Tag: Trump

Categories
deficits and debt folly national politics & policies

Minus the Five Grand

Trump, $5000, bribe, National Debt

“If the Republicans win, you win with us, and you get $5,000,” President Donald Trump promised last week before assembled Republicans at the party’s midterm convention as well as a national television audience. “It will be called the Trump dividend.”

The cost of making good on his pledge, bribe, deal? A cool $1.3 trillion.

I don’t believe Mr. Trump has that much money.

“Because of our tremendous strength and success economically, I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000,” intoned the president. “Very much like a successful company will do a cash distribution to its shareholders.”

Dividends are paid out of profits; this operation known as the federal government doesn’t turn a profit. Instead, it’s running past $40 trillion in debt.

Can we afford to go trillions further into the red? Or pay more in taxes for this additional trillion-dollar-plus giveaway?

As if trying to outdo the president in folly, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick declared “we’re going to deliver” but “not from taxpayer money,” detailing several precarious plans . . . to come up with less than half the needed dough.

On Fox News, Bret Baier brought the vice president into the conversation. J. D. Vance described the current deficit budget in terms of revenue — there is “an extraordinary amount of revenue,” he said — as if the revenue that is not extraordinary enough to cover all current spending is somehow enough to spend $1.3 trillion more without additional debt. 

Eric Boehm at Reason says the $5,000 bribe shows that MAGA has run out of ideas.

In an election year when Democrats are featuring wannabe communists, why are Republicans demonstrating a similar lack of sanity?

I think the American voter might be more persuaded by even the smallest dose of common sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability free trade & free markets international affairs

Reciprocal Rip-Offs?

Trump, free trade, protectionism, tariffs,

Making sense of the U.S. president’s trade-deal talk has always been difficult.

What is he really up to?

Most of the time President Trump talks protectionist, like a high-tariff man. Other times, he seems to be demanding reciprocal free trade.

Now, the classic free-market economics position is that unilateral free trade is better than managed, high-tariff trading regimes. But Trump never sounds forthright like an actual free trader.

Instead, he says stuff like “Canada has been ripping us off for years.” Classic protectionist jibber-jabber. When we buy and they sell, and vice versa, barring fraud, it is not a rip-off. 

Mr. Trump posted the “rip-off” comment Tuesday. While using the word “reciprocity,” he is talking about government procurement programs, claiming that “what many do not realize is that the Canadian Government, including Canadian Provinces, have banned American Small Businesses and Companies from selling into their Government Procurement Markets. This is the case even though Canada gets broad access into the massive American Government Procurement Market, including those of our States. That is not reciprocity, it is a Canadian Trade Scam. From now on, NO RECIPROCITY — NO ACCESS!”

This was to announce a new retaliatory effort after ongoing trade negotiations broke down, both sides having immediately erected tariff barriers — and worse (the U.S. forbidding one Canadian airplane company from selling in the U.S. at all). “President Donald Trump directed the General Services Administration (GSA) on Tuesday to take steps to remove Canadian-origin products from a Multiple Award Schedule that accounts for more than $50 billion a year in transactions,” The Epoch Times explains.

This is not the reciprocity we were looking for.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
deficits and debt national politics & policies

The Forty-Trillionth

public debt, Congress, Trump, war

When Grover Cleveland — arguably the United States’ last non-“progressive” president — won his second term after a one-term hiccup named Benjamin Harrison, list makers and ordinal number enthusiasts faced a challenge: was Cleveland to be called the union’s 22nd president, or the 22nd and 24th president?

The two-term presidents before him had all served their terms consecutively, but we spoke of each four-year term in office as the presidents’ respective first and second administrations. Historians and archivists chose the clunky 22nd/24th double listing for Cleveland, which brings us to the current president, formerly the 45th and now the 47th.

One presidency was just not enough for Donald Trump.

But what will he be remembered as? It is possible that his tombstone will have a forty-something on it, but the “th” may very well stand for “trillionth” — for under his watch the public debt of the federal government rolled over on Wednesday, past $40 trillion.

I remember when people held signs up emblazoned with “No Trillion Dollar Debt!” How “forty years ago” is that?

There’s an old law of liberty: people out of power demand freedom, people in power demand more power. Trump sounded more libertarian when running for office, and he seems to conform to a very old corollary of the law: politicians running for office protest debt, politicians in office add to it.

FDR is the grand example, yet it is Trump who may come to be identified with it.

“The unprecedented [sic] $40 trillion figure highlights competing administration priorities,” declares The Seattle Times, “from boosting the defense spending that the U.S. relies on to carry out President Donald Trump’s almost-6-month-old Iran war to lowering the cost of gas and groceries.”

Isn’t this mere Trump-bashing? For while Trump may someday receive the blame, in truth it belongs to both parties and almost all politicians.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
defense & war First Amendment rights

Iran and the Rubicon

Tucker Carlson, Iran, Trump, free speech, censorship, foreign policy

Last weekend, Cenk Uygur, of the alternative news commentary show The Young Turks, focused on the Iran war, including one of its stranger developments, rumors that the Trump Administration is planning to arrest a different news commentator, Tucker Carlson. 

And try Mr. Carlson for treason.

“If @TuckerCarlson is actually arrested, the government will have crossed the Rubicon,” Mr. Uygur posted to X. “Whatever ridiculous charges they bring up, everyone will know real reason was that he opposed the war and Israel. He’ll be considered [the] first American political prisoner within our own country.”

A factual corrective to this was provided Sunday, on this site, at least about the historical background of imprisoning journalists critical of a U.S.-involved war: Woodrow Wilson did that. He “crossed the Rubicon” over a hundred years ago. And he wasn’t the first president to do so.

But is there any real push to try Tucker Carlson for treason?

Robbie Soave, writing on Tuesday, surmised that, considering Carlson’s connections with the administration, the commentator is not likely paranoid or making things up.

And you can certainly find arguments pushing a treason case, and worse — for example, Israeli journalist and historian Yair Kleinbaum wrote in JFeed that “Carlson, Fuentes and Owens Must Be Jailed Inside a WWII-Style Internment Camp.”

At least, apparently, “while America is locked in a struggle against the dark forces of Shia Islam.” (Note that one consequence of the Iraq War was to attack Sunni Islam and install Shia Islam in Mesopotamia.) “Once the war is won and the threat is neutralized, we can release them,” Kleinbaum concludes.

Let’s hope this treason talk is all rumor. Arresting Tucker Carlson won’t improve the popularity of the Iran War.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment international affairs U.S. Constitution

The Dictator’s Arrest

Maduro, ,Venezuela, Trump, war, drugs

The U.S. military captured Venezuela’s dictator, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, on Saturday; a lot of people who hate Donald Trump are complaining about the president’s decision to “arrest” the foreign head of state. 

Sure, it’s an act of war. 

Authorized by Congress? Not really, but that’s hardly unusual. 

There is that 2020 indictment, unsealed by the U.S. Department of Justice during Trump’s first term, accusing Maduro and senior Venezuelan officials of conspiring with Colombian guerrilla groups (like the FARC) to traffic massive quantities of cocaine into the United States. This was updated in a superseding indictment unsealed over the weekend, which added Maduro’s wife, son, and others as defendants.

Specifically, the charges are:

  • Narco-terrorism conspiracy.
  • Conspiracy to import cocaine. 
  • Possession of machine guns and destructive devices.
  • Conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.

Considering that Venezuela is a sovereign state and can have whatever drug policies or gun laws it wants, all this might seem a tad . . . ridiculous.

Most people, however, will likely be moved by two very different lines of thinking:

  • Maduro was an evil tyrant, and it’s good that his murderous regime has been (sorta) toppled; and
  • The operation was skillfully done, demonstrating U.S. military strength.

Is the effort coherent and compatible with other international military stances of the United States? Debatable.

How does it affect, say, the U.S. position on Taiwan? Will this encourage or discourage the People’s [sic] Republic [sic] of China?

One could argue both ways. As a successful demonstration of military might, it will likely dissuade the Chinazis. But if it turns world opinion against the U.S., the opposite will likely prove true.

Still, isn’t it hard to side with a dictator? I mean Maduro.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment regulation

Fix-It Man Pardoned

Troy Lake, regulations, Trump, pardon

Troy Lake, the mechanic who helped truckers and bus drivers keep their vehicles going by removing crippling emissions systems, paid the price — jailed for this “crime,” and also fined $52,000. 

Prosecutors made an example out of the Wyoming fix-it man for following a practice that had become mandatory to keep rigs — in his case, at least 344 heavy-duty diesel trucks — on the road.

I’ve discussed his case, saying that President Trump should pardon him for this non-crime.

Though Troy Lake served about seven months in a federal prison, and he’s been out for a while, the conviction was still hanging over his head.

Now President Trump has indeed pardoned Mr. Lake.

He learned about it from a congratulatory voicemail left by U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis, calling to “let you know how very sorry I am that this even happened to you guys but how delighted I am that the pardon has come through.”

“It’s great,” says 65-year-old Lake, who broke down after hearing the good word. “It’s news that, you know — I guess I look at it as, there are some good things that happen in the world.”

Troy and his wife, Holly, also tearfully relieved by the news, are grateful to Senator Lummis, Wyoming legislators, and others who went to bat for him.

About the environmental regulations that sent him to prison for helping diesel drivers survive, he says, “We need to sit down and think about a more logical way of doing it, not putting people out of work.”

Talk about an understatement.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment insider corruption

Secret Stupidity?

Trump, assassination attempt, questions, Secret Service, puzzle

Six agents of the Secret Service were suspended yesterday. “The agency has come under intense scrutiny,” explains Eileen Sullivan of The New York Times, “since a 20-year-old gunman was able to fire several shots at Mr. Trump as he spoke onstage at a campaign rally on July 13, 2024. . . .

“It was the first assassination attempt since 1981 to wound a current or former president — a bullet grazed Mr. Trump’s ear.” Such a close miss! No wonder Trump now suggests he’s on a mission from God.

The Times’s Washington reporter says the agency has, since the shooting, endured “intense” scrutiny, but that’s not what it looks like from here in the bleachers. The Butler, Pennsylvania, assassination attempt was dropped by the media like a hot rock, after the first week or so, receiving very little public scrutiny . . . considering its grave implications. (Pun intended.)

“Multiple inquiries, including from Congress,” the Times goes on, “into the security lapses at Butler had some overlapping conclusions, in particular that there was a significant breakdown in communications between agents themselves, and between Secret Service agents and the local law enforcement helping to secure the rally site.”

By Hanlon’s razor, we are supposed to avoid using malice and conspiracy as explanations for when things go wrong . . . if at all possible. And incompetence — if not exactly Hanlon’s chosen word, stupidity — is indeed the official determination.

And now it has been dealt with. Officially. A few agents were suspended without pay from ten to 42 days.

Is that enough?

Such gross incompetence deserves an outright termination of employment. Everybody knows this.
Is it really that impossible to fire a government employee?

Some will speculate that they were treated lightly to keep their mouths shut.

You know, about a conspiracy. 

But the undoubted proliferation of stupidity in government always makes Hanlon’s razor easy to apply.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
defense & war public opinion

Iran: What Next

Iran, war, democracy

The Iran Question dominates the news.

Most papers and programs have numerous takes at the top of the page or the hour devoted to Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear program; President Trump’s demand that Iran unconditionally surrender, and the government of Iran’s defiance; and Trump’s latest statements vaguing up “his decision” to bomb Iran.

And in a man-bites-dog angle, I’m going to agree with The New York Times.

Specifically, the editorial board’s “America Must Not Rush Into a War Against Iran,” run yesterday.

Where the Times is right regards not the disputed facts and theories about the conflict, but whether the United States military, under direction of its Commander-in-Chief, should bomb Iran.

That is not merely open to debate but must be debated.

Many in Trump’s base oppose any involvement: Trump was voted into office to stop the endless wars.

But it’s not just the matter of politics. It’s a constitutional issue: “An unprovoked American attack on Iran — one that could involve massive bombs known as bunker busters — would not be a police action or special military operation,” the Times declares. “It would be a war. To declare it is not the decision of Mr. Netanyahu or Mr. Trump. Under the Constitution, Congress alone has that power.”

And if we wince at the idea of our dysfunctional Congress grandstanding and bloviating about such a weighty matter, consider this: the congressional debate must occur in a context where Americans debate. We debate; the People.

After all, we end up playing lots of heavy roles in these things. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
deficits and debt national politics & policies

Elon’s Out

Elon Musk, DOGE, Trump, deficit, debt

“Elon Musk says he is ‘disappointed’ by the price tag of the domestic policy bill passed by Republicans in the House last week and heavily backed by President Trump,” explains CBS News. 

The “price tag” is indeed a whopper, if by price we mean what Donald Trump’s ballyhooed “Big, Beautiful Bill” (the One Big Beautiful Bill Act orBBB) added to the debt: an expected $3.3 trillion over ten years.

“I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful,” Mr. Musk claims, laughing, in an upcoming CBS News Sunday Morning interview — a portion leaked as a teaser by CBS on Tuesday. “But I don’t know if it can be both. My personal opinion.”

An opinion shared by many — just not those “in government.”

Which is apt, since Musk is out. He expressed his “personal opinion” as he was exiting the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The exit isn’t the big story. We knew from the beginning that Musk’s time at DOGE was not going to last forever. 

Which highlights the up-in-the-air aspect of DOGE’s mission and future.

Note that Musk is capable of artful politics. His official statement appeared on X: “As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President [Donald Trump] for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending.” 

This rosy view of his exit may mask much muck. “Musk made himself a total pariah,” first-ousted Trump strategist Steve Bannon told The Free Press. “He had access, admiration, unlimited resources — and by his own actions toward people, blew it all.”

How did he blow it? By actually doing something?

Musk concluded his official exit statement by hazarding that DOGE’s “mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government.” That’s precisely what’s in doubt.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Fireflly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
media and media people national politics & policies

SuperPressPAC Problem?

leftist, media bias, propaganda, Trump, fake news, lies

Who wouldn’t want the media behind them — air-brushing the public images of their candidates; telling stories to dramatize the political agenda items they’re running on? 

Back in November 2015, I agreed with then-Senator and presidential candidate (now Secretary of State) Marco Rubio’s characterization of the national news media as a “SuperPAC” for national Democrats. 

How to even place a monetary value on the relentlessly one-sidedly progressive news coverage on network TV and in print outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post?

But is there a downside? Could this Super-est of all SuperPACs possibly be, on balance, less than helpful?

Let me posit that (a) the Washington press corps is ideologically to the left of the Democratic Party and, accordingly, (b) the national news media lures liberal Dems to far-out leftist positions that they’d otherwise never dare entertain — all because there exists this massive supportive left-wing echo chamber.

Then, on Election Day, national Democrats discover quite abruptly that, unlike DC’s editors and reporters, regular folks don’t like high gas prices or men winning women’s sporting events or releasing violent illegal migrants to commit more crimes. And, doggone it, they cast a lot more votes than the Beltway’s fifth column, er, Fourth Estate.  

Take, for example, the current controversy regarding former President Biden’s cognitive abilities; consider, also, the decisions made by Mr. Biden and auto-pen possessing handlers. 

Would a Republican president and his White House advisors ever think for a second that they could get away with keeping the press away from the commander-in-chief of the Free World, holding only heavily staged public events? For months? Forever? 

I don’t think so. The mainstream media would — rightly! — question, berate, harangue and bloviate until the cognitive functionality of the POTUS had been popularly established. 

But the Washington media did not hold a Democrat president to that (any?) standard.

Thus enabled, Biden kept going. 

Costing Democrats!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts