COVID-19 and Modern Monetary Theory

Toward the end of the movie “Patton”, there’s a scene of a bustle of activity in a German HQ destroying papers in anticipation of being overrun by the American Army.  A German officer laments the coming loss of the war with “Das ist das Ende” (This is the end).  What the coronavirus and the dramatic monetary and fiscal war waged to overcome its economic devastation will bring is the end of a financial era; the idea that the government has to repay its debt.

The national debt in the United States has been rising at an alarming rate.  Prior to the Coronavirus, the debt stood at about $23T.  With the passage of recent laws authorizing spending by the Treasury Department and unprecedented loan facilities by the Federal Reserve, the national debt and the balance sheet of the Fed will exceed $30T.  It will soon, if it hasn’t already, be a number that essentially cannot be retired.  And that’s where MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) will come to “save” us.

There are two main components to MMT; 1) a country that prints its own money can never go into default and 2) unemployment becomes an anachronism as the federal government employs all who cannot find employment in the private sector.  Milton Friedman was fond of saying “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”  The recent law providing checks to every American and enhanced unemployment benefits for those forced home by government fiat will be the precedent for the passage of a universal basic income law.  This law will probably then morph into the federal jobs program mentioned above.  At this point, MMT will become a formalized policy.

And “Save” us it will in the short-run.  In the long-run, it will ignite inflation that may approach the hyper-inflation of post-World War I Germany.  It was those horrendous economic times that helped the rise of a certain corporal to become Chancellor of Germany.      

Trump Deescalates Iran

Give credit when credit is due. President Trump has opened the door to Iran to change its relationship with the rest of the world. I'm no Pollyanna about the future of Iran but the ball is in their court.

I'm loath to make positive predictions about decisions this president makes as his future actions can sometimes obviate the good decisions he has made. But he's recently backed off his rhetoric that included committing future war crimes to punish Iran and today he made a significant effort to deescalate tensions. And the markets have reacted accordingly

Good things could come from this. Good decisions in the future will be needed for that to happen. Most of them from Iran. But from the president too.

Political Expediency and Abuse of Power = A Future Failed Republic

Impeachment and removal from office is supposed to protect the republic from a morally unfit president.  The ineptness of Donald Trump’s impeachment will make our republic weaker not stronger.  In hindsight, it may have been a mistake.

If ever there were a president worthy of impeachment for “high crimes and misdemeanors”, it’s Donald J. Trump.  His actions epitomize the concerns of the Founders and their reasons for using that term of art in the final draft of our Constitution.  But unfortunately, we also have an equally unworthy Congress to prosecute said impeachment. 

The Democrats’ decision to not wait for the courts to rule on the subpoenas issued to the executive branch has exacerbated the problems that our republic will face in the future.  By not allowing the courts the last word, they’ve given Donald Trump the last word or rather words, “absolute immunity.”  Their short-circuit of the process, when combined with the unprecedented and up to now unheard of “absolute immunity” Trump has declared for the presidency foreshows an ominous future, a republic weakened by an autocratic presidency.

It didn’t have to happen.  The Democrats could have followed the path of previous impeachments; political considerations be damned.  The odds are the courts would have, eventually, allowed testimony from John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, Robert Blair, John Eisenberg or Russell Vought, the testimony from any one of which may have revealed information debilitating to the president.  Or the Republicans, or at least some of them, could have done what their consciences (aka the voice of God?) commanded them to do, impeach and remove this president. 

In the impeachment of President Trump Democrats and Republicans had a unique opportunity to explain to the American people what is and what is not acceptable behavior by a president.  Many if not most elected Republicans would, in private, acknowledge his unsuitability for office.  His actions that precipitated his impeachment and his actions in response to impeachment are textbook examples of that which the Founders feared in a chief executive.  They are the primary reasons for the impeachment clause.  But more important than a civics lesson, successful impeachment and removal of this president would have, at least partially, reversed the damage done to the presidency itself.  It’s an opportunity lost forever.    

But here we are.  The drama that is Congress has culminated in the impeachment of President Trump.  Come January, some semblance of a trial will happen in the Senate and the president will be acquitted.  The damage to the republic and the presidency, however, will continue. 

The Country Needs Closure on Impeachment

Republicans, a president you like to quote these days said in 1961, “ask what you can do for your country.”  Since President Trump released the transcript of the July 25 Zelenskyy conversation there has been testimony that should bring to Republicans a willingness to reevaluate their position on impeachment.  That’s the ask.

The Washington Post recently reported eight instances where a quid pro quo has been alleged and either publicly confirmed or reported to have been confirmed;

1. In the July 10 meeting between E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland and Oleksandr Danylyuk.
2. In a debrief of the July 10 meeting where Sondland reiterated what was said in the previous       meeting.
3. On July 25 in a text message from Kurt Volker, special envoy to Ukraine to Andrey Yermak, an aid to Zelensky.
4. On August 10 when Yermak texted Volker tying a presidential meeting to a public statement   confirming new investigations by Ukraine.
5. On August 30 Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) spoke to Sondland who said that Trump will “release the   military spending” when Trump is confident Ukraine will “get to the bottom” of what happened in   2016.
6. On September 1 in a call between acting Ukraine ambassador William Taylor and Tim Morrison a former special assistant to Trump
7. Immediately following the above call on September 1 Taylor called Sondland who confirmed what Morrison had just been told.
8. On a September 7 call between Taylor and Morrison where they discussed a Sondland conversation with Trump.

Don’t take the word of the Washington Post.  There will soon be public hearings.  Pay attention.  Rise above politics, put aside your ideology for a moment and objectively pay attention.  You think you’re better than Democrats.  Prove it.

The country faces an ominous choice next year; four more years of constitutional crises or a Democratic-Socialist president.  The removal or just the impeachment of Trump may ensure a Democratic victory.  But that’s relatively unimportant.  The country can survive a socialist president.  It can’t survive the continued debasement of our system of checks and balances.

The Democrats in turn, need to show some fairness to the investigations by the Department of Justice of itself.  One is DoJ Inspector General Horowitz’ look into the FISA application and subsequent renewals to surveil former Trump adviser Carter Paige. The other is the “investigation of the investigators” being led by U.S. Attorney John Durham.   This investigation is necessary to ensure accountability within the FBI and Department of Justice.  The ability of Durham to empanel a Grand Jury and expand on aspects of the Horowitz investigation will ensure any criminal indictments needed, will happen.

With all this going on nothing of substance is going to be accomplished legislatively until the Trump impeachment process is completed.  Congress should focus on these three investigations putting them all to bed before the political season gets into full swing in February of 2020. 

Democrats can start by getting Judiciary Chairman Gerald Nadler to schedule a hearing to get testimony from FBI Director Christopher Wray and I.G. Michael Horowitz regarding the soon to be published I.G. report. Sequential scheduling of these hearings is the best way to focus everyone on all the issues.

The country needs closure on all this.  Reach out to your congressmen and senators, encourage them to engage these investigations objectively and quickly.

A New Year’s Resolution for Republican Evangelicals?

It’s time for the Evangelical community to do the country a favor; turn on Donald Trump. 

You got what you wanted out of his election; a supreme court justice, federal district judges, reduced regulations and a tax cut (my personal favorite).  Do the rest of us a favor, relieve the country of this daily nightmare.

Polls show that 80% of evangelicals voted for Donald Trump.  Does any devout evangelical think that Trump believes what they believe theologically or has behaved in his entire life or will behave for the next three years in a manner consistent with Christian values?  It was a tough decision for many, if not most of you.  But in the end, you decided that his narcissistic personality, questionable morals, and bad manners should be ignored for the good of the country.  And to prevent the Clintons from becoming President, but I repeat myself.

The Clinton’s, while not as obnoxious as Donald Trump on a personal level, have only a passing interest in truth.  But that is beside the point.  In your minds, this election boiled down to one thing, the Supreme Court.  The first response I get when I ask about Donald Trump’s accomplishments is the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.  Many anti-Trumpers will quickly say credit for that is misplaced, that it should go to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel for refusing to conduct hearings on the replacement of Justice Antonin Scalia until after the election.  While there’s some merit to this point, it was the only thing he could do.  The effort required the election of a Republican for it to mean anything.  If the Clintons had been elected, the 5-4 conservative majority would have become a 4-5 minority and over the next three years perhaps even 3-6.  So, I get it.

The election of Donald Trump has kept the Supreme Court majority in the more “originalist” interpretation camp.  And with the rumored retirement of Justice Kennedy, that majority may well be extended.  But, we don’t need Donald Trump in office another three years to replace Justice Kennedy.  Mike Pence if perfectly capable of doing that.

Congratulate yourselves for saving the republic.  But, why not save the republic TWICE?  With the Clinton’s we would have had a Diarchy or sorts.  Trump would never share power with his wife or anyone for that matter.  You may have noticed, he seems to admire dictators (Putin, Xi Jinping) and it’s obvious he would like to be one.  But, thankfully, we have a constitution fully capable of preventing him from achieving that goal.  It won’t and hasn’t kept him from debasing confidence in the institutions of our republic, however.  The record is clear; he has little respect for the rule of law or the processes and norms of governing we’ve established over the last 250 years.  Drain the swamp?  OK, it needs some draining, but let’s not throw the baby out with the swamp water.  

In your heart of hearts, I suspect many of you don’t feel great about this situation.  That’s because your support of Trump has come at the cost of hypocrisy.  Far be it from me to preach, but hypocrisy is a sin. I don’t have to tell YOU what happened to Ananias and Sapphira.  They stood accused of deceiving the apostles about their level of spirituality and commitment to the church by holding back a portion of money from the sale of land.  I’m not sure how to compare that to this situation.  Is self-deception a sin?  How about putting politics before God?  Or perhaps presuming to know the Will of God?  I’ve seen posts on facebook where believers say Trump is anointed by God and was therefore elected to save the United States.  No one can refute what you believe, but if you believe this, you belong to very small minority.  And if you’re wrong….??

So, where’s the harm in his leaving office early?  Mike Pence, a man you all are proud to call a fellow traveler would become president.  The Republican Party might even retain the House and Senate when independent swing voters turn out in November of 2018 out of sheer gratitude. 

Think about it.  You can take credit for putting Trump IN the Oval Office AND for REMOVING him.  It’s a twofer.  The only constituency that can save us from him is you.  Only the abandonment of him by you might convince him to resign.  It would be, a MIRACLE.  And we’ll love you for it.  OK, some of us will.  I will.

p.s.  Here’s a link to some advice from Billy Graham about mixing religion and politics.  Advice Franklin doesn’t seem to be taking.http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article186410053.html

Donald Trump's Stock Market

There's no denying the melt-up of the stock market since Trumps election. The S&P is up 21% from Oct. 2016 to Oct. 2017. Impressive. And these are the generous numbers. When I look at the 1 YR performance as of today, the return is 17.17%.

During the Obama Administration the S&P averaged a 14.88% return per year. There were two years where the S&P was in single digits and they were low single digits. I have difficulty believing Trump will exceed that average but only time will tell.

A factor that will impact how well the stock market performs in the future is tax reform, which is actually just a tax cut, that if history is to be believed, will increase the national debt and which will put downward pressure on GDP. The promise of tax reform and a general bias of the Republican Party for business interests is a contributing factor in the stock market rise, along with continued low, perhaps even negative real interest rates.

The Kennedy tax cut reduced marginal rates that were at 90%. The 1981 Reagan tax cut reduced them from 70% to 50%. I think the top tax rate is now 39%. The economic law of diminishing returns probably applies to tax cuts as well, which is why I think we need radical reform and not just another tax cut. This one will have a small initial positive impact but will quickly fizzle out leaving us with at least $1.5T in additional debt.

I'm not a big fan of giving presidents credit or blame for the actions of the economy. Presidents can and do have a responsibility to help set economic goals. But it would be nice if they have some basic understanding of economics. President Trump said the following in an interview with Sean Hannity last month.

“You know the last eight years, they borrowed more than it did in the whole history of our country. So they borrowed more than $10 trillion, right? And yet, we picked up 5.2 trillion just in the stock market,” Trump told Fox News’ Sean Hannity in an interview on Tuesday. “Possibly picked up the whole thing in terms of the first nine months, in terms of value. So you could say, in one sense, we’re really increasing values. And maybe in a sense we’re reducing debt. But we’re very honored by it. And we’re very, very happy with what’s happening on Wall Street.” Parsing Trump comments can be difficult under the best syntax. But the implication here seems to be that $5.2T in equity gains reduces government debt? I don't think any further comment is necessary.

This didn't get a lot of play in the MSM and I haven't seen a clarification. I guess this one just fell off the table.

Want to know a bit more about Antifa?

CSPAN's Washington Journal had a segment on Antifa this morning. Mark Bray was the guest. He is publishing "The Anti-Fascist Handbook" in a couple of weeks. Mr. Bray is a "long-time activist and historian and was also involved in Occupy Wall Street." He is a Visiting Scholar at Dartmouth College. He does not belong to Antifa but is obviously sympathetic to its mission.

He decided that a book that explains Antifa in the modern day was necessary since Anti-Fascist activism goes back 100 years.

He defines the violence that happens as "collective self-defense" against "some of the most deadly people in our society," and that "we need to be ready to do that (defend ourselves)." He does add that Antifa believes in "preemptive self-defense". BTW, Nation States also endorse this idea. Israel used it in 1967 as I recall and perhaps also in the Yom Kippur War in 1973. But then states have a monopoly right on the use violence. If you don't like that notion, you too may be a candidate for one of the anarchist philosophies.

Another interesting factoid from the program is that Antifa is not one organization but people with a common desire to defend society against Fascists. He noted later that Antifa consists primarily of Anarchists (which explains why there is no formal organization), Communists and Socialists. My reaction is there's no lack of violence in those three political philosophies. An Anarchist assassinated Grand Duke Ferdinand, starting WWI, Communists are responsible for untold Millions upon Millions murdered and Socialism, well, we have a great contemporary example in Maduro of Venezuela.

Now, Mr. Bray apparently differentiates between Communism and Stalinism. He is anti-Stalin, that's cool, but Stalin came out of Communism, not Classical Liberalism. I'll note here that he did admit that Antifa is not only anti-fascist but also anti extreme right-wing or perhaps Alt Right would be the better descriptor. But I'm happy to say he specifically excluded  Right-wing Libertarianism. So, Libertarians can relax, you're safe. Until you're not.

I'm going to buy the book. Why you ask? Because if nobody buys it no one will know what it says. 

Here's the link,

https://www.amazon.com/Antifa-Antifascist-Handbook-Mark-Bray-ebook/dp/B0718VC8GV/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1503797976&sr=8-1&keywords=antifa+the+anti-fascist+handbook

Antifa: The Antifascist Handbook

In the wake of tragic events in Charlottesville, VA, and Donald Trump's initial refusal to denounce the white nationalists behind it all, the "antifa" opposition movement is suddenly appearing everywhere. But what is it, precisely? And where did it come…

AMAZON.COM

Removing Robert E. Lee Statues Denies Educational Opportunities

As the events of Saturday unfolded I wanted to know "why Charlottesville?" I learned about of the underlying fight to remove the Robert E Lee statue. The fight is currently in court according to the New York Times.

So, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of being allied with people I absolutely abhor. Richard Spencer, David Duke and their followers came to Charlottesville with the intent to do violence, Jason Kesslers, the organizer's protestations notwithstanding. He won an injunction in Federal Court "to peaceably assemble and speak ... free of intimidation." They came prepared for violence as did the anti-protester protesters.

I am also an anti-Trump person. Although I do find glimmers of hope in some of his positions, THIS ISN'T ONE OF THEM. I agree with many that he engaged in race-baiting campaign tactics and appeared to be continuing the practice with his tepid response to the violence. So, with that said, I hope you'll read the following. I don't recall discussing any of this personal history with anyone except my wife and immediate family but in light of the position I'm taking, I feel compelled to share it.

Removing Robert E. Lee Statues Denies Educational Opportunities

The left traditionally promotes education and free speech.
Removing Robert E. Lee from Emancipation Park denies both.

In order to explain this, I need to tell you a very personal story. It’s the only way I know to establish the premise for my point.

I was born in 1951 in New Orleans and raised in the small city of Houma, Louisiana about 60 miles southwest of New Orleans. This is Cajun country and it is therefore predominately Catholic. So, there was no KKK in South Louisiana. I left in 1969 so I can’t speak to what may have happened in the 70’s but I don’t recall hearing about a single Klan Rally there. But don’t think for a moment there was no racism. My extended family was racist to some degree, but not violently so. My mother was a moderating voice. But, I too was racist.

I joined the Navy before I graduated high school and left for boot camp in July of 1969. I never moved back. While stationed at the Naval Air Station near Memphis, TN I attended a mandatory race relations seminar. Like the rest of the nation, there was much racial tension in the NAVY. The facilitator was a pretty redhead 3rd Class Petty Officer named Jan Murphy, from Scranton, PA. A year later she became my wife and remains so today.

I grew up with Jim Crow. I remember black and white water fountains on the courthouse grounds. I remember that while there were three movie theatres in town, the blacks had only one available to them. And the balcony was the only place they could sit. They had a separate entrance to that balcony. We lived in a racist society.

After completing the race relations seminar we were encouraged to do some reflection. I became a self-hating southerner. I was happy that being from South Louisiana, I didn’t have a stereotypical southern accent, thanks to our French-Canadian heritage. I didn’t deny my Southern origins when asked but I didn’t go out of my way to show any pride, because there was none. People generally thought I was from New Jersey and I didn’t disabuse them of the notion unless directly asked. This went on for many years.

We were living in Va. Beach, Va. when I was discharged from the Navy and we lived there for 22 years before moving to Atlanta. While there I was re-introduced to Robert E. Lee, who was a Virginian. I read quite a bit about Lee in an attempt to find some redeeming value to the Southern Cause. It’s hard to make an argument in support of the South’s decision to leave the Union except that, in hindsight, it was necessary to begin the process of reversing our Constitution’s “Original Sin”, slavery. Lee was the consummate Southern Gentleman with a strict code of honor. It made his decision to fight for the South a very difficult one. It was the wrong decision on many levels. But loyalty to one’s State was very strong because the Union initially consisted of sovereign states. That sovereignty has diminished substantially since then, in large part due to the War between the States.

He was also a very religious man. He was a minor slave owner and had progressive views on slavery for the times. He was confident that eventually slavery would dissipate. He believed in an activist God who moved events in His own good time. How he didn’t make the connection between the coming war and slavery, I don’t understand. But, he didn’t have the benefit of hindsight. After his defeat at Gettysburg he began to believe that he was on the wrong side of God’s plan. He lost his best general Stonewall Jackson before Gettysburg on May 10, 1863 and J.E.B. Stuart nine months afterward on May 12, 1864. The loss of these two generals also reinforced this evolving realization. And the war ended with his surrender. He could have prolonged it but I suspect he was following a higher power at that point.

After the war there was an oft cited incident at St. Paul’s Church in Richmond. A well-dressed black man was in attendance for Sunday service. It was communion Sunday. When the priest called for the congregants to come forward to receive, this black man came forward and knelt at the communion rail. The congregation was stunned not knowing what to do. Robert E. Lee too was in attendance and knew what to do. He came forward and knelt at the rail “not too far” from the black congregant. The remaining attendees came forward for communion.

Every time I remember this story, I get a tad emotional. There are those who disparage Lee’s motives with this gesture and they may be right. I never assume that I have perfect knowledge and history is inexact. But from what I know of Lee the man, I believe he did it to help bring people together.

That white supremacists take Lee as their own should not be a surprise. But there are many normal, non-racist, enlightened Southerners and I expect Northerners who respect Lee. Therefore, the left does the country no favor by calling for the removal of Lee’s statue from Emancipation Park in Charlottesville, VIRGINIA and elsewhere. As I wrote to a friend yesterday, the symbolism of Robert E. Lee in a renamed Emancipation Park is an opportunity to learn and teach. I’ll support the removal of a General Bedford Forrest statue, who was an active member of the KKK, and any other officer or official of the Confederacy who were not contrite after the war.

The events in Charlottesville on Saturday August 12 are a stain on the country. There can be no doubt that those white supremacists and neo nazis’ came there looking for a fight. That we gave them one is our mistake.

In 1977, neo nazis’ petitioned to march in Skokie, Illinois after being denied a permit in Chicago. They petitioned in Skokie because it was predominately Jewish, including about 5000 Holocaust survivors. That ploy got them noticed, which was the intent. After losing a suit brought by the ACLU, Skokie built a Holocaust Museum to educate the public. Having won, the nazi’ ended up doing their march in Chicago as originally planned.

“As Justice Louis Brandeis once explained, the Framers of our First Amendment knew “that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.””

Robert E. Lee in Emancipation Park is an opportunity to “remedy evils counsels” with “good ones”

Remembering the Nazis in Skokie

Sunday morning marked the official opening of the Holocaust Museum and Education Center in Skokie, Illinois. This striking new institution is dedicated t...

HUFFINGTONPOST.COM

SO, WHAT TO DO ABOUT KOREA

Hopefully we can all agree on the following facts, I doubt it, but we have to start somewhere.

1.       Kim Jung Un is rational.  He may be weird but he’s rational.  Why?

2.       Kim Jung Un’s primary goal is his own survival and the survival of his regime.

a.       He will therefore not initiate hostilities because the response would be the end of him and his regime.

3.       Negotiation is not an option.  We’ve been down this road 4 or 8 times depending on who you believe and it’s obvious that all have failed based on where we find ourselves today.

a.        Clinton built light-water nuclear plants to replace their fission plants  to help them meet their energy needs and

b.       George Bush didn’t like the idea of continuing to give aid when they determined that North Korea was cheating on its commitments.  So we stopped and Korea continued and perhaps accelerated their nuclear weapons program.

Shortly after January 20, Trump got the Xi’s nose out of joint by taking a call from the President of Taiwan.  I thought this was great.  While I don’t like Trump’s personality, I thought the one positive aspect of it would be in dealing with foreign leaders, ok, with the possible exception of Putin who he can’t seem to bring himself to criticize.  He doesn’t seem to have a problem insulting our allies.  But I digress, no need to go down that rat hole.

For the last 40 years we’ve been diplomatic with a regime that has been anything but diplomatic.  They are rude, insulting, bellicose, liars, cheaters and untrustworthy.  These are Donald’s kind of people, you know, kinda like the New York real estate business and associated thugs.

To recap, North Korea isn’t going to strike first no matter what President Trump says, IMHO.  Let’s see if Donald’s approach works.  If it does, we will all be eating a lot of crow.  If not,  many of us will die.  What’s new? This is what governments have been best at for 4000 years.

The Trouble with Reality

Ever wonder why you stick so firmly to your worldview? Why you are loath to change your mind? "The Trouble with Reality..." is a very short book that can provide some insight.

This book illuminates why "reality" is different for each of us. Now, I'll warn my pro Trump friends that this is written by a woman who in her own bubble of New York City was, with her friends, trying to understand the shock to their reality brought by Trump's election.

While this is written from an anti-Trump point of view, how we perceive reality applies to every human being, regardless of his or her politics.

The Trouble with Reality: A Rumination on Moral Panic in Our Time

Every week on the National Public Radio show On the Media, the award-winning journalist Brooke Gladstone analyzes the media and how it shapes our perceptions…

AMAZON.COM

Trump versus Sessions

Well, everything you need to know about Donald Trump can be surmised by looking at the timeline of his relationship with Jeff Sessions.

Jeff Sessions was the FIRST Senator to back Donald Trump. Shortly thereafter he was named Chairman of the National Security Advisory Committee for the campaign. He was one of precious few people to defend him after the 2005 tape was revealed in October where Trump discussed groping women.

Mr. Sessions was picked by Trump to be AG November 18, 2016 saying "Sessions “is a world-class legal mind and considered a truly great attorney general and U.S. attorney in the state of Alabama.,” Trump said in a statement. ”Jeff is greatly admired by legal scholars and virtually everyone who knows him.”

Jeff Sessions is confirmed as Attorney General on February 9, 2017. On March 1 there's concern that he may have "lied" to Al Franken during the confirmation hearings. On March 2 after conferring with senior Justice Department officials he decides to recuse himself. It only takes the appearance of a conflict or problem to prompt a recusal.  

The president says Sessions should have told him he was going to recuse himself because he would have picked someone else. When? Back in November of 2016? In January before the Inauguration? This is ridiculous. If Trump was concerned he should have asked him what would prompt a recusal,  There was an opportunity for Trump to change is mind.  Mr. Sessions was asked about this at his confirmation hearing.  He said he would confer with Justice Department experts on this and do whatever they suggested.  If Donald had been paying attention he could have pulled his nomination right then and there

The grave sin that Sessions has committed is not being available to do Trumps bidding regarding this Russian Investigation. Trump wanted a myrmidon at Justice. He doesn't have one now.

And to add insult to injury, instead of discussing his problems in private with Mr. Sessions, he's engaging in serial public humiliation. This is leadership? He should be praising the man for his rectitude. But then, that would only come from someone with integrity or at minimum simple human decency.

Loyalty with Trump is a one-way street, exactly what you would expect from a narcissist.

Media and Bias, but I repeat myself

On MTP daily,Chuck Todd interviewed Kathleen Clark Washington University Professor, an expert on legal ethics. At the beginning of the conversation she said Trump, Jr., may be in legal jeopardy. But in her answers to all of Chuck’s questions the ineluctable answer was essentially based on what we know so far nothing done by any of the parties to that meeting was illegal.

Taking a meeting is not illegal. However, if and when there is proof of the transfer of “anything of value” and not necessarily money, to the Trump campaign from a foreign entity, the game is on. Interestingly, she said the foreign source doesn’t have to be a government, a foreign citizen is sufficient.

Professor Clark also noted that there is NO treason here. But there could be treachery. This was an interesting exchange. She seemed to indicate that Treachery isn’t illegal. In this case the treachery would be “being beholden to a foreigner” for a favor received. This would be subject to political analysis and the judgement of the “body politic" but not to criminal prosecution.

So, let’s juxtapose the above with something that DID happen.

The following is the opening paragraph and conclusion of a staff report of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations for the United States Senate, signed by the Committee Chairman Rob Portman and Ranking Member, Clair McCaskill.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

“On December 2, 2014, at the urging of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,the Israeli Knesset voted to schedule new national parliamentary elections for March 2015. Within weeks, an international organization known as the OneVoice Movement absorbed and funded an Israeli group named Victory15 or “V15” and launched a multimillion-dollar grassroots campaign in Israel. The campaign’s goal was to elect “anybody but Bibi [Netanyahu]” by mobilizing center-left voters.1 The Israeli and Palestinian arms of OneVoice, OneVoice Israel (OVI), and OneVoice Palestine (OVP), received more than $300,000 in grants from the U.S. State Department to support peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine over a 14-month grant period ending in November 2014.2 In February 2015, the Subcommittee initiated an inquiry concerning the connection, if any, between OneVoice’s State Department grant funds and V15’s political activity. This report outlines the findings from that investigation.

CONCLUSION

OneVoice Israel’s conduct fully complied with the terms of its agreements with the State Department and governing grant guidelines. The experience under the OneVoice grants, however, reveals the ease with which recipient organizations can repurpose certain public-diplomacy resources for political activities. The State Department failed to foresee and guard against that risk from the outset. OneVoice was forthright with the Department about its political activity in 2013, and it was also clear that OneVoice would use grant funds to build or enhance resources that might be applied to political activities. OneVoice’s 2013 grant proposal called for using the funds for standard tools of a modern political campaign, including a voter/activist contact database, a trained grassroots network, and a large social media presence. Immediately after the grant period ended, OneVoice deployed those grant-funded resources as part of the V15 campaign to defeat Prime Minister Netanyahu in 2015. Despite the fact that influencing a foreign election is across a “red line” for U.S. grantees,175 all of this activity was permissible under Department guidelines and the terms of the grants."

I don’t know about you, but I don’t remember this being debated by the Mainstream Media much less a call for criminal prosecution. Perhaps there's no law against the U.S. government involving itself in the politics of another country.

Donald Trump, Jr., take note, this is how you get away with influence from a foreign entity.

Will Republicans get Trump to Resign?

There are only two ways to remove a president; Impeachment or Amendment 25 of the Constitution.

There is a third way; the president removes himself, resignation.

The Twenty-Fifth Amendment requires a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress. Ain't gonna happen.

Removal by Impeachment requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict on the Articles of Impeachment as voted on by 50% plus one vote in the House. This probably won't happen. But, as the great philosopher Yogi Berra might have said, "It's dangerous to make predictions, especially about the future."

Resignation. This is what happened with Richard Nixon. He was visited by Republican Party leadership. They presented him with the fact that they had decided to vote for articles of impeachment. So, he resigned rather than be impeached.

It's safe to say that the biggest impediment to implementing the Republican Agenda is Donald Trump. It's not hard to visualize a conflation of negative events: a particularly noxious Donald Trump tweet coupled with an impossible piece of legislation, like say the American Health Care Act, leading to a meeting in the Oval Office where they ask for his resignation for the good of the country.

Were he to resign, there's a very positive personal victory for Donald Trump. Mika Brzezinski's assertion that Donald Trump is a narcissist would be proven false.

Mike Pence would become president. He's fully capable of fulfilling the Republican agenda. Although I'm not sure anyone can save the AHCA. And I think he's capable of turning this administration from an incompetent mess into, at minimum, a efficacious mess.

If Donald Trump doesn't resign (and he won't). At some point people will leave, one way or the other. The Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had a blow up recently in a meeting with Johnny DeStefano, the head of the presidential personnel office, for torpedoing proposed nominees to senior State Department posts and for questioning his judgement.http://www.newsweek.com/why-were-white-house-staff-shouted-….

And who will take their place? The TJ Scott first rule of employment is, "don't work for assholes." I would not trust the judgement of anyone who would want to work for Donald Trump after watching this train wreck for the last few months.

On second thought, perhaps the inability to fill existing and future job openings will be the catalyst to that Oval Office visit.

Rex Tillerson shouted at White House aides because they're meddling in his department, says a report

The U.S. Secretary of State lost it over interference in hiring of staffers.

NEWSWEEK.COM

The Political Consequences of not passing the AHCA for Republicans

The political consequences of failure to pass the American Healthcare Act will be significant. And based on what Mitch McConnell said in response to a question at a Rotary Club event in Kentucky on Saturday, failure is looking likely. Add to that the comment by Senator Toomey of PA. that the reason for this muddle is the Republican Party was not ready with a bill to replace the AHCA because they didn’t think they were going to win the White House. Really? You’ve only had seven years to come up with a plan.

Senator McConnell actually said that if the Republicans can’t pass a bill, they will have to do something to stabilize the medical insurance market. Under what law does the medical insurance companies operate? The Affordable Healthcare Act, ergo, the Republicans will be reaching out to the Democrats. Why?

Politically, they have to. After promising the American people a plan to replace Obamacare; not doing so followed by doing nothing to keep the current system from failing cannot be blamed on the Democrats. THEY are in power, THEY have the responsibility to do what is in the best interest of the country. The Republican base needs to look at the situation with a dispassionate perspective. But I fear they won’t or can’t. Were the situation reversed, I’m not sure the Democratic base would either.

Now, they could still be in trouble even if they do pass it. If you think Obamacare was a mess, you ain’t seen nothing yet. They cannot create a true free-market healthcare solution from a complicated crony-capitalist based scheme. They can only revert to the Republican playbook for policy prescriptions guaranteed to mollify their “base.” I fear failure is inevitable. So, which plan will be better?

They both suck so it’s a moot question. The Republicans will get their asses handed to them come 2018 either way.
If the Republicans want to endear themselves to the American people before the 2018 mid-term elections; here’s an idea, get Donald Trump to resign.

The trend line is not good. And if there’s any fire to the news breaking today about Donald Jr.’s meeting last June with a Russian offering information on Hillary Clinton, it won’t be getting better.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Trump Job Approval

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Trump Job Approval

REALCLEARPOLITICS.COM

Comey Testifies

I watched the hearing on CSPAN-3 because I didn’t want to hear the opinion from any of the typical talking head commentators.  The hoi polloi that call into CSPAN don’t count. :-)

Director Comey did a very credible job today.  He came across as an honest man doing his best to be transparent, with one exception. 

The only Senator that came after him, somewhat surprisingly, was John McCain.  The senator that Trumpies love to hate did the best job of making Comey look duplicitous.  His line of questioning was about the Clinton email investigation that Comey announced had come to an end last July.  His point, that Comey either didn’t understand or was pretending not to understand, was why was the Trump campaign was still under investigation regarding connections to Russia while the door was closed to any criminal charges against the Clinton campaign.

The answer is pretty obvious.  The Clinton campaign was the victim of Russian espionage so it would be logical to assume that they were not involved in a conspiracy with the Russians to hack themselves.  This line of questioning I find below the standards of John McCain.  But, he’s a political animal who is trying to raise his political capital with Trump supporters.  This was a good way to do it and not involve himself in the core issue of whether Trump engaged in obstruction of justice. 

The most revelatory thing to come out of this was when Comey admitted to having leaked unclassified notes of his Oval Office conversation with Trump to a friend, Dan Richman at Columbia University who subsequently released it to the New York Times.  It’s important to note that Mr. Comey was a private citizen at this point in time having been fired on May 9.

Speaker Ryan in a news conference today did his best to excuse the President choice of words as frustration with Mr. Comey and his ignorance of Washington and its protocols.  True,  but it's been 150 odd days. The president needs to start listening to people and stop self-destructive behavior.  Not tweeting today was a good start.

President Trump has an opportunity to actually do some good for this country.  It’s true that our allies have been taking advantage of us when it comes to defense.  It’s impressive that China has done more to rein in North Korea since Trump has become president, not nearly enough, but it’s a start. 

The trip to the meet with Islamic, Jewish and Christian leaders in an attempt to stop ISIS and Iranian terror campaigns is laudatory.  He, perhaps inadvertently, indirectly pointed to the true root cause of all the terrorism in the world; religion.  But perhaps more about this in a future essay.

President Trump was elected in part because of his business acumen.  Real Estate is a rough and tumble business.  Even more so in New York.  Being a bully and a bit nefarious in business was how he got things done.  I forget in how many hundreds of lawsuits as either defendant or plaintiff he's been involved.  That approach doesn't work in modern U.S. politics.  When all you know is how to negotiate it's like a guy who only has a hammer.  Everything looks like a nail.

Mack Kasowitz, the president’s lawyer just released a statement focusing on the leak that Mr. Comey admitted to doing after he was terminated.  Mr. Kasowitz says that Comey authorized the leak of classified information.  I listed to everyone word of this hearing.  And I’ll listen to it again.  But I don’t think that’s true.  The only leak to which Comey admitted was the notes from his Oval Office meeting.  Mr. Kasowitz is not correct in his assertion that classified information was leaked by Mr. Comey.  However, If what Comey did admit to was illegal, he just made it easy for Special Counsel Mueller’s to indict him.  We’ll see.

We need to stop Donald Trump

Seeing the title, many of you will not even read this sentence.  You are convinced that Donald Trump is the answer to our political woes.  He’s not.  He’s a manifestation of the problem.  People have historically turned to charismatic, authoritarian figures when times are challenging, when their culture seems unrecognizable.   One need only look to the 20^th Century for validation.  And that last statement is not made lightly. 

Mr. Trump has little respect for the Constitution.

The most recent anti-freedom position of Mr. Trump is a desire to usurp the First Amendment with promises to change the libel laws in order to attack his critics.   Mr. Trump said, “We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.”  And recently he attacked a prominent family in Chicago for donating to a Super Pac critical of Mr. Trump with “They better be careful, they have a lot to hide.”  Perhaps he will use an Obama favorite and have the IRS go after them.

And speaking of the IRS, there’s no reason tax returns can’t be released while under audit.  He’s said he’s been audited 12 years in a row and also said for the last 2-3 years.  Ok, which one is it?  And if 12 years ago, release the one from 13 years ago, we don’t mind.

He doesn’t think the 14^th Amendment is Constitutional and because it would “take too long” to amend  he would use his potential presidency to "find out whether or not anchor babies are citizens."  Not sure what he means but I’m sure I don’t want to find out.

So what to do?  For my Democratic friends, vote for Hillary.  Yea, I can’t believe I said that either.  Were we in normal times I’d be encouraging you to vote for Bernie.  But these are not normal times.  We all have a stake in the Donald not becoming the President.

My Republican friends should vote for either Rubio or Cruz, whom ever is in the lead in their particular SEC Primary state.  I’m going to vote for Rubio on Tuesday.  There’s no point in wasting a vote on Kasich.

It’s hard to imagine what a Trump presidency would be like but in the words of John Podhoretz, “a disaster” seems a succinct summary.  

As a Libertarian, Trump may be the best thing that's ever happened to our party.  His election would probably improve its prospects, especially if the Republican Party self-destructs.  But love of country comes before love of party.

GOP Debate 13 February 2016

The Donald is particularly angry this evening.  I've never heard a Democrat say it better, "George Bush lied about Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction and he knew it".  But then Donald used to be a Democrat and for all I know may still be one.

Regarding Strassel question to The Donald on Social Security.  Waste fraud and abuse will NOT save Social Security Donald.  Your answer was nonsense.

Just a note about the passing of Scalia.  I'm not a Republican but I'd prefer a Republican President to a Democratic President.  The Donald may win against Bernie because a majority in this country would not elect an avowed socialist.  However, even a damaged Hillary would beat The Donald.  He's not eloquent.  He's a populist aka a demigod.  The only complete sentence he ever says is "I'm going to make America great again." Impressive.

John Kaisch is the voice of reason or at least not shouting and actually completes a sentence...sometimes two, three in a row.  Quite impressive.  He's actually likeable...probably a good attribute to beating Hillary the Likable.  Everyone know how likable she is....Not so much.

Not sure why Ben Carson is still on the stage.  Hillary or Bernie would eat him alive in a one on one debate.

Major Garrett is nailing The Donald.  The deal maker....aka crony capitalist. So, he's going to put in tariffs, this is economic madness and counter-productive.  It's also something Democrats and Unions promote. See the first paragraph.

The Donald.  "I feel I am a conservative."  A complete sentence to be sure but in the passive voice and not the active voice....like "I'm a conservative".

Thank you very much. 2 minutes later. "You are the single biggest liar."  "He's a nasty guy."  The Donald is the nastiest guy on that stage.

Well, at least there's direct exchange between the candidates.  John has totally lost control of this debate.

The decorum of this debate is abysmal...why?  The Donald, of course.  But he's in the lead, that cannot be denied.  He's broken every rule of politics I know and is succeeding.  I'm not sure if that's a reflection of his brillance or the desperation of the American people.  I think the latter.  The man is a chameleon who's hero is P.T. Barnum

Kasich closing statement was excellent.

Carson  so so

Bush better than Carson but not as good as Kasich.

Rubio, passionate but tried to cover too many points and went over his time.

Cruz: makes good points about The Donald.  appealed to the religious of S.C.

The Donald:  Same old same old stump phrases.  And to bring up our $19T in debt when the policies he promotes will increase it another $10T is just amazing.  Why do people trust this guy??

Kasich didn't have near as much time as the others but seems to have made the most of the time he had and just came across as a reasonable guy.  But then, the people who vote in primaries are typically not the most reasonable of the electorate.

All in all this debate provides a good reason to vote Libertarian...go Gary Johson!!  Go who??

John Joseph Murphy Jr.

To the family he was known as JJ or just Jay. He was my brother-in-law, and I loved him very much.

I don’t know how many of you know the name Christopher Hitchens. For a significant part of his life he wrote for “Vanity Fair”. Both he and Jay were blessed to know early in their lives what it was they would be doing. And it would involve a life of words and stories and journalism.

In response to a question about his lifestyle, Christopher responded, “I always knew that there's a risk in the bohemian lifestyle and I decided to take it because whether it’s an illusion or not, I don't think it is, it helped my concentration, it stopped me being bored, stopped other people being boring, to some extent, it would keep me awake, it would make me want the evening to go on longer, to prolong the conversation, to enhance the moment. If I was asked, would I do it again, the answer is probably yes, I'd have quit earlier, possibly, hoping to get away with the whole thing.” Christopher was diagnosed with esophageal cancer at the age of 61 and died in December of 2011 at the age of 62.

I bring up this parallel to Christopher because I admired both of them and Jay long before I ever heard of “the Hitch”. Describing Jay as bohemian is perhaps a bit of a stretch, but he had some of its characteristics, the most important? Take life as it comes and live in the moment. Another is being a rebel.

I read a book by Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist who wrote about Albert Einstein. He noted that Einstein was bohemian in that he rebelled against the establishment in physics. You see, his theory of relativity upended the prevailing theory established 200 years before by Sir Isaac Newton. Jay pushed against the norm and questioned the status quo. Jay was a skeptic and a cynic, traits I love in a human being. But, under those admirable qualities he was also, I think, an optimist. So he wasn’t perfect. :-)

As Chris Kelly noted in his piece on Jay in the Oct. 23 Scranton Times Jay was a fan of Bob Dylan. Most rebels are. One day we were riding around Scranton probably going to or coming from a golf match, this was 20 or 30 years ago and a Dylan song came on the radio, “Positively 4th Street”. The only thing “positive” about this song are the first three syllables in the title. So, he says to me,” listen to the ending of this song, it's just great” and he laughed that great laugh of his. So we listened carefully, the song ends like this.

"I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes

And just for that one moment, I could be you

Yes, I wish that for just one time, you could stand inside my shoes

You'd know what a drag it is to see you"

You have to love someone who finds humor in that.  Jay, I miss you already.  BTW, If you’re sentient, give a brotha a holla.

President Obama and Syria

You know you’re in trouble when your only ally is the French.  It’s hard to know where to start with this fiasco of a foreign policy.  But let’s start at the beginning; open mouth, insert foot, close mouth.  About a year ago the president drew a red line regarding the use of chemical weapons.  And now Assad has called his bluff. 

There’s no doubt that Assad ordered this chemical attack, and ordered it for a reason.  He’s not stupid.  Only a trained military could have executed this attack the way it was done; early in the morning when winds are down and the temperature cool to keep the gas from moving too much.  The rebels don’t have the weapons or the training to do this.  And the goal has been achieved; he’s scared ALL the people and the opposition who don’t have the means to protect them-selves.  He’s truly diabolical.

But the actions of the president the last couple of weeks have been incredible if not bizarre.  After promising action he does nothing.  He then transmits our intentions in detail so Assad can take corrective actions to ameliorate the potential impact.  Our foremost ally, Britain, has demurred (although I don’t know why, what were they going to do?  Applaud?).  And now he’s taken a page from their playbook and ostensibly our own Constitution (he alternately refers to and ignores this document when it’s to his advantage) to ask Congress for approval.  Why, because deep down he really doesn’t want to do it and doesn’t want to take the blame?  No, I think not.  He just doesn’t want to do this alone.  Not even the Sunni Arabs want to support yet another American military adventure in the Middle East, even when it’s to their collective advantage. 

So how will this vote go?  In Congress there are the far left Democrats and the nascent libertarian Republican movement that are both fiercely anti-war.  Add to that the mainstream Republicans who will vote against ANY legislation that helps this president and I think that means this will be a very close vote.  And my anecdotal guess is the vote will be to NOT support military action.  Also, this vote will NOT be along party lines and ironically could actually be a good thing for Congress.  Perhaps this vote will be the first plank in a bridge to bi-partisanship….OK, forget I just said that….silly me.  Bi-partisanship is highly overrated anyway.

A no vote would be a good thing.  It will not be taken well by the rebels in Syria but there are many factions in that movement that have Al Qaeda and/or Islamist sympathies.  I’m not too excited about seeing another radical Islamist state in the Middle East.  But then Assad is aligned with Russia and Iran, a radical Islamist state so perhaps it matters not who controls Syria.  And if it matters not which side runs Syria, what’s the point, American prestige?  What prestige?  Iraq is not much better than before our invasion and I’ll bet you my next paycheck that the Taliban is running Afghanistan in 5 years.  We’ll surely kill some civilians with this attack and America will be blamed for killing more Muslims.  If we do nothing we can only be accused of allowing deaths to occur which, while bad, is not as bad as ACTUALLY killing people.

Our enemies are killing each other.  What’s not to like?  Pull up a chair, pop some popcorn.  Put your feet up.

Larry Summers for Fed Chair?  Not no but Hell no.  In an interview when he was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and in front of then Senator Tom Daschle, he admitted to not understanding Reserve Accounting.  OK, that's only a technical matter and simply ignorance which can be rectified.  He is a creature of Wall Street and as such will not support the proper banking regulatory regimen required in a Fiat money based monetary system.  That's the reason he should not be Fed Chair.

Janet Yellen, while a liberal Democrat at least understands Reserve Accounting.  She served as an economist at the Federal Reserve early in her career.  She would not have to go back to school to learn how the mechanics of the Federal Reserve.  She would also provide some continuity which the markets would probably find reassuring and favors proper bank regulation.

Which brings me to my favorite, Shelia Bair.  Ms. Bair headed up the FDIC during the Great Recession and was the voice of calm and reason during a difficult time.  She also would be in favor of significant banking regulations and has no ties to Wall Street.  Here's a paragraph from her Wikipedia page.

Prior to her appointment at the FDIC, Bair was the Dean's Professor of Financial Regulatory Policy for the Isenberg School of Management at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, a post she had held since 2002.  She also served as Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions at the U.S. Dept. of the Treasury (2001-2002), Senior Vice President for Government Relations of the New York Stock Exchange (1991 to 1995), and Research Director, Deputy Counsel and Counsel to Kansas Republican Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (1981-1988).  While an academic, Bair also served on the FDIC's Advisory Committee on Banking Policy.  Bair also pursued a seat in the U.S. Congress (she lost to 1990 Republican nomination in the 5th Kansas district by 760 votes to Dick Nichols).

Bair began her career in the General Counselo's office of the former U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.  Ms. Bair left the FDIC on July 8 2011, when her five-year term expired.  She became as senor advisor to The Pew Charitable Trusts in August 2011.  She is chair of the Systemic Risk Council, a voluntee effort formed by the CFA Institute and the Pew Chartible Trusts to monitor and comment on regulation.

Unfortunately, this is an appointment by the President, end of story....