Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Trump Era Page 15 of 20

Steve Bannon In (and Out?) of Donald Trump’s Imperial Court

By

On April 14, 2017

151 Comments

Steve Bannon

When I wrote about the Trump administration before it existed, I noted that the Trump administration would be an Emperor’s Court. Because Trump has few firm ideas of his own and is extremely easily influenced, the best courtiers would rule the roost and determine policy.

Steve Bannon, by current reports, is out of favor and may well be on his way out.

Coincidentally, Trump has missiled a Syrian airbase and dropped “the mother of all bombs.” Coincidentally, word is coming out of the White House that, hey, maybe NAFTA isn’t so bad. Coincidentally, China is no longer considered a currency manipulator.

When people started mocking Trump by calling Bannon president, I noted that it was an attack which might work, and word has also come out that Trump hated that.

Trump is defined by little more than vanity, and he puts family first.

And so Kushner and Ivanka, backed by the deep state and more traditional Republicans (of the “tax cuts and bomb foreigners” variety), have the upper hand.

There is no question that Bannon is a piece of work, but him losing so much influence is not an unmitigated good.  Bannon is a nativist.

He was the guy, along with Trump on the campaign trail, who wanted the Muslim ban, aye. But he also favored rewriting trade deals, hitting China on manufacturing (it is true that China no longer keeps its currency low, but they did for ages and it gutted US manufacturing), bringing those jobs back to America, improving relations with Russia, and, oh yeah, not getting involved in stupid Middle Eastern wars (aside from fighting ISIS).

The comment section of Breitbart, when Trump hit the Syrian airfield was nearly 100 percent dismayed–as much as the most fiercely anti-war leftists.

The practical result of Bannon’s disempowerment is that brown Americans and visitors would be treated better, and that’s good, but most of what Trump wanted to do that wasn’t Republican standard, for the good as well as bad, goes out with Bannon.

Trump is being trained, well. Firing missiles and dropping bombs has gotten him the best media coverage of his presidency so far.  The “serious people” love killing (the right) foreigners, and the foreign policy elite which was threatened by Trump/Bannon nativism is rushing to praise Donald.

Not coincidentally, I think that Trump and Republicans will suffer for it electorally.

This version of Trump might be as bad as Hillary on foreign affairs (remembers she called for the missile attack, and watch North Korea), and while he lacks her saving graces on social affairs, as Kushner and Ivanka gain influence, they may make Trump a lot better on social civil liberties.

Though very competent in his way, Bannon was never quite a Svengali (as with his fumbling of the immigration order), but he is the only person in the administration genuinely angry about what happened to the working and middle class in America, and how the financial crisis was handled by bailing out banks and fucking ordinary people.

If Bannon loses this fight completely, Trump will be little more than an overly capricious, yet standard, Republican President.

And, folks, Trump was never going to be Hitler and not improving relations with Russia is a disaster, whatever the propaganda machine may tell you. (And that Syria attack would not have happened if improving relations with Russia were still important.)

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Trump Fires Missiles on Syrian Airbase

By

On April 7, 2017

80 Comments

Sigh. This is not smart. Let us hope it does not escalate. The administration has said it is a “one-off,” but if any allegation of chemical attacks can cause the US to strike, there will be more chemical attacks.

Of course, many people usually critical of Trump are now “rallying around.” Nothing like blood to get Americans to support a President.

Syria is not a good place to be playing games, given that Russia is already there. (An agreement on coordinating flights between the US and Russia has been cancelled by the Russians.)

That Trump is getting really good media on this, especially on TV, is particularly bad. Trump craves approval, and he is being trained, right now, to be violent. The consequences of this are potentially catastrophic.

Update: No, this is not about Trump being worse than Clinton on this issue.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Democratic Filibuster of Gorsuch, Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee

By

On April 3, 2017

34 Comments

So, the Democrats now have 41 votes against, meaning Gorsuch can’t pass without changing the Senate rules to allow majority votes (a.k.a. to remove the filibuster on supreme court nominees, the “nuclear option.”) The Democrats removed the filibuster on non-supreme court nominees some years back, and came to regret not removing it all on nominees when the Republicans refused to pass anyone nominated by Obama, denying Democrats a majority on the Supreme Court.

“The next President should decide.”

Republican leadership has said that they will, in fact use the nuclear option.

I’m ok with this. The filibuster is anti-democratic. The Founders put in checks and balances, but they didn’t intend that if one party had control of all branches of government they couldn’t do what they wanted, subject to the Constitution.

(Related: The two-term limit on Presidential terms is a vastly bad idea and anti-democratic as well.)

Republicans want an excuse not to pass some of the crap that the House passes on to them, so they are talking about not removing the filibuster for legislation, however. (Yes, this is dodging responsibility.)

Subject to the constitution, written and unwritten, people should get who and what they voted for, and if politicians betray voters, their responsibility for doing so should be clear.

So, yeah, losing the filibuster will make Americans worse off. So be it. Democracy without responsibility is not democracy and the filibuster has just as often been used to stop good things and people as bad.

(Also, if the nuclear option is not used, Democrats should filibuster every Trump nominee, saying “the next President should decide.”)

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Trump Signals He’s About to Blow His Foot Off

By

On March 30, 2017

47 Comments

As Matt says:

The people who care about this include the marginal voters who put Trump over the edge to victory. If this is true? Wow.

I thought Obama’s bungling of the economy and breaking promises would cost him re-election and it didn’t, instead it cost Democrats 1,000 state seats, multiple Governorships, and the House and Senate. So perhaps Trump will slide on this and download the damage to Republicans.

Mexico threatened to hit American corn, which some think is what caused Trump’s retrograde action to the rear. The funny and sad thing is that American corn devastated the Mexican economy after NAFTA. Millions of farmers lost their land and had to go to the slums (and cross the border to America.) Meanwhile American companies bought up the tortilla manufacturers, downgraded the nutrition of the corn based foods and increased the prices: The result was that Mexico had fewer farmers, more slum dwellers, and worse food that cost more. (GDP might have increased.Forcing subsistence farmers into slums can show up as increased GDP as they have to pay for what they used to grow.)

Mexico would be better off out of NAFTA, quite specifically because of corn. Rolling back the clock on agriculture would be hard, but not impossible, and breaking up foreign owned companies would be good for Mexico if done correctly.

If Donald bails on a big NAFTA renegotiation, he’s not just screwing his supporters, he might well be hurting Mexicans too.

Funny. Sad, but funny.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

If Trumpcare Fails

By

On March 24, 2017

88 Comments

Update: And, they have pulled the bill. Now Trump needs to get a win. (Note: This would have been a loss if it had actually passed, though Trump may not realize that.)

It will be for the best for both America and Trump. The original deal was bad, and the deal that Ryan and Trump have negotiated would have been disastrous–literally worse than no bill at all.

This is true for Americans, who would have worse quality care, along with less, more expensive coverage; and it is true for Trump, who promised something better and whose marginal followers will know he betrayed them. Indeed, polls have shown a collapse of Trump’s approval ratings since the first viewing of the draft bill.

If Trump is pushing for a vote when he knows he doesn’t have the vote, perhaps there’s some dim idea of that fact in there. A bad deal, as Trump knew in the 1980s, is worse than no deal at all.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Trump Is Now Breaking His Core Promises

By

On March 17, 2017

128 Comments

On January 26th, I wrote that Trump had yet to break his core promises; that his actions at that point were consistent with the major promises he had made during the election. He had ended TPP, was moving on the immigration bill, was working on the wall, and so on.

He might have lied about a lot of things, but he had yet to lie about what mattered.

However Trump made promises that lay at the core of his ur-promise, which was to make things better for those who the old economy had failed. He is now making those promises into a lie.

Trumpcare is clearly worse than Obamacare. It will not cover things Obamacare covered, will cover fewer people and will cost more.

The budget is a direct strike at the poorest and weakest and at people who voted for Trump in regions whose support he needed, like the Rust Belt. It’s one thing to “cut the state,” it’s another to cut programs that feed hungry adults and children. The extra money to the police state and military will help his people, but not as much as the cuts and the Trumpcare failure will cost them.

He has yet to move on NAFTA, a core promise.

It’s not possible for me to look at what Trump is doing and say, “This will really make a difference to his core supporters.” It won’t.

It’s quite possible than Trumpcare won’t pass, and it’s almost certain that Trump’s budget will take some huge hits before passage as well. But both indicate a failure by Trump to take his promises, and his ur-promises seriously.

Course correction is possible but unlikely. It is rare for Presidents to change from who they are during their first year: Obama never changed from the man who bailed out bankers and the rich, and fucked over small people, for example.

In one sense, this changes little. It will continue the loss of faith in the political system, continue America’s decline and continue on the glide path to the age of war and revolution our world is in. It will happen faster than it would have under Clinton, and more Americans will suffer sooner, but the trend lines remain intact.

In another sense, this is a lost opportunity, not to do the right thing, though some of what Trump promised was the right thing, but to restore some faith. Trump failing, but doing what he promised would be quite a bit different than Trump not even trying to keep his ur-promise, the same as Obama (Change!) or Bush.

So it has been, and it looks like, so it shall be.

So be it.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

The Fed Hikes

By

On March 16, 2017

59 Comments

So, the Fed has raised its rate by .25 percent. This is bad policy, and it is bad politics.

Employment Population Ratio

Employment Population Ratio

The unemployment rate is at 4.7 percent. As I have discussed before, the primary use for the unemployment rate is to determine wage push pressure, not whether people can get jobs (they can’t, and have given up).

Even by that policy, whose intention and largely successful result has been to keep employees from getting raises much higher than inflation, thus flushing money to the rich, 4.7 percent is not full employment. This raise is early.

That leads us to the politics. Yellen has been quite clear in her opposition to Trump’s avowed economic policies and that she intends to use Federal Reserve policy to neuter them. Given Trump hasn’t done anything yet but make promises he may well break, this seems premature, but the perception on the right will be, and possibly accurately, that Yellen, who barely raised at all in eight years of Obama’s economy, is suddenly raising when a Republican is President.

It’s not a good look, and I don’t see any reason to give Yellen the benefit of the doubt. Americans have only barely begun to get raises that put their income higher than before the financial collapse, with millions still unable to find work, and she raises rates?

The Federal Reserve is both irredeemably corrupt and anti-democratic, as well as an incompetent tool of the rich. At the least it needs to be brought back under Democratic control, a wing of the Treasury department, as it was before 1951.

In the meantime, this is another spike in Trump’s chances of a good Presidency, another spike in the jobless coffins of too many Americans, and another way of making sure that the rich get all the gains while everyone else eats their scraps.

(See Also: Trump’s Coming War With the Fed.)

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Trump Couldn’t Buy Coverage Like This

By

On March 13, 2017

48 Comments

All the semi-scandals don’t add up to one cover like this.

As for Trump’s program, I am so far largely unimpressed, not as a matter of ideological opposition, but of pragmatics. His health care plan is bad, and will hurt people who voted for him in ways they will notice: increased cost, less health care, and more suffering and death. It’s not the sort of chintzing which can be waved off.

So far he has no solid stimulus proposal (and such as the one he had was, it wasn’t very good). He  hasn’t acted on free trade, beyond cancelling the TPP, which wasn’t in effect anyway. His proposed cuts to the non-military budget will have a negative trickle down and will not be good for the economy. Bannon’s okay with that, he has an ideological desire to destroy the post-WWII state, but Trump needs his people to feel good.

The one perhaps clever thing Trump has done is his asked for a 54 billion dollar increase to the military budget. Jobs created this way will tend to go to Trump supporters and communities. If you’re dedicated to slashing the rest of the bureaucracy, this is an excellent offset.

Well, it could be, depending on how many jobs it produces. The dollars/job correlation on defense funding is pretty lousy, and if I were Trump/Bannon I’d be leaning hard on the Pentagon to spend this in ways which will actually produce jobs, whether directly in the military, outsourced, or manufacturing.

Much remains undetermined, but so far Trump’s made only one potentially smart economic move. Let’s wait and see, within a couple months we should have a fuller picture and thus a better idea of his likely fate.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Page 15 of 20

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén