Category Archives: business news

Waiting now for Trump jobs reports

We know this much about Donald J. Trump’s presidency: the wall won’t be built any time soon, if at all; the Muslim registry won’t be enacted right away; all those jobs that have poured out of the country — supposedly — won’t be coming back right away.

However, we’re going to get a good feel for how Trump responds to a certain economic barometer. The U.S. Department of Labor issues its monthly jobs report right around the first Friday of every month.

For the past, oh, seven years or so, the Labor Department jobs figures have been ticking upward; roughly 150,000 each month, give or take.

Democrats have crowed about the figures. Republicans have been, well, more or less silent. If GOP leaders have had anything to say about these jobs figures, it would be to say that wages still stink.

The unemployment rate? Democrats have cheered the rate that now stands at 4.6, which is roughly half of the rate it was when President Obama took office eight years ago. Republicans pooh-pooh the numbers, saying that they reflect a diminishing number of Americans who are looking for work.

The first Friday in February will be just a few days after Trump takes office; nothing much to look for then. The March jobs figures, though, might give us a feel for how the Trumpkins respond to the Labor Department numbers. The feds will announce the jobs report on March 3, telling us how employers fared during February, which will be Trump’s first full month as president.

If they’re good, look for the Trumpkins to shout for joy. If they’re bad, look them to dismiss the numbers. Heck, they might suggest the numbers are “rigged” to make the new administration look bad. Oh, wait! He’s going to have his own labor secretary on the job by then.

Whatever news we get, we’re going to see a dramatic role reversal among partisans on both sides of the great — and growing — political divide.

Fights break out … thanks for making me look stupid

I spoke too soon.

Just the other day I mentioned to my wife about how little I had heard about unruly Christmas shoppers this holiday season. I didn’t hear about near-riots — or actual riots — at shopping malls across the country.

Then it happened.

On the day called Boxing Day in British Commonwealth countries, Americans flocked to malls to return gifts and to do some post-Christmas shopping for their loved ones.

Fights broke out. They all were apparently unconnected. The cops in Aurora, Colo., ordered a big regional mall shut down after “multiple skirmishes” occurred in the Denver suburb. The picture attached to this post is of a Memphis, Tenn., mall that was locked down also by the police after fights broke out.

A police officer was assaulted in one of the melees that erupted.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fights-disturbances-and-chaos-breaks-out-malls-across-the-united-states/ar-BBxB0jP?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Right there, dear reader, is where we’re seeing this so-called “war on Christmas.” You can forget all that ridiculousness about whether to wish someone “Happy Holidays” or “Merry Christmas.” The front line of this war is being fought in your local shopping malls by idiot shoppers who cannot control themselves.

Malls across America need to be declared combat zones.

If I had a helmet and a flak jacket, I’d wear ’em both next time I venture to the mall.

Folks, this ain’t the reason for the season.

What? The U.S. economy is stronger than we thought

There goes — maybe — another argument that Donald J. Trump used so effectively to be elected president of the United States.

He griped for months that the U.S. economy was growing at an anemic pace. We had to do better and, by golly, he was going to bring jobs back; he is going to return those jobs that had fled to China and Mexico.

Then the U.S. Commerce Department shoots a hole in that argument. It said today the U.S. economy grew at a fairly robust 3.5 percent annual growth rate in the third quarter of 2016.

Hmmm. Interesting, if you ask me.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average has tripled in value during the Obama administration; joblessness has been cut in half; we’ve had 81 consecutive months of non-farm job growth; the annual federal budget deficit has been cut by two-thirds.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/22/news/economy/us-gdp-third-quarter-last-revision/index.html?iid=surge-stack-dom

OK, it won’t mean the entire year that’s about to pass into history has been pulled out of the economic ditch. The first half of 2016 produced pretty slim growth.

But the third quarter is demonstrating the distinct possibility that the economy is in better shape than Trump and his legions of doom had been saying.

Might the president-elect and his team been spouting just more campaign rhetoric?

Trump looks more like a RINO

True-blue Republicans are fond of calling so-called GOP imposters as RINOs … or Republicans in Name Only.

Guess what. It appears that the president-elect of the United States is one of those RINOs.

Check this out: Donald J. Trump is kicking around an idea that would result in a 5 percent tariff on all goods imported into the United States of America.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/12/22/donald-trumps-seriously-bad-idea-a-5-tax-or-tariff-on-all-imports/#4c9ff2357216

Forbes.com calls it a “seriously bad idea.” Forbes, after all, is considered to be a mainstream Republican financial organ, yes?

It doesn’t like the notion of applying what’s historically been called “protectionist economic policy.” This is the kind of policy espoused by union movement leaders who seek artificial ways to protect U.S. jobs. Union workers historically have sided with, oh, Democratic politicians.

Now we hear that the president-elect, who ran for the nation’s highest office as a Republican Party nominee, considering a tariff on imported goods.

As Forbes writes: “To put it mildly this is not a good idea. For two rather important reasons. The first being that it’s not obvious that this would not be legal. The United States has a number of trade treaties in place and many of them will state that no such universal tariff will be possible. The second is that the idea itself is just not a good one. Why do we want to tax Americans more for the things they wish to purchase?”

That’s not a very free-market philosophy.

The president-elect — an apparently hard-core RINO — is making my head spin.

OMB boss-designate highlights Trump’s ideological conflict

ap_16265784494729

Do you need an example of the non-ideology that drives Donald J. Trump?

Here’s one. Take a look at who he has chosen to become director of the Office of Management and Budget … and then square that — if you can — with what Trump has proposed doing as president of the United States.

The OMB director-designate is Mick Mulvaney, a South Carolina member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Mulvaney is a fierce budget hawk, a founding member of the House Freedom Caucus, a TEA Party golden boy.

Mulvaney fights spending measures whenever he can. He says Congress spends too much money. Government is too big, too hungry for taxpayers’ money.

He’s a conservative’s conservative.

What does Trump want to do? He wants to spend a trillion dollars to improve the nation’s highway, bridge and rail infrastructure.

How in the world is he going to do that? Where is he going to get the money? How will he get this past his budget director, the guy who hates government spending with a purple passion?

Well, Trump is going to be the president. Mulvaney will answer to him, not the other way around.

Still, this appointment speaks to the puzzle that is Donald Trump. He ran as a populist, then has named a large number of billionaires to his inner circle. He said he knows “more about ISIS than the generals,” then picks three general-grade officers to his national security team. He spoke of his desire to improve public education, then selects a known foe of public education as the nation’s education secretary.

Now we have Mick Mulvaney being nominated to run the White House budget office. Mulvaney is a fiscal skinflint who’s going to work for a president intent on spending lots of money while hoping to enact tax cuts that will favor the wealthiest of Americans.

Oh, wait! He’s a populist, too!

Go figure. Any of it!

Christmas shopping can be done … with ease

christmas-shopping

I am announcing today that I completed my Christmas shopping with 11 whole days to go before the big day.

Are you proud of me? I hope so, because I’m proud of myself.

I’ve developed over time my own philosophy about the holiday season. It centers on my refusal to let anything about it stress me out.

So often during this time of year, I get the question: Are you ready for Christmas? My answer: I stay ready! I was born ready!

I grow weary of hearing tales of woe from friends, acquaintances and total strangers who say, “Oh, this time of year just stresses me out. I can’t take it! I can’t wait for it to be over.”

Really? Are you kidding? What about it causes the stress? Having to shop for those you love? Baking all those goodies you take to holiday parties?

Good grief! This is my favorite season of the year.

So, today I ventured to Westgate Mall in Amarillo to take care of my shopping needs. I got it done in about three hours. How do I accomplish this? It’s easy, folks.

I write a list of things I need to buy; I plot my course throughout the city. I stop at each location on my list, walk in, make the purchase and then leave for the next stop on my route.

I consider Christmas shopping to be something like a surgical strike. I select my target, hit it, then leave. I’m a Delta Force commando shopper. Boom! In and out! Just like that!

There’s no stress doing it this way. I set my goal, meet it — and then declare victory!

So, my shopping is done! Now I’ll sit back and enjoy the rest of the season. I won’t worry about a thing. This is a joyful time of the year … the frigid Texas Panhandle weather notwithstanding.

***

By the way, I looked for Santa Claus at Westgate Mall, hoping to see him fielding requests from children about what they want for Christmas. I didn’t see him, nor did I see any sign of that nimrod “pastor,” David Grisham, who made a spectacle of himself the other day berating parents and kids, telling ’em Santa ain’t real.

I fear what I might have done had I encountered that clown.

Not to worry. Tonight I’m a satisfied Christmas shopper.

Mission accomplished.

From major threat to potential ally?

putin_trump_and_i_are-a2fab9090657f98b004db89c40af5dfd

It seems like yesterday. Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee for president of the United States, said Russia had emerged as the most dangerous “global geopolitical threat” to the United States.

Many of us scoffed at that notion. It seemed so, oh, Cold War-ish. I mean, c’mon, Mitt! We won the Cold War. The Soviet Union vanished in 1991. Democracy was returning, albeit in dribs and drabs, to a new Russia. Isn’t that what many of us said and/or thought?

Well, it turns out Mitt was right. His critics were wrong. Russia has sought to do a lot of harm to the world and, quite possibly, to the U.S. electoral process.

But wait! This new Republican Party is being led by someone with an entirely different view of the Big Bear. Donald J. Trump is about to become president. He is forming his government. He is building his Cabinet.

Who is the new president apparently about to select as the nation’s secretary of state, its top diplomat, its foreign policy vicar? It appears to be a fellow named Rex Tillerson, head of Exxon Mobil — and a close ally of the nation Mitt ID’d as America’s top threat.

Exxon Mobil has extensive business ties in Russia. Tillerson is said to be friends with Putin.

For that matter, let’s recall that Trump has said some flattering things about the man who once ran the Soviet Union’s spy agency, the hated KGB. He called him a “strong leader”; he accepted Putin’s praise with gratitude; he invited Russia to find some missing e-mails that Hillary Clinton had deleted from her personal server while she was working as secretary of state; he suggested that Russian forces should enter Syria and take on the Islamic State; he said “wouldn’t it be great?” if we got along better with Russia.

You’ve heard the term “identity politics,” yes? It’s meant to pigeonhole certain groups and political affiliations into categories. Democrats once were identified as the party that was “soft on communism” and, thus, soft on the Soviet Union. Republicans were identified as the opposite of that squishy label.

Communism officially has died in Russia. What has emerged in its place, though, appears to be its oppressive equal.

Democrats now are alarmed at the budding U.S.-Russia coziness. Republicans — with a few notable exceptions — seem somewhat OK with it.

U.S. Sen. John McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee and one-time Vietnam War prisoner, has expressed “concern” about Tillerson’s relationship with Putin. You would expect McCain to raise those questions; he dislikes the president-elect and he damn sure detests the Russians, given what their former agents — the North Vietnamese — did to him for more than five years in that POW cell in Hanoi.

Frankly, I am beginning to long for the good old days that, in the grand scheme, were just a little while ago.

I also am thinking the reason Mitt likely won’t get the State job has less to do with what he said about Trump — the “fraud” and “phony” stuff — and more to do with what he said about the Russians.

Trump making a simple matter so very complicated

08divest-top-master768

I am having trouble understanding what it is about conflict of interest that Donald J. Trump doesn’t get.

The president-elect has an enormous business empire. He has contacts throughout the world. He has enriched himself beyond most people’s imagination.

Now he’s about to become president of the United States. What should a man with all that wealth do to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest?

Let’s see, how about selling those business interests outright? Or, how about putting them into a blind trust, let someone manage those interests — and stay the hell away from everything having to do with those business interests?

Is the president-elect going to do either of those things? Apparently not, according to the New York Times.

Trump now is letting it be known he intends to keep at least an interest in his businesses while his daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, run them.

Daddy Trump will still be involved, if only on the fringes, with the business empire he has built.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/trump-organization-ivanka-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

The U.S. Constitution refers to “emoluments,” and states that the president must not make money dealing with foreign governments. The next president is treading dangerously close — as long as he retains an “interest” in his business — of violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution. His businesses have extensive relationships with many foreign governments.

This shouldn’t be a close call. This should be an easy decision for the president to make. If something presents the potential for conflict of interest, you must act aggressively to remove the element that creates that potential conflict.

Trump is not about to quit the office he fought so hard to win. The only alternative is for him to quit the business. Sell it. Put it into a blind trust. Have nothing — not a single, solitary thing — to do with it.

Why doesn’t he get it?

‘Emoluments clause’ to be put to stern test

founding-fathers-junius-brutus-steams-560x292

I am not a constitutional scholar, but I know enough about the document to be able to talk about most of its contents with at least a smattering of intelligence

But a new phrase has popped up on many Americans’ radar in recent months. It’s the “emoluments clause” of the U.S. Constitution.

It’s contained in Article I. It’s the final clause in Section 9. It reads:

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

Why the interest in this relatively obscure portion of the nation’s government document?

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/68/emoluments-clause

We have a president-elect, Donald J. Trump, who possesses business interests that span the globe. He has done a lot of business with kings, princes and foreign states. He’s gotten money from them, enriching himself — and his family.

Now that he’s about to become president of the United States, we’re hearing more chatter about this emoluments clause … just as we did during the campaign when Trump’s allies used it to describe the so-called favors Hillary Rodham Clinton earned while she and her family ran the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative.

Those Hillary haters are quiet about Trump’s dealings.

Trump has announced he’s going to turn everything over to his children: Ivanka, Don Jr. and Eric. He’s going to walk away from the myriad business dealings.

That would be OK, except that he is planning to hand it all over the Younger Trumps. My hunch is that they’ll remain in his family and, thus, will rake in the revenue derived from whatever deals they strike.

What’s the better option for Trump? Sell it all. Liquidate everything and remove yourself entirely from every single aspect of the business. Give the kids their portion of what you get from the sale and let them invest their largesse any way they wish.

Absent a  complete and total severance from these business dealings, we are about to hear a lot more about the emoluments clause. It will not be pretty.

Jobless rate falls; look for the critics to chime in

jobseeking

The U.S. Department of Labor has just released its latest job report.

The nation added 178,000 private-sector jobs in November. The unemployment rate fell to 4.6 percent. Both numbers were better than economists had forecasted.

Good news, yes? Well, not exactly. That depends on a single political factor, or so it seems: your political persuasion.

President Barack Obama has overseen an astounding string of consecutive months with job growth: the count now stands at 81 months. When he took office in January 2009, the nation was shedding three-quarters of a million jobs a month; we were in the midst of that worldwide economic/financial collapse, if memory serves.

Jobs are up.

The jobless rate is down to 4.6 percent. That’s the lowest since the days of the Clinton administration.

Good news, yes?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/stock-futures-mostly-flat-after-jobs-report-beats-expectations/ar-AAl2Dyb?li=BBnbfcN

Hold on! Not quite. Obama critics cite something called the “workplace participation rate.” That includes a metric that measures the number of people looking for work. When the jobless rate falls to this kind of level, the critics suggest that’s a symptom of folks who no longer are “participating” in the job search.

Thus, the good news becomes bad news … according to the critics.

There used to be a time when you could measure joblessness and economic health using the number of jobs being created and the rate of unemployment.

Jobs are up. Joblessness is down.

That’s no longer good enough.

My head is spinning.