Mediaboss Marketing

Donald Trump used his first Joint Address to the Congress of the United States to engage in an unprecedented flight of fiscal fantasy. Specifically, the president imagined that the United States could cut taxes for wealthy Americans and corporations, rip tens of billions of dollars out of domestic programs (and diplomacy), hand that money over to the military-industrial complex, and somehow remain a functional and genuinely strong nation.

Trump did not articulate this agenda quite so bluntly. His hour-long speech was far more traditional and temperate in character than his ballistic inaugural address. The themes were, for the most part, predictable: construction of a great wall along our southern border, vetting procedures, for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated, school choice, construction of the Keystone and Dakota Access Pipelines. The rhetoric was, by the standards of this presidency, disciplined. But the specifics were few. Only toward the end did the president get specific, saying, I am sending the Congress a budget that rebuilds the military, eliminates the Defense sequester, and calls for one of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history.

Trump was not at all specific about paying for that increaseaside from mentioning the fact that he had placed a hiring freeze on non-military and non-essential Federal workers. But his administration has been clear about its hope that the money will come from deep cuts to domestic programs.

This argument in favor of austerity for working families and munificence for military contractors (the presidents speech actually talked up Lockheed and the fantastic new F-35 jet fighter) is not exactly new. It has been a conservative mantra since the Grand Old Party purged itself of the Modern Republicans who clung to the vision of former President Dwight Eisenhower and made theirs a party of reaction rather than reason. But even Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush eschewed the budgetary extremism that Trump has embraced with an immediacy and a fervor that arrests any fantasy that a billionaire populist president might steer his adopted party back from the brink.

Dwight Eisenhower warned of a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labor of all peoples.

The Budget Blueprint that Trump took to Congress on Tuesday night did not plot a course to make America great again. It tipped the balance against greatness by making what the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, referred to as the last best hope of earth into an ever more heavily militarized state that will not care for its own.

This is not an accidental turn.

This is by design. But it is not a grand design; rather, it is an approach that Trump has adopted as he has moved from the capricious politics of his initial candidacy to the reality of a ever more rigidly right-wing presidency.

Mick Mulvaney, Trumps man at the Office of Management and Budget, said on the eve of the presidents Budget Blueprint speech, The president is doing what he said hed do when he ran. But Trump said a lot of things when he was bidding for the presidency in 2016: He made big promises about jobs and infrastructure, delivering more and better health care, protecting Social Security and Medicare. He portrayed himself as a critic of the war in Iraq, a skeptic about new military adventures, and a critic of the fraud and abuse and everything else in bloated Department of Defense budgets. Im gonna build a military thats gonna be much stronger than it is right now, he announced on NBCs Meet the Press in 2015. Its gonna be so strong, nobodys gonna mess with us, he promised. But you know what? We can do it for a lot less.

That seemed reasonably definitive.

Yes, of course, Trump bounced all over the ideological landscape during the 2016 campaign, and his presidency hasnt exactly been a model of consistency.

Even with that fact in mind, however, it must have surprised at least a few Trump backers to learn from Mulvaney that bloating up the Pentagon budget was such a high priority of the Trump campaign. What you see in this budget, the budget director explained Tuesday, is exactly what the president ran on. He ran on increasing spending on the military

Mulvaney was unsettlingly vague when asked about keeping Trumps promise to guard against Social Security cuts. But he was clear about the general thrust of the administrations approach to budgeting.

We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influenceby the military-industrial complex. Eisenhower

[We] took $54 billion out of non-defense discretionary spending in order to increase defense spendingentirely consistent with what the president said that he would do, Mulvaney explained. So whats the president done? Hes protected the nation, but not added any additional money to the 2018 deficit. This is a winning argument for my friends in the House and a winning argument for a lot of folks all over the country. The president does what he says but doesnt add to the budget [deficit]. Thats a win.

Mulvaney is wrong. Thats not a win.

That does not protect Americaat least not in the sense that Democratic and Republican presidents have historically understood the preservation of the republic. Budgeting is always a matter of striking balances. And when there is an imbalance, the American experiment is threatened.

Dwight Eisenhower explained this when he appeared barely two months into his presidency before the American Society of Newspaper Editors. The speech was much anticipated. Eisenhower was the first Republican commander in chief in two decades, and he was still placing his imprint on the Oval Office, the country and a world that was in the grips of a Cold War. The new president could have chosen any topic for his first major address to the assembled media luminaries. He chose as his topic the proper balancing of budget priorities.

Eisenhower recognized the threats that existed. He spoke, at length, about difficult relations between the United States and the Soviet Union and he addressed the threat of annihilation posed by the spread of atomic weaponry. But the career military manthe supreme commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe during World War II, the chief of staff of the Army during the postwar era when tensions with Moscow rosedid not come to suggest that increased defense spending was a singular priority. In fact, his purpose was the opposite. He spoke of the dread road of constant military escalation and warned about a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed, said Eisenhower, who explained that

This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

Eisenhower did not propose surrender or immediate disarmament. But he did propose diplomacy (We welcome every honest act of peace), and the sincere pursuit of a world with fewer weapons and fewer excuses for war making (This we do know: a world that begins to witness the rebirth of trust among nations can find its way to a peace that is neither partial nor punitive).

The fruit of success in all these tasks would present the world with the greatest task, and the greatest opportunity, of all, explained Eisenhower. It is this: the dedication of the energies, the resources, and the imaginations of all peaceful nations to a new kind of war. This would be a declared total war, not upon any human enemy but upon the brute forces of poverty and need.

The monuments to this new kind of war would be these: roads and schools, hospitals and homes, food and health, the new president concluded. We are ready, in short, to dedicate our strength to serving the needs, rather than the fears, of the world.

These are different times. The world has changed, and so has the United States. But what has changed the most is the understanding that providing for the common defense does not preclude the promotion of the general welfare.

Conservatives like to say there is no free lunch, and that is true enough when it comes to budgeting. It is not possible to move tens of billions of dollars out of domestic programs that have already in many cases been squeezed to austerity levels and into a military budget so vast, the National Priorities Project reports, that U.S. military expenditures are roughly the size of the next seven largest military budgets around the world, combined.

On a planet where Americans account for 4.34 percent of the population, US military spending accounts for 37 percent of the global total. And Trumpwith Mulvaneys assistanceappears to be determined to move the latter percentage upward.

That is a problematic imbalance in itself. But what makes it even more problematic is Mulvaneys signal that, under Trump, the imbalance will be maintained not by collecting new revenues but by redistributing money that could have been spent on health care and housing and education at homeand on the international diplomacy and foreign aid that might actually reduce the need for military expenditures. While Trump claims hes serious about great negotiation, his plan to pillage funds from the State Department and foreign aid to feed the insatiable Pentagon budget says otherwise, notes Peace Action Executive Director Jon Rainwater. Instead of putting Americans first, Trump plans to line the arms industrys pockets by cutting programs like health care that provide real security to American families says otherwise.

This is the realization of the worst fears that Eisenhower addressed, not just in his 1953 Cross of Iron speech but in the final address of his presidency, which warned that we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes, said the 34th president. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

See more here:
Donald Trump Goes All In for the Military-Industrial Complex - The Nation.

Here's what President Trump said about immigration reform in his joint speech to Congress, Feb. 28. (The Washington Post)

Last year, with the presidential campaignunderway and Donald Trumps rhetoric on immigration playing a critical role in the Republican primaries, President Barack Obama addressed the subject.

Immigrants arent the principal reason wages havent gone up; those decisions are made in the boardrooms that all too often put quarterly earnings over long-term returns, Obama said. America is every immigrant and entrepreneur from Boston to Austin to Silicon Valley, racing to shape a better future, he added later. Thats who we are.

A year later, the American presidents rhetoric on immigration is far different. Below weve compiled every mention of immigration, immigrants or the border in President Trumps joint speech to Congress on Tuesday and added context where appropriate.

Tonight, as we mark the conclusion of our celebration of Black History Month, we are reminded of our nations path toward civil rights and the work that still remains. Recent threats targeting Jewish community centers and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, as well as last weeks shooting in Kansas City, remind us that while we may be a nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all its forms.

The shooting in Olathe, Kan., targeted two engineers born in India whod immigrated to the area. The shooter reportedly told them to get out of my country before firing. The mention of the incident in Trumps speech was the first from the president and came after the Kansas City Star excoriated him for his silence.

Weve defended the borders of other nations, while leaving our own borders wide open, for anyone to cross and for drugs to pour in at a now unprecedented rate.

The border isnt quite the free-for-all that Trump depicts, given the miles of wall and the U.S. Border Patrol. Net immigration from Mexico was actually negative from 2009 to 2014, in part because of the weak U.S. economy.

As for drugs pouring in, this can be hard to measure. A Congressional Research Service report released last summer noted an increase in heroin smuggling across the southern border, measured by seizures of the drug in that area. As our fact-checkers note, marijuana seizures are down.

We will stop the drugs from pouring into our country and poisoning our youth and we will expand treatment for those who have become so badly addicted.

At the same time, my Administration has answered the pleas of the American people for immigration enforcement and border security. By finally enforcing our immigration laws, we will raise wages, help the unemployed, save billions of dollars, and make our communities safer for everyone. We want all Americans to succeed but that cant happen in an environment of lawless chaos. We must restore integrity and the rule of law to our borders.

President Trump promised to lower taxes, combat terrorism and replace the Affordable Care Act in a speech to a joint session of Congress, Feb. 28. Here are key moments from that speech. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)

American society is not well described by the phrase lawless chaos. Trump, you may have noticed, tends to be hyperbolic.

As for the effects of immigration, a study published last year by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found little to no negative effects on overall wages and employment of native-born workers in the longer term. More on the other effects below.

For that reason, we will soon begin the construction of a great wall along our southern border. It will be started ahead of schedule and, when finished, it will be a very effective weapon against drugs and crime.

Its not clear what ahead of schedule means. But because Trump at one point pledged to start working on the wall on day one, it would seem that hes already behind schedule.

As we speak, we are removing gang members, drug dealers and criminals that threaten our communities and prey on our citizens. Bad ones are going out as I speak tonight and as I have promised.

Its true that the majority of those deported in the early days of Trumps immigration sweep were people with criminal convictions. According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 75 percent had prior criminal convictions although its not clear what the nature of those crimes wasor the net effect on their communities. On Monday, the New York Times profiled a man in the country illegally who was facing deportation after a criminal conviction and whose town was rallying to his defense.

Note that a quarter of those detained had no criminal convictions.

To any in Congress who do not believe we should enforce our laws, I would ask you this question: What would you say to the American family that loses their jobs, their income, or a loved one, because America refused to uphold its laws and defend its borders?

Our obligation is to serve, protect and defend the citizens of the United States. We are also taking strong measures to protect our nation from radical Islamic terrorism.

According to data provided by the Department of Justice, the vast majority of individuals convicted for terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country. We have seen the attacks at home from Boston to San Bernardino to the Pentagon and yes, even the World Trade Center.

It is not compassionate, but reckless, to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting cannot occur. Those given the high honor of admission to the United States should support this country and love its people and its values.

That is why my administration has been working on improved vetting procedures, and we will shortly take new steps to keep our nation safe and to keep out those who would do us harm.

The proper vetting argument generally links back to comments made by FBI Director James B. Comey, who in 2015 noted that it was harder to vet refugees from Syria than those from Iraq because the U.S. military doesnt have the same resources and information in the former country as it does in the latter.

Comey also said in that testimony that the screening process had improved dramatically in recent years. Immigrants who enter legally are screened by the government before theyre allowed entry, and refugees go through an extensive processthat checkstheir backgrounds.

I am going to bring back millions of jobs. Protecting our workers also means reforming our system of legal immigration. The current, outdated system depresses wages for our poorest workers, and puts great pressure on taxpayers.

Nations around the world, like Canada, Australia and many others have a merit-based immigration system. It is a basic principle that those seeking to enter a country ought to be able to support themselves financially. Yet, in America, we do not enforce this rule, straining the very public resources that our poorest citizens rely upon. According to the National Academy of Sciences, our current immigration system costs Americas taxpayers many billions of dollars a year.

Switching away from this current system of lower-skilled immigration, and instead adopting a merit-based system, will have many benefits: It will save countless dollars, raise workers wages and help struggling families including immigrant families enter the middle class.

I believe that real and positive immigration reform is possible, as long as we focus on the following goals: to improve jobs and wages for Americans, to strengthen our nations security, and to restore respect for our laws.

That National Academy of Sciences study indicates that new immigrants generally flow to places with greater employment opportunity and wages, reducing negative effects. While pre-existing workers most similar to immigrants may experience lower wages or a lower employment rate, it reads, pre-existing workers who are complementary to immigrants are likely to benefit, as are native-born owners of capital. The preexisting workers most similar to new immigrants? Other new immigrants. To the extent that negative wage effects are found, the report reads, prior immigrants who are often the closest substitutes for new immigrants are most likely to experience them, followed by native-born high school dropouts.

The study also found that first-generation immigrants do cost the system more than they put in, largely because of the cost of educating immigrant children. (The cost, which falls mostly on state and local governments, was estimated at $57 billion annually.) By the second generation, immigrants are a net benefit to governments, to the tune of $30 billion a year. By the third generation? A net positive of $223 billion.

Higher-skilled immigrants do have a strongly positive effect. The prospects for long-run economic growth in the United States would be considerably dimmed without the contributions of high-skilled immigrants, the study reads.

I have ordered the Department of Homeland Security to create an office to serve American Victims. The office is called VOICE Victims Of Immigration Crime Engagement. We are providing a voice to those who have been ignored by our media, and silenced by special interests.

This proposal, introduced in a memo from Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, has received a lot of negative feedback. (When Trump mentioned it, Democrats groaned.) One issue is that there are negative historical echoes to isolating criminal behavior by one group of people. As the Atlantic notes, the Ministry of Justice in 1930s Germany collected and publicized reports of Jewish criminal activity.

When Trump first mentioned criminal activity by immigrants in the country illegally at his campaign kickoff, we assessed his claims about rampant crime among undocumented immigrants. First-generation immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than are native-born Americans, and theres no correlation between immigrant populations and violent crime.

But Trump continued on the subject.

Jamiels 17-year-old son was viciously murdered by an illegal immigrant gang member, who had just been released from prison. Jamiel Shaw Jr. was an incredible young man, with unlimited potential who was getting ready to go to college where he would have excelled as a great quarterback. But he never got the chance. His father, who is in the audience tonight, has become a good friend of mine.

Also with us are Susan Oliver and Jessica Davis. Their husbands Deputy Sheriff Danny Oliver and Detective Michael Davis were slain in the line of duty in California. They were pillars of their community. These brave men were viciously gunned down by an illegal immigrant with a criminal record and two prior deportations.

All of these deaths are tragic and were preventable. But this highlights the problem of the VOICE office: Picking out isolated incidents of violent crime by one group can make members of that group seem particularly dangerous, even when the data dont support that claim.

For example, there are 512,000 Google results for men named Dave who were convicted of murder. A VOICE office could consistently pick out examples of Daves who are behaving improperly and committing crimes; locking up everyone named Dave would prevent any Daves from killing people.

But Daves, as the saying goes, arent the problem.

Read the original post:
Here's everything Donald Trump said about immigration in his speech to Congress - Washington Post

Donald Trump's New Travel Ban Is Delayed, Would Likely Exempt Existing Visa Holders Wall Street Journal (subscription) WASHINGTONPresident Donald Trump will soon sign a revised executive order banning certain travelers from entering the U.S., but unlike the original version, it is likely to apply only to future visa applicants from targeted countries, according to ... and more »

More here:
Donald Trump's New Travel Ban Is Delayed, Would Likely Exempt Existing Visa Holders - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

New York Times

Donald Trump's Speech, Mosul, Kim Jong-nam: Your Morning Briefing New York Times Reaction to President Trump's address tended to focus on its presidential style. His sobriety, seriousness of purpose, and calls for unity reassured and surprised many listeners. I think it sounded great, like a utopia, one voter said, adding ...

Follow this link:
Donald Trump's Speech, Mosul, Kim Jong-nam: Your Morning Briefing - New York Times

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

EPAs so-called waters of the United States rule is one of the worst examples of federal regulation, and its truly run amok, Trump said during the signing ceremony in the Oval Office.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Farmers, ranchers, and agricultural businesses opposed the rule, as it allowed the EPA to regulate any water on a farmers land.

Trump called it a disaster during remarks, reminding the public that the EPA threatened a Wyoming rancher with fines of $37,000a dayafter he duga stock pond on his land.

Its a horrible, horrible rule, Trump said. It was a nice name, but everything else is bad.

Trumps executive order directs the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to withdraw and reconsider therule back to the government agencies on the basis that it overreaches their authority.

Several U.S. senators, including Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), and Sen Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND.), attended the signing. Some members of the House of Representatives andseveral county commissioners also attended.

Follow this link:
Donald Trump Orders Deconstruction of Obama-Era EPA Water Rule - Breitbart News