Category: Uncategorized

The issue:  Did the Trump campaign “collude” with the Russian government during the election?

What we know:  Multiple prominent figures in the Trump campaign had longstanding financial ties to the Russian government or had some degree of knowledge of Russian hacking activities.

What we don’t know:  Was anything promised to the Russian government in exchange for assistance during the election?  And how much of the communication between the campaign and the Russians was authorized by Trump himself?

My analysis:  If, as I suspect, no one can prove that Trump authorized a foreign policy quid pro quo, Russian election hacking is a public policy concern, but not a legal issue for the administration.  Simply being the lucky beneficiary of Russian hacking activities is not a crime.

A year or so ago, I suggested a thought experiment in which it was known that the Chinese were developing a weapon that could do hundreds of billions of dollars of damage to the US (the exact amount wasn’t known) every year.  How would the Trump Administration react to such news?  With some sort of crash program involving billions of dollars of public money, of course.  Protecting the country from foreign military threats is not negotiable with the GOP, regardless of cost.

Climate change has the same potential impact, but is not caused by weapons. The GOP consequently either denies it is occurring or simply refuses to do anything about it on the grounds that to do so would increase the size of the state and unduly burden businesses.

What you should take away from this is that, in the final analysis, it isn’t limiting the size of the state, or even protecting the public, that truly matters to the GOP. If you can’t blow something up, there isn’t any point in spending public money to deal with it.  In other words, the swaggering militarism of the GOP is really the most important part of its DNA.

The issue:  Why does Trump seem so determined to make an alliance with the Russians?

What we know:  Trump has expressed his enthusiasm for Putin, and for better relations with Russia, on many occasions, even though very few people, even in his own government, agree with him.

What we don’t know:  We don’t know very much about the extent of Trump’s business ties to Russia, given his unwillingness to disclose his tax returns.

My take on the issue:   You can speculate that Trump’s affection for Russia has a financial basis, but there is no evidence for that.  I think it comes from two sources:  a correct understanding that Putin effectively runs Russia as the CEO of Russia, Inc., which is what he aspires to do with the US;  and a notion, fed by Bannon and Flynn, that Russia is a more appropriate ally against terrorism than squishy Europeans who are more concerned about protecting human rights than kicking bad guy butt.

Digging a Hole

I’m digging a hole where the truth used to be.

The whole world sits there wondering

Where it will go.

 

I’m plugging the leaks that run through my house.

The fake news all are wondering

Where they will go.

 

And it really doesn’t matter.

If I’m wrong, I’m right.

Since I belong, I’m right.

Since I belong.

Democrats run around.

Don’t worry me.

Never win.

Wonder why they don’t get past my door.

 

I’m taking the time for a number of things

That weren’t important yesterday.

And I still go.

 

Parody of “Fixing a Hole” by The Beatles.

A meeting between Trump and Francis sounds like the set up for a joke.  But how do the two leaders stack up?

                                  Francis               v.              Trump

Age                              80                                           70

Popular Vote            None Held                             Lost

Heresy                       Divorced Catholics              Protectionism

Bridge or Wall?       Bridge                                     Wall

Philosophy                Idealist                                   Materialist

Crusades For            Justice                                     His Ego

And the winner is . . . Francis, of course.  We can only hope that he outlasts our man on golf cart.

Note:  I will be on vacation until 6/5.  Posting will resume at that time.

I just can’t help thinking that Trump prefers the company of strongmen to democratic leaders.  And to think that the GOP used to argue that Obama was distrusted by our friends!  What are they saying now?

One of the things about Bush that always struck me as being unique was his ability to pose credibly as both an insider and an outsider.  He obviously had all of the advantages that came with being the son of a well-connected president, but his attitudes about his Ivy League education, and his fundamentalist religious views, communicated a degree of skepticism, and sometimes even contempt, towards the establishment.  Reactionaries bought into this even if they didn’t like other parts of his program.

Similarly, Trump is the son of a very wealthy New York developer, but he clearly has a chip on his shoulder in spite of his privileged upbringing (presumably because his father didn’t do business in Manhattan), and his fans accept him as someone who can “drain the swamp” even though his few friends are all swamp creatures themselves.  So maybe Bush wasn’t as unique as I thought, and maybe this is one of the secrets to success in the GOP.

Who knew that Obama could plant bugs in the Vatican?  Here’s what happened:

Trump makes his entrance.

DT:  There’s my Catholic!

Francis says a silent prayer for strength and patience.  Alas!  On this occasion, it goes unanswered.

PF:  Good to meet you, Mr. President.

DT:  Hey, great place you’ve got here.  The art is really colorful.  Especially that one ceiling.

PF:  Yes, we have many of the great treasures of civilization here.  It’s all for the glory of God.

DT:  I do have to point out that Trump Tower has more square footage and more gold than St. Peter’s.

PF:  I’m sure it was built for the same purpose.  Francis has a crooked smile on his face.  So why are you here, my son?  Do you want me to bless your wall and your budget?

DT:  Well, part of it is optics for my voters, of course, but I do have some issues to discuss with you.

PF:  This is going to be interesting, I’m sure.

DT:  First of all, there’s our unfair trade deal with the Vatican.

PF:  You’ve got me there.  I have no idea what you’re talking about.

DT:  All of those American tourists visit here and spend money, but no one from the Vatican ever visits America.  And Americans provide lots of money to support the Church, but we don’t get much of it back.  We need to change that.  America first!

PF:  What do you suggest?

DT:  You could require everyone in the Vatican to vacation in America, appoint more American cardinals, and put some of the money in your bank in our infrastructure.

PF:  Practically no one lives here, and I can’t just spend money any way I want. We’ve been doing business in a certain way for 2,000 years.  I can’t change things overnight.

DT:  So you can’t help me?

PF:  No.

DT:  Then there’s your defense budget.  You need to beef it up.  Americans are tired of spending money to protect you.

PF:  The Church is a spiritual power.  We don’t have a defense budget.

DT:  What about the guys in the funny uniforms?

PF:  The Swiss Guards?  They’re our equivalent of the Secret Service, but their uniforms were designed by Michelangelo.

DT:  Michel who?

PF:  I’m sorry–I should have known better.  Anyway, I can’t help you with that.

DT:  Well, don’t be surprised if we don’t rush to defend you when you get invaded.

PF:  We’ll get by.

DT:  Finally, you’re soft on Islamic terrorism.  Steve Bannon and I want you to declare a crusade against Islam.  Steve says your predecessors did that all the time.

PF:  That was 900 years ago, and it didn’t turn out too well.

DT:  So you won’t help me there, either.

PF:  I’m afraid not.

DT:  So what can you do for me?

PF:  You can have your photo taken with me.  I will give you a copy of my encyclical on climate change, although I’m sure it’s too long for you to actually read.  And I will pray for God to give you the gift of humility.

DT:  You can skip the prayer:  I’m already the most humble man alive!  You can ask Sean Hannity, or Rush.

PF:  We’re done here.

They take the photo, and Trump leaves.

 

Bartlett had a column in yesterday’s NYT in which he argued that:  (a) the tax treatment of employer-provided health care is an historical anomaly, and makes no logical sense; and (b) imposing the burden of providing health care on employers is unfair and makes our products less competitive on a worldwide basis; so (c) we should tax employer-based health care contributions as income and use the proceeds to fund a more comprehensive health insurance system.

All of that makes perfect sense from an economic perspective, but has a doubtful future in the real world.  The most successful welfare state programs are essentially hidden wealth redistributions to which the beneficiaries believe they have an entitlement.  Social Security and Medicare have an constituency because the beneficiaries have paid into the system for years;  the minimum wage works because the employer writes the check, not the government, so the money appears to have been earned; and the treatment of employer-based health insurance similarly works because there is no government check involved. However logical it might be, Bartlett’s plan runs afoul of this principle, so, barring an infusion of rationality in the political system, it will probably never happen.

The circumstances were different, to be sure, but both Trump and May were swept into office by a wave of right-wing populism.  How have they responded to it?

May’s budget indicates that she has moved to the center in order to sweep up the votes of disaffected members of Labour.  The Trump budget, on the other hand, is the most ferociously right-wing document that I have seen in my lifetime.  It combines the anti-government zeal of the Conservative Libertarians with many of the spending priorities of the Reactionaries.  Large parts of it will never become law, but as an ideological blueprint, it couldn’t be clearer.

May is almost certainly going to win a smashing victory next month.  Can Trump thrive by ignoring the interests of voters outside of his base?  We’ll see.

On the OMB head known as Mick.

His budget is making me sick.

He’s whacking the poor.

Loads of pain they’ll endure.

It just seems it’s how he gets his kicks.

In an article about ten days ago, Jonathan Chait looked at the evolving policy positions (not the legal foibles) of the Trump Administration and concluded that they could be reduced to George W. Bush plus white nationalism.  I generally agree with Chait, but on this occasion, I think he was being overly simplistic, for the following reasons:

1.  While Bush and Trump both believe in the robust use of American firepower for political reasons, their motives are completely different.  The Bush democracy project for the Middle East is the antithesis of the Trump Sunni despot alliance, which is designed to keep the lid on liberalism as well as terrorism.

2.  While the Bush and Trump tax cut plans had much in common, Bush never supported large-scale cuts to anti-poverty programs.  Yes, Bush managed to maintain his support with the Reactionaries by presenting himself as the evangelical Great White Hope, and his economic agenda was extremely PBP-friendly, but he also had allies among the Christian Democrats.  Everything about Trump is a rebuke to the CDs;  the real question in the long run is whether they will remain in the GOP or not.

In short, for all of his failures and weaknesses, there was an idealism to Bush that is totally missing from Trump, who worships ego, power, and money, and who thinks ideals are for chumps.

Conservative Libertarians support all budget cuts on principle.  For them, it is all about reducing the size of the state and thereby increasing “freedom.”

Reactionaries enthusiastically support budget cuts that primarily impact the “undeserving poor,” but not salt-of-the-earth white Christian working people.

PBPs support cuts to anti-poverty programs to the extent that they free up money for regressive tax cuts.  Otherwise, they don’t want to stir the pot.

Christian Democrats are very concerned about the impact of cuts on the poor.

The bottom line is that the cuts that impact Reactionaries (e.g., farm subsidies) have no chance of becoming law, and the real issue otherwise is whether there are enough CDs, along with the Democrats, to prevent most of the rest of them.

Trump’s Sunni despot alliance at least has the advantage of being logically coherent.  On its face, it promises stability and a united front against Iran.

But will it actually work?  The Middle East is a complicated place, to put it mildly. The following questions inevitably arise:

1.  How can we really confront Iran when we are de facto allies fighting IS in Iraq?
2.  What does the Sunni alliance mean for our relationship with the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government?  Are we just going to turn our backs on our former client state?
3.  Leaving aside our historic animosity, what American interests are really being threatened by Iran?
4.  To what extent are we willing to take military action against Iran, and what are the implications of that for oil markets and the world economy?
5.  What happens if, say, Egypt blows up?  Are we going to send troops to put down revolutionary activity there?  Would the American people really stand for that?

At best, you have to hope that Trump will be as flexible and transactional in his relations with his new friends as he is in most other things.  The world in general, and the Middle East in particular, is not a static place, and we will have to adjust to future events as they occur.

Fracking set Barack Obama free.  His predecessors had been obligated to support the Saudi regime, in spite of its many unpleasant qualities, because Saudi Arabia had too much clout within OPEC to ignore.  America was now the principal swing producer, however, and so Obama was able to look at Saudi aspirations with a more jaundiced eye.  In his view, there was no American interest in giving the Saudis unqualified support against Iran;  the latter regime was more democratic, and had fewer ties to extremists throughout the world.  While there were, to be sure, plenty of hard feelings to address on both sides, he looked forward to cooperating with both Iran and Saudi Arabia on a case-by-case basis to promote stability;  the days of the US taking sides in a sectarian power struggle were coming to an end.

Hillary Clinton didn’t see things quite that way.  She had stronger ties to the Saudis, the Israelis, and America’s other traditional allies in the Middle East, and was more willing to use force to help them.  The differences between her and Obama were of degree rather than kind, but they were significant.

Candidate Trump, for all of his bombast, sounded much like Obama with regard to the Saudis;  he complained bitterly about the cost of protecting them and expressed skepticism about their relations with terrorists.  President Trump, on the other hand, appears to be driving us into an aggressive alliance with Sunni despots against the Shiites and liberalism.  In that respect, his foreign policy more closely resembles Hillary’s than Obama’s.  It could, in practice, amount to an American blank check for Saudi military interventions throughout the Middle East.

How’s that for irony?  Saudi Arabia first!