"You're Fired!"

Acting Attorney General Sally Yates refused to defend President Trump's executive order that imposed a 90 day entry ban from several countries.

"You're fired!"

Until Jeff Sessions gets confirmed, Dana Boente is the new acting A.G.

Yates will be a liberal hero for the rest of her life and I suspect this will be equated with the Saturday Night Massacre before long.  However, the president is the chief executive.  He's the decider, as George W Bush put it.  If you don't like his decisions, resign.

 

As a political move, this only serves to escalate the current outcry.  Of course, with Trump's everything at once approach, this may be forgotten history tomorrow night when the Supreme Court nomination battle begins.  Trump is generating so much outrage in such a short period of time that the outraged will become exhausted.  Of note, this is a strategy from the Obama playbook.  Before the Republicans could move against Obama's latest outrage, he rolled out a new outrage.  Fast and Furious, IRS targeting scandal, Bowe Bergdahl prisoner swap, Iran ransom payment, 'flexibility' for Vladimir after the election, ISIL is the JV team, undeclared war in Libya, etc.  There was always new bad news to make everyone forget the old bad news.  However, Obama usually waited a week or two before rolling out the latest disaster.  Trump is rolling them out daily.  Hourly!

 

Trump should call a dozen or so bureaucrats to the White House every week, sit them around a big table, and fire one or more of them.  On camera!  It would be a ratings monster!  I never watched The Apprentice but I would watch that.

 

"Assistant Undersecretary of Fiji Trade Relations Smith, you're fired!"

 

"Executive Assistant Secretary of Fiji Trade Relations Johnson, you're fired!"

 

"Superfluous Supreme Fiji Trade Representative Harris, you're fired!"

 

Might Trump deliver on the eternal Republican promise of shrinking government?  That would be unexpected and marvelous.

The Founder

The movie opens with Ray Kroc (Michael Keaton) trying to sell a milkshake machine to a restaurant.  After a string of such failures, he checks in with the office to learn that someone has ordered 6 milkshake machines.  Thinking it is a mistake - who could possibly need to make 30 shakes at the same time? - he calls the customer.  Richard McDonald confirms the order but is much too busy to talk.  Intrigued, Ray drives from St. Louis, Missouri to San Bernardino, California.  He finds the McDonald's hamburger stand serves food in an instant!  Fascinated by their business model, he asks the brothers, Richard (Nick Offerman) and Mac (John Carroll Lynch), to dinner where he learns about their history and the Speedee Service System.  Inspired, he partners with the brothers to start franchises.

Though the movie almost exclusively follows Ray, it does not paint a flattering picture of him.  He appears to be a failed salesman who has had a number of failed get-rich schemes in his past.  His original franchising contract with the McDonalds proves to be too constraining and he repeatedly finds his efforts to economize vetoed by them.  However, he finds loopholes that eventually allow him to outmaneuver the brothers and takeover.  The movie recognizes his persistence and his vision but often focuses more on his flaws.  The building of the most successful restaurant chain in the world is just a case of intellectual property theft.  Ray Kroc made the McDonald brothers rich but he's the bad guy.  Then again, even with all the negatives about Ray, I came out of the film admiring his moxie and achievement.  When he signed the contract in 1955, there was 1 McDonalds.  When he died in 1984, there were 7,500!  That's a new McDonalds ever 34 hours for 29 years.

 

A great biopic of an extraordinary visionary.

Muslim Ban = Fake News

As someone who favors a Muslim ban because Islam is an evil ideology that happens to have religious aspects, there is no Muslim ban.  What we have is a ban on people from Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and Iran.  Yes, these are all majority Muslim countries.  So are Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan, none of which are covered by the 'Muslim' ban.  QED, we are not banning Muslims, we are banning certain nationalities.  Ergo, a Muslim ban is a misnomer.  Imagine if, during World War II, a ban on Germans and Italians traveling to the US was described as a Caucasian ban.  Idiotic!

There is a subset of Muslims from countries that have been infiltrated with ISIS operatives.  ISIS has openly stated its desire to sneak terrorists into Western countries as part of the refugee flood.  Stopping the flow of people from these regions is common sense.  Until we can weed out the terrorists, it is more important for the government to protect American lives than to harbor refugees.  If the choice is between the safety of Ma and Pa Kettle of Syracuse or the well being of Muhammad from Syria, the Kettles should be chosen every time.

 

Calling it a Muslim ban gives an impression that is demonstrably false.  Fake news.

Too Many Laws

A quick online search reveals that an exact count of Federal Crimes is unknown.  There is the distinction between laws and the various regulations that inevitably sprout from those laws.  One estimate from 2015 stated that there were "at least 5,000 federal criminal laws, with 10,000-300,000 regulations."  It is the responsibility of the executive branch to enforce all these laws  However, as we have seen, there is a lot of wiggle room.  Obama opted to overlook immigration laws even while he enacted new laws like the Affordable Car Act and Dodd-Frank Act.  Even with the vast resources of the US government, only so much can be accomplished.  Thanks to this vast sea of laws, executive discretion has more impact than Congressional legislation.  Immigration law appears to flipped on a dime in the wake of Trump's inauguration but it is just that he has chosen to enforce laws that Obama put on the back burner.  Moreover, Trump has already put Obama's emphasis on Climate Change on the back burner.  One country, one set of laws, two dramatically different outcomes based on who occupies the White House.  To prevent these swings, we need to rollback the scope of the Federal Government.

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

10th Amendment of Constitution

 

The Constitution grants no authority over education: Abolish Department of Education.

 

The Constitution grants no authority over healthcare: Abolish Department of Health and Human Services.

 

The Constitution grants no authority over farming: Abolish Department of Agriculture.

 

The Constitution grants no authority over labor: Abolish Department of Labor.

 

The Constitution grants no authority over housing: Abolish Department of Housing and Urban Development.

 

The Constitution grants no authority over energy: Abolish the Department of Energy.

 

All of these departments were power grabs by the central government.  Homeland Security is the latest new department but at least there is authority granted in the Constitution for national defense.  Even so, we should abolish this one too.  Return it all to the states or the people and, if there is an actual need, they are more than capable of resolving it on the more local level.

 

Paring back the scope of government would dramatically limit the discretion of the executive.  Thus, a change in the head of state would have far less impact than it does today.

 

Based on 2009 numbers, the abolition of the above departments would result in $1.3 trillion in in savings and a reduction in the federal workforce of 560,000 people.  Let's see, divide 1.3 trillion by 330 million and you get $3,940 per person in the US.  Of course, the budget has gone way up since then so the dividend would be even bigger.

Unopposed?

Throughout the campaign season, there was a steady and growing fear that Donald Trump was the American Hitler, a dictator who would be elected and then impose some form of fascist rule in which he was President for Life (kind of like the much mourned Fidel Castro).  Such fears came from those on the left and those on the right.  At each new claim, I rolled my eyes and sighed because Trump was going to have more opposition than any president in living memory.  The majority of the media were cheerleading for Hillary and hammering Trump.  The Democrats, who have always played hardball with Republicans, would ally with their friends in the media to pummel a President Trump.  Furthermore, elite conservative pundits were so opposed to Trump as to call for Hillary's election.  Even the Republican Party only offered support begrudgingly, often with codicils.  Fresh off a real Electoral Landslide, Obama had the media and both houses of Congress on his side and yet didn't get much done.  How would Trump get more done with considerably less support?  The growing panic, which continues today, perplexed me.  But now I see a potential flaw in my reasoning.

 

The media has spent a considerable amount of time since the election beclowning itself.  It's anti-Trump bias has overwhelmed their sense of solid reporting.  The Trump Dossier with the ludicrous golden shower story is only the most egregious.  The anti-Trump attitude is so strong that they jump at stupid stuff.  Trump yells squirrel and they run off like mindless dogs, giving him peace and quiet to consider the latest executive order.  Do they really think Trump cares about the crowd size at the inauguration?  Whether he does or doesn't, it provides an empty story that harms the prestige of the press more than it does Trump.  The media cannot currently influence Trump supporters and their ranting only makes Trump foes make fools of themselves (e.g. Madonna, Ashley Judd, Shia Lebouf).  Tired of the lapdog media that had nothing but praise for Obama, I was looking forward to the return of an attack dog media.  Instead, there is the stupid media that keeps chasing the squirrel.  Sigh.

 

Then there are the Democrats.  Thanks to strong support from the media, the Democrats have always been able to fight tooth and nail without a constant barrage of demands for bipartisanship.  Bipartisan has long meant Republicans agreeing to Democrat policies (e.g. John McCain) while partisanship is when Republicans actually try to implement their agenda.  With trust in the media at an all time low, the Democrats find themselves on a somewhat more even field.  Years of being trounced in midterm elections has convinced them to stick with the same stable of leaders who led them to this cul-de-sac.  Worse, they erased the power of the Senate minority party to resist the majority.  With the filibuster declawed, the Republicans can mostly pass their agenda with a simple majority vote, just like in the House.  Still worse, the Democrats face a difficult election map for the Senate in 2018, meaning they are in big trouble.  They are down to rhetoric as a means of opposition and they have only themselves to blame.  Well, Harry Reid can shoulder most of it.

 

The Republicans are still spineless.  While Democrats practice party loyalty and rarely have a 'maverick' who trashes fellow Democrats, the Republicans eagerly eat their own.  John McCain was a media star who appeared regularly on Hard Ball where he attacked the policies of his party.  Oh, the media loved him until he was the nominee vs. a Democrat.  Then he was the latest coming of Hitler.  With this history of attacking and opposing allies, Trump was an ideal target for such opposition from the beginning.  But the Republicans are still spineless.  It Trump can get enough voters (5 or so) to call Congress, the Republican will fold.  The history of the Republican party is to fold unless they have a strong leader (Reagan, Gingrich, etc.).  Trump may be an irresistible force to the backbone-impaired.

 

That leaves the Never Trump crowd who supported the embarrassing candidacy of Egg McMuffin or allied with Hillary.  They have hamstrung themselves with regard to anyone who voted for Trump.  One can admire the principles for which they stood while also recognizing that it was a political blunder.  If the guy you hate wins, you want to still be in the tent so your voice will be heard.  By leaving the tent, they abandoned much of the base that remained in the tent and lost much of the influence they had.

 

As time passes, all of these groups will - one hopes - adapt and prove to be effective bulwarks against authoritarian impulses from Trump.  Right now, they are all almost useless.  If Trump wants to prove his detractors right, now is the time.  The steamroller will never have a better opportunity.

Nullification Crisis II

After a series of tariff bills passed through Congress in the 1820s and 1830s, South Carolina had had enough.  Declaring the tariffs unconstitutional, the state refused to enforce them.  Other states were also not keen on the tariffs and watched carefully to see if they should adopt the nullification position.  President Jackson was not amused and made preparations to enforce federal law by calling up the military and stationing ships in South Carolina harbors to collect tariffs.  South Carolina threatened secession and assembled an army.  A civil war was brewing.  Thankfully, Congress passed a compromise tariff that saved face for both parties and the crisis was averted.

 

Today, throughout the country, there are polities that refuse to obey immigration law.  The sanctuary cities have shielded people who are illegally in the country.  Immigration and border control is a federal responsibility.  The Supreme Court struck down Arizona's attempt to enforce immigration law because such would usurp federal authority.  The ruling made it abundantly clear that the federal government has primacy in immigration enforcement, even when it chooses not to enforce laws to the detriment of the states.  Thanks to the lax enforcement of existing law by previous administrations, the nullification practiced by sanctuary cities has resulted in no pushback.  That has changed.

 

President Trump requires no legislation from Congress to dramatically change the landscape.  Sanctuary cities have been illegal all along.  ICE needs no additional laws to start making arrests.  They are called illegal immigrants for cause.  Likewise, the law for Trump's border wall was passed in 2006.  Senators Biden, Clinton, and Obama all voted in favor of the Secure Fence Act that George W. Bush signed.  The infrastructure to enforce the borders has been in place for years but the executive will to do so only arrived last Friday.

The Border Wall Tariff

President Trump has floated the idea of a 20% tariff on Mexican imports, the proceeds would then reimburse the cost of the wall.  Sound policy?  No.  Tariffs typically harm the consumers in the country imposing the tariff.  Why?  Let us suppose that Pittsburg Manufacturing Group (PMG) in Pennsylvania makes widgets for $10 each.  The primary competitor to PMG is Frabrica Baratija de Coahuila (FBC) in Saltillo, Mexico.  They also produce widgets for $10.  Now impose a 20% tax on the FBC widgets.  Obviously, the price of an FBC widget in the US will rise to $12 and PMG will start to dominate the market.  However, PMG will also be able to raise the price of their widgets without fear of being undercut by FBC.  Thanks to the tariff, Americans will pay more for their widgets.  Wait, who is paying for the wall again?

Tariffs are a protectionist tax policy that imposes a barrier to trade.  It can improve the profits of those businesses protected but at the expense of the consumer.

 

Of course, this might just be Trump doing the equivalent of saber-rattling on trade.  Such a tariff could devastate the Mexican economy.  Let's suppose the wall will cost a gazillion dollars but Mexico earns $10 gazillion in trade with the US.  Just paying for the wall would be cheaper than the proposed tariff.  But even in this rosy scenario, American consumers are paying for the wall via the purchases made from Mexican manufacturers.  Mexico paying for the wall will be a case of accounting legerdemain, much like how your employer 'matches' your contribution to Social Security and Hollywood mega blockbusters barely breakeven.