The long awaited Mueller report is out and we got a summary from AG Barr today. There was not much surprise in Barr's summary and it opened more questions. Most of these questions may be answered by a full disclosure of Mueller's report. Whether we get to read the whole thing is unknown at this time. I will give my take on this and what it means to Trump.
1. There is no collusion between Trump and the Russians according to the Mueller report summarized by Barr. I don't doubt that finding and is not a surprise. I am not sure Trump initially wanted to win the presidency that badly that he would commit treason to get that job. So this finding is a vindication for Trump for saying no collusion all along. The question I want answered from the Mueller report is if there was no collusion, why Trump always defended Putin. Was there something else that Trump owed Putin. Did Mueller looked closely at his finances? If so, will that be made public?
2. Mueller did not decide whether Trump should be tried for obstruction of justice. He left that up to Barr and Rosenstein. According to Barr, both he and Rosenstein decided that there was not enough evidence to go forward to charge Trump. But Barr also noted that Mueller did not exonerate Trump. If there was no evidence of obstruction of justice, Mueller would have say so and exonerated Trump. The fact that he did not, it means that to most people, Trump was trying to obstruct justice. It is just that the man he appointed as AG feels that there is not enough evidence to convict him. If this occur in another country, would anyone believe that the leader of that country was not trying to obstruct an investigation on himself?
3. Lot more questions. As mentioned above, why all the coziness toward Putin? Why did Trump disagree with the intelligence community about the Russian meddling? Who did Putin want to win with all the meddling? How do we prevent this from happening again? Did Trump violated campaign finance laws by paying off Stormy Daniels?
The GOP and Trump will gloat with what was disclosed today. The Democrats will keeping digging. I don't think it changed many minds about Trump. Maybe he picks up a few percent of the Independents after today. He may have more problems coming out of Southern District of New York. I would say that unless the full Mueller report contained some real damage, this was a good day for Trump.
But Friday was a bad day for Trump. Not because anything with investigation but with the stock market. It is not just the 460 points loss but because the loss was based on an indicator called yield inversion. This is where a long term bond yield drops below that of a short term counterpart. As usually the case, this involves long and short term Treasury investments. This yield inverse is usually an indication of a coming recession in about a year. This last occurred in 2007 and we know what happened in 2008. If this holds true again, then before the 2020 election we will have a recession. Trump has been exaggerating the success of the economy under him. If the recession comes, it will be a disaster for him and his backers.
Sunday, March 24, 2019
Monday, March 18, 2019
All over the news the last few days was the college admission cheating scandal. It is big news because rich and famous people are involved. I am appalled by the revelations but I am not that surprised. I would bet that some of the people who paid to get their kids admitted to elite schools are at the same time against affirmative action.
I am against affirmative action by race. But I am for affirmative action based on economic status. That is the least colleges can do to try to even the playing field. As you can see, rich folks already have affirmative action for themselves. They have had back doors and side doors to get in. Poor folks should have a door somewhere open for them.
It has always been known that at elite colleges there is a back door where rich alums can get their kids in if they are not qualified to go in thru the front door. This door is known as legacy admits. There is also a back door for athletes in non revenue generating sports which mostly rich people can participate in. Golf and tennis are the old examples among others. Now you can add rowing which has teams in inland schools that are nowhere near water. You think any inner city kids can play these sports growing up? So by giving scholarships and lowering admission standards for people who play in these sports, you are essentially giving affirmative action to rich people and maybe those of upper middle class.
So while white conservatives questioned whether Obama got into Harvard Law School by affirmative action, I will say with 100% certainty that George Bush and Trump got into their schools by white affirmative action or the backdoor. Trump wanted to see Obama's grades. At the same time he had Cohen threaten his high school and college not to release his grades. He also threatened the College Board not to release his SAT scores. You can't get decent SAT scores after going to elite private schools? You still need to get in thru the backdoor? You are so hypocritical that you complain about minority affirmative action?
Many years ago when my future wife was a student at a east LA junior college, a counselor offered to drive a few minority students to UC Santa Barbara so they can experience what a four year college was like. It opened my wife's eye to an institution that was almost all white at the time. After the scandal came out the LA Times published an article about some of the minority students at that same junior college are in a club so that they can learn how to transfer to four year colleges. This club seemed to be the descendant of that trip from many years ago. The interviews in the article point out that it is still an uphill battle for the students of this college. They were disheartened but not surprised about the admission scandal.
It seems interesting to me that in many of the cases, the mother of the student is indicted but not their equally famous husband. See Huffman and Laughlin. It seems to be similar to cases where the mother is blamed in pushing the kids too hard. Asian mothers are called tiger moms. But no name for the dads even though I am sure the fathers are pushing the kids hard as well. In case of cheating, wouldn't the father be just as guilty? But since women are blamed here, I suggest that they be called kangaroo moms since they keep their young in their pouches and not let them be independent. If they don't get what they want, they get "hopping" mad!
I am against affirmative action by race. But I am for affirmative action based on economic status. That is the least colleges can do to try to even the playing field. As you can see, rich folks already have affirmative action for themselves. They have had back doors and side doors to get in. Poor folks should have a door somewhere open for them.
It has always been known that at elite colleges there is a back door where rich alums can get their kids in if they are not qualified to go in thru the front door. This door is known as legacy admits. There is also a back door for athletes in non revenue generating sports which mostly rich people can participate in. Golf and tennis are the old examples among others. Now you can add rowing which has teams in inland schools that are nowhere near water. You think any inner city kids can play these sports growing up? So by giving scholarships and lowering admission standards for people who play in these sports, you are essentially giving affirmative action to rich people and maybe those of upper middle class.
So while white conservatives questioned whether Obama got into Harvard Law School by affirmative action, I will say with 100% certainty that George Bush and Trump got into their schools by white affirmative action or the backdoor. Trump wanted to see Obama's grades. At the same time he had Cohen threaten his high school and college not to release his grades. He also threatened the College Board not to release his SAT scores. You can't get decent SAT scores after going to elite private schools? You still need to get in thru the backdoor? You are so hypocritical that you complain about minority affirmative action?
Many years ago when my future wife was a student at a east LA junior college, a counselor offered to drive a few minority students to UC Santa Barbara so they can experience what a four year college was like. It opened my wife's eye to an institution that was almost all white at the time. After the scandal came out the LA Times published an article about some of the minority students at that same junior college are in a club so that they can learn how to transfer to four year colleges. This club seemed to be the descendant of that trip from many years ago. The interviews in the article point out that it is still an uphill battle for the students of this college. They were disheartened but not surprised about the admission scandal.
It seems interesting to me that in many of the cases, the mother of the student is indicted but not their equally famous husband. See Huffman and Laughlin. It seems to be similar to cases where the mother is blamed in pushing the kids too hard. Asian mothers are called tiger moms. But no name for the dads even though I am sure the fathers are pushing the kids hard as well. In case of cheating, wouldn't the father be just as guilty? But since women are blamed here, I suggest that they be called kangaroo moms since they keep their young in their pouches and not let them be independent. If they don't get what they want, they get "hopping" mad!
Sunday, March 10, 2019
News: Treasury figures show a 77% increase in the deficit over the first four months of the budget year. (I think they start the budget year in Oct. 2018) This is due to a combination of decreased revenue due to the tax cut and spending increases. Trump talks big, but is silent on the issue.
The argument from the GOP has always been that a tax cut will pay for itself by stimulating the economy which will increase tax revenue. I like paying less tax myself but I doubt that the effects of tax cuts are always positive for the country. The last tax cut during the Bush year led to one of the worst recession in history. So why do we buy into this tax cut concept?
To me it is obvious that if you decrease revenue coming in, then you must decrease what you are paying out. Otherwise the deficit increases. The criticism of the Democrats have always been that they like to spend more and more and so need to keep raising taxes. But when the GOP cuts taxes, they still spend more and more. It doesn't take a genius to see that neither way is sustainable but the GOP strategy is worse for the country.
It is, of course, no upside in cutting any benefits. For example, seniors who are the most conservative among the electorates, would go crazy if you cut Medicare. So the GOP, who needs their support, would never cut Medicare. The most liberal Democrats are advocating Medicare for all. This will mean much bigger deficits unless there is a big tax raise. That is not realistic at this time. So both sides are just trying to please their supporters and not really doing anything logical.
As I always said, we need pragmatic centrist to get elected. But is that really possible? It certainly is not possible on the GOP side as long as Trump is the president.
The argument from the GOP has always been that a tax cut will pay for itself by stimulating the economy which will increase tax revenue. I like paying less tax myself but I doubt that the effects of tax cuts are always positive for the country. The last tax cut during the Bush year led to one of the worst recession in history. So why do we buy into this tax cut concept?
To me it is obvious that if you decrease revenue coming in, then you must decrease what you are paying out. Otherwise the deficit increases. The criticism of the Democrats have always been that they like to spend more and more and so need to keep raising taxes. But when the GOP cuts taxes, they still spend more and more. It doesn't take a genius to see that neither way is sustainable but the GOP strategy is worse for the country.
It is, of course, no upside in cutting any benefits. For example, seniors who are the most conservative among the electorates, would go crazy if you cut Medicare. So the GOP, who needs their support, would never cut Medicare. The most liberal Democrats are advocating Medicare for all. This will mean much bigger deficits unless there is a big tax raise. That is not realistic at this time. So both sides are just trying to please their supporters and not really doing anything logical.
As I always said, we need pragmatic centrist to get elected. But is that really possible? It certainly is not possible on the GOP side as long as Trump is the president.