Monday, December 12, 2016

Memo to Squirrel-Hair: just make good cabinet and SCOTUS appointments, sign what Congress sends you, and otherwise shut your taco-bowl-hole and do nothing

I have, in some recent posts, used the word "enigma" to characterize DJT based on his transition-period behavior. He has made nearly uniformly great cabinet and agency appointments (although his latest consideration - see post below - is fraught with questions). But he continues to tweet and bleat, displaying not only his characteristic pettiness, but a reversion to protectionism that runs counter to appointments such as Puzder.

Maybe I've been giving him too much credit. "Enigma," after all, is a three-syllable word, and it implies a thought process sophisticated enough to come up with a keep-'em-guessing strategy for making an impression on the pundit class and the portion of the general public not up to its eyeballs in Kool-Aid.

In other words, I am now considering that he is just plain winging it, that he is incapable of a mode of pronouncement other than wild s--- randomly flying out of his mouth.

Consider the three classic Squirrel-Hair traits on display here: thuggishness, economic illiteracy, and an inability to put a coherent sentence together:

Trump then [in a Fox News Sunday interview with Chris Wallace] gave the laughable claim he’s still all for free trade, even though he’s not(emphasis mine).
“I’m a big free trader.  But it has to be fair.  So, what’s happened is we have lost, over a period of years, short years, 70,000 factories in this country.  Chris, 70,000.  
I always say to people, I think it’s a typo. How could it be so many? Seventy thousand factories. We’re being stripped of our workers. We’re being — I mean, we’re being stripped of our jobs, our good jobs are really good down, and we’ve got to stop it. And the only way you’re going to stop it, the nice way is, we’re reducing taxes very substantially for companies so they’re not going to have to leave because of taxes. We’ll be reducing regulations. Now those are the nice ways of doing it and everyone loves it and everyone’s happy. Businesses, way down. Also middle class, but way down, OK, taxes and regulations.
But when a company wants to move to Mexico or another company — or another country and they want to build a nice, beautiful factory and they want to sell their product through our border, no tax, and the people that all got fired, so we end up with unemployment and debt, and they end up with jobs and factories and all of the other things, not going to happen that way. And the way you stop it is by imposing a tax.”
This is just dumb, and perverts the understanding of “free markets” Trump claims to actually believe in. If you reduce regulations and taxes, then companies will decide to stick around. Tax Foundation published a study in August pointing out America’s corporate income tax rate is one of the highest in the entire world (emphasis mine).
The top marginal corporate tax rate among the 188 countries surveyed was the United Arab Emirates, which has a top rate of 55 percent (Table 1). The United States, with a combined top marginal tax rate of 38.9 percent (consisting of the federal tax rate of 35 percent plus the average tax rate among the states), has the third highest corporate income tax rate in the world, slightly behind Puerto Rico. In contrast, the average across all 188 countries is 22.5 percent, or 29.5 percent weighted by gross domestic product (GDP).


And check out his summary dismissal of the WSJ editorial board's intellectual prowess:

His complete lack of understanding on trade and taxes gets even worse. From his conversation with Chris Wallace.
Now, I’ve come up with a number of 35 percent. There is no tax if you don’t leave. There is no tax at all. You know, people are saying, they don’t understand, really, what I’m doing. I read The Wall Street Journal the other day. Honestly, their editorial board doesn’t get it. I don’t think they understand business. I don’t think The Wall Street Journal editorial board — and I know some of them. They’re really nice. I don’t think they understand business. They don’t understand what I’m saying.
There’s a 35 percent tax, but there is no tax if you don’t move. But if you move your plant or factory and you want to sell back into our country, you fire all your people, there are going to be consequences for that. There are going to be consequences. You know what’s going to happen?
Nobody’s going to move. They’re not going to move. They’re not going to leave. They’re going to stay here. 
But what Trump doesn’t say (whether on purpose or not) is the companies who do decide to not be located in the U.S. will just raise prices to absorb the 35% tax hike. So Playstations will probably cost at least 35% more, shirts made outside of the U.S. will cost more, some alcohol prices will go up, food products, and even some weapons prices because not every gun is made in the U.S. (including the ever popular Glock). There’s also the chance domestic products will go up because parts may have to be imported from foreign countries because they don’t grow here in the U.S.
This is the consequences of Trump’s threat to enact a 35% tax on companies who decide to not be located in the U.S. The most frustrating part is the fact Trump appears to get half the equation (hey, let’s lower taxes and regulations). But then he goes into this protectionist nuttery which is only going to hurt the economy more than help it. It’s possible Trump is just bloviating here and doing the 35% number so he can get something closer to 20 or 15%. This is still bad policy and one he should re-think before trying to get it pushed through Congress. 

The title of this post is a bit lengthy, but I wanted the basic message to be given due prominence. We're going to need a robust and proactive Congress and set of executive-branch appointees - hell, we're going to need a robust and proactive Mike Pence (not the one who waxed S-H-esque post-Carrier about American workers "losing" from a free market; Mike, you have the gig now; you don't have to hang with the guy so much) - to counter the wilder moves of a guy with no discernible skill sets beyond owning tall buildings and working mobs of devotees into a frenzy.

21 comments:

  1. WWID? I know Gorbie just came out and said Ronnie didn't work the peace very well. He just gloated. And fell back on America's triumphalism," Making America Great like that again?

    "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

    We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."--Triple D, 1961

    ReplyDelete
  2. I know that's an obsession of yours, but it has not proven true in the subsequent decades.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also, the subject of this post is Trump's protectionist tendencies. Let's save any discussion of military-industrial-complex indications for a post on that subject.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The title of this post refers to cabinet and other choices. And, yes, our military industrial burr was up our asses all throughout the Cold War.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'll get you a few good reads to check out this allegation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here's a good primer:

    America's War Machine: Vested Interests, Endless Conflicts by James McCartney & Molly Sinclair McCartney October 27, 2015, Macmillan

    "Based on his experiences as an award-winning Washington-based reporter covering national security, James McCartney presents a compelling history, from the Cold War to present day that shows that the problem is far worse and far more wide-reaching than anything Eisenhower could have imagined. Big Military has become "too big to fail" and has grown to envelope the nation's political, cultural and intellectual institutions. These centers of power and influence, including the now-complicit White House and Congress, have a vested interest in preparing and waging unnecessary wars. The authors persuasively argue that not one foreign intervention in the past 50 years has made us or the world safer."

    https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=ALHgBwAAQBAJ&source=productsearch&utm_source=HA_Desktop_US&utm_medium=SEM&utm_campaign=PLA&pcampaignid=MKTAD0930BO1&gclid=CMHy477H8dACFdJ4gQodOK0ILQ&gclsrc=ds&dclid=CKXt6b7H8dACFQYYgQodyeMK7A

    ReplyDelete
  7. Since I'm sure you'll slam the authors:

    JAMES MCCARTNEY had covered every president from Dwight D. Eisenhower to Bill Clinton. McCartney covered the White House, the State department, the Pentagon and relevant committees on Capitol Hill. He reported from about 30 countries, including Vietnam, the Soviet Union, the Middle East and Europe. After retirement from daily journalism, he taught courses in foreign policy and politics at Georgetown University. McCartney's papers, including about 4,000 of his articles, are in the Special Collections Research Center at Georgetown University's Lauringer Library.

    MOLLY SINCLAIR MCCARTNEY worked as a newspaper reporter more than 25 years, including 14 years at the Washington Post. In 2012 she was appointed a Woodrow Wilson Public Scholar in Washington D.C. to do the research and interviews needed to finish America's War Machine.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So, bloggie, if you haven't figured it out yet, your beloved Trump's cabinet is rife with the stench of the ongoing and accelerating military-industrial complex in the good ole US of A.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Trumps Protectionist Policies",none of us have a clue what policies the Trump Presidency offer I think.

    I vehemently disagree with basing the long term energy strategy on fossil fuel. The northern coastlines of the US offer tremendous wind energy potential and in the south the solar offers the same.
    The transition is inevitable, intelligent energy policy would expand both fossil fuel while substantial investing at the same time in renewable energy. That is a worthwhile infrastructure subsidy program.

    Barbra Tuchman- The Distant Mirror

    ReplyDelete
  10. How is McCartney's position any different from, say, Ron Paul's or Lew Rockwell's?

    The use of the term "war machine" makes it very hard to take the user seriously. Ditto the disparaging use of the term "world cop." When American leadership, which sometimes involves the use of force, recedes on the world stage, bad actors gain prominence. That, and not some supposed "war machine," is what makes the world less safe.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This shit he goes into on page 12 - 13 about the RAND study of terrorist groups from 1968 to 2006 and 43 percent of them deciding to adopt non-violent tactics: do you really think that applies to today's jihadists? Plus, if my math is correct, that means 57 percent did not give up their violent tactics.

    ReplyDelete
  12. M. Mitchell: How does Tuchman envision this "investing?"

    ReplyDelete
  13. McCartney speaks favorably of the Most Equal Comrade and unfavorably about Max Boot. Big thumbs-down. Has his head up his ass.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What a goofy premise for a book. The world would have been safer with a smaller US military over the last 50 years! How in the hell can anybody prove that?
    Looking at history's what-ifs is a monumental waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
  15. And now, we have strayed far too far from the topic of this post.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Long term energy strategy will be devolved under a Long Tall Texan who has always been gaga over his experiences as a 90 Day Wonder pilot.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yes, I just saw that Rick Perry has been appointed Energy Secretary. Excellent choice!

    ReplyDelete
  18. I can cite many many more books in the same vein as that book you dismiss as goofy. Look, we hear the drums of unnecessary and perhaps horrid war fare I'm the appointment of so many Hawks with blue balls, their dastardly projectiles having been forced to remain in their pants they put on one leg at a time like the rest of us poor bastards for 10 years

    ReplyDelete
  19. Read your West Point Colonel Andrew Bacevich, vet of Nam & Gulf War too. You'll just pass him off as goofy too.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Tuchman "Knights and Feudal Lords had little problems persuading the general populace into war. That taxation and subjugation of their society offered less reward than the opportunity of "sharing in the profits" of war. That are certain comparisons to todays investment policies as these in Tuchman.

    ReplyDelete