Monthly Archives: February 2018

American EXCEPT-tionalism

Politics
Barack Obama doesn’t believe in an exceptional America. If you go back 70 years … you’ll find presidents of both parties, from FDR and Harry Truman and Jack Kennedy to [Richard] Nixon and [Ronald] Reagan and the Bushes and forward … shared a basic fundamental proposition.  [That is] that the U.S. did have a role to play in the world as an exceptional nation. Barack Obama clearly doesn’t believe that.
~Dick Cheney, September 2, 2015

 

In a 2015 interview with Texas businessman Jim McIngvale at a Tea Party event, Donald Trump was asked to define “American Exceptionalism.”  He responded by saying he did not particularly like the term.  “Perhaps that’s because I don’t have a very big ego, and I don’t need terms like that.”  (No laugh-track required.)

As we now know, Trump was right.  The global view of American exceptionalism has all but vanished, replaced by American irrelevancy.  While the rest of the  world is forging alliances around climate change and trade, America sits on the sidelines.  Instead, there is a new definition of American exceptionalism, the belief in almost anything EXCEPT when it applies to Trump and his supporters. Consider the following examples.

Mishandling classified information is “extremely careless” EXCEPT when it is delivered directly to the Russian ambassador in the Oval Office.

Americans need to show more respect to law enforcement officials EXCEPT when the International Association of Chiefs of Police push for an extension of the assault weapon ban stating it had proved “remarkably effective in reducing the number of crimes involving assault weapons.  Since 1994 (until the ban expired in 2004), the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes has fallen by a dramatic 66 percent.” (Source:  IACP President Joseph Polisar, Police Chief Magazine)

The need to protect the sanctity of the voting process as evidenced by the creation of the non-defunct Commission on Voter Fraud EXCEPT when it is under attack from a foreign adversary as determined by a unanimous consensus of the nation’s intelligence community.

Trump and his minions oppose any increase in spending that might raise the national debt EXCEPT when it applied to a $1.5 trillion tax cut (regardless of the beneficiaries) and a proposed $680 billion unpaid for increase in defense spending.

The belief that states should be allowed to establish their own definitions of “religious freedom” and moral conduct EXCEPT when it comes to the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana.

Repeating a mantra of “free enterprise” and “competition” EXCEPT when it applies to the ability of near monopoly internet service providers to control traffic over the information super-highway.

Remember, in January 2016, Trump said, “We have a president that can’t get anything done, so he just keeps signing executive orders all over the place.” That would make sense EXCEPT for the 58 executive orders he has signed since January 20, 2017 including ones that reduce environmental regulations, changing the order of succession in the Department of Justice, banning transgender Americans from serving in the military, making exceptions to ethics requirements for White House staff, a Muslim ban on entry into the U.S., revoking federal contracting requirements and promoting free speech (unless you do not clap at the emperor’s every word) and religious freedom (unless you choose not to say Merry Christmas 12 months a year). [HISTORICAL FOOTNOTE: Over the same period in his administration Obama issued 22 executive orders, the first two of which tightened ethics requirements on White House staff and increased access to public records.]

And finally and most recently, Trump spent much of the 2016 campaign decrying federal spending “waste, fraud and abuse all over the place” EXCEPT when it applies to staging a military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue.

If American EXCEPT-tionalism is the order of the day, I believe every citizen has the right to follow the same principle.  Therefore, I will continue to respect the “Office of the President” regardless of the individual who occupies the White House EXCEPT when such occupant is a lying, narcissistic, homophobic, xenophobic, racist, cowardly, treasonous, self-serving sexual predator.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Fee-FISA-Fo-Fum

Media

 

Magicians must love the mainstream media.  Magic depends on misdirection.  “LOOK HERE!  Because we don’t want you to watch what we are doing OVER THERE!”  If and when there is a second sequel to the film Now You See Me, the “Four Horsemen” will be played by Donald Trump, Devin Nunes, Paul Ryan and Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Their latest act is the release of a memo which suggests the FBI and Department of Justice tricked the judges charged under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to issue a warrant to listen into conversations of Carter Page, a one-time foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign.  And right on cue, most media outlooks assumed the purpose of their performance was to discredit individuals associated with the investigation into Russian meddling into the 2016 elections.  All afternoon, the question on cable news and in digital editions of virtually every newspaper was, “Will Donald Trump use the memo to justify firing Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel?  And by extension, name a new deputy attorney general who will shut down the investigation?”

Yet everyone admits there is nothing in the memo which incriminates either Rosenstein or Mueller.  The target of the memo is the FISA warrant itself.  C’mon folks.  All of the cable news networks have very qualified legal correspondents with years of experience as prosecutors and/or defense lawyers.  What do you do when the opposition has a “smoking gun?”  You attempt to discredit the evidence in hopes the jury will never see it.

This was not the White House’s first attempt to cast a shadow over the entire FISA process.  On January 11, 2018, Trump tweeted:

House votes on controversial FISA ACT today. This is the act that may have been used, with the help of the discredited and phony Dossier, to so badly surveil and abuse the Trump Campaign by the previous administration and others.

I will admit I have no hard evidence for what I am about to suggest except what has been reported about how Trump spends his so-called “executive time.”  CNN reported on January 17, 2018, “executive time” is spent largely talking on the phone with advisors, lawmakers and staff.  Axios reporter Jonathan Swan described “executive time” as a rebranding of the mornings Trump spends in the residence (rather than the Oval Office) watching TV, tweeting and making phone calls.

One thing we have learned from presidential historians, the occupant of the White House does not change patterns of behavior on inauguration day.  They tend to conduct business in the same manner in which they behaved in their former lives.  Therefore, “executive time” was most likely something Trump did in his private life and as a candidate.  Which leads to only one conclusion.

There are two types of people in Washington this morning.  Those claiming the original FISA warrant and the three renewals were politically motivated and, this is key, have NOT seen the underlying documentation.  This includes Devin Nunes.  And those who suggest the memo is inaccurate and (drum role) actually have the security clearance to have read that documentation.

Remember, the impetus for the warrant was partially evidence from U.S. and foreign intelligence sources that Americans were intercepted talking to Russians who were under surveillance.  The FISA warrant allowed direct surveillance of Carter Page, including conversations with other Americans.  Individuals who have seen the warrant and possibly some of the products of the subsequent surveillance, know who is has been on the other end of Page’s conversations.  One can only guess who those individuals might be.  But if any are either members of the Trump campaign or Donald, himself, as his defense attorney, I would do whatever I could to ensure that evidence never sees the light of day.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Why We Need the CFPB

Economics

 

I know, there are many more important things to write about this morning, but I needed to share my interactions with J.P. Morgan Chase bank over the last 24 hours.  Especially, on a day when the Trump administration stripped the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unit of its enforcement powers to pursue discrimination in lending cases.  This move follows a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to reject the administration’s claim the Bureau’s regulatory powers were unconstitutional.  You have to hand it to Trump and his hench-persons (though they seem to largely be white males).  They are persistent.  If they fail to undermine the law one way, they will just find another method of achieving their goal.

Back to my story.  Yesterday morning, I submitted an on-line transfer of excess funds in my Chase (no-interest) checking account to a (barely-interest) savings account in another bank.  Upon completing the transaction, I received an e-mail from Chase affirming it.  End of story?  If only.

Around 7:00 pm last night I received a call from someone claiming to be from Chase Bank who needed to verify I had submitted the transfer.  Keep in mind he called me on the phone number that is tagged to the account for the past six years.  But “for my security,” he asked me to give him:

  • The account number on the ATM/Cash Card associated with the account.
  • The expiration date on the card.
  • My ATM pin number.

When I reminded him his bank had sent me numerous security alerts to NEVER give that kind of information to a stranger, I also said I was willing to give him any other information to verify my identity.  He said the requested information was the ONLY method they accepted.  At which point, I said I am sorry but I would deal with the bank in the morning.

At 7:41 pm, I received the following email from Chase Online Banking Support.

We’ve sent an important communication to your Secure Message Center, available on Chase Online or on the Chase Mobile app.
The subject is: Transfer Cancelled
You can sign in to review this communication in your Secure Message Center until 05/02/2018.

This morning when I tried to log in to my account, I received a message that the account had been blocked and was given a phone number to talk with customer service.  After listening to the menu of actions totally unrelated to my issue, I finally got an agent who had to transfer me to another agent.  That was no surprise.  What came next was.

The second agent said that in order to verify my identity, he was going to send me a code via text that I needed to read back to him.  Okay, they have a phone number for me.  But NO, he asked me to which number I would like him to send the code.  At this point, I asked him to start recording our conversation, in case it was not already being monitored.  I gave him a number not tagged to the account.  He sent me the code.  I read it back.  And he said, “Good, how can I help you?”  My response.

You realize what just happened.  I called you.  I just gave you a phone number, which you have no idea whether it belongs to the actual person listed on the account.  You sent me a code.  I read it back.  And now I can direct you to do something with my account?  You have my social security number, my address, my date of birth, the answer to three secret questions and this is what you do to protect me.  I am not blaming you, but this is why I wanted the conversation recorded.

But just to make sure I understand.  If I had fraudulently scheduled smaller transfers over several days, you would be fine with that.

He admitted that was probably true and then unblocked my account and offered to reinstate the transfer.  I could not let this moment pass.  I thanked him, but asked him NOT to reinstate the transfer, explaining that based on their security measures I was no longer confident I was the person who initiated the transfer.  I could be anybody.

And Donald Trump and Mike Mulvaney do not believe we need regulatory oversight of financial institutions.  Just saying.

POSTSCRIPT/DO THE MATH

While we are on financial topics, let me take this opportunity to share what I believe is one more example of collusion, except this time it is between the Trump Administration and its donors.  On Wednesday, Lowes announced it was joining the list of company who are distributing bonuses (up to $1,000) to hourly employees because of the Republican tax cuts.  Sounds great, right?  Just a minute.  Here are the facts.

  • It is a one-time bonus.
  • The bonus varies depending on full- versus part-time work and length of service.  Only full-time employees with 20+ years of service will receive the full $1,000.  (How many of those do you think there are?)   A full-time employee with less than two years service will receive $150.  (CNBC, January 31, 2018)
  • The average hourly wage for customer service associate is $11.56.  A sales associate makes $11.70/hour.
  • The total hours worked each year by a full-time employee equals 2080.  If Lowes had raised salaries by just one dollar, each full-time employee would receive an additional $2,080 EVERY year, not a one-time bonus.  Remember that full-time employee with less than two years of service.  His $150 bonus is the equivalent of a $0.07/hour raise.
  • If Lowes used its reduced tax liability to start paying a living wage of $15.00/hour, a full-time sales associate would receive an annual salary increase of $6,864.
  • In anticipation of the tax cuts, Lowes raised the annual dividend on its stock from $1.40/share to $1.64/share.
  • So, if I owned 10,000 shares of Lowes stock, I would receive an increased dividend of $2,400 in 2018 (2.4 times the amount of a one-time benefit for a full-time salaried worker with 20+ years service).
  • The single largest shareholder of Lowes stock is a Vanguard Index fund with over 20 million shares.  Participants in that fund will receive an INCREASE of $4.8 million in dividends next year and likely every subsequent year.
  • Oh, I forgot, those qualified dividends will be tax free.  Heaven forbid, the bonus recipients have a household income over $24,000/year.  They will owe both income tax and employment taxes (FICA and Medicare) on their largesse.

So much for the middle class and workers being the primary beneficiaries of the tax cuts.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP