Paul Krugman: Trump Does Not Deserve Credit For "Booming Economy"

 This is an article by Paul Krugman, published in The New York Times on August 25, 2020, entitled "Republicans, businesspeople, and other bad economists":

The U.S. economy just experienced the worst slump in its history. It has partially bounced back, but employment and output are still far lower than they were at the beginning of the year. Furthermore, early data suggest that the partial recovery has slowed if not stalled, and there will be widespread distress soon as expanded unemployment benefits run out.

Yet Donald Trump still, according to most surveys, has a net positive rating on the economy. How is that possible?

Before I get there, a few points on why giving Trump positive marks on the economy is absurd.

First, a picture. Here’s total employment since the end of the 2007-9 recession, which was brought on by the collapse of the Bush-era housing bubble and the financial disruption that followed. As you can see, there was steady growth under Barack Obama, but with the election of Trump … absolutely nothing happened. The trend continued as before, and nothing in the economic data would lead you to suspect that there had been any change in management.

In 2017, nothing happenedBureau of Labor Statistics

The only change came with the coronavirus, about that more in a minute.

Second, the key point about Trump’s economic policy was that mostly he didn’t have one. Oh, he got us into a trade war with China, which seems to have had some negative effect on manufacturing. And he passed a huge tax cut for corporations, which basically seems to have, well, cut corporate taxes; there was no sign of an acceleration in investment, productivity, or anything else.

Continue reading the main sto

Now, there was a huge policy response to the coronavirus: The CARES Act, which greatly cushioned the blow by expanding unemployment benefits. But that was basically a Democratic bill, designed by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, that Republicans let by because they didn’t have any better ideas.

And when key provisions of the CARES Act expired at the end of last month, Trump responded with some executive orders that seem likely to do almost nothing to alleviate a sharp increase in hardship.

So what, exactly, are voters approving of?

Part of the answer is that the G.O.P. is still the party of big business and the wealthy, and the general public suffers from the persistent delusion that people who can run businesses and/or make a lot of money for themselves also know how to run an economy.

Continue reading the main st

The truth is that the knowledge and talents required for, say, being a successful CEO are very different from those required to make good economic policy. Corporations are command-and-control organizations in which executives can tell subordinates what to do; market economies aren’t. Corporations compete with each other, while countries mostly don’t, because they are their own main customers — my spending is your income, and your spending is my income. So the principles of good economic policy are nothing at all like the principles of good management, which is why even genuinely great businessmen like Herbert Hoover have made terrible economic leaders.

And don’t tell anyone, but Donald Trump is not, in fact, a great businessman.

I also suspect that there’s a form of media bias here that isn’t explicitly partisan but has the same practical effect. Where, after all, does economic policy get discussed most? In business publications, on TV shows catering to business audiences, and so on. And these venues naturally give more credence to politicians who praise business and promise to cut rich peoples’ taxes. So an innumerate Ayn Rand fanboy like Paul Ryan was long the darling of business media, while an infinitely more knowledgeable figure like Elizabeth Warren can barely get a word in edgewise.

So I’m disappointed but not surprised that Trump is still getting much better marks than he deserves on the economy. And I’ll be equally disappointed but not surprised if Joe Biden gets much less credit than he deserves if, as seems likely, he gets the chance to clean up Trump’s mess.

Senate Intelligence Committee: Russia Meddling In 2016 Election

The following is information concerning the release of a report by the Senate Intelligence Committee.  This committee is bipartisan, chaired by Republican Marco Rubio. In addition to Rubio and Vice Chairman Mark Warner (Democrat), there are 7 Republican and 6 Democratic members of the committee: Republicans Richard Burr, James Risch, Susan Collins, Roy Blunt, Tom Cotton, John Cornyn, and Ben Sasse; and Democrats Dianne Feinstein, Ron Wyden, Martin Heinrich, Angus King (Independent), Kamala Harris, and Michael Bennet, Colorado.

Here is the statement released on August 18, 2020:

Miami, FL — U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Acting Chairman Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-VA) released the fifth and final volume of the Committee’s bipartisan Russia investigation titled, “Volume 5: Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities,” which examines Russia’s attempts to gain influence in the American political system during the 2016 elections.

Rubio released the following statement and a video message, which is available for download here:

“Over the last three years, the Senate Intelligence Committee conducted a bipartisan and thorough investigation into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election and undermine our democracy. We interviewed over 200 witnesses and reviewed over one million pages of documents. No probe into this matter has been more exhaustive.

“We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election.

“What the Committee did find however is very troubling. We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling. And we discovered deeply troubling actions taken by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, particularly their acceptance and willingness to rely on the ‘Steele Dossier’ without verifying its methodology or sourcing. 

“Now, as we head towards the 2020 elections, China and Iran have joined Russia in attempts to disrupt our democracy, exacerbate societal divisions, and sow doubts about the legitimacy and integrity of our institutions, our electoral process and our republic.

“We must do better in 2020. The Committee’s five reports detail the signs and symptoms of that interference and show us how to protect campaigns, state and local entities, our public discourse, and our democratic institutions. I join with Vice Chairman Warner in urging everyone — our colleagues, those in the Administration, state and local elections officials, the media, and the American public — to read them and take the recommendations seriously.”

You can read “Volume 5: Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities” here.

Key Findings:

• The Committee found that the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

• WikiLeaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian influence campaign and very likely knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence influence effort.

• The FBI gave the Steele Dossier unjustified credence, based on an incomplete understanding of Steele’s past reporting record. The FBI used the dossier in a FISA application and renewals, and advocated for it to be included in the Intelligence Community Assessment before taking the necessary steps to validate assumptions about Steele’s credibility.  

• The FBI lacked a formal or considered process for escalating their warnings about the Democratic National Committee (DNC) hack within the organization of the DNC.

• The Committee assesses that at least two participants in a June 9, 2016, meeting with Trump Campaign officials, Natalia Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin, have significant connections to the Russian government, including the Russian intelligence services.  The Committee, however, found no reliable evidence that information of benefit to the Campaign was transmitted at the meeting, or that then-candidate Trump had foreknowledge of the meeting.

• The Committee found no evidence that anyone associated with the Trump Campaign had any substantive private conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the April 27, 2016, Trump speech held at the Mayflower Hotel.

• Paul Manafort’s presence on the Trump Campaign and proximity to then-Candidate Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign.

• George Papadopoulos was not a witting cooptee of the Russian intelligence services, but nonetheless presented a prime intelligence target and potential vector for malign Russian influence.

• Russia took advantage of members of the Transition Team’s relative inexperience in government, opposition to Obama Administration policies, and Trump’s desire to deepen ties with Russia to pursue unofficial channels through which Russia could conduct diplomacy.

Read the Senate Intelligence Committee’s previous reports:

• “Volume I: Russian Efforts Against Election Infrastructure”
• “Volume II: Russia’s Use of Social Media”
• “Volume III: U.S. Government Response to Russian Activities”
• “Volume IV: Review of the Intelligence Community Assessment”
• Additional declassifications of “Volume IV: Review of Intelligence Community Assessment”

GOP, Cult Of Personality

Well, the Republican National Committee has made it official: They're a cult of personality.

Every (normal) year, the two major parties get a committee together that hammers out a party platform: a formal set of principal goals which are supported by the party. This year, the Democratic party did so, as usual; Google "2020 Democratic Party Platform" if you want to look at the 92-page PDF. It's a useful process, since competing wings of the party have to come up with a compromise document that will satisfy the party generally. 

The Republicans, on the other hand, have taken a different approach this year. They can't possibly agree on any part of a platform -- health care, immigration, the economy, climate change, foreign policy, trade policy -- literally anything. Why not? Because they have no idea where Trump stands on any of these issues today -- and even if they knew, chances are excellent he'll take a different position tomorrow.

So instead of coming up with a platform, they have instead essentially thrown up their hands and said, "BE IT RESOLVED THAT: We pledge allegiance to our Glorious Leader, Trump the Magnificent, and will do whatever he wants. Oh, and if you want to bring up an amendment to this resolution, fuhgeddaboudit."

 Here's the text of the document:

WHEREAS, the media has outrageously misrepresented the implications of the RNC not adopting a new platform in 2020 and continues to engage in misleading advocacy for the failed policies of the Obama-Biden Administration, rather than providing the public with unbiased reporting of facts; and

WHEREAS, The RNC enthusiastically supports President Trump and continues to reject the policy positions of the Obama-Biden Administration, as well as those espoused by the Democratic National Committee today; therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President's America-first agenda;

RESOVLVED, That the 2020 Republican National Convention will adjourn without adopting a new platform until the 2024 Republican National Convention;

RESOLVED, That the 2020 Republican National Convention calls on the media to engage in accurate and unbiased reporting, especially as it relates to the strong support of the RNC for President Trump and his Administration; and

RESOLVED, That any motion to amend the 2016 Platform or to adopt a new platform, including any motion to suspend the procedures that will allow doing so, will be ruled out of order.

They All Knew.

They all knew: 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1296881001168158720 

Q: How do you sleep at night? 

A: Booze and pills.

A Modern History of the NRA

New York Attorney General Letitia James has launched a lawsuit to disband the National Rifle Association (NRA). Here is a summary of how the NRA became what it is today, from Heather Cox Richardson's newsletter, "Letters from an American":

The NRA was chartered in New York in 1871, in part to improve the marksmanship of Americans who might be called on to fight another war, and in part to promote in America the British sport of elite shooting. By the 1920s, rifle shooting was a popular sport.

In the 1930s, amid fears of organized crime, the NRA backed federal legislation to limit concealed weapons, prevent possession by criminals, the mentally ill and children, to require all dealers to be licensed, and to require background checks before delivery. NRA officers insisted on the right of citizens to own rifles and handguns, but worked hard to distinguish between, on the one hand, law-abiding citizens who should have access to guns for hunting and target shooting and protection, and on the other hand, criminals and mentally ill people, who should not. The NRA backed the 1934 National Firearms Act, and parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act, designed to stop what seemed to be America’s hurtle toward violence in that turbulent decade.

But in the mid-1970s, a faction in the NRA forced the organization away from sports and toward opposing “gun control.” It formed a political action committee in 1975, and two years later elected a president who abandoned sporting culture and focused instead on “gun rights.”

The NRA had gone into politics. Its officials now opposed all limits on gun ownership, even though basic safety measures have always been popular, even within the NRA’s own membership. In 1980, the NRA endorsed a presidential candidate for the first time ever, standing behind Ronald Reagan. Now a player in national politics, the NRA was awash in money from gun and ammunition manufacturers. By 2000, the NRA was one of the three most powerful lobbies in Washington. It spent more than $40 million on the 2008 election.

In 2016, donations to the NRA jumped sharply. While in 2012, it spent $9 million, and in 2014 it spent $13 million, in 2016, it spent more than $50 million on Republican candidates, including more than $30 million on Trump’s effort to win the White House. This money was vital to Trump, since many other Republican super PACs refused to back him. The NRA spent more money on Trump than any other outside group, including the leading Trump super PAC, which spent $20.3 million.

In February 2018, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, Ron Wyden (D-OR), began an investigation of the NRA, its donors, and its role in the 2016 election.

On July 15, 2018, the federal government arrested Russian national Maria Butina and charged her with “conspiracy to act as an agent of the Russian Federation within the United States without prior registration.” Butina and Russian government official Alexander Torshin began coming to the U.S. for NRA events in 2014. Butina moved to the U.S. in 2016 on a student visa, intending to gain access to the American political system through the NRA and to push U.S. policy closer to Russian interests.

Butina became romantically involved with Republican political operative Paul Erickson, who had worked for Republican insurgent candidate Pat Buchanan in 1992, was friends with criminal lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and later represented John Wayne Bobbitt in media deals after Bobbitt’s wife Lorena cut off his penis with a kitchen knife. (Surgeons reattached it.)

Erickson promised to help Butina gain access to Republican lawmakers. When federal investigators began to monitor Butina, he came to their attention, and they discovered his businesses were designed to defraud investors. In November 2019, Erickson pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering in an unrelated case. Last month, he was sentenced to seven years in federal prison.

But when their NRA scheme was still intact, Butina and Torshin attended NRA annual meetings and other NRA events at the invitation of its leaders, who invited the two to events like the National Prayer Breakfast, where they could meet Republican lawmakers. In turn, Butina and Torshin invited NRA leaders to Moscow, where they met with leaders who promised lucrative business opportunities with Russian oligarchs, including the opportunity to produce weapons for the Russian military. Some of the Russians they met were under sanctions from the U.S. government.

In April 2019, Butina pleaded guilty to working as a foreign agent without registering with the U.S. Department of Justice. She was sentenced to 18 months in prison, a sentence Russian President Vladimir Putin, who insisted she was being railroaded, called “arbitrary.” In September 2019, the Democrats on the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance outlined the work of Butina and Torshin in the U.S., and called the NRA “a foreign asset.”

Butina served 15 months in the Tallahassee Federal Correction Institution before being deported to Moscow. Reporters from RT, the state-sponsored Russian media outlet, traveled on the plane with her. Supporters greeted her at the Moscow airport with flowers and cheers, giving her a hero’s welcome. Once back in Moscow, she said she had been pressured to plead guilty to a crime, but all she was doing was “hosting friendship dinners.” Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for Russia's Foreign Ministry, told ABC News: “the only thing she was doing was supporting bilateral relationship and friendship between peoples. ... She did nothing wrong, absolutely nothing wrong.”

There is at least some reason to wonder if the sudden jump in NRA donations in 2016 had something to do with the Russian oligarchs who were talking with its leaders. When Senator Wyden requested information about their donors, NRA leaders stated categorically they did not accept money from “foreign persons or entities in connection with United States elections,” which is illegal. But then they said it had, in fact, accepted less than $1000 from Torshin, for a membership. And then they told Wyden that it had actually taken money from 25 Russian individuals for memberships or magazine subscriptions, totaling about $2512.85.

This last letter to the senator concluded, “We believe this and our previous letters have provided enough information to address any legitimate concerns about these issues. Therefore, given the extraordinarily time-consuming and burdensome nature of your requests, we must respectfully decline to engage in this beyond the clear answers we have already provided.” Wyden noted that “the notion that all of these important oligarchs who had involvement with the N.R.A. and were close to Putin were spending money on a few magazine subscriptions doesn’t strike me as very plausible.”

The lawsuit announced this morning concerned a different kind of NRA spending. For six and a half years, NRA leaders have misspent funds, lavishing the money of the nonprofit organization on their own lifestyles. In 2015, the NRA had a surplus of almost $28 million. By 2018, it was running a $36 million deficit. This spending came to light after Republican operative Oliver North, a key player in the Iran-Contra Scandal, became president of the organization in September 2018. In April 2019, North called for an investigation into the NRA’s finances and asked longtime chief executive of the organization Wayne LaPierre to resign. LaPierre responded that North was trying to get him out of the organization by threatening to release “damaging” information about him. North resigned.

Now New York Attorney General Letitia James has taken up the issue. She sued LaPierre. She also sued John Frazer, the organization’s general counsel; Josh Powell, a former top lieutenant of LaPierre; and Wilson Phillips, a former chief financial officer. Their trips to the Bahamas, Nieman Marcus clothing, and nights at the Four Season cost the organization $64 million over the past three years. James wants to bar all four men from running non-profits in New York in the future. “It’s clear that the NRA has been failing to carry out its stated mission for many, many years and instead has operated as a breeding ground for greed, abuse and brazen illegality,” James said. “Enough was enough. We needed to step in and dissolve this corporation.”

As James announced her lawsuit, the Washington D.C. Attorney General, Karl Racine, sued NRA Foundation, the organization’s charitable arm that teaches, for example, firearm safety, say it has been diverting funds to the NRA to pay for top official’s spending sprees.

The NRA immediately countersued, claiming James’s lawsuit was about politics, not the law, and that James is violating the First Amendment to the Constitution, which mandates that the government must not hamper free speech. Mr. LaPierre said: “This is an unconstitutional, premeditated attack aiming to dismantle and destroy the N.R.A. — the fiercest defender of America’s freedom at the ballot box for decades. We’re ready for the fight. Bring it on.”

Asked to comment, Trump said “That’s a very terrible thing that just happened. I think the NRA should move to Texas and lead a very good and beautiful life.”

Trump Apologizes!