Trump Revisited in Retrospect

This is a retrospective of a repost from a some time ago, with a few added comments. I'm reposting because it reads like prophecy at present. I would hope, with no actual belief that it will happen, that the voices raised in futile rage against the recent election results would, if it is even possible, take 5 minutes, read, and reflect.  

At last: someone actually gave me reasons why they “like Trump” 

Below are the areas this person likes. Below that will be my attempts to examine them:

First, "their" comments

"North Korea, Jerusalem and supporting the Jewish people, lower taxes (even though I don't think Congress helped the middle class enough with this plan), making our allies pay more of their share for NATO, more support for our military, allowing vets to go to private doctors, negotiating better tariffs prices for the US, getting out of the Paris agreement where we were paying billions and getting nothing back and, most importantly, recognizing that there were millions of people whose voices weren't being heard. People whose previous administrations' (more than one) policies created hardships but no solutions. The same reason the "yellow vests" in France are revolting against their government. These are just a few of the policies I like and all of them accomplished in just 2 years. And having to fight against everyone to get them done. I personally don't care if he's an ass as long as he continues to make things better. And, even though the media won't show it, people in other countries are taking notice and yelling "We want Trump" during their demonstrations. He's not a glib talker, not a charmer, but he doesn't say one thing only to do another. I really don't want to debate this. You asked, I answered and neither of us will change each others mind."

Me:

How to start? Let’s begin at the very end. If facts are different than what one previously thought, then perhaps one should change one’s mind. All I write will be factual in derivation.

“North Korea”: Not sure what Trump has done here, since there has been no actual change in North Korea’s nuclear program, other than their closing down an underground test site which in fact, collapsed on itself. What Trump did do, by the way, which was less than hoped for was semi-legitimize the North’s dictatorship and elevate the status of Kim in his people’s estimation. As of today, there is no less threat from North Korea.

“Jerusalem and supporting the Jewish people”:  This, if anything ramps up tension in the Mideast. Trump knows relatively little about history, but has a significant number of Jewish friends, and, especially, business acquaintances. He is appeasing them. A better question would be why should we support Israel over the people whose land they stole in 1948?  Moving the embassy to Jerusalem was also an unnecessary escalation. Did we really need more tension in that part of the world?

 “Lower taxes (even though I don't think Congress helped the middle class enough with this plan)”: I have addressed this at length (pages and pages) elsewhere in my blog but will try the “short version” here. Cutting taxes is like chocolate, in that it just “sounds good.”  The most recent tax cut, however, is actually yet another attempt to make supply side economics work. The basic premise is that cutting taxes on the wealthy and corporations will have the same effect in both instances. The principle, which we were taught in high school econ, as the “trickle-down theory”, is that for every tax dollar cut on high earners/corporations that dollar will be reinvested, and the economy will be stimulated. This is contingent on the assumption, through the money “multiplier effect,” that the dollar will have the effect of more than one dollar as it trickles through the economy. Of course, for most of us this is of little consolation, as we aren’t rich, and as you pointed out this doesn’t save the middle class much at all. But wait, it gets worse. The premise is: cut taxes on the wealthy, reduce government regulations and it will boost the economy. Now for the part with the facts: Both Reagan and Bush 43 did exactly that. Both had record deficits without a recession. Reagan passed a large high-end tax cut, and quietly backed away from it 19 months later in the middle of the “Reagan recession. Even so, he also signed record spending bills, not for people, but for weapons.  The result, a massive deficit every year. Bush 43, not learning from this, did the same thing, again cutting taxes on the wealthy, and like Reagan, spending more (Iraq, second verse). Result? Again, monster deficits.  One standard definition  of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different outcomes.

Here’s the reality of this “theory” which, unlike valid theories, has been disproved by actual analysis. For Individual tax cuts: the actual amount “back into the economy” for every dollar in tax reduction is a mere 17 cents. Yeah, for the volume of the total individual tax cut, 83% is not seen again, but goes (who knows, off shore, savings, gold?) It’s better for corporate tax cuts, but still, for every dollar lost in tax revenue, the effect is only 50 cents back into the economy. Some “trickle”, huh? There are multiple independent studies validating these numbers but consider that the man who won’t release his own tax data is one of those wealthy persons (as were the Bushes and Reagans backers) and members of Congress are lobbied by corporations. Do you really think “we” are a concern? As for deregulation, ask the people of Flint Michigan whose water is essentially undrinkable, or those who have seen the effects of fracking (earthquakes, ignitable gas from water faucets, etc.). In summary, tax cuts on the wealthy aren’t sound economic policy and the 2018 record deficit jump proves it yet again. One definition of insanity is “Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”
 

“Making our allies pay more of their share for NATO” He hasn’t. He can’t; unless they do so voluntarily, which some are. This is linked to their economies just like it is to ours. Yes, it’s a good idea and I hope it pans out. Every president has had this discussion, just not insultingly in public (which has something to do with the poorer relations we now have in most of the NATO allies). If I want to chide you and get you to improve performance, would you rather I belittle or insult you in front of your friends or discuss it in private? I thought so. Trump exhibits no leadership skills. If he had been in the military during Vietnam, he’d have been shot by his own men in a “friendly fire accident.”  There is no exaggeration in that last sentence.

“More support for our military:” During the Great Recession 2008-2014 (or so) the defense budget was actually a significantly larger portion of GDP that the proposed 2019 budget. Read that again. One can only spend what one has, so how big a percentage of GDP is devoted to military (defense) spending is a good rule of thumb for “support of the military.” As the recession abated 2013-14 (ish) spending went up. Fun fact: The proposed, but not funded 2019 budget is somewhat higher than this year’s. The last Obama defense budget (fiscal 2017) was a total commitment of $582 Billion.  Trump’s first (2018) was almost the same. Not a lot more “support,” huh?  Although, while Obama sanctioned the “removal” of Bin Laden, Trump did manage to reveal the classified location of SEAL Team Six. In summary, even with recession, Obama’s defense spending was what the military asked for and in fact, a larger percentage of GDP than Trump's first fiscal budget year

 “Allowing vets to go to private doctors:” This isn’t new and should not be necessary if VA was adequately funded. It does however cost you and me much more. The VA has always sent patients out to other specialties in exigent circumstances. They have also always paid these specialists their usual fee. Privatization, just like tax cuts for the rich, is a love letter and a gift to the private sector. If it gives vets better care (and it may or may not depending on where they are and who is being treated, which is a long discussion and too complex for now) then it’s the right thing to do, however, it is not a nationwide problem. It is, however, a chance for private doctors to make more money. As a vet and 26-year military retiree, trust me I have waaay more knowledge in this area than Mr. Trump, as I’ve been researching and writing on this for years. Here is just the headline and a couple of lines from a long, well  researched, Pacific Standard article on the issue:  “INCREASED PRIVATIZATION OF THE VA HAS LED TO LONGER WAITS AND HIGHER COSTS FOR TAXPAYERS - An analysis of VA claims data shows that sending more vets to private care has not had the positive effects that were long promised by conservatives.”

And, oh by the way, the "Cares Act) was signed by Obama, not Trump, who simply signed a bill with very minor modifications and then claimed credit for the whole thing.

“Negotiating better tariffs prices for the US:”

I could spend pages explaining why they’re not only not “better’ but, in fact, “terrible,” but that’s a topic for an AP macro-economics class. What I can do is show you several reasons why they aren’t what you might think: the following are just some samples of how Trump’s tariffs have not only hurt American companies, but essentially wiped out any tax advantage:  Cummins: The diesel and natural-gas engine maker says it’s seeing $250 million in annual impact -- $150 million through direct tariffs and $100 million through higher costs of metals used in its products. It’s moving some alternator production from China to India to help reduce direct tariffs. Stanley Black & Decker: The toolmaker will raise prices for consumers and work to trim $250 million in operating expenses for 2019, It faced a $50 million increase in quarterly costs, forcing it to cut its 2018 earnings forecast by 25 cents at the mid-point. 3M Co.: The maker of industrial, safety, health-care and consumer products sees $100 million in ``headwinds’’ from tariffs but has been able to compensate by raising prices. The negative full-year drag of raw-material costs is seen now at 15 cents a share, more than prior range of as much as 10 cents. Ford: Ford CEO Jim Hackett said tariffs on metals “took about $1 billion in profit from us.”  Still think tariffs are helping anything? These are American companies being hurt by the ignorance of an American President whose signature merchandise (as well as all his daughter’s line) is still made in China and elsewhere in Asia. Of course, they will have to raise prices which will impact every American consumer.

         And oh yeah, since tariffs are rarely, if ever,  borne by the importer, but rather added to the retail price, the average US household has has felt an extra $850 every year in increased cost due solely due to the Trump tariffs, and that's before the extra $30 billion, or so, in farm subsidies or so to bail out distressed soybean farmers due to former overseas customers simply  buying elsewhere, like Brazil.

Getting out of the Paris agreement where we were paying billions and getting nothing back”:  This statement tells me one of two things. Either you are a climate change denier, in which case I see your reasoning. Assuming, however, that you are smarter than that, it then tells me that you have little or no understanding of what the Paris agreement was or what it was actually about. In brief, The Paris agreement was a commitment to assist developing countries in developing without compounding already high carbon footprints and greenhouse gas problems. Make no mistake, this is also “good press” for those who were party to the agreement with those nations where so many much-needed natural resources are to be found. First: We (the US) had not paid “billions: The US pledge was $3 billion, of which we had paid a billion. Japan, by comparison, with less than a third the population of the USA, has pledged $1.5 billion. Looking at a per-person analysis, the US pledge amounts to just over $9 a person. Sweden's pledge represents almost $60 per person, the highest out of any country. The UK has proposed almost $20 per person. So, let’s take the other part of our statement “Getting nothing back.”

 First off, the money actually came from existing allocations from The State Department's Economic Support Fund (ESF), which finances a range of development, security, counter-terrorism and humanitarian projects to advance political and strategic interests in countries such as Iraq, South Sudan, Colombia and Afghanistan.  This a separate fund from the $10 billion in foreign aid in the current budget.

 So, tell me what do we expect to “get back” for that money? What will Israel do in exchange for the $3.1 billion we send them this year? Or perhaps Egypt, with it’s $1.4 billion? What do we expect to “get back” from them? Or perhaps Jordan’s $1 billion?  Or the $1.2 billion to Tanzania and Kenya? See where I’m going here? We give away a whole lot to other nations, in essence, “so they’ll like us.”  Paris accord Green fund money actually helps people. Do you care? Trump apparently doesn’t. By the way, contributing to the fund is voluntary and members are under no obligation to do so.

     Additionally much of that funding would be used to purchase technology, presumably from donor nations. So why would Trump withdraw? I know, I know, pick me! First, he has long been a vocal denier of man-made climate change, even at one time saying it was “invented by the Chinese,” whatever that could possibly mean. Second, and more telling by far, is that it was Barack Obama who made the US commitment.

Most importantly, recognizing that there were millions of people whose voices weren't being heard. People whose previous administrations' (more than one) policies created hardships but no solutions.

Let’s take this one in reverse order. What hardships? I certainly hope you don’t mean seeing gay couples married or having to bake them wedding cakes. Oh, the horror, the horror. Or is your military unit impacted by LGBT or Trans persons? You and I have both lived through the past years, and I’m fairly perceptive and have a business degree, so again, “What hardships?

        As for people whose voices weren’t being heard, I’m left to assume you mean white supremacists? Or Westboro Baptist Church? Or is it the scary feeling that we are not going to always be a nation where being white is an advantage from birth? I know it can’t be religious freedom, since you are free to worship where and as you choose. Ah, but you aren’t free to tell anyone else how to do it and then force them to allow it. Is that it? And, while you feel this way, you lose track of the fact that the current occupant on the White House is by far the least Christian man to hold that job since Warren Harding’s mistress came and went.

       Seriously, and  in closing, I am well aware that, for some Americans, the fact that someone they don’t know and will probably never meet is free to do things they themselves wouldn’t do is troubling. Those things in many cases are things they’ve been told they should dislike (abortion, being gay, being Black, yellow or brown, or simply not worshipping the right deity in the prescribed manner.) These folks have been engineered into harder positions by those who see votes in the situation.

 The Religious Right is the creature of the Republican party, and I’ll give one example and then close. When the Roe V Wade decision was handed down, the Southern Baptist Convention applauded it (yes, they did!) as a victory. Shortly after the decision was handed down, The Baptist Press, a wire service run by the Southern Baptist Convention — the biggest Evangelical organization in the US — ran an op-ed praising the ruling. “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,” read the January 31, 1973, piece by W. Barry Garrett, The Baptist Press’s Washington bureau chief. Really? Yes. So, what happened? Well, several persons, Republicans first, political operatives second (think Roger Stone here) and Biblical literalists third, gradually infiltrated the SBC and, with little regard for religion and a lot of regard for votes, gradually saw this issue as possible glue for a voting bloc. The rest is history.

    As far as the “we want Trump”, these are the same segment of French society as the Charlottesville mob is in the US. Most of their current complaint is actually about the price of gas! I guess they want to drive into a crowd? 

    Speaking for the one of us who I am sure has actually travelled extensively overseas (me), (Sweden, Finland, Russia, Denmark, Portugal, Hungary, France, UK, Ireland, Czech Republic, Austria, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Morocco, Estonia, Caribbean,) I can honestly say that at no time, ever, in any of those places did we ever hear a negative comment about Barack Obama. We did however hear serious negative concerns about Donald Trump, most of them since far more than justified by his horribly ignorant and misguided actions.

Good riddance!