Eleanor Roosevelt Sums It Up

Now, think about the general tone and substance (or lack thereof) apparent in 2016 campaign for the Presidency on the part of Donald J. Trump.  Consider his avoidance of venues in which he could have directly addressed African Americans – the Urban League, the NAACP?  Consider his speeches to nearly all white audiences while telling African Americans “Vote for me, because you’ve got nothing to lose.”  Think of the surrogate on television suggesting a burning car would be a good backdrop for appeals to the African American community?  Remember his comment about Mexican “drug smugglers and rapists?” His verbal assault on a Judge of Mexican American heritage?  His supporters chanting “Build the Wall?”

Add to this toxic mixture his selection of a foreign policy adviser who opined that “there weren’t enough ovens,” in Nazi death camps to murder 6 million people.  [McClatchyDC]  The Trump campaign is focusing on discussing people, people as the “other” – African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Jewish Americans, Native Americans, Muslim Americans…

There’s also the matter of how the Trump campaign addresses policy issues.  (1) Make a speech with slogans and buzz words; (2) Talk about the speech in social media formats; (3) Announce that more details will be revealed later … and later seems never to arrive.  Mr. Trump is obviously willing to discuss people, periodically willing to discuss events (although his commentary on the situation in Ukraine was patently shallow), but never quite manages to have a serious policy debate – one containing those IDEAS that drive a candidacy and a party. 

There are a matter of weeks left before the general election – and still Mr. Trump hasn’t demonstrated he has anything other than a small mind.

Nor has his party been of any assistance.  The GOP clings to the “e-mails” as though they were indicative of some major issue – or related to Secretary Clinton’s veracity – they weren’t, they aren’t, and they are nothing more than the product of the Radical Right Wing Outrage Machine.  The manufactured “scandal” is propped up solely for the purpose of attacking the Secretary personally.

Their health care plans are re-heated Health Savings Accounts left over from campaigns past. Their economic plans and tax reform proposals are a repetition of the failed policy, old fashioned Trickle Down theories.  Their foreign policy pronouncements are stolid sloganeering in the face of asymmetrical and nuanced threats and issues.  Their trade policy defies the logic of their own economic core.  They slavishly recite the NRA talking points on gun violence in America.  It seems when one can’t address ideas, or present new ones for consideration, then the only thing left is the personal attack.  The small minds will continue to discuss people.

Americans deserve better.

Friday Didjah Know?

Maybe “I Regret” wasn’t enough? “MGM Resorts CEO Jim Murren announced on Monday that, despite being a lifelong Republican, he is backing Democrat Hillary Clinton for president. Murren has never publicly endorsed a candidate before but said that he felt he needed to lend his voice to “some of the bigger issues” this election cycle after an “accumulation of vitriol” from Trump.” Full article at the Las Vegas Sun.

Those Naked Truth Statues are products of a Las Vegas artist.  Well done sir! And, a hand clap to the now famous line from the NYC Parks Department: “NYC Parks stands firmly against any unpermitted erection in city parks, no matter how small,” parks spokesman Sam Biederman joked.”

The Nevada Board of Examiners has approved another $125,000 to an outside law firm (Bancroft Associates – Paul Clement) to defend the public school fund gutting voucher education program. The firm has already gotten $420,000 from Nevada and the recent increase will mean a $545,000 total payout. [LVSun]  This would be the same Paul Clement whose firm has been tapped by North Carolina Republican leadership to appeal the NC Voter ID law targeting African Americans.

Former solicitor general during the Bush administration, and current professor at Georgetown Law School, Clement has spent much of the Obama administration working with conservatives on several prominent Supreme Court cases, including arguing in favor of overturning the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), fighting to preserve the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and helping Arizona defend its controversial immigration law. Clement won the Hobby Lobby case at the Supreme Court for religious conservatives. [TNCRM]

The Smoking Gun Memo from North Carolina Republicans isn’t going to make Clement’s task any easier.

Yes, Donald Trump is now running ads – a new Dog Whistle to the Far Right. Did we expect anything else?  Thus much for the pivot, unless by “pivot” means a 360 degree turn. By the way, the ad offers up an Old Hoary GOP line about undocumented immigrants soaking up Social Security Benefits – they don’t. This talking point has been floating around since at least the 2006 mid term elections.  Ten years of the same lie is enough! [factcheck]

An Hispanic couple’s truck was vandalized in northwest Reno (can you guess what happened?) “A Hispanic couple’s truck was vandalized Wednesday night in Northwest Reno with graffiti including Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s name, in what one of the victims said was a hate crime.”

“Esmeralda Estrada, 31, of Reno, said the truck, which is only about two months old, was fine when she and her husband went to sleep around 10 p.m. Wednesday. When they woke up Thursday, it was keyed several times, including the word “Trump” scratched into the side. The tailgate was also spray-painted with “VOTE TRUMP.” [RGJ]

The Estrada’s are the only Hispanic couple in the neighborhood.

Trump and Entourage arrived in Baton Rouge, LA and was met by GOP office holders. They met with volunteers at a church which had been cooking meals for displaced persons.  [AP] The GOP has slammed the President for not appearing, however “Louisiana’s Democratic governor defended the administration’s response Thursday, saying he has spoken daily with the White House and would prefer Obama hold off on visiting because such stops pull local police and first responders into providing security.” [AP]  Nothing like barging in?

Trump Campaign Endorses Heck for Nevada Senate Seat

“Las Vegas, NV – Today, at a campaign event in Henderson – at which a participant reiterated debunked conspiracy theories Congressman Heck has espoused – Donald Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence, officially endorsed Congressman Heck’s campaign. In response, Catherine Cortez Masto for Senate spokesperson Zach Hudson released the following statement:

“After he criticized Republicans who are not supporting Donald Trump’s candidacy last week, the Trump campaign returned the favor and officially gave Congressman Heck its seal of approval today. But this should come as no surprise. Donald Trump, Mike Pence, and Congressman Heck all share the same extreme agenda that would tear immigrant families apart, eliminate a woman’s right to choose, and ship more American jobs overseas.” [CCM]

This raises the question: Why would anyone WANT an endorsement from the Trump-Pence Campaign?  Especially when it’s associated with statements like:

An ‘extremely credible source’ has called my office and told me that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud”

“You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ass.” 

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bring crime. They’re rapists… And some, I assume, are good people.”  [MCUK]

Then there’s the infamous disparagement of John McCain’s service: “He’s not a war hero,” Trump said at the Family Leadership Summit, during a discussion. “He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” […] Trump almost immediately denied saying McCain was not a war hero, and then criticized the senator for not doing enough for veterans.” [Politico]  This from a man who got several deferments from service during the Viet Nam war – and who was comfortably at home while McCain was imprisoned.

Followed by the Major Whopper:

“I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering.” [Newsday] This has been thoroughly debunked!

“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot people and I wouldn’t lose voters,” Trump said at a rally in Iowa, pointing his finger at the crowd like he was shooting a handgun, as he expressed confidence that he would remain atop the Republican field.” [Newsday] The statement reads like it came from a cult leader, not a mainstream politician? And, then there’s this:

“In the Middle East, we have people chopping the heads off Christians, we have people chopping the heads off many other people. We have things that we have never seen before — as a group, we have never seen before, what’s happening right now. The medieval times — I mean, we studied medieval times — not since medieval times have people seen what’s going on. I would bring back waterboarding and I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.” [Newsday]

I’m not sure anyone will ever be able to explain to Mr. Trump that the reason the United States and other nations signed the Geneva Accords was to PROTECT THEIR OWN TROOPS  from inhumane treatment.  But, wait, we can’t leave out Trump picking a fight with a Gold Star family.

“I saw him. He was, you know, very emotional. And probably looked like — a nice guy to me. His wife, if you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably — maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say.” [Newsday] Oh, please, that’s been explained, and Mr. Khan is the furthest thing from a misogynistic caveman of the Trump variety one can think of.  

“I’m afraid the election is going to be rigged, I have to be honest.” [Newsday] We ought to take a closer look at this one.  He continued: “She can’t beat what’s happening here,” the Republican presidential nominee told the crowd in Altoona on Friday night. “The only way they can beat it, in my opinion, and I mean this 100 percent, if in certain sections of the state they cheat, OK?” [NBC] (emphasis added) Now just where might those “certain sections” be located?  We’ve moved from dog whistle into bull horn territory here – he’s obviously speaking of urban, predominantly African American or minority, neighborhoods. The premise here is that if a candidate gets votes from “others,” like Hispanic, African American, or other ethnic minority voters then the election is “rigged.”  Alternately, only white voters cast legitimate ballots – ergo, only elections with all white voters are legitimate.   White Nationalism/Supremacist thinking on parade for all to see. 

But wait, there’s more!  With the addition of Stephen Bannon to the Trump-Pence campaign we can expect more of this.

“Andrew Breitbart despised racism. Truly despised it. He used to brag regularly about helping to integrate his fraternity at Tulane University. He insisted that racial stories be treated with special care to avoid even the whiff of racism. With Bannon embracing Trump, all that changed. Now Breitbart has become the alt-right go-to website, with Yiannopoulos pushing white ethno-nationalism as a legitimate response to political correctness, and the comment section turning into a cesspool for white supremacist mememakers.” [Wire]

So, let’s review.  Candidate Heck has been endorsed by a campaign which has insulted __ Women __ LGBT__Native Americans__African Americans __Hispanic Americans __ Veterans __Muslims__ The US Military __ The US Intelligence Services (check all boxes).  Further, the campaign refuses to release Trump’s Tax Returns.  Remember the fuss Trump raised about Obama’s birth certificate and records from Columbia University?  Evidently, the rules that apply to other candidates and incumbents do not apply to the Mighty Trump.

Trump and Pence are leading the Party which proudly advertises in its platform (pdf) the following radical right wing proposals:  [See also Alternet]

“The  Republican  vision  for  American  banking calls for establishing transparent, efficient markets where consumers can obtain loans they need at reasonable rates based on market conditions. Unfortunately, in response to the financial institutions crisis of 2008-2009, the Democratic-controlled Congress enacted the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, otherwise known as Dodd-Frank.”

“The  worst  of  Dodd-Frank  is  the  Consumer  Financial Protection Bureau, deliberately designed to be a rogue agency. It answers to neither Congress nor the executive, has its own guaranteed funding outside  the  appropriations  process… If the Bureau is not abolished, it should be subjected to congressional appropriation.”

You read this correctly – all the protections in place to correct the banker’s reckless actions leading up to the last Recession will be wiped away along with any protection from predatory lenders.

“Minimum wage is an issue that should be handled at the state and local level.”

Translation: No increase in the federal minimum wage.

“We endorse the First Amendment Defense Act, Republican legislation in the House and Senate which  will  bar  government  discrimination  against  individuals and businesses for acting on the belief that  marriage  is  the  union  of  one  man  and  one  woman.”

Translation: Freedom to discriminate.

“We  support  firearm  reciprocity  legislation  to  recognize  the  right  of  law-abiding  Americans to carry firearms to protect themselves and  their  families  in  all  50  states.  We  support  constitutional  carry  statutes  and  salute  the  states  that  have  passed  them.  We  oppose  ill-conceived  laws  that  would  restrict  magazine  capacity  or  ban  the  sale  of  the  most  popular  and  common  modern rifle.”

Open carry, of anything, anywhere in a nation coping with mass shootings and tragic loss of life.

“We  assert  the  sanctity  of  human  life  and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a  human  life  amendment  to  the  Constitution  and  legislation  to  make  clear  that  the  Fourteenth  Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth.”

This is about as anti-choice as it gets.

“Impose no changes  for  persons  55  or  older.  Give  others  the  option  of  traditional  Medicare  or  transition  to  a  premium-support  model  designed  to  strengthen  patient  choice,  promote  cost-saving  competition  among  providers.”

Translation: “Premium Support” = Coupons. My, my, I seem to remember an advertisement from the Heck camp recently telling me that he supports Medicare?  Maybe not quite??

Representative Heck is now associated with not only an unpalatable platform from a reactionary party, but also with a white-nationalist, misogynistic, bigoted, abrasive, bullying campaign. It will be interesting to see how candidate Heck responds to his recent endorsement. 

What Democrats Want To Talk About

Enough said?

Trump’s Racism: List One

And, this is the man being supported by Representative Joe Heck, Representative Mark Amodei, and Representative Cresent Hardy.

Mark Amodei supports Trump

It’s that simple. Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) supports Donald Trump’s campaign for the presidency of the United States of America. [KENV-tv]

And, what is he endorsing?

Donald J. Trump is a textbook case of Projection.  “Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.”

Representative Amodei is endorsing a man whose relationship with the truth is tenuous at best and oppositional at worst.  He is supporting a man who in 2007 lied at least 30 times in a deposition:

“That deposition — 170 transcribed pages — offers extraordinary insights into Trump’s relationship with the truth. Trump’s falsehoods were unstrategic — needless, highly specific, easy to disprove. When caught, Trump sometimes blamed others for the error or explained that the untrue thing really was true, in his mind, because he saw the situation more positively than others did.”

And yet this man had the temerity to call Secretary Hillary Clinton a pathological liar?  However, that’s not all. There’s a web page devoted to Donald Trump’s lies, and as of May 13, 2016 the count was up to 366.  Trump has kept the folks at Politifact busy, they’ve started a compilation of Trump’s falsehoods. There’s also a listing of the number of occasions in which Mr. Trump’s declarations have earned their “Pants On Fire” designation. Those wanting to see an up-to-date fact check of Mr. Trump’s speech on foreign policy should see Politifact’s piece on that performance.

How would the comparative truthfulness of the candidates be shown in chart form? Here it is:

Representative Amodei would recommend we vote for the candidate who is behind only Michele Bachman in the Pants On Fire category, and who has made the fewest number of TRUE pronouncements? It would be interesting to hear how Representative Amodei might respond to an inquiry such as – How can you tell people to vote for someone whose statements are mostly false, false, or Pants on Fire false?

For that matter, why would anyone want to vote for a man who endorses the Liar’s Liar?

The Russians Are Playing, The Russians Are Playing

While playing connect the dots is a favored past-time among the punditry, it takes time to piece together the actions and intent of the Russians in terms of American politics.   We can, however, list some items which should be of continuing interest to the American voting public:

Item: Josh Marshall, at Talking Points Memo, has been doing some heavy lifting in the background information department.  He reminds us that the Russians aren’t playing from a position of strength; they aren’t the power they once were, and shouldn’t be perceived as the Cold Warriors of Old. This doesn’t mean we can dismiss their “asymmetrical” activities in American elections, but we should be clear about their capacity to do major harm.  They are engaged in trolling operations; and in “news” operations.  And, yes, as Marshall outlines it, there is a Putin-Trump connection.  What does make all this interesting is that both Putin and Trump are operating from positions of weakness, rather than strength; Putin in a declining economic power and Trump in a declining political position.

Item: The Manafort Issue is no less intriguing. CNN reports that the Trump Campaign chair received funds from the former Ukrainian regime, now under investigation for corruption. According to the NYT:

“And Mr. Manafort’s presence remains elsewhere here in the capital, where government investigators examining secret records have found his name, as well as companies he sought business with, as they try to untangle a corrupt network they say was used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of Mr. Manafort’s main client, former President Viktor F. Yanukovych.

Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine’s newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials.”

Manafort’s response has been varied.  He’s denied that any such transactions took place (Vanity Fair) and tried to shake off the allegations by saying that some donations to the Clinton Foundations were equally shady. (Politifact)  However, Mr. Manafort’s allegations of corruption were not substantiated with any actual evidence. [Politifact] This leaves us with an uncomfortable bit of circumlocution from Mr. Manafort — “I didn’t do it, but if I did what the Clinton’s did was worse.” This is not a very strong argument.

Item:  The matter of the DNC hack.  That the hack came from Russian sponsored sources is no longer a matter of debate – it did.  We should get used to titles like Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear in relation to the hack job. The first round of released information was enough to thoroughly embarrass the DNC, but the second round may be the most deleterious.  The hacking was more widespread than previously thought, and the DCCC information was both leaked and used – according to Minority Leader Pelosi:

“The California lawmaker was responding to the latest hacking incident, into the House Democratic campaign arm, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which on Friday night published members’ personal cell phone numbers and some private email addresses.”

Democratic lawmakers received obscene calls and texts. Pelosi advised members to change their phone numbers, and they were also advised on another concern, “One major concern are the emails sent to the members or the staff could include website links with malware or phishing attempts to steal identities or financial information. Congressional security officials have warned members and staff not to click on websites they are not familiar with.” [CNN]  Now, we’re getting into some truly nasty territory. It could be argued that the Trump Campaign has outsourced the Dirty Tricks Department to the Russians?

Trump: Even Truthiness Doesn’t Matter

The man in the photo above is the founder of ISIS (Daesh).  And then there’s this from the latest round of Trump0matic Rhetoric:

“In the wide-ranging phone interview (with CNBC), Trump insisted that President Barack Obama “absolutely” founded ISIS. He also discussed economic issues, including regulation and infrastructure spending.
…
Asked about them, he doubled down and said “[Obama] was the founder of ISIS absolutely, the way he removed our troops. … I call them co-founders,” he added, referring to his Democratic presidential opponent, Hillary Clinton.”

I know full well that correcting Trumpisms is like shoveling sand up hill, but at least we don’t have to reside in the land of utter stupidity and ignorance.  Let’s focus on “the way he removed our troops.” Obama removed our forces based on the SOFA agreed to by George W. Bush.

December 14, 2008:

“It is true that Bush signed an agreement, known as the Status of Forces Agreement, on Dec. 14, 2008, that said: “All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.”

Condoleezza Rice, who served as Bush’s secretary of state, wrote in her 2011 book, “No Higher Honor,” that Bush did not want to set a deadline “in order to allow conditions on the ground to dictate our decisions.” She wrote that she met with Maliki in August 2008 and secured what she thought was an agreement for a residual force of 40,000 U.S. troops. But she said Maliki soon “reneged” and insisted on “the withdrawal of all U.S. forces by the end of 2011.” She said Bush “swallowed hard” and agreed to what she called “suitable language” to do just that.” [FactCheck.org]  (emphasis added)

The remainder of the argument depends on a subjective opinion as to how “hard the Obama Administration tried to renegotiate the SOFA.”  Critics of the withdrawal of combat forces charge that the Administration “didn’t try hard enough.”  However, the insistence of the Maliki government that any agreement would have to be put to the Iraqi Parliament didn’t help matters.  This also leaves open the argument that perhaps the Bush Administration didn’t press the Maliki government hard enough either.

Critics of the US policy in regard to Iraq, and the deployment of troops to that country, are caught arguing “Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda,” when there are altogether too many variables in a complex situation to make blanket charges of any kind.

And, while Trump says he will continue to say Obama and Clinton are the “co-founders of ISIS” (I prefer Daesh) the timeline rebuts this presumption.  A brief trip down memory land —

2004: Abu Musab Al Zarqawi establishes Al Qaeda in Iraq.

2006: Zarqawi, killed in a US air strike, is replaced by Abu Ayyub Amasri at the head of AQI. October 15, 2006: Al Masri announces the creation of the Islamic State in Iraq; Sunni tribes begin a campaign to kill AQI members, and AQI is rebranded the Islamic State in Iraq.

In reality, the formation of Daesh goes back a bit further, as is explained here:

“ISIS/IS has its origins in an obscure militant group, Jamaat al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (JTJ), that was stood up in 2000 by a Jordanian one-time criminal-turned-Islamist named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (AMZ).¹ His intent was to fight the Jordanian government, but he failed to gain traction.² Zarqawi then traveled to Afghanistan to fight on the side of the mujahidin (resistance) in the jihad against the Soviets. Having arrived after their departure, he soon returned to his homeland to fight the well-entrenched Jordanian monarchy. His efforts came to naught, and he eventually returned to Afghanistan, where he ran an Islamic militant training camp near Herat.” [MEPC.org]

And now the plot thickens and becomes more nuanced:

“Following the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, al-Zarqawi moved into Iraq. There he developed extensive ties with Ansar al-Islam (Partisans of Islam), a Kurdish Islamist group. In March 2003, the United States invaded and occupied Iraq. A brilliant conventional campaign led to the erroneous belief on the part of the George W. Bush administration that Iraq would stabilize and progress towards democracy. By summer 2003, the disgruntled Sunni minority — toppled from power with the downfall of Saddam Hussein — launched a deadly insurgency. It consisted of five distinct groups, four composed largely of Iraqis from the former regime, nationalists, tribal elements and various Islamist fighters. The fifth group was AMZ’s JTJ, consisting of a smattering of Iraqis and many foreign fighters.”  [MEPC.org]

Not that any of this matters to Donald J. Trump.  However, what we do know is that the Trump pronouncements on foreign policy are as vapid and ill informed as his sloganeering on any other topic.  ISIS (Daesh) morphed from a fifth element in the Iraqi insurgency into a major and deadly part of the conflict in the region, but they certainly didn’t find their origin in the Obama Administration.

Those wishing to get a longer, more historical look at the issues surrounding the current conflict in the Middle East may want to start with David Fromkin’s A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East, and Margaret MacMillan’s Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed The World.  Also recommended is Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Baghdad’s Green Zone, by Rajiv Chandrasekaran. These are three notable books which will give a person something to do besides listen to Trump’s simplistic sloganeering and sloppy irrationality.

Trump’s Economic Siren Song

The words “Trump” and “plan” should really never be used in the same sentence. Witness the speech to the Detroit Economic Club.  Here’s what the Reuters News Service gleaned from Trump’s speech:

“Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Monday proposed tax breaks for working families and for corporations as he outlined economic plans in an effort to regain momentum lost during a damaging spate of controversies.

Trump said his plan would include imposing a temporary moratorium on new federal regulations and a reduction to the tax burden on working parents with childcare costs.

He proposed cutting the number of federal income tax brackets from seven to three and reducing the top rate to 33 percent from 39.6 percent. He had previously said he would drop that rate to 25 percent, an idea many tax experts said would dramatically reduce government income and balloon deficits.”

First, notice in the second line of the article quoted above that Mr. Trump “outlined economic plans,” NOT offered any specifics —  those will come later, just as every other suggestion made by the Republican nominee will come later, if at all.  If ever.

The Rich Get Richer and 88.7% Get Nothing

Secondly, those “tax breaks for working families” aren’t for all working families just some of them – even the Wall Street Journal noticed:

“It wasn’t clear how such a tax break might be structured and whether it would be available to tens of millions of families that don’t pay income taxes because they have lower incomes. Making child-care expenses fully deductible would provide much larger benefits to the wealthiest families that have larger tax bills.”

Nice.  However, we can clarify this to some extent.  The Tax Policy Center offers this information about working families, tax bills, and who needs the help the most:

“Only 11.3 percent of households in the bottom income quintile will pay federal income tax in 2015. In contrast, 59.3 percent of households in the lowest income quintile will owe payroll taxes. Combined, 60.3 percent of households in the lowest income quintile will owe federal income or payroll taxes.

In many cases, low-income households owe no income tax. That’s because, in 2015, a married couple with two children can exempt $28,600 from income using the standard deduction and personal and dependent exemptions. Generally, smaller amounts can be exempted from smaller households and larger amounts from larger households.”

The arithmetic is simple. Only a bit over 11% of households in the bottom income quintile owe federal income taxes – and these are the ones which would benefit from Trump’s “deduction.”  What the other 88.7% of the families in that quintile get from Mr. Trump’s “plan” is nothing.

Deregulation

We’ve heard this song before.  More specifically, a campaign aide told the Wall Street Journal, this means Trump wants to slash EPA regulation on carbon pollution, and halt the preservation of wetlands and waterways.  Nothing new here.  It’s the same GOP rhetoric of old, conflating all regulation with EPA and conservation rules.  This, while 1/3rd of the residents of California still lived in areas as of 2014 which did not meet Clean Air standards. [LA Times]

Reporters slid by deregulation of the financial sector (read: Wall Street Casino) However, this past May the Republican candidate called for dismantling the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, and reversing the regulations in the Dodd Frank Act.  [Fortune]  There’s nothing new here either, just more generalized GOP talking points.

Jolly Little Trade Wars?

“At the same time, Mr. Trump has promised to aggressively use executive power to renegotiate trade agreements, to label foreign countries as currency manipulators and to apply tariffs and other penalties to trading partners.”  [WSJ]

Lovely.  First, China is our Number One import partner.  Mexico is second, and Canada third.  [Census FT]  We’ve imported $212.2 billion worth of stuff from China thus far this year; $145.2 from Mexico; and, $137 billion from Canada.  Not surprisingly these three are also our top three export partners, in order: Canada, Mexico, and China. [Census FT] Is Mr. Trump truly suggesting that we get into economic battles with our top three economic partners?  Are we really going to benefit from practicing Hoover-ian Protectionism in relation to our top three partners?

Trump said:

“At the center of my plan is trade enforcement with China. This alone could return millions of jobs into our economy.

China is responsible for nearly half of our entire trade deficit. They break the rules in every way imaginable. China engages in illegal export subsidies, prohibited currency manipulation, and rampant theft of intellectual property. (65 66) They also have no real environmental or labor protections, further undercutting American workers.”

[…] Trade has big benefits, and I am in favor of trade. But I want great trade deals for our country that create more jobs and higher wages for American workers. Isolation is not an option, only great and well- crafted trade deals are.” [Time]

Yes, Chinese manufacturing policies are heinous.  However, what Mr. Trump has on offer IS protectionism and isolation; no matter how politely it’s phrased.   Or how vaguely it’s expressed, as on Trump’s website explanation.  Missing from the Detroit address and the website mentions are the 35% tariffs Mr. Trump proposed last May. [National Review]

Further, Mr. Trump appears to be operating on the happy delusion that simply declaring China to be a currency manipulator will force them to re-negotiate our trade deals.  Not. So. Fast.  Manipulation is in the eye of the beholder.

“Reasonable people can and do disagree about how countries conduct their monetary policies: what price should the central bank fix, or at what pace should that fix evolve. But to label as manipulation the conduct of monetary policy itself betrays a fundamental confusion about the operation and goals of central banks. If Zhou Xiaochuan,governor of the People’s Bank of China, is a currency manipulator, then Janet Yellen is an interest-rate manipulator.” [WSJ]

As is becoming all too noticeable, Mr. Trump’s understanding of the monetary policies involved is essentially shallow. The Wall Street Journal continues:

“Movements in the nominal yuan exchange rate have almost no long-term impact on global flows of exports and imports or on broader considerations such as average wages. The exchange rate that matters for trade flows is the real exchange rate, i.e., the nominal exchange rate adjusted for local-currency prices in both countries.

The real exchange rate, in turn, reflects the deep forces of comparative advantage such as technology and endowments of labor and capital. These forces drive trade regardless of monetary policy.”

Sorry, Mr. Trump, it seems as though a bit more sophisticated understanding of exchange rates is necessary – and, no, merely declaring China a “currency manipulator” isn’t likely to do much, and certainly not much in terms of wages for American workers.  It really would do Mr. Trump some good if he’d check out the article by the Dean of the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth in the WSJ. [ Also WPO Blog, CFR, and then of course there are the Federalists]  Little wonder Republican economists are jumping ship.

Bottom Line Towards the Bottom of the Barrel

It isn’t hard to summarize Trump’s “Economic Plan,” – first, it’s not a plan.  It is an aspirational outline of economic ideas, none of which are anything new. Romney suggested declaring China a “currency manipulator” during his campaign, and the anti-regulation rhetoric goes back to the 1971 Powell Memo. It’s rather more a laundry list of Republican wishes – deregulate, repeal the Affordable Care Act, bash China, and ‘act strong.’   In this, Mr. Trump seems to be unable to differentiate between acting and posturing.  The speech was all pose in bad prose.

FACT CHECK: Catherine Cortez Masto on Crime v. Joe Heck

Reblogged on WordPress.com

Source: FACT CHECK: Catherine Cortez Masto on Crime v. Joe Heck