To Protect Mueller From Trump, Republican Silence May Be Shrewd: New at Reason

As President Donald Trump escalates his attacks on special counsel Robert Mueller, Republicans in Congress are being accused of timidity for declining to move legislation to prevent Trump from firing him. “Paul Ryan needs to be stronger, and so does Mitch McConnell,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). Rep. Jerry Nadler, (D-N.Y.), charged that by not acting, “they’re almost encouraging” Trump to dismiss Mueller.

These critics sound like childless adults who think parents should be able make their kids behave perfectly, writes Steve Chapman. Keeping Trump under control is harder than it looks. Some of the most important Republicans on Capitol Hill may be holding off not because they want to see Mueller fired but because they don’t.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2GebTQ5
via IFTTT

The Debtor’s Prism

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

In just a little more than six months, the U.S. national debt has grown by a $1 trillion dollars. Today, Congress will debate on a $1.3 trillion “Omnibus spending bill” to fund the government through the end of September of this year.

As noted by Robert Schroeder:

“Last week, the debt hit $21 trillion for the first time, rising from the $20 trillion mark it notched on Sept. 8. The debt is guaranteed to go higher, with President Donald Trump having signed a debt-limit suspension in February, allowing unlimited borrowing through March 1, 2019. Economists expect wider deficits to result from the tax cut Trump signed in December.

While a trillion-dollar increase over roughly six months isn’t unprecedented — there was one in 2009, during the Great Recession, and another in 2010 — it’s certainly fast.”

Excessive borrowing by companies, households or governments lies at the root of almost every economic crisis of the past four decades, from Mexico to Japan, and from East Asia to Russia, Venezuela, and Argentina. But it’s not just countries, but companies as well. You don’t have to look too far back to see companies like Enron, GM, Bear Stearns, Lehman and a litany of others brought down by surging debt levels and simple “greed.” Households too have seen their fair share of debt burden related disaster from mortgages to credit cards to massive losses of personal wealth.

It would seem that after nearly 40-years, some lessons would have been learned.

Apparently not, as Congressional lawmakers once again are squabbling on not how to “save money” and “reduce the federal debt,” but rather “damn the debt, full speed ahead with spending.”

Such reckless abandon by politicians is simply due to a lack of “experience” with the consequences of debt.

In 2008, Margaret Atwood discussed this point in a Wall Street Journal article:

“Without memory, there is no debt. Put another way: Without story, there is no debt.

A story is a string of actions occurring over time — one damn thing after another, as we glibly say in creative writing classes — and debt happens as a result of actions occurring over time. Therefore, any debt involves a plot line: how you got into debt, what you did, said and thought while you were in there, and then — depending on whether the ending is to be happy or sad — how you got out of debt, or else how you got further and further into it until you became overwhelmed by it, and sank from view.”

The problem today is there is no “story” about the consequences of debt in the U.S. While there is a litany of other countries which have had their own “debt disaster” story, those issues have been dismissed under the excuse of “yes, but they aren’t the U.S.”

As I discussed recently in relation to the tax cut/reform package passed by Congress last year:

“Of course, the real question is how are you going to ‘pay for it?’

Even as Kevin Brady noted in our interview, when I discussed the ‘fiscal’ side of the tax reform bill, without achieving accelerated rates of economic growth – ‘the debt will balloon.’”

It is pretty simplistic math:

Cut revenue by $2 Trillion + add $2 Trillion is spending = $4 Trillion shortfall.

While it is true the debt doesn’t have to be repaid today, it does have to be serviced.

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget president Maya MacGuineas recently published a commentary describing how interest is on a path to quadruple over the next decade, reaching over $1 trillion per year.

“Interest on the debt is the fastest growing part of the budget. While interest had already been projected to rise rapidly the recent tax and budget deals will significantly accelerate that growth. As a result, our latest estimate finds interest costs will almost quadruple between 2017 and 2028 in dollar terms and reach their highest share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in history.

As recently as last June, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected interest spending would grow to above $800 billion and nearly 3 percent of GDP by 2027 as a result of rising interest rates and growing debt levels. Since then, lawmakers have added an additional $2.4 trillion to deficits over the next decade, and it will most certainly result in higher interest payments.

By our estimates, annual interest spending will rise from $263 billion (1.4 percent of GDP) in 2017 to $965 billion, or 3.3 percent of GDP, in 2028. The 3.3 percent of GDP total for interest in 2028 would be the highest on record. The previous record was 3.2 percent of GDP in 1991, a time when debt as a percent of GDP was much lower but interest rates were much higher. Under our “Alternative Scenario,” which assumes policymakers borrow an additional $3.6 trillion through 2028, interest spending will rise to $1.05 trillion, or 3.6 percent of GDP, by 2028.”

The Wrong Kind Of Debt

By the end of 2018, the United States, based on its current trajectory, will achieve a new TOP 10 ranking.

“Tell us what we’ve won Bob:

Coming in at #10 – the United States, at 111%, gets nothing but the privilege of being on the list of countries with the highest debt/GDP ratios.”

According to Keynesian theory, some microeconomic-level actions, if taken collectively by a large proportion of individuals and firms, can lead to inefficient aggregate macroeconomic outcomes, where the economy operates below its potential output and growth rate (i.e. a recession).

Keynes contended:

“A general glut would occur when aggregate demand for goods was insufficient, leading to an economic downturn resulting in losses of potential output due to unnecessarily high unemployment, which results from the defensive (or reactive) decisions of the producers.”  

In other words, when there is a lack of demand from consumers due to high unemployment, the contraction in demand would force producers to take defensive actions to reduce output.

In such a situation, Keynesian economics states:

“Government policies could be used to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic activity and reducing unemployment and deflation. Investment by government injects income, which results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.”

Keynes’ was correct in his theory”

In order for government deficit spending to be effective, the “payback” from investments being made through debt must yield a higher rate of return than the debt used to fund it.

Read that again.

The problem is that government spending has shifted away from productive investments that create jobs (infrastructure and development) to primarily social welfare and debt service which has a negative rate of return.

According to the Center On Budget & Policy Prioritiesnearly 75% of every tax dollar goes to non-productive spending. 

In 2017, the Federal Government spent an estimated $4.3 Trillion which was equivalent to roughly 21% of the nation’s entire GDP. Of that total spending, an estimated $3.68 Trillion was financed by Federal revenues leaving $657 billion to be financed through debt. In other words, it took almost all of the revenue received by the Government just to cover social welfare programs and service the interest on the debt. 

Therefore, the larger the balance of debt becomes, the more economically destructive it is by diverting an ever growing amount of dollars away from productive investments to service payments.

The relevance of debt growth versus economic growth is all too evident as shown below. Since 1980, the overall increase in debt has surged to levels that currently usurp the entirety of economic growth. With economic growth rates now at the lowest levels on record, the growth in debt continues to divert more tax dollars away from productive investments into the service of debt and social welfare.

It now requires $3.71 of debt to create $1 of economic growth.

In fact, the economic deficit has never been greater. For the 30-year period from 1952 to 1982, the economic surplus fostered a rising economic growth rate which averaged roughly 8% during that period. Today, with the economy growing at an average rate of just 2%, the economic deficit has never been greater.

The unsustainable credit-sourced boom, which leads to artificially stimulated borrowing, has sought out diminishing investment opportunities. Ultimately these diminished investment opportunities lead to widespread mal-investments. Not surprisingly, we clearly saw it play out “real-time” in everything from sub-prime mortgages to derivative instruments which were only for the purpose of milking the system of every potential penny regardless of the apparent underlying risk.

We see it again today with companies issuing massive amounts of debt to buy back unprecedented levels of outstanding shares and issues dividends.

The illusion of economic growth has been fueled by ever increasing levels of debt to support consumption. However, if you back out the level of debt you get a better picture of what is actually happening economically.

When credit creation can no longer be sustained the markets must begin to clear the excesses before the cycle can begin again. That clearing process is going to be very substantial. With the economy currently requiring roughly $3.50 of debt to create $1 of economic growth, the reversion to a structurally manageable level of debt would involve a $25 trillion reduction of total credit market debt from current levels.

The economic drag from such a reduction would be a devastating process, and why Central Banks worldwide are terrified of it. In fact, the last time such a reversion occurred it became known as the “Great Depression.”

Now you understand “why,” despite tax cuts and reforms, the economy continues to grow at sub-par levels. Heading into the future, given the Administrations inability to curb their “spending addiction,” it is highly likely we will witness an economy plagued by more frequent recessionary spats, lower equity market returns and a stagflationary environment as wages remain suppressed while costs of living rise.

Sure, $21 trillion isn’t a problem as long as we “print the money” necessary to make those payments. However, the longer-term consequences of doing so has a very negative consequence. One of those consequences is the ongoing detraction from economic growth.

As Ms. Atwood concluded:

“There’s nothing we human beings can imagine, including debt, that can’t be turned into a game — something done for entertainment. And, in reverse, there are no games, however frivolous, that cannot also be played very seriously, and sometimes very unpleasantly.

But when the play turns nasty in dead earnest, the game becomes what Eric Berne calls a ‘hard game.’

In hard games the stakes are high, the play is dirty, and the outcome may well be a puddle of gore on the floor.”

There is likely only one way the current lack of fiscal control turns out. History is replete with countries that have attempted the same. For now, the limits of profligate spending by Washington has not been reached and the ending of this particular story has not yet been written. But it eventually will be.

Just be careful where you step.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2GTMZTJ Tyler Durden

House Votes On $1.3 Trillion Omnibus Spending Bill

House Republicans confirmed to CNN on Thursday that they will begin voting on the 2,000 page omnibus spending bill at 12:30 pm. The voting should be concluded by 1 pm.

With House Freedom Caucus Leader Mark Meadows opposing the bill after tentatively embracing the deal last night, Republican leaders struck a last-minute deal with Democrats to win their support for a procedural vote that would allow them to proceed to the final vote.

 

 

Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, managed to squeeze some notable concessions from Republicans at the last minute. Chief among them: A “queen of the Hill” rule on immigration, meaning that GOP leaders would agree to bring up several immigration measures and the one that gets the most votes would prevail.

OMB Director Mick Mulvaney told reporters Trump will sign the omnibus bill – assuming it does, in fact, pass.

As we pointed out last night when the tentative deal was reached, the bill includes notable concessions from Republicans on their border-security package, which allocates funding for a border fence, but not the wall Trump had envisioned. This bothered Trump, prompting him to nearly withdraw his support.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2ugmJAu Tyler Durden

Watch Live: Trump Launches Trade War With China, Unveils $50 Billion In Tariffs

Update: President Trump will sign an executive memo that will enforce $50 billion in tariffs against China over IP theft, an administration officials tell reporters. The full list of tariffs will be published within 15 days, opening a 30 day public comment period before they take effect, so there is a 1 month grace period before the trade wars officially start.

According to the official, many of the proposals reflect areas where China has sought to acquire advantage through unfair acquisition or forced tech transfers from U.S. companies.

He added that Trump is also directing the U.S. trade representative to pursue dispute settlement at WTO in order to address China’s licensing practices, which U.S. says are discriminatory, and will also direct Treasury Dept to consider expanding limits on Chinese investment and acquisitions in U.S. beyond current CFIUS reach

Stocks briefly popped on the headlines as, supposedly, this pushed the start of the trade war off by 60 days.

*  *  *

President Trump will fire the first shots (retaliatory or not) in the new global trade war today as he announces plans to crack down on China with what is expected to be $50 billion in tariffs, controls on investment, and possible visa restrictions.

As we detailed previously, American officials have been raising their concerns about China’s IP practices since Bill Clinton was president, and Beijing has repeatedly failed to deliver on promises to reform, but now, as Bloomberg reports that the order will target more than 100 different types of Chinese goods, according to a person familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The value of the tariffs was based on U.S. estimates of economic damage caused by intellectual-property theft by China.

This will be Trump’s first trade action directly aimed at China, which he has blamed for the hollowing out of the American manufacturing sector and the loss of U.S. jobs.

For decades, western companies have griped that Beijing is forcing them to hand over tech secrets and source code as a price of access to the Chinese market.

Now they have a White House prepared to act forcefully to stop it – starting tomorrow, Axios’ Jonathan Swan reports – but the fear is a costly tit-for-tat trade war.

Live Feed (due to start at 1230ET…)

But China is drawing up a reprisal list that includes soybeans, sorghum and live hogs, report the WSJ’s Lingling Wei, Yoko Kubota and Liza Lin.

Finally, as a reminder, China will begin trading its petroyuan futures contract next week (3/26) – so perhaps this action by Trump is a pre-emptive strike?

*  *  *

Hollywood version of today’s events…

via RSS http://ift.tt/2FVzs0R Tyler Durden

089: FFS… please send China a fruit basket

I was in the gym earlier today trying to ward off the effects of trans-Pacific travel and 12 hours of time zone changes when the news flashed across the TV that the US government was issuing another round of tariffs against China.

This may be the dumbest move they could possibly make.

It’s so stupid, in fact, that I couldn’t contain myself in print. For this, I had to go to audio… and record a pretty epic rant on the absurdity of tariffs.

In short, if China is crazy enough to produce and sell steel to the United States at prices that guarantee they’ll LOSE MONEY, the US government shouldn’t impose tariffs. They should send the Chinese a fruit basket.

China is basically giving the US free money. Don’t be ridiculous. Take the money.

The US is NOT the loser in this situation. America is the winner. The Chinese are willing to sell steel at below their cost of production. Duh.

But the US government insists that they need to protect the American steel industry because it’s vital to national security.

Seriously? The largest, most advanced economy in the world thinks that the production of a basic commodity is vital to national security?

If that’s the case, then what else is vital to national security– the lumber industry? Hip Hop? Twitter?

Steel is a tiny industry in the US that employs around 90,000 people. Starting a trade war over this (which is historically BAD for everyone’ prosperity) is just plain silly.

This is my favorite podcast I’ve done in at least a year. You can tune in here…

Source

from Sovereign Man http://ift.tt/2pz5Pbl
via IFTTT

“A Perfect Storm”: Why Are Stocks Crashing

With all due respect to Marko Kolanovic, it appears that it was more than just the “severe snowstorm” that spooked stocks yesterday (and certainly today).

As Nomura’s Charlie McElligott writes this morning, a perfect storm (if not of the snow variety) converged and risk-off catalysts abound as “Growth-Scare” murmurs gain further steam, driving not only the Dow Jones nearly 500 points lower, but also a robust UST bull-flattening as duration is grabbed and as Spooz break-below their 100dma.

The Dow has broken below the Fib 38.2% retracement, tested and failed to break its triangle from the February crash, and is at its lowest in almost 6 weeks. The Dow is down 450 points, breaking to the downside of the “triangle formation”….

… and tumbling…

… While the S&P 500 has broken back below its 100DMA:

So what’s causing this? Here are the details from McElligott:

  • Trump / China tariff-hype ‘realizes,’ trade wars” meme ensues
  • PBoC decision to piggyback the Fed’s hike with their own +5bps reverse repo borrowing-rate increase adds to Asia-ex Japan sentiment swoon
  • An idiosyncratic placing of mega-long momentum name Tencent Holdings which saw the stock close -5% and dragged-down HSI (a 9.9% weighting) and will negatively impact EEM (largest holding at 5.9%)
  • While Fed and PBoC hike, the data continues to soften as “growth slowdown” fears mount: Japan PMI miss; French Composite PMIs dropped to a seven-month low; German Composite PMIs missed for the second consecutive month while all three IFO measures of German sentiment fell for March as well; EZ Composite PMIs grew at the slowest pace in 14 months with misses in Manu and Service

Then there was the just announced resignation of Trump’s head Mueller-probe lawyer, John Down, which has reignited Trump impeachment jitters, and suggests that the president is becoming increasingly nervous what Mueller can and will do next.

Turning back to Fed, the Nomura derivatives guru reiterates his belief that there was a “high bar” for the market to interpret this meeting as a “hawkish hike” was spot-on.

  • Powell then actually delivered a de facto “dovish” message, as the optically “hawkish” ’19 / ’20 dots and terminal rate views were based off of “unprecedented at best” economic projections from the Fed–which Powell himself downplayed as low-confidence forecasts with negligible “predictive” power
  • Equities instead focused on the near-term “tangibles”: by communicating “3 dots only” in ’18; by focusing on a willingness to “overshoot on inflation”; by not committing to press conferences at every meeting; by talking-down the neutral-rate etc–equities instead heard a “dovish pivot” from the HH version of Powell and didn’t get that “growth confirmation” I believe that many were actually looking-for
  • Remember, equities bulls have remained of the view that we can handle higher interest rates if “growth” is driving a higher “neutral rate” in conjunction—so in that sense, his lack of “growth conviction” was interpreted as a disappointment
  • However what the equities audience DID hear was a very pro-cyclical / pro-inflation “dovish” message which helped facilitate the extension of the rally in crude and S&P sector leadership from Energy, Materials, Industrials and Financials
  • This move in “Deep-Value Cyclicals”—in conjunction with the idiosyncratic Tech sector negative drivers which are being exacerbated by asymmetrically ‘crowded’ positioning—created a number of outlier “factor” moves below the index-level.

Putting it all together, this fits with the long-term view McElligott has been espousing: a medium-term (3-6m) “cyclical melt-up” as inflation “realizes” (higher commods and breakevens while “Value” outperforms “Growth”) before ultimately forcing the Fed to “tighten” at a pace which exceeds market expectations, driving higher UST term premium and “spilling-over” into higher cross-asset vol / lower risk-assets / wider spreads by end of year.

Additionally, some observations on the short-end/funding markets, where tactically-speaking, the “short-squeeze” potential remains a focal-point going-forward, as hawkish Fed expectations were not met, which in conjunction with the scale of the short-positioning and ongoing “softening” in global data COULD set the table for bull-steepening.

Furthermore, today’s “disappointing” LIBOR set (was pricing 1.6 yday, fixed today at 1.45–below mkt expectations) may further add to this “squeeze” pressure, especially as recent foreign buying “could embolden” further purchases in the front-end, as well as “lead to the re-emergence of domestic real money buying”

Today we see this acceleration of the rates rally getting folks pretty nervous, along with the USD rallying back near flat—in turn pressuring / reversing some of yday’s gains in corresponding “short USD” trades.  The good news is that EU and Japan equities longs have been very reduced; the SPX / NDX exposure however remains very high within the macro universe—albeit hedged.

Tactically within equities, the rally in fixed-income should continue the equities ‘pain-trade’ that is the MTD rally in ‘duration-sensitives’—while ‘growth’ feels tired and crowded right now.

With mega-underweights Energy (best two-month seasonality since ’94 = March and April) and Utilities leading S&P performance against Tech’s fade, this has been a rough two-week stretch for equities funds, especially heading into the April “momentum unwind” seasonality.

* *  *

Finally, some troubling observations on April seasonals from McElligott, who notes the April performance of ‘momentum’ when it comes into the seasonality with top decile of performance (currently we sit at this +14% band)…

… as both longs and shorts get hit hard:

via RSS http://ift.tt/2HY4pOb Tyler Durden

Citigroup Enforces Gun Control Restrictions On Customers

Seemingly following Andrew Ross Sorkin’s suggestions, and echoing the virtue-signaling from Dick’s Sporting Goods et al., megabank Citigroup is setting restrictions on the sale of firearms by its business customers.

As a reminder, Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote in the NY Times that banks could control guns, if Washington won’t.

Liberty Blitzkrieg’s Mike Krieger exclaimed that even in today’s world replete with plutocrat public relations masquerading as journalism, it’s rare to encounter an article simultaneously pandering, authoritarian, childish and dumb. Nevertheless, I found one, and it was unsurprisingly published in The New York Times.

The title of the piece more or less says it all, How Banks Could Control Gun Sales if Washington Won’t, but let’s go ahead and examine some of the author’s suggestions in greater detail. For instance:

Here’s an idea.

What if the finance industry — credit card companies like Visa, Mastercard and American Express; credit card processors like First Data; and banks like JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo — were to effectively set new rules for the sales of guns in America?

Collectively, they have more leverage over the gun industry than any lawmaker. And it wouldn’t be hard for them to take a stand.

PayPal, Square, Stripe and Apple Pay announced years ago that they would not allow their services to be used for the sale of firearms.

If Visa and Mastercard are unwilling to act on this issue, the credit card processors and banks that issue credit cards could try. Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, which issues credit cards and owns a payment processor, has talked about how he and his bank have “a moral obligation but also a deeply vested interest” in helping “solve pressing societal challenges.” This is your chance, Mr. Dimon.

That was followed by Dick’s Sporting Goods, who said they would no longer sell high-capacity magazines and that they would not sell any gun to anyone under 21 years of age, regardless of local laws.

“When we saw what happened in Parkland, we were so disturbed and upset,” CEO Edward Stack told NYT in an interview. “We love these kids and their rallying cry, ‘enough is enough.’ It got to us.”

He added, “We’re going to take a stand and step up and tell people our view and, hopefully, bring people along into the conversation.”

And now, according to The NY Times,  Citigroup is stepping in the 2nd Amendment miasma.

The new policy, announced Thursday, prohibits the sale of firearms to customers who have not passed a background check or who are younger than 21. It also bars the sale of bump stocks and high-capacity magazines. It would apply to clients who offer credit cards backed by Citigroup or borrow money, use banking services or raise capital through the company.

The rules, which the company described as “common-sense measures,” echo similar restrictions established by some major retailers, like Walmart. But they also represent the boldest such move to emerge from the banking sector.

Citigroup’s gun policy has “been a while coming,” its chief executive, Michael L. Corbat, told The New York Times Thursday.

Mr. Corbat, who called himself “an avid outdoorsman and responsible gun owner,” acknowledged that “some will find our policy too strict while others will find it too lenient.”

“We don’t pretend that these answers are perfect, but as we looked at the things we thought we could influence, we felt that, working with our clients, we could make a difference,” he said.

“Banks serve a societal purpose – we believe our investors want us to do this and be responsible corporate citizens.”

If business customers decline Citigroup’s restrictions, the bank said it would work with them to “transition their business away.”

As Krieger so eloquently concluded previouslythere simply isn’t overwhelming national support for more gun control. As such, if the mega banks that wrecked the economy a decade ago and consumed massive bailouts to survive, decided to use their power to shadow legislate it will not go over well. I can promise you that much.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2FV5Dxt Tyler Durden

The New Omnibus Is Terrible Because Congress Is Broken

Today, the House is voting on an omnibus spending bill that runs in excess of 2,300 pages. Congress must pass the $1.3 trillion bill by midnight on Friday in order to keep the government open—a deadline that has been known for weeks—but the legislation wasn’t released until last night. Until then, the bill was shrouded in secrecy, with no text available to the public or to lawmakers, who had effectively no opportunity to publicly debate its merits, or offer input on its content.

The omnibus is nearly certain to pass anyway. Whether the legislators voting on it like it, or even know what’s in it, barely matters.

This isn’t unusual. Legislating this way—in secret, at the last minute, with few opportunities for outside input or debate—has become the norm, especially, but not only, when it comes to budgeting.

It’s a way of running the government that benefits congressional leadership and their allies at the expense of less powerful lawmakers, and the broader public interest. It means that Congress operates in a state of perpetual low-level crisis, and it breeds dissension and distrust in the entire system. It’s one many bad processes that contributes to unstable policy outcomes and political dysfunction.

In politics, almost no one actually cares about process. When lawmakers do complain about process problems, it’s often selective and self-interested. Politicians almost never campaign on process reforms. Talking about process causes voters to tune out. Process is arcane. It’s technical. It’s arbitrary. It’s boring.

But the processes by which the government makes laws, spends money, and implements regulations matter nonetheless. Because effective processes are a way of encoding values—fiscal, political, civil—into a system.

The best government processes are designed to encourage fairness, transparency, openness, inclusivity, and accountability. They offer mechanisms for bringing people of differing views together for respectful and productive debate. They disperse power by offering a forum for minority views. Maintaining good process is important for many of the same reasons that maintaining rule of law is important. A good process does not necessarily ensure an outcome that you want. But it ensures one that all parties involved can accept, at least for the moment.

But today’s political leaders don’t care about process. And their disinterest has substantive policy consequences.

In December of last year, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell held a late night vote on a draft of the tax reform law just hours after the text was released. Some of the pages were crossed out, and parts of the legislation were handwritten in the margins. At a press conference afterwards, McConnell, however, dismissed complaints about the rushed vote: “You complain about process when you’re losing, and that’s what you heard on the floor tonight.”

In McConnell’s cynical worldview, worrying about process is for losers. All that matters is winning.

As it turns out, the tax law was rife with glitches and errors. Restaurants and other retailers were unintentionally denied access to write-offs for business improvements. Another affects the sale of crops to large agriculture businesses. Another makes baseball trades less likely, thanks to the way it affects capital gains taxes. These are just a few examples. The Chamber of Commerce recently compiled 15 pages of questions about how the tax law is supposed to work for companies large and small. The tax law has been a political success. But functionally it’s a mess.

Republicans are now attempting to fix some of the mistakes in the law as part of the omnibus, bargaining with Democrats in the process. This is lawmaking at its most depressingly predictable. Republicans want to use one rushed, secretive bill to fix another one.

McConnell also said something else at that late night press conference last year. “I’m totally confident this is a revenue neutral bill.” He predicted that the bill, which all expert analysis said would increase the deficit, would actually be a “revenue producer.”

He was, of course, wrong. Thanks in part to the tax bill, the deficit is projected to be larger than expected this year, and is now set to top $1 trillion for the first time in years. In an indirect way, this too was an abuse of process, of the expectation of some minimal level of honesty and transparency about legislation. Process is not always about speific rules and procedures. It also about shared norms.

Republican leadership sometimes pays lip service to process concerns. When Paul Ryan became Speaker of the House in 2015, he promised to be less controlling and more transparent than his predecessor, John Boehner. Under his speakership, the House would be “more open, more inclusive, more deliberative, more participatory,” he said. “We’re not going to bottle up the process so much and predetermine the outcome of everything around here.”

Instead, Ryan has run the most closed and centralized House in history, as Politico reported last year. The story is similar in the Senate. When the government shut down briefly in February, it was because McConnell denied Sen. Rand Paul an up or down vote on an amendment that would drawn attention to the way the deal broke the federal spending caps put in place under the Obama administration.

Lawmakers in the House have been repeatedly and systematically denied the opportunity to offer amendments to legislation. Legislation is simply presented for up or down vote, with little time to read, process, or debate.

The centralization of power in Congress not a problem that is limited to Republicans. When Harry Reid was majority leader, the Senate ran on a notoriously closed process, one that McConnell promised would change. But Republican leadership holds the power now, and has the responsibility to make changes.

Even many rank and file GOP lawmakers recognize that there’s a problem. “I have complete respect for our leadership, but when they foist this on us with less than 36 hours, I think it’s very irresponsible,” Ted Budd (R–N.C.), said about the omnibus. “Shame, shame. A pox on both Houses—and parties. $1.3 trillion. Busts budget caps. 2200 pages, with just hours to try to read it,” tweeted Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.).

To be fair, some low-level steps may be in the works. In recent years, the budget process, a series of steps and deadlines that is supposed to happen each year, has broken down. Congress hasn’t met all of its deadlines since the late 1990s. That’s one of the reasons why short-term spending bills and bloated omnibus spending bills have become the norm. Last month’s budget deal created a Joint Select Committee on Budget and Appropriations Process Reform, a bipartisan panel tasked with recommending improvements to the way that Congress goes about crafting annual budget plans by the end of November. The committee’s creation has spurred outside groups to offer options for improvement, many of which are worth considering.

But I worry that a committee is just a way of pretending to solve the deeper problem, which is that too many politicians have come to view process as something to be manipulated for short-erm partisan advantage rather than as something valuable, and worth preserving, on its own.

It’s true, of course, that a better process alone won’t ensure better policy. But unlike the rushed, secretive, centralized process that gave us yet another ungainly omnibus, it might at least create the opportunity for change.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2G2Q16W
via IFTTT

Omnibus Bill Chips Away at Citizens’ Abilities to Protect Data from Government Snoops Across the World

SurveillanceThe omnibus spending bill Congress is considering right now isn’t just about spending money we don’t have and saddling future generations with debt. It’s also about chipping away at their data privacy, too.

Buried deep in the omnibus bill—we’re talking 2,200 pages in—is legislation intended to give the feds access to data held by American companies overseas. It also will have the effect of making it easier for foreign countries to gain access to data being stored here in America, and that makes human rights and privacy groups very, very concerned.

The Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act, acronymed the CLOUD Act, seeks, in part, to resolve a current dispute between the Department of Justice and Microsoft that is before the Supreme Court. The feds want access to data connected to a drug trafficking suspect. This data is being stored in Dublin, Ireland, not on American soil, and therefore Microsoft has been resisting.

The CLOUD Act would require that communication providers cough up this information even if the data is stored outside the United States, provided it’s about an American citizen.

That’s not all the act does, and the rest of it has human rights groups worried about the implications. The act also changes and apparently simplifies the process for foreign governments to also request data about their citizens when that data is stored on American soil. It reduces the amount of bureaucratic oversight in the process and reduces the ability of Congress or the judicial branch to step in to potentially block data sharing with countries that have reputations for using this private information for oppressive purposes.

As such, groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Campaign for Liberty oppose the CLOUD Act.

Over at The Hill, Neema Singh Guliani of the ACLU warned about the consequences of giving only a couple of high-ranking people in the executive branch the authority to determine which governments the United States would cooperate with:

The bill would give the attorney general and the secretary of State the authority to enter into data exchange agreements with foreign governments without congressional approval. The country they enter into agreements with need not meet strict human rights standards – the bill only stipulates that the executive branch consider as a factor whether a government “demonstrates respect” for human rights and is similarly vague as to what practices would exclude a particular country from consideration. In addition, the bill requires that countries adopt procedures to protect Americans’ information, but provides little specificity as to what these standards must include. Moreover, it would allow countries to wiretap on U.S. soil for the first time, including conversations that foreign targets may have with people in the U.S., without complying with Wiretap Act requirements.

In a letter sent by the groups to lawmakers, they also warn that CLOUD Act doesn’t include a warrant requirement for communications over 180 days old, meaning that it doesn’t guarantee constitutional standards are followed, or require law enforcement to alert people when the government gets access to their data.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) complained last night on Twitter about the CLOUD Act getting shoved into the omnibus bill so that there will be no debate about what it does. He clearly doesn’t like it, nor does his bipartisan partner in online privacy, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon). Microsoft’s president, however, supports it, because no doubt with this process in place, the company can point to it and not have to take responsibility (or legal liability) when a government violates somebody’s rights.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2ua72dT
via IFTTT

Dowd Resigns As Trump’s Lead Lawyer In Mueller Probe: “He’s Increasingly Ignoring Advice”

In a major development for Mueller’s probe of Trump collusion with Russia obstruction of justice, moments ago NYT reported that Trump’s lead lawyer for the special counsel investigation, John Dowd, resigned on Thursday, just days after the president called for an end to the inquiry.

As the NYT reports, Dowd, who took over the president’s legal team last summer, had considered leaving several times in recent months and ultimately concluded that Mr. Trump was increasingly ignoring his advice.

Mr. Trump has insisted he should sit for an interview with the special counsel’s office, even though Mr. Dowd believed it was a bad idea.

Dowd’s resignation comes days after Trump hired Joseph diGenova, a longtime Washington lawyer who has pushed the theory that the FBI and Justice Department framed Trump in their push to remove him from office. As we reported on Monday, DiGenova wasn’t expected to take a lead role, but he is expected to be a “more aggressive player on the president’s legal team”, joining in the middle of negotiations with the special counsel over the parameters of a possible interview with the president

It now appears that diGenova will be Trump’s main lawyer on the Mueller probe.

Developing.

 

 

via RSS http://ift.tt/2FTJYp6 Tyler Durden