Posts published in “McKee”

Well, here we are, nearly a year into Trump’s second term and could anyone have really  imagined how bad things could get? Consider:

None of his campaign promises are coming to fruition. Congress, paralyzed by the longest protest-walkout in history, has been unable to come up with a single piece of legislation on any of Trump’s promises – not one.

Inflation is picking up steam with shortages and price increases sporadic throughout the economy. Wages are stagnant, prices are up, erratic shipping is leading to shortages galore, and employment is bouncing up and down in unpredictable spurts. All the experts predict significant downturns as business reacts to the evolving circumstances. Most predict a recession, with some predicting depression. All see the business future as being grim.

In the face of predictions from every reputable expert in the field and ignoring the experiences of the last broad tariff regime attempted in the 1930s, Trump imposed broad tariffs on a multitude of imports. The predicted consequences have thrown the nation’s import-export markets into complete disarray, with shipping in many areas coming to a complete halt, many smaller shippers collapsing, and the cost of it all being passed on to the U.S. consumers. None of the direct costs of any tariffs are being or will be paid by the foreign exporters; the cost of it all ultimately will all fall upon us.

The result of all this is a domestic environment in complete disarray. No one can predict exactly where the economy is going to wind up, or how bad it will get – but all experts agree that it is going in the wrong direction and is going to get much, much worse.

Now, on top of all the local problems and internal struggles, and ignoring hundreds of years of foreign experience, well documented principles of international law, limitations upon his authority imposed by the Constitution and existing federal legislation, and just plain logic and common sense, Trump has taken the country into the mouth of a diplomatic catastrophe of international proportions by his actions in Venezuela.

Consider:

1.    His action –  seizing the elected leader of an independent nation – is an irrefutable act of war, taken without the notice to or consent of Congress.

2.    Individual criminal misconduct is not a matter for military involvement. By long standing tradition and law, the military is not to be used to carry out ordinary criminal law enforcement.

3.    The area of individual liability in drug enforcement is a circumstance of criminal law and procedure, not cognizable to a military response

4.    The area of petroleum development and export is a matter of civil law and economic circumstances, and is not cognizable to a military response.

5.    Without a formal act or declaration of war, or formal authorization by Congress, the use of a nation’s armed forces is limited to the defense against armed aggression; there is no exception to this principle that would cover initiating military action by the U.S. against a foreign country without specific, advance Congressional approval.
6.    No circumstance in the law justifies kidnapping a national leader without notice to Congress.

7.    None of the drug related activities alleged to be occurring in Venezuela were conducted by or in the name of the government; although individuals in the government were alleged to have been involved, such would have been in their individual capacity and not as representatives of the government. There is no basis for a military response to an essentially civil issue of criminal law.

8.    None of the petroleum development or exporting issues connected to markets in Venezuela were connected to actions or inactions of a military nature carried out by the government. All decisions and actions in this area were civil in nature. There is no basis for a military response to an essentially civil issue, and certainly no basis for independent action by a President without the authorization of Congress.

9.    The use of the military in resolution of either issue is contrary to long established principles of international law, to the Constitutional authority of the President to act without Congressional authorization, and to fundamental principles of law separating criminal acts of individuals when compared to national acts of the government.

Trump’s address to the nation did not show any proper justification for ignoring or avoiding any of these essential elements of Constitutional and International law. The additional remarks of the Vice President and the Secretary of Defense were of no help.

None of our allies have supported Trump in this action, and none save Israel have indicated any support for the result. Trump has the entire nation in the soup, and it will take years to unscramble the mess that is brewing.

Hold your breath and stay tuned. It is going to get worse.

 

Let’s take another look at the process for the election of the President.

Although we have been clamoring for years that we should do away with the electoral college and make the election by popular vote, recent events may indicate that this might be all wrong. Perhaps it would be better to revisit the indirect method for selection of President originally established in the Constitution, modernize it some, and invest it with even more protection in the future.

Our forefathers understood the weakness of a general election. Under the Constitution as originally written, only members of Congress within local districts were selected by direct vote. All of the other offices mentioned int the Constitution – being members of the Supreme Court, Senators, and the office of President -- were all to be selected by methods other that direct election.  Members of the Supreme Court were then and still are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Senators were to be selected by the separate state legislators. This practice was not changed until the 17th Amendment was finally ratified in 1913. Our President was to be selected by an independent electoral college, with the process of selecting members of the college left to the individual states. This is a process we have tinkered with through the years until it bears little resemblance to the method contemplated by the Constitution.

There is no discussion in the Constitution of how the members of the electoral college were to be selected.  It appears that the drafters of the Constitution expected that each state would utilize its own process for the selection of its delegates. Some states might use their legislature for the process while others might rely upon direct appointments by governors. Other methods were possible. It appears obvious that in the minds of the original drafters of the Constitution, there was no place for the general public to participate in the process of selecting the national leader.

The process has been changed somewhat, recognizing the vote of the general election as the process for selection of electors. But the core of the electoral college process remains, with its vote being essential to the election of the President.

Now, he process consists of a long primary season conducted state by state throughout the country, major conventions by both parties to pull the state actions together, and a national campaign of the finalists leading up to a national election in November every four years.  Considering the campaigning  in all the state primaries, the process may take over two years to complete.

But the national election is not the actual selection. In December of the election year, after the results of the general election have become final, delegates to the electoral college submit their ballots for the office of Presidential. It is their ballots that create the final, binding result in the election of President. It is essential to be aware that the general election only controls the selection of delegates to the electoral college. It is the vote of the electoral college that actually constitutes the vote for the office of president.

In 32 of the states, the electors are obligated by state law to vote for the candidate selected by the general vote. In other states the candidates for elector have indicated they intend to support if selected, but they are not bound by federal law to follow through if selected.

In 2020, the Supreme Court released Chiafalo v Washington, 591 U.S. 578 (1920), a decision resolving a procedural conflict in circuit court decisions on proceedings by the electoral college. In that case, the question of whether delegates were obligated under federal law to vote for the candidate identified in the election had been resolved differently in two districts, resulting in the Supreme Court decision to resolve the issue.

The majority opinion held that the Constitution does not impose any restriction on how the electoral college delegates are to vote. In Colorado, delegate electors were fined $1,000 if they voted for a different individual other than the candidate they had been designated to support. While they were fined, their vote for the different candidate was allowed to stand. When the process was challenged in federal court, the Tenth Circuit affirmed this process.

In Washington, if an elector attempted to vote for a different candidate, they were disqualified, and an alternate who had posted the correct vote was substituted. When this process was challenged in court, the Ninth Circuit approved this procedure.

The Supreme Court deemed this to create a conflict between the districts and granted cert. In resolving the conflict, the court ruled that the Colorado procedure of keeping the errant electors and counting their wrong votes but imposing monetary fines for the violation was an acceptable remedy. It held that the Washington practice of disqualifying the errant electors was not proper. The importance here is that the ruling by the Supreme Court recognized the electoral college as a distinct, separate process, and concluded that it was this process – and not the general election -- that controlled the final decision.

Under current practice, the process has become enormously expensive and time-consuming and is taking years to successfully accomplish. This leads to an obvious conclusion that many individuals who might be well qualified abstain from running because of the difficulties, uncertainties, and expense of the candidate selection process.

Once the selection of candidates for each major party is accomplished, the final campaign for election to office, overwhelmingly centered on television, becomes entirely dictated by so-called campaign experts. Although there may be a number of individuals on the ballot, the reality is that the final race will be between the two major parties. Their candidates are prepped and presented by special consultants with every detail scripted and edited to meet the experts’ criteria for winning the race.

In fact, the elements and factors necessary to conduct a winning campaign have little if anything to do with the abilities necessary to administer the office once elected. The objective of the campaign is only to achieve votes at the general elections; there is no necessity to demonstrate actual, relevant experience or ability to perform the tasks that will be expected of the one elected to the office being sought.

Consider, for example, the so-called television debates expected in our current Presidential campaigns, and the importance that is attached to them. Under the rules, the participating candidate is not advised in advance of the questions that will be asked, may not refer to any notes or reference material, and may not seek assistance from any qualified advisor. The candidate’s ability to succeed under these rules has no bearing on what would ever be expected from actual service.

We should revise the entire process and return to the methods as originally set forth in the Constitution. Recognize the significance of the electoral college. Hold elections for the electors in each state at the very beginning of the campaign period, with reference to adherence to and support of party structure but before the specific candidates have been selected. After the electors are chosen, then proceed as necessary to select the candidates from each party. Then conduct a campaign as necessary to acquaint the electors with the actual qualifications of the candidates. This process should only take a matter of weeks if not days and would replace the period of up to two years that is now consumed in the presidential process. Then conduct an election involving only the electors from each state.

This would result in an election process that could be completed from start to finish within a few months instead of years at a fraction of the cost now incurred. When not faced with the monumental cost in terms of dollars and time committed, we might find that the quality of those willing and able to serve might be considerably improved. Of major importance, the small group of electors from each state could concentrate on the candidates’ actual experience and abilities to do the job rather than their abilities to get themselves elected. The candidate’s affinity for television appearances would be an interesting quality but not an overwhelming one, as it is now.

Our forefathers knew what they were doing when they designed the system in the first place. We finally got exactly what the founders were trying to prevent when we ignored their work and changed the rules to connect the process to a general election. There is no guarantee that the mess our country is now in could have been avoided in all instances, but there is good reason to believe that the candidacy of the current office holder might not have survived if the electors at the electoral college had had the full discretion to go their own way.

Assuming the country can survive the fiasco we find ourselves in today, plain common-sense dictates that we take another look at how the election process was originally designed. If it is not too late, the old processes should be put back into place, with a few tweaks perhaps, but otherwise without delay.

 

Well, after a lengthy “vacation” due to a mysterious malady that landed me in the hospital for five months and removed my senses for over three years after, I am finally beginning to regain my mental balance. To my astonishment, I have discovered that without my supervision, things have been run into a complete mess.

Somehow, despite having Kamala Harris on the ballot, a well-qualified candidate who ran the best organized and best financed campaign I have seen in over 60 years, we managed to return Donald Trump to the office President of the United States by the election in November of 2024.

In his previous term, from the 2016 election, Trump was met with a Democratic Congress that included many strong centrist members of his own patty. This combination prevented him from doing much real damage during his first term. He was replaced after one term by Joe Biden, a centrist Democratic Senator, who was reluctantly nominated and then elected in a squeaker election in 2020. He replaced Trump as President from early 2021 to early 2025.

Trump kept up a constant stream of criticism against Biden throughout his term. In fact and by any measure, Biden ran a superb office. But most of his programs were combinations worked out with Republican involvement.  He was a centrist among liberals in his own party, meaning that while his successes mere many, they were only grudgingly accepted by many Democrats. Biden did not blow his own horn on his successes, and his party was not effective in moving in to cover him. When Biden began his campaign for re-election, he faced Trump again, who had been railing against the Democrats steadily for over eight years, without any effective rebuttal from the opposition.

Biden chose not to continue his campaign for re-election and his vice-president, Kamala Harris, stepped up to replace him. The problem which became immediately apparent was that while Trump had been campaigning for the office for almost ten years, Harris had less than four months.

Further, and although not discussed openly, the result was certainly influenced by three significant factors: The Democratic candidate Kamala Harris was (a) not clearly a Christian, (b) was of an uncertain non-white racial combination, and, to top it all off, (c) was a woman. Despite running one of the best organized and strongly financed Presidential campaigns in recent memory, Harris was soundly defeated by Trump in the polls.

When Trump returned to office, he found a Republican Congress, albeit with only the slimmest majority.  But the centrist Republicans had all either been ousted by election or had chosen to withdraw, leaving only hard right Republicans in firm control. So far, the Republicans of this Congress have remained completely silent upon any of Trump’s actions or statements, no matter how outrageous.

I intend no complete catalog all of the outrageous actions by Trump, but only refer to a few: Trump started his term by ignoring his promise made during the campaign, and pardoning all 1500 individuals charged or convicted of offenses arising from the 2021 Capitol riot. He then began basing essentially all high-level appointments exclusively upon the appointee’s personal allegiance to Trump rather than upon the appointee’s experience or qualifications with the work be done. Few of these appointees had or have any actual experience in the positions to which they have been appointed, or any other high-level qualifications for the positions, and many are proving to be incompetent in their positions, some embarrassingly so.

Trumps is tearing down great chunks of official Washington, eliminating jobs and programs in huge numbers. Some positions have had to be hastily reinstated when the critical nature of the position was understood. The result is significant confusion growing throughout all regulated industries on what to expect next in the areas of vital regulation and control.

The significant tariffs Trump promised have been met by significant tariffs imposed upon American exports by affected countries, and by significant reductions in exports from American sources. Contrary to Trump’s assertions, tariffs are additional taxes paid by the American purchasers – not the foreign exporters. Tariffs are a two-way street, with the impositions felt by both sides, meaning significant costs to American importers. The result is havoc in the import-export markets, with ruinous results to American interests.

We are facing three more years of this action. Unless changes start happening soon, there will be little left of the federal system in many important areas, and broad havoc will radiate throughout the economy. Changing the make-up of Congress in the mid-term elections of 2026 might slow things down considerably, but Trump has given no sign that he intends to observe any such counter influences now. Recent off-year elections on state issues have indicated that the Republican candidates may be in trouble, but local elections are notoriously difficult to predict from this distance. And it was a general election that got us into this mess to begin with.

If the political make-up of Congress does not change in 2026, it appears now that Trump will manage to substantially revise if not demolish completely the entire federal government in every one of the key areas of support presently available to the country. The immigrants, the aged, the youth and the under-employed are the principal targets, as well as any impositions upon private business, but any of it will affect us all.

It appears now that his intent is to make interference with his goals impossible by 2028, and he may succeed. There are moves afoot in many states, and in Congress, to redo the election process in the entirety to cement Republican rule throughout the country.

In any event, even if we are successful in preventing further intrusions into our election process and we are successful in replacing Trump by 2028, it will take years if not decades to undue and replace the damage that is being and will be caused to our system.

Just a few thoughts as we approach the holiday season. Happy Thanksgiving.

 

It’s going to be a wild ride --

My fear is that even if we run Trump off, there will be no return to “the good old days.” In the first 100 days of Trump’s second go at running things, he has already brought shambles to the entire structure of our historical form of government – inside and out, and top to bottom.

The second election of Trump, the constant stream of changes he is instilling upon us, and his astonishing view and methods he is promising for the future may well mark the demise of our grand experiment. There are many who are convinced that our former style of government will never return. Consider:

We were taught from grade school that our system of government was the best in the world. What began as a clear experiment in government has worked for over 250 years, surviving  the iron fist of King George III, and enduring the curious entreaties of the rest of Europe swirling around us during the early years, prevailing in a civil war and rebuilding the country with a strong measure of success in the middle years, and withstanding two world wars to g row to a position of unrivaled prosperity in the latest years.

In patting ourselves on the back over the successes we have achieved, we must remember that for most of our history we enjoyed huge economic growth from developing the vast lands of the new world. In more recent times, with no new lands to develop and the rest of the world watching our every move, we seem to be facing continual failures in our attempts to export our version of democracy to other parts of the world.

Now, with the sudden onset of change dramatically sweeping our own national government, coupled with a growing awareness of potential weaknesses that already exists in our model for government, the potential for international failure is suddenly and dramatically a real possibility. While what Trump is proposing might be considered horrible by many, what he is and has been tearing down to get there may no longer be viable if we ever regain the opportunity to return. We may find that many attempts to return to “the old way of doing things” will prove to be impossible.

Trump’s lies have become so common they have been given a special term -- “alternative facts” cloned by one of his political operatives in an earlier campaign. For reasons completely concealed clear to the present time, Trump’s mendacity has not been considered a disqualifying trait of fundamental proportions. What will become of this sudden change in political attitudes when the same traits are found in future candidates remains to be seen.

Marital fidelity in Presidential candidates has had a spotted reputation. Roosevelt openly kept a mistress and was reportedly in her company when he died. The press largely ignored the illicit relations, apparently conceding that marital infidelity had nothing to do with competence in running the country in times of war. When Bill Clinton’s episode with a staffer came to light, Republicans came close to bringing him down; although he managed to survive, his entire second term was largely marked by the ongoing Congressional investigations into his alleged marital affairs. In other times a single misstatement upon this subject by a candidate has led to the candidate's immediate undoing – witness the rapid decline of the candidacy of John Edwards when the claim of his marital fidelity was unwound. And does anyone even remember Eliot Spitzer, the up-and-coming New Yorker who disappeared completely in a single weekend once he acknowledged his preference for high priced hookers.

Given these spotty examples, the nonchalant reaction to Trump’s casual attitude towards the truth and towards his misadventures in the arena of sexual misconduct is still astounding. Three marriages, multiple assignations, relations with hookers, and to top it all, hundreds of thousands of dollars paid by Trump to the various paramours – whether professional, amateur or accidental -- to keep the true nature of these adventures silent. And when anything does surface, Trump makes no attempt to explain or excuse. If anything, he brags.

Trump refused to concede Biden’s victory in 2020 when he was defeated after his first term in office -- the first Presidential candidate in history to fail to do so.  The Presidential concession had been an act that over history has marked the peaceful transition of power, a tradition unique to the U.S. way.

Instead, for the first time in history, the transition of power from one party to another was marked by extreme violence. Following Trump's defeat in the election, and on the day Biden’s name was to be certified by Congress as the incoming President, a riot erupted in the nation’s capitol, swarming through the Capitol Building and causing millions of dollars in property damage, numerous injuries and several deaths.

Elections in the United States have never fostered riots of this magnitude. It remains to be seen if the nation can ever return to the traditional and peaceful ceremonial events demonstrated in history as stemming from the transition of power from one party to the other without any display of violence.

In January of 2024, over 1500 individuals were arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced for various federal crimes in connection with the Capitol riots. Despite repeated promises by Trump that he would not do so, on the day he was sworn into office, Trump pardoned every individual who had been charged or convicted of any to you crime on the day of the Capitol uprising.. His pardon included over 700 individuals convicted of serios personal crimes including physical assaults, batteries, violent conspiracies and other related criminal activities. The crimes were felonies, and carried sentences in some cases of many years in prison.

In my memory of over twenty Presidential elections, giving us fifteen Presidents and dating back to Franklin Roosevelt’s fourth election in 1944, Trump is the first one who refused to concede a losing election to his opponent, the first one to not attend the inauguration of his opponent, the first one to refuse to separate himself from his personal fortune while in office by means of a blind trust or other mechanism, the first one to fail to disclose his private earnings while in office, the first one to refuse to reveal his income tax returns on prior earnings for a reasonable period before his election, and the first one to put members from his entire family on the public payroll in one form or another, since his election.

Previously, Presidents have declined personal gifts from foreign dignitaries and have immediately turned over to the government all official gifts received. Trump appears to expect large personal gifts in exchange for dinner invitations and has announced that a mid-east oil nation is donating a Boeing passenger jet to him, worth upwards of $300 million or more, which he has indicated he intends fly as Air Force One while in office and then take with him as his personal aircraft when he leaves office.

Past presidents have sought out individuals with knowledge and experience for high level agency appointments. Appointees often included presidents of major businesses, college professors, governors of states, and Congressmen and Senators, all with demonstrated expertise in the agency’s field. Trump’s sole criterium appears to be loyalty to him, with actual experience or expertise in the appointee’s job being unnecessary. In a curious program invented by Trump, Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur designated to head an ad hoc agency with the mission of reducing government, promised to cut billions from the federal budget. Then he reduced his goal to several hundred million. Then he reduced it again to less than a few million. Then he abandoned the agency Trump created for him and left the government. Now Trump and Musk are in a word battle as both men trade insults over the various media sights.

After months of creating complete havoc within a substantial number of agencies, many of the wholesale budget cuts have been substantially restored and the personnel actions are being abated or rescinded. The cuts and personnel changes that are still outstanding are in the subjects of over 150 federal lawsuits with restraining orders entered in most to preserve the status quo  while the litigation proceeds.

I have only scratched the surface with a few of the obvious management changes Trump has engineered coupled to a brief, general look at what is occurring in the nation’s capital while we sleep. The uncertainty this is causing in the business community can be seen in the wild swings in the stock and bond markets, as investors react to the dizzy changes coming out of Trump’s administration. It is not likely to end soon.  The Congressional elections might alleviate some of the problem if the Congress swings Democratic. But if Congress remains in Republican hands, things will get worse, not better.

What then? A return to normalcy within either the Republican or Democratic party will see a successor to office with the monumental task of having to rebuild close to every governmental agency from the ground up.

The wild ride is just beginning. There is no let-up in sight.

 

OK, everybody, back to school here for another look tariffs.  We travelled this road once, with the disastrous Smoot Hawley Tariffs of the 1930s, but the old maxim is that history forgotten is bound to be repeated. And look out! Here she comes again. The problem is all tangled up in politics, economics, nationalism, and some fundamental issues of government. Let’s untangle the morass and examine the elements one at a time.

The fundamental principle of economics is to understand that tariffs are a tax usually imposed singularly, precisely, and punitively to either drive a foreign product from the market completely or equalize its cost to the consumer to counter some unfair element the imported item would otherwise enjoy in competition with local suppliers in the U.S.

The imposition of a tariff must be weighed against the cost to the U.S. consumer in the form of increased prices, and/or being unable to acquire foreign made good at reduced cost. It is essential to understand that the cost of tariffs always fall upon the consumer or importer; tariffs are not imposed upon or paid by the foreign manufacturer or exporter.

For example, if production of an essential item in a foreign country is subsidized by the government there, and the producer of that item wishes to sell it in the United States, where private producers also market the items but without any government help, the government subsidy might give the producer there an unfair advantage over producers here. A targeted, precise tariff to eliminate the advantage of the government subsidy might be employed to equalize the market and protect the un-subsidized U.S. producer. A similarly targeted but substantial tariff might be used to block the targeted product from the market entirely.

It is essential to bear in mind that the ultimate cost of the tariff will be imposed upon the U.S. buyer, not the foreign manufacturer. This means that the government must weigh the value of protecting the price level to domestic suppliers against the benefits to domestic consumers of reduced prices in deciding whether to impose a tariff at all, or if imposed, how much it should be.

Although tariffs are ultimately a tax paid by consumer, raising money on a sustaining basis from tariffs is not an objective; the objective of the tariff in in all cases is to block or reduce the foreign product from coming into the U.S. market. This objective is reached absolutely when the receipts from the tariff reach zero, meaning no foreign products are reaching U.S. markets at all.

The announcement of punitive tariffs on foreign products by Trump is unlikely to generate substantial revenue from international sources. Instead, it will likely raise the cost of goods for U.S. consumers and, as previously mentioned, potentially create significant disruptions across various sectors of U.S. markets.

For example, Trump announced that a significant tariff would be imposed on the importation of steel, with the intention of returning steel production to the U.S. But it would take anywhere from three to five years to re-open steel manufacturing facilities in the U.S., at significant capital costs to the manufacturers if they actually chose to do so. In the meantime, U.S. manufacturers using steel would have to pay significantly increased prices for foreign steel, dramatically increasing the cost of the final product. The increased cost gets passed into the consumer price, resulting in significant increases in many, many areas.

American cars, for example, might be assembled in the United States, but every one of them include significant parts and add-ons manufactured in foreign countries. In some instances, it has been estimated that some vehicles assembled in Detroit or elsewhere in the U.S. are comprised of more than 75% of parts and attachments that are foreign made, either in whole or in part. Predictions are that the cost to the consumer of automobiles in the U.S. could double or triple because of the punitive tariffs Trump has proposed to be imposed on steel.

This means that the upheaval in the market will impact the domestic manufacturers and suppliers, as well as dealers, transport companies, and automotive financiers. Uncertainties in the markets abound. Trump’s vacillations on whether, when and how much to impose in foreign tariffs have resulted in significant swings in costs throughout all affected markets. Transporation facilities are stalled or shutting down, shipping is at a standstill, dealers are all over the place in orders, and suppliers are rolling up the welcome mats to wait out the problem. All this means that retailers like grocery stores are seeing major shortages and shoppers are seeing empty shelves everywhere.

Every level of the economy is affected, but the lowest rungs are hurt the most, as in the lowest levels, more earnings are consumed on essentials every month. It is estimated that Trump’s tariffs if adopted as proposed so far, would increase the costs of essentials required for a family of four by over $4000 per month.

The problems discussed here are only the direct result of U.S. tariffs on imports. I do not even begin to touch the problems that will result to U.S. exporters when the retaliatory tariffs begin to appear from the foreign governments affected by U.S. tariffs.

General tariffs of this level were attempted one time in recent history – the Smoot Hawley Tariffs imposed by Congress in the early 1930s. They proved to be an economic nightmare for all the reasons stated here. As retaliatory tariffs were imposed against the U.S. by essentially all foreign governments, it has been estimated that these tariffs lengthened any substantial recovery from the Great Depression by several years. The disastrous results of the Smoot Hawley Tariffs have been sufficient for Congress to wave off any consideration of general tariffs for over 80 years.

This means that all the tariffs that have been imposed for the last 80 years or so have been limited tariffs specifically targeted at specific market problems or imposed for clearly political purposes, such as one imposed in political retaliation. Nothing Trump has said about his planned tariffs come even close to any of these legitimate political or practical concerns.

So, fasten your seat belts everybody, nobody knows exactly where Trump is headed, but from all appearances today, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

 

Well, here we are – 100 days in, and from listening to the torrent of comment spewing from the ivory towers of the more prolific observers, things are only going to get worse. With the mid-terms only a breath away, there are no clear signs that the Democratic party has found its footing. Unless those in control of its levers of power come to their senses soon, the mid-terms may turn into a disaster, leaving control of Congress in limbo and thereby paving the way for the continued dismantling of the 250- year-old experiment we call our democracy.

No one can explain how this happened, but it is becoming clear now that everyone contributed to it. The media viewed his introduction to the process in the early days of the 21st century with high humor, covering every step he took with ridicule and corny jokes. By the time it came to its senses and began taking him seriously, it was too late. He had over half the states lined up from his party’s primaries, and no organized opposition to his nomination.

The wiser heads of the Republican party chose to sit on their hands. The opposition party was coming off the incredibly popular Obama presidency, and with the velocity of the winds coming from his office, they believed his party could not be stopped. This left a band of second stringers and odd-ball right wingers to fiddle around offering mixtures of stale choices in the various early primaries which left the path open for the apparent fresh voice of a political newcomer. By the time any potentially serious contenders within the Republican party came to their senses, it was too late.

The then party in power followed in its own history and in a series of traditional mis-steps, shot itself in its own foot. The Democrats chose the first woman ever to run for the presidency, but picked a candidate with a history, being an unshakable tail that attached her current candidacy to the irrelevant past. The candidate herself raised no serious issues, avoiding any conflicts and maintaining only that it was her turn and she deserved to win. Her campaign became over-confident at the end, and she was persuaded to take her eye off the ball, which saw the critical key state of Pennsylvania slip away merely for lack of attention.

With Congress not out of control, the first term of the current office holder’s  tenure was only moderatly upsetting. Without Congress and with a potentially unfriendly Supreme Court, he was unable to do any real damage while in office.

The tear 2020 saw the next the next presidential campaign. In a brief respite from potential error, the Democrats managed to select a capable middle of the roader to be its candidate, when facing the current office holder’s bid for re-election, and in an unpredicted squeaker, he managed to win.

The wining party offered no celebrations for their candidate’s victory but instead embroiled itself into a series of intramural squabbles, pitching the left wing against the middle and disdaining or ignoring the achievements of their office holder. This allowed the most successful presidency of the last 100 years to proceed without fanfare. The president himself chose not to blow his own horn as his administration succeeded in achieving goal after goal in the objectives it set for itself, producing the best economy in recent history with the highest employment, lowest interest rates, and broadest tax reform, but with no one to offer any rebuttal to the outlandishly false claims by the outed president, who was beginning to clamor for his return to office.

The next election in 2024 turned into a fiasco. The office holder was grudgingly renominated by his party, again without giving credit for his tremendously successful first term. The former president was renominated by his party in a convention that appeared to be firmly under the control of its right-edge fringe. When the Democratic  candidate performed poorly in an irrelevant early debate, the party panicked. Despite the uncontroverted history of failure that inevitably results from the decision, the candidate resigned.

With no other feasible option, the party selected the vice-presidential candidate to step up and take over the campaign. She ran a remarkable campaign, making no errors, demonstrating herself to be more than capable to take on the job, and presenting a seamless picture of an unbeatable target for office.

Which missed, with a stunning loss that should have been predicted as the result of two factors. First, the fringes of the party became embroiled in an irrelevant disagreement over her stand on some international policy and decided to stay home – probably or apparently in significant numbers. But second, and perhaps more significant, was the impossibly insurmountable combination of the candidate (a) being a woman, (b) of color, and (c) of an uncertain religious heritage, i.e., not Christian.  Her mother was a Buddhest, and her husband is a Jew. Although never mentioned in public debate, and operating completely behind the curtain, this combination took over to prevent “the unthinkable.”  While the electorate may have submitted to one and perhaps two of these unspeakably disqualifying circumstances, it is clear they did not stand for all three.  The election was not even close.

We are now facing the beginning of the potential run-up to the 2028 election. The current office holder has made it clear that he intends to run again, despite his age, despite the mounting disapproval of what he has accomplished so far, and despite the fact that the Constitution can probably be interpreted as preventing a third term. There is no indication that anyone in the Republican party intends to step forward with any opposition to his plan.

What is the Democratic party doing in the face of all this? Wringing its hands in terror. And winding itself into internal knots over accepting the necessity of finding middle-of-the-roaders to step in to the multi-colored districts where changes are at least possible.

Could the picture of the future be any bleaker?

 

In a stunning reversal of promises made during the campaign, and on the day he was installed in office as President of the United States for the second time, Donald Trump granted commutation of sentence and executive pardons to all of the individual defendants  accused or convicted of any offenses related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol break-ins.

Trump's action has or will affect more than 1,500 defendants related to the beak-in and demonstrations at the Capitol on that day and will result in the immediate release of all those in jail or prison, the termination of parole restrictions imposed on those  already released, and the withdrawal and dismissal of all charges against everyone. Previously, from the beginning of his recent campaign, Trump had indicated that pardons for the Capitol uprising would be issued, but only on a case-by-case basis, after an  individual review of each application, implying that they would be issued only to the minor convictions for "being there" crimes, and that none would be issued where violence occurred or was threatened.

Of the over 1,500 individuals pardoned, approximately half were convicted or charged with crimes of assault, battery, use of a deadly weapon, injury to officer, or resisting arrest. The two most serious sentences were the 22-year sentence to the leader of "Proud  Boys" for sedition and the 18-year sentence to the leader of "Oath Keepers" for conspiracy. Both are related to criminal action to cause others to commit violent crimes.

The power to pardon is granted to the President in article II, section 2, clause 1 of the Constitution, which provides that the President "shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

It has  been held to be a plenary power to forgive entirely every offense known to the law.

Every state governor has some power of pardon, with most states imposing some limitations on the governor's action or some right of review by the state legislature.  In Idaho, section 7 of article IV of the state constitution grants power to pardon to a commission  on pardons and paroles. The governor may grant interim pardons directly, but they are conditional, to last only until the next meeting of the commission, which may then amend or rescind the governor's action. No condition, limitation, or right of review exists  for Presidential pardons except for the Constitutional exclusion for the crime of impeachment. The president's authority is otherwise unlimited.

Trump has been criticized for granting pardons to some individuals who were charged but awaiting trial and therefore before they were convicted of any crime. In the usual case, Presidential pardons are granted after extensive review by the Department of Justice  and the Presidential office. Also in the usual case, pardons are granted for specific crimes and only after the defendant is convicted. However, notable exceptions have occurred.

President Joe Biden's exit pardons of General Mark Milley, Dr. Anthony Fauci, former congresswoman Liz Cheney, members of the Congressional committee to impeach, and members of his own family, all allegedly based upon the threats of Donald Trump to cause criminal

action to be taken but before any such actions existed, are noteworthy examples. As also is the single action by then-president Geral Ford in granting a pardon to former-president Richard Nixon, who had resigned the presidency upon threat of impeachment for  the Watergate incidents but before any criminal action was commenced.

Notwithstanding this, Trump's action was a surprise to most. His vice president, JD Vance, had declared in an interview on Fox News only a week before, that "If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn't be pardoned." Informants responding  confidentially to inquiries from the press indicated up to the day of his inauguration that Trump's intention to pardon was not unconditional but was to be limited to otherwise innocent onlookers. Insiders now say that he made his final decisions only a few  days before his inauguration.

Whew. On his first day Trump has taken the office of President off into territories rarely considered possible, and in complete reversal of promises made during his campaign.

Pay attention, everybody – one suspects there will be more coming.