef ciency has increased, that costs have fallen, that pro ts have grown with amazing rapidity since the end of the war. Already our factories supply our people with over 96 percent of the manufactured goods which they consume, and our producers look to foreign markets to absorb the increasing out- put of their machines. Further barriers to trade will serve them not well, but ill.

Many of our citizens have invested their money in foreign enterprises. The Department of Commerce has estimated that such investments, entirely aside from the war debts, amounted to between $12,555,000,000 and $14,555,000,000 on January 1, 1929. These investors, too, would suffer if protective duties were to be increased, since such action would make it still more dif cult for their foreign creditors to pay them the interest due them.

America is now facing the problem of unemployment. Her labor can and work only if her factories can sell their products. Higher tariffs would not promote such sales. We can not increase employment by restricting trade. American industry, in the present crisis, might well be spared the burden of adjusting itself to new schedules of protective duties.

Finally, we would urge our Government to consider the bitterness which a policy of higher tariffs would inevitably inject into our international relations. The United States was ably represented at the World Economic Conference which was held under the auspices of the League of Nations in 1927. This conference adopted a resolution announcing that “the time has come to put an end to the in- crease in tariffs and move in the opposite direction.” The higher duties proposed in our pending legislation violate the spirit of this agreement and plainly invite other nations to compete with us in raising further barriers to trade. A tariff war does not furnish good soil for the growth of world peace.