Amid reports of severe abuse and neglect in the immigrant detention centers the Trump administration is running, human rights campaigners are planning hundreds of demonstrations on Tuesday to demand the closing of the prisons and the reunification of all families who have been separated by the government.
MoveOn was joined by the ACLU, the Center for Popular Democracy, and other organizations in planning at least 184 events in cities and towns across the country. Beginning at 12:00pm local time and throughout the afternoon, critics of President Donald Trump’s immigration policies will assemble outside their representatives’ offices and at other public venues for the #CloseTheCamps protests.
The organization provided a map on its website of the events that have been planned so far.
“It’s going to take all of us to close the camps,” MoveOn wrote.
The demonstrations are taking place a day after lawmakers including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) traveled to El Paso, Texas to visit a detention centers in the area.
The delegation reported that the immigrants they spoke with were living in cramped cells where they slept on floors, had not had access to medications or been able to bathe in weeks, were in a state of emotional turmoil, and were exhibiting health problems including hair loss.
“We’re talking systemic cruelty [with] a dehumanizing culture that treats them like animals,” Ocasio-Cortez said of what she witnessed in the camps.
“Horrifically, these conditions aren’t an accident,” wrote MoveOn. “They are the byproduct of an intentional strategy by the Trump administration to terrorize immigrant communities and criminalize immigration—from imprisoning children in inhumane conditions to threatening widespread raids to break up families to covering up reports of immigrants dying in U.S. custody and abuses by ICE and CBP agents.”
MoveOn wrote that the three demands of Tuesday’s protests include cutting off all funding for the arrests and deportations of immigrants as well as closing the camps.
“It’s time to fight back against the racist regime that is causing suffering in our name,” tweeted Act.tv, a progressive activism network supporting the demonstrations. “History will remember those who stood against the atrocities.”
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2YsXEga Tyler Durden
Dealmaking in the world of private equity is at its highest level since the lead up to the global financial crisis, according to FT. Additionally, there appears to be no end in sight to the ongoing “buyout boom”, as PE firms rush to deploy dry powder to the tune of almost $2.5 trillion.
This cash pile is despite the fact that 2019 has been marked by several $10 billion plus megadeals, even amidst volatile financial markets and trade tensions.
The appetite for getting deals done at places like KKR and Blackstone has been stoked by the enormous amount of cash on the sidelines, which has been raised from pension and sovereign wealth funds. When combined with the fact that borrowing costs are still near record lows, the environment for financing takeovers remains ripe.
In addition to the nearly $2.5 trillion of dry powder on the sidelines, tens of billions of dollars are being raised for new funds, giving PE groups even more ammunition.
The value of leveraged buyouts was up to $256 billion in the first six months of 2019, marking the second largest first half on record. It even eclipsed the pace of 2006 when PE groups targeted household names like Harrah’s and Clear Channel. PE dealmaking has accounted for 13% of global acquisition activity this year, the highest since 2013.
Simona Maellare, the global head of financial sponsors at UBS said:
“Deal volume in private equity has been very good. A number of transactions have kept the machine going. I expect the second half of the year will follow the same pace of the first half. Deals can be financed, competition for assets is vivid, everyone has a lot of money.”
And so, those running leveraged buyout shops are getting more aggressive in their takeover efforts. At the same time, leverage levels are rising as a result of a relaxed attitude from US regulators and takeover sizes growing.
FT notes several deals that have passed $10 billion in size this year:
Those giant transactions include Blackstone’s record $18.7bn takeover of the US warehouses portfolio of Singapore-based GLP, the biggest private real estate deal in history, as well as EQT’s $10.1bn purchase of Nestle’s skincare unit and the $14.3bn sale of fibre optic cable owner Zayo Group to Digital Colony Partners and EQT.
The buyouts come as private equity groups across the globe amass ever-greater firepower in new multibillion-dollar funds. London-based Cinven recently raised €10bn for its latest flagship fund and Boston-based Advent International collected $17.5bn from investors. Luxembourg-based CVC is seeking to raise more than €18bn for what would be Europe’s largest ever private equity fund at launch next year. Its rival EQT is looking to raise about €14bn by 2020.
Rob Pulford, Goldman Sachs’ head of financial and strategic investors group for Europe, the Middle East and Africa commented: “There has been a significant amount of fundraising among the big private equity groups in the past two years. Several have deployed their new funds quickly and are now getting ready to come back to market again, there is no let-up in the pace of fundraising.”
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Ysqihn Tyler Durden
“Such is the belief currently which is being driven primarily by the ‘Pavlovian’ response of a more ‘accommodative’ Federal Reserve which is expected to cut rates sharply by the end of this year. It is also the ‘hope’ there will be a resolution to the ongoing ‘trade war’ with China at the G-20 Summit next week.”
“As we suggested previously, the most likely outcome was a truce…but no deal.
While the markets will likely react positively next week to the news that ‘talks will continue,’ the impact of existing tariffs from both the U.S. and China continue to weigh on domestic firms and consumers.
More importantly, while the continued ‘jawboning’ may keep ‘hope alive’ for investors temporarily, these two countries have been ‘talking’ for over a year with little real progress to show for it outside of superficial agreements.
Importantly, we have noted that Trump would eventually ‘cave’ into the pressure from the impact of the ‘trade war’ he started. This was evident in this weekend’s agreement.
By agreeing to continue talks without imposing more tariffs on China, China gains ample running room to continue to adjust for current tariffs to lessen their impact. More importantly, Trump gave up a major bargaining chip – Huawei.”
So, yes, the market rallied on Monday given “relief” that no NEW tariffs will be imposed. However, such does not counter-act the negative impact from the existing tariffs which continue to weigh on both producers and consumers.
Secondly, the agreement to temporarily put the “trade war” on hold also takes the pressure off of the Federal Reserve to cut rates in July. If the employment report on Friday keeps the unemployment rate at historic lows, and shows growth of around 150,000 jobs, as is currently expected, there is a rising probability the Fed will remain on hold.
This is not what the markets are betting on currently.
As I noted last week, assumptions are always a dangerous thing as markets have a nasty habit of doing exactly the opposite of what the masses expect.
Nonetheless, the market rally on Monday was expected and followed along with BofA’s recent analysis:
“Of these 4, two are most remarkable: the best/best and the worst/worst cases. The first one sees a Dovish Fed statement, coupled with a G-20 deal, which according to BofA will send the S&P > 3000, and the 10Y yield to 2.00%, while the worst possible outcome would be if there is a 1) a hawkish Fed surprise and 2) no Deal at the G-20, which would send the S&P below 2,650, or potentially resulting in a 12% drop in the market, while sending 10Y yields to 1.50%and pushing gold above its 5 year breakout zone as the VIX surges.”
Hartnett was correct in his outlook with the “best” possible of outcomes.
Still A Sellable Rally
While the current breakout to new highs is indeed bullish, it is important to note the entirety of the “June rally,” which was proclaimed the best in 80-years, barely recouped what was lost in just the month of May.
Importantly, the market, which was deeply oversold at the beginning of June, and formed the basis of our “sellable rally” call, is now back to extremely overbought. Such suggests limited upside from current levels. The chart below shows that previous test of multiple support levels, and the rally back to overhead resistance, which we are once again challenging.
As noted previously, while there is a “rush” to bid up equities due to recent “talk” from the White House and the Fed, the reality is that nothing has really changed.
A Trade deal wasn’t reached and China will continue to refuse to give in to demands for economic reform. Additional tariffs are coming by the end of the summer.
Existing tariffs, which were just ratcheted up at the beginning of June, have not been fully recognized in the economy as of yet. More “pain” is coming by the end of the summer.
While the markets think that Trump has the “upper hand,” it is China for now. They can hold out to economic pressures far longer than Trump as Xi is not facing re-election. China knows this.
The Fed has now started to recognize their “independence” has been threatened. Look to Powell to flex his muscles a bit in July and NOT cut rates particularly if the June jobs report is moderately strong.
The Fed is still reducing its balance sheet.
The point is there are more than a few outcomes which could disappoint the financial markets and why this remains a “sellable rally” for now.
But aside from the technical underpinnings, which remain moderately unfavorable for higher highs currently, there is also a deteriorating fundamental backdrop.
Negative Earnings Guidance
I have been noting for the last several quarters, the consistent and large decline in forward earnings expectations. From our last analysis:
“As of the end of the Q4-2018 reporting period, guess where we are? Exactly 11% lower than where we started which, as stated then, has effectively wiped out all the benefit from the tax cuts.”
“Importantly, the estimates for the end of 2019 are still too high and will need to revised lower over the next couple of quarters as economic growth remains materially weaker. The burgeoning debts and deficits, corporate and household leverage, and slower job growth will ensure slower growth into year end.”
That expected reduction in both 2019 and 2020 estimates is underway. As John Butters ofFactsetrecently penned:
“Heading into the end of the second quarter, 113 S&P 500 companies have issued EPS guidance for the quarter. Of these 113 companies, 87 have issued negative EPS guidance and 26 companies have issued positive EPS guidance.
The number of companies issuing negative EPS for Q2 is above the five-year average of 74. In fact, if 87 is the final number for the second quarter, it will mark the second highest number of S&P 500 companies issuing negative EPS guidance for a quarter since FactSet began tracking this data in 2006 (trailing only Q1 2016 at 92).”
“What is driving the unusually high number of S&P 500 companies issuing negative EPS guidance for the second quarter?
At the sector level, seven of the 11 sectors have seen more companies issue negative EPS guidance for Q2 2019 relative to their five-year averages. However, the Information Technology and Health Care sectors are the largest contributors to the overall increase in the number of S&P 500 companies issuing negative EPS guidance for Q2 relative to the five-year average.”
Why is this happening?
“It’s the economy, stupid.”
As economic growth slows, companies have to begin to adjust for lower levels of consumption. This initially shows up in things that under the immediate control of corporate decision makers like unspent capital investment. It’s easy to shelve a project, or development, that money was committed to but not yet spent. As Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley Chief Economist recently stated (via Zerohedge):
“…It was clear that the global capex cycle had ground to a halt. Capital goods imports, a capex proxy, began their descent in mid-2018, when trade tensions first re-emerged. In July 2018, they were tracking at 18%Y on a three-month moving average basis but plummeted to 2%Y in January 2019 and an estimated -3%Y in May 2019. In aggregate, private fixed capital formation (investments in fixed assets) in the G4 and BRIC economies fell from a peak of 4.7%Y in 1Q18 to just 2.8%Y in 1Q19.”
The next decline occurs in how companies “frame” their outlook. Are they more optimistic, or less?
“Corporate sentiment has also declined to multi-year lows. Global PMIs for May fell in broad-based fashion, with only about one-third of the countries we track reporting a PMI above the 50 expansion threshold. In the US, our Morgan Stanley Business Conditions Index recorded its largest one-month decline ever, plunging to a level not seen since June 2008. Other business sentiment gauges, such as the regional Fed and German Ifo and ZEW surveys for the month of June, paint a fairly bleak picture too. What’s more, consumer sentiment is also starting to sour, with the Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index for June falling to the lowest point since September 2017.
But with stock prices at all-time highs, why worry about these risks?
A key reason why we worry about downside risks is that the adverse impact of trade tensions is non-linear. As earnings growth slows and uncertainty and costs rise, the levered corporate sector will face tightening financial conditions. Given higher corporate leverage, this will probably be most pronounced in the US, particularly for companies with weaker balance sheets. Defaults could accelerate, bringing corporate credit risks to the fore, thus amplifying the initial trade shock with even tighter financial conditions, which could impair lending, weaken confidence further and exacerbate the slowdown in growth. Rekindling animal spirits will not be easy.”
The Last Sign
These are not trivial issues for investors. While the market will be focused on the employment number on Friday, this is probably one of the “worst” indicators to look at due to its “lag” to the rest of the important fundamental and economic factors.
Why? Because companies are “last to hire, last to fire.”
Employees are expensive to hire, train, and maintain. Good talent is extremely hard to replace. So, companies are slow to hire, due to the cost, and slow to fire because they don’t want to give up good talent to potential competitors. When unemployment, along with jobless claims, do begin to tick up, that is generally the last sign before a recession sets in.
However, since interest rates are a reflection of underlying economic strength, it is not surprising there is a decent relationship between sharp declines in interest rates and employment. The chart below is the annual rate of change in both rates and employment.
Don’t be surprised to see weaker employment numbers in the months ahead. As Bloomberg also noted:
“Falling bond yields have been the big surprise of 2019 so far and there’s an excellent chance they will grind lower in the second half — and take stocks with them — as weak growth spurs global monetary easing.
Given how tough it has been to forecast bond yields, getting that call right for the rest of the year is key.
A reminder of how difficult that can be comes from San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly. Twice last week she said it’s very hard to say what the central bank should do, including comments that she’s unsure ‘whether interest rates will be lower a year from now.’
Surveying the outlooks our team came up with at the start of 2019, it’s clear our biggest misses were all in bonds.
The same goes for those readers who took part in our surveys. Treasury yields finished June more than 100 bps below the consensus for end-2019, while bunds were ~75 bps lower and Italian yields a whopping 105. Bond analysts were also far too bearish.”
The problem with equities at all-time highs, with yields and economic growth declining sharply, is that it has consistently led to terrible outcomes for equities, and not the other way around.
Bloomberg came to the correct conclusion:
“What looks more likely is that equities ultimately succumb to the macro logic that has fueled this year’s bond rally.”
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Jj9wuV Tyler Durden
Following through on threats to hit more European imports with tariffs seems unlikely to change the fact that most Americans disagree with President Donald Trump’s trade war.
If anything, higher import taxes on items like Scotch whisky, French cheeses, and Italian pasta will only add to domestic opposition to Trump’s trade policies. What is the president going to say: that Scotch should be made in America?
On Monday, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced plans to consider tariffs on 89 European-made items worth an estimated $4 billion annually. Those will be added to a list of proposed tariffs on European Union (E.U.) imports that the Trump administration unveiled in April. Together, the two lists represent items worth an estimated $21 billion annually.
This latest U.S.-E.U. trade spat is effectively a fight between Boeing, the American-based airplane manufacturer, and its European-based rival, Airbus. Both are heavily subsidized by their respective governments, and both have been suing one another at the World Trade Organization for years over claims that the other is unfairly helped by that corporate welfare. Trump administration officials have stressed that the Boeing-Airbus fight is wholly separate from the Trump administration’s other trade policies, which have included other threats to impose tariffs on European-made goods, including cars.
But none other than Trump himself has conflated the two, tweeting in April that Airbus is one example of how the E.U. has “taken advantage of the United States” and promising that “it will soon stop.” For the general public, too, drawing a distinction between the different actions is surely rather difficult. The White House’s willingness to turn to tariffs as a magical solution to complex or imaginary problems—from China’s theft of intellectual property, to migrants crossing Mexico to reach to the U.S., to the national security risk presented by Toyotas—makes it more difficult to make the case that tariffs are actually justified in a specific situation.
And Americans are growing weary of the trade war, new polling suggests.
A New York Times/Survey Monkey poll released Sunday shows that 68 percent of respondents—including a majority of Republicans—say Trump’s trade policies will raise prices.
A clear majority—53 percent—say Trump’s Chinese tariffs will be “bad” for the United States, while only 43 percent believe they will benefit the country.
The poll also found that Republicans, no surprise, are far more likely to believe tariffs will create more domestic jobs (75 percent say they will), while only 14 percent of Democrats agree. Those types of questions used to be far less partisan, but Trump seems to have changed that—although trade policy “continues to rank low among the issues that voters are focused on,” the Times notes.
Even so, opposition to tariffs among Democrats and independent voters would seem to be a political liability for Trump. After meetings between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping at this week’s G-20 summit again failed to result in a trade deal, Trump could face more domestic political scrutiny over policies that have cost consumers and businesses without much to show for it.
Democrats may have a hard time taking advantage of that liability in next year’s election, however, because leading candidates like Sens. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) support protectionist trade policies too. Warren, in particular, has indicated that she thinks Trump should go further in erecting barriers to trade.
Not all the Democratic presidential candidates share that view, thankfully. In last week’s debate, Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg made strong, if brief, attacks on Trump’s tariffs. “Manufacturers, and especially soy farmers, are hurting. Tariffs are taxes,” Buttigieg said before turning to attack what he said was Trump’s overblown concern with trade deficits.
Unfortunately, the moderators didn’t ask Warren or Sanders any questions on trade. But if polls continue to show that most Americans are opposed to Trump’s protectionism, it will provide a political opportunity for Democrats to exploit and good fodder for voters trying to sort out differences among the many, many candidates trying to unseat Trump.
In the meantime, slapping more tariffs on European imports is unlikely to convince Americans that Trump’s trade policies are working. Artificially inflating the price of a bottle of Scotch or a hunk of fancy cheese won’t bring those jobs to the United States—and setting those tariffs in order to tip the scales toward the corporate welfare hogs at Boeing isn’t a great look, either.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Jhns8F
via IFTTT
A third of all Americans have cut their spending this year, according to a new survey by CNBC. And for a country indoctrinated by a system that encourages spending and abhors savings, readers may be surprised to learn that a majority of the respondents, that 54% of survey respondents still described themselves as savers.
The survey polled men and women across the country, and looked at changes in people’s money behaviors. Many people are taking a critical look at their spending and preparing for “what ifs”, the survey concluded.
Spending versus saving habits were relatively equal across age groups. The 35 to 44-year-old group showed higher levels of spending, which then moved back toward saving as people neared retirement. 63% of seniors described themselves as savers and 28% described themselves as spenders.
And regardless of demographic, a third of Americans say that they’ve cut spending over the last year. They have done this as a result of a loss of household income, new debt, fears of recessions and medical expenses.
Most of the people spending less did so due to job losses, followed by people that took on new debt. It’s also worth noting that the number of Americans filing for unemployment rose more than expected last week. African-American respondents were far likelier to cut spending at 43%. Divorced men were the only group that came close, at 39%. Unemployment could be to blame again, as the survey found that twice as many black respondents as white pointed to “loss of job” as the reason that they were spending less.
Laura Wronski, chief researcher at SurveyMonkey in San Mateo, California said: “This ranks high for everyone, and much more so for blacks. Jobs and the economy is the No. 1 issue for blacks by a wider margin”, which is strange considering the BLS has been reporting near record-low unemployment for African-Americans.
Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League says that jobs remain a major issue: “When you look at national statistics, while unemployment numbers are at an all-time low, unemployment is still persistently higher among blacks than whites. If you lose your job, you have to make some hard trade-offs in your life.”
From a political standpoint, two times as many Democrats as Republicans said they’d cut spending due to anxiety over the economy.
Former FDIC chair Sheila Bair said: “I’m for anything that increases financial resilience. If you’re trying to do forecasting, it’s better to be on the conservative side and increase your cash reserves. Where’s the harm in that? Trying to predict the direction of the economy, though, might be a waste of resources. It’s like trying to time the stock market. You’ll never get it right.”
Republicans, on the other hand, were likelier than Democrats to say their confidence in the economy led them to spend more. Overall, however, Democrats were more likely to say they were spending more.
And impulse spending, believe it or not, is an issue that affects both genders. In fact, 23% of men say they’ve spent more than $100 the last time they made an impulse buy, versus 16% of women.
On the other hand, slightly less than a quarter of respondents who increased their spending said it was due to getting a better paying job. The top expense of those polled was delivery and take out meals:
Takeout or delivery meals were the top expense, with 28% of the general population. But those who identify themselves as spenders are far more likely than savers to say they spend $200 a month on convenience meals.
People seem to have their spending under control, Wronski said, noting the survey didn’t show much spending on alcohol or tobacco. “People are aware of the amount of money they’re spending and trying to spend it responsibly.”
In addition to job loss, the widening inequality gap is likely contributing to Americans tightening their financial belts, as well. Gabriel Zucman, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley told Tuscon.com: “The recovery has been very disappointing from the standpoint of inequality.”
More than 33% of the household wealth gain as a result of the “recovery” – amounting to $16.2 trillion— went to the wealthiest 1%, figures from the Federal Reserve show. In addition, the homeownership rate fell to about 60% in 2016 from roughly 70% in 2004. And despite the market nearly quadrupling during the recovery, the proportion of middle-income households that own stock has actually declined.
Lael Brainard, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors said in May: “Many households find it challenging to make key middle-class investments because incomes at the middle are not keeping up with the rising costs of education and homeownership, and it is difficult to save enough.”
And consistent with the results from the CNBC survey, data shows that the widening inequality gap has disproportionately affected African Americans:
As financial inequalities have widened over the past decade, racial disparities in wealth have worsened, too. The typical wealth for a white household is $171,000 — nearly 10 times that for African-Americans. That’s up from seven times before the housing bubble, and it primarily reflects sharp losses in housing wealth for blacks. The African-American homeownership rate fell to a record low in the first three months of this year.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2XKvQa2 Tyler Durden
Following through on threats to hit more European imports with tariffs seems unlikely to change the fact that most Americans disagree with President Donald Trump’s trade war.
If anything, higher import taxes on items like Scotch whisky, French cheeses, and Italian pasta will only add to domestic opposition to Trump’s trade policies. What is the president going to say: that Scotch should be made in America?
On Monday, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced plans to consider tariffs on 89 European-made items worth an estimated $4 billion annually. Those will be added to a list of proposed tariffs on European Union (E.U.) imports that the Trump administration unveiled in April. Together, the two lists represent items worth an estimated $21 billion annually.
This latest U.S.-E.U. trade spat is effectively a fight between Boeing, the American-based airplane manufacturer, and its European-based rival, Airbus. Both are heavily subsidized by their respective governments, and both have been suing one another at the World Trade Organization for years over claims that the other is unfairly helped by that corporate welfare. Trump administration officials have stressed that the Boeing-Airbus fight is wholly separate from the Trump administration’s other trade policies, which have included other threats to impose tariffs on European-made goods, including cars.
But none other than Trump himself has conflated the two, tweeting in April that Airbus is one example of how the E.U. has “taken advantage of the United States” and promising that “it will soon stop.” For the general public, too, drawing a distinction between the different actions is surely rather difficult. The White House’s willingness to turn to tariffs as a magical solution to complex or imaginary problems—from China’s theft of intellectual property, to migrants crossing Mexico to reach to the U.S., to the national security risk presented by Toyotas—makes it more difficult to make the case that tariffs are actually justified in a specific situation.
And Americans are growing weary of the trade war, new polling suggests.
A New York Times/Survey Monkey poll released Sunday shows that 68 percent of respondents—including a majority of Republicans—say Trump’s trade policies will raise prices.
A clear majority—53 percent—say Trump’s Chinese tariffs will be “bad” for the United States, while only 43 percent believe they will benefit the country.
The poll also found that Republicans, no surprise, are far more likely to believe tariffs will create more domestic jobs (75 percent say they will), while only 14 percent of Democrats agree. Those types of questions used to be far less partisan, but Trump seems to have changed that—although trade policy “continues to rank low among the issues that voters are focused on,” the Times notes.
Even so, opposition to tariffs among Democrats and independent voters would seem to be a political liability for Trump. After meetings between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping at this week’s G-20 summit again failed to result in a trade deal, Trump could face more domestic political scrutiny over policies that have cost consumers and businesses without much to show for it.
Democrats may have a hard time taking advantage of that liability in next year’s election, however, because leading candidates like Sens. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) support protectionist trade policies too. Warren, in particular, has indicated that she thinks Trump should go further in erecting barriers to trade.
Not all the Democratic presidential candidates share that view, thankfully. In last week’s debate, Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg made strong, if brief, attacks on Trump’s tariffs. “Manufacturers, and especially soy farmers, are hurting. Tariffs are taxes,” Buttigieg said before turning to attack what he said was Trump’s overblown concern with trade deficits.
Unfortunately, the moderators didn’t ask Warren or Sanders any questions on trade. But if polls continue to show that most Americans are opposed to Trump’s protectionism, it will provide a political opportunity for Democrats to exploit and good fodder for voters trying to sort out differences among the many, many candidates trying to unseat Trump.
In the meantime, slapping more tariffs on European imports is unlikely to convince Americans that Trump’s trade policies are working. Artificially inflating the price of a bottle of Scotch or a hunk of fancy cheese won’t bring those jobs to the United States—and setting those tariffs in order to tip the scales toward the corporate welfare hogs at Boeing isn’t a great look, either.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Jhns8F
via IFTTT
Independence Day (the Fourth of July) has traditionally commemorated the Declaration of Independence of the United States on July 4, 1776.
The Continental Congress declared that the thirteen American colonies were no longer subject (and subordinate) to the “First” British Empire and were now united, free, and independent states.
Now, apparently, the holiday will be used to put on display the killing machines of the United States.
President Trump said Monday that a display of U.S. military tanks will be part of a special event he is having created for July 4th.
“We’re going to have some tanks stationed outside,” Trump said Monday from the Oval Office.
“You’ve got to be pretty careful with the tanks because the roads have a tendency not to like to carry heavy tanks,” he said. “So we have to put them in certain areas, but we have the brand new Sherman tanks and we have the brand new Abrams tanks.”
(AP notes, that the information challenged Trump has the facts of the military he commands a bit distorted. Sherman tanks were the tank most widely used by the U.S. during World War II, but they have been out of service for decades. The M1A1 Abrams tank is currently the main U.S. battle tank killing machine.)
There will also be a flight of Air Force One over Washington D.C. and a performance by the Navy’s Blue Angels jets, reports The New York Times.
Big 4th of July in D.C. “Salute to America.” The Pentagon & our great Military Leaders are thrilled to be doing this & showing to the American people, among other things, the strongest and most advanced Military anywhere in the World. Incredible Flyovers & biggest ever Fireworks!
It is not expected that any killings of innocent populous by special forces will be displayed.
Trump, who is to speak at the celebration, has requested that the chiefs for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines stand next to him as aircraft from each of their services fly overhead and their respective hymns play on loudspeakers.
“It’ll be like no other — it’ll be special, and I hope a lot of people come,”. Trump told reporters. “We have some incredible equipment, military equipment, on display — brand-new. And we’re very proud of it.”
Trump is scheduled to deliver his Fourth of July speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, becoming the first president in decades to participate in the annual Independence Day event.
But the Declaration of Independence did not cheer the military might of government, it concerned itself with calling for the overturn of governments that were limiting individuals.
Some snippets:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…
…
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
If Trump wanted to act within the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, he wouldn’t haul out evidence of the US killing machine. He would call troops home on the Fourth of July from posts around the world. He would in the spirit of the Declaration leave people independent around the globe to find their own way.
And on the domestic front, he would close down some of the most oppressive government agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Agency, the National Security Agency, the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Reserve Bank.
Now that would set off fireworks I would like to see.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2NtaVEw Tyler Durden
California judges ruled earlier this year that a new California law making police misconduct records public is retroactive, so that means law enforcement offices are opening up the file cabinets and sending off photocopies in response to media requests, right?
Ha. No. They’re continuing to fight by trying to charge massive fees, destroying records, and, in some cases, simply not responding. Reporters from four different California media outlets recently combined forces to explain what’s been going on with obstruction efforts against a statewide project where journalists attempt to report on newly available misconduct records.
S.B. 1421, passed in the fall of 2018, requires that California law enforcement agencies start making public records of police conduct in cases where officers fired their weapons, killed or seriously injured somebody, engaged in sexual misconduct, or engaged in dishonest conduct while on the job. These were records that have been kept sealed from the public for decades, per state law, preventing the public from knowing whether police officers in their midst had been abusing their power.
While there were some very promising initial stories at the start of 2019 as S.B. 1421 was formally implemented, things seem to have gone wrong. Seven months later, many law enforcement agencies within California are not releasing the records as state law mandates. Some, like the California Highway Patrol, have not coughed up a single one. From the Los Angeles Times:
Both the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and the Long Beach Police Department have yet to release any records to KPCC, the Los Angeles Times, the Orange County Register or KQED.
The Los Angeles County Probation Department, which supervises youths held in detention, has declined to release records, claiming disclosure about cases involving minors is prohibited by law. Records from the department, which also supervises adults, could be redacted to remove names of protected individuals.
[Los Angeles Sheriff Alex] Villanueva has refused to search for records, instead demanding that reporters identify specific cases they are seeking. The Sheriff’s Department released records aboutone deputy to the Los Angeles Times, a handful of separate files to KPCC, but nothing to the Orange County Register.
Villanueva’s office has declined to provide any records to Reason about Villanueva himself. When Villanueva ran for office, he claimed that he had been unfairly targeted by higher-ups at the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) for discipline because he had complained about misconduct by leaders. So Reason, under S.B. 1421, requested his discipline records back in January. Initially, the sheriff’s department did not comply because the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs sought an injunction and attempted to argue that S.B. 1421 was not retroactive.
Ultimately, that effort failed and multiple judges across the state ruled that the law is indeed retroactive as the bill’s sponsor, Democratic State Sen. Nancy Skinner, had intended. In March, the LASD informed Reason that our request for Villanueva’s records was being processed.
It’s now July and we’ve gotten nothing. In fact, the LASD’s public records request office is not replying to emails from Reason requesting updates. It looks as though we’re not alone.
Some cities and counties decided that January 2019 was the right time to catch up on housekeeping and have destroyed years of old police records over the past few months. Many have insisted that the timing is just a coincidence. But as the Los Angeles Timesnotes, many of the records from these offices—like Yuba County’s Sheriff’s Office—had been kept around for much longer than internal guidelines required; it was just after these agencies knew they could be forced to disclose them that such records were destroyed.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2XoWOV9
via IFTTT
House Democrats have filed a lawsuit in an attempt to force the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to turn over the President Trump’s tax returns, according to the Washington Post, citing a public court filing.
The House Ways and Means Committee, chaired by Rep. Richard E. Neal (D-MA), filed the lawsuit against the IRS Tuesday morning following a months-long impasse with the Trump administration over the returns.
The request had been denied several times by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, whose decision to ignore a May subpoena from Neal’s committee was backed by the Justice Department in June after the DOJ advised it.
Mnuchin’s refusal caused Neal to seek a court battle which legal experts believe may go all the way to the Supreme Court, according to the Post. a
The lawsuit will also sort out a range of oversight questions between the Executive Branch and Congress.
“This is a big deal that goes to the core of our government’s checks and balances, and could for many years shape the relationship between the executive and legislative branches,” said Steven Rosenthal, a legal expert with the Tax Policy Center.
House Democrats and legal experts have pointed to a 1924 law that explicitly gives lawmakers the authority to seek the records, but the Trump administration has characterized Neal’s request as a partisan maneuver to embarrass his political opponents. Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s acting chief of staff, has said Democrats will “never” see Trump’s returns. –Washington Post
Responding to Rep. Neal’s April demand for the personal and business returns from 2013 to 2018, Trump said that the law is “100 percent” on his side over his decision not to release the returns, adding that he “absolutely” would once the IRS stops auditing him.
“Hey, I’m under audit. But that’s up to whoever it is. From what I understand the law is 100 percent on my side,” Trump told reporters. He has told his advisers that he’s willing to take the fight to the Supreme Court, and has publicly argued that since he won the election, his taxes should no longer be of concern.
The IRS, meanwhile, has stated that audits don’t preclude people from releasing their own tax information.
Neal’s subpoenas to Mnuchin and IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig requested the IRS turn over Trump’s individual income tax returns, all “administrative files” such as affidavits for those income tax returns, and income tax returns for a number of Trump’s business holdings such as the Donald Trump Revocable Trust, an umbrella entity that controls dozens of other businesses including the Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida. –Washington Post
Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns during the 2016 presidential election is a break from decades of precedent, according to the Post. That said, there’s never been a billionaire in the White House.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2FNZdOj Tyler Durden
