Mediaboss Marketing

The late William Safire said that as a speechwriter for Richard Nixon, he would sometimes urge the president, "Take the easy way!" Nixon could then give a speech saying he had rejected advice from his aides to take the easy way, preferring to do what was right.

Politicians may pretend to make hard choices, but they rarely do. Those in office now won't be inspired to heroic deeds by the failure to repeal Obamacare. Just the opposite.

The lesson of this episode is that it's hard to reach agreement on taking things away from the voters. The corollary is that it's easy to reach agreement on giving things to the voters. The obvious next step is a fiscal binge that serves the selfish interests of everyone except posterity.

Here's how it may play out: Congressional Republicans pass tax cuts. Democrats join them on a big infrastructure bill. President Donald Trump's proposed spending cuts come to little or nothing. The deficit balloons, and not many people in Washington care.

Robert Bixby, executive director of The Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan budget watchdog, tells me, "There's a political logic to it: 'You get what you want. We get what we want. And the future will pay for it.'" Marc Goldwein, senior policy director of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, agrees: "The risk of irresponsibility is high."

Having lost on overhauling health care, Trump indicated he's ready to move on to tax reform. This choice evoked chortles from skeptics, who say a major revision of the Internal Revenue Service code will be an even harder challenge.

But why assume Republicans will balk at anything short of a comprehensive overhaul? If they can't get that and there is no reason to think they can they will almost certainly settle for tax cuts, even if it means bigger budget deficits. That's been their default option for decades.

Trump couldn't care less about the deficit. So GOP members will meet no particular resistance from him if they want to cut rates, scrap the estate tax or the alternative minimum tax, or increase the standard deduction.

House Speaker Paul Ryan has in mind a border adjustment tax, which would bring in revenue to make up all or most of what the other changes would lose. But neither Trump nor congressional Republicans are likely to approve a measure that would raise consumer prices and be hard to explain. The path of least resistance involves dropping the proposal and not bothering to pay for the tax cuts.

Paying for them holds little allure because it would mean either killing tax breaks cherished by millions of people or curtailing outlays. Trump has proposed some $54 billion in spending reductions, taken from agencies ranging from the Environmental Protection Agency to the National Endowment for the Arts, but those couldn't be used to offset tax cuts. The money saved is supposed to go for Trump's military buildup.

But rest assured, it won't be saved in the first place. "Some of Trump's closest allies said his budget has virtually no chance in Congress," reported The Washington Post. "Even those fiscal conservatives who do want to cut spending don't necessarily think slashing major domestic programs is the answer."

The only other place where spending could be cut much is in the biggest entitlements Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. But Trump the candidate promised not to go after Social Security and Medicare. Leaving Obamacare alone means Medicaid escaped the ax.

The president should have more luck boosting outlays. He envisions a $1 trillion program aimed at "revitalizing our country's ruined roads, crumbling bridges and outdated airports," White House press secretary Sean Spicer explained. Trump told The New York Times he intends to "prime the pump to some extent. In other words: Spend money to make a lot more money in the future."

It's a classic Keynesian formula with a long Democratic pedigree. Getting bipartisan support should not be a heavy lift. The website Axios reports that House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi "wants Trump to move quickly on a 'big jobs bill' that includes some corporate and middle income tax cuts coupled with government spending to stimulate growth."

The problem with all this is that it would squander money we don't have, further enlarging our national debt and loading more burdens onto our children and grandchildren. That's not the responsible way, but it is the easy way. And politicians will be eager to take it.

Steve Chapman, a member of the Tribune Editorial Board, blogs at http://www.chicagotribune.com/chapman. Download "Recalculating: Steve Chapman on a New Century" in the free Printers Row app at http://www.printersrowapp.com.

schapman@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @SteveChapman13

Read more from the original source:
Why the obvious next step for President Donald Trump and Congress is a fiscal binge - Chicago Tribune

New York Times

Brexit, Donald Trump, Jordan: Your Morning Briefing New York Times China's state-run media blasted the Trump administration for brazenly shirking its responsibility on climate change. The country appeared ready to take up global leadership on the issue, which was ceded by the U.S. when President Trump ordered a ...

Go here to read the rest:
Brexit, Donald Trump, Jordan: Your Morning Briefing - New York Times

President Trump criticized former president Barack Obama for golfing too often. Now the White House is defending his own frequent outings. (Thomas Johnson/The Washington Post)

Invariably, whenever we look at how much time President Trump spends at the golf courses that bear his name, we incur one of two responses or both.

1. The president is entitled to time off. 2. Why shouldnt he go to properties that bear his name?

To which the appropriate responses are: (1) He is. However! and (2) For at least one very good reason.

Or, to go into a bit more detail:

Sure! The president, like anyone else, is entitled to some down time. And, of course, the president unlike anyone else never really gets any. Hes always on duty, always available as needed.

When we point out that Trump is playing a lot of golf (as we did on Sunday), the point isnt that he should only be either sitting at a desk making presidential decisions or asleep. The point is that Trump himself, piggy-backing on the anti-Barack-Obama Republican rhetoric of the past eight years, repeatedly insisted that unlike Obama he wasnt going to spend time playing golf if he was elected president.

One example:

Another:

Another:

And on and on.

Again, Trump was simply picking up on a line of argument that was common on the right. It seems that for every dismissal of Trumps golfing as an issue here from his former campaign spokesman

there are easy examples of a differing view when the person in the White House was Barack Obama.

Obama played golf about once every 8.8 days. Trump has likely played once every 5.5.

But we dont really know that, because the Trump White House is unusually coy about when he is or isnt playing golf. Hes made at least a dozen visits to Trump-branded golf courses (and other Trump properties) since he became president, but we only know for sure that he played golf on some of those occasions.

The White House press office has only confirmed that Trump has played golf on a few occasions, preferring as press secretary Sean Spicer did last week to imply that Trump was instead holding important meetings. On Sunday, Trump spent only a brief period of time at his club in Sterling, Va. not enough to play a full round. Usually hes at his golf clubs and unaccounted for for hours, more than enough time to play 18 holes. (The smart money is on Spicer noting during an upcoming press briefing that Trump visited his club this weekend without playing golf.)

How sensitive are the White House and its allies about Trumps golfing? It apparently bears a news update from the Trump-friendly Fox News when Trump doesnt head to his club in Florida for the weekend.

Mind you, this wasnt true: He almost certainly played golf on Saturday, given social media posts showing him puttering around the course on a golf cart.

We can here apply the parent-of-a-small-child test to Trumps golfing. If the White House thinks its no big deal for the president to play golf, why is it so eager to minimize his doing so?

The chart above shows the regularity with which Trump heads to Trump-branded properties doing so about once every three days over the course of his presidency.

Whys that worth noting? In part because its the president using his office to tacitly (if not explicitly) promote his personal business. Trump repeatedly promised a clean break from his personal businesses once he got to the White House, but documents show that he still benefits from the Trump Organization financially. As The Posts Rosalind Helderman and Drew Harwell wrote last month, he retains ownership of the business and will personally benefit if the business profits from decisions made by his government.

Even when he doesnt directly receive payment, he is still reinforcing a symbiotic relationship with his private brand. Last week, the government approved Trumps continued ownership of the Trump hotel that sits a few blocks from the White House, because he wouldnt receive money from it directly while in office. (The Trump Organization leases the building from the government, with the stipulation that no elected official can benefit from it.) Trump critics point out that the property still benefits from its relationship with the president who has visited the property several times since being elected president, effectively helping to promote the property that his business still operates.

Then theres the question of how much government money is spent on Trump properties. Weve looked at this before, estimating that each trip to Mar-a-Lago in Florida costs the government some $2 million. While most of that cost is spent on transportation, the amount that is paid to the Trump Organization isnt clear. There are reports that the Secret Service and the Department of Defense sought space in Trump Tower, where they would be paying Midtown Manhattan rental costs to the Trump Organization.

Put another way, its not less problematic that hes going to his own properties, its more problematic at least in terms of concerns about potential conflicts of interest. Theres also a prohibition in Article II of the Constitution, setting the presidents salary for a term and stating that he shall not receive within that period any other emolument payment from the United States, or any of them.

In this hyper-partisan age, we are constantly reminded that prohibitions and priorities are far more subjective than we may have thought, allowing someone to, say, rail against a president who plays golf for recreation and then, later, to play golf nearly every weekend of his own presidency. It is also clear that, despite partisan protestations, there is a reason to point out such hypocrisies as well as potential (or obvious) conflicts of interest.

In the future, at least, complaints about the media doing so can be redirected to this article, saving everyone arguing about this issue some modicum of time.

See the original post:
Donald Trump's golfing is a political problem thanks to Donald Trump - Washington Post

Viewed internally as a SWAT team of strategic consultants, the office will be staffed by former business executives and is designed to infuse fresh thinking into Washington, float above the daily political grind and create a lasting legacy for a president still searching for signature achievements.

Trump is apparently convinced theres only one reasonwhy the Republican health insurance debacle debacd. Its not because there was a group of Republicans who are so entrenched in saying no that they forgot there was another response. Its not because the entire Republican Party has been put in place with the purpose of making government fail (and theyre darn good at it) not writing legislation that can pass.

No, sweet Republican harmony failed to settle over DC because the Great Dealmakers dealmaker chose to spend last week carving slopes in Colorado. Now that Kushner has come in from the cold, Trump will get him to rearrange all the deck chairs in his regime without having to talk to Congress at all.

In a White House riven at times by disorder and competing factions, the innovation office represents an expansion of Kushners already far-reaching influence. The 36-year-old former real estate and media executive will continue to wear many hats, driving foreign and domestic policy as well as decisions on presidential personnel. He also is a shadow diplomat, serving as Trumps lead adviser on relations with China, Mexico, Canada and the Middle East.

This frees up Pence to return to critical appearing on Fox duties, and means that Rex Tillerson can do nothing much at all. Kushers got this.

Only, someone may also have Kusher. Because theres one problem he shares with the rest of Team Trump.

Senate investigators plan to question Jared Kushner, President Trumps son-in-law and a close adviser, as part of their broad inquiry into ties between Trump associates and Russian officials or others linked to the Kremlin, according to administration and congressional officials.

Part of this has to do with that name who was in so many meetings, hes apparently also part of Trumps regime, Russian ambassador SergeiKislyak.

Meetings between Trump associates and Russian officials or others linked to Mr. Putin are now of heightened interest as several congressional committees and F.B.I. investigators try to determine the scope of the Russian intervention in the election and links between Russians and anyone around Mr. Trump.

Maybe one of the assignments of Kushners new SWAT team of business experts could be to organize the line of Trump associates coming in to testify about Russian connections. Just organizing that schedule is going to keep someone busy.

Read more:
Donald Trump plans to make Jared Kushner America's unelected, unapproved, uncontrolled CEO - Daily Kos

Mexicans who help build President Donald Trumps planned border wall would be acting immorally and should be deemed traitors, the Catholic Archdiocese of Mexico said on Sunday, turning up the heat on a simmering dispute over the project.

In a provocative editorial, the countrys biggest Archdiocese sought to increase pressure on the government to take a tougher line on companies aiming to profit from the wall, which has strained relations between Trump and the Mexican government.

Any company intending to invest in the wall of the fanatic Trump would be immoral, but above all, its shareholders and owners should be considered traitors to the homeland, said the editorial in Desde la fe, the Archdioceses weekly publication.

Jose Luis Gonzalez / Reuters

On Tuesday, Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo warned firms it would not be in their interests to participate in the wall. But the editorial accused the government of responding tepidly to those eyeing the project for business.

A spokesman for the Archdiocese, which centers on Mexico City and is presided over by the countrys foremost Roman Catholic cleric, Cardinal Norberto Rivera, said the editorial represented the views of the diocese.

Trump says he wants to build the wall to stop illegal immigrants from crossing the U.S. southern border. He has pledged Mexico will pay for the wall, which the Mexican government adamantly says it will not do.

The Desde la fe editorial, which was published online, said the barrier would only feed prejudice and discrimination.

In practice, signing up for a project that is a serious affront to dignity is shooting yourself in the foot, it wrote. Mexican cement maker Cemex has said it is open to providing quotes to supply raw materials for the wall but will not take part in the bidding process to build it.

Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua, another company specializing in construction materials, has also signaled readiness to work on the project.

Start your workday the right way with the news that matters most.

Read more:
Mexicans Who Help Build Donald Trump's Wall Are 'Traitors,' Top Archdiocese Says - Huffington Post