WELFARE MISUNDERSTOOD - TANIF

President Trump said, "We have a lot of positive things happening, you're going to see it bursting out. You're going to be seeing it very soon," he told Republican congressional leaders at a Philadelphia GOP retreat. "We want to get our people off of welfare and back to work. So important. It's out of control. It's out of control. (bolding and underlining mine)*

Unfortunately, President Trump is badly misinformed.   One wonders where President Trump was in the 1990s.He's 20 yrs out of date.  The welfare program in effect now is called TANIF (Temporary Assistance For Needy Families) that began in 1997 after which welfare recipients dropped markedly (See figure below).   TANIF was reauthorized in 2002 with some changes. Few understand that federal welfare benefits have a 5-yr lifetime limit beginning with 1997, except in some special cases as by the states (up to one-fifth the total number on welfare in the state).**

In 1992, as a presidential candidate, Bill Clinton pledged to "end welfare as we know it" by requiring families receiving welfare to work after two years. As president, Clinton was attracted to welfare expert and Harvard University Professor David Ellwood’s proposal on welfare reform and thus Clinton eventually appointed Ellwood to co-chair his welfare task force. Ellwood supported converting welfare into a transitional system. He advocated providing assistance to families for a limited time, after which recipients would be required to earn wages from a regular job or a work opportunity program.^[8] Low wages would be supplemented by expanded tax credits, access to subsidized children care and health insurance, and guaranteed child support.***

In 1994, Clinton introduced a welfare reform proposal that would provide job training coupled with time limits and subsidized jobs for those having difficulty finding work, but it was defeated.^[9] Later that year, when Republicans attained a Congressional majority in November 1994, the focus shifted toward the Republican proposal to end entitlements to assistance, repeal AFDC and instead provide state with blocks grants.^[11] The debates in Congress about welfare reform centered around five themes:^[11]***
................................................................
Before 1997, the federal government designed the overall program requirements and guidelines, while states administered the program and determined eligibility for benefits. Since 1997, states have been given block grants and both design and administer their own programs. Access to welfare and amount of assistance varied quite a bit by state and locality under AFDC, both because of the differences in state standards of need and considerable subjectivity in caseworker evaluation of qualifying "suitable homes".^[14] However, welfare recipients under TANF are actually in completely different programs depending on their state of residence, with different social services available to them and different requirements for maintaining aid.^[15]***

 (Click on Figure to enlarge)
Figure from: http://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/chart-book-tanf-at-20

There are quite a few states that don't even allow the five years lifetime:
Facing a $1 billion budget deficit, Arizona's Republican-led Legislature has reduced the lifetime limit for welfare recipients to the shortest window in the nation.
Low-income families on welfare will now have their benefits cut off after just 12 months.
As a result, the Arizona Department of Economic Security will drop at least 1,600 families — including more than 2,700 children — from the state's federally funded welfare program on July 1, 2016.****
............................................................
Most states impose a five-year limit on welfare benefits. Thirteen states limit it to two years or less, and Texas has a tiered time limit that can be as little as 12 months but allows children to continue to receive funding even after the parents have been cut, welfare policy analyst Liz Schott said.****

* http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/26/heres-how-president-trump-has-it-wrong-on-welfare.html
** https://thesocietypages.org/ssn/2013/05/13/what-happens-to-poor-families/
*** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families
**** http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2015/05/19/arizona-sharply-limits-welfare/27602007/
http://mashable.com/2015/07/27/welfare-myths-debunked/#aHcYOEcaRZqy

STOCK PRICE OUTLOOK FOR 2017

The US economy is good and better than most if not all foreign countries.  We have recovered better from the Financial Armageddon (aka Great Recession) than Europe, for example.

My guess is the following, that legislation of taxes and regulation won't happen until at least the end of the year.  With the current good economy and increasing earnings of companies, stock prices may continue to rise in some irregular fashion, occasionally creeping to new all-time highs.   but do your own due diligence, as they say. The worry that the Health Care Industry will be decimated seems to be over and Health Care company (pharmaceuticals, and others) stock prices have started to rise again.  After all, the bulk of the Baby Boomers is just starting to dig into retirement.

I have mixed feelings about the war on pharmaceutical prices being over because something is needed badly to control prices, but the armistice is good for my Health Care mutual funds and REITs.

There undoubtedly are many regulations that are not needed but no doubt they are not the ones that will be discontinued (One that stopped severely mentally disturbed people from buying guns, has already been eliminated).  Decreasing the income taxes is a very inefficient way to stimulate the economy  (the wealthy buy bonds and property elsewhere like Switzerland, the middle class pay down debt).*

Decreasing corporate business tax may be different.  The stated rate is 35.5% but the average company pays about 27%.**  An analysis I have read in Barron's suggests that lowering the corporate tax rate to 22% might simulate enough business to pay for itself and the average company will actually pay about 15%.***  Might be worth a try to see if it works.  Going lower seems as if it will add to the deficit.

* http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2010/05/effectiveness-of-taxes.htm
** GAO, however, sees it differently and says that the percentage of companies that pay no income tax is a little over 60 %.  More large corporation pay some tax, but about 40% do not.  What GAO says is of profitable large corporations, 20% or fewer of them pay no Federal income tax, depending on the year.  https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-16-363
*** https://www.barrons.com/articles/cut-the-top-u-s-corporate-tax-rate-to-22-1480137247?tesla=y&mod=BOL_twm_ls&mod=article_inline

REMOVING A PRESIDENT FROM OFFUICE

I used to wonder if President Donald (The Bully) Trump would finish out his four year term, as President, but lately I have begun to wonder whether he will finish out his first year.  He may be (1)impeached and convicted (say over his association with Russia), but I found there is a second way (2) 25th amendment that covers unfit to serve for any reason (such as physical or mental incapacity, among other reasons. ).

(1) Impeach And Convict    Impeachment may be started with the accusation by a member of the House of Representatives that an official  has committed Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.*  It turns out that what is meant by High Crimes and Misdemeanors is not defined.  To me a misdemeanor is not a very serious offense, but clearly it  is meant to appliy only to extreme cases.  Only a majority vote is needed in the House to impeach.

If an official, such as the President or Supreme Court Judge among others, is impeached, the matter goes to the Senate  for a trial where a two-thirds vote is needed to convict the official and remove them from office.  The impeachment process was initiated only 7 times in the 19th century but 11 times in the 20th century.*  In the impeachment case brought against Present George W. Bush, by Representatives Kucinich and Wexler ,one of the many items was Bush's use of signing statements where he would sign a bill into law but add a note that said it did not apply to him  The case died in committee.


 25th Amendment to the Constitution**  The 25th Amendment was adopted on February 10, 1967 and was initiated after the assassination of President Kennedy.  Following are details of the amendment., but iSections 4 and 5 are most pertinent to this discussion.  There are psychiatrists who are currently saying, even publishing that Trump is mentally instable and therefore a danger.***

Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.^[3]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
*** http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/trump-s-mental-health-the-elephant-in-the-room-883814979800

U.S. TRADE SURPLUSES AND DEFICITS

President Donald Trump says he can't find a country for which we have a trade surplus .*  The problem is we can't rely on the President to tell us the truth because he couldn't have looked very far.  Though we do have a trade deficit overall, there are lots of countries for which we have trade surpluses, e.g. Australia , a surplus of over $12 billion.  Highlighted in the figure is another, Brazil with a trade surplus of $4 billion.  The U.S. has trade surpluses with most South and Central American countries (e.g. Panama over $5 billion) including Argentina and Chili also with $4 billion surpluses like Brazil.  Other key trading partners where we have surpluses are UK, Belgium and the Netherlands.  Surprising to me is the large trading surplus for Hong Kong ($28 billion).  President Trump apparently didn't look hard enough but who is surprised at that?.

In the reference the figure below is interactive:

(Click on figure to enlarge)

* http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/23/trump-cant-find-any-us-trade-surpluses-here-you-go-mr-president.html

AMERICAN FABRICATED STEEL

When I was young, you had to buy American on government contracts.  This was eventually done away with because you could save money by opening up contracts.  And "American" companies circumvented the rules by moving to more favorable tax locations, usually with just mock offices.  So there was a lot of lobbying pressure to do away with the rule.

On the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, however, you are talking about private companies doing the building and not financed by the American government.  So President Donald (The Bully) Trump's edict that they must use American fabricated steel seems to me to only have jaw boning effect.*

What if the Canadian government says that the companies must use Canadian fabricated steel?  Trump has already OKed the building of the pipelines,  Will he rescind the edict?  And what if the companies use 51% American fabricated steel and the rest Canadian steel?

Notice above I use the word "fabricated" because the ore might come from any iron ore producing country and not necessarily mined in the U.S.  But we always seem to focus on the last step.  "American made cars" use parts that come from all over the world but the fabrication is done here.  Human beings are strange people.  Even the steel may come from elsewhere in a bulk form and the fabrication is done here.  That makes it U.S. steel.

What if the steel is fabricated somewhere else by an American based company?  Does that qualify as American made?  I think probably so.  Thin of oil.  Exxon-Mobile produces oil all over the world, is that American produced oil because Exxon is registered in the U.S.?

Does the following answer any of the questions?

In a meeting with small business leaders, Trump clarified that he not only wants pipeline companies to purchase pipes fabricated in the United States, but also expects the pipe suppliers to use raw U.S. steel. 
.........................................................................
Trump also revealed how he would pressure pipeline companies to comply: by potentially refusing to exercise eminent domain, the government's ability to appropriate private land.
......................................................................................

"First of all, this is private investment, so there's no legal authority for the government to require a private company to use domestic materials," he [Dan Ikenson, director of the Cato Institute's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies.] said on Thursday, prior to Trump's comments at the retreat.

"Is it good policy to have the president dictate where U.S. companies buy their inputs? No. I think that's terrible. I think that's dictatorial. I think it's very bad precedence."**

President Trump needs some counseling.  It turns out that half the pipe needed for the Keystone XL Pipeline is already made and the Dakota Access Pipeline is nearly completed and may enter usage as soon as April.***  Is Donald (The Bully) Trump going to demand that the pipe already manufactured be scraped. Is he going to demand that the pipe be rip up that is buried?

* http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/26/trumps-plan-to-force-pipeline-makers-to-use-us-steel-is-dictatorial-and-a-bad-idea.html
** http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/26/trumps-plan-to-force-pipeline-makers-to-use-us-steel-is-dictatorial-and-a-bad-idea.html
*** http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/23/trump-keystone-dakota-access-pipeline-makers-must-buy-us-steel.html

CORPORATE TAX RATES AND BANK BUSINESS LOANING

Though the stated corporate tax rate is 35%, few companies pay the whole rate.  I believe the average is more around 26%, but many companies paid no Federal tax in 2012, for example, because of loss carryovers resulting from the Great Recession.*  I don't know how much Federal revenue would be lost if the corporate tax rate was reduced to 15% as many companies pay about that now. Even now, corporations pay only 11% of the Federal taxes and 4% of the state.*

Barron's, however, recommends a tax rate of 22% which they feel is enough to be counteracted by increased business to make a revenue neutral sum.  This would probably lower the effective tax rate to 15-18%.

Trump seems to appreciate all of that. On the campaign trail, he proposed slashing the rate that businesses pay on income from 35% to 15%. That might be too much—it could significantly reduce the government’s tax haul and add to the nation’s already unacceptable debt burden. Barron’s recommends a cut to 22%, which would be revenue-neutral, allowing businesses to produce just enough additional taxable income to offset the effect of the lower rate. And getting a 22% cut through Congress would be easier than 15%.**

Janet Yellen refutes claims that banks are not lending:
However, Yellen mentioned a recent survey from the National Federal of Independent Business, in which only 2 percent of respondents cited access to capital as their greatest obstacle. "Lending has expanded overall by the banking system, and also to small businesses," she said.
Brown also asked how U.S. banks are doing compared with their global competitors.
"U.S. banks are generally considered quite strong relative to their counterparts [in other countries]," Yellen responded. "They've built up quite a bit of capital, partly as a results of our insistence that they do so." ***

* http://www.justfacts.com/taxes.asp
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-363
** http://www.barrons.com/articles/cut-the-top-u-s-corporate-tax-rate-to-22-1480137247
http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/13/ge-exxon-walmart-apple-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html
*** http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/14/janet-yellen-banks-are-lending-and-quite-profitable.html
http://www.nfib.com/surveys/small-business-economic-trends/

"ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE"

Like many others, President Donald (The Bully) Trump's comment that the media is "The Enemy Of The American People"  reminded me of the brilliant and timeless 1882 Norwegian play by Henrik Ibsen "The Enemy Of The People"  The play is so relevant to what Trump is trying to do today, silence the media.  In fact, the Ibsen play also involved the media (a newspaper). It worked then (1882), but not today so far.

Following below I have excerpted an abstract of the play from the Daily Beast along with some of their comments (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/20/how-donald-trump-made-a-norwegian-playwright-the-most-important-man-of-the-moment.html?via=desktop&source=Reddit):

As the play opens, Thomas Stockmann, a doctor, is anxiously awaiting a piece of mail. The envelope arrives, and inside it is a lab report he’d ordered up from the university in Oslo on the quality of the local water in Kirsten Springs. The town had opened a spa and baths and was attracting visitors from across Norway and indeed Europe, but Stockmann began to notice the previous summer that a lot of people were getting sick. 

The lab report confirms that the water is toxic. Stockmann’s friends—including the publisher, editor, and lead reporter of the local liberal-reformist newspaper—drop by. He shares the news with them, and they thank him for this act of civic gallantry and express confidence that the town will bow to him in gratitude. “By God, doctor,” the editor exclaims, “you’re going to be a leading man in this town!” 

Doktor Stockmann’s brother, Peter, is the town mayor. Thomas excitedly shares with him the news that he—and science—have gotten to the bottom of things, and now the problem can be fixed. Peter is decidedly unenthusiastic. Thomas is confused. Peter informs his brother that fixing the problem—it is one of the play’s most remarkable contemporary echoes that the pollution is caused by an upstream tannery, certainly unregulated in 1882—will require redoing the water system root and branch. This will necessitate a tax increase. On top of that, of course, once word spreads, tourists will stop coming to the insalubrious baths, which have been the great source of the town’s income and pride.

Well, you can see where things go from there. For a time, Thomas is convinced he will triumph. I have the press and the majority on my side, he proclaims, to say nothing of the science. How could I lose? “The liberal press will stand up and do its duty!”, he proclaims. 

Then, slowly, the screws tighten. Peter offers Thomas the chance to go before the townspeople and announce that it was all a mistake, he’d vastly overstated the problem. Thomas refuses. The liberal newspaper, which was all set to publish his article, reverses course and deserts him. In desperation, Thomas rents out a lecture hall to explain his findings to the people, but Peter takes the floor before Thomas and riles up the mob. The newspaper publisher—who, just like small-town newspaper proprietors today, comes from and represents the local business community—stands up and declares Thomas “an enemy of the people.”

He loses his job and his home. His wife stands beside him but his two young boys are beaten up at school, and his grown daughter, known about town before all this for her radical ideas, loses her job as a teacher. The schoolmistress received three anonymous letters denouncing her, she tells her father, and Thomas’s reaction to them could be said almost to the word today of abusive pro-Trump tweeters who hide behind their Twitter handles: “The big patriots with their anonymous indignation, scrawling out the darkness of their minds on dirty little strips of paper. That’s morality, and I’m the traitor!”

.....................................................................

For Ibsen and his audiences, all that was needed was that the science was on the doctor’s side. He and they didn’t live in an age when corporations were spending billions of dollars trying to persuade the public that science was “fake science.”

So that’s where “enemy of the people” comes from. The enemy was unpopular, and undoubtedly an “elitist”; but he trafficked in fact, and he was right.

DRUG PRICING OUTRAGE

Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we need him?*

Stung by criticism of its plan to charge a whopping $89,000 a year in the U.S. for a muscular dystrophy drug that costs less than $1,500 elsewhere, Marathon Pharmaceuticals on Monday said it was "pausing" that rollout for an unspecified amount of time.
.................................................................
Marathon's announcement came hours after the company was blasted by two members of Congress for its "outrageous plan" to charge $89,000 per year for Emflaza, its brand name for deflazacort, a corticosteroid that received regulatory approval for U.S. sales last week. Deflazacort used to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a progressive muscular degeneration condition that afflicts fewer than 15,000 children, mostly boys.**

So the drumbeat of outrages drug price increases continue.

* http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2016/08/where-is-teddy-roosevelt-when-we-need.html
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/13/marathon-pharmaceuticals-criticized-for-outrageous-pricing-of-drug.html
** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2016/08/where-is-teddy-roosevelt-when-we-need.html

MICHAEL FLYNN - II (SALLY YATES OUR HERO!)

Well that was quick.  Michael Flynn has taken a bullet for the President  after all and has resigned from being President Trump's National Security Adviser after all.*  So one Putin asset is down.

People are asking, "What did Trump know and when did he know it?"  Can Trump last his first term.? Heck can Trump last out his first year?**

Well Trump has not yet repealed President Obama's most recent sanctions, to say nothing of the older ones.  He also warned Russia about a nuclear device race.  So he has backed off Putin a little bit.

The hero of all this is former Acting Secretary Sally Yates who warned President Trump that Gen Flynn was seriously compromised and susceptible to blackmail.  She also said that she wasn't sure that Trump's Muslim Ban was legal and got fired for it.***    Sally Yates, our hero.

Trump should have taken Yates seriously because four judges (two Republican and two Democratic) have put national holds on the Muslim Ban.  Since Trump has tried to panic people about his executive order because ISIS supporters from seven countries might be pouring into the U.S., you would think that Trump would issue a new valid executive order to place a hold on new visas for three months while the visa process is reviewed.  He hasn't done so.  I don't know what he does about a long-term ban on Muslim refugees from Syria.   Not very kind of us in view of there being no problem up to now.

* http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/14/first-read-flynns-departure-raises-more-questions-than-it-answers.html
http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2017/02/michael-flynn.html
** http://www.businessinsider.com/putin-trump-ukraine-russia-dossier-2017-1
*** http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2017/02/14/atlantan-sally-yates-warned-trump-white-house.html

MICHAEL FLYNN

So Michael Flynn spoke to the Russian Ambassador in December* presumably about the sanctions President Obama imposed on Russia.  It is assumed that he was telling the Russian Ambassador not to worry, that when they took office the sanctions would be taken care of.   And recall that Putin did not have any outrage over the sanctions.

As a private citizen at the time, it was illegal for Flynn to discuss such things with a foreign government.  So Flynn lied when he first said he didn't do it and then that he didn't remember.

I can believe that Flynn lied to Vice President Spence, but Trump?  Come on, there are two possibilities:  Either (1) Flynn asked Trump if he should call the Russian ambassador and tell him to cool it over the sanctions, or (2) Trump just told Flynn to call the Russian Ambassador. and tell him to cool it over the sanctions.

For awhile it looked like Michael Flynn might "take one for the President" and be dumped by Trump.  Wishful thinking.  My bet is that Flynn is in good shape with President Trump (in like Flynn) and Kellyanne Conway has said as much today.

So Putin will still have at least two assets running the U.S. Government.

Note Added (Feb. 14, 2017): Well, Flynn is out after all.**  shows what a prognosticator I am.

* http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38964079\** https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/02/14/flynn-is-out-can-it-get-any-worse/?utm_term=.2464f892f512

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Currently there is a push on deportation of illegal immigrants.  This is nothing new.  In one year of his term, President Obama deported more than 435,000 illegal immigrants in 2013 (more than 2.5 million through 2015)* that caused him some grief in the Hispanic community.  A report by the Pew Research Center says:

The number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. has stabilized in recent years after decades of rapid growth. But the origin countries of unauthorized immigrants have shifted, with the number from Mexico declining since 2009 and the number from elsewhere rising, according to the latest  Pew Poll (see figure)*

(Click on figure to enlarge)

The Pew Research Center gives the following facts about illegal immigration (see original article for details):*
(1) There were 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2014
(2) The U.S. civilian workforce included 8 million unauthorized immigrants in 2014, accounting for 5% of those who were working or were unemployed and looking for work,
(3) Mexicans made up 52% of all unauthorized immigrants in 2014, though their numbers had been declining in recent years.
(4) Six states accounted for 59% of unauthorized immigrants in 2014: California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey and Illinois.
(5) A rising share of unauthorized immigrants have lived in the U.S. for at least a decade.

Many politicians including Obama and many Republicans have expressed a feeling that we shouldn't breakup families; however, there is at least one current case of a mother, here for 20 yrs, included in the roundup who was convicted of using a fake social security number long ago.  Why she wasn't deported at the time of her conviction, I do not know.  I think it too late now, however, as she has two children.  There are lawyers who specialize in illegal immigrant cases (e.g. Margaret Wong**).  It could be in the end, she will not be deported.

Here are some particulars on deportation.
Since the passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA), both in 1996, deportations of foreigners have increased dramatically. It is a misconception to believe that only hardened criminals get deported But this perception is completely wrong. Wrong because of the harsh provisions of the 1996 laws, even small misdemeanors can lead to one's removal from the United States, no matter how long he or she has been a lawful permanent resident. It all depends on the wording of particular statues violated, shoplifting (petty theft), drunk driving, "joy-riding," disorderly conduct, etc. Any of of these convictions, in some instances, can be used as a basis for deportation. Most amazingly, in most cases it matters how long ago the act took place. You could have shoplifted 18 years ago. On the other hand the law also allows for the deportation of aggravated felons. The problem is that the word "aggravated felony" is defined differently and much more broadly under any previous immigration law than under criminal law. Most people would not believe that what may not have been an aggravated felony or even a deportable act under immigration laws at the time of the conviction, may be one. If the USCIS succeeds in proving that an alien is an "aggravated felon" under immigration laws, he or she is left with practically no options to avoid deportation.***

* http://www.snopes.com/obama-deported-more-people/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/
** https://www.imwong.com/about-us/success-stories/success-stories-deportation/
*** http://www.apsanlaw.com/law-77.Who-can-be-deported-now-called-removed.html

TEENAGER POEM NOW NUMBER ONE

I am happy to report that my 8 line poem "Teenager" has taken over the #1 spot for page views at 469 on this blog.*  Only one other post on this blog exceeds 400, "Infrastructure Program" with 462 page views.**

In fact there is only one other post exceeding 300 page views, "Detroit" with 358,* though "Break Even Price Of Fracking" is close at 297 page views.****

* http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2017/01/teenager.html
** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2016/11/infrastructure-program_23.html
*** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2016/10/detroit.html
**** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2014/10/break-even-price-of-fracking-oil.html

KELLYANNE CONWAY ADVERTISES IVANKA TRUMP CLOTHING LINE

Well I don't know, supposedly Kellyanne Conway has apologized to President Donald Trump for giving free government advertising to his daughter's dress line. What a gas!  The Trump administration is just one huge conflict of interest.  No surprise that he defends Kellyanne.*  But I worked in the Federal government for 34 yrs and I can tell you that, if I had done something like Kellyanne did, I would at least have been suspended for 5 days, if not fired.

The whole Donald administration is just one big exception.  Donald Trump himself is in violation of his lease of the Old Post Office in Washington, D.C.

The Trump Organization's lease contract with the U.S. General Services Administration, signed in 2013, provides that "no elected official of the government ... shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom."^[158] To date, the GSA has not declared the Trump Organization to be in breach of the lease, "and declined to comment on the status of any negotiations to resolve the apparent breach."^[158] However, in a a letter to the GSA, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington wrote: "Elected government officials are barred from receiving any benefit under the lease, and now that Mr. Trump has been sworn in today as President of the United States, Trump Old Post Office LLC, a company he largely owns, is in violation of the lease's conflicts-of-interest provision."^[158]**
........................................................................
The President responded to the emolument clause allegations by outlining a plan where payments from foreign guests would be paid into the U.S. Treasury and to the GSA contract issues by placing his holdings into a trust directed by his children. This plan was criticized by Walter M. Shaub, the Director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, who stated that "the plan does not comport with the tradition of our Presidents over the past 40 years" and was at odds with past practice, since "...every President in modern times has taken the strong medicine of divestiture."^[163]**

Even in decisions where I agree with Trump, e.g. Gen Mattis for Secretary of Defense, there is still an exception in that congress had to act to permit him to take the position even though he has not been retired from military service for three years.

* http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-supports-kellyanne-conway-ivanka-clothing-line-comment-article-1.29690
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Post_Office_Pavilion

THE MASSACRE THAT NEVER WAS

As for college riots over conservative speakers.

I don't need to listen to conservatives dreaming up excuses for discrimination against Muslims (Trump), making up massacres for Bowling Green (Kellyanne Conway*), letting people pick and chose which parts of a law they don't want to follow because of religious reasons (contraceptives and abortion), and trying to find legal reasons to prevent certain people from voting (voter ID laws).

There are conservatives, however, that I love to hear talk or read such as David Brooks, Arthur Brooks, Robert  Gates, and Condoleezza Rice.  I've read Gate's whole book "Duty."  I also like to listen to Ohio Gov. John Kasich.  At least he says things like we need to help those less fortunate than us.  He is not mean spirited though he is a strong opponent of abortion and contraception,  but you can't be a Republican politician these days without opposing them.

Here is Kasich's view against abortion and even contraception:
The ruse that the anti-choice movement is about "life" has been harder to maintain in recent years, as lawmakers have starting attacking contraception access (which reduces the need for abortion, duh). Gov. John Kasich of Ohio took it a step further Sunday night and signed a bill that merges his party's anti-contraception and anti-abortion agendas into one. The budget bill (of course!) packs a one-two-three punch of making it harder for women to prevent pregnancies, harder for women to terminate pregnancies, and harder for low-income women to keep their babies. ****

* http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/02/trump-travel-ban-kellyanne-conway-made-up-a-fake-terrorist-attack-by-iraqi-refugees-to-justify-presidents-move.html
**http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/07/01/john_kasich_of_ohio_signs_hb59_the_bill_cuts_contraception_funding_restricts.html

JUDGE NEIL GORSUCH AND CONTRACEPTION

President Trump's Supreme Court nominee of Neil Gorsuch is an impressive person.  That said, I take issue with the Hobby Lobby decision.  Since I learned this about Hobby Lobby, I will not enter their stores.  A very small protest as many feel they are good stores, but it is all I can do.

My problem is should someone be able to pick and choose parts of a law not only do they not want to obey for religious and other reasons but also deny employees?  In other words, does religion trump law?  It seems to me that the proper approach would be to get congress to revoke those parts of the law.

The case in point involves the owners of a company, on the basis of it is against their religion, objecting to health insurance companies having to fund the costs of contraceptives (and abortions) in ACA for their employees.  In addition there are others who may not be against abortions or contraceptives, but object to having to participate in funding them for others.  I grant all this, but why not get congress to modify the law?  To the best of my knowledge there has been no attempt to change this part of the ACA law by either political party.

Please note that religion trumping law only seems to work if you are a major religion in the country.  Mormons are not legally able to practice polygamy and the Native American Church cannot legally smoke Peyote though I think the laws against each of these things are rarely enforced, mainly only if they involve minors.

Judge Gorsuch's opion are expressed in the following quote (in italics):

Gorsuch wrote a separate opinion in that case in which he outlined what he saw as a moral dilemma facing the family that owns Hobby Lobby and a related company if they were forced to pay for certain contraceptives.

The law requires companies to support payments for "drugs or devices that can have the effect of destroying a fertilized human egg," Gorsuch wrote. They believe that "violates their faith, representing a degree of complicity their religion disallows."

The Supreme Court later ruled that employers who object on such grounds do not have to pay, but their insurance still must make contraception available, ultimately reimbursed by the federal government. (https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-gorsuch-case-review-shows-hes-no-crusader-082501382--politics.html)

The most vocal group against contraception (and abortion) has been Roman Catholics (Judge Gorsuch is member) that comprise about 22% of Americans; however, they have more recently been joined by many Southern Baptists* and other members of the religious right.  They particularly object to contraceptives that interrupt a fertilized egg from adhering to the womb wall (the defiition of when pregnancy begins).  The time between fertilization and natural adherence is several days and can even exceed 10 days.  I presume most fertilized eggs are naturally expelled which is of no concern.  I feel that giving a fertilized egg "personhood" is, well, silly.

On the other hand, I find it hard to oppose prohibition of abortions after 5 mo,  At about 22 wks at which some premature births have survived, though few (maybe about 25% using treatment techniques like ventilation, intubation and surfactant) and at great cost (as nearly as I can tell, costs may be something like a half million dollars or more).  Many weeks are spent in intensive care followed by further stay in the hospital. (http://www.newsweek.com/babies-born-22-weeks-can-survive-medical-care-new-study-finds-329518).

Many, me included, find it strange that people like Judge Gorsuch and others believe in the sanctity of life until birth and then you are on your own.  Judge Gorsuch does not oppose the death penalty, for example (I don't not either except I think it should only be for verdicts that are "beyond the shadow of doubt.")

* https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/faith-culture/16187-southern-baptist-attitudes-changing-on-birth-control

HOW THE MUSLIM BAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE

I think there would have been no problem if Trump had ordered the State Department to stop processing visas for these 7 countries for 3 mo. while the visa/green card approval process was reviewed.

The problem came when Trump revoked 10s of thousands of valid visas.  Why did Trump get hysterical about visas from these countries when there was no evidence of a problem, even though these are dangerous countries?  In addition, nearly everyone seems to agree that putting Iraq on the list was a mistake.  Exclusion of interpreters and others who assist us there should qualify for visas.  Heck, I would even give them citizenship.

I've heard estimates that as many as 60,000 or even over 100,000 visas were immediately affected.  I'm surprised that there are that many people from those countries coming to the U.S. at any given time.  I would have guessed maybe 10 or at least less than 100 visas at any time.

I turn the news off anytime I hear that Obama did the same thing with an 11 mo ban on Muslims from Iraq.  It was not the same thing at all.  Obama was responding to a real problem involving a couple of suspected terrorists penetrating our visa system.  Some adjustments were made to our system as a result of the review.  There has been no such problem with the seven countries since.

Also please note that although Obama did identify these seven countries to be a particular problem, he did not revoke existing visas or even stop the revised process.  His faith in the process seems to have been justified.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S BULLYING NEGOTIATION STYLE

I have been wondering if Donald (The Bully) Trump's negotiating style is really as he has been showing as President such as, trying to bully the Presidents of Mexico and Australia.  That is, does he really open a real estate negotiation trying to bully the person he is trying to make a deal with?  Is his first gambit to see if he can bully his "opponent?"  Lest you think this isn't likely, you may not understand doing large real estate deals.  I suggest you read a book by Robert Ringer called "Looking Out For #1: How To Get From Where You Are To Where You Want To Be In Life."*  He also wrote a book "Winning Through Intimidation."*

I find Trump's recent statement about the Holocaust Day possibly to be instructive:

“It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust. It is impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror.

“Yet, we know that in the darkest hours of humanity, light shines the brightest.‎ As we remember those who died, we are deeply grateful to those who risked their lives to save the innocent.

“In the name of the perished, I pledge to do everything in my power throughout my Presidency, and my life, to ensure that the forces of evil never again defeat the powers of good. Together, we will make love and tolerance prevalent throughout the world.”

The day has always been associated with the genocide against the Jews (Yom HaShoah (Holocaust Day), or Yom HaZikaron laShoah ve-laGvura (the Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance Day) and has been celebrated as such since 1950.**  And it was no mistake that Jews were not mentioned in Trump's statement because a State Department  statement did mention Jews and they had to take it out.***

Was this Donald (The Bully) Trump bullying Israel?  If so there was silence, even from Netanyahu who kept trying to bully President Obama  because he knew he could do it and not endanger  Obama's support of Israel, but did Trump just out-bully the bully?  In fact why has all Jewry been so silent on this except for a few quiet statements?  Suppose President Obama  had made the same statement.  Can you imagine the outcry?

The Republican Jewish Coalition reacted to Trump’s statement, calling it a “painful omission.” The Zionist Organization of America specified “our chagrin and deep pain” for failing to specifically mention Jews or the antisemitism that led to the Holocaust.

I'm sure that Jews realize that  Donald (the Bully) Trump has steered this day away from antisemitism and genocide of Jews to the murdering of a huge number and variety of people.   So will Holocaust Day evolve like so many other special Days (e.g. Washington's and Lincolns birthday remembrances to Presidents Day;  Armistice Day to Veteran's Day, etc.) and lose its original meaning?  In view of rising antisemitism today, I think that would be misguided.

* https://www.amazon.com/Looking-Out-Where-Want-Life/dp/1626360405/ref=pd_sim_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=RNEVGEK4B4EQZQNA3MK9 
https://www.amazon.com/Winning-Through-Intimidation-Robert-Ringer/dp/0449207862
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_Memorial_Days
*** http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/white-house-holocaust-jews-234572

PIPELINES YES, DRUG PRICES DOWN NO

Gradually among the many orders that President  Donald (the bully) Tromp is issuing, there are a few I can agree with.

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE I do agree with the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline for environmental reasons as well as transportation costs per mile.  Clearly the a pipeline is safer for the environment than either trains or tanker trucks.  The applicants to build the Pipeline have altered the path at least once to satisfy critics.  Many environmentalists are against the Pipeline because they hope that if the pipeline can't be built, then Canada cannot mine the oil from the sands.

I have mixed feelings about the insistence of Trump to requiring U.S. made steel pipe.  If it was something paid for the our government, then I would be all for it; however, it is to be built by private companies and I think requiring them to use a specific steel is dangerous.  Thus I am with many Republicans on the steel requirement.

DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE I do not know as much about the Dakota Access Pipeline so I am following a reference.*  They say the pipeline traverses only private property where the owners have given them access and does not touch the Standing Rock Souix reservation.  It parallels an existing pipeline and high voltage lines.  As for polluting water, the Dakota Access Pipeline will be deeper at more than 95 ft than the seven nearby existing pipelines passing under Lake Oahe.  As a result of meetings with tribes and others, the Pipeline was shortened by 11 mi.  The route also avoids buildings and crosses fewer waterways.  Archaeological sites have also been discussed.  The water intake for the Tribe is being moved and will be 70 mi. from the pipeline Personally, I don't see any problem.


PRICE OF DRUGS**  Previously President Trump had promised to deal with the outrageous price of many prescription drugs.

“We have to get prices down,” the president said in his public introduction. “We have no choice.” He suggested several means toward that end, but veterans of the decades-long battle to lower drug prices say the proposed ideas are unlikely to accomplish anything—at least not without also harming patients.
.....................................................................

The notion that lowering manufacturing costs would reduce drug costs is also misguided, says Mike Kelly, CEO of the Americas at Kantar Health, a pharmaceutical industry consulting company. “The cost of manufacturing a drug is infinitesimal compared to what it gets priced at.”

The dramatic price difference between branded and generic drugs underscores that point, says Love. The manufacturing process is the same, but branded drugs are, on average, 32 times more expensive than generics. “There’s just no relationship between the price of a drug and what it costs to make,” says Love.***

After the public introduction, Trump came out of the meeting with a changed tune:

Then the doors were closed. When they opened again, Trump had not only abandoned his promise to use the government's bargaining power to bring down drug prices, he was now totally against it!

"I'll oppose anything that makes it harder for smaller, younger companies to take the risk of bringing their product to a vibrantly competitive market," he said, according to the pool reporter. "That includes price-fixing by the biggest dog in the market, Medicare, which is what's happening." (Yes, he accused an agency that has no power to negotiate prices of "price-fixing.")

And so it was that after one meeting with pharma CEOs, Trump was turned around on his one good idea and embraced instead yet another nonsensical one. Sigh. And now back to our regularly scheduled programming.****

So he is backing off of this one, and Trump being Trump he even had to get in a lie.  Atta way Donald!  There is something that I can agree with and you don't follow through on your promises.




* http://standingrockfactchecker.org/fact-checking-srst-claims-9-7-16/
https://daplpipelinefacts.com/
** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2016/08/where-is-teddy-roosevelt-when-we-need.html
*** http://www.newsweek.com/trump-drug-prices-big-pharma-552295
**** http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-trump-drug-costs-20170202-story.html

JOBLESS CLAIMS, NEW RECORD

Good news came out Thursday.  The preliminary estimate on Jobless Claims continued under 300,000 now for 100 weeks, the longest since 1970, but it is  by far a record when considering the number of jobless claims per 100,000 population in view of the increased population in 2017 compared to 1970.*

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits declined 14,000 to a seasonally adjusted 246,000 for the week ended Jan. 28, the Labor Department said on Thursday.


Data for the prior week were revised to show 1,000 more applications received than previously reported. Claims have now been below 300,000, a threshold associated with a healthy labor market, for 100 straight weeks. That is the longest stretch since 1970, when the labor market was much smaller.*

In addition, a new report on job hires for January came in at 227,000 new jobs in January that was above expectations.**  Wages grew by 2.5% (3 cents)   A raise of 2.5% seems good to me, but the report considered it to be disappointing.

Each month on "Jobs Friday," the Bureau of Labor Statistics puts out a treasure trove of economic data, each of which provides its own perspective on the labor market and the employment situation. Economists look past the official unemployment rate — that 4.8 percent figure, also known as the "U-3" — to other metrics that give their own view of jobs in the country.***


One of those figures is called the U-6 rate, which has a broader definition of unemployment than does the U-3. In January, that number ticked up from 9.2 percent to 9.4 percent.***

 As seen in the figure,*** the "official" unemployment measure of U-3 is back to the pre-Great Recession level; however, U-6 is still above the pre-Great Recession level.  U-6 includes the unemployed, the under employed and discouraged workers.

(Click on figure to enlarge)

The labor participation rate, that has been in a general decline since 2000, ticked up a bit in January and may have bottomed out.***

(Click on figure to enlarge)


*http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/02/jobless-claims.html
** https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-added-a-robust-227-000-jobs-in-january-1486128784
*** http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/03/jobs-unemployment-rose-slightly-but-more-realistic-rate-is-higher.html

MUSLIM BAN NOT A MUSLIM BAN?

Question: When is a Muslim Ban not a Muslim Ban?

Answer: When it involves only a limited number of states.*
Consider: The ban exempts Christians and other minority religious groups.

Question: What are the major religions of the affected countries?

Answer: Well there are Muslims, and ah Muslims, and ...did I say Muslims?

Come on guys get real.  No matter what a court decides, it is a Muslim Ban.  It is one of those things that if you have to explain it, you might as well not bother.  Certainly Muslims will consider it a Muslim Ban.

I recall the "Secret bombing of Cambodia."**  Who was the secret for? Americans.  Surely the Cambodians knew they were being bombed so it was no secret to them.

* http://fortune.com/2017/01/31/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration-terrorism-discrimination/
** http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/reporter-breaks-the-news-of-secret-bombing-in-cambodia