Author: mccoysnoise

Letter to WSJ Editor, re: “Tax Reform: States”

I just emailed the following Letter to the Editor to the Wall Street Journal in response to its cited editorial:

As a 40-year Wisconsin and taxpayer who has never been a member of a union, I was offended by the presumptuousness of your editorial, “Tax Reform Take 2:  The States” (Dec. 21), in which you dismiss certain high tax states as “liberal political cultures heavily influenced by public unions,” suggest that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker “should propose an across-the-board tax rate cut,” and conclude by urging high-tax-rate states to cut their rates in order to be “more taxpayer friendly.”

You should mind your own business.   Wisconsin has traditionally placed greater emphasis than some other states in areas such as educational excellence, quality state services, a solid support network for the disadvantaged, and safeguarding our natural resources.  Efficiency is vital, but – as with most things in life – you get what you pay for.  It is not Wisconsin’s place to question other states’ services and taxing approaches; it is not your place to question how we in Wisconsin – or citizens of other states that tax at relatively higher rates – choose to conduct ours.  The majority of people in these states would not consider the degradation of the quality and availability of their state services likely to result from a reduction in their states’ income tax revenues to be “taxpayer friendly”; these states balance their services/taxing approaches as they do because the majority of their citizens believe in them.  High-earner residents have always been able to leave these states if they wished; it’s pure speculation that they will now.  Our federal system is designed to enable the citizens of different states, across a wide swath of issues, to express their cultures and values in their own ways.  Does the Journal only stand for federalism when it doesn’t like an approach that the federal government is taking on an issue?

 

An Unfortunately Lasting Trump Legacy

I have heard some of our people who are troubled by President Trump’s actions in his first year in office console themselves by saying, “This too shall pass.”  In the domestic sphere, they may be right.  In the foreign sphere, I’d suggest that the President’s behavior in this single year has in the most important respect left an impression on foreign leaders that won’t be undone for generations, if at all:  a faith in the constancy of America.  Although specific Trump foreign policy approaches may (almost certainly will) be reversed – his laissez affaire approach toward Russian aggression, his economic disengagement in Asia, his withdrawal from the Climate Accord – it seems highly doubtful that any foreign leader with any sense will in the foreseeable future base his/her nation’s well-being on any long-term commitment from the United States (I know I wouldn’t).  Mr. Trump’s election and behavior have made clear that no matter how sincere a given President might be in providing assurances on a given policy, the American people are capable of electing a successor who completely undoes previously agreed-upon commitments.  This loss of confidence may have the silver lining of getting those nations generally aligned with us to become more self-reliant; with shrinking funds, our ability to cast a defense net over our allies would be unraveling over the next decade in any event.  That said, this loss of confidence could in the coming years and decades cause our Asian allies, out of a sense of self-preservation, to seek closer ties to China than we will like, and perhaps similarly cause our European allies to be less willing to assist us in confronting inappropriate Russian behavior (due to their need for its oil) than we would hope.     

Jeff Sessions: A Pivot Point

Am struck this morning by the exquisite and peculiar pivot point that Attorney General Sessions has become – certainly quite unhappily, from his perspective – in the Trump saga.

Although the Democrats and some Republicans have cuffed him around for forgetting about both his own Russian contacts and Mr. Papadopoulos’ reference to Mr. Papadopoulos’ Russian ties, no one has really gone after the Attorney General with the outright viciousness we have seen in Washington.  Nobody is seriously calling for his resignation or firing.

I would suggest that there are two reasons.  First (and, regrettably, that probably of lesser import to Democrats), the Congress knows him, and the members may well viscerally know – even those, such as Sen. Schumer and Rep. Pelosi, that decry the AG’s views in most areas – that Mr. Sessions would not interact inappropriately with the Russians.

The second reason is obviously that Democrats and those Republicans concerned about Mr. Trump want Mr. Sessions right where he is – with his recusal effectively blocking the President’s ability to fire Mr. Mueller.  Democrats and those Republicans concerned about Mr. Trump don’t want Mr. Sessions; they want a full and fair investigation of Mr. Trump and his associates, and having Mr. Sessions continuing to serve as AG appears an appropriate means to achieve that goal.

I heard liberal talking heads lauding Mr. Sessions this morning for rebuffing Jim Jordan’s drive toward having the AG appoint a Special Counsel to investigate Uranium One.  While I don’t discount a desire by Mr. Sessions to do his job ethically and honorably – to follow the facts — being scrupulously straight is also the AG’s best approach for his own self-preservation.  I don’t think Mr. Sessions needs to be told that his own bumbling and faulty memory have given the Democrats sufficient ammunition against him so that even if he’s not now directly in the political cross-hairs, he’s certainly within range … and that his best course for his own survival is to play it scrupulously straight, lest he get swallowed by the Trump maelstrom …

Personal Fallout from the Trump Campaign and Presidency

I’ve heard it suggested that Donald Trump never expected nor truly wished to be president – that he ran as a huge marketing ploy for his businesses and brand.

Particularly if that is so, one can imagine that a number of avid supporters of the President that may well be thinking privately – albeit for different reasons – that they would be in much happier places in their lives today had he never run for office.  Without any deep reflection, I’d offer at least:  Mrs. Trump; Donald Trump, Jr.; Jared Kushner; Ivanka Trump; Reince Priebus; Sean Spicer; Michael Flynn; Michael Flynn, Jr.; Paul Manafort; Rick Gates; George Papadopoulos; Jeff Sessions; Tom Price; Wilbur Ross; Rex Tillerson; Bob Corker; and – perhaps – the President himself.

Only a few Trump supporters come readily to mind that (at least as of today) are now seemingly in better places in their careers – again, for different reasons — due Mr. Trump’s candidacy and presidency, than they would be otherwise:  Steve Bannon; Nikki Haley (admittedly not necessarily an “avid” supporter of Mr. Trump’s candidacy); and – perhaps – Mike Pence.

North Korea November 5, 2017

This is an update of something I wrote before beginning this site:

As President Trump begins his trip to Asia, I don’t discount the possibility that the President has made headway with regard to North Korea.  (I note that Thae Yong-Ho, a North Korean diplomat defector, indicated on the PBS Newshour this past week that he did believe that the President’s rhetoric had had some deterrent effect on Kim Jong Un).   North Korea will obviously be the primary topic when Presidents Trump and Xi meet; although Mr. Xi’s current position is very strong while Mr. Trump’s position is clearly politically challenged, if Mr. Trump has and continues to privately indicate to President Xi that “If you don’t do something about this, I will,” I’d take that comment seriously if I were Mr. Xi given Mr. Trump’s unpredictability.  However — particularly given Mr. Thae’s view that any attack by the U.S. on North Korea would result in a full-scale war on the peninsula — it seems that the only true solution to the North Korean problem is regime change from the inside.  We don’t have people on the inside that, with appropriate support, can bring about regime change, but I’d guess that the Chinese do; a Chinese puppet atop North Korea would undoubtedly be preferable to us as well as to the Chinese.  However, an effort like this, if it is indeed being undertaken, will undoubtedly take months, and it seems likely that Mr. Xi was unwilling to do anything that might upset the status quo until his power was reaffirmed and enhanced at the recent Chinese Communist National Congress.  Mr. Kim clearly has superlative antennae for survival, and certainly has to be attuned to the possibility of a Chinese move against him; it would seem that the Chinese will not want to move so quickly as to look like they’ve consorted with the Americans against an ally.

Mueller Investigation Musings

Since the first Mueller indictments (Manafort, Gates) and the Papadopoulos plea have been announced, I’ve sensed a further skewing of our people’s positions (if that’s possible).  Surfing the channels on October 31, I passed Fox News to see a teaser, “‘Witch Hunt – the Plot to Take Down the President” – tonight on Hannity.”  I found it truly disappointing.  I have three thoughts …

First, if attacks on Mr. Mueller’s probe and impartiality intensify – despite the fact that he was appointed FBI Director by a Republican, had his term as Director extended by a Democrat, and has his current post due to an appointment by an official of the Trump Administration — I ask this:  if you were in Mr. Mueller’s position, what would be most important to you?  I can only answer for myself; but although I am no fan of the President, if I was charged with responsibility for conducting the investigation, the enormity of the importance of the task to our nation would immediately extinguish any personal feelings I had about the President or his policies.  Since the way I performed this task would be my legacy, what would drive me wouldn’t be what the result was; it would be whether History (and my grandchildren), looking back on my service, would be able to say that I had performed my responsibilities competently … and even more importantly, with impartiality, honor, and integrity.  If that reaction resonates with you when you put yourself in Mr. Mueller’s position, why would you think that Mr. Mueller would feel differently?

Second, as to the attacks on Hillary Clinton:  as law students, we were reamed out by professors when we didn’t distinguish the “relevant” from the merely “interesting.”  I have no problems with Mr. Mueller’s team investigating the Clintons’ contacts with Russia … but would suggest that the President’s, his team’s, and the conservative outlets’ emphasis on the Clintons’ alleged contacts to Russia — as a counterweight to the team’s investigation into the Trump Campaign’s activities — is an exercise in false equivalence.  From the standpoint of the wellbeing of the nation, any findings that the Mueller team develops about the Clintons will be interesting, but not relevant for the simplest reason:  she’s not President, and won’t be.  On the other hand, Mr. Trump is President; determining what he and his people did or didn’t do is more than relevant – it’s vital, given their ability to affect the wellbeing of our nation.  If she was President, an investigation into her activities would be relevant, and an investigation into his, merely interesting.  If one could find one politically neutral citizen in this country, I would wager that s/he would agree that any attempt to liken the importance of the legality of the activities of a defeated candidate to those of a sitting President is … misplaced.

(This is obviously a “politically-focused” rather than a “foreign-policy-focused” post; the security threat that Russian activities are posing to our nation could be the subject of another note.  I have no way of knowing what activities we are undertaking to combat Russian activities, but I hope they are aggressive.)

Finally:  Are we “a nation of laws” – do we indeed believe that no one should be above the law – or “a nation of men [and women :)]”?  If the former, our concern as citizens should be that the appropriate Constitutional and other legal processes are being followed in the investigation of the Trump team’s activities, and no more.  This is such a fundamental principle that whether the subject of an investigation belongs to a political party or espouses a policy agenda one agrees or disagrees with should not play a part in one’s assessment of the legitimacy of the process.  I consider President Nixon to have had the finest foreign policy mind of the second half of the last century; but he broke the law.  He had to go.  I hope all Americans would agree that if President Trump and/or members of his team are proven to have broken the law, he and or they … will have to go.

Although I haven’t yet populated the “Guiding Principles” section of this blog, I make note of one Principle here that will be included, which is intended to apply to this and all posts to this site:  that I, or anybody else that enters a post, has to be willing to concede that anything s/he enters might be insightful … but could likewise be haywire!

Realizations from Niger Incident

It seems that the tragic incident in Niger is evolving into storylines relating to why few or no members of Congress were aware of our deployment in Niger, and whether there were intelligence and operational deficiencies that, in turn, left our men exposed before the ambush and insufficiently supported after it occurred.  Although I may be the last American alive to absorb this, the Niger incident has brought home to me the ramifications of the apparent decision of the Bush, Obama, and Trump Administrations that we have (and are probably going to indefinitely have) our troops at risk in countries across the globe to conduct a worldwide struggle against terrorism.

President Bush declared in September, 2001:

“Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.  It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”

My focus after 9/11 was on al Qaeda; perhaps only I didn’t grasp the full implications of his declaration:  that he was committing us to a struggle that would indeed cover the globe, last for decades and – whether or not the President realized it at the time — could never be entirely won.  Over the years, the scope of the mission has perhaps been blurred at times by finite territorial references – “the war in Afghanistan,” “the war in Iraq,” “the war in Syria,” “retaking ISIS’ declared Caliphate,” etc., etc.  What makes me think that I’m probably the one that is slow on the uptake is the lack of reaction to Sen. Graham’s straightforward comment this weekend relating to the Niger incident:

“This is an endless war without boundaries – no limitations on time and geography.”

If the effort is indeed to be “endless” and worldwide — and having small deployments of our people in places like Niger seems to indicate that it is – on the off chance that I am not the only one of our people that failed to grasp the full import of President Bush’s words and intentions, I would suggest that President Trump address the nation, and clearly articulate that this is a mission of indefinite containment – essentially a police action — against shifting adversaries, and spell out what our people can reasonably expect regarding the lives, resources, and years that will be spent on the effort (to follow the lives, resources, and years that we have already devoted to it).  This is not to say whether this is, or is not, an appropriate mission; however, we should be sure that our citizens understand the breadth and duration of the commitment, and the need for it; recognize that this struggle will draw resources that we might prefer to invest elsewhere while lacking the likelihood of finality; and accept it.

Supplement to First Post

I put forth my last post as a noncontroversial maiden effort at blogging after our son and daughter-in-law were kind enough to get me set up; following the Packers is a great diversion from all of the issues our nation faces today.  As to Brett Hundley:  in what is the slimmest of silver linings to the dark cloud of Aaron Rodgers’ injury, the playing time he’ll get over the rest of the season will at least enable the team and we Packer faithful to see whether he has what it takes to be an effective NFL quarterback …