Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Why Doesn’t Donald Trump go back to his own country ?

He can choose Scotland or Germany (although neither want him — I wonder where he is hated more — Scotts tend to be lefty and very good at hating). I won’t go back to my own country — Hungary — because I can’t stand Viktor Orban and can’t learn the language (I have never felt as foreign as I did when looking for my grandmother’s old aparement).

But he directed his go back to their own country racist xenophobic attack at, among others, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressly. Ocasio-Cortez’s family came to New York from Puerto Rico so her country of last detectable origin is … the USA (I know Donald Trump doesn’t accept that as he defines American as anglo white but it is still true).

Ayanna Pressly is African American. Most African Americans are descended from people who were in the USA when it was founded (and long before any ancestors of Donald Trump or Robert Waldmann). Now it is true that some very prominent African Americans aren’t — Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, Colin Powell and Eric Holder come to mind. I will now google (I already checked to be sure that Ocasio-Cortez’s family came from Puerto Rico). OK no hint of any immigration at all in the Pressley family history. Note the USA is not a country of immigrants. immigration is a voluntary act and most African Americans are descended from people kidnapped and brought here in chains. What is her own country if it isnàt the USA. Even she doesn’t know (and it sure wasn’t organized as a country when her ancestors were kidnapped).

It is clear, as it always has been, that Trump’s nationalism is racism. A woman whose ancestors were in the USA when it was founded should go back to her own company which can’t be America because the genuine US population is white white and white.

Sorry for stating the obvious and proving what has been clear for decades.

Also of course, Pelosi said it better

Pelosi stood up for the congresswomen.

“When @realDonaldTrump tells four American Congresswomen to go back to their countries, he reaffirms his plan to ‘Make America Great Again’ has always been about making America white again,” Pelosi tweeted. “Our diversity is our strength and our unity is our power.”

Comments (2) | |

WARNING: another “debt ceiling debacle” is looming, and could cause nearly immediate recession

WARNING: another “debt ceiling debacle” is looming, and could cause nearly immediate recession

It’s time to start to get seriously worried about another “debt ceiling debacle.” In 2011, the GOP refused to authorize a “clean” debt ceiling hike. The hike in the debt ceiling, for those who may not know, is necessary for the US government to pay debts that *it has already incurred.*

In 2011, as a result of the impasse, US creditworthiness was downgraded from AAA to AA. Consumer confidence plummeted:

Note the next largest spike downward occurred during the government shutdown at the beginning of this year.

Comments (0) | |

Pence’s Potemkin Village on the Mexican Border

Pence’s Potemkin Village on the Mexican Border

Merriam Webster defines a Potemkin Village as:

an impressive facade or show designed to hide an undesirable fact or condition

Mike Pence visited a Potemkin Village in Donna, Texas:

Pence also visited a tent-like temporary detention facility in Donna, Texas, that holds unaccompanied children and immigrant families. The new and mostly clean facility stood in stark contrast to the McAllen station Pence later visited.

While the Buzzfeed story focused on the McAllen station, which depicted horrific conditions, I’m sure Trump’s favorite “news” outlets will highlight the facility in Donna, Texas. In other words, part of Pence’s visit to the border was designed to con the American people that immigrants are being treated well. Leon Panetta is right:

Trump treats Americans like we’re chumps

Since Pence is a Christian, we have to wonder how he can still support Trump’s racist immigration policies after seeing how God’s children are being horribly abused. Here’s a little challenge for Mr. Pence – how many of the Ten Commandments are you violating? Certainly the first two with your idol worship of Donald Trump:

1. You shall have no other gods before Me. 2.You shall make no idols.

This abuse of God’s has led to many deaths, which of course violates the Commandment not to murder. OK – Mike Pence has not committed adultery even if his idol has many times. But cheating on one’s wife is sort of routine for powerful politicians. The serial abuse of innocent people solely based on their race and mainly for partisan purchases is not only unAmerican but also against everything Pence’s religion stands for.

Comments (4) | |

Does Turkish Lira Decline Mean Turkey Leaves NATO?

Does Turkish Lira Decline Mean Turkey Leaves NATO?

Probably not, but Turkey is about to receive Russian S-400 missiles against US demands.  More signifigantly the US will kill high level US F-35 agreements, and will not fly US planes over Turkey if it uses the Russian systems.  This threatens Turkish membership in NATO.

The immediate result of this in financial markets has been a substantial decline of the Turkish lira over the last several weeks.  While pushing off the US has costs, there will be gains from favoring Russia, from Russian tourist business to other economic deals, as well as cooperation with Russia not only in Syria, but also with respect to Iran, where both Turkey and Russia disagree with US policy to pull out of the JCPOA nuclear agreement with Iran, which has led to a very bad state.

More deeply we see the limits of the weltenschaaung that Trump put forward last September at the UN GA to massive laughter by many other  national leaders, a moment not known to most Americans while unprecedented, the idea of super nationalism. Now he is facing the outcome of his folly on these matters: both Putin and Turkish leader Erdogan agree with him on this nationalist baloney, but now they are allying against him and the US. This shows that the end of this approach is not international cooperation through international organizations like the UN.  It is nationalist competition and rivalries leading to warfare.

Oh, and Erdogan seems to be imitating Trump also on economic policy, although he is playing a weaker hand, with the Turkish economy’s problems one of the reasons the US Fed is looking at lowering interest rates, not only a supposed ally, but one of the G20 nations whose economic problems are serious enough to draw the attention of the US Fed.

Barkley Rosser

Comments (1) | |

The Condition Of North Korean Conventional Weapons

The Condition Of North Korean Conventional Weapons

This is based on essentially gossip, or if you prefer, a rumor.  I have been dining in Washington again and someone there who is in fact both well known and very well informed, but whom I shall not name, made a comment about the state of conventional weapons in DPRK and also said that this has not been publicly known.  According to this person their condition is much worse than publicly believed.  So out of date and out of condition are they  that supposedly North Korea can no longer  seriously threaten Seoul with a conventional attack (as has long been taken for granted as being possible and looming over the situation there).

The supposed implication of this, if indeed it is true (which it may not be, and this is simply not easily checked on), would be that the DPRK needs its nuclear weapons more than we have thought and will be even less willing to give them up than has been thought, not that many of us have taken too seriously the idea that they would be willing to give them up.  Indeed, there have been recent rumblings out of Washington, denied by the administration, that Trump may be willing to return to the position of earlier administrations and cease trying to get DPRK to give up those weapons while trying to put some limits on the program instead.  Needless to say, Trump has had nothing but ridicule for this position when it seemed to be that of Obama, but if he does it, well, this will sort of be like calling NAFTA the worst trade deal ever and then negotiation a new NAFTA that is only slightly different from it and proclaiming it to be the best trade deal ever.

Barkley Rosser

Comments (3) | |

The Mutt Speech

One Mutt’s Speech for You to think about after celebrating the long Weekend from the nationalistic holiday called the Forth of July while others are fleeing terror and violence.

John Winger: “Cut it out! Cut it out! Cut it out! The hell’s the matter with you? Stupid! We’re all very different people. We’re not Watusi. We’re not Spartans. We’re Americans, with a capital ‘A’, huh? You know what that means? Do ya? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We’re the underdog. We’re mutts! Here’s proof: his nose is cold! But there’s no animal that’s more faithful, that’s more loyal, more loveable than the mutt. Who saw ‘Old Yeller?’ Who cried when Old Yeller got shot at the end?

Nobody cried when Old Yeller got shot? I’m sure.

I cried my eyes out. So we’re all dogfaces, we’re all very, very different, but there is one thing that we all have in common: we were all stupid enough to enlist in the Army. We’re mutants. There’s something wrong with us, something very, very wrong with us. Something seriously wrong with us – we’re soldiers. But we’re American soldiers! We’ve been kicking ass for 200 years! We’re ten and one!”

“Stripes” Bill Murray the Mutt Speech

Tags: Comments (6) | |

Destroying Social Security to Save It

Connecticut Representative John Larson Proposes Plan To Destroy Social Security In Order To Save It, by Dale Coberly

Connecticut Congressman John Larson introduces H. R. 860, Social Security 2100 Act which will cuts taxes, strengthen benefits, prevents anyone from retiring into poverty, and ensure Social Security remains strong for generations. larson.house.gov

It sounds good, but of course he wants it to sound good. In the past we have had to be worried mostly about plans from the “Right,” the crazy people who want to Save Social Security in order to destroy it. Their plans sounded good, too.

To make it easier on myself, I am going to just list Larson’s points and offer a few words about them in the hope you will think twice.

Larson: The Social Security 2100 Act Expands Benefits

There is a benefit bump for current and new beneficiaries — Provides an increase of 2%.

Me: A 2% increase in benefits would mean nothing to beneficiaries. Unlike the reduced inflation indexing the bad guys were proposing, this increase will not accumulate over time.

What Social Security faces is a potential 20% cut in benefits if the payroll tax is not increased to keep up with increases in life expectancy. The increase needed would be about 2% of payroll. 2% of payroll becomes 20% of benefits because the 2% you pay is matched by 2% your employer pays for. That extra 4% over 40 years of working becomes 8% over 20 years of life expectancy, and that 8% becomes roughly 20% due to the effective interest that arises automatically from pay as you go financing.

Larson: Protection against inflation. Increases the COLA formula to better reflect costs incurred by seniors.

Me: Probably a good idea. But the “normal” inflation adjustment, if paid for by that 2% increase in the payroll tax, will provide increased benefits that may be adequate. The question is how are we going to pay for a higher COLA? My suggestion is that a tiny bit larger increase in the payroll tax would not be felt, and would avoid the politically suicidal “make the rich pay” part of Larson’s plan unnecessary.

Larson: Protect low income workers. A new minimum benefit will be set at 25% above the poverty line.

Me: Again, probably a good idea. But not if it changes the “worker paid” feature which is so important to Social Security’s political future.

If the workers want to pay more for a higher benefit dedicated to those who paid for the insurance against ending among the poorest, then that’s fine. It’s not so fine if the increase is paid for by “the rich,” because the rich will not pay for it. And it’s not so fine if it becomes subject to increased hiding of income to free-ride on others paying the tax. Not to mention the costs of managing the means testing that this implies.

Larson: Cut taxes for beneficiaries.

Me: Social Security is supposed to be insurance against ending up poor. Currently no one pays taxes on their Social Security income unless they have other income over $25.000 per year. Combined with their SS income this would suggest an income in retirement of about $45,000. This is not poverty.

There are other ways to jiggle around the SS ‘break points” or taxing of benefits. The tax on part of SS income for those with enough other income to stay out of poverty turns out to be the simplest and fairest. Might be important to remember that SS is not only “what you paid in,” but is about double what you paid in because of the effective interest of pay as you go.

You pay taxes on gains from every other investment. So there is nothing immoral or counterproductive about taxing part of SS benefits for those who otherwise have sufficient income. This tax is returned to the Social Security trust fund and is part of what helps pay those increased benefits for the poor.

Larson: Strengthens the Trust Fund

Have millionaires pay the same rate as everyone else.

Me: This is the bit that destroys Social Security. Currently millionaires pay the same rate as everyone else: 12.4% of the first $130 thousand per year. This is enough for them to pay for what they get from Social Security… an effective real interest of around 1 or 2 percent, plus the insurance value in case their millions of dollars disappear before they retire, or when they become disabled or die leaving dependents.

They only get that 1 or 2% compared to your 2 or 3% and the poorest up to 10% or more because the money they would get if everyone got paid the same interest is what enables SS to pay the bigger “interest” needed to pay for basic needs of the poorest.

“Making” them pay 12% on ALL of their income would be a huge tax increase they would get nothing out of. They would fight it forever.

It would be like having a cop watch the check-out line at the grocery and demanding every customer show their tax returns and “making” anyone with “too much” income pay for the groceries of the next ten people in line.

This sounds fair to some people who think that the “rich” stole their money from the “poor.”
Maybe some did, but this is not the way to fix that problem. If you want to tax the rich more, fine. If you want more welfare, fine. But don’t do it to Social Security, which works, and has worked for eighty years exactly because it is NOT welfare. NOT “soak the rich.”

Larson: 50 cent per week to keep the system solvent. Gradually phase in an increase in the tax by an average of 50 cents per week.

Me: Sounds familiar. Question is why stop at 50 cents when a dollar will keep the system solvent forever without the political dangers of “make the rich pay”?

Do we think an extra 50 cents per week out of an income of 50k per year is going to be felt? Note that for the poorest people making 20K per year, the “dollar per week” turns out to be 20 cents per week (The increase needed to keep SS solvent forever is one tenth of one percent of income per year.)

This is mindless greed. Greed so stupid it defeats itself.

Tags: Comments (31) | |

On Gerrymandering: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”

On Gerrymandering: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”

Previously I have written that the Fourteenth Amendment specifically provides for a reduction in representation for any state that engages in voter suppression.

Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment provides in part:

“[W]hen the right to vote at any election … is denied to any … citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion [thereto]….”

In view of the GOP Supreme Court majority deciding that partisan gerrymandering is a “political question” beyond the purview of the courts, I want to take this matter further. Because if the Congress is willing to play hardball, it has a remedy.

Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution provides:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”

Importantly, In Luther v. Borden (1849), the Supreme Court established the doctrine that questions arising under this section are political, not judicial, in character and that “it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State . . . as well as its republican character.”

In other words, it has already been established that what the guarantee of a “republican form of government is” is not for the Federal Courts, but for the Congress and the President to determine.

Do States have a “republican form of government” if a minority of the people are able to entrench themselves as a permanent legislative majority based on the outcome of just one election? Now that the Supreme Court has said that the Courts may not act, I think Congress has every right to declare that this is the case, both at the state and federal election levels, and to refuse to seat anybody winning such elections.

Comments (7) | |

I Think, Therefore I Know: San Francisco Edition

I Think, Therefore I Know: San Francisco Edition

Strange as it may seem, the biggest stumbling block on much of the left may be a crude philosophical error, dogmatic subjectivism.  This is a position that holds that subjective experience is the highest form of knowledge, whose claims can’t be challenged by “lesser” criteria like logical analysis or empirical observation.  To the extreme subjectivist, if I feel something to be true there is no legitimate counterargument: I think (or feel), therefore I know.

This is at the heart of the current blowup over the mural at George Washington High School in San Francisco.  It was painted in the 1930s by Victor Arnautoff, a member of the Communist Party and acolyte of Diego Rivera, under the auspices of the Works Progress Administration.  To make his point about the centrality of racism and oppression in American history, he portrayed Washington as the slaveowner he was, with a group of slaves toiling away to make him rich.  He also showed pioneers headed westward past the body of a dead Indian.  Not surprisingly, Arnautoff got into trouble during the McCarthy era and was effectively hounded out of the world of public art.

But several groups and individuals who claim to speak for today’s oppressed think the mural glorifies racist violence and makes the high school an “unsafe” environment.  The San Francisco School Board’s advisory group, The Reflection and Action Working Group, deemed Arnautoff “glorifies slavery, genocide, colonization, Manifest Destiny, white supremacy, oppression, etc.”  One of the Board members said that efforts to save the mural from being painted over were reflective of “white supremacy”, since the artwork some want to save is “white property”, while its effects are harmful to “Black and Brown ppl [people]”.  The head of the high school’s Indian Education Program asserts this and other Arnautoff murals “glorify the white man’s role and dismiss the humanity of other people who are still alive….”  Others bring up the triggering effect of images that remind us of the brutality that permeates American history.

Comments (7) | |

Elliott Maraniss

Elliott Maraniss

It’s with more than average interest that I just read a review of David Maraniss’ new book about his father Elliott, A Good American Family: The Red Scare and My Father.  I knew Elliott during my years in Madison as a contributing writer to his newspaper, the Capital Times, and as an informal sounding board for his thoughts on the New Left.  The period in question was the early 1970s.

First, Elliott was the most visibly nervous person I had ever met.  He talked quickly in a loud but skittish voice, and his usual facial expression was a half-smile that seemed to reflect a deep uncertainty about everyone and everything.  Of course, he held a position of authority—editor—and he was able to make decisions rapidly and with conviction.  Still, it always seemed there was something more going on; I had no idea.

Comments (0) | |