Tag: trumpnation

Can A Government Employee not be a Government Employee?

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy1 Comment

userpic=trumpThis morning, while I was in the shower, an odd question popped into my head:

  • If President Trump or a Cabinet Head elects to take no salary, are they a government employee?

Here’s why that question occurred to me: Ethics rules, disclosure rules, conflict of interest rules, rules about accepting gifts, and all other sorts of regulations apply to government employees. But Trump is nominating millionaires and billionaires who don’t need the salary. Many of them have publicly said they will not take a salary. So does this make them exempt from all the regulations that apply to government employees? Further, note that it means they will not have taxes taken from their salaries (avoiding taxes), and their income will be primarily capital gains on investments (which is a much lower tax rate, and can be offset by losses reducing taxes even further). No salary, and income primarily from capital gains also puts them in a lower tax bracket (I think — I could be wrong there).

So, by refusing a salary, could they both avoid those pesky regulations and lower their taxes? Could this be why we are seeing so many millionaires and billionaires being nominated?

[ETA: Conclusion: (•) Salaries are defined by statute, and must be paid — then they can be subsequently donated, returned to the Treasury, etc.; (•) Volunteering for government service is not allow, so they have to accept a token of $1; (•) even if they did volunteer, there are volunteer agreements to cover ethics.]

Share

Consistency

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy1 Comment

They say that foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Sometimes, however, consistency is not foolish; in fact, it should be a priority of a conclave of little minds. Specifically, consistency should be the hallmark of Congress. The behavior and beliefs of a party should be consistent. The ethics and behavior that is demanded of the President and his executive officers should be the same independent of the party of the President — or of Congress. Further, the electorate should be demanding this consistency, because otherwise, they are wasting taxpayer money doing investigations of one official that they wouldn’t pay for another. To put it another way, we shouldn’t be paying for partisan witch hunts. So I’m dismayed with what I’m seeing from our new Congress. Here are some examples:

Going back to the days of Ronald Reagan, one consistent thing about the GOP is that they are concerned about deficits. Hell, they’ve shut down the government because they didn’t want to increase deficits or the debt ceiling. They have been constantly harping on the Democrats because they feel their actions would increase the deficit, and have passed laws requiring that any new spending be covered by revenue. So why is the GOP suddenly abandoning this mantra, wanting to keep the expensive parts of the Affordable Care Act while remove the parts that pay for them?

When President Obama submitted cabinet nominations, then minority leader McConnell insisted on a set of requirements for each candidate. These requirements included appropriate vetting, submission of appropriate paperwork, elimination of conflicts of interest, and so forth. Yet now McConnell is seemingly abandoning those principles — for what purpose. Why should our cabinet officials be any less ethical?

For past Presidents, there has been a custom for them to put there assets in such a trust that it wouldn’t influence their actions. If that didn’t happen, Congress would make a fuss. Yet they seem to be rolling over and letting President-Elect Trump retain the conflicts under some light promises. Would they have let Obama or Clinton get away with this?

Imagine there were unverified claims of Russia having compromising information on President Obama — oh, like there were unverified claims about Benghazi or emails. Or there were claims about Russia interfering with the election to influence it in favor of Obama or Bill Clinton. Wouldn’t Congress be hopping to investigate that? Yet there is no move afoot from Congress to do so? Why wouldn’t they investigate this?

With any of these claims, the question should be simple: If this was a Republican Congress with a Democratic President — such as Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, would Congress act this way? If the answer is “no”, then why is it acceptable to act this way for President-Elect Trump?

Congress’ responsibility is to be a check on the President and the Executive Branch of the government. They certainly did so during the administrations of Barack Obama or Bill Clinton. Why are they rolling over and giving in to President Trump (who many did not support until it looked like he would win)?

President Trump has promised to do many good things for segments of this country that have not benefited from the economic recovery or the actions of the Obama administration. I understand that. From listening to the conservative side, I’ve learned what we missed — that agendas were promulgated that helped some without helping others. That the notion of “Social Justice” has drastically different meanings throughout the country. I also understand that new leadership is coming in that plans to address those deficiencies.  But these things must be done legally and within the constraints of law, and our President must set the ethical example for the country with respect to leadership.

Share

What Have We Become?

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

I want to start this post by pointing out that I am not a Trump suppporter. My posts over the last year should have made this clear: I do not support the man, I did not vote for him, and I sincerely wish the election had gone a different way. I also note that it is sad I must make that particular point in so much of what I say.

But that said.

What have we become?

I mean, seriously, what have we become?

I was reading through Facebook this morning, and across my various groups and pages I’m seeing the following:

  • “Rosie O’Donnell tweets “F*CK U” to Paul Ryan – Internet explodes in laughter.
  • “Michelle Obama, we thank you for the inspiration you’ve been. We’re going to need it as we get through this crazy time in our world – not just our country…”
  • Office of Government Ethics – Donald Trump nominees not properly vetted
  • Keith Olbermann Finally Says What Nobody Else Will Say About Trump. Keith Olbermann is willing to go all the way to take a stand against our country’s unconscionable choice for 45th President where others haven’t.
  • The Most Extreme Party Coalition Since the Civil War
  • A Nobel Economist Just Compared Trump To Hitler
  • Let’s Impeach Him Now: The Case for Preparing for the End of Trump’s Presidency Before It Even Begins
    The president-elect has already committed criminal offenses. Democrats can’t let them slide.
  • “We have to throw everything at this. This man is slightly unhinged,” Michael Moore said of the president-elect.
  • Breitbart Just Got Caught–And Slammed–For Making Up A ‘News’ Story
  • Why we need to fight Trump, every inch of the way!
  • PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP IS A TRAITOR

These are just some of the headlines – the one I could cut and paste. The visual memes are similar. I am sure, that if you are liberal as I am, that you have seen similar things on your news feed.

Here’s the problem: Change references to Trump to references to Obama, references to Obama to references to someone like Reagan, references to right-wing media to the New York Times, and references to Democrats to Republicans.  Now go back in time two years. Wouldn’t you think you were reading one of the pages from the right-wing, rabid anti-Obama foamers that we made so much fun of? That we looked on as part of the problem?

Much as this may be fun and laugh inducing, we do not win if we adopt the tactics of those we hated. Utilizing hyperbole at every chance, fighting and impeding the work of government at every get-go, demonizing at every opportunity. This only increases partisanship, makes it harder to move forward and have effective government, and makes us seem as idiotic as the Republican anti-Obama folk did during the Obama administration. It is the way children act, and aren’t we better than that?

But, you insist, I hate this President. I can’t stand him personally, or anything he and his party stands for.

I hear you. But hear yourself. They were saying the same thing about Obama. That’s not how we move forward and break the cycle.

Much as we may hate it and find it hard to do, we need to treat the President-elect as we wanted (and we want, for the next two weeks) the other side to treat Obama during his Presidency. Not to unquestioningly agree or roll over, but to respect the office even if you disagree with the man. Not to object to everything, but to pick the worthwhile battles. Not to blanket block and obstruct, but to follow the laws and insist that the other side does.

It is hard to do. I so want to make fun of Trump and his administration — it is such an easy target. But am I an adult, or am I a child? Am I behaving like those whom I abhorred?

Someone has to be adult enough to break out out of this cycle we’ve been in since Bill Clinton was first elected. Our current incoming President makes it so hard, but I can guarantee that the rabid Republicans said the same thing just prior to Barack Obama’s first inauguration.

I don’t know the answer, but behaving like those we thought were childish is not it.

P.S.: Over on the Facebook comments on this, a friend referenced Jim Wright’s Stonekettle Station: Resolutions. It says something similar, and my reactions was “Yes, Yes, Yes.”. Read it. Follow it. Live it.

Share

Dear Donald: It Isn’t Always About US

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

userpic=trumpEarlier this week, Donald Trump (who isn’t the President yet) threatened a Japanese automaker, Toyota, about a plant they were building in Mexico. Specifically, Trump tweeted: “Toyota Motor said will build a new plant in Baja, Mexico, to build Corolla cars for U.S. NO WAY! Build plant in U.S. or pay big border tax.” Now, irrespective of the fact that Trump got a number of facts wrong:

  • Toyota’s factory in Baja assembles Tacoma trucks, according to the automaker.
  • The new Toyota new plant in Guanajuato, Mexico, will manufacture Corollas.
  • The new factory is shifting work from a facility in Canada, and there is no change in employment and production in the United States as a result of the new operations.

Further, irrespective of the fact that Toyota is a Japanese company, and thus has global operations and can (and has) manufacture its parts in Japan, as it would want to bring income to Japan.

As I said, irrespective of all that, Trump is demonstrating that he doesn’t understand business, in particular, the global automotive and manufacturing business. That’s actually not a surprise — his expertise (if he has that) is in real estate development, which is a very different beast. Any manufacturing he has done has been outsourced (often to foreign manufacturers).

What is Trump missing? Here are a few of my thoughts:

  • First and foremost, why do you presume that a plant in Mexico is making cars for the US market, especially with a manufacturer like Toyota? There are car-buying adults living in Mexico, Central and South America, and none of those countries have domestic automakers. Toyota could very well be building cars in Mexico for the Mexican market, which the Mexican government might encourage because, you know, domestic jobs and all that stuff.
  • If you impose a larger tariff on cars imported from Mexico than cars manufactured locally, then you raise the price of those cars sold in the US (because — and you’re a businessman and should realize this — the company won’t eat the costs out of the goodness of their shareholder’s pockets). If you do that, you’ll sell fewer of those cars in the US marketplace. When you are talking economy entry-level cars, that’s a big deal. It might not matter on a Cadillac Escalade, but for a Toyota Corolla or Ford Fiesta, you’ll make the car overpriced for the features. Who will pay for this? Not the manufacturer: in the car business, the manufacturer sells the car to the dealers (which is when they make their money). The dealer sells the car to the public, so it is main street — your local car dealers — that will be hurt. Eventually, they will order less cars of that variety, and the manufacturer will sell that production in other, growing, countries.
  • Especially for vendors like Toyota, the profits from sales (and they make their money in sales to dealers) goes to Japan. Not taxed — which you should know as you operate foreign companies. The dealers will make less money, which will impact the local, state, and federal tax income.
  • Unlike real estate, car manufacturing is a global business. This means that what you consider “manufacturing” is often no more than the final assembly and possibly painting. The parts themselves are manufactured all over the world; in fact, a car assembled in Mexico could be assembled from predominately US-manufactured parts, transported to Mexico by US companies purchasing US gasoline. So how does manufacturing in Mexico cost US jobs?
  • Further, as you pull manufacturing from Mexico, what happens to the jobs in Mexico? You probably don’t think about that, with your focus on US-first. But as those jobs — good paying jobs, from the Mexican point of view — go away, unemployment increases in Mexico. What happens when there is lots of Mexican unemployment? Let’s put it this way: Why are you building your wall? That’s right: taking jobs from Mexico effectively forces people in Mexico to want to come to the US (often illegally) for work.

In short, your simplistic analysis of the situation, built upon jingoism and your limited expertise in real estate (which is always manufactured locally of primarily locally sourced materials) leads to overly simplistic answers of increasingly complex situations.

Mr. Trump: This isn’t 1917. We live in an era with a globally intertwined economy. “Domestic” companies sell globally; “Foreign” companies sell domestically. Manufacturing occurs across an increasingly diverse and global supply chain, and assembly is different than manufacturing. Manufacturing jobs are increasingly lost not to foreign workers, but to technical advances in automated manufacturing — machines may cost more initially, but don’t require breaks, sick leave, vacation, or medical benefits. Machines also take fewer people (higher paid, requiring degrees) to support them. This means different approaches on corporate taxation — both on income and investment. As for free trade: often the problem with deals like NAFTA and the TPP is not the free trade aspects, but in all the side trade-based negotiations that are essentially earmarks for special interests. Free trade itself is beneficial: it permits domestic corporations to sell to a growing global market without the competition-hurting tariffs, and permits foreign corporations to attempt to sell in the US (and their sales-critters are domestic employees, paying taxes on their markups, on income that might not otherwise have occurred).

In short: economics today can’t be done in 140 characters. Government by Twitter is overly simplistic, and a sign of a grownup that just doesn’t understand. That may have worked for you in your real estate, casino, and other business ventures that can go bankrupt and stiff suppliers, but the Nation cannot go bankrupt.

Share