Trump Administration Proposes Limiting Protests Near White House
The Trump administration has proposed changes to limit demonstrations near the White House and National Mall. The limits include closing 80% of the White House sidewalk, placing limits on spontaneous demonstrations, and imposing a “First Amendment fee” for protests (gotta make up for the deficits he created).
✓ The public has until October 15 to comment on the plans.
✓ Under current policy, the National Park Service charges fees for special events (e.g., concerts and weddings), but not for First Amendment demonstrations (e.g., marches and protests).
✓ The American Civil Liberties Union, NAACP, Hispanic Federation, National Coalition Against Censorship, National Women’s Law Center, Human Rights Campaign, Sierra Club and a number of other organizations oppose the change.
Trump clearly wants to limit protesting outside of and near the White House; but, it would not cover protests coming from inside the White House.
Donald Trump continued his tirade against the Federal Reserve in a late Wednesday television appearance, laying into the central bank’s policy decisions and suggesting it is to blame for Wednesday’s sharp market decline. Saying he is “not happy” with the Fed, Trump explained why he was not happy with the Fed in a broad based economic review of Fed policy of continuing increases in Fed Rates to stave off the threat of inflation.
“The problem I have is with the Fed. The Fed is going wild. I mean, I don’t know what their problem is that they are raising interest rates and it’s ridiculous. The problem [causing the market drop] in my opinion is the Treasury and the Fed. The Fed is going loco and there’s no reason for them to do it. I’m not happy about it.”
Earlier Wednesday, Trump suggested; “They are so tight. I think the Fed has gone crazy.”
To date, this has not been a wage driven inflationary spiral as YOY hourly income increases in nonsupervisory has been stuck at 2.7%. Trump does not appear to grasp that his and Republican policies have created the an inflationary spiral which the Fed is trying to slow and which constituents will suffer from soon enough.
It will turn into a 1st Amendment argument with the administration claiming some public safety justification for its limits. The resolution will depend on how much administration bullshit our right wing federal courts are willing to accept.
Jack:
Which is wanted I expected. Pay to protest. A price for spontaneous freedom of speech.
We’re in an inflationary spiral?
Yeah, as much as I think a first amendment fee is a poll tax on steroids, I do not really see the inflationary spiral—perhaps because the Fed has finally started on a path of normalizing interest rates. There is bound to be some pain with zombie businesses who have been kept alive only with free money finally go belly up and the overpriced equities finally face some competition, but I do not see it as huge effort to contain inflation. Indeed, I see it more as putting away some powder to fight the next deflationary battle when thanks to the GOP’s tax cuts for the rich, we really will be like Greece. Of course, perhaps by then we will have given up any pretense to being a Democracy.
Terry:
You could be right. I kind of agree with NDD.
I think we are on the verge as Labor slack in working part time and underutilization dries up, and hourly pay increases. Energy is up in cost which will drive other costs. It took a while before the Fed woke up in the seventies. In the nineties Greenspan started his climb up and then there was the race to the bottom. He hung on to long and we got a recession in 2000/1. I think the 2007/8 fornication between depository banks, investment firms and Wall Street plus the influx of money from other countries looking for safe heaven in the US was responsible. Still Main Street paid the price for Wall Street and banks.
We did not need a tax break for 10% of us with 60% going to less than 1% of the household taxpayers. It created a greater imbalance.
The ingredients are there.
I don’t know what an inflationary spiral has to do with a restriction on free speech and the right to peaceably assemble.
Two independent thoughts, “Trump clearly wants to limit protesting outside of and near the White House; but, it would not cover protests coming from inside the White House.” The former has merit and the latter does not. So we attack the former and allow the babbling.
Maybe there’s some hope. Fox is no longer covering Trump rallies live.