Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[y66]

Is it after 10,000 posts or 10,000 hours that we become experts? I think it must be hours.

[kenberg]

From The Wolf at the White House Correspondents' Dinner by Jon Fasman at The Economist:

 

 

Winston Wolfe has met his match.

 

I think where I agree with him most is where he says he never plans to go to one of these things.

 

As to Michelle Wolfe. Vulgar. Funny. Is this why people go to the dinner? Maybe the drinks are good.

 

I gather that every year there are fewer correspondents than the year before. Probably if they did not have a comedian even fewer would come. Perhaps someone should sit down and work out just why they have these things at all. A launch pad for a comic I had never previously heard of is not really an adequate reason.

 

Let's put it this way: Other than Ms. Wolf's {Wolf, not Wolfe, I see] presentation and the overheated responses to it, did anything at all happen?

[Winstonm]

This guy talks as if he is quite knowledgeable but I have no idea if he is legit. He certainly paints an interesting picture of the Reality President. He has more to say here.

[Chas_P]

Let's put it this way: Other than Ms. Wolfe's presentation and the overheated responses to it, did anything at all happen?

 

Absolutely nothing other than Ms. Wolf raising herself a wee bit from near obscurity and hopefully (for her) raising her ratings for her upcoming talk show on Netflix. For those who enjoy that type trash that is the type trash they will enjoy. I'm like Sam Goldwyn........"Gentlemen, include me out."

[y66]

I think where I agree with him most is where he says he never plans to go to one of these things.

 

As to Michelle Wolfe. Vulgar. Funny. Is this why people go to the dinner? Maybe the drinks are good.

 

I gather that every year there are fewer correspondents than the year before. Probably if they did not have a comedian even fewer would come. Perhaps someone should sit down and work out just why they have these things at all. A launch pad for a comic I had never previously heard of is not really an adequate reason.

 

Let's put it this way: Other than Ms. Wolfe's presentation and the overheated responses to it, did anything at all happen?

Why go? Good question.

 

Did anything happen? Yes. Michelle Wolf did what she was paid to do. She told the truth and she killed her audience with vicious, vulgar, hilarious, laser humor.

[Winstonm]

This is from WaPo:

 

But how has the economy actually performed under Trump? There is plenty of data to help us answer this question. So I bring you: Six questions about Trump and the economy you may have been too embarrassed to ask.

 

1. What’s the big picture? Have we seen a change under Trump?

 

Generally speaking, the economy today is virtually indistinguishable from the economy in the several years before Trump took office, as measured by economic growth.

 

Gross domestic product continues to increase at a modest but steady rate, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter of this year, it grew at an annual rate of 2.3 percent ; last year it also grew at 2.3 percent . That’s roughly what growth averaged during Obama’s second term.

 

6. So, uhh, how much influence do presidents have over the economy, anyway? It sounds like not very much.

 

Bingo. Presidents get too much blame when the economy sours and too much credit when it improves. Not that you’d know this from Trump’s boasts whenever some good news — even news that’s not actually that good — rolls in.

[kenberg]

This is from WaPo:

 

I like Catherine Rampell and all six questions can be found at

https://www.washingt...m=.da1ee97b9469

 

However I think this last point about presidents not having much influence on the economy is more complicated. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

The 9-11 attacks had an effect. GWB cannot be blamed for that. The tax cuts were his idea though. I seem to recall that by 2000 money was flowing in to the governement so fast it was difficult to use it to reduce the debt. If someone had a government bond with an expiration date of four years later, he was not necessarily going to cash it in. After the tax cuts, that problem definitely vanished. Of course GWB could not bring these tax cuts into existence on his own but I think it oversimplifies things to say he hd no responsibility for them.

 

There are many such items. Jimmy Carter was not responsible for the Arab Oil Embargo, but how a president responds to such an event matters. LBJ interpreted the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in a manner that allowed him to greatly increase our involvement in Viet Nam. This had economic effect. The economic effect may be nodest in comparison to other effects, for example a large number of people being killed, but it did dry up funding for the War on Poverty.

 

But my main point with this position that presidents do not have much effect on the economy is this: Before saying such a thing, she should be very sure that if the economy crashes she will not hold Donald Trump in any way responsible. I would hold him responsible.

[Winstonm]

Paul Krugman on the tax cuts:

 

Is it just too soon to expect results? Are businesses getting ready to ramp up investment, so that we’ll see them laying out the big bucks in the near future? Not according to a survey by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. A vast majority of businesses say either that the tax law has had no effect on their investment plans, or that they are planning only a modest increase.

 

In short, the effects of the Trump tax cut are already looking like the effects of the Brownback tax cut in Kansas, the Bush tax cut and every other much-hyped tax cut of the past three decades: big talk, big promises, but no results aside from a swollen budget deficit.

[Winstonm]

I like Catherine Rampell and all six questions can be found at

https://www.washingt...m=.da1ee97b9469

 

However I think this last point about presidents not having much influence on the economy is more complicated. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

The 9-11 attacks had an effect. GWB cannot be blamed for that. The tax cuts were his idea though. I seem to recall that by 2000 money was flowing in to the governement so fast it was difficult to use it to reduce the debt. If someone had a government bond with an expiration date of four years later, he was not necessarily going to cash it in. After the tax cuts, that problem definitely vanished. Of course GWB could not bring these tax cuts into existence on his own but I think it oversimplifies things to say he hd no responsibility for them.

 

There are many such items. Jimmy Carter was not responsible for the Arab Oil Embargo, but how a president responds to such an event matters. LBJ interpreted the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in a manner that allowed him to greatly increase our involvement in Viet Nam. This had economic effect. The economic effect may be nodest in comparison to other effects, for example a large number of people being killed, but it did dry up funding for the War on Poverty.

 

But my main point with this position that presidents do not have much effect on the economy is this: Before saying such a thing, she should be very sure that if the economy crashes she will not hold Donald Trump in any way responsible. I would hold him responsible.

 

I would not hold him responsible. Responsibility for government actions is much more than a single person's decision. Sure, a president can suggest a course, but without the aid and assistance of Congress there isn't anything he can do by fiat. The present tax bill is a prime example. That was an action of the Republican-controlled Congress with the assistance of this president. Whatever short-term help or hindrance this did to the economy is irrelevant to the long-range damage or aid to investment, employment, and wages.

 

(Btw, the reason I don't like the actual article with WaPo and NYT is their paywalls.)

[barmar]

Well, I quote a line from the article "Wondering how the Senate tax bill would affect you? Here’s everything you need to know."

The tax bill was over 400 pages long. If you're expecting a handful of bullet points to explain everything about such a complicated law, you're totally out of touch with reality.

 

You've been around long enough to know that "Here's everything you need to know" is just normal hyperbole and/or click-bait. Such headlines are practically never followed by anything comprehensive.

[kenberg]

The tax bill was over 400 pages long. If you're expecting a handful of bullet points to explain everything about such a complicated law, you're totally out of touch with reality.

 

You've been around long enough to know that "Here's everything you need to know" is just normal hyperbole and/or click-bait. Such headlines are practically never followed by anything comprehensive.

 

Of course that is so. Everything you need to know about health/women/opening leads/whatever should not be taken seriously.

But I still think that following such an intro with information for taxpayers that is grouped by income brackets and then not even mentioning the brackets that seem to me to be where most of their reader's incomes lie is particularly egregious. People under 50K have few choices, people in the upper brackets are probably not getting their financial advice from Money. The in-betweens might go to Money for advice. To have their bracket not even listed would, given the intro, be a disappointment.

 

Or so I think. But I accept that others see this differently. Possibly I just have the wrong idea of who their customer base is.

[kenberg]

I would not hold him responsible. Responsibility for government actions is much more than a single person's decision. Sure, a president can suggest a course, but without the aid and assistance of Congress there isn't anything he can do by fiat. The present tax bill is a prime example. That was an action of the Republican-controlled Congress with the assistance of this president. Whatever short-term help or hindrance this did to the economy is irrelevant to the long-range damage or aid to investment, employment, and wages.

 

(Btw, the reason I don't like the actual article with WaPo and NYT is their paywalls.)

 

To me this is an argument for not holding him wholly responsible Few people are wholly responsible for much of anything. Presidential leadership could have led to a different tax bill, certainly a presidential veto would have led to a different tax bill (if any). The tax law that passed did so, at least in part, because DT favored it or because DT accepted that it was good enough to warrant his signature. If three years from now it is seen as a great success, DT and Congress can share the credit. If it is seen as a serious error, they can share the blame. Of course just what is meant by success often depends on "success for whom". But if the economy is general rising, if the future is looking good for most citizens, if the debt is falling, that sounds like success. If it happens, Trump and Congress get credit for it. If it all goes to hell, they get the blame. Shared credit/blame, but the choices made by each matter.

 

Or so I think.

[Winstonm]

To me this is an argument for not holding him wholly responsible Few people are wholly responsible for much of anything. Presidential leadership could have led to a different tax bill, certainly a presidential veto would have led to a different tax bill (if any). The tax law that passed did so, at least in part, because DT favored it or because DT accepted that it was good enough to warrant his signature. If three years from now it is seen as a great success, DT and Congress can share the credit. If it is seen as a serious error, they can share the blame. Of course just what is meant by success often depends on "success for whom". But if the economy is general rising, if the future is looking good for most citizens, if the debt is falling, that sounds like success. If it happens, Trump and Congress get credit for it. If it all goes to hell, they get the blame. Shared credit/blame, but the choices made by each matter.

 

Or so I think.

 

I thought it self-evident that a president cannot be wholly responsible because he cannot rule by fiat. This very fact is the argument against holding a president alone responsible for negative or positive economics caused by government policies. Economies are resilient and it takes a great deal of disruption to cause genuine damage or improvement. (See Great Depression, Great Recession, and The New Deal for examples of government policies that eventually created lasting damage or lasing positive effects.)

 

While it is too early to see if the new tax laws change anything, the early results are not promising as investment has not improved nor have wages risen. To be fair, even under the best scenario wages would be last to rise. But once again, following the supply-side mis-adventures of Kansas and Oklahoma but on a larger scale does not seem an intelligent policy in which to engage.

[Winstonm]

From the "Only the best people" department. Yahoo by way of Huffington Post notes:

 

WASHINGTON — Albert Kelly, a top aide to Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt in charge of overhauling the organization’s cleanup of America’s most contaminated sites, has resigned.

 

His departure, which Axios first reported Tuesday, comes the same day Pasquale “Nino” Perrotta, the head of Pruitt’s controversial round-the-clock security detail, stepped down early ahead of planned testimony before the House Oversight Committee. The resignations add to the chaos that has engulfed the EPA since Pruitt’s whirlwind of corruption accusations and ethical scandals began in late March.

 

Kelly, a former banking executive, was banned for life from that industry in 2016 as The Intercept reported. Almost immediately thereafter, Pruitt appointed him to lead the EPA’s effort to prioritize and streamline the Superfund program.

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/albert-kelly-epa-resign_us_5ae88371e4b04aa23f273104

[kenberg]

I thought it self-evident that a president cannot be wholly responsible because he cannot rule by fiat. This very fact is the argument against holding a president alone responsible for negative or positive economics caused by government policies. Economies are resilient and it takes a great deal of disruption to cause genuine damage or improvement. (See Great Depression, Great Recession, and The New Deal for examples of government policies that eventually created lasting damage or lasing positive effects.)

 

While it is too early to see if the new tax laws change anything, the early results are not promising as investment has not improved nor have wages risen. To be fair, even under the best scenario wages would be last to rise. But once again, following the supply-side mis-adventures of Kansas and Oklahoma but on a larger scale does not seem an intelligent policy in which to engage.

 

Most certainly not wholly responsible. But let's go back to the comment that I was responding to:

6. So, uhh, how much influence do presidents have over the economy, anyway? It sounds like not very much.

 

Bingo. Presidents get too much blame when the economy sours and too much credit when it improves.

 

I am saying "No Bingo". I am saying that "not very much" overstates the matter. They are not wholly responsible but they have a fair amount to say about tax and spending policies, enough so that they are entitled to credit, only partial credit but credit, when things go well and blame, only partial blame but blame, when things go wrong. And while my next comment is only unprovable speculation, I am guessing that if the economy were in the tank then Ms. Rampell, and others, would not be making this argument about how little effect presidential choices have on the economy.

 

I agree with some of the other statements she and others make, the economy is improving but it was improving before Trump as well. Moreover, there were many critical decisions needed in the early years of the Obama administration and I think he largely made the correct choices. I think he gets (partial) credit for that. Mostly I think it is way to early to call Trump's choices a success. As I have mentioned before, the economy looked just fine in January of 1929. More recently, I moved shortly before the housing crash 12 years or so ago. While I was happy to get a good price for my previous house I was sure prices were about to go down so though I got a good price, I did not hold out for the best imaginable price. Had I really had the courage of my convictions, I would have sold but not bought, taken a 12 month vacation, and then bought the new place after the crash. That wise, or that nuts, I was not. Often a fine line between wise and nuts.

 

If presidents didn't matter then who would care who is president, except maybe for the repulsiveness factor?

 

"Not very much" is an overstatement. That's my claim.An overstatement of his lack of influence.

[barmar]

I'm not much of a fan of baseball or football, but this "responsibility" debate reminds me of how wins and losses are often credited to the pitcher or quarterback, even though it's a team effort. Even a no-hitter or perfect game in baseball is not totally the pitcher's feat (no pitcher has ever struck out all 27 batters in a game). While they generally have more influence than any other single player, it's probably not more than all the other players put together.

 

In the case of POTUS, "not very much" is indeed an overstatement. "Not nearly as much as they're credited with" would be a better way to put it.

[awm]

In the particular case of Trump, he has used national security as an excuse to unilaterally impose tariffs on a number of different trade goods from a number of different countries. Some of these countries have (or are considering) to retaliate with tariffs of their own. This "trade war" did not require congressional approval, and in fact would be unlikely to get it (Republicans are traditionally opposed to tariffs); the tariffs are also causing some difficulty in rural areas where Trump is/was popular. To the degree that future changes in the economy can be tied to these trade policies, Trump will deserve a lot of the credit (and/or blame).

[Winstonm]

If everyone will notice, there isn't much difference with the economy now from then. Tarriffs have not been imposed as strongly as boasted, the tax bill has not produced a magic increase on an already upward moving economy. If anything, the effect of the culture in which we live - with support for supply-side - has created a massive debt increase which is not only this president's blame but on everyone who voted for him and put him and Paul Ryan in office.

[johnu]

The 9-11 attacks had an effect. GWB cannot be blamed for that.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html

 

Nobody knows if heightened security at airports before 9/11 could have prevented the hijacking of planes. What we know now is that the GWB administration chose to ignore any warnings and didn't increase security.

[kenberg]

https://www.nytimes....1-warnings.html

 

Nobody knows if heightened security at airports before 9/11 could have prevented the hijacking of planes. What we know now is that the GWB administration chose to ignore any warnings and didn't increase security.

 

Probably so, I have not studied it. But after 9-11 there was naturally a lot of talk about who should have done what differently. I am fine with examining such things so that we can do better in the future, I am not so fine with it as a way of blaming someone. At bridge, I figure that the first partner to start yelling is usually the one who made the error. And even when not, it's not a productive approach to the future. There were earlier attempts to bring buildings down. Oklahoma City, for example, although not the same culprits. Nobody could really say "Gee, who would have thought someone would do something like that?".

 

So sure, examine what went wrong. But we should do so to better prepare for the future.

[johnu]

Probably so, I have not studied it. But after 9-11 there was naturally a lot of talk about who should have done what differently. I am fine with examining such things so that we can do better in the future, I am not so fine with it as a way of blaming someone. At bridge, I figure that the first partner to start yelling is usually the one who made the error. And even when not, it's not a productive approach to the future. There were earlier attempts to bring buildings down. Oklahoma City, for example, although not the same culprits. Nobody could really say "Gee, who would have thought someone would do something like that?".

 

So sure, examine what went wrong. But we should do so to better prepare for the future.

 

As that famous saying goes, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

 

Before 9/11, there were intelligence warnings about potential hijackings by al Qaeda so it wasn't a surprise to those who should have known. Clinton officials warned Bush officials about threats to the US and were generally ignored. If you're not interested in finding out how and why mistakes were made, you don't have much of a chance to prevent similar mistake in the future.

[barmar]

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html

 

Nobody knows if heightened security at airports before 9/11 could have prevented the hijacking of planes. What we know now is that the GWB administration chose to ignore any warnings and didn't increase security.

To be fair, while the CIA seemed to be quite certain about the pending attack, Bush was getting conflicting advice from other parties suggesting that it was a smokescreen.

 

Sometimes it's really hard for leaders to win. When there's an impending hurricane or blizzard, often mayors will assume the word and issue evacuation orders; if the storm ends up not being as serious as expected, they'll get blamed for overreacting and causing unnecessary panic and economic impact. But no one wants to be the next mayor who underestimates the next Katrina or Andrew.

[Winstonm]

From the "How Ironic Is This" department:

 

Trump has now hired Bill Clinton's impeachment attorney. :o

[johnu]

To be fair, while the CIA seemed to be quite certain about the pending attack, Bush was getting conflicting advice from other parties suggesting that it was a smokescreen

 

Bush's solution was to do worse than nothing. If you recall, the so-called 20th hijacker was arrested the month before the attacks because of concerns that came up when he was taking flight training. Some FBI muckety mucks blocked a full investigation of him before the attacks. If there had been a full alert, maybe the outcome would have been different.

 

Sometimes it's really hard for leaders to win. When there's an impending hurricane or blizzard, often mayors will assume the word and issue evacuation orders; if the storm ends up not being as serious as expected, they'll get blamed for overreacting and causing unnecessary panic and economic impact. But no one wants to be the next mayor who underestimates the next Katrina or Andrew.

 

Or the next president who didn't prepare for the next 9/11.

[kenberg]

Well, Caesar was warned about the Ides of March. Ok, he should have listened.

I really do favor looking into what went wrong, I did not intend anything I said to be taken otherwise. My guess is that any hones investigation will find several overlooked warnings. FDR was criticized for Pearl Harbor, Hillary Clinton for Benghazi, over and over, and many things in between. At the time of 9-11 there was some claim, perhaps accurate, that the intelligence community had far too few agents who were fluent in Arabic. So my Republican friends, some of them, concluded 9-11 was Bill Clinton's fault for not correcting this. The San Francisco earthquake? Pin the blame on Mame boys. We have Rita Hayworth's word on that.

 

Look over what happened? Sure. But when the Ds find that all the Rs are guilty and all the Ds blameless, and the Rs find that all the Ds are guilty and all the Rs blameless, I get a little tired of listening.