Trump to Federal Employees: No Pay Raises for You Only Big Tax Breaks for Very Richest

Memo to hard-working Federal employees in all Departments

(Don’t like it, tough doo-doo, then quit)

Great news for the government workforce as we head into this Labor Day weekend from Trump reported on by the AP:

Trump informed Congress today (Thursday, August 30) that he is canceling pay raises due in January for most civilian federal employees — then Trump cited budget constraints, however, workers still could see a slightly smaller boost in their pay under a proposal lawmakers are considering.

Trump said he was axing a 2.1% across-the-board raise for most workers as well as locality pay increases averaging 25.7 percent and costing $25 billion.

Unions representing the 2 million-member federal workforce urged Congress to pass the 1.9 percent pay raise under this Trump threat to cut it 100%.

(I Note: Locality pay helps cover the cost of all Federal workers living in high-cost areas of the country – it is NOT for everyone – only those in select locations).

Trump says: “We must maintain efforts to put our Nation on a fiscally sustainable course, and Federal agency budgets cannot sustain such increases.”

(I Note: Trump last year signed a package of tax cuts that is forecast to expand the deficit by about $1.5 trillion over 10 years – and now he is worried about costs to government workers).

Trump cited the “significant” cost of employing federal workers as justification for denying the pay increases, and called for Federal worker pay to be based on performance and structured toward recruiting, retaining and rewarding “high-performing Federal employees, and those with critical skill sets.”

(I Note: Mr. Trump – you need to check with OPM and see the rules re: pay for yourself).

More:

“President Trump’s plan to freeze wages for these patriotic workers next year ignores the fact that they are worse off today financially than they were at the start of the decade,” said J. David Cox Sr., president of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents some 700,000 federal workers. 

He added:  Federal worker pay and benefits have been cut by more than $200 billion since 2011, and workers are currently earning 5 percent less than they did at the start of the decade.

Background – lest we forget: In July, the Trump administration sharply revised upward its deficit estimates compared to the estimates in the budget proposal it sent Congress in February – and it is worse.

The worsening deficit reflects the impact of the $1.5 trillion, 10-year tax cut, as well as increased spending for the military and domestic programs that Congress approved earlier this year. 

The administration’s July budget update projected a deficit of $890 million for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, up from the February estimate of $873 billion. 

The $890 billion deficit projection represents a 34 percent increase from the $666 billion deficit the government recorded in 2017. 

For 2019, the administration is projecting the deficit will once again top $1 trillion and stay at that level for the next three years.

(I Note: The only other period when the federal government ran deficits above $1 trillion was the four years from 2009 through 2012, when the government used tax cuts and increased spending to combat the 2008 fiscal crisis and the worst economic downturn since the 1930s).

Members of congress like Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA), who represent many Federal workers, blame Trump and his mismanagement of federal government, and seem to be saying: 

“The Trump-GOP tax bill exploded the deficit, and now he is concerned about that and wants to balance the budget on the backs of Federal workers saying things are too costly – that is except the tax cut for the top crust he gave and the exploding deficit he set in place. Now it seems that the budget/spending too much that the GOP traditionally fight does not matter and sky-high deficits don’t matter, either – wow what a change in philosophy. Ergo: No sweat, just pass the damage inflicted to the taxpayer – just get them to fork over more of their benefits?”

My 2 cents: Trump is bad news for the country this move proves it without any doubt. Imagine if Trump were able to do this with private industry — the shape of the country then? Oh, I bet he still dishes out White House pay raises, however, right?

Time to wake up from this horrible nightmare, Mr. and Mrs. America.

Thanks for stopping by.

Who is the Most-Deplorable Today: Easy Peasy Trump Organization & Trump Empire, Inc.

How to rate this right wing talking point designed to keep hatred alive

CLAIM FROM HERE: Speaking at the University of California Berkeley in May 2018, Hillary Clinton warned about “Trump deplorables calling them the biggest threats to America.”

RATING: 

FALSE

Why is this rated false? Simple: Hillary Clinton never said this, and in fact she was nowhere near UC Berkeley in May 2018 or any other time that month at all. She didn’t speak at Berkeley in May 2018 and there no public records of her, or anyone else, making that statement anywhere at any time, either.

The quotation in fact appears to have been fabricated from scratch by “America’s Last Line of Defense,” a Facebook page run by Christopher Blair, a notorious purveyor of what Trump calls “Fake News” who uses several pseudonyms and operates a network of web sites including: “As American As Apple Pie” and “Freedum Junkshun,” all of which claim to they produce “Satire.” 

Case closed, except for Trump and his “deplorables” who will believe anything Trump says, mostly lies BTW, and anything else is just as he says: “Fake News or a Hoax, or a Witch Hunt.” The truth and facts don’t matter with them. This example proves that once again. Don’t believe me – just listen to your local radio right wing Talk Show. That topic comes up all the time when Trump needs to be fluffed and defended – which is almost daily. 

So, how and when did Clinton actually use that word: “deplorables?” Seen here from TIME (September 10, 2016) is her full statement on how and when that word was used and in the full context. Then her apology for being grossly too general. But, no one around Trump (and especially Trump himself) ever accepts any apology from anyone. It’s easier to pick and choose sound bites and run with them, just like this example. 

To me, that is both deplorable and flat out wrong. 

Thanks for stopping by.

How Will Trump Handle This Possible Invalid Naturalized Citizen: Revoke and Deport Him

The recently-naturalized citizen is Melania Trump's father 

(Seems his background in Slovenia may be in question)

This is a pretty big story – huge in fact – here from the Daily Beast:

Will Trump explore this person's police background and revoke his recent U.S. citizenship for possibly lying on his application -- we need to know and we need to know post haste - don't we? Oh, wait, it's Melania's daddy ... oops....!!!

At a time when people are being denied U.S. citizenship because of their pasts (e.g., lying on their citizenship applications about their past), the case of Viktor Knavs (Melania Trump’s father) — and his record in Yugoslavia’s secret police files — a very interesting story.

The lead-in:

LJUBLJANA, Slovenia — One day not long ago Melania Trump’s biographer in her Slovenian homeland, politician and author Igor Omerza, was flipping through hundreds of thousands of names on “UDBA Net.”  

That is an online database of the secret police archives of Communist Yugoslavia before the country came apart in the 1990s, which is when Slovenia won its independence.

Among the IDs that appeared there, one name jumped out: Viktor Knavs, with the same birthday, parents, and hometown as the father of Melania Trump, and he just became a naturalized American citizen.

The entry was cryptic, as such things are, but it noted “the person is registered in the criminal record” and cited articles 226 and 235 of the Yugoslav penal code.

Read the rest of the story for more details. Very interesting to say the least.

My 2 cents: There is no indication of any charge, any investigation, or a conviction, one way or the other – ergo: this requires more investigation – ASAP. 

We need not jump to any conclusion about Mr. Knavs, but we do need the full and complete story in light of the Trump administration moves to strip citizenship from any with a criminal past and possibly lied to gain their American citizenship. 

Footnote: Now we get to watch the Trump W/H dance around this story – so stay tuned. 

And thanks for stopping by.

Trump on Top with His Hands Full and the Heat is On: Does He Care — Probably Not Much

Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal - Summer Zervos in pursuit 

(Two paid off - others lining up)

Opinion piece, yes it is and from the NY TIMES, who Trump and his loyalists hate with an ugliness, and then to see it written by Charles Blow who many also dislike, well just call that double jeopardy. 

Put those two things aside. It’s the contents of article that makes a lot of sense and food for thought. Here from the article is this logical question Blow asks right up front:

“How many people from Donald Trump’s campaign and inner circle have to confess to crimes or be convicted of them before it is clear to everyone — Republicans especially — that the campaign was guided by criminals, if not was a criminal enterprise itself?”

The conviction of Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and the guilty plea by Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen provide the utmost amplification of this reality.

But it was Cohen’s implication of Trump in a felonious conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws (“hush” money paid to Stormy Daniels and then to Karen McDougal) that kicks the national crisis through which we are suffering up another level.

This accusation cries out for a congressional inquiry, and not the sham, partisan, joke investigation that the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee conducted into Russian meddling. We need to know if the president broke the law and did so for his own benefit to influence the election.

But that would require some sense of courage and patriotism among Republicans in Congress, and those qualities have been severely lacking.

This fine piece continues at the link:

My 2 cents: Trump paid off Daniels to keep her quiet ($130,000), then paid off McDougal to keep her quiet, too ($150,000), and now he is going to get sued by Summer Zervos and other women following this recent story and court ruling. 

Get ready to see the Trump 3-D movie script kick into high gear: “Duck, Dodge, and Deny.” 

Plus, S/C Mueller keeps on ticking and we are apt to see whole lot more – e.g., even involving resolution vis-à-vis Trump, Jr., Jared Kushner, and of course Manafort re: that June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower with the Russian lawyer to “get dirt on Hillary Clinton” and Jr. said if true, “I love it.” 

So, this is a very long road continues. When and where will it end? That Remains to be seen. 

Stay tuned, and thanks for stopping by.

Obama Bashing and History Twisting: GOP Diversion Tactics Vis-à-Vis the Facts, Reality & Truth

Modified version today that mimics the 1984 version

This post today is for all the rightwing-conservative Talk Radio, FOX (Hannity, et al), Alex Jones, Roger Stone, and Mark Levin type supporters. 

The following answers you on-going question when you blast across the airwaves 24/7 your hatred for former president Obama. The details below answer your hateful bashing, and is comes from NPR (February 21, 2018):

You all Ask: Why didn't former President Barack Obama stop Russia's campaign of active measures against the 2016 presidential campaign?

Here, I’ll set the scene: Ever since he was elected and even before, Trump has cast the blame on Obama for not acting against the scheme even after his own DOJ and S/C Robert Mueller brought indictments against a batch of Russians and Russians for the role they played.

Fact Check: This story is complex and goes beyond a simple “True or False” grade. One basic notion that is false is the idea the Obama administration took no action — it did. The question that has been asked many times since the presidential election is why it didn't do more.

Private warnings: Among other things, top U.S. intelligence officials — including then-CIA Director John Brennan — privately warned their Russian counterparts not to persist with their active measures. Obama himself told Russian President Vladimir Putin not to interfere in the election. These warnings did not work.

Publicity: Obama administration officials also told reporters on background that Russian intelligence operatives were behind the cyberattacks that led to the release of emails stolen from political figures and institutions. Later, the DNI James Clapper and DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson formally blamed the Russian government in an official statement. Although it wasn't universally accepted (officially that early on in 2016 when discovered), the active measures campaign became a part of the political campaign itself. Trump and opponent Hillary Clinton many times traded barbs about the Russian interference during their 2016 debates.

Trump has gone back and forth about what he accepts and what he doesn't about the nature of the attack.

Sometimes he acknowledges it; other times he has cited the denials he has gotten from Putin, saying: “I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it.”

Trump’s position since the Russian indictments has been that the interference campaign did take place — but that he and his campaign had nothing to do with it. 

On that point, Trump has been consistent when he says: “No collusion.”

Mueller is focused on whether that is so and whether Trump may have broken the law if he tried to frustrate the investigation. More on this below.

So why didn't Obama's administration do more at the first sign of interference? That isn't clear. Some former administration officials who have talked about it publicly have reproached themselves for not acting more aggressively. There also was a long-standing criticism of Obama that his foreign-policy making amounted to endless process with no outcomes — hours of meetings that yielded more meetings but no ultimate action. 

Plus, the relationship between the United States and Russia is multifaceted and often intensely complicated:

1.  Obama scaled back missile defense plans in Europe to placate Moscow.

2.  Obama wanted Russia to play a role in the international agreement under which Iran agreed to restrict its nuclear program — and Putin went along.

3.  Obama spent the end of his presidency trying to bring Russia into a multilateral agreement to end the Syrian civil war, but Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov ultimately never committed.

So Obama's team had to manage many spinning plates in addition to the active measures campaign it detected by the middle of 2016. One question Obama may address in his book is why he calibrated his choices in the way he did — whether he looked the other way on election interference to keep open other options elsewhere.

A partisan tightrope: Even former VP Joe Biden complained that the White House wanted Republicans to join in a bipartisan statement announcing and condemning the interference campaign, he also said that GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) wouldn't go along.

However, that didn't stop then-DEM Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) from alluding publicly to the Russian campaign in a letter to then-FBI Director James Comey. 

Comey then wanted to announce the active measures in an op-ed column, as Newsweek reported in March 2017, but two sources with knowledge about that aspect told Newsweek that Obama administration officials blocked the effort by Comey to do that.

There is no way to know what difference it might have made for U.S. officials to have confirmed and condemned the Russian interference in real time during the election and Obama administration officials have said all along that they worried about appearing to put their thumb on the scale for Hillary Clinton. That was also combined with Obama's belief that Clinton would win simply appears to have been: “Let's ride this out until the election is over.”

Thus, he was in the proverbial “Catch-22” spot: The hacking was real, the evidence was mounting (but early in 2016 cycle the depth was not entirely known) and Obama, rightly so, did not want to come across as officially trying to sway the election in Hillary Clinton’s favor by exposing he Russians without hard extensive evidence that could or would or might have made an impact. It was best at the time as he said: “Just ride it out and then take action.”

Key Part:  After the election (December 9, 2016) Obama did order the Intelligence Community (IC) to issue a public report about the Russian scheme.

The IC did on January 6, 2017 when they announced and concluded that Russia's attack was aimed at helping Trump and hurting Clinton.

At that point, Mr. Obama imposed a slate of punitive measures against Moscow.

In addition to imposing the new sanctions, Obama expelled a number of Russian diplomats and closed two Russian diplomatic compounds in Maryland and New York. (But, the GOP and Trump never give him credit for that as they keep up their “Obama bashing campaign.”

Obama himself (on December 16,  2016) said he wasn't convinced that he should have done anything different, saying: “There have been folks out there who suggest somehow if we went out there and made big announcements and thumped our chests about a bunch of stuff that somehow it would potentially spook the Russians. I think it doesn't read the thought process in Russia very well.”

As stated above, the IC did make an assessment about how the active measures campaign affected the 2016 election and did so after the election – which was the fair thing to do. Yet, Trump and his supporters keep saying incorrectly that the report found there was no effect on the election –however, the fact is that the IC report did not even address that question – so the point is moot. DHS officials concluded that the cyberattacks did not tamper with the actual vote tallies – and that’s is good thing to see that the systems are basically tamper-proof.

Here is a short (46 second video clip) from the Trump-Clinton debate on October 19, 2016 discussing the Russian interference and hacking. While Clinton is talking Trump’s expression is priceless:

Who's the puppet???

My 2 cents: I’ll close with that – suffice it to say the GOP Obama bashing on whole is way off – but even the facts as stated above are enough to persuade them otherwise – they have a one-track mind – that is to hate everything about Obama and keep on bashing and erasing him at all costs – and over time, be assured, it will cost us all plenty.

Thanks for stopping by.

Trade & Tariffs: Misunderstood by Trump, Poorly Run by T/A Navarro, and Ripped by John Oliver

Trump's Trade and Tariff Triad Team

(Lost in Space)

Okay for all the Trump loyalists who still worship at the Alter of his trade and tariff policy listen up.

This class is a “Basic trade and tariff 101.” 

It clearly shows the absolute zero, nothing, nada, nil, zilch, goose egg knowledge depth of the man who self-proclaims himself to be: “The smartest business man and negotiator ever” and in his own words.

The rebuttal to Trump and his trade guru Peter Navarro is in the video, and boy is it a keeper – perhaps the best ever from John Oliver.

It is proof positive that the two of them are dumber than twin door knobs.

Note the key parts of the video are in fact in Trump and Navarro’s own words:

Enjoy and thanks for stopping by, even if you already saw the Oliver show, enjoy once again.

Like the Music Album Title: The Hits Just Keep on Comin' — Trump Lies Just Keep on Comin'

The list of his lies is slightly longer than his neckties

Introduction: All of that which follows reinforces and proves more so again much of the entire world already knows about Donald J. Trump that is this: He is nothing but one huge gigantic liar and he has been all his life and this has been his strategy in life and now while in the White House. 

That strategy is to Lie, and worse, to know it’s a lie. Yet he expects his base or anyone listening to fall for it, believe it, and run with it. If they do not and show it’s a lies, he calls them out with a nasty new name or if it’s reported, call it: “Fake news, a Hoax, or a Witch Hunt.” 

Then he moves on to the next whopper; each time getting bigger or reinforcing the last lie. Do, say, try, lie, imply, or deny anything to benefit himself and his global-sized ego. 

A Memo to Kellyanne Conway and Rudy Giuliani: There is no such thing as “Alternative Facts,” or the “Truth is not the Truth” — both in a word are BS…!!!

The story that follows is a major updated and carefully documented trail of Trump whoppers and no, not BK kind, either. It is an excellent record that shows by any accounting or measuring device that Trump is the very worse president ever in our entire nation’s history, hands down the worst.

Here is that excellent article from those whom Trump calls “the failed NY TIMES” – I assure anyone that the Times may be a lot of things, but failed is not even anywhere even close to that list about being “failed.”

This Times story lead-in: The federal investigation into whether Russia actively sought to help Donald J. Trump win the White House in 2016 has been hanging over his head since even before the election. 

As president, he has repeatedly criticized the special counsel inquiry and has questioned whether it is the best use of time and taxpayer funds. Some of the criticism has amounted to presidential opinion — like in calling James Comey “the worst FBI director in history.” 

On Twitter alone, he has used the words “witch hunt” in over 100 posts.  “That whole situation is a rigged witch hunt,” Mr. Trump told reporters at the White House. “It’s a totally rigged deal. They should be looking at the other side.”

But hundreds of other statements, since Mr. Trump’s inauguration, included bold assertions about the Russia investigation that have demanded being fact checked. 

The total list follows here at the link. It is keeper for sure. Check it out. 

Closely related story here from the AP via U.S. NEWS. 

Thanks for stopping.

Trump Sets the Nixon-era Stage: For Impeachment, Resignation, or Who Knows What Else

Trump's “Enemies List” revenge to silence those who criticize him

(No other reason just raw spite and abuse of power)

Trump’s “Enemies List” scoreboard for surely it is: 1 down – 9 to go…

Great rundown from WTOP (Washington’s Top News) in part):

Trump has acted on a threat to revoke the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan, citing a constitutional responsibility to protect classified information. Brennan, who served in the Obama administration, had become an increasingly sharp critic of Trump’s. 

Trump also says he is reviewing security clearances for nine other individuals. Some have been publicly critical of the president, while others are linked to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference, which Trump calls “a witch hunt.” 

The 10 individuals, their backgrounds, and notes on each:

JOHN BRENNAN: In a written statement, Trump cited “erratic conduct and behavior” by President Barack Obama’s CIA director as justification for revoking Brennan’s security clearance. Trump also accused Brennan of “lying” and “wild outbursts.” At a news conference last month in Finland, Trump stood alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin and openly questioned U.S. intelligence agencies’ conclusions that Moscow tried to influence the 2016 election in his favor. Afterward, Brennan criticized Trump’s performance as “nothing short of treasonous” and accused him of being “wholly in the pocket of Putin.”

Brennan has sense tweeted his response to Trump’s decision to revoke his security clearance: “This action is part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech & punish critics. It should gravely worry all Americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of speaking out. My principles are worth far more than clearances. I will not relent.”

Others listed at the linked site.

FYI to this story and the question raised from the Washington Post: What does Brennan or other former officials he need a security clearance for anyway? 

He no longer works for the government. Why does he need access to government secrets? 

A: When senior officials leave government — on good terms there has been an informal standard of continuing to grant clearance for the rest of their careers. Those clearances go through a review process every five years. 

More examples and answers to a lot of questions people are asking at the linked story about this issue — a good read — check it out.

My 2 cents: Good for Mr. Brennan, others, and growing number of people chiming in about this latest madness from Trump – for surely it is both mad and madness as never before (except may way back with Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre.”

Recall that was when Nixon in October 1973 fired Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, and after anger from others, he accepted the resignations of AG Elliot Richardson and Deputy AG William Ruckelshaus.

Under pressure and the House impeachment proceedings, Nixon resigned, and rightly so. 

Now, here we go again today with massive abuse of power by Trump who is trying any way he can to stop free speech from critics and ultimately stop the Mueller investigation, therefore blocking the truth from prevailing. Just like Nixon attempted and failed, so will Trump fail. Why?

If Trump is innocent as he professes, then why all these steps to show guilt? Just let play out – oh, I see, he is guilty…. Oops. 

It's just like Trump's hush money: It is not used to hide a lie - it is paid to conceal the truth.

Stay tuned.

Thanks for stopping by.

Trump Continues Harsh Actions: Against U.S. Allies, Friends, and Partners to Get His Way

Trump road trip message for U.S. allies and partners 

(Get in line with me or say bye, bye)

My introduction to the story posted below: As we all know by now Trump will use any tactic or method or threat to get his and even if he does not get his way, he will still “claim victory.” 

That is his M.O. and has been all his life. He does not hesitate to bash friendly ally, or partner, and close friend, either (e.g., threats to NATO and the EU if they don’t pay more for U.S. security; threats to greatly reduce U.S. Forces in Korea just to appease Kim, Jung-un; threat to the UK to follow him on his Iranian policy stance or to suffer trade and business repercussions; the mess with Turkey still brewing; and, now this latest Trump move against another ally, Pakistan, as seen in the story that follows:

WASHINGTON, DC (from Reuters) – The Trump administration has quietly started cutting scores of Pakistani officers from a coveted training and educational programs that have been a hallmark of bilateral military relations between the U.S. and our allied military for more than a decade. Highlights from the Reuters story is also seen in their video report at the first 1:15 seconds about Pakistan [click the link below to see the video]:

https://www.reuters.tv/v/PpgF/2018/08/13/u-s-cuts-pakistan-from-elite-military-training

The move impacting Pakistan and which has not been previously reported the suspension of Pakistan from the U.S. program – the International Military Education and Training program (*IMET) — now closing off seats that had been set aside for 66 Pakistani officers this year (announcement by a State Department spokesperson to Reuters).

Why is Trump doing this? Simple: He again uses our programs to punish an ally to get them in line and on board for anything he wants them to do or agree to do. 

In this case, he wants to compel them to crack down on Islamic militants which he says they are not doing enough.

The Pentagon and the Pakistani military did not comment directly on this decision or the internal deliberations, but officials from both countries have privately criticized the move as a bad move. 

For example, some U.S. officials speaking to Reuters on the condition of anonymity, said they were worried the decision could undermine a key trust-building measure, e.g., Dan Feldman, former U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, called the move “very short-sighted and myopic (shortsighted),” adding: “This will have lasting negative impacts limiting the bilateral relationship well into the future.” 

Some Pakistani officials warned it could push their military to further look to China or Russia for leadership training.

My 2 cents: That possible aspect of Pakistan looking to China or Russia for their military officer’s leadership training is very worrisome – why?

What would they teach? Obviously anti-American tactics and approaches to dealing with us from the Chinese or Russian playbook. That outcome is not pretty since now up to this point, we and our allies have all shared the same unity playbook while dealing with both China and Russia or other adversaries around the globe. 

Thus, this is indeed a very crappy move by Trump. And, worse, Trump apparently does not take advice from senior military officers and DOD or State officials about stopping this program for Pakistan – it is not a good move, period.

*IMET (International Military Education and Training) is the title of a U.S. security assistance program – foreign officer student exchange program.

Congress established the IMET program in the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976. The policies are directed by the State Department and the constituent projects are administered by DOD.

Projects include, but are not limited to:

1. Invitations for officers from foreign countries to attend various military schools in the United States: the Army War College, or the National Defense University.

2. Also, it provides funding for U.S. trainers to travel to foreign countries to provide specific and localized training such as English language classes, training with human rights concepts, and the law of war.

A complete list of topics varies by year, and may encompass several hundred distinct courses [click here to see the list].

Trump in a word has no idea how to be president – only how to be a strong-arm thug and bully to get his way via his so-called “Art of the Deal” or more apt that I call it: “Art of the Con.”

Thanks for stopping by.