Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “McKee”

A new look?

June 19, 2025

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.

 

Wringing our hands

April 30, 2025

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?

 

The speech

The speech

March 8, 2025

What an amazing speech.

A full two-hour campaign harangue of essentially off the cuff remarks against former President Biden, interwoven into a litany of completely false claims of accomplishments by his own administration so far, and ending with a lofty, unspecific, and totally unsupported paragraph on what the future would hold, Trump's State of the Union address was not the traditional post-election speech usually offered as an attempt at unity, to assist the nation in recovering from the rancid overtures of the  campaign.

Rather, it was a pure extension of the campaign, being a speech exclusively aimed at the left side of the room with only an ending aimed at the general audience at large-- all met with rousing applause from what appeared to be approximately half of those assembled – being the House and Senate Republicans seated on the left side of the room – while those facing the rostrum to the right of the speaker, being the usually vocal and clearly agitated members of the Democratic party, all sat in stoney silence, except for a sizable group who stood and walked out at an early remark of the speaker. Many had placards expressing their disapproval of the speaker's remarks that they held up while the Republican side was cheering the speaker on.

The non-political guests, being the members of the Supreme Court and the high ranking individuals from the four branches of the military, also sat in stoney silence to the more political remarks from the speaker, in obvious disinterest to the remarks being made.

The post address commentators from MSNBC were largely beside themselves trying to disassemble the speech. All agreed that it was not a calming speech to Congress to frame proposals for them to consider in guiding legislation for the future, but rather was a political diatribe exclusively for the far right, crowing over the election results and promising power that the speaker expected to demonstrate in achieving his personal goals.

If the Trump appointees and the Republican appointees already on the court respect history and the expected independence of the judiciary as the clear third branch of government, there may be results that many disagree with, but the integrity of the court will out. If the Republican members turn out to be toadies, willing to do Trump's bidding rather than serve as the traditional independent judiciary, our troubles may only be beginning.

I have listened, read or watched 19 of these election year speeches, beginning with Harry Truman's address in 1949 following his surprise win over Thomas Dewey in 1848. Trump's speech was like no other, either in length, political diatribe or lack of consistency with the truth. It remains to be seen whether the more rational Republicans in Congress will find it within themselves to reign Trump in or will become puppets to act at his will. If the former, we may survive – with difficulty, and much consternation over some of the legislative results. If it is the latter, meaning Congress has abandoned its traditional role as the independent third branch of government, the future of the country may be in serious trouble. The same must be said of the Supreme Court. If the Trump appointees respect history and the expected independence of the judiciary as the clear third branch of government, there may be results that many disagree with, but the integrity of the court will out. If Trump's appointees turn out to be toadies, willing to do his bidding rather than serve as the traditional independent judiciary, our troubles may only be beginning.

Our Constitutional theory of a tri-party government is facing its first real domestic challenge since the civil war. It is not starting out in a direction to give one hope. Who was it that recently quoted the ancient Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times"?

Oh, yeah, it was me – a couple of months ago.

(image)

Off and running

February 8, 2025

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.

 

Hold on to your hats

January 26, 2025

President Donald Trump delivered his acceptance speech on Monday, following his inauguration as our 47th President. It was an amazing speech, unlike anything in over the twenty some acceptance speeches previously given in the modern era. From vilification of  the current administration to promise of future pipe dreams, it was a remarkable mixture of inconsistencies and impossibilities.

The thread throughout was to "Make America Great Again," taken directly from Trump's campaign slogan and ignoring the fact that our times are already significantly greater than any time in past memory. Unemployment is lower, incomes are higher, the stock market  is up, businesses are booming, and bankruptcies are fewer than any time in current history. Trump's promises appear to ignore that he already had one chance at these issues and failed completely to deliver. The first two years of Biden's administration were  largely spent in reversing and restoring the nation from what was left after Trump's first go from 2016 through 2020.

In one area of amazing new promises, Trump promised a detailed list of immediate increases in expenditures for various programs he was promising without any increases in taxes, explaining that the new programs would be financed through "outcome taxes" which  he defined as being taxes and tariffs imposed on foreign sellers for goods and services provided to buyers in the United States. This is either a remarkable misunderstanding of the mechanisms of tariffs or a deliberate misstatement on who will be paying the  intended increases.

Understand first that tariffs are taxes that are imposed on imports. They are ultimately paid by the users in the importing countries, not on the sellers in the exporting countries. In our case, they are paid by the United States importers who pass the tariffs  on to the buyers. If a buyer in the U.S. purchases goods directly from the foreign seller, the tariffs are collected at the border by tariff stamps purchased or provided by the buyer. If purchased under contract, the foreign exporter may provide the import  tax stamps for the shipments, but the cost will be on the buyer.

No part of the moneys received by the foreign sellers on the purchase price of good sold to buys in the U.S. are ever owed or paid to the United States government in the form of taxes or tariffs. The ultimate cost of any tax or tariff imposed is always on the  buyer. It has been estimated that if general tariffs in the range of 20% were added to all foreign consumer products shipped to buyers in the United States, the annual cost increase to an average family of four could be over $4000. Widely imposed general tariffs  were attempted in the 1930s with disastrous results that extended the impact of the depression by close to two years.

In another example, Trump promised relief in the price of gasoline, without acknowledging or even understanding that the price of gasoline is not regulated by any government action but is completely determined on the free market. Moreover, and most significant,  it is the world market for petroleum and not the national market within the U.S. that determines current prices. Since in the U.S., all petroleum producers are currently at full production there in no governmental action available to Trump short of nationalization  of facilities that would have any impact on current prices.

In a final example, Trump announced to great cheers that he was abandoning all programs to develop alternative fuels and return to a restored dependence on petroleum by abandoning the Paris climate change accords, reversing regulations on mining and non-fuel  minerals, and rescinding climate clean energy programs. All these actions appear foolish in the face of undisputed evidence of atmosphere deterioration and potential fuel shortages. We face disastrous consequences if alternatives are not found for petroleum  fuel sources.

These examples are only a few of the jaw-dropping revelations of Trumps proposals. His speech covered proposals never suggested before and some that have been tried and discarded. We can only wait and watch and see what happens.

Pay attention now. It promises to be a most interesting go.

 

More nonsense in the case

December 25, 2024

An intermediate appellate court in Georgia ruled this week that Fani Willis, a county prosecutor, and her office should be disqualified from personally pursuing the criminal action pending against Donald Trump and a slew of other defendants, on the basis of the "appearance of impropriety" by her and her office. In a two-to-one decision reversing the trial court's ruling that there was no basis to take action, the appellate court ruled that the prosecutor and her entire office "had no authorization to proceed" against Trump.

The appellate court did not find any actual impropriety on the part of the prosecutor or her staff. It only noted the "appearance" of an impropriety that might appear to "some." Additionally, it held that the ruling would not apply to any normal case but existed only because of Trump's particular circumstance as a candidate for the office of President.

Trump had argued that a sexual relationship existed between the prosecutor and the local attorney she had designated to try the case, and that the two had spent an exorbitant amount of money in their relationship. Trump argued that this was sufficient to justify the prosecutor's recusal. The trial court disagreed and denied the application, but the appellate court reversed, concluding that although there were no instances of actual improprieties shown, the appearances were sufficient to warrant the prosecutor's dismissal.

The prosecutor stated she intends an immediate appeal. But if so, it is highly unlikely that any decision on review will occur between now and the time Trump is to be sworn into office as President. Once he is sworn in, substantial statutory and regulatory rulings clamp on preventing any further action by any of the lower courts in Trump's cases. The Supreme Court's ruling in other cases that a sitting President is immune from any federal criminal prosecution while in office will most probably be sufficient to derail all proceedings against Trump in state courts as well. Meaning Trump will be insulated from any criminal action in any court throughout his presidency.

Notwithstanding all of this, the appellate ruling in the Georgia case is plainly wrong. The ruling pertained to allegations of a personal relationship between the prosecutor and another, and to her alleged misuse of state funds in the process. A defendant in a criminal case has no standing to raise or complain about such instances in the criminal case. The appropriating government entities, either state or local or both, that oversee the funds supplied to the prosecutors' offices can audit the finances of a prosecutor's office and take action if the prosecutor over-spends or mis-spends public funds. A lone individual caught up in the criminal system has no standing to sue in such matters. Further, most state rules providing for the disqualification of an attorney based upon a prohibited relationship with another lawyer require that the relationship be with an opposing party's attorney but not one associated on the same side as the target. In any such action by the state or county agency overseeing the prosecutors' offices, a mere appearance or possibility of a such a connection might be sufficient for recusal,  but in the case of an objection being advanced by the defendant in a criminal case, the showing of actual prejudice or harm resulting from the existence of the alleged  relationship is usually required. None of these expected requirements were met in the instant case.

All privileges and special protections extended to a President only operate for presidential actions taken after the candidate is elected and while in office. Here, none of Trump's criminal actions alleged in the action in Georgia related to the office of President. The nexus of the crimes charged were Trump's actions as a potential candidate for election to the office of President, and for alleged wrongs during the campaign, but not for any action or inaction by Trump while he was acting in service as the elected President. It would make no difference in deciding the issue of Presidential immunity whether the candidate was seeking office for the first time or was already the President seeking re-election. If the actions under examination pertained entirely to the candidate's campaign for office, they should not have been subjected to any defenses or privileges existing to the office holder. There are no statutory exceptions protecting a candidate for office, and no demonstrated factual basis for the creation of any judicial prerogatives.

The upshot of all this is that the action by the intermediate appellate court was wrong, but it may be too late in this case for any corrective action by a higher court. Action in other cases indicate that all issues raised in federal courts that might have prevented Trump from running for office have been mooted. Sentencing in the federal case against Trump pending in New York which found him guilty of fraudulent misconduct, was stayed  pending the election. Two federal court actions in the District of Columbia and Virginia, were dismissed by the special prosecutor Jack Smith, citing a Department of Justice written policy not to pursue any case against a sitting president. With these rulings and actions in place, the expectation would appear to be that no matter what the outcome of the current Georgia case finally is, it, too, will be stayed and all of Trumps's criminal case problems will be washed away for the duration of his current presidency.

While some of the actions will remain over his head, and the cases Jack Smith was pursing might be refiled later, there is no action now pending that will interfere with the proceedings to inaugurate him into office on January 20, 2025, or that will interfere in any way during his term once he assumes office.

The twists and turns occurring in Trump's political career continue to astonish, and every indication is that it is not over yet.

I am convinced of that, so  pay attention.

One day at a time

December 15, 2024

We look with aghast wonder at the collection of nobodies Trump is designating for many of his agency and first cabinet posts. Clearly, as most commentators have observed, Trump's criteria in his designation of this clump of mediocrity is personal loyalty to him rather than any demonstrated competence at the intended tasks to be undertaken.

There are those that believe Trump is putting forward names he knows will not be approved, expecting that the Congress will deny the appointments and then go into recess shortly after Trump is inaugurated with certain offices left un-filled. While the Congress is in recess, the federal statutes permit the president to make recess appointments of whomever he wishes, without triggering Congressional approval, with the appointed individual entitled to serve in office for almost a year.  Some analysts contend that Trump intends to foist off some individuals who he knows would not receive Senate approval by the use of this device.

Witness, for example, the designation of Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense, a man widely considered to be a drunk and convicted at least once of sexual misconduct.  In other times, either circumstance would be totally disqualifying for any major federal appointment. Today, the combination is apparently viewed as irrelevant as potential naysayers from the Senate's Republican caucus are being threatened with primary opposition if they do not abandon their objections and toe the line with a vote to approve the nomination.

This is setting up an unusual lose-lose circumstance for any member of the Senate with misgivings about Trump's appointees.  They get the plainly flawed nominee if they do not oppose Trump's first-named individual, but they earn the risk of a primary challenge if they oppose the nominee, and they may get a worse appointee put into place via a recess appointment if they go on break with the issue up in the air.

In an unusual circumstance not previously experienced, Trump has designated several individuals to head up agencies which they have publicly maintained ought to be significantly restricted if not eliminated. Trump's announcement of Linda McMahon, an opponent  of federal intervention in the areas of primary and secondary education, as his choice for Secretary of Education, is a prime example, as is the announcement of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vocal opponent of federal assistance to states upon the happening of natural  disasters, as his choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services, the agency responsible for disaster relief.

In times past, the president-to-be has remained largely silent during the time from election in November to inauguration in mid-January.  The staff efforts in selecting individuals to fill all slots available to the new president are largely conducted in private,  with the Senate's committee review of the president-elect's lists being conducted behind closed doors. Formal announcement of many of not most of the chosen individuals is reserved until after the president is sworn in and is on the job, or at least until  after the proposed candidate for appointment has received tacit approval from the Senate committee responsible for review.

The presidents-to-be also usually remain silent on the specifics of any changes they intend to make after their inauguration. An exception to this might exist if the out-going president attempts to impose regulations or law changes that would impair the in-coming president in some way.

None of this seems to apply to Trump, who has been vocal from early on about all the steps he intends to take as soon as he is sworn into office. He has, however, changed in a material way how he claims he intends to approach at least some of these steps now.

Early on, he claimed that he would take the steps and control the processes himself, personally, from the White House. For example, early on Trump announced that he intended to pardon a goodly number if not all of the individuals convicted of the violence and acts of destruction brought about in the January 6 capital insurrection. Now, however, when asked about his intentions, he disclaims any preconceived intention on his part get involved in specific agency administration, stating instead that the agency

heads will take up these issues in regular channels on a case-by-case basis. The duplicity apparent in this change in the explanation should be obvious. Trump is appointing the officials who will be in charge of administering the offices and has repeatedly  made it perfectly clear of what he expects with respect to their review.

All this brings to mind the alleged practice of the Mafia kingpins passing orders to their underlings by stating aloud that "somebody" ought to take a specific action in the instance. The notion is that by stating the desire in this indirect manner, the kingpin  cannot be personally held criminally responsible for any specific action taken by the underling.

Although Trump is now stating that he has no intention of involving himself in these matters personally but will simply allow the processes to play out within the separate agencies involved, he has already made it perfectly clear what he expects in this area  from the individuals he is or will be appointing to the agencies involved.

Hang on to your seats, everybody, we are heading into completely uncharted waters with no way of knowing who, what, where or when Trump intends to act next.

 

He’s also a father

December 7, 2024

The uproar over Biden's pardon issued to his son is a true tempest in a teapot.

In the first case, the charges against his son for the statements made in connection with a gun purchase were "status offenses" rather than any actual criminal behavior, which in the absence of any aggravating criminal circumstances would usually result in a non-criminal resolution.

In the second case, the tax return was amended and the correct tax paid before the charges were filed, meaning that in a normal situation, the most that would be done would be a misdemeanor charge leading to a fine and probation.

The purchase of a gun was not an illegal act, nor was it a crime in the abstract to misstate the answers to questions asked on the purchase form. If he had misstated his address or listed his age wrong, for example, there would probably have been no basis for any criminal complaint. In this case, the statutes made it wrong to misstate the answer to the drug question, and the statute made it a wrong for one using drugs to purchase a weapon. But for the specific statute, there would be no basis to charge any crime in connection with the statements made in connection with the gun purchase But in the usual case, if no harm results from the purchase, there is no reason for a felony prosecution on the gun form. In fact, unless some harm occurs, there is no reason to even examine the gun form. Where harm results, and separate criminal behavior occurs,  the status offenses may be added to the actual criminal behavior to place the circumstances in proper perspective. As to the tax charges, from a standpoint of judicial economy, isolated instances of an erroneous tax return seldom result in prosecution if the subject return is amended and all taxes paid. Sometimes exceptions are made where a prominent individual is involved to emphasize a point – as in the recent case of Martha Stewart -- but in this case it was President Biden, not his son, who was the apparent prominent individual.

Biden's son was not a prominent target warranting the example punishment for the single misfiled  return. In most instances, a single status offense standing alone would not warrant full prosecution. In this case, however, the prosecutor was a "special prosecutor." appointed exclusively to determine whether President Biden's son was guilty of any crime.  The special prosecutor was a prominent Republican under pressure from some Republican Congressmen. The apparent expectation was that President Biden would be found to have been involved with his son in some or any of the questioned activities.

When the special prosecutor came up empty handed with this objective, and could only find the related charges against the son, he did not close the inquiry as unproductive – which he could have done under the circumstances. But since he was only charged with one target defendant, he chose to proceed with a case that a regular prosecutor with a normal case load might well have declined.

Dividing the circumstances into separate counts makes the conduct appear much worse than it was. In the tax case, there was only one tax return involved, and the crime was in the failure to report one taxable amount - being the tax on the correct total income for the year in question. The fact that the total was arrived at from several separate amounts could be considered an irrelevant detail insofar as the criminal act was concerned – was the crime committed in filling out the return or in filing it? In my view,  the crime was in filing the return with erroneous entries, and it would only be one count per return rather than separate counts for each wrong line in the return.

I suspect that if it were not for the fact that this defendant has a prominent father, the case would have been disposed of by informal resolution months ago. In my court, for example, I would expect it to be a misdemeanor resolution of the tax case for a fine  and probation and a referral of the drug case to a rehabilitation program.

Since that is not the direction the case was apparently headed, and since the President was no longer concerned with any fallout in a campaign for his re-election, I see no reason to blame the President for exercising his prerogatives and reacting like a father.

So, what now?

November 30, 2024

The news is full of Trump's declared planning, and the commentators from everywhere are beside themselves with dire predictions. I am at sixes and sevens on whether to be overly concerned here. On one hand, I am well hunkered down being fully retired with a  completely protected judicial pension. I am an observer, not a doer, and am no longer involved in anything that is going to be affected at all by Trump's shenanigans.

On the other hand, my household budget is still subject to the general economy, and if Trump carries out even a few of his main proposals, the resultant impact on the economy could be disastrous. The direst of the predictions are for runaway inflation coupled  with a deep depression, but even if lesser results occur, it would still be more than just uncomfortable. Here are three examples:

First, Trump's plan to use import duties as revenue raising devices, imposing general tariffs of up to 20% on all imports, is going to result is a disaster if he cannot be talked out of it. Generally, tariffs are an administrative device and do not require  congressional approval. The Trump administration could impose them at any time, unilaterally.  It has been explained over and over that tariffs are not paid by the foreign entity manufacturing or selling the goods but are taxes paid by the consumers paying  higher prices for the goods in the receiving country – meaning us in all of Trump's plans.

General import tariffs would hit the bottom of the economy the worst, with estimates of the increase in costs for at typical family in the bottom quartile exceeding $4,000 per year. The last time the U.S. imposed general import tariffs was in 1929, just ahead  of the great depression. Most economists agree that the implementation of general import duties significantly contributed to the depth and length of the depression.

Trump's only reaction to these comments is to wink and nod, and then repeat without comment the entirety of his ill-conceived plans without change.

Second, Trump's plan for tax relief calls for significant tax cuts to those in the top earnings brackets and miniscule cuts for those in the lowest. If the government is going to step in, this plan is the exact reverse of what might be helpful. The idea that  increasing the amount of earnings retained by the top will result in a "trickle down" to increase the earnings for those below has been demonstrated over and over to be a complete myth. In fact, increasing the amounts retained by those at the top tend to stay  at the top, either in savings or reinvestment.

Wages of those below the top are not affected until other aspects of the economy influence the change – increased demand, increases in technology, and shortages in the labor force to meet requirements.  Increases in wages are usually the last element to respond in an increasing economy. Lowering the taxes on the lowest categories has little impact because, in our graduated income tax scheme, the lowest categories already pay the least amount in taxes and benefit from what plans have been enacted for the relief of

the very lowest category among us. Further, lowering the tax rate when the existing level of government spending already exceeds income results in increased debt, thereby pushing the obligations on to future generations. In an overheated economy, when lowering the tax rates on the wealthy result in increasing the debt level, the expected result is not an increase in resources to the lower classes but rather an even greater increase in the levels or rates of inflation.

There is  no indication that Trump understands the basic economics involved, and his cabinet picks in this area so far do not give any promise of being better at it than he is.

Finally, Trump's plan to round up all the undocumented aliens and return them to their country of origin is woefully incomplete. Nowhere does Trump explain how the economy will pay for the cost of rounding up, litigating and deporting the 11 million or so undocumented aliens in this country. Nor does he explain what to do with or care for the children of the undocumented aliens who are born in the U.S. and therefore are automatically citizens from birth. Finally, Trump has no answer of who will replace the deported immigrants at the menial jobs many of them currently occupy – jobs even the lower class of U.S. citizen considers to be beneath their level of income and achievement.

There is no argument that a problem exists in this area, but as every expert that has addressed the problem insists, the country must first fix the problem of processing immigrants into the country before, or at least at the same time as, taking on any wholesale  program of deportation out.

To sum up, from the appointments made so far, it appears Trump will be surrounding himself with sycophants to him personally rather than seeking out executives with actual experience in the fields to be managed. There is not one person in the bunch named so far that give any indication that they might even understand the problems let alone take on the task of explaining to Trump the underlying issues discussed above.

Where are the answers going to come from?  My head hurts. I think I will take a nap.