Trump the Taxman Cometh: Flim-Flam Man or Con-Artist — Take Your Pick

Ready or Not Here I Come

Trump’s Tax Policy: An Analysis from the Tax Policy Center

Introduction (and three main points):  “Trump's campaign rhetoric may have been populist, but his tax plan isn't.” (Say most tax experts). 

1.  Trump's campaign rhetoric promoted tax benefits for middle-income Americans with him saying: “There will be the largest tax reductions are for the middle class (Cited in his 4-page: “Contract with the American Voter”) released just last month.

2.  Middle-income Americans pay a relatively modest share of federal income taxes compared with the wealthy. The Trump plan further limits the scope of what tax cuts could do for the middle-class while greatly helping the top 1-2%.

3.  We have seen big tax cut proposals and tax cuts ever since Ronald Reagan, but things have been getting worse for the middle-class since.

Specific Highlights:

1.  Most married couples with three or more children would pay higher taxes.

2.  Middle-class families as a whole would receive tax cuts of only about 2%.

3.  Those middle-class taxpayers and their measly 2% tax cut would be dwarfed by a windfall tax cut for the top 1% of some 13.5%.

4.  Reduce the number of tax brackets from seven to three, with rates of 12 percent, 25 percent and 33 percent.

5.  Slash the top rate from the current 39.6 percent to 33 percent.

6.  Repeal the estate tax, which affects only about 0.2 percent of estates — that is those worth above $5.45 million.

7.  Middle-income earners as a whole would have a small tax cut: taking into account the increases on single-parent families, those earning nearly $50,000 to about $83,000 — the middle one-fifth — would receive an average cut of $1,010, according to the Tax Policy Center lifting their after-tax incomes by a mere 1.8 percent.

8.  By contrast, the wealthiest 1 percent — those earning over $700,000 — would enjoy a tax cut averaging nearly $215,000, boosting their after-tax incomes a whopping 13.5 percent.

9.  The very rich: 0.1 percent of the population — that is earning above $3.7 million — would receive a bonanza: A tax cut exceeding $1 million.

10.  For low-to-moderate income single parents (i.e., a working Mom or Dad), they are going to get hurt and hurt badly.

The tax hikes that would hit single parents and large families would result from his plan to eliminate the personal exemption and the head-of-household filing status – two features of the tax code that have enabled millions of Americans to reduce their taxable income. 

His other tax changes would benefit middle- and lower-income Americans for sure, but they wouldn't be enough to offset those modifications going to the top 1%.

Unlike Trump's other proposals like for immigration and building the wall, or cancelling trade deals for new ones, his tax plan is in line with traditional Republican policy that steep tax cuts for the top closely resemble those put forth by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush and all Republican-run Congresses and here we are again – same dynamics with Trump’s tax proposal. 

So, I say at this point: “They’re baaack…!!!”

During the campaign, Trump said his tax cuts — for individuals and companies — would energize the economy by boosting business investment in factories and equipment, while leaving consumers with more cash to spend and create 25 million jobs over the next decade.

Further, estimates show that roughly 7.9 million families with children would pay higher taxes. Some 5.8 million of those families are led by a single parent. An additional 2.1 million are married couples. Analysts from the conservative Tax Foundation and American Enterprise Institute both agree with these conclusions.

The details of this entire analysis can be seen here [published by The AP].

For all Trump voters (vast majority in the low-to-middle class brackets discussed in the Trump tax plan): You have been had…!!!

So, from here on out, HANG ON TIGHT…!!!

Nevertheless, thanks and stopping by. Oh, yeah and for those who did, thanks for voting to “Make America Suffer Again.”

Rational Reasons for the Popular Vote: “ One-person/One-vote” Not the Electoral College

A Joke Vis-à-Vis the Electoral College or Popular Vote

This is the Only Real, True Government Oversight

When a Vote Does Not Count — Whew Boy 

I will carefully analyze this article and highlight what I consider the critically-important parts of the contents and why the popular vote should matter and not the outdated and quite frankly ineffective EC system we see even today after all these years and 5 piss-poor outcomes. The entire article is from here and tact (Washington Post).

MY INTRO AND I HAVE NUMBERED THE 15 KEY POINTS (my emphasis also highlighted thus):  

Conventional wisdom tells us that the Electoral College (EC) requires that the person who lost the popular vote this year must nonetheless become our president. That view is an insult to our framers.

1.  It is compelled by nothing in our Constitution. It should be rejected by anyone with any understanding of our democratic traditions — most important, the electors themselves.

2.  The framers believed, as Alexander Hamilton put it, that “the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the [president].” But no nation had ever tried that idea before.

3.  So the framers created a safety valve on the people’s choice. Like a judge reviewing a jury verdict, where the people voted, the electoral college was intended to confirm — or not — the people’s choice. Electors were to apply, in Hamilton’s words, “a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice” — and then decide.

4.  The Constitution says nothing about “winner take all.” It says nothing to suggest that electors’ freedom should be constrained in any way.

5.  Instead, their wisdom — about whether to overrule “the people” or not — was to be free of political control yet guided by democratic values. They were to be citizens exercising judgment, not cogs turning a wheel.

6.  Many think we should abolish the EC. I’m not convinced that we should. Properly understood, the electors can serve an important function. What if the people elect a Manchurian candidate? Or a child rapist? What if evidence of massive fraud pervades a close election? It is a useful thing to have a body confirm the results of a democratic election — so long as that body exercises its power reflectively and conservatively. Rarely — if ever — should it veto the people’s choice. And if it does, it needs a very good reason.

4.  So, do the electors in 2016 have such a reason? Only twice in our past has the EC selected a president against the will of the people.

5.  Once in the 19th century and once on the cusp of the 21st. In 1824, it was Congress that decided the election for John Quincy Adams. And in 1876, it was Congress that gave disputed EC votes to Rutherford B. Hayes.

6.  In 1888, Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote to Grover Cleveland but won in the EC, only because Boss Tweed’s Tammany Hall turned New York away from the reformer Cleveland (by fewer than 15,000 vote.

7.  And in 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote by a tiny fraction — half a percent — and beat Al Gore in the EC by an equally small margin — less than 1 percent. (USSC decided that outcome re: the recount system in FL – Bush won 5-4).

8.  In both cases, the result violated what has become one of the most important principles governing our democracy — one person, one vote. In both cases, the votes of some weighed much more heavily than the votes of others.

Today, for example under the EC, the vote of a citizen in Wyoming is four times as powerful as the vote of a citizen in Michigan. The vote of a citizen in Vermont is three times as powerful as a vote in Missouri. This denies Americans the fundamental value of a representative democracy — equal citizenship. Yet nothing in our Constitution compels this result.

9.  Instead, if the EC is to control who becomes our president, we should take it seriously by understanding its purpose precisely. It is not meant to deny a reasonable judgment by the people. It is meant to be a circuit breaker — just in case the people go crazy.

10.  In this election, the people did not go crazy. The winner, by far, of the popular vote is the most qualified candidate for president in more than a generation. Like her or not, no elector could have a good-faith reason to vote against her because of her qualifications. Choosing her is thus plainly within the bounds of a reasonable judgment by the people.

11.  Yet that is not the question the electors must weigh as they decide how to cast their ballots. Instead, the question they must ask themselves is whether there is any good reason to veto the people’s choice.  There is not. And indeed, there is an especially good reason for them not to nullify what the people have said — the fundamental principle of one person, one vote.

12.  We are all citizens equally. Our votes should count equally. And since nothing in our Constitution compels a decision otherwise, the electors should respect the equal vote by the people by ratifying it on December 19.

13.  They sure did not in 1888, when Tammany Hall ruled New York and segregation was the law of the land. They didn’t in 2000, when in the minds of most, the election was essentially a tie. Those are plainly precedents against Hillary Clinton.

14.  But the question today is which precedent should govern today — Tammany Hall and Bush v. Gore, or one person, one vote? The framers left the electors free to choose.

15.  They should exercise that choice by leaving the election as the people decided it: in Clinton’s favor.

Thanks for stopping by and keep your fingers crossed that the Jill Stein re-count uncovers something historically important. Stay tuned.

President Trump Can't Have Conflicts of Interest: But, What About Donald Trump, Jr.

Don't Look So Surprised. It Was Just Routine Family Business

(No biggie)

How to “de-tail” an Elephant

(No, not the GOP one)

Introduction to a very disturbing story from the Daily Beast:

Donald Trump’s eldest son held a private meeting with pro-Russian diplomats, businessmen, and politicians in Paris last month, the Wall Street Journal reports,

According to people who took part in the October 11 meetings, the cabal focused on finding a way to cooperate with the Russian government to end the ongoing war in Syria. The event was held at the Ritz Paris, included 30 attendees, and was hosted by a French think tank whose founder’s wife is a Syrian-born leader of a Syrian opposition group endorsed by the Kremlin.

The WSJ raised this critical point and folks, this is serious stuff despite your political view and party loyalties:

“The disclosure of a meeting between the younger Mr. Trump and pro-Russia figures — even if not Russian government officials — poses new questions about contacts between the president-elect, his family and foreign powers. It is also likely to heighten focus on the elder Mr. Trump’s stated desire to cooperate with the Kremlin once in office.”

The whole article is here.

WASHINGTON (The AP via the WSJ): Donald Trump’s eldest son, emerging as a potential envoy for the president-elect, held private discussions with diplomats, businessmen and politicians in Paris last month that focused in part on finding a way to cooperate with Russia to end the war in Syria, according to people who took part in the meetings.

Thirty people, including Donald Trump Jr., attended the Oct. 11 event at the Ritz Paris, which was hosted by a French think tank. The founder of the think tank, Fabien Baussart, and his wife, Randa Kassis, have worked closely with Russia to try to end the conflict. Ms. Kassis, who was born in Syria, is a leader of a Syrian opposition group endorsed by the Kremlin. The group wants a political transition in Syria — but in cooperation with President Bashar al-Assad, Moscow’s close ally.

The disclosure of a meeting between the younger Mr. Trump and pro-Russia figures — even if not Russian government officials — poses new questions about contacts between the president-elect, his family and foreign powers. It is also likely to heighten focus on the elder Mr. Trump’s stated desire to cooperate with the Kremlin once in office.

In an interview, Ms. Kassis said she pressed the younger Mr. Trump during the meeting on the importance of cooperating with the Russians in the Middle East. “We have to be realistic. Who’s on the ground in Syria? Not the U.S., not France,” Ms. Kassis said from Moscow. “Without Russia, we can’t have any solution in Syria.” Of the president-elect’s son, she said: “I think he’s very pragmatic and is flexible.”  Ms. Kassis later posted comments on her Facebook page about the meeting:

“[Syria’s] opposition got hope that [the] political process will move forward and Russia and the United States will reach accord on the issue of the Syrian crisis, because of Trump’s victory,” she wrote. “Such hope and belief is the result of my personal meeting with Donald Trump junior in Paris in October.”

She added on Facebook that, through the talks with Donald Trump Jr., she believed she succeeded in conveying to the elder Mr. Trump “the idea of how we can cooperate together.”

NOW THE BULLSHIT FROM HERE:

Kellyanne Conway, a senior adviser to the president-elect, confirmed the younger Mr. Trump’s attendance at the event in Paris. But she played down his direct contact with Ms. Kassis saying in an email: 

“Don was addressing a roundtable in Paris, and she was present for that talk and at a group dinner for 30 people. This event featured a number of opinion leaders from all over the world who were interested in the U.S. elections.”

Trump repeatedly has stressed his desire to work closely with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Syria and to coordinate in fighting the Islamic State terrorist group. His position on Russia emerged as a campaign issue, and Mrs. Clinton called the Republican a “puppet” of Mr. Putin which Trump denied that accusation.

The Obama administration said it believed the Russian government hacked the emails of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee in a bid to aid Trump, which Moscow denied, and despite a formal U.S. intelligence assessment accusing the Russians, Trump maintained that the U.S. didn’t know who the hackers were. Additionally, Trump spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, denied a Russian official’s claim that there had been contact between the campaign and the Russian government.

The Obama administration terminated talks with Russia over Syria last month due to a Russian-backed bombing campaign in Aleppo, the country’s largest city.

The younger Mr. Trump, the executive vice president of The Trump Organization, was a top official in his father’s campaign. Transition officials say none of the Trump children will have formal positions in the new administration, but haven’t ruled out informal roles for them.

Ivanka Trump has sat in on her father’s meetings and phone calls with several world leaders since his election, including one with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

The elder Mr. Trump has criticized the Obama administration for seeking to topple Mr. Assad, arguing that doing so could further strengthen Islamic State and other terrorist groups. The president-elect has argued that allying with Russia, which has deployed its air force to bolster Mr. Assad, was the best option for reducing the terrorist threat emanating from the Middle East country.

Mikhail Bogdanov, deputy head of Russia’s foreign ministry, said last week that Moscow had been reaching out to the elder Mr. Trump’s team to discuss Syria, according to Russian news agency Interfax.

Ms. Kassis, in the interview, said at the October meeting she discussed with the younger Mr. Trump the importance of promoting a secular government in Damascus. She echoed an argument made both by the Assad regime and the Russian government, saying Syria’s armed opposition — even those backed by U.S. forces — are radical Islamists.

Interfax reported that a meeting between Ms. Kassis and Mr. Bogdanov took place on Nov. 8, but the report didn’t mention the younger Mr. Trump. “Randa Kassis has played a key role in Russian efforts to bring together Assad regime elements and opposition members acceptable to Moscow,” said Andrew Tabler of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which has been critical of Mr. Obama’s Syria policy. 

Mr. Tabler has regularly talked to Russian officials about the conflict. “Such efforts have been key to Moscow’s approach to making Assad the basis for a transition in Syria.”

President Assad, in an interview last week with Portuguese television, said the elder Mr. Trump was potentially a “natural ally” in the Damascus regime’s fight against the rebel armies.

As I said, very serious stuff ... I'm sure more will fall out as we go down this line.

Award for Biggest Lie “Build the wall and have Mexico pay for it” — The envelope, please

Yeah, green light. Go ahead. I'll take care of the bill with Mexico

(Money pending in Congress) 

Here, my final design – go with this

(Bigger, nicer than China. Much bigger, better, prettier, dynamic)

TRUMP TO WALL OUT ANYONE NOT TO HIS LIKING…!!! 

NOW THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE DEAL FROM THE TRUMP TOWER COLLECTION. THE GO AHEAD WAS GIVEN ON NOVEMBER 8, 2016:

SHORT INTRODUCTION: Note this headlines analysis on November 7, 2016: “6 Questions We'll Be Asking As Presidential Election Results Roll In.” And, FROM NPR no less.

Boy did they and everyone else in between get this election outcome 180° dead wrong… how and why are two imperatives that will be asked for years to come, and especially regarding this post’s subject for today: 

THE TRUMP WALL (and get Mexico to pay for it)…

Mexico seems to be on the losing side of the US presidential election, since incoming President Donald Trump has threatened to wall off America’s southern neighbor and demand concessions in order to continue as a favored trading partner.

Whoa, wait a minute, wait a frickin' minute:

Trump’s policies could have unanticipated upsides for Mexico as well.

If Trump builds his beloved wall, for instance, it will require around 7 million cubic meters of concrete and 2.4 million tons of cement (Investment firm Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. estimates).

Guess who produces just those materials, and all in the vicinity of the Rio Grande?

BINGO #1: Most cement producers in North America are Mexican, thus as an infrastructure program, Trump’s wall could boost the Mexican economy and thereby benefit Mexican companies.

KICKER #1:  In the world of cement producers, Mexico’s CEMEX ranks 7^th largest and BTW, there are no American companies among the top 20 ranked at all.

NEGATIVE PLUS: Trump has protectionist ambitions and could decree that all cement poured for his Wall has to be American.

BINGO #2: Yep, CEMEX has extensive U.S. operations, with dozens of plans throughout the country that employs more than 10,000. So, with a Trump Wall huge economic opportunities exist for cement producers.

TRUMP DOOR #1 He could find a way to exclude Mexico’s CEMEX and other suppliers who are outside the U.S. from any contracting of The Wall, but that would be depriving their American employees of work. Or, not.

TRUMP DOOR #2:  If all the contracting went to firms with an American operations only, then those companies might be unable to fill orders for other clients, thus ending up giving companies like CEMEX to fill the gap and yep, you got it, more jobs for Mexico. Keep in mind that when global demand for anything goes up, it almost always benefits the sellers because firms hate to add costs when any bump in demand is temporary and building the wall would be that case: build it and move on and demand for cement/concrete drops tremendously. So those firms could ramp up production as much as possible at facilities already online, even if it allows competitors (i.e., CEMEX to snatch part of the pie).

Most analysts estimate that the Trump Wall enhancement portion to those that already exist for the nearly 2,000-mile border with Mexico could cost as much as $25 BILLION (yes, with a capital “B”).

Concrete, made of cement, would by far be the cheapest and most likely material.

That massive project could boost cement demand currently growing around 4% per year by one full percentage point once construction started. That’s a big jump for a mature industry in a slow-growing global economy.

KICKER #2: Since cement is costly to ship, it would make sense to source it as close to the border as possible. Ego: CEMEX has many facilities in the region that fit that profile — on both sides of the border – as do smaller American producers such as Cal Portland and Alamo Cement Company.

IRONY #1:  “As ludicrous as the Trump Wall project sounds to millions of Americans,” Bernstein wrote in their July report, “it does represent a huge opportunity for those American companies.” (I add: See, we created jobs, too, will say the Trumpettes).

Mexico could benefit from Trump’s punitive impulses in at least one other way.

The country’s currency, the peso hit record lows after Trump’s win, on the expectation that money could flow out of Mexico if Trump’s new policies harm its ability to export.

Yet a falling peso could actually boost Mexico’s economy, since it makes Mexican exports to other countries cheaper. The dollar strengthened after Trump’s win, by contrast, which makes American exports more expensive.

When a currency plunges because of some external shock, as just happened in Mexico, that’s not necessarily a net gain, since the shock itself could harm the economy more than a cheaper peso helps.

But if the peso were to stabilize at a lower level, Mexico would benefit. “The gradual depreciation doesn’t have to be problematic,” says Behravesh. “A longer-run depreciation of the peso would be good for exports.”

That may not help, of course, if Mexico finds the United States — its biggest trading partner, by far — closed for business.

That would harm many U.S. companies as well, and throw supply chains for the auto sector and other industries into turmoil. Trade is complicated, and Trump seems bound to discover that the old adage about the devilish details is truer than ever.

Stay tuned… it will get very, very ugly.

MEMO to Speaker Ryan and Sen. Leader McConnell: “The wall bill is in mail to you. I guess we have to call it, what, um… IOU from Mexico until they fork over the Pesos now that the work has started. Anyway, you guys work out the details. And, give Bannon and Ivanka a heads up, okay.” — /s/ D.T.

My campaign promise for a wall to the public:

Thanks for stopping by (one heluva story isn’t it) – oh BTW: why didn’t Trump put all this into perspective before the election? Oh, yeah right: “He did say he would surprise us later.”

F/N: Trump has worldwide licenses for others to build and use his name. How many Trump Towers are there around the Globe? Figure it out and count them here.

Trump Transition Team Turmoil: The Apprentice, Part II — Bottom of the Barrel — Hey, Look Here

Trump on the Job Seeking Cabinet & Department Heads 

For Secretary of State 

(Has 47% support, too)

WTF: Seriously considering me? Wow

Rick “Oops” Perry as FDR 

(imagine that)

Headlines from the UK (Daily Mail) selective ones for the blog today:

1.  This weekend Trump is planning to meet with GOP 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney in New Jersey as NBC reported Trump was considering Romney for Secretary of State (Romney famously spoke out in early March, urging Republicans not to nominate Trump calling him a “'phony and fraud.” Adding: “His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He's playing members of the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House, and all we get is a lousy hat).

Trump for his part ridiculed Romney as a “choker” during his own presidential campaign for having failed to bet President Obama. 

2.  South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley also touted for State (Haley bashed the “angriest” voices in party, primarily aimed at Trump). * CNN broke the news that Trump would be meeting with the ex-Massachusetts governor over the weekend in Bedminster, NJ, site of a Trump golf course where he also plans to head for more meetings. (Also, Haley’s voting record and stance on issues can be seen here).  

3.  Former Texas governor Rick Perry touted for Energy Department Secretary (Perry had extensive dealings with big oil and gas and legal issues while he was Gov. of Texas).

NBC also reported that the position the two men were set to discuss was secretary of state, citing a source “familiar with Trump's thinking.”

Folks it don’t get any better than this. Trump is not only reaching for straws to learn about even the most basics of government, but he is reaching near the bottom of the proverbial barrel to that end. Boy, what a show.

I expect Dick Cheney and Karl Rove to show up at any minute to try and salvage this mess.

Noteworthy: Will Trump always hold meeting and such at his resort areas? Hey, just asking… maybe a tax write-off or 1040 deduction of some sort? Just guessing.

Boy, what a show – stay tuned for Act II and III as we head toward January 20^th.

Trump on Fixing Immigration: A Hard Lesson in Our History to Learn First and Fast

Where Do You and Your Ancestors Fit in This Picture

Immigration and Trump-Pence vs. the Public's Best Interest

The New Man at The Center of The Old Fire Storm 

Quite a long post, but needs to be said. Re: The following is from the NY Times … eye opener Trump would not have much state or local support to help him “deport” 2-3 million immigrants that he described in his 60 Minutes interview with Stahl (see his quote below):

During the 60-minutes interview Trump softened on his stance to secure the border with a much-ballyhooed wall, but he renewed his campaign pledge to kick out undocumented immigrants — starting with those who have committed crimes.

“What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably 2 million, it could be even 3 million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate. But we’re getting them out of our country, they’re here illegally.” Then he said added the punch line: “After that we secure the border and make a determination on the millions of others here illegally.”

THIS IS NOT NEW POLICY – CURRENTLY IT IS WHAT WE DO. Mr. Obama’s record on illegals:

When it comes to getting tough on immigration, Republican candidates talk the talk, but Obama walks the walk. President Obama has removed or returned NOT “deported” more people than any U.S. president before him, and almost more than every other president combined from the 20th century.

Immigration-flow numbers are staggering in both directions. In 2014, it’s estimated that more than 200,000 Central Americans tried to immigrate to the United States without documentation. The Obama government has been deporting them as fast as it can.

Since coming to office in 2009, Obama’s government has removed or returned NOT “deported” more than 2.5 million people — that is up 23% from the George W. Bush 8 years. More precisely, Mr. Obama is now on pace to removed or return NOT “deport” more people than the sum of all 19 presidents who governed the United States from 1892-2000 and that is according to official government data (122 page report FYI).

TIDBIT: The governments of El Salvador and Guatemala are warning Central American immigrants living in the United States to use their peepholes and not open their doors to unknown solicitors or even friendly looking government agents without a warrant. 

NOW THE POLITICAL STUNTS: The use of the word “deportation.” In actuality, that word and category has been obsolete in immigration law since 1996.

Prior to 1996, immigration law distinguished between immigrants who were “excluded,” or stopped and prevented from entering U.S. territory, and those who were “deported,” or expelled after they had made their way into U.S. territory.

After 1996, both exclusion and deportation were rolled into one procedure called “removal.” At that point, the term “deportation” no longer had any meaning within the official immigration statistics. Its continued use in media reports is part of the confusion and political raw meat sound-bites (sounds strong and decisive).

The large number of immigrants who are apprehended, usually but not exclusively along the southwestern border, and prevented from entering the country were part of a category called “voluntary departure” before 2006. Now that is called “return,” which also includes the subcategory of “reinstatement.”  There is also a large category of “expedited removals” of persons that do not appear before an immigration judge but the procedure carries all the sanctions as a judge ordered removal.

These would-be immigrants accept this sanction that forgoes a court appearance before an immigration judge because formal removal — in which the U.S. government runs them through legal proceedings and pays for their return to their home country — would result in a multi-year bar (five to 20 years) on their eligibility to legally reenter the United States. Critics deride this policy “as catch and release.” The consequences of a return are much less harsh than a formal removal because the returned immigrant could come back legally, and presumably illegally, at any time.

Thus, comparing the deportation statistics across different presidential administrations is dicey because it is unclear what categories of people are actually being counted and categorized. Moreover, different administrations choose to emphasize different statistics.

The Bush administration seems to have reported removals and returns together, but Obama’s administration has emphasized only its number of removals.

Meanwhile, many media reports continue to use the term “deportation” when they mean either return or removal or some subset of those. 

DHS issues official statistics and has to try make new legal categories fit old data, and even it cannot excise the term deportation altogether because pre-1996, there were, in fact, deportations.

If you combine the Obama’s return and removal numbers, he is well over the controversial 2 million mark. This confusion enables political spin if you want to portray Obama as weak on enforcement, use the removal numbers, which, compared to his predecessors, are lower. If you want to make Obama look tougher on enforcement, combine the return and removal numbers like Bush apparently did, or use the now meaningless “deportation,” both would conflate return and removal — and boost the overall number of expulsions. 

NOW THE REALITY OF TRUMP AND ‘DEPORTING’ 2-3 million:  “What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably 2 million, it could be even 3 million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate. But we’re getting them out of our country, they’re here illegally.” Then he said added the punch line: “After that we secure the border and make a determination on the millions of others here illegally.”

In Zadvydas vs. Davis (June 28, 2001), the Supreme Court ruled that the United States can hold convicted criminals only for 180 days if a country refuses to take them back. A must read case, has Trump read it? Doubtful…

In the FY-15, 2,166 individuals were released after being held for more than 180 days. Legally, the Secretary of State is required to stop giving visas to immigrants or non-immigrants after being notified the country is hindering the accepting of one of its citizens. That has only happened once: 2001 against Guyana.

According to ICE statistics, 19,723 people living in the U.S. were convicted of a combined 64,197 crimes in 2015. The data notes that the number of convictions is higher than the number of illegal immigrants because one illegal immigrant may have more than one conviction. The top three types of convictions for people living here illegally are traffic or drug-related offenses.

Driving under the influence, traffic offenses, and the use, sale or possession of illegal drugs account for almost half, 30,104, of all convictions. Violent offenses make up a smaller percentage of all convictions, but still, add up. There were 1,728 assault convictions, 1,347 domestic violence and 101 homicide convictions, among people living here illegally, according to ICE.

Crimes by Undocumented Living Here: Out of all convictions for anyone known to be in the U.S. illegally in 2015: 101 were for homicide; and more than 30,000 were for traffic or drug-related offenses.

Great reference to see what President Obama has done vs. what the GOP refuses to do, and will/maybe get worse under Trump-Pence ... time will tell on that. But this is interesting to recall also:

Great Ending to this Post: Every president since President Eisenhower has taken action to address immigration issues. As a result, many more immigrants have come, stayed, and contributed to the strength of the United States. Since the founding of our nation, the strength America draws from generations of immigrants is a fact that’s woven deeply into the fabric of our history.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER February 8, 1956:  “Throughout our history, immigration to this land has contributed greatly to the strength and character of our Republic. Over the years we have provided for such immigration because it has been to our own national interest that we do so. It is no less to our national interest that we do so under laws that operate equitably.”

JOHN F. KENNEDY 1959: “The contribution of immigrants can be seen in every aspect of our national life. We see it in religion, in business, in the arts, in education, even in athletics and in entertainment. There is no part of our nation that has not been touched by our immigrant background.”

LYNDON B. JOHNSON October 2, 1965:  “Our beautiful America was built by a nation of strangers. From a hundred different places or more they have poured forth into an empty land, joining and blending in one mighty and irresistible tide. The land flourished because it was fed from so many sources — because it was nourished by so many cultures and traditions and peoples.”

RICHARD NIXON September 26, 1972:  “America is a rich mosaic of many cultures and traditions, strong in its diversity. Each new immigrant has added another piece to the mosaic of American life — a fresh perspective and a fresh appreciation of what it means to be an American.”

GERALD FORD December  2, 1974:  “Each new wave of pioneers and immigrants had to build a place for themselves and add their individual contributions to this new life. ”

JIMMY CARTER October  27, 1976:  “We become not a melting pot but a beautiful mosaic. Different people, different beliefs, different yearnings, different hopes, different dreams. ”

RONALD REAGAN July 20, 1981:  “Our nation is a nation of immigrants. More than any other country, our strength comes from our own immigrant heritage and our capacity to welcome those from other lands. No free and prosperous nation can by itself accommodate all those who seek a better life or flee persecution.”

GEORGE H. W. BUSH January 31, 1990:  “Our nation is the enduring dream of every immigrant who ever set foot on these shores, and the millions still struggling to be free. This nation, this idea called America, was and always will be a new world — our new world.”

BILL CLINTON June 13, 1998:  “More than any other nation on Earth, America has constantly drawn strength and spirit from wave after wave of immigrants… Bearing different memories, honoring different heritages, they have strengthened our economy, enriched our culture, renewed our promise of freedom and opportunity for all.”

GEORGE W. BUSH July 24, 2006:  “It says something about our country that people around the world are willing to leave their homes and leave their families and risk everything to come to America. Their talent and hard work and love of freedom have helped make America the leader of the world. And our generation will ensure that America remains a beacon of liberty and the most hopeful society this world has ever known.”

BARACK OBAMA January 29, 2013:  “We define ourselves as a nation of immigrants. That’s who we are — in our bones. The promise we see in those who come here from every corner of the globe, that’s always been one of our greatest strengths. It keeps our workforce young. It keeps our country on the cutting edge. And it’s helped build the greatest economic engine the world has ever known.”

President-elect Donald J. Trump, all the time: “Get the f**k out and stay out, and now, Mexico pay up for this damn Wall.” 

So, will Trump take and learn lessons from our great history? My hunch, probably not. It’s not in his DNA or character.

Thanks for stopping by and as always stay tuned.

Abolish, Ban, Cut, Deep Six, Dismantle, Reduce, Shït Can, Toss Public Programs to Save GOP Money

GOP is Apt to Start With These 15 Department and Relentless

Settle Down: “I'm in complete control here.”

I have set our path, so set your GPS

Wait, watch, and wonder at the number of Federal departments, Agencies, and Employees that will be eliminated, dismantled, downsized, not fully funded, or otherwise reduced beyond effectiveness or just plain shit-canned. Top of the GOP list:

1.  EPA

2.  IRS

3.  Education

4.  Energy

5.  HUD

6.  Commerce

7.  Interior

8.  VA

Hint: Appease GOP pals and their most financial interests (e.g., gas, oil, energy, voucher crowd, charter school advocates, tax auditors – note: Trump will love this one), close the public “free stuff” teat system, get the bums off the streets and demand they work or starve or stay sick, put more armed police on the streets to enforce everything forthcoming, put land back in the hands of private entities who want to drill, baby drill, exploit to the fullest, and privatize everything insight anyway they choose and can get away with.

Then just sit back and watch the PAC checks roll in and just in time for the next mid-term election cycle to help push for a larger GOP majority. And, then repeat those steps.

So, that leaves the other 7 departments for the Trump family to run for their personal pleasure and enrichment.

I have to ask: Why do so many want to get into government on their various pledges to help and serve and then do precisely the opposite, i.e., inflict pain and agony and harm with very little if any good.

Think I'm kidding? I am not want to kid about these matters. As I said, wait and watch.

The Electoral College Once Again Fails the Voter and the “One-Man/One-Vote Principle”

Like Saying: “I voted for the candidate I want, but got a delegate I don't know.”

Electoral College (EC) system vs. Popular Vote system – a short summary from here and then my post-election issue: Call to repeal the 12^th Amendment to get rid of the EC once and for all … consider this:

Related and important to this discussion:

A Donald Trump presidency would by most accounts, pose a grave threat to marginalized people and to the truth. His campaign has been characterized by racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and fact free bombast. However, he is correct about one thing (albeit for all the wrong reasons): The system is rigged.

Would not we better off if we simply abandoned the EC altogether and joined the majority of the world's nations that employ a free, open, and unmediated political engagement that arises from a direct, popular and democratic vote rather that any scenario that we could face? 

I say the bottom is that all that is highly unlikely … and history supports what I surmise now again in 2016: Hillary won the popular vote but loses the election and this is a 4^th time in American history – last was in 2000 in Bush-Gore.

Please read the PBS news hour special (link next below). It is an excellent review of what we have today and how it all came about. Plus, is makes perfect sense to get rid of the EC. To me it hard to comprehend why everyone can't agree on that for logical reasons, including to really make your one vote count directly for whom you want to win.

Commentary: Why the Electoral College System Makes Little Sense Today

As I note above, our motto should be changed from One-man/One-vote to: “I voted for the candidate I wanted to win, but got a delegate I don't even know.” 

How can that be fair? In a word, it is not. Maybe is was way back before it was added in 1804, but certainly not in this or the last century… time to repeal it. Period.

Related: Countries “more democratic than we are and that rely on a direct popular vote to elect their presidents and prime ministers rather the EC system we still cling to, include the likes of Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, Colombia,  Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, France, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Liberia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Maldives, Mexico, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Palau, the Palestinian National Authority, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, Serbia, Slovenia, ROK, Taiwan, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Impressive list, isn’t it?

On the flip side of that, note: There are only five other countries beside us that use an indirect election, or something similar to our EC model: Estonia, Germany, India, Pakistan, and Suriname. Are you surprised by that company we keep? I was.

The EC Amendment says in part: “If the House fails to select a president by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President-elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.” While the House has never been called upon to select a president, the Senate has, in the past, intervened to approve a VP.

This has only happened once and that was in 1836, DEM Martin Van Buren secured enough EC votes to become president, but his running mate, Richard M. Johnson, fell one vote shy of the mark. Johnson had to face off against Francis Granger, a Republican, who was the VP choice on the Whig Party ticket. However, further complicating that matter, the Whig Party was split that year, so Granger's name appeared as VP on two presidential tickets; one for Whig candidate William Henry Harrison and another for Whig candidate Daniel Webster. Ultimately, in the only “contingent election” American history, Johnson was chosen to serve as Van Buren's VP by a Senate vote of 33-16.

The B/L: The Electoral College system has outlived its time, and it’s time to repeal that XII Amendment and bury it wherever repealed amendments go to R.I.P.

If such an action were to pass public scrutiny, and I strongly believe it can, it would as the main article states clearly: “If the Electoral College system wasn’t in the Constitution, it would almost certainly be struck down as unconstitutional because the apportionment of electoral votes violates the principle of one-person, one-vote.” 

(That principle was established by this ruling from Cornell Law in 1964 and it was a smart and wise principle). 

Why politicians today cannot grasp that concept is beyond me – oh, yeah, the status quo protects their safe seat or better yet, it protects their asses, and that my friends is the worst part.

In summary I say, let’s make this a huge campaign issue during the 2018 mid-term congressional cycle and force a play in the same or a new congress. It will take time, for sure, but it will I believe be popular all across the land and national support on a wide scale. Making our vote count for the person we vote for and not an unknown delegate make perfect sense. .

Thanks for stopping by and if all possible join this crusade, it is worthwhile.