A Clear & Present Danger

If you aren't convinced by now that Donald Trump is a danger to our democracy and its continued functioning as a constitutional republic, you just aren't paying attention. Hell, you haven't been paying attention since he declared his intention to run for president in 2016. His questionable (at best) declaration of a national emergency in order to deliver on a campaign promise that was never anything more than an applause line at his rallies is only the latest and most egregious abuse of presidential power. His autocratic tendencies have been on full display since very early on. This is, in part, the problem with electing the head of a privately-owned business.

Periodically we hear how our elected officials should run the government like a business. If you don't think about it too closely, this sounds good, fiscal discipline and all that. But the government isn't a business. The prime duty of a business is to turn as much of a profit as possible for its shareholders. That's not what a government is supposed to do. And even though we voters sometimes get seduced by talk of balanced budgets and efficiency, when push comes to shove we don't want cuts to the things that benefit us. One of the positions advocated by the government-as-a-business party is eliminating regulations, because, they say, regulations constrain businesses and cost them money. Currently, a major US railroad is attempting to cut labor costs by reducing the number of workers on their trains. The union is pushing a regulation that mandates a minimum number, for safety reasons. Obviously this regulation will cost the railroad money, but I'd bet real money that the union members advocating for this regulation voted for Trump. Many right wing/conservative voters loathe the IRS and support the continual cutting of the agency's budget under Republican Congresses, yet complain when they are placed on hold for an hour or can't get their questions answered. Populism is only a good thing when it targets "the other".

When the businessman-politician is the head of a privately-owned corporation, the problems multiply. The president of a family-owned or other non-public company answers to no one. There are no shareholders, there is no board of directors. There is no check on the CEO's impulses. Donald Trump, once his father died, never had to justify his decisions, never had anyone who could overrule him. The head of an organization like the Trump Organization is, in effect, a mini-dictator. As much as Trump (and other business heads) liked to deride the "swamp", someone with government or military experience knows that the president isn't all-powerful. A governor already has experience having her programs frustrated by a legislature and familiar with compromising in order to get things done. A Senator has a background working within a legislature, as well as exposure to foreign policy.

In addition to the authoritarian mindset that is part & parcel of being the head of a private organization, Donald Trump's family built much of their wealth on illegal activities, including tax evasion. There is a history of doing whatever it takes to make a buck or two or a million. Lying to the New Jersey gambling commission, stiffing contractors and shameless self-promotion all add to the noxious stew.

Donald Trump is incompetent, Donald Trump is ignorant. But he thinks that he is the smartest and most competent person in the room, indeed in the whole country. He has never had anyone dare to stand against him, or even so much as contradict him, so naturally he rejects expert advice and ignore any information that doesn't support his opinion of how things ought to be. It's why, despite his own government supporting the opposite of his assertion that we have a crisis at the border, he maintains this fantasy.

We have a president who is ignorant of how government works, how the US economy works, how tariffs work, about the role of the military, how international alliances work, about the separation of powers. He is incompetent at diplomacy, and deal-making, at leadership in general. He is unwilling to listen to anyone who disagrees with him, indeed he demonizes those who disagree with him and attacks them as enemies. He concocts "facts" and "stats" to shore up his paranoid fantasies. He is incredibly thin-skinned with a hair-trigger temper.

How is this not the real national emergency?

Did Your Taxes Go Up?

As much as I enjoy hearing Trump supporters enraged that their taxes went up under the new tax laws, most of the time the people complaining have no idea whether or not their taxes actually went up or down; all they know is how their refund changed. Looking at the size of a tax refund as a yardstick to determine what your taxes were is flawed - it's one indicator, and can be a good one if absolutely nothing changed, but there's more to it.

First of all, the money you get back after filing your taxes is a refund, it's not a return. Your tax return is the form you fill out every year: a 1040, or a 1040A or 1040EZ. But that's only the tip of the misunderstanding iceberg. A refund represents the difference between what the tax on your income (technically your taxable income) was and what you paid in during the year, either via payroll withholding or estimated payments. If you receive a refund you have let the government take more than what they were entitled by law to take; in affect, an interest-free loan. Personally I'd much rather have an extra $100 after taxes in my pocket every month than receive a $1200 refund, however I do understand that, for some people, money management is easier if they don't have that cash available every month. It gives the illusion that you're getting some kind of bonus, but it's only an illusion!

In previous years, if your income remained somewhat stable and you had the same number of personal exemptions, a refund could be a fairly accurate way to gauge whether you were better off or worse, however this year was the first year of the new tax laws. The brackets changed, the rates changed,the standard deduction went up, personal exemptions went away, withholding amounts changed, not to mention changes in what could be deducted. The only way to know for sure if your actual tax burden increased was to look at the line that tells you what your tax was. (The line number varies depending on what form you use) You then have to do some work. If your circumstances are identical to 2017 you can just look at the "your tax" line from last year. If there were some changes, you might have to plug this year's income into last year's tax form and see what the difference is.

For example, I don't get a refund, since I have a small business where I don't pay taxes up front. This year I have to write a check for about $200 more than I did last year. Did my taxes go up? Not so fast! My income was higher than last year, my withholding was lower, plus all the tax changes. What I did was take a 2017 1040 and enter all my 2018 information, then compare my 2018 figures under the old and the new laws. As it turned out, under the new law my tax liability was about $300 less than what it would have been under the old law. If all I had done was look at the check that I had to write, I'd have assumed that I had gotten screwed by the new law.

Was I surprised? Not at all, since all the information that I needed to estimate how my taxes would change under the new law was available last year: tax rates, brackets, etc. Anyone could have done the math and come pretty close in estimating how the changes would affect them, especially for people with relatively simple finances.

I think fewer people came out worse off under the new law than think that they did.

Ralph Northam

By now you've heard about the Democratic Governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam, and the fine mess that he's gotten himself into.

It started when a picture from his Eastern Virginia Medical School Yearbook surfaced, with a picture on his yearbook page showing one person in blackface and another in a KKK robe and hood. Initially it was not known which of the two individuals was Northam. First Northam said that one of them was him, but couldn't recall which one. Then he changed his story to say that neither was him, he didn't know how that picture got on his page, and by the way, he had once worn blackface in a Michael Jackson dance contest.

There are so many questions, so few coherent answers and Northam is backpedaling so hard that his bicycle is beyond repair.

I think that it's beyond dispute that wearing a KKK robe and hood, unless you're an actor in a movie, is inherently racist. I don't care if it was a "different time", or you didn't know it was racist, or it "was just a joke" or your one black friend supposedly wasn't offended, it's fucking racist! No matter how much you may have changed, or how much you now love black people, at least at that time, in that place, you were a racist.

I'm not sure about blackface. I don't quite get the racism inherent in it. But I don't have to understand it, every black person who I have seen give their opinion on it says that they think it's racist, so that's good enough for me.

The big question for me is whether an attitude that one had in the past (racism, misogyny, homophobia) that one no longer holds, should be held against them now. I'm not saying that any of these attitudes and mindsets should be excused as youthful indiscretions or that "it was a different time". But I wonder whether we should take into account whether someone has truly changed, or if the past will always be with us. For one period in my life, in my words and actions I was a homophobe. I bought into a doctrine that was being taught by the Christian group that I was associated with and pissed off many of my family members because of it. Eventually I shed that religion and with it my anti-gay attitudes. But if I ever run for office that part of my life will likely be used against me. I could say that it's not fair, but as they say, life, and especially politics, isn't fair.

Would it make a difference if aspiring office holders opened up about possible skeletons in their closets? It is impossible to say, but at least the voters of Virginia would have had that information up front and could have made their electoral decision based on facts that they now know about only in retrospect. We know that it doesn't seem to make any difference to Republican voters, Donald Trump got elected despite multiple potential disqualifying attitudes. Steve King is an unapologetic racist, yet he keep getting reelected.

I'm ending this post without having a clear idea what I think should happen to Northam, or whether past transgressions should affect the present. One thing that I am sure of is that Republicans don't have any moral high ground in this discussion and have no business commenting. Democrats at least condemn their own when caught in these circumstances, Republicans deny it or excuse the behavior.

One thing is clear: Governor Northam has lost the confidence of the people who elected him. 

Why Not A Wall?

The Wall - should we or shouldn't we?

There's been dueling "experts" trotted out both for and against building a border wall across the portions of the border where there isn't already one. The issue isn't whether walls "work" or not, but whether this wall should be funded and built. Here are a few reasons put forth by Trump and his supporters and my reasons why those are not valid:

The Argument of Deterrence:
It seems to be common sense that a high enough wall will prevent or deter people from crossing. Some Border Patrol agents claim that there job became a lot easier when barriers went up in the San Diego area. But even the highest wall can be scaled, tunneled under or cut through if there are no Border Patrol agents around. Personally I believe walls, fences, or other types of barriers can and should be part of an overall strategy for keeping our border secure, but the Trumpian idea that The Wall will magically solve all our problems at the U.S.-Mexico border, or with illegal immigration, or with criminals and drugs is not an idea that has been thought-through.

Democrats Have Voted For A Wall Several Times Before:
It is true that Democrats in previous Congresses have voted to construct walls and fences at the border, and that past Presidents, including Democrats, have pushed for more effective ways to control immigration. What is not true is that these politicians have supported a Wall in the form that is now being pushed, or for the reasons that underlie it. Even if Democrats had supported a Great Wall in the past, doesn't mean that it's a good idea now. Trumpists will say that this is hypocrisy on the part of the Democrats: that they are only opposing construction of a Wall because Trump is for it. For a party that made its whole platform opposing anything that a Democratic president wanted to do, this certainly puts the shoe on the hypocritical other foot. (Of course the point that I just made is whataboutism, but I couldn't resist!). Perhaps there is something to that, but Trump has never really made his case on why we need The Wall and why we need it now.

There's A Crisis At The Border:
This is an area where Trump is just flat-out lying to make his point. Are there criminals among the people who are sneaking across the border? Probably there is. But illegal immigration is at a 46-year low. Trump recently claimed that this low ebb of illegal crossings was due to his leadership, even though this is part of a decades-long trend. He fear-mongered about the "caravans" coming from Central America, which turned out to be not an invasion at all and was contained by the Border Patrol. He likes to spotlight the families of people who were killed by undocumented immigrants. While any death is tragic, the percentage of crimes of any type committed by illegal immigrants is tiny compared to those committed by citizens. He likes to scream about all the drugs that flow into the United States from Mexico, when in reality, these drugs come in mostly through legal ports of entry, including airports far from any border. Towns and cities along the border report no more crime than any other American city. But the question that Trump can't answer is "why wasn't this a crisis during the last two years?" - During the last two years Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and passed numerous spending bills and appropriations that did not include any funding for A Wall.

It's The Fault of The Democrats:
Just last month, the Senate unanimously passed an appropriations bill that would have funded the remaining parts of the government without money for A Wall. Until the President dug in his heels after being mocked by right-wing radio personalities in December, he signed every other bill (without Wall funding) that came his way. The House, under former Speaker Ryan refused to vote on the same appropriation when he read Trump's angry tweets and now McConnell will not bring to a vote the same bill that had previously passed unanimously. A fair reading is that neither party is very excited about giving Trump his Wall. The Democrats never have been and  the Republicans are only going along because they fear Trump's tweets and perhaps getting primaried next year. What you don't hear much of is that back in February 2017 there was a bipartisan agreement to fund The Wall at about five times the current request in exchange for a path to citizenship for DACA enrollees. Trump would not go along with it because it lacked two other things that were the rant du jour back then: eliminating family-based migration (which he denigrated as "chain migration") and the visa lottery. He could have had his Wall almost a year ago. He killed that deal.

The Wall = Border Security: 
Trump regularly denigrates his opponents as wanting open borders, not caring about border security or the safety of Americans. This is, of course, ridiculous. He conflates "border security" with "A Wall". While walls and barriers may be part of a complete border security strategy, it's not the only thing and should be considered as part of a considered debate about immigration reform. He has recently taken to claiming that the Democrats' objection is to concrete, so we'll just build a steel Wall.

The Campaign Promise:
Finally, there's the issue of why A Wall is even being discussed. Trump started his campaign for president railing about Mexicans as rapists and murderers. He tapped into xenophobic bigotry to rile up anti-immigrant sentiment among what became his base. The Wall became shorthand for that. It was an applause line designed to get maximum response from rally-goers. Trump was never good at articulating actual policies, but he was a master at telling people what they wanted to hear and converting it into easy-to-remember-and-shout slogans. Of course, saying that Mexico would pay for it ("and like it" he said at least once, which sounds kind of rapey to me) was part of the shtick. Once it became clear that Mexico wasn't ever going to cut us a check, we were treated to the bizarre explanation that Mexico would be paying for The Wall via all the billions that would be raking in from USMCA. To buy that you'd have to forget that USMCA, which is really just NAFTA  with some of the dents knocked out and shined up a bit, has not been ratified, carries no guarantee that our balance of trade with Mexico will improve, and even if it does, that increase in cash flow goes to business who will see increased profits. It also requires you to forget that Trump said while campaigning that Mexico would write us a check. (He was once asked how he would compel Mexico to pay - his answer: "Oh I will, and The Wall just got ten feet higher").

There may be valid reasons to erect barriers, but not for this barrier. The great deal maker has shown himself incapable of making a deal. We cannot let the precedent be set of Trump holding the government hostage if he does not get his way. 



 

Trump's Wall & The Art of the Deal

As I write this, about 20% of US Government employees are either furloughed or working without pay. This partial shutdown is occurring due to a disagreement over one item: funds to build a border wall along the US-Mexico border. President Trump, who initially said that he would "proudly" take responsibility for any shutdown, has since blamed the Democrats. He has accused them of not wanting border security, i.e. "open borders", not caring about crime that immigrants supposedly bring, and being motivated by the desire to deny him "a win".

The truth is that no Democrats support what he claims that they support. While it is true that Democratic Congressmen have in the past voted to fund walls along the border, those barriers, which in great part still stand today, were part of a broader plan for border security and immigration policy.

No one believes that there shouldn't be a border, or that we shouldn't screen people who want to immigrate to the United States. What Trump's opponents do believe is that our immigration policies should be more humane and that the process should be more expedited than it is today.

The Wall itself (when referring to Trump's idea of a wall at the border, I will capitalize Wall), however, isn't part of an integrated immigration and border security policy. Trump's policies (if you can call them that) are more often than not slogans that garnered excitement and applause at his campaign rallies in 2016. Trump may be incoherent, ignorant and incompetent, but one thing that he is good at is reading a crowd and feeding them lines that will keep their interest and stoke their enthusiasm. Trump tapped into a vein of bigotry that ran through significant portions of the electorate. Immigrants, especially those who entered the country illegally, were a convenient scapegoat for many of the problems perceived these people. When Trump needed to convince the immigrant-haters that he was their guy, did he craft, with the help of experts, a thought through plan for securing the borders? No, he found a simplistic, easy to articulate applause line: that he would build a "big, beautiful, Wall". This Wall was predicated on bigotry and became a "campaign promise" because repeating it over and over fed into the feedback loop between Trump and his supporters that was a typical Trump rally. Since being elected, the Wall concept (stretching the meaning of the word "concept") hasn't gained any more solidity. It's still a vague and nebulous thing wherein the specifics change depending on Trump's mood. In addition, illegal immigration has been steadily decreasing over the last decade. And there's much evidence that the criminals and drugs aren't coming in over the supposedly unprotected border, but by sea, through tunnels, smuggled in trucks. Budgets for monitoring and interdicting this illegal activity have been reduced since Trump was inaugurated. He has focused exclusively on a Wall. Trump has also not addressed how the Wall will deal with the long river border between Mexico and Texas, or all the private land that will have to be seized through eminent domain.

Trump has always promoted himself as a great deal-maker, it was one of the things that many of his supporters claimed would make him a great president. He appears to have no inclination to actually negotiate. Negotiation in good faith requires that you give something up, or give something to the other party to get what you want. But he has proved that for him, making a deal means making a demand and then digging in his heels until the other side acquiesces. The same with bipartisanship. For him bipartisanship is the other party doing what he wants. What's ironic is that, back in February, a bipartisan deal was on the table. The Democrats were willing to fund a border Wall in exchange for a path to citizenship for people in the DACA program. Trump refused to sign it because it did not include several other immigration-related things, such as an end to family-based migration (what he called chain migration ).

Trump doesn't have a plan for border security, he has an ego-driven desire for "a win" by getting funding for an applause-line campaign promise based on bigoted assumptions. He doesn't know how to deal, he has a toddler-level "understanding" that tantrums are a great negotiating tool.

Tariffs

What is a tariff? Simply stated, a tariff is a tax that a nation places on specific imports.

Usually the purpose of a tariff is to protect domestic producers. For example, American widgets retail at $10/dozen. On the other hand, Panamanian widgets retail at $7/dozen. Labor costs in Panama are lower, or perhaps Panama is subsidizing Panamanian widget manufacturers. If quality is comparable, American consumers of widgets will purchase Panamanian widgets. This will cause American widgets makers to lose business, perhaps closing widget plants and the widget workers losing their jobs. If the U.S. places a $5/dozen tariff on Panama-made widgets, then Panamanian widgets become more expensive than American widgets. There are several possibilities for what happens next.

All American widget purchasers could now switch to American suppliers, saving $2/dozen. The Panamanian widget companies would need to find another market for their widgets. If this happens, there is every possibility that the price of American widgets will increase, since the pressure of lower-priced Panama-sourced widgets has been eliminated. American widget purchasers, as well as anyone who purchases a product that contains widgets, will be paying higher prices. There is also the possibility that American widget producers won't have the capacity to replace the Panamanian production. In this case, Americans will be paying the higher price of the Panamanian widgets that now include the tariff. The government will certainly be collecting the tax from the Panama widget companies, but who is really paying? The consumer, of course. There is no scenario where the widgets, whether domestic or imported will decrease in price.

Then there's the specter of retaliatory tariffs. Panama will undoubtedly be issuing tariffs of their own, say, on fleegles. American fleegle producers will likely see the demand for their exports to Panama go down, as Panamanian fleegle buyers find cheaper alternatives.

Tariffs can be warranted in the case of a domestic industry competing with imports that are being sold below cost (kind of like the Walmart strategy!), or for propping up a fledgling industry. Rarely do  across-the-board tariffs make any sense.

What tariffs aren't good for is providing an inflow of "billions of dollars" from the country on whom tariffs are imposed. They cause chaos and confusion and are a blunt instrument for international trade relations.

Unfortunately we have a President who doesn't understand in the slightest how tariffs work.

Why I Won't Vote for ANY Republican

Once upon a time I voted for the candidate irrespective of party. I voted for Republicans, I voted for Democrats, I voted for Libertarians, I voted for Independents. I agreed with some of the things that Republicans did and disagreed with some of the things Democrats did. I voted according to whom I thought would best represent or lead my state, district, city or the nation.

That all changed for me after the 2008 presidential election.

The mission of the Republican Party, during the presidency of Barack Obama, changed from principled opposition to obstruction at any cost. And the cost turned out to be pretty steep: acceptance of the radicals of the Tea Party fringe as mainstream; acceptance of the virulent strain of bigoted and racist hatred of a black man who dared to run for president, including the claim that Obama was not a United States citizen, promoted vigorously by now-President Donald Trump; and a program of digging in their heels and mindlessly opposing and obstructing everything that President Obama did. This obstruction was fairly easy to spot, it required no interpretation or speculation, but was stated clearly by none other than the Majority Leader of the United States Senate. It was expressed throughout Obama's terms by dozens of fruitless attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and culminated in McConnell's refusal to confirm, or even hold a hearing for, President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. Republicans at every level of government seemed to be on board with this and Republican voters seemed to buy into the apparent racism and irrational hatred for Obama.

In 2016, when Donald Trump was elected President, it got even worse. Trump built upon the mindless and overblown demonization of President Obama, Secretary Clinton and liberals in general that prevailed among many Republican voters and made it the centerpiece of his governing style. He emboldened white supremacists, neo-Nazis and others and exacerbated the already deep divisions within the country. The mainstream Republicans could have stood against the worst of his impulses while still supporting his policies (if you could dignify his brainless meanderings as "policies") that they agreed with, but they didn't. The Republican Congressional leadership, as well as state-level Republicans only intensified their support for Trump. They were prepared to prop him up, no matter what outrages and idiocies he perpetrated, as long as they could get conservative judges and tax cuts for the rich. And they continue to prop him up in the face of graft and corruption on an unprecedented scale, as well as incompetence and ignorance in virtually all matters.

Now we hear that in two states, Michigan and Wisconsin, Republican lame duck sessions of state legislatures are in the process of passing laws that restrict the power of incoming Democratic elected officials, officials who are replacing outgoing Republicans. The same thing happened in 2016 in North Carolina. Here is Lincoln, local Republicans pushed through a charter amendment restricting a Democratic mayor, who had already declared that he would run for re-election, from running again. Our Republican governor has used his own funds to "primary" other Republicans who would not vote in lockstep with him. So, when "the people" speak by voting out Republicans, the Republicans petulantly change the rules so that the will of "the people" is circumvented.

While theoretically there may be decent Republicans out there, and some may be good for their states, cities, the nation, anyone who aligns themself with the Republican Party, has by default, aligned themself with all of the sins enumerated above. Someday the Republican Party may heal itself, but that day has not yet come.