Tag: corruption

What I believe

I am a classical liberal fusionist. The following brief outline will hopefully explain what that means followed by a brief summary of where Trump stands relative to my beliefs of what is good for America.

I want to be free to make my own decisions about my life and for you to be similarly free as well. As we live together with 8.3 billion others, we must have understandings/rules/laws guiding our interactions if we are to live peacefully with each other. An efficient government limited to those purposes is essential. As a classical liberal I strongly support the limited, enumerated powers and structure (checks and balances) of government provided by the American constitution. Our constitution provides that our government will have limited powers sufficient to protect us from foreign and domestic threats of corruption, fraud and attack, secure our property rights, adjudicate disputes, provide public goods (e.g. roads, pollution regulations) and establish the rules (guardrails) for private enterprise. Our constitution specifically prohibits our government from infringing upon our freedom of speech, assembly, or religion.

Such limited government powers would leave use with substantial freedom to choose our own way of life. The quality of our lives will depend importantly on how wisely we use that freedom. While it would be ideal for those in need of help to receive it from family and friends and from private charities established for that purpose, I believe that the private provision of charity on any large scale has been so displaced by government welfare that I accept the government’s role in providing a social safety. But the current mix of programs restrict our freedoms and are inefficient. I propose a Universal Basic Income as the most efficient approach and the most consistent with individual freedom. https://wcoats.blog/2020/08/20/replacing-social-security-with-a-universal-basic-income/

America has flourished because the substantial freedom our government leaves us is generally used well. The vast majority of us use our freedom in ways that respect the freedoms of others. The three monotheistic religions—Christianity, Judaism and Islam (and no doubt others as well)—provide important guidance for virtuous behavior. These include honesty, charity, love, prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance, humility, forgiveness, etc. Virtue is the other leg of Fusionism, which is explored in the wonderful new book by Stephanie Slade: Fusionism: Liberty, Virtue, and the Future of the American Right.

While respecting the freedoms of others, I may choose (within my abilities) how I make my living, whom to buy from and sell to (free trade), and how to spend my free time and with whom. Much of our relationships with others will reflect the locally accepted norms of good behavior. This extends far beyond driving on the same side of the road. Some of these norms have been codified into laws, which we expect to be applied equally to all of us. Some are the norms of courteous behavior (good manners). Thus, freedom and rights have fostered the entrepreneurship that has made the U.S. the economic envy of the world.

But today, with the internet and jet planes, our world extends far beyond our own communities. Engaging with as much of the world as possible peacefully has benefits. It can enhance our safety by making agreements with other governments that reduce the occurrences of war. It can add joy to our lives by exposing us to the many wonder of other cultures and geographies. It has enormously lifted the average standard of living because of the extension of the benefits of specialization made possible by trade. Global average per capital real income has risen 13 to 15 times (1,200 to 1,400%) over the last two centuries. This after many, many centuries of virtually no change.      

But what is required to travel to or trade with other countries? How can our planes fly over and safely land in other countries? How do we prevent the signals from other countries’ satellites from interfering with the internet and other signals from our own as they fly over? Just as our Federal government can establish laws to protect our safety, liberties and property across state lines that benefit us all, they need to do so across country borders.  https://wcoats.blog/2020/12/01/the-rule-of-law-china-and-the-u-s/ Without such agreements we would not be free to trade and travel nearly as widely as now. https://wcoats.blog/2017/01/06/the-liberal-international-order/

We have failed to live up to these standards on many occasions, but they are the north star to which we strive. Or at least until now. On July 23, 2019, speaking to a Turning Point USA audience (and on other occasions as well) President Trump said: “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” With that he threatened to throw away the limits on the power of our government and the checks and balances on its exercise. Some of his policies have been consistent with the principals I believe in, but many have not.

The Economy: The government’s limited role of protecting property rights and promoting business transparency has unleashed the entrepreneurial energies that have led to our country’s flourishing. Like President Biden before him, Trump thinks his ideas of where to put our resources are often better than the market’s—thus projecting government activities beyond its proper functions. He was right, however, to think that many government agencies and their regulations were more burdensome than helpful to the private sector. A review and streamlining of the government’s oversight of the economy would be a good idea. Unfortunately the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) led by Elon Musk was a crude hatchet job that did more harm than good.  https://wcoats.blog/2020/11/04/saving-the-american-dream/

Immigrants: America would not exist without immigrants. https://wcoats.blog/2026/07/06/immigrants-2/ Currently they are important to provide the younger workers needed to pay the expenses (e.g. Social Security benefits) of our growing number of longer-living retirees. Rather than allowing more legal immigrants, Trump has reduced the number and promised to deport those here illegally. https://wcoats.blog/2026/02/08/immigrants/ . While I support efforts to prevent illegal immigration, Trump’s quickly recruited and improperly trained ICE agents have murdered innocent Americans and deported American citizens, along with illegal immigrants, without due process and in violation of court orders. The rule of law be damned. https://wcoats.blog/2025/08/29/immigration/

Free Speech: Our constitution specifically protects free speech for a good reason: https://wcoats.blog/2012/09/15/further-thoughts-on-free-speech/ It helps build public consensus and support for good public policies.

Trump goes ballistic when criticized and misuses executive power to punish critics. These have included suing critics, threating the licenses of their employers, etc. https://wcoats.blog/2026/08/21/our-first-amendment-freedom-of-speech/

“ABC late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel said an interview he conducted with Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico will not air on broadcast because of what he called threats issued to his network by President Trump’s Federal Communications Commission.” The Hill 9/10/2026

Our constitution provides checks and balances on the powers of government in an effort to prevent (or minimize) the overreaching of government. Donald Trump took major actions against agency inspectors general across both of his presidential terms: Between April and May 2020, he removed or replaced five agencies’ inspectors general in a series of late-Friday decisions: just days into his second term, he dismissed seventeen independent inspectors general at once across cabinet departments—including Defense, State, Transportation, Labor, and Energy. Subsequent individual firings followed throughout early 2025 (such as the USAID IG in February 2025).

The nonpartisan inspectors general review agency programs, financial statements, and operations, recommend changes to make government operations more economical and effective, manage hotlines and intake processes for employees to report wrongdoing safely, and report their findings to the heads of the agencies they monitor and to Congress. In September 2025, a federal judge ruled that the mass January 2025 firings violated federal law because the administration failed to provide the mandatory 30-day notice and substantive rationale to Congress, though the court did not order their reinstatement.

At least 20 high-ranking generals, admirals, and civilian defense leaders have been directly fired or pushed out of their roles by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and President Trump. When including behind-the-scenes actions—such as blocking promotion rosters, cancelling appointments, and forcing early retirements—over 80 generals and admirals have had their careers altered, blocked, or cut short as part of a sweeping restructuring aimed at downsizing senior military leadership and reshaping the Pentagon. According to my military friends, those removed were generally the best of the lot. Not bowing to Hegseth’s silly games proved fatal. Where might this be going?

Trade: The Trump administration has stifled the free market allocation of resources to the detriment of our growth in several ways. He has complained about offshoring manufacturing resulting in our trade deficits (which by the way help finance the government’s fiscal deficits thus keeping interest rates on government bonds lower than otherwise). In fact, however, manufacturing output in the US is greater than it has ever been. Domestic employment in manufacturing, however, has fallen because of increased labor productivity.

Trump claims that high tariffs are needed to reduce our trade deficit. But he has not imposed them in ways sanctioned by the World Trade Organization, i.e., to improve competitiveness with a level playing field. His tariffs often seem weapons to get countries to agree to other totally unrelated goals. Trump’s bullying has cost the U.S. more than trade. Often his threats require that foreign companies building plants in the US give shares to the Federal government. The US government now owns shares in some 40 or so such companies (https://wcoats.blog/2026/08/10/econ-101-capitalism-and-socialism/ ). And the courts have struck down some of his tariffs. https://wcoats.blog/2024/11/26/tariffs/

Wars and foreign policy:  During his Presidential campaign, Trump promised to end our forever wars. Then, with Israel, he ordered an invasion of Iran. One reason seemed to be to stop Iran from developing atomic bombs (correcting Trump’s first term error of withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran which prevented such a development). https://wcoats.blog/2026/04/02/iran-and-the-bomb/. “Trump’s threats against countries trading with Iran expose the limits of US economic power, as allies resist Washington’s demands and the global economy moves towards a less American-dominated order.” “Trump is hastening the decline of American power,” by Joseph E. Stiglitz 9/12/2026. https://johnmenadue.com/post/2026/09/trump-is-hastening-the-decline-of-american-power/

Trump’s continue support of Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Gaza and increasingly the West Bank has further isolated the US, which stands alone with Israel in the UN in defense of these humanitarian atrocities. https://wcoats.blog/2026/03/31/fixing-palestine/

I agree with Trump’s insistence that others (in particular NATO members) pay their share of the cost of the defense they get with American help. But insulting our allis, often with tariff increases or threats, is not in America’s interest, nor in compliance with WTO rules.

In The New York Times (9/10/2026), Tom Friedman proclaimed that: “Trump is the most un-American president in my lifetime. No president has done more, and continues to do more, to unravel the post-World War II institutions and alliances that were built and sustained by his predecessors. We are talking about… our intimate relationships with Canada and Mexico and our military alliances with South Korea and Japan — to name but a few. These relationships and institutions together produced global and American prosperity and great power peace for generations….”

During his presidential terms, Donald Trump initiated U.S. withdrawals from or ceased participation in a wide range of prominent international treaties, agreements, and bodies:

  • Paris Climate Agreement: Withdrawn during his first term and formally pulled out of a second time in January 2025.
  • Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA): The U.S. withdrew in May 2018.
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): Withdrawn via executive order in January 2017.
  • UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): Trump ordered the U.S. withdrawal from the founding 1992 climate treaty.
  • Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty: The U.S. exited this Cold War-era arms control treaty with Russia in August 2019.
  • Open Skies Treaty: Withdrawn in November 2020.
  • World Health Organization (WHO): Initiated withdrawal in 2020 and executed withdrawal actions again during his second term.
  • UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) & UNESCO: Withdrawn during his first presidency.
  • Global Compact for Migration: Withdrawn in December 2017.

Standing alone we are much weaker than when standing together with friends.

Interest rates: While Trump’s threats to the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates reflects a complete misunderstanding of the forces in play and the Trump administration’s perverse impact on them, I have confidence in the integrity of Kevin Warsh and expect the Fed to raise its policy rate next week in keeping with its commitment to lower inflation to 2%. https://wcoats.blog/2026/08/29/inflation/

Corruption: Trump’s wealth increased $3 to $4 billion dollars during his second term so far. Corruption? No comment. “Trump has pledged a $5,000 dividend to every American adult if Republicans retain control of Congress in November’s midterm elections, prompting questions about how the benefit would work, whether it is legal and where the funds would come from.” Washington Post 9/10/2026. Amazingly Trump publicly proclaims this bribery.

The Washington Post reported on 9/12/2026:

“Democrats hope to retake control of the House, and to use that power to probe Trump’s business ventures, legal maneuvers and policies…. ‘There’s so much corruption and grift that it’s going to take the entire House on the Democratic side to do investigations appropriately,’ Rep. Robert Garcia (D-California), who would probably lead investigations as chair the Oversight Committee in a Democratic-held House….

“Trump family enrichment…

“Handouts to supporters…

“Construction projects…

“Immigration enforcement…

“Prosecutions of Trump’s political enemies…

“Institutional pressure campaigns.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/09/12/house-democrats-plan-sweeping-trump-investigations-if-they-win-november

It goes without saying that Trump does not support many of the US Constitution based principles I support. If I am right, as I am sure I am, that adhering to the principles of our Constitution is an important part of the foundation of our flourishing, Trump’s abuses of those principles will have the opposite effect. His disregard for the rule of law, his expansion of the powers of government to coerce us, and his disregard and flaunting international agreements and relationships will turn the US into a society of uncertain rights heading in uncertain directions depending on who is leading it at the time.

To give Tom Friedman the last word from his NYT article sited above:

“A year ago, I heard one of our former presidents privately observe that we can survive Trump’s second term as long as our institutions remain intact. Well, unfortunately, they have not. Who would argue today that the Justice Department, which has been turned into a personal legal weapon of the president, is intact, that the Department of Health and Human Services is intact, that the Pentagon is intact, that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is intact or that the Federal Communications Commission, which is now run by a Trump-appointed hack who acts as combined government censor and minister of propaganda, is intact?”

Econ 101: Capitalism and Socialism

The popularity of socialism seems on the rise. Is it justified?

Starting from the top, the difference between capitalism and socialism is who decides how our resources (capital and labor) are allocated. Under capitalism the private owners of a country’s resources decide how to use what they own. They are driven by the desire to maximize profit. Under socialism public owners (government) of our resources decide how to deploy them. They are driven by…. Well let’s see.

Capitalists (company shareholders and the management they employ) seek out the goods and services the public want and the cheapest way to provide them. Entrepreneurs develop new products and services they hope the public will want and will pay for. The government’s role is to protect private property, enforce freely-agreed contracts, provide infrastructure that facilitates trade, and enforce law and order (including defense from potential foreign invaders). Freely negotiated prices reflecting supply and demand provide capitalist with essential information in their search for maximum profits.

While capitalists own the capital they deploy, they must attract and hire the labor who work with it. Consistent with their pursuit of maximum profit they seek the most productive (skillful) workers at the lowest cost (wages). While a worker’s wage is a very important part of their willingness to accept a particular job, every other aspect of the conditions of their employment is important as well. Thus, their employer has a profit incentive to establish with employees the least-costly way of satisfying those demands. These incentives (private ownership and profit maximization) have maximized the incomes of capitalist economies. https://wcoats.blog/2026/08/02/econ-101-profits/

The incomes of the average person hardly changed from poverty levels for thousands of year. But with the advent of capitalism and the industrial revolution average income in the United States over the last 250 years increased 50 to 60 times.

Some capitalists have become very rich. For seventeen years Bill Gates was the richest man in the world. Was that a bad thing–a price we had to pay for the benefits of capitalism? I have always and continue to think that I have benefited from Gates’ Microsoft products (Windows, Word, Excell, PowerPoint to name a few) far more than I have paid for them. But that is the nature of capitalist free market transactions: win-win.

In Socialist economies, the “government” owns much of the economy’s capital (e.g., government grocery stores, or airplane factories), and determines how to allocate much of its resources (what to build and produce—e.g., silicon chip factories). While the government might seek to determine what the public wants, it will also determine what it thinks it should have.

But who is the government and what are the incentives it faces when making its decisions? The government consists of elected politicians (in democracies) with the power to make laws, the public officials they appoint to various agencies to implement them, and the workers those officials employ. The primary incentive for politicians is to get elected and reelected. Presumably that depends on supporting (and actually implementing) the policies most voters in each congressional district want. Voters might support policies they think are in the country’s best interest or in their own personal best interest.

Many of the voters in the state of Washington work for Boeing aircraft and might favor government programs that direct tax money to that company. Boeing has a large complex a few blocks from where I live in Pentagon City Virginia (half a mile from the Pentagon). It builds nothing there but seems to keep its workers busy.

Unlike the profits from sales by private firms to their customers, which result from the voluntary purchases of satisfied customers, the goods and services provided to the public by governments are rarely paid for by the recipient. Nor are their costs paid for by the politicians or officials who provide them. Therefore, the incentives of governments (politicians, officials, employees) are very different than those of private firms.  This is true of any government but the scale of what is directed by socialist governments is significantly greater.

Consider the implications of these incentives for the workers hired by socialist governments. By the way, in 2024, the US federal government employed just over 3.0 million people (excluding 1.3 active-duty military personnel). State and local governments employed an additional 20 million, or a combined 7.1% of the total population.  As government officials are not spending their own money, their incentives for choosing workers can be quite different than are those for private capitalists. Hiring friends and relatives may be more rewarding to public sector bosses than those who are most qualified and hard working.

The incentives for corruption in large governments are significant. Thus, the American constitution provides checks and balances between the congress, executive, and courts. Moreover, congress has established additional oversight of executive branch agencies in an effort to keep them honest. Unfortunately, in January 2025, President Trump abruptly fired at least seventeen presidentially appointed inspectors general from major cabinet departments and federal agencies without providing the 30-day advance notice or substantive rationale required by the Inspector General Act. And by the way, Trump’s net worth and business revenues have surged during his second term, with financial analysts estimating he brought in roughly $2.2 billion to $2.4 billion during his first year back in office alone, pushing his overall net worth to an estimated $6.5 billion. This does not include our tax money he has used to put his name, picture, and gold all over the place. This is a failed businessman who declared bankruptcy six time. Just sayin.  

Even if a Socialist government is led by honest people truly committed to the general public’s interest, they lack the market prices that guide capitalists when deciding what would be “best.” Moreover, they are not likely to offer multiple options when choosing policies to impose on the public. It is unlikely that a socialist government will establish a range of different policies to satisfy different tastes. The top-down decision making of socialist governments is more likely to impose uniform approaches to the provision of goods and services and rules. In capitalist economies we are freer to choose among a wide variety of e.g., stores following different approaches to satisfying their customers.

When choosing capitalist or socialist economies, we want to know which has been more successful in allocating our resources to their most productive and desired uses. Given the differences in the incentives faced by each outlined above, have socialist governments been better at “choosing winners” than capitalists? The answer from the real world is overwhelmingly clear.

Given the different incentives faced by each, it should not be surprising that the economic well-being of capitalist and socialist economies has been dramatically different. The most dramatic comparison of the economies of two otherwise similar countries are the former East and West Germany and North and South Korea. In 1989, the year before East and West German merged into the Federal Republic of Germany, percapita income of West Germany was about double that of East German. The differences are much more dramatic between North and South Korea. In 2024 percapita income in North Korea was only 3.4% of South Korea’s.

Perhaps those promoting socialism do so thinking that it would better service the poor. This has not been true, but it does suggest that capitalist societies need to provide well-considered safety nets for those who stumble. The U.S. does not have a perfect set of safety net policies by any means. I advocate a Universal Basic Income and a government financed by a consumption (rather than income) tax. These maximize the freedom of choice and incentive to work. https://wcoats.blog/2023/01/15/fair-tax-act-of-2023/

America Alone

Donald Trump campaigned on a pledge to end “forever wars” and to put American interests first. In office, he has done the opposite.

In the first year of his second term Trump has bombed seven countries and 50 speed boats killing 159 people. His joint war with Israel on Iran is threatening global recession. None of these were authorized by the American Congress as required by our Constitution and violate international law as well. He has threated one an all even more freely (e.g. Canada, Greenland).

If this were not bad enough, Trump has insulted and alienated our friends and allies resulting in the refusal of most EU and Nato countries (Germany, France, UK, Spain, Italy) and Australia and Japan to agree to Trump’s plea for help in defending the Staits of Hormuz.

These measures have isolated and weakened the U.S.  Trump’s policies have not put America First–they have made a weakened America Alone.

Deploying his bully substitute for diplomacy, Trump, with help from JD Vance, Trump accused the EU of “extraterritorial censorship of Americans” through EU content‑moderation and hate‑speech rules. At the Munich Security Conference in February 2025, Vance warned that “across Europe, free speech…is in retreat,” This is from the same administration that repeatedly labeled critical media “fake news” and “the enemy of the people.” Currently he and senior officials have accused outlets critical of his Middle East war policy of undermining the country, with allies at the media regulator warning that broadcasters risked losing licenses if they spread “fake news.”

Condemning the opposition as enemies rather than challenging the policies of opponents is a sign of weakness and typical of tyrants. Trump attacks his domestic enemies as fiercely as foreign ones. Note the childish hate in Trump’s tweet today about the death of the man who investigated his misbehavior at the bottom of this blog:

The administration has backed or initiated high‑dollar defamation lawsuits against critical outlets (for example, a multibillion‑dollar suit against the Wall Street Journal). The Department of Justice has revived policies to subpoena reporters’ phone records to identify leakers, and Homeland Security officials have publicly boasted about catching sources for journalists—moves described by the Committee to Protect Journalists as “terrifying” and chilling to newsgathering.

The White House has at times revoked or restricted press credentials for reporters and outlets seen as adversarial, most famously CNN’s Jim Acosta. New, more restrictive rules for White House press passes have been criticized as targeting critical journalists and limiting independent coverage.

The unfunny clown who heads our Department of War has driving away most honest reporters by require department review of their prospective reports. A federal district court in Washington, D.C., just struck down key parts of the Pentagon’s new press-access and reporting restrictions. In a suit brought by The New York Times challenging the Defense Department’s 2025 press policy the judge ruled that the Pentagon’s policy limiting reporters’ access and conditioning accreditation on pledges not to gather or publish information without official approval violated the First Amendment and also raised due process concerns under the Fifth Amendment.

We have historically relied on the strength of our constitution and the separation of powers it establishes between the three major branches of government to contain abuses of government power. Generally, our institutions have served us well. But Trump has stretched executive power weakened its guardrails, for example by firing all Inspector Generals and failing to seek congressional support.

Trump and his repulsive advisor Stephen Miller’s immigration/deportation policies via the masked ICE agents who have killed two American citizens on public streets, have unleashed terror and abuse of power never seen in my life time. Last year 32 people died in ICE custody and in just the first weeks of 2026, at least 6 more people died in ICE detention.

The list goes on and on. From his reelection to his second term (2024) to early 2026, Trump’s estimated wealth has increased on the order of 2–4 billion dollars. Forbes reported his net worth at about 7.3 billion dollars by September 2025, calling it the most lucrative year of his career. In the realm of pure childish ego, he has added his name to the Kennedy Center now to be closed in two months, and the Institute of Peace, rebuilding the White House, and threatening to rename Dulles Airport. On top of that he wants his image on a gold coin. His administration proposing both a commemorative gold coin and a circulating $1 coin.

None of these are serving America’s interests.  Various indices of freedom/authoritarianism report a steep decline by the U.S.  Freedom House, which scores countries (0–100) on political rights and civil liberties and categorizes them as Free, Partly Free, or Not Free reports that the U.S. score is now at its lowest level since they adopted the 100‑point scale, while still rated “Free.”   The democracy watchdog, Martin Gelin reports that “Trump is aiming for dictatorship”. But we can still stop him if we wake up and yell STOP.

Ukraine’s and Russia’s War

Russia’s attack on Ukraine is horrifying, unjustified and illegal. We can’t help admiring the courage of the Ukrainian people in attempting to defend their country nor being enraged at Russia’s brutality.

In a recent article in Foreign Affairs, Alexander Vindman argued that: “America Must Embrace the Goal of Ukrainian Victory  It’s Time to Move Past Washington’s Cautious Approach” “Will America embrace Ukraine victory goal?”  Vindman, best known to us as Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, was born in Ukraine. It is understandable, but not excusable, that Vindman puts Ukraine’s interests above those of the United States.

As a naturalized American, Vindman proved his patriotism by testifying on October 29, 2019, before the U.S. House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, for whom he worked as a member of the White House’s National Security Council. But when determining our role in Ukraine’s war with Russia, we should give primacy to America’s best interests in both the short and long term.

Historian and military expert Edward Luttwak tweeted recently that “Friends complain that my suggested war aim of restoring the Feb 23, 2022, status quo ante is too modest; some want the expulsion of all Russian forces from all parts of Ukraine incl Crimea, with others emphasizing the need to drive Putin from office. But both mean much more war…”  “Luttwak on war in Ukraine”

It is hard not to sympathize with the desire to punish Russia for what Putin has done and is doing—i.e., to demand justice. Many aspects of the world are not to our liking or of our making, even here at home. But we must deal rationally with the world that exists in the hopes of moving it bit by bit toward a better place.

In today’s Washington Post Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Catlin Talmadge wrote an oped titled: “The U.S. is expanding its goals in Ukraine. That’s dangerous. Comments by political and military leaders suggest the goal is no longer to drive Russia to the negotiating table but to seek a total defeat of Russian forces. That increases the odds of catastrophe.”

 “Talk of total victory aligns well with another recently floated objective: an extended bloodletting of the Russian army. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin asserted on April 25 that the United States wants ‘to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.’ Yet crippling Russia’s military or expelling Russia from Ukraine are significantly more dangerous aims than preventing the further loss of Ukrainian territory or, through limited offensive operations, gaining some of it back. Unfortunately, if Russian President Vladimir Putin begins to think that his back is against the wall, he may lash out by directly confronting NATO, intensifying the conventional war in the east, or even using nuclear weapons.” “Ukraine war expansion risks nuclear”

Mr. Vindman wants us to make Russia a permanent enemy. That is never a good objective. Over the last half year both Presidents Zelenskyy and Putin have offered peace conditions that represented reasonable starting points for serious negotiations. Why haven’t we pressed them both to the negotiating table?

Vindman stated that: “A Ukrainian victory against Russia will be defined, first and foremost, by the Ukrainians themselves.” But then he also says that the US should give Ukraine more and better weapons. I am not sure that he sees the disconnect here. We should not push Putin into feeling he must escalate or lose. We should exert maximum pressure to bring this war to an end that is acceptable to both Ukrainian and Russian people and in a way that opens the door to a more peaceful Russia in the future. “Ukraine-France playing good cop with Putin”

Aside from the strong emotional desire to punish Russia for what it is doing, several of the usual suspects are dangerously prolonging this war. Billions of dollars are pouring into our defense industries, which, as always, have a profit incentive to keep things going. Though we are confronted with horrifying pictures of mangled buildings and bodies, they are “over there” somewhere. For most Americans the assumed horrors of war are academic, while in fact they are all too real for those involved. The huge cost of war in lives lost, human suffering, and economic and property damage are rarely given the weight they deserve as we cheer on the brave Ukrainians fighting to the last Ukrainian. Those very well-meaning Americans thanking our soldiers for their service rarely have any idea what we have asked of them to go and fight in other people’s wars.

So our emotions cry out to smash and punish the Russians. But how it ends will have a large impact on conditions in the world ten or twenty years from now. Our standard of living and the degree of security and cooperation in the world—particularly with Russia—will depend on when and how this war ends. We need to temper our emotions and engage our minds.

Our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, looked quite different at the end than they did as we undertook them. Ukraine is ranked only slightly less corrupt than Russia. “Transparency International” It is much more difficult doing business there than in Russia (Ease of doing business ranking lists New Zealand at the top, Russia 29 and Ukraine 64). “World Bank Ease of Doing Business index”  Thus it is a small wonder that John Hudson wrote in today’s Washington Post that: “Flood of weapons to Ukraine raises fear of arms smuggling Vague U.S. assurances spark concern about lost military equipment in Ukraine, a longtime hub of arms trafficking.” “Ukraine weapons trafficking”

It is too late to point fingers and ask why we did not press Ukraine and Russia to the bargaining table six months ago or four months ago. It is in our self-interest and the interest of Europe and the world to do so now.

Trade protection and corruption

Starting with the repeal of the Corn Laws in England (tariffs on grain imports) in 1846, cross border trade and incomes blossomed. “Global life expectancy in the past 175 years has risen from a little under 30 years to over 70. The share of people living below the threshold of extreme poverty has fallen from about 80% to 8% . . . . Literacy rates are up more than fivefold, to over 80%. Civil rights and the rule of law are incomparably more robust than . . . only a few decades ago.” From The Economist’s 175 anniversary issue September 13, 2018: “A-manifesto-for-renewing-liberalism”

Post World War II trade agreements reflected a process of progressive reductions in tariffs and other impediments to trade. Unfortunately and misguidedly, President Trump has reversed this trend by introducing new tariffs and raising old ones. Import tariffs are taxes on American consumers. Why is Trump doing this? He says that he wants to bring manufacturing jobs that have moved off shore back to the U.S. by making their output cheaper than taxed imports.

As the U.S. economy is fully employed (there are currently more job openings than people looking for work), increasing employment in one area can only occur by reducing it in one or more other areas. Starting with Trump’s 25% and 10% tariffs on steel and aluminum, the shift from imported steel and aluminum to domestically produced steel and aluminum as a result of tariff protection is only possible by shifting workers from other more productive activities lowering the value of over all output. Given that these products are inputs into some American exports, which are thereby made more expensive, it is estimated that more jobs will be lost than created. “Econ-101-trade-in-very-simple-terms”

The U.S. has already imposed steep tariffs on China’s steel and aluminum to offset Chinese government subsidies to its steel and aluminum industries and thus we import almost no steel and aluminum from China. Trump has justified his new steel and aluminum tariffs on national security grounds thus bypassing usual World Trade Organization (WTO) rules for justifying tariffs. It stretches credibility, to say the least, to claim that depending on Canada and Mexico for steel is a security risk, not to mention that existing domestic production by itself exceeds our military needs. “Trump-says-steel-imports-are-a-threat-to-national-security-the-defense-industry-disagrees”

Some claim that Trump’s tariffs and threatened tariffs are just part of his negotiating strategy to achieve fairer trade agreements by a free traders at heart. This is belied by the fact that steel and aluminum tariffs remain on Mexico even after tentative agreement on a NAFTA replacement/update with Mexico. The question is why would someone benefit one small sector of the economy while imposing much larger harm on the economy more generally? The short answer is corruption.

Corruption in this context refers to bestowing benefits on a few at the expense of others in exchange for something else. In government, corruption generally takes the form of vote buying, though sometimes it is for personal financial gain. My bottom line here is that in addition to reducing an economy’s output and thus its resident’s incomes by protecting inefficient or less competitive industries, tariffs and other forms of economic protection reflect, or at the least open the door for and encourage, corruption.

When the government has or takes the authority to tax or exempt from tax individual industries or firms, it invites, if not begs for, corruption. Read the story of the Dixon Ticonderoga pencil company and weep. “How-dixon-ticonderoga-has-blurred-lines-of-where-its-pencils-are-made”

Feeding the Swamp

During his filibuster leading to last week’s brief government shutdown, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) stated that: “When Republicans are in power, it seems there is no conservative party…. The hypocrisy hangs in the air and chokes anyone with a sense of decency or intellectual honesty.” He was protesting the compromise two-year budget just passed by the Senate and awaiting passage in the House. This budget, now signed into law by President Trump, adds over $300 billion in additional government spending this year alone on top of the $1 trillion dollar deficit created by the recently passed tax cut. “Why-did-the-GOP-vote-for-a-budget-busting-spending-bill-because-voters-dont-seem-to-care”

A few congressmen reacted with more principle. “’I’m not only a ‘no.’ I’m a ‘hell no,’ ” quipped Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), one of many members of the Tea Party-aligned Freedom Caucus who left a closed-door meeting of Republicans saying they would vote against the deal.

“It’s a “Christmas tree on steroids,” lamented one of the Freedom Caucus leaders, Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.).” “Right-revolts-on-budget-deal”

Why should we worry about adding to the public debt? The “deficit” is the shortfall of tax revenue below expenditures in one year. This is now forecast to average about one trillion dollars in each of the next two years. “Bipartisan-budget-act-cements-return-trillion-dollar-deficits”. Each year these annual deficits add to the outstanding U.S. national “debt” currently at $20.6 trillion dollars. Even before the recent tax cuts and last week’s expenditure increases, the Congressional Budget Office projected Federal debt held by the public at $25.5 trillion or 91.5% of GDP by 2027. But that figure omits debt held by the Federal Reserve, Social Security “trust” fund, and other government entities, which must also be serviced and repaid. When these are included as they should be, gross federal debt is projected to be $30.7 trillion or 110% of GDP by 2027 and 150% of GDP in thirty years and climbing. And to repeat, this is before the recent tax cuts and budget increases.

As our economy grows so does the government’s capacity to carry and service (pay the interest on) the debt. But on the basis of existing laws and policies our debt will grow faster than the economy forever. But of course that is impossible. At some point taxes must be increased or expenditures cut, or the government defaults on its debt. In fact the problem is worse than these figures suggest because they fail to include the future taxes or borrowing needed to cover unfunded government liabilities. These are commitments, such as future Social Security pension payments, for which existing financing falls short. For example, Social Security payments already exceed its annual revenue from the wage taxes of current workers and the so-called trust fund will run dry in fifteen years. That will add still more to the deficit and the debt.

Indeed, there are times when deficits are ok and even helpful. When the economy goes into recession the government should allow the deficit that naturally results from falling tax revenue and increasing safety net spending. These are referred to as automatic stabilizers. However, we are currently not now in that phase of the business cycle. We are now at its peak and if the government is to achieve fiscal balance over the cycle it must run budget surpluses at the peak to pay for the deficits during the slumps. The U.S. should now have a budget surplus and not the huge deficit presently experienced and projected. The White House’s announcement today (Monday) that it is giving up on the traditional Republican goal of a balanced budget in ten years is hardly a surprise when we are starting with a large deficit at the peak of the business cycle. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/white-house-budget-proposes-increase-to-defense-spending-and-cuts-to-safety-net-but-federal-deficit-would-remain/2018/02/12/f2eb00e6-100e-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.514757e9c8de&wpisrc=al_news__alert-politics–alert-national&wpmk=1

Senator Paul was rightly angry that not only was the need to face and correct this untenable future kicked down the road yet again, but the process of doing so was corrupt. Votes were bought by sticking in special tax and spending breaks for the constituents and friends of individual congressmen—the old earmarks by another name. “Budget-deal-retroactively-extend-several-expired-tax-provisions”. While it is true that the bipartisan budget deal wouldn’t have passed without these bribes, it shouldn’t have passed. Instead of draining the swamp the Republicans have joined with the Democrats to feed it. “In-big-reversal-new-trump-budget-will-give-up-on-longtime-republican-goal-of-eliminating-deficit”. And more repulsive is the fact that these are the same Republicans who rallied against spending during the Obama years. This is the hypocrisy Senator Paul lamented.

Congress has failed yet again to prioritize it’s spending to match the resources that taxpayers are willing to pay. The moral corruption of this way of doing business was reestablished and reinforced. As another example of blatant corruption, Presidents have rewarded (paid off) large contributors with Ambassadorships to nice places like London, Paris, and Rome (to name a few) for decades. This is pure corruption for which the country pays with lower quality representation and diplomacy than would be provided by Foreign Service professionals. Unfortunately we have grown used to it and barely notice it. This is dangerous.

All individual government expenditures and programs look worthwhile to at least some people, but at the expense of what? What do taxpayers or investors or other government programs give up to finance them. These are not easy choices and decisions but it is the job of our representatives to make these judgments in the best interests of the country as a whole. That is probably expecting more than they are capable of delivering, but it is their job. Those of you of Generation X, Y and Z will have to pay for this so you are the ones with an incentive to do something about it. We need more Rand Pauls. “The-5-biggest-losers-from-the-2018-budget-deal-are…”

Trump’s approach to government corruption

PEOTUS Trump is giving conflicting signals on his policy toward government corruption. He seems to recognize clearly the conflicts of interest in the “military industrial complex,” when he criticized the F-35 fighter plane and the revolving door between the defense department and the defense industry. “On Monday, Trump also took a shot at Lockheed Martin’s $400 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, the most expensive in the history of the Pentagon, saying the “cost is out of control. Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20th….Trump said there should be a “lifetime restriction” of top defense officials going to work for defense contractors ” “Trump-takes-aim-at-pentagons-revolving-door-and-lockheed-martins-400-billion-f-35-program”

This is commendable. But it is only one example of conflicts of interest that can arise in government. We await with interest to see how Rex Tillerson, Trump’s choice to head the State Department, will handle his conflicts of interest arising from the extensive business deals between Exxon-Mobile, the company he currently heads, and Russia and his friendship with Russian President Putin.

But we particularly await Trump’s clarification of how he will handle his own conflicts of interest. As a private citizen, Trump did not hesitate to use the power of government to force private citizens and companies to bend to his will. “And-so-here-we-are.” While Trump apparently has no direct businesses in Russia he has plenty of indirect business relationships. “Donald-Trump-ties-to-Russia” He has delayed until January his promised Dec 20 clarification of how he will handle this. “Trump-corruption-conflict-of-interest.” He still has not disclosed his personal and business tax returns that would clarify some of the potential conflicts. Given his strong position on the Pentagon’s revolving door, perhaps we can be hopeful that he will take equally strong measures with regard to potential conflicts of interest of his own and of his cabinet’s.

Trump the Terrible

To say that Trump’s future presidency promises to be a mixed bag, while true, seems increasingly too kind. On the positive side there seems to be a very good chance of a truly monumental tax reform. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady recently released the outline of a major tax reform plan as part of Speaker Paul Ryan’s “A Better Way” agenda that would, if enacted, introduce a dramatic, growth enhancing reform of U.S. personal and business income taxation. While there are a few differences with the President Elect’s tax reform proposals, it should not be that difficult to resolve them. Prospects for adoption are the best they have been for decades.

On the growing negative side Trump is adding to the nasty character traits he seemed unable to control during his campaign—a level of blatant corruption that would even embarrass the Clintons. After having his daughter, who is also his business partner, at his side during his private meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, a few days later he put Ivanka on the phone with Argentina’s President (Trump is seeking approval to build a real-estate project in Buenos Aires).

For me these examples of Trumps many conflicts of interests pale in comparison to the deal he claims credit for to keep 1000 Carrier jobs in Indiana where Mike Pence is still the governor. The Chicago Tribune reported today that “Carrier would receive a $7 million package of incentives to keep its factory here from moving to Mexico, the company said Thursday, under a deal negotiated with the state after an unusual intervention by President-elect Donald Trump that could reshape the relationship between the White House and private enterprise.” http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-trump-carrier-jobs-subsidies-20161201-story.html

This goes beyond the corruption of personal enrichment and vote buying from the public purse to measures that undermine the very basis of our national wealth. And Trump proudly stated to the press that he would give any other company that wanted to move production abroad a VERY hard time. He is gloating over his “skillful” use of his great power as president.

The standard of living of the average middle class family in the U.S. could not even have been imagined half a century ago. Among the many things that make our wealth possible is the ability of companies and each of us to allocate our resources where we think they will be most productively used. Trump is now inserting the power of the Presidency—of the government—to over ride those economic decisions in order to save some jobs at some (favored) companies at the expense of other jobs and overall economic efficiency. This is blatant corruption of a high order and if allowed to persist will erode our economic productivity and standard of living over time. Read any of my blogs on trade and free enterprise (or what most of us call the liberal economic order).

Not only is Trump’s corruption shocking, but also his failure to behave presidentially is beyond embarrassing. It is dangerous. Someone should take Trump’s phone away until he figures out that his campaign style of ad libbing is simply wrong for the POTUS. When he said he would jail and take away the citizenship of flag burners, was he ignorant of the law (confirmed by a Supreme Court ruling) or contemptuous of it??? In his recent phone conversation with Pakistani Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, was he looking ahead to what he might say to the Indian PM when he committed himself (and implicitly the United States) to the following: “I am ready and willing to play any role that you want me to play to address and find solutions to the outstanding problems.” You can read the entire terrific, wonderful, exceptional conversation here: http://www.pid.gov.pk/?p=30445 What in the hell is he thinking? Unfortunately the list of problems is growing. And he’s not even the President yet.

Cayman Financial Review, Q3 2015

Dear Friends,

The Third Quarter issue of the Cayman Financial Review is now available on the web: http://www.compasscayman.com/cfr/. I am on the Editorial Board and have two articles in this issue that might interest you. The first discusses the continued decline of U.S. world leadership exemplified in the case of the new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank located in China: http://www.compasscayman.com/cfr/2015/08/19/US-leadership-and-the-Asian-Infrastructure-Investment-Bank/

The second is the final installment of my series on the Kabul Bank scandal. The failure of Kabul Bank in Afghanistan was probably the biggest bank failure and fraud in history on a per capital basis.  As this final article looks at some of the legal issues and developments in recovering stolen assets held abroad and Afghanistan’s uneven struggle to strengthen its criminal justice system, Gary Gegenheimer, a lawyer who also worked in Afghanistan, joined me to write this third installment: http://www.compasscayman.com/cfr/2015/08/19/The-Kabulbank-scandal–Part-III/

I hope that you enjoy them.

Best wishes,

Warren

Crony capitalism and the Export Import Bank

An important and fundamental principle of the rule of law is that laws should have wide or universal applicability to everyone. This principle is generally violated when governments subsidize specific activities. These subsidize might take the form of tax breaks, loans at preferential interest rates or even grants to favored enterprises or activities. The Export Import Bank is a government program for granting such favors in the name of promoting exports.

If the EX-IM Bank only provided information to American firms that helped them satisfy foreign requirements for selling their products abroad or to connect with services available for marketing such produces—following the model of the Small Business Administration or the Agricultural Extension Services provided by many states—their continued existence might be defensible. However, like so many government intrusions into the private sector, it provides huge subsidize to a limited number of customers (about 30% of the total to Boeing to subsidize the sale of its planes to foreign carriers) at the expense of others. American carriers like Delta complain that EX-IM Bank subsidies to Boeing benefit their foreign competitors, who are able to buy Boeing planes more cheaply than they are. “The Airline Pilots Association of America estimates that the bank’s subsidizing of Boeing airline purchases abroad has forced our domestic airlines to cut about 7,500 jobs – decreasing the airline workforce by almost 2 percent.” (The Blaze, May 29, 2015)

While the cost of the EX-IM Bank to U.S. taxpayers is trivial, it is one more drop in the growing pond of crony capitalist connections to the government. Boeing moved its headquarters from Seattle, where most of its production was traditionally located, to Chicago and has diversified its production and suppliers around the country precisely to have more representatives in congress with an interest in its well being. Like many other large companies seeking government favors, it has hired key people from government such as Kevin Varney, former chief of staff at the Ex-Im during Obama’s first term. The stakes for Boeing are large so you can be sure it is spending a lot of money one way or another to protect its interests. This is the nature of crony capitalism, which gradually diminishes real market competition and chokes productivity.

Creating programs that grant favors also creates strong incentives for less subtle and more overt, traditional style corruption. “For example, Johnny Gutierrez, an Ex-Im Loan Specialist, pled guilty on April 22, 2015 of accepting up to $78,000 in bribes in return for recommending the approval of unqualified loan applications to the bank, among other misconduct. During this period, Ex-Im gave Gutierrez nearly a 20 percent pay hike and paid-out thousands in performance bonuses. “ (Adam Andrzejewski, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2015/05/31/the-export-import-bank-and-the-art-of-picking-losers/ )

The Ex-Im Bank and dozens of programs like it are economically unsound and wasteful and politically corrupting. It and others like it should be killed when ever possible. Here is a rare case where congress can do good by doing nothing (i.e. by not renewing the Bank at the end of this month).