Wednesday, December 7, 2016

Why Trump Picked Ben Carson as HUD Secretary [feedly]

Why Trump Picked Ben Carson as HUD Secretary
http://prospect.org/article/why-trump-picked-ben-carson-hud-secretary

Why would Donald Trump appoint the uniquely unqualified Ben Carson to run the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development?

If the Senate approves the neurosurgeon's nomination, he will run an agency with a $47 billion budget that oversees federal rental assistance programs serving more than five million of the country's lowest-income households. The largest of these is the housing choice voucher program (formerly known as Section 8), which helps low-income families rent apartments in the private market. HUD also oversees a million units of public housing run by local governments, administers $5 billion in community development funds, insures the mortgages of more than one-fifth of all homeowners, and enforces fair housing laws that bar racial discrimination by lenders and landlords.

Carson has no experience with any of these programs—nor any experience in government at all. When rumors circulated last month that Trump might appoint the physician to his cabinet, Carson's close friend and sometime spokesperson Armstrong Williams told The Hill: "Dr. Carson feels he has no government experience. He's never run a federal agency. The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency."

When Trump did tap his one-time rival to run HUD, Williams declared that one of Carson's chief qualifications was that he had once lived in public housing—a claim that news outlets, including The New York Times, initially repeated. On Monday morning, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee likewise tweeted that "Ben Carson is first HUD Sec to have actually lived in gov't housing." But by Monday afternoon, Williams had retracted his statement, telling the Times that Carson was never a public housing tenant after all.

"With a Republican-controlled Congress and presidency, subsidized housing and fair housing would be under threat no matter who is HUD Secretary," observes Alex Schwartz, a professor of urban policy at the New School and author of Housing Policy in the United States. "But unlike previous HUD secretaries under Republican presidents, Carson is entirely lacking in qualifications, and is unlikely to champion any aspect of HUD's mission."

Richard Nixon's HUD secretary, George Romney, had been governor of Michigan. Ronald Reagan appointed Samuel Pierce—a former judge and corporate lawyer who had served in various capacities in the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations—as HUD secretary. George H.W. Bush picked Jack Kemp—who as a congressman from Buffalo had advocated privatizing public housing—to run the agency. George W. Bush's first appointee, Mel Martinez, had served as chief executive of Orange County, Florida, and as chairman of the Orlando Housing Authority. When Martinez resigned, Bush replaced him with Alphonso Jackson, who had run public housing agencies in St. Louis and Dallas.

Political observers have identified two key reasons why Trump is handing over HUD to Carson. The first is that when Trump sees the word "urban" he thinks "black." During the campaign, Trump said that "African Americans are living in hell in the inner cities." So making Carson his first African American cabinet appointment makes sense to him. Of course, nothing reveals Trump's disdain for black people, or for the poor, more than putting Carson in charge of an agency whose mission—helping lift the poor out of poverty and helping cities and older suburbs stem the tide of private disinvestment—the neurosurgeon opposes. 

Another oft-cited explanation for Carson's nomination is that during the campaign, Trump cut a deal with the right-wing neurosurgeon—an endorsement in exchange for a cabinet post. During the Republican primaries, Trump attacked his rival Carson as "pathological" and compared him to a child molester, but that didn't stop Carson from embracing and campaigning for Trump once he secured the GOP nomination.

But there is yet another explanation, which has to do with both psychology and PR, for why Trump named Carson to this post, and it has to do with Trump's complicated relationship with his father.

Trump inherited from his father, Fred, a real-estate empire worth tens of millions of dollars. Fred Trump had made his fortune by building middle-class housing financed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). In the 1930s, the senior Trump built single-family homes for middle class families in Queens and Brooklyn, using mortgage subsidies from the newly created FHA to obtain construction loans. After his real-estate business fell on hard times, he was able to revive his firm during World War II by constructing FHA-backed housing for U.S. naval personnel near major shipyards along the East Coast. After the war, he continued to rely on FHA financing to construct apartment buildings in New York's outer boroughs.

In 1954, Fred Trump was subpoenaed to testify before the Senate Banking Committee on allegations that he had ripped off the government to reap windfall profits through his FHA-insured housing developments in New York. At the hearings, Trump was called on the carpet for profiteering off of public contracts, including overestimating the construction costs of his projects in order to get a larger mortgages from FHA. Under oath, he reluctantly admitted that he had wildly overstated the development costs of one of these projects, the Beach Haven apartment complex in Brooklyn, by at least $3.7 million.   

One might think that the younger Trump would be grateful to the FHA for enabling his father to become a multi-millionaire. But that would undermine Trump's campaign to portray himself as a self-made man. He constantly boasts that he built his real-estate empire on his own—although, when pushed, he acknowledges that his father loaned him what he's called the "small amount" of $1 million. Even that claim was demolished by a Washington Post investigation earlier this year. Not only did Trump's father provide his son with a huge inheritance, and set up big-bucks trust accounts to provide his son with a steady income, but he was also a silent partner in the junior Trump's first real-estate projects.

As the Post disclosed, Trump's father "was an essential silent partner in Trump's initiative. In effect, the son was the front man, relying on his father's connections and wealth, while his father stood silently in the background to avoid drawing attention to himself."

Trump's father was also his safety net. In a 2007 deposition, Donald Trump admitted that he had borrowed at least $9 million from his future inheritance amid financial difficulties. In effect, the son was on welfare. The money came directly from his father, but indirectly from the government, which had financed Fred Trump's real-estate business and given him a way to fleece the system to become a wealthy man.

In Donald Trump's mind, therefore, HUD and FHA are constant reminders that far from being self-made, he has lived a life of entitlement—one that was subsidized by the federal government and his father's ill-gotten gains. What better way to battle these insecurities than to put a man in charge of HUD who, whether through incompetence or indifference, is likely to undermine the agency's mission and reputation?

 

THERE'S ANOTHER REASON, also tied to his history with his father, why Trump chose Carson for HUD. One of HUD's most visible responsibilities, though it consumes only a small part of the agency's budget, is to challenge racial discrimination by banks, developers, and landlords. This was the mandate of the 1968 Fair Housing Act, passed soon after the assassination of Martin Luther King. In the half-century since then, HUD's commitment to fair housing has waxed and waned, depending on who was president, but under President Obama the agency has made significant regulatory headway in promoting racial housing integration. Specifically, HUD's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule requires cities to take proactive steps to prevent racial discrimination and segregation.

Trump is well aware that his father frequently ran afoul of the Fair Housing Act. According to the Washington Post, Fred Trump was arrested at a Ku Klux Klan rally in New York in 1927. Fred Trump's racist business practices prompted the federal government to sue him for denying black families the opportunity to rent apartments in his buildings.

In 1950, folksinger Woody Guthrie, who rented an apartment in Trump's Beach Haven complex in Brooklyn, even wrote a song, "Old Man Trump," about his landlord's racism. The song points out that Trump refused to rent to black tenants in his government-backed Beach Haven apartment complex near Coney Island.

But Guthrie wasn't the only one to call Trump a racist. During the 1960s and 1970s, the New York City Commission on Human Rights and other fair housing organizations and activists documented Trump's routine practice of turning away potential black tenants. One New York state investigation discovered that in 1967, there were only seven black families living in the 3,700-unit Trump Village complex in Brooklyn. 

Black families in New York knew that they were unwelcome in Fred Trump's apartment buildings. They were typically told that his buildings had no vacancies, even when they knew that white tenants had no problem finding apartments in the same properties. The senior Trump used a variety of tactics to keep blacks out of his buildings. If a black person applied for an apartment in one of his buildings, Trump would tell rental agent Stanley Leibowitz to "take the application and put it in a drawer and leave it there," Leibowitz recalled in a recent interview with The New York Times. The Times also reported that "a former Trump superintendent named Thomas Miranda testified that multiple Trump Management employees had instructed him to attach a separate piece of paper with a big letter 'C' on it—for 'colored'—to any application filed by a black apartment-seeker."

In 1973, the Justice Department did its own investigation and sued Trump Management for violating the Fair Housing Act for discriminating against blacks. The government named both Fred Trump, the company's chairman, and Donald Trump, its president, as defendants. Like the scandal surrounding his father's FHA rip-off, the Justice probe embarrassed Donald Trump, who was just then making his way into New York's upper social circles and testing the waters of celebrity. Donald Trump called the allegations "absolutely ridiculous," and said the government was trying to force him to rent to "welfare recipients."  

Rather than settle the case, the junior Trump hired Roy Cohn, a high-powered attorney who had served as Senator Joseph McCarthy's red-baiting counsel, to defend him. At Cohn's suggestion, Trump sued the Justice Department, but the assigned judge dismissed the countersuit. Two years later, the Trumps reluctantly signed a consent decree that required them to desegregate their apartment buildings, including a mandate that Trump Management provide the New York Urban League, a civil rights group, with a weekly list of all its vacancies.

In 1978, however, Justice accused the Trumps of violating the consent decree. "We believe that an underlying pattern of discrimination continues to exist in the Trump Management organization," a DOJ lawyer wrote to Cohn. But the Trumps outlasted the government's efforts. Before the DOJ could gather enough evidence to take Trump to court, the original consent decree had expired.

Carson's public comments about federal housing policy suggest that he shares Trump's opposition to fair housing rules.  Carson has described fair housing policy as "a mandated social-engineering scheme" that amounts to "government-engineered attempts to legislate racial equality [creating] consequences that often make matters worse." Carson also told a television interviewer that "poverty is really more of a choice than anything else."

Such statements reveal that Carson has little enthusiasm for government efforts to help low-income families trapped in poor neighborhoods by the well-documented discriminatory practices of employers, landlords, and banks. Trump is unlikely to ask Carson, or any of the administration's banking regulators, to strictly enforce the federal Community Reinvestment Act, which prohibits banks from engaging in mortgage lending discrimination. Nor is a Trump administration likely to insist that affluent suburbs engaged in discriminatory "exclusionary zoning" open up their borders to allow developers to build mixed-income rental housing. Indeed, housing advocates worry that Trump, with Carson as a willing accomplice, might even ask Congress to deny HUD funds to enforce anti-discrimination laws.

As HUD secretary, Carson will be responsible for dealing with the nation's severe housing crisis. But he has little inclination or experience to drive, much less expand, HUD's mission.

"At a time of rapidly-rising rents and stagnant incomes, HUD can't continue to keep homes affordable for the nearly five million families, seniors, and people with disabilities fortunate to receive HUD assistance and also contribute to efforts to increase opportunities in poor neighborhoods without budget increases," says Barbara Sard, a former top HUD official under Obama and now vice president for housing policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "The HUD Secretary's primary responsibility is to fight within the Administration and in Congress for the funding needed. I hope Dr. Carson will not let all these vulnerable people down." 

But a bigger HUD budget is probably the last thing Trump, or Carson, will ask Congress to approve. If anything, Carson's HUD will probably run much as the agency did under President Reagan. Reagan's HUD became a feeding trough for Republican campaign contributors. Fortunately for Reagan, the media didn't uncover what became known as the "HUD scandal" until he left office. It resulted in the indictment and conviction of top Reagan administration officials for illegally targeting housing subsidies to politically connected developers. Given the president-elect's reputation for deal-making and rewarding political allies, it's easy to imagine Carson steering HUD contracts to Trump's donors and supporters.

While Reagan was using HUD to reward his political cronies, he slashed the agency's budget. HUD has never recovered. Unlike Social Security, Medicare, and supplemental nutrition assistance, federal housing aid is a lottery, not an entitlement. Today, only about one-quarter of eligible low-income families receive any HUD assistance. Federally subsidized housing for the poor—both vouchers and low-rent apartment buildings—represents only 3.5 percent of the nation's 134 million housing units.  

The result is that most low-income and working class families rely on the private market to find housing. That market has become increasingly unaffordable, not only to the poor, but also to many middle-class households. Almost all the new rental housing built in the past decade has consisted of high-end units. In 2015, the median rent of newly constructed units was $1,381—about half the median renter's monthly income. From 2001 to 2014, the number of households paying more than half of their income for housing jumped from 7.5 million to 11.4 million—an all-time high. More than one in four renters now spend over half their incomes on rent. Almost half of all renters pay more than 30 percent of their incomes in rent. Every city has long waiting lists of tenants trying to obtain HUD vouchers or get into public housing.

Having a job is no longer enough. In order to afford a modest, two-bedroom apartment, a renter needs to earn a wage of $19.35 an hour, according to a report by the National Low-Income Housing Coalition. This "housing wage" is much higher in some areas.

A significant cause of the rental-housing crisis has been the foreclosure epidemic, which drove about eight million home-owning families into the rental market. After banks' predatory and risky practices precipitated the 2008 housing crash, American homeowners lost trillions of dollars in wealth. Millions of homeowners have still not recovered and remain "under water," meaning they owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth.

The nation's homeownership rate fell from a peak of nearly 70 percent in 2004 to 63 percent during the second quarter of this year. As former homeowners have moved into the rental market, they compete with poor and middle-class families for increasingly scarce rental housing, driving up rents.

Against this backdrop, Carson is taking the reins of the one federal agency tasked with keeping Americans from living on the streets. In contrast to his father, Donald Trump has made his name building glittery, luxury housing for wealthy residents. Ironically, what's needed today is not only more housing subsidies for the poor, but also a return to the kind of government-backed middle-class housing that Fred Trump and many other builders constructed in the two decades after World War II. But don't count on Trump—or Carson—to push HUD to rise to that challenge.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Steve Mnuchin: Trickle Downer of the Week [feedly]

Steve Mnuchin: Trickle Downer of the Week
http://prospect.org/article/steve-mnuchin-trickle-downer-week

Steven Mnuchin, President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for Treasury Secretary, gets on an elevator after speaking with reporters in the lobby of Trump Tower, Wednesday, November 30, 2016, in New York. 

Last week, Trump's nominee for treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin, went on CNBC's Squawk Box—the preferred news program of Wall Street financiers—and made headlines with a bold declaration that the Trump administration would not slash taxes for the rich.

"Any reductions we have in upper-income taxes will be offset by less deductions, so that there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class," he said. "There will be a big tax cut for the middle class, but any tax cuts we have for the upper class will be offset by less deductions that pay for it."

Which tax plan is he talking about?

Experts on the left and right agree: Trump's tax plan—which Mnuchin helped craft—is a massive giveaway to the wealthiest 1 percent, leaving middle-class and low-income Americans with the crumbs. The uber-rich would see a 14 percent increase in after-tax income—by far the largest cut. After-tax income for the bottom fifth would go up just .07 percent; .09 for the next fifth.

All told, Trump's plan would give his wealthy friends 51 percent of the entire tax cut, according to Chuck Marr, the federal tax policy director at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The entire bottom 60 percent of taxpayers would get less than 10 percent of the cuts.

Mnuchin's assertion that tax cuts for the rich will be offset with a crackdown on their myriad loopholes and deductions doesn't pencil out. Yes, Trump's plan would limit itemized deductions for well-heeled taxpayers at $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for joint filers. That alone is not nearly enough to outweigh the tax cuts. Mnuchin was, of course, vague about just how Trump would offset the cuts, noting only that capping the mortgage interest deduction was under consideration

But consider the proposed cuts: In addition to slashing income and partnership taxes for the wealthiest few, Trump also calls for reducing the tax rate on capital gains and dividends, and wants to do away with the estate tax. He also wants to cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent. All this makes you wonder if there are even enough limitable deductions in the tax code to make up for the titanic giveaways.

Mnuchin's rationale for the cuts may be worse than the cuts themselves.

"By cutting corporate taxes, we're going to create huge economic growth and we'll have huge personal income," Mnuchin said. "Our most important priority is sustained economic growth, and I think we can absolutely get to sustained 3 to 4 percent GDP, and that is absolutely critical for the country. To get there, our number one priority is tax reform. This will be the largest tax change since Reagan."

To be crystal clear, Mnuchin is talking about a return to the Reagan era's trickle-down economic dogma where outsized tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks for the wealthy and corporations shifted income and wealth to those at the top and set in motion the deregulatory frenzy that led to the crash of 2008.

Still, as David Leonhardt writes for The New York Times, Mnuchin's insistence that "There will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class" should set a simple standard to which we should hold the Trump administration. "Call it the Mnuchian standard. Any plan that cuts taxes for the rich falls short and deserves to fail," Leonhardt suggests.

For articulating that standard and doing everything to violate it, Mnuchin is our first Trickle Downer of the Week.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Bernstein: Odds and Ends [feedly]

Odds and Ends
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/odds-and-ends-3/

 -- via my feedly newsfeed


–I continue to earnestly and ploddingly try to find the way back to Factville. Over at WaPo.

–More on the seriously botched decision by a Texas judge to enjoin/block the new overtime rule that should have gone into effect a few days ago (Dec 1). Over at Vox.

–Readers know my take on Trump's Carrier deal: smart politics, great for the <1K workers whose jobs were saved, but lousy economics in the sense that it's neither scalable nor a systemic way to push back on trade-induced job losses. As we speak, many factories, including the Carrier plant, are sending jobs abroad.

But I thought Steve Pearlstein's take was unique, smart, and very much worth reading. Steve argues that if presidents use the bully pulpit to throw serious shade on companies that disinvest in their workers, we might be able to move norms back to an earlier period where such behavior was widely viewed as not good capitalism, but bad management. I do think he needs to deal with the fact that, while Trump may be talking sticks here, he's giving carrots. That, it seems to me, blocks the norm-bending. But I still think Pearlstein's onto something.

–Finally, coming soon: re this Trump tax cut everybody's getting wound up about, allow me to ask: do we really need a tax cut??!!


********************


A few weeks back, I posted some thoughts here on how those of us in the facts business need to figure out the path back to Factville. Having discussed this issue with host Chris Hayes on MSNBC the other night — and given that in my experience, talking or listening to Hayes makes you smarter — let me delve a little deeper into the challenge of facts in the age of Trump.

Hayes teed off the segment with this precious little nugget from a former Trump surrogate and CNN commentator Scottie Nell Hughes, who recently asserted the following: "There's no such thing, unfortunately, anymore of facts."

At least she finds it unfortunate.

Her explanation, as I understood it, was that if Trump tweets something out and a bunch of people believe it, it's a fact. Those who say otherwise — the ones who label such "facts" as lies — are doing so because they "do not like Mr. Trump."

Okay, this "no-such-thing-as-facts" business is bat crazy. To the extent that it's at all useful, it would perhaps make a fitting epitaph to put on Earth's tombstone if that's where this ends up.

But then Hayes played a set of comments from another former Trump sideman, Corey Lewandowski, who explained that the "problem with the media" is that they "took everything that Donald Trump said so literally. The American people didn't. They understood it. They understood that sometimes, when you have a conversation with people, whether it's around the dinner table or at a bar, you're going to say things, and sometimes you don't have all the facts to back it up."

Now, as a card-carrying member of the FMB (Facts Matter Brigade), this, too, is toxic to me, but there's something in there that is, I think, worthy of attention. After a year of listening with disbelief to our president-elect, a year in which I practically scratched a hole in my head trying to figure out how anyone could believe him or take him seriously as a presidential candidate, thanks to Lewandowski's comment, I think I finally understand what's going on here.

Trump speaks on a frequency that people like me do not adequately pick up. But Trump supporters have no trouble tuning into it. No question, some of that frequency involves ugly dog whistles. But not all of it.

During the campaign, when Trump would say the real unemployment rate was not the 5 percent economists such as myself claimed it was, but possibly 42 percent, I went ballistic and jumped all over that lie. I'm not backtracking an iota from that position and will, if anything, step up such monitoring as his team takes charge. We cannot manage an $18.7 trillion economy without an accurate read on unemployment.

But it's useful to consider what those tuning into the Trump frequency heard when he made this claim. It's not that the unemployment rate is X vs. Y percent. It's that the economy is rigged in favor of the wealthy, the establishment and the D.C. power-brokers. And, yes, many of these rich, established characters are about to form the president-elect's Cabinet, but in a world where facts don't matter, attacking Trump for hypocrisy won't bother him or his followers one bit.

Facts are, in this cosmology, of the mind, while emotions are of the gut, and a lot of people vote their guts, not their minds.

It's important to recognize how the death of facts feeds into this dynamic. If analysts such as myself cannot, using facts, prove that the Affordable Care Act is, in fact (there's that word again) providing millions with affordable coverage, or that Medicare is highly efficient and effective, or that the minimum wage lifts the pay of low-wage workers, or that Dodd-Frank provides essential oversight, or that big, regressive tax cuts squander needed tax revenue without generating growth, then the winners are not those with the best policies to serve most Americans. They're the ones who reach the guts of electorate (i.e., in swing states with the necessary electoral college votes).

Not to put too fine a point on it, but once facts are discredited, a fact-oriented Hillary Clinton is at a huge disadvantage to a gut-oriented Trump.

But, as I offered on the Hayes show, maybe there's a way to break this cycle. We, as progressives, must find the frequency a certain class of Trump votes are tuned into. Obviously, not the racists, misogynists or xenophobes. I couldn't get on their wavelength if I wanted to, and I don't want to.

I'm talking about the folks who justifiably feel as though government has ignored their plight. The folks who, when they lost their jobs to globalization, were offered yet another free-trade deal, this time with "adjustment assistance." Trump successfully courted the angry guts of these voters, but I strongly suspect that he, along with his Cabinet of wealthy elites and a Republican Congress that's set on repealing health care and cutting social insurance and the safety net so as to give GOP funders a big tax cut, will fail to help them.

This will anger them further. And while hypocrisy is of the mind, anger is of the gut.

If so, then progressives must combine facts with outcomes in a way that hits people in their guts. If my analysis is correct, Health Savings Accounts and buying insurance across state lines, for example, will prove totally inadequate in replacing Obamacare (in fact, they make coverage less affordable by shifting costs onto patients). Same for privatizing Medicare and K-12 education.

Those hurt by these sorts of changes will not be hard to find, and the media must play a role as well, making sure to put cameras in front of them. As Hayes suggested, team Trump will try to blame this on Obama, but when you're the president, it's you-broke-it-you-own-it.

Let me be clear. Like President Obama, I want our next president to succeed, and I truly hope my policy predictions are wrong. But from what I'm hearing and seeing, Trump's policy agenda is very likely to create a wave of painful outcomes. At that point, he and his team can claim that there's no such thing as facts, but if analysts and the media do our job, people will learn otherwise.

The Anatomy of US Military Policy: An Interview With Andrew Bacevich [feedly]

The Anatomy of US Military Policy: An Interview With Andrew Bacevich
http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/06/12/2016/anatomy-us-military-policy-interview-andrew-bacevich

The Anatomy of US Military Policy: An Interview With Andrew Bacevich

C.J. Polychroniou - 6th December 2016
The Anatomy of US Military Policy: An Interview With Andrew Bacevich

Since the end of the Cold War, the US has been the only true global superpower, with US policymakers intervening freely anywhere around the world where they feel there are vital political or economic interests to be protected. Most of the time US policymakers seem to act without a clear strategy at hand and surely without feeling the need to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Such is the case, for instance, with the invasion of Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. US policymakers also seem to be clueless about what to do with regard to several "hot spots" around the world, such as Libya and Syria, and it is rather clear that the US no longer has a coherent Middle East policy.

What type of a global power is this? I posed this question to retired colonel and military historian Andrew Bacevich, a Boston University professor who has authored scores of books on US foreign and military policy, including America's War for the Greater Middle East, Breach of Trust, and The Limits of Power. In this exclusive interview for Truthout, Bacevich explains how the militaristic nature of US foreign policy is a serious impediment to democracy and human rights.

 

C.J. Polychroniou: I'd like to start by asking you to outline the basic principles and guidelines of the current national military strategy of the United States.

Andrew Bacevich: There is no coherent strategy. US policy is based on articles of faith -- things that members of the foreign policy establishment have come to believe, regardless of whether they are true or not. The most important of those articles is the conviction that the United States must "lead" -- that the alternative to American leadership is a world that succumbs to anarchy. An important corollary is this: Leadership is best expressed by the possession and use of military power.

According to the current military strategy, US forces must be ready to confront threats whenever they appear. Is this a call for global intervention?

Almost, but not quite. Certainly, the United States intervenes more freely than any other nation on the planet. But it would be a mistake to think that policymakers view all regions of the world as having equal importance. Interventions tend to reflect whatever priorities happen to prevail in Washington at a particular moment. In recent decades, the Greater Middle East has claimed priority attention.

What's really striking is Washington's refusal or inability to take into account what this penchant for armed interventionism actually produces. No one in a position of authority can muster the gumption to pose these basic questions: Hey, how are we doing? Are we winning? Once US forces arrive on the scene, do things get better?

The current US military strategy calls for an upgrade of the nuclear arsenal. Does "first use" remain an essential component of US military doctrine?

It seems to, although for the life of me I cannot understand why. US nuclear policy remains frozen in the 1990s. Since the end of the Cold War, in concert with the Russians, we've made modest but not inconsequential reductions in the size of our nuclear arsenal. But there's been no engagement with first order questions. Among the most important: Does the United States require nuclear weapons to maintain an adequate deterrent posture? Given the advances in highly lethal, very long range, very precise conventional weapons, I'd argue that the answer to that question is, no. Furthermore, as the only nation to have actually employed such weapons in anger, the United States has a profound interest and even a moral responsibility to work toward their abolition -- which, of course, is precisely what the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty obliges us to do. It's long past time to take that obligation seriously. For those who insist that there is no alternative to American leadership, here's a perfect opportunity for Washington to lead.

Does the US have, at the present time, a Middle East policy?

Not really, unless haphazardly responding to disorder in hopes of preventing things from getting worse still qualifies as a policy. Sadly, US efforts to "fix" the region have served only to make matters worse. Even more sadly, members of the policy world refuse to acknowledge that fundamental fact. So we just blunder on.

There is no evidence -- none, zero, zilch -- that the continued U.S. military assertiveness in that region will lead to a positive outcome. There is an abundance of evidence pointing in precisely the opposite direction.

Was the US less militaristic under the Obama administration than it was under the Bush administration?

It all depends on how you define "militaristic." Certainly, President Obama reached the conclusion rather early on that invading and occupying countries with expectations of transforming them in ways favorable to the United States was a stupid idea. That said, Obama has shown no hesitation to use force and will bequeath to his successor several ongoing wars.

Obama has merely opted for different tactics, relying on air strikes, drones and special operations forces, rather than large numbers of boots on the ground. For the US, as measured by casualties sustained and dollars expended, costs are down in comparison to the George W. Bush years. Are the results any better? No, not really.

To what extent is the public in the US responsible for the uniqueness of the military culture in American society?

The public is responsible in this sense: The people have chosen merely to serve as cheerleaders. They do not seriously attend to the consequences and costs of US interventionism.

The unwillingness of Americans to attend seriously to the wars being waged in their names represents a judgment on present-day American democracy. That judgment is a highly negative one.

What will US involvement in world affairs look like under the Trump administration?

Truly, only God knows.

Trump's understanding of the world is shallow. His familiarity with the principles of statecraft is negligible. His temperament is ill-suited to cool, considered decision making.

Much is likely to depend on the quality of advisers that he surrounds himself with. At the moment, he seems to favor generals. I for one do not find that encouraging.

 

 

C.J. Polychroniou is a political economist/political scientist who has taught and worked in universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. His main research interests are in European economic integration, globalization, the political economy of the United States and the deconstruction of neoliberalism's politico-economic project. He is a regular contributor to Truthout as well as a member of Truthout's Public Intellectual Project. He has published several books and his articles have appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news websites. Many of his publications have been translated into several foreign languages, including Croatian, French, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Turkish. This post first appeared on Truthout.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Explaining the EITC in 74 Seconds [feedly]

Explaining the EITC in 74 Seconds
http://www.cbpp.org/blog/explaining-the-eitc-in-74-seconds

Each year, nearly 30 million working families claim the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).  Our new video, from CBPP's Get It Back Campaign, highlights the numerous benefits to claiming the EITC, which helps working families during every stage of life.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

He ‘lied his a– off': Carrier union leader on Trump’s big deal

He 'lied his a– off': Carrier union leader on Trump's big deal


The Secret Service agents told the Carrier workers to stay put, so Chuck Jones sat in the factory conference room for nearly three hours, waiting for president-elect Donald Trump. He'd grown used to this suspense.

Seven months earlier, at a campaign rally in Indianapolis, Trump had pledged to save the plant's jobs, most of which were slated to move to Mexico. Then the businessman won the election, and the 1,350 workers whose paychecks were on the line wondered if he'd keep his promise.

Jones, president of the United Steelworkers 1999, which represents Carrier employees, felt optimistic when Trump announced last week that he'd reached a deal with the factory's parent company, United Technologies, to preserve 1,100 of the Indianapolis jobs — until the union leader heard from Carrier that only 730 of the production jobs would stay and 550 of his members would lose their livelihoods, after all. 

At the Dec. 1 meeting, where Trump was supposed to lay out the details, Jones hoped he would explain himself.

"But he got up there," Jones said Tuesday, "and, for whatever reason, lied his a-- off."

In front of a crowd of about 150 supervisors, production workers and reporters, Trump praised Carrier and its parent company, United Technologies. "Now they're keeping — actually the number's over 1,100 people," he said, "which is so great."

Jones wondered why the president-elect appeared to be inflating the victory. Trump and Pence, he said, could take credit for rescuing 800 of the Carrier jobs, including non-union positions.

Fact-checking Trump's misleading numbers about the Carrier deal

Embed  Share 
Play Video1:19
The Post's Fact Checker took a closer look at the claims President-elect Donald Trump made during a speech in Indiana on Dec. 1, about the deal to keep jobs at a Carrier plant there that were due to be shipped to Mexico. (Video: Jenny Starrs/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Of the nearly 1,700 workers at the Indianapolis plant, however, 350 in research and development were never scheduled to leave, Jones said. Another 80 jobs, which Trump seemed to include in his figure, were non-union clerical and supervisory positions. (A Carrier spokesperson confirmed that 800 factory jobs once earmarked for Mexico are staying.) And now the president-elect was applauding the company and giving it millions of dollars in tax breaks, even as hundreds of Indianapolis workers prepared to be laid off.

"Trump and Pence, they pulled a dog and pony show on the numbers," said Jones, who voted for Hillary Clinton but called her "the better of two evils." "I almost threw up in my mouth."

Spokespeople for Trump did not respond to the Post's request for comment.

In exchange for downsizing its move south of the border, United Technologies would receive $7 million in tax credits from Indiana, to be paid in $700,000 installments each year for a decade. Carrier, meanwhile, agreed to invest $16 million in its Indiana operation. United Technologies still plans to send 700 factory jobs from Huntington, Ind, to Monterrey, Mexico.

T.J. Bray, 32, one of the workers who will keep his job, sat in the front row during the Dec. 1 meeting as Trump spoke. A corporate employee had guided him specifically to that seat, he said, so he suspected he might be part of Trump's remarks.  

On Carrier's makeshift stage, Trump paraphrased the words of an unnamed Carrier employee who talked to an NBC reporter after the election. Bray was the only Carrier employee who had appeared on television that day. Apparently, he realized, Trump was saying he inspired the deal.

Trump says he decided to call Carrier after television news report

Embed  Share 
Play Video2:15
Speaking at the Carrier plant in Indianapolis, Dec. 1, President-elect Donald Trump said he decided to call the company so it would not ship jobs abroad after watching a television news report about the factory. (The Washington Post)

"He said something to the effect, 'No, we're not leaving, because Donald Trump promised us that we're not leaving,' and I never thought I made that promise," Trump said. "Not with Carrier. I made it for everybody else. I didn't make it really for Carrier."

In fact, Trump did make that commitment, and it's on video.  "They're going to call me and they are going to say 'Mr. President, Carrier has decided to stay in Indiana,'" Trump had said at the April rally. "One hundred percent -- that's what is going to happen."

Last week, though, the president-elect told the Carrier crowd he hadn't meant that literally.

"I was talking about Carrier like all other companies from here on in," Trump said. "Because they made the decision a year and a half ago. But he believed that was — and I could understand it. I actually said — I didn't make it — when they played that, I said, 'I did make it, but I didn't mean it quite that way.'"

Trump asked if the employee he'd been referencing was in the audience. A woman yelled that her son was, and Trump began to compliment that son, though he hadn't spoken in the television news segment. (Bray said that a United Technologies spokesperson later told him Trump meant to single him out.)

"I was confused when he was like, 'I wasn't talking about Carrier,'" Bray said. "You made this whole campaign about Carrier, and we're still losing a lot of jobs."

Bray clapped that day, anyway, for the 800 that would remain on American soil. 


--
John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show
Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.

Eastern Panhandle Independent Community (EPIC) Radio:Dr David Didden on the Are You Crazy Show

John Case has sent you a link to a blog:



Blog: Eastern Panhandle Independent Community (EPIC) Radio
Post: Dr David Didden on the Are You Crazy Show
Link: http://www.enlightenradio.org/2016/12/dr-david-didden-on-are-you-crazy-show.html

--
Powered by Blogger
https://www.blogger.com/