Wednesday, May 24, 2017

"Do Tax Cuts Work?" and "The Parasite Tax"

During the 2012 presidential campaign, the NY Times ran a column by David Leonhardt analyzing whether tax cuts did, in fact, "grow the economy": Here is that discussion.

Peter deFazio is running for congress in Oregon. Part of his progressive platform is the institution of a tax on Wall Street speculation -- also called a "Tobin" Tax. I discussed this at some length in a blog from November 2010; read it here at The Parasite Tax. Basically, this is a (very tiny) sales tax on stock transactions. For most investors -- even most professional investors -- this is insignificant (maybe 1/4% on sales and purchases of securities. However, for computerized speculators who often trades thousands of shares a second, it amounts to real money. These people are not promoting capitalism by investing in companies based on sound business principles; rather, they speculate on second-to-second virtually statistical fluctuations of a stock's price.  They serve no social or economic purpose, and do what they do solely to make money for themselves. They are social and economic parasites -- hence the name of the tax. When you or I buy a washing machine we pay, in many states, a sales tax -- often 5% or more; these parasites pay nothing on the purchase or sale of stocks. How is that fair?

It isn't, so it's not a bad idea to sign Peter deFazio's petition and maybe even send him some money (let's keep the left-coast blue); here's the URL: Make Wall Street Pay

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

We have a special counsel

In a very pleasant development, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein  named Robert Mueller, former director of the FBI (under Bush II) as special counsel to investigate, basically, the various actions of the current President. I believe that Mueller is a man of integrity and will not engage in a coverup. 

As I understand it, Rosenstein appointed Mueller, then waited enough time before telling the President so that Trump could do nothing (where "nothing", of course, would be the firing of Rosenstein). Very cute. By this time I would assume that Trump is very unhappy.

Each day brings more bad news for Trump, and I'd have to say that it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. And, by the way, my prediction, reiterated yesterday that the Republicans in Congress would do nothing to cross Trump has, so far, been upheld. Even John McCain, while comparing the situation of "Watergate", did not move for a special counsel or special prosecutor.

Let me say again that my main beef with Trump is not that he loves Russian dictators and oligarchs, or that he routinely lies. Presidents have embraced dictators before and, of course, have lied through their teeth continually. No, the problem is that Trump has embraced and advanced policies that are heartless and cruel. He (like the Republicans) have targeted the most vulnerable people here and abroad. He is happy to break up families for no compelling reason, and to cut lifelines that supply vital food, shelter and medicine. The Trump-Republican axis exists for one purpose only: to transfer wealth from the non-wealthy to the rich. They will do or say anything, no matter how illogical or outrageous, in order to obtain and retain power to effect this transference. 

I don't know what Mueller and his investigation will come up with, but I deeply hope that Trump will be disgraced and made to pay for his self-centeredness and cruelty.

Monday, May 15, 2017

Oh no: another load for the Republicans to swallow from their leader

As I pointed out in the last blog, Trump and the Republican party have a symbiotic relationship which allows Trump to do outrageous things and still have Republican support.  Is this support unlimited. Here's a test.

The Washington Post reports that, at the recent meeting between Trump and  Russian Ambassador Kislyak  and  Foreign Minister Lavrov, Trump disclosed highly classified information (on the Islamic State, it seems) supplied by the intelligence service of a close ally. You can read the WaPo report HERE (strongly recommended). I'm pretty sure that this report will make John McCain go ballistic. But: will the general Republican party, especially its leadership, just let it go? It's a toughie for a party that has no principles other than throwing money at rich people. Once they commit to saying Trump is unsuitable to be president, they open the door to all sorts of second-guessing and retribution at the polls. If Trump is a traitor, where does that leave those who kiss up to him?

Stay tuned while this story hits the fan, tonight and tomorrow. My prediction is that Mitch McConnell will adapt just fine to this latest Trump outrage.

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Another view on impeaching Trump

The conservative writer Erick Erickson has what I believe is a realistic take on liberal dreams of a Trump impeachment: It isn't very likely, and explicit talk and predictions of it happening will probably lead to disappointment for the liberals. You can read his column in the New York Times HERE.

It should be noted that Erickson has opposed Donald Trump since the Republican primaries -- on the grounds that Trump is such a terrible person (which everyone who's paying attention must surely know by now) that his presidency would do severe damage to both the Republican Party and to the conservative movement (not at all identical with "conservativsm" as has become quite clear to everyone who's paying attention). You can read Erickson's opinions HERE.

While Trump's lack of any principles or knowledge or any intelligence beyond a bullying animal cunning makes it likely that he has committed impeachable actions, the Republicans' lack of any principles, except the need to transfer money from the non-rich to the rich, makes it likely that they will stick by Trump to the bitter end. So, unless the Democrats win both houses of Congress by comfortable margins, and/or investigations produce undeniable "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", Trump is here to stay at least until the next presidential election. This is, sadly, the reality of the situation.

On the other hand, unlike Erickson, I don't think it is all that unlikely that investigations will show strong evidence of money laundering by Trump and his businesses, as well as collusion with Russians to influence the last election. Even the Wall Street Journal writers are taking this possibility quite seriously. That's what movement conservatives such as Erickson are nervous about.

Looking just a little ahead, I also don't think it's unlikely that the Democrats will regain control of the House, and thereby the ability to stop the anti-people program of the Republicans in its tracks. The Dems have an invigorated liberal base, lots of folks from centrists leftward eager to send them money, and lots of decent folks who simply want to stop the indecencies that have characterized the Trump/Republican regime. Of course, to be fair, Democrats have the kind of tin ear and ineptitude and over-confidence that enable them to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in any given election. 

As I read tweets from Trump, and quotes from the Republican leadership and Chuck Schumer, and as I let the confident analyses of Rachel Maddow and MSNBC wash over me, I can't help but feel that this is a storm whose outcome is beyond my or any outsider's abilities to predict or powers to affect. We don't know what the FBI knows or will know, nor who will be hired or fired (or worse). Next week will be more ... stuff.

Who cursed us to live in these "interesting times"?

Friday, May 12, 2017

A diseased party and its President

 As readers of this blog know, I believe that the modern Republican Party has as its overarching goal the transfer of money from the non-rich to the rich. Their claims that they are for balanced budgets, more jobs, strong defense, affordable health care etc. etc. are all lies, since they have acted time and time again in ways that are antithetical to these claims. Massive tax cuts for the wealthy will balloon budget deficits; cutting medical research and renewable energy programs and job training will kill jobs and create no new ones, while saving coal will kill people and do nothing for a moribund industry; their defense posture is irrational: more aircraft carriers to fight an inflated terrorist threat is absurd, while cozying up to dictators like Putin, the Saudi royals and Duterte will hardly make us more secure; "affordable" health care for them means phony insurance that covers nothing of importance (maternity, preexisting conditions, etc.). Trump and the Republicans are betraying the very people they are cynically claiming to represent -- and this includes the religious right, who seem to swallow the absurd thesis that god is acting through The Donald.

There really is, in terms of outcome, very little difference between Trump and the RMP ( = Rich Man's Party, formerly the GOP). The latter needs Trump to retain power in order to enact its Rich Man's agenda, and Trump needs the Republicans to keep him away from impeachment while he shores up his "brand" domestically and overseas.

In case you might think that these very severe judgements are simply my ranting, click on  Krugman to read what an economics nobelist has to say in the N. Y. Times, or click on Richard North Patterson  to read what a best-selling author has to say in the Boston Globe.

At this point I believe America vs. Trump/RMP will end in either (a) Triumph for America: a massive repudiation in the polls beginning in 2018; (b) Tragedy: Trump/RMP will get away with it and our Democracy will be dealt a possibly mortal blow or (c) Farce: Trump will either quit or be impeached or both, leaving us with Pence and the RMP largely intact to continue transferring wealth to the already-wealthy.

For the near term we can expect more and bigger and less convincing lies, attempts to strip away our environmental and workplace protection, attempts to strip away our national parks and monuments, attempts to strip away our constitutional protections, a lowering of our defenses against unsympathetic (to say the least) states such as Saudi Arabia and Putin's Russia. Until we get (if we do) a special prosecutor, the best we can hope for is that the current Trump "drama" will keep the Republican Congress preoccupied  enough so that the damage it can do, and wants to do, will be put off.

Monday, May 1, 2017

Why Republicans (and conservatives in general) are so cruel to the poor?

Here is a great article from Salon which articulates perfectly my contempt for Paul Ryan and other conservatives who are gratuitously cruel and bullying to those less fortunate. (I do not include Trump here because he is beneath contempt.)

Read it here.

Thursday, April 6, 2017

What Trump has signed

Since Trump became president he has signed many executive orders as well as a handful of bills passed by the Republican Congress. In spite of all the talk about populism, not one of these orders or bills actually benefits any large class of the American public except the wealthy corporate interests. Some of these items include:


1. Suppressing details on workers' rights violations

2. Appointing of a "regulations reform" officer

3. Removing regulations protecting streams from pollution due to mining

4. Relaxing disclosure requirements in extraction industry reports

5. Easing "fiduciary duty" regulations (Consumer Financial Protection Agency)

6. Studying punishing "sanctuary cities" by withholding federal funds

7. Resuming construction of Keystone and other pipelines

8. Raising threshholds for compensation in corporate malpractice suits

9. Facilitating the hiding of workplace injuries

10. Overturning Internet privacy order (FCC)

11. Liberalizing leasing guidelines for coal extraction



You can find the entire list of executive orders and bills that Trump has signed (as of today) HERE, compiled by vice.com.



The Republicans have also introduced a bill to -- of course -- eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency (established by Congress and Richard Nixon). Meanwhile, Trump has ordered the EPA to revise the Clean Water Act and to relax regulations protecting children (and others) from the harmful effects of lead. 


Which of Trumps non-wealthy constituencies are these measures designed to help? Answer: none.