US President Donald Trump’s decision to sign off on the latest $900 billion COVID relief bill has the stock market soaring. Ordinary Americans? Not so much, considering they will now get $600 checks instead of the $2,000 checks Trump was demanding when he said he would veto the bill.

Trump Flip-Flops on $2,000 Checks

After complaining about the bill’s chunks of money for foreign aid and various wasteful government programs, Trump eventually signed off on it. Unemployment insurance temporarily lapsed over the Christmas weekend as a result of Trump’s delay in signing the bill into law. It was already previously approved by the House and Senate.

Senator Bernie Sanders called the delay “unbelievably cruel” due to the fact that the bill contained provisions protecting people from eviction and other measures, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that Trump’s waffling was a sign of incompetence and disregard for the American people. Now that the bill is law Pelosi claims it will help “the millions more struggling to stay afloat during this historic pandemic and economic crisis.”

Other Democrats sounded off even more loudly about the threatened veto, with Representative Gerry Connolly of Virginia saying Trump played “Russian Roulette with American lives.”

In addition to helping pay for the $600 to most Americans, the bill reups jobless benefits, help for small businesses, airlines, farms and other industries as well as money to pay for vaccines and education budgets. The attached Omnibus spending bill will keep the government running until the end of this coming September and avoid a federal government shutdown.

Specifically, the bill also gives $100 a week extra to self-employed and regularly employed workers whose self-employment income isn’t factored into the size of their unemployment checks. The bill will give $300 extra per week to unemployed people, down from $600 extra per week that ended this summer. In terms of eviction protection it will give $25 billion in help to tenants who are facing eviction.

Why Did Trump Back Down on His Demands?

Legislation being pursued by Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri and Sanders to get Americans more help during the pandemic typifies the converging economic populism of the Trump right and the Bernie / AOC left. Both wings were thoroughly beat down by Congress: AOC said the 5,593-page bill was too long to read and signed off anyway, while Trump said it was a “disgrace” and still backed down and signed it.

Why?

The first answer is likely simple pragmatism: in order to keep the government running and avoid an unemployment and eviction crisis right now the President and Congress passed the buck and signed off on the pork barrel-laden bill.

Trump — who is back stumping for the two Republican candidates in the upcoming Georgia runoff elections which could determine the balance of power in the Senate — seems to have been reined back into Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s Randian establishment GOP zone of comfort. In addition, Trump may have signed off because a potential check increase can be discussed in the future now that the bill is law, even though it’s unlikely to pass.

Similarly, Trump’s previous veto of the NDAA defense bill — that he disliked for limiting troop withdrawal options, focusing on Confederate name removal from monuments and doing little to take on the monopolistic and speech policing of Big Tech — was overridden by the House by 322 to 87 votes — handing Trump two big losses on his way out the Oval Office. As in so much of his presidency, Trump’s populism is a lot of talk without much action, blocked both by his own mercurial and erratic style of governance and the malicious economic ideologies represented by key GOP powerbrokers.

Kentucky Senator McConnell — a smooth political operator if there ever was one — is married to Elaine Chao whose family-owned Foremost Maritime Inc. has strong ties to the Communist Chinese government. The McConnells are worth over $34 million combined. Foremost received a bulky loan worth more than $417,000 as a result of The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act which was passed by Congress earlier this year in March.

McConnell said that even though the $900 billion relief bill isn’t “perfect,” it will do “an enormous amount of good for struggling Kentuckians and Americans across the country who need help now.”

Perhaps McConnell would like to trade and get just $600 while he can divide up the 400K at a local food bank in Kentucky, which has over 700,000 people living in poverty including 21% of its childhood population. More than 10% of Kentucky’s population also has no healthcare coverage.

Congressional Hypocrisy Rises to New Heights

A number of other budget hawks and Democrats who signed off on this $600 check relief bill also got major cash and loans via CARES, including Republican Representative Vern Buchanan of Florida (estimated worth $73 million) who got a $2.8 million loan for four of his companies. Republican Devin Nunes of California got $2.95 million from CARES for two wineries and farms that he has a stake in, while Democrat Earl Blumenaeur of Oregon (estimated worth $4.5 million) got $432,000 for two of his companies and Democrat T.J. Cox of California (estimated worth $11.8 million) nabbed $609,000 for two of his enterprises.

Many members of Congress have businesses and are in leadership at private firms and organizations. This is permitted under US law as long as the company is not publicly traded. Handing themselves handouts from money meant for businesses going under is the height of hypocrisy, particularly in cases such as that of Republican Carol Miller of West Virginia.

Miller works as a legal assistant to her husband car dealership chain, which got over $3 million in CARES loans even though West Virginia’s Governor Jim Justice said dealerships were essential in March, calling into question why they would need an emergency infusion of loan funding.

What Happens Now?

There is the chance of negotiating higher additional checks in the future, although the timetable means that for now most people will be getting only $600. The Democrats have a majority in the House and used it Monday to approve the CASH Act bill for $2,000 checks — and was later brought forward in the Senate for unanimous consent as Chuck Schumer has said he would do. This action has the potential to throw the GOP into disarray as well as potentially humiliate and undercut Trump. The Republicans hold a majority in the Senate and thus are in the awkward position of voting down a popular proposal that Trump had previously backed if it ever goes to vote.

Members of the party like Hawley and Representative Elise Stefanik clearly feel differently than McConnell and Co., however, with Stefanik saying that $2,000 checks are a must-do in order to address the “dire need of relief” among the American people. It remains to be seen if enough Republicans split off that the increased checks can pass.

The McConnell wing of the GOP has a deep donor list and long reach. They are not interested in handing out bigger checks or expanding into anything resembling populism. Although they are fine funding wasteful defense contracts — with rare exceptions such as Rand Paul and recent GOP defector Justin Amash — the thought of ordinary Americans having more money makes the McConnell crowd balk.

As Republican Mo Brooks of Alabama said recently: “it’s money we don’t have, we have to borrow to get and we can’t afford to pay back. Someone’s got to show me how we’re going to pay for it. How far before we all go into debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy?”

Sanders said he will object to McConnell’s attempt to override Trump’s veto on the defense bill in the Senate, which would throw a wrench and delay into proceedings and put pressure on McConnell to sign off on the $2,000 checks.

The outcome of this dramatic, chaotic and tragic transition of power and political crisis remains to be seen, as 2020 goes down in the record books as the deadliest year in American history.

L'articolo Why Did Trump Back Down on COVID Stimulus Bill? proviene da InsideOver.

New US Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller has announced that US troop strength will be reduced in Afghanistan and Iraq. The decision from President Donald Trump has been met with criticism and concern — even among some Republicans.

How Many Troops are Being Pulled from Afghanistan and Iraq?

On Trump’s orders, the US will reduce its troop strength in Afghanistan from around 4,500 soldiers to 2,500 soldiers by mid-January, while the number of soldiers in Iraq is set to be reduced by around 500 to 2,500 by January 15. Miller announced the reductions on Tuesday evening.

The decision marks an accelerated partial withdrawal of US troops before the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden on January 20.

Over the past few days, several media had reported about ongoing preparations for withdrawals. The Pentagon has  kept a low profile on the number of troops currently stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, according to CNN, there are currently 4,500 American military members still in Afghanistan and 3,000 in Iraq.

Trump’s Firing of Sec Def Esper and Appointment of High-Ranking Loyalists

The partial withdrawal follows Trump’s electoral defeat against Biden. Shortly thereafter, Trump released Secretary of Defense Mark Esper of his duties, which initiated the replacement of several high-ranking positions in the Pentagon with Trump supporters.

For example, former Army officer Douglas MacGregor was appointed senior advisor to Miller. MacGregor is known as a critic of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Esper, however, had insisted on maintaining a troop strength of 4,500 soldiers in Afghanistan.

Trump’s Promises to Bring the Troops Home

Trump had already promised to bring troops home in the 2016 election campaign. In particular, he pushed for the withdrawal from Afghanistan.The plans had led to criticism and concern from NATO and even among Trump’s Republican colleagues. It is feared that the extremist Islamic Taliban — who are currently holding peace talks with the Afghan government — will regain strength as a result of the troop reduction. According to US media reports, the President was recently increasingly frustrated with the pace of the withdrawal. 

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said he expected all allies to keep their pledge to leave Afghanistan in a coordinated and orderly manner only when the time is right.

“We have been in Afghanistan for almost 20 years, and no NATO ally wants to stay longer than necessary,” stressed Stoltenberg. The price for leaving the country too quickly or in an uncoordinated manner could be very high, he added.

The Danger of Afghanistan Regaining its Role as a Terrorist Haven

Afghanistan threatens to become a haven for international terrorists planning attacks on NATO countries. In addition, the Islamic State (ISIS) group may be able to establish territory for their terror caliphate in the country to make up for what it lost in Syria and Iraq.

Leading Republicans in Congress have also warned against a premature withdrawal from the country.

“There is no American who does not wish that the war in Afghanistan against terrorists and their helpers had already been finally won,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.  “But that does not change the actual decision that lies ahead of us.” A swift withdrawal of US forces “would harm our allies and please those who wish us harm,” McConnell added.

The Longest War in American History

The war in Afghanistan is the longest in US history. American soldiers have been deployed in the country since 2001. After the September 11 of that year, US-led troops were sent to the Asian nation as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, with operations beginning in October.

At the end of February 2020, Washington signed an agreement with the Taliban which promises the gradual withdrawal of all US and NATO armed forces by the end of April 2021. The Taliban went on to commit to peace talks with the government in Kabul, which began in September. However, the process stalled because of a dispute over procedural issues.

Iraqi Rocket Attacks Greet Withdrawal Announcement

Shortly after the announcement of the withdrawal of troops, several rocket attacks near the US embassy were reported from the Iraqi capital Baghdad. The four rockets were reportedly fired from the east of the capital. The rockets reportedly hit the Green Zone, a highly secure government district which also houses the embassy of the United States and various other nations in Iraq.

Since October last year, almost 90 deadly rocket and bomb attacks have been carried out on foreign embassies, troops, and facilities in Iraq.

L'articolo US Announces Further Withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq proviene da InsideOver.

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Sept. 18 has shaken up the 2020 election and is sure to plunge an already dramatic election year into a raging political firestorm. Already dealing with riots, massive forest fires, economic problems and a global pandemic, the United States now faces an election that might actually be the most important in many people’s lifetimes — and not just in the way that the line has been previously employed for the sake of political rhetoric to get voters to the polls.

A conservative replacement will be appointed soon. US President Donald Trump will reportedly nominate a woman to SCOTUS this coming week.

RBG’s Record

Ginsburg took her seat on SCOTUS in 1993 under President Bill Clinton and served there almost three decades. She was often part of the dissenting opinions as conservatives held a 5-4 voting majority for many years, bolstering the image of her as a feisty fighter and underdog.

RBG was a committed progressive who was staunchly in favor of abortion rights and legislating for increased labor protections and rights protections for women and minorities. Her dissenting opinions became well-known for their fiery conviction about gender equality, including landmark rulings on a women’s right to administer estates and get survivor benefits when their husband died.

Cases such as these and more made RBG into a feminist and progressive icon as she rose up the ranks and became prominent in the national eye.

Who Will Trump Pick?

Trump will most likely select Barbara Lagoa or Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacant SCOTUS seat. Both picks have various advantages. Both are socially conservative, devout Catholics, but there are some compelling reasons in favor of each from the right-wing perspective.

Barrett works for the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago since being put there by Trump in 2017 and previously clerked for Justice Scalia. She’s a former law professor who is believed to be committed to overturning landmark abortion ruling Roe vs. Wade. 

Lagoa has more judicial experience than Barrett and was put on the 3rd District Court of Appeals by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush in 2006. She moved to the US Court of Appeals for the 11th District in 2019 under orders from Trump. Lagoa is conservative, but is not as strongly opinionated on Roe vs. Wade. As a Cuban-American from Miami, however, she could also help solidify Trump’s growing support among Hispanic Americans and help him win the key state of Florida.

Left characterizations of Barrett as a “Catholic extremist” tend to tip the scales in favor of her being chosen by Trump. Furthermore, choosing Barrett would allow Trump to jeopardize much of the media and Democratic party’s emphasis on Biden’s Catholic faith. Is Hunter Biden also a “Catholic extremist” for having a large family? Is Biden a “good Catholic” for being liberal but Barrett is a “bad Catholic”? These are exactly the kind of litmus tests that will further sink the already disastrously falling support for Democrats among Hispanics and other portions of the electorate.

Republicans Want to Fill RBG’s Seat ASAP

Trump is promising that RBG’s seat will be filled quickly, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has pledged to confirm Trump’s appointee, although there’s no guarantee that will happen before election day on November 3. In order to confirm the pick the Republicans would have to be singularly unified without losing more than three party member confirmation votes.

Senators do not like being pressured on SCOTUS appointees and generally like to take their time to make a lifetime appointment to the vitally important court, and there’s a chance that the GOP could lose more votes than it could afford from Senators who are already finishing up their political career anyway, don’t support the pick, and don’t care any longer about the political suicide of not voting to confirm a new conservative justice.

Regardless, progressive fury at the perceived Republican hypocrisy will be intense. President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in the spring of 2016 was declined by the Republican-controlled Congress who insisted that the presidential election must be finished before a SCOTUS nomination could move forward. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch was put in the seat in 2017.

McConnell wouldn’t move forward then on the other party’s pick, but he will now on his own party’s selection.

This should not surprise anyone, particularly as federal politics has slid into an all-out brawl in the past few years and Democratic tactics have become increasingly intense and gloves-off as they seek to oust Trump from office. There is no reason to expect the GOP to play fair or adhere to standards of political civility at this point.

Biden has already emphasized that the nomination should not take place until this presidential election is decided, but has declined to put out a list of who he would potentially nominate were he to become president. It is also possible that Democrats will put through some legislation to make it easier to pass laws in the Senate and allow them to possibly expand the Supreme Court and end the impending Republican power play.

More Possible Choices to Replace Ginsburg

Although reports say Trump has narrowed it down to Barrett or Lagoa, other women on the shortlist include Bridget Bade from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Martha Pacold from the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Sarah Pitlyk from the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, deputy White House counsel Kate Todd, Joan Larsen of the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Britt Grant of the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and Allison Jones Rushing of the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

It is always possible that Trump will go with one of these women instead, as he is known for his unpredictability and has already changed his mind on a SCOTUS pick, having previously remarked he’d put Senator Ted Cruz in but recently announcing that it will be a woman instead.

Political Calculus

The Republicans could have held off on naming a replacement in order to further intensify the election and boost evangelical and socially conservative turnout. Making the 2020 election a referendum on Roe vs. Wade and whether the GOP would get the chance to put a conservative on the bench under a re-elected President Trump would have strongly enthused many right-leaning voters.

However, naming a replacement now has several advantages for the GOP. Firstly it can be seen as another feather in Trump’s cap and another win for voters to reflect on when they cast their ballot. Secondly, the Democratic party and left-leaning electoral meltdown that is sure to come as a replacement is named and vetted will likely provide unrest, dramatic rhetoric and behavior that will actually decrease support for the Democrats in crucial swing states and boost Republican voter turnout.

RBG’s reported statement prior to her death that she wishes above all that a replacement not be appointed until a new president is “installed” will further inflame angry progressives and intensify their threats and accusations of rank hypocrisy from Republicans for their previous refusal to allow Garland to proceed forward onto SCOTUS.

Various celebrities and establishment liberal figures have already made outlandish and possibly illegal statements inciting violence and promising that they’ll die before they allow the GOP to put in a replacement for RBG and “burn the entire f–ing thing down,” in the words of TV host Reza Aslan, for example.

What’s Next?

If Trump nominates Barrett the media and national uproar will be considerable. The hearings will be intensely partisan and bitter, but the election would be clearly tipped in Trump’s favor. Even a less contentious pick than Barrett is likely to result in a meltdown by coastal elites and progressives. Look for late night talk shows and other broadcast mediums for coastal folks to go absolutely bonkers, and don’t be surprised to see increased street-level agitation and unrest.

The United States is now in the unenviable position of melting down over race relations and politics with a contentious Supreme Court hearing on the horizon. No matter what happens, the death of RBG is likely to go down as a pivotal point in US history and what comes next is likely to be dramatic on the political and popular level.

Trump got a major boost in 2016 with the chance to fill the Supreme Court with a conservative justice, and his later appointments of Gorsuch to replace Scalia and Brett Kavanaugh to replace Anthony Kennedy helped bring many evangelicals and social conservatives over to his side and see him as a winner who gets things done. The death of RBG is likely to be what wins Trump the 2020 election and assists his administration in reshaping the federal bench to become more conservative across the board.

L'articolo RBG’s Death and the 2020 Election proviene da InsideOver.

March 11, 2020 marked the official end of the longest bull market in history. The Dow Jones went down 20.3% from the record high of 29,568 points it had reached exactly a month ago. Panic and uncertainty engulfed the markets as the coronavirus pandemic continued to wreak havoc in Europe and begin its rapid approach to America’s coasts. Governments across most continents moved at varying paces to intervene in terms of public health and the economy.

The US Economic Situation

One month ago there was an unemployment rate of only 3.5% in the United States and comparatively good economic growth of 2.3% according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis. The stock market was at record highs. Currently, full employment has ended, with predictions of the unemployment rate more than doubling in the coming weeks and reaching up to 30% in the coming months. Just last week, there was a record number of 3 million new jobless claims. As the Federal Reserve and the US government tried to calm things down with their announcements of economic measures, the stock market appeared to somewhat settle and managed to stop its declining streak, thus ending the shortest bear market in history.

The Federal Reserve moved aggressively and — perhaps in its haste to do good — proceeded incautiously with its announcement of a 50-basis point rate cut on March 3. One week later it dropped it effectively to zero. The message to the markets was that the worst is yet to come.

Congress’ Massive Stimulus Package

Nevertheless, after the stimulus package from Congress began to take shape, markets slowed down their downwards trend. The bill that made its way from Congress to the US President’s desk was worth $2 trillion, the largest ever in the world. And if the word of the Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer is any indication, another, even larger package is to follow. The President himself recently announced his intention to put forward a $2-trillion infrastructure bill.

According to the stimulus bill, individuals earning less than $75,000 per year are expected to receive $1,200 in cash payments, for a total of $300 billion. Families will also receive $500 per child. For those filing for unemployment, the government will provide $600 per week on top of whatever these individuals receive from the states. This is expected to last for four months. Moreover, 13 weeks of unemployment insurance are foreseen under the bill, with the possibility to request extensions. Freelancers, who normally cannot apply for unemployment, now can, thanks to a new government program.

Covid-19 Expenses Will Now All Be Covered

The legislation also makes all Covid-19 related medical expenses covered under private insurance. Furthermore, $10 million is the total sum of grants for small businesses, which can request up to $10,000. The small business administration can provide up to $10 million in forgivable loans per business, for a total of $350 billion. There are loans for big corporations as well, valued at $500 billion. $58 billion are reserved for airlines, whereas $100 billion for hospitals, $98 billion for drugs and vaccines and $1.32 billion for community centers. Worth 10% of GDP, there is no doubt that it is a comprehensive package. As the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pointed out though, it is actually a relief package, not a stimulus package. This is a very important difference.

In addition to the fiscal, demand-side policies, the Fed has restarted its quantitative easing (QE) program and promised unlimited monetary stimulus. As the Spanish economist Daniel Lacalle explains, it is obvious that this stimulus is not unlimited. It is, in fact, limited by the $13 trillion dollar shortage that exists currently in the world. It has increased due to other countries, especially emerging ones, having dollar-denominated debt, and soon these countries will need dollars to pay those debts. This has been a long advantage of the US dollar’s status as the world currency reserve and a safe haven.

The Economic Situation in Europe

On March 18, the European Central Bank announced an $820 billion (EUR 750 billion) asset purchase program, named the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program, that will last until the end of the year. This came after the new ECB Chief Christine Lagarde caused the biggest fall in the Italian stock market history with her declarations that it was not the ECB’s job to close the spread between bonds’ rates. Having realized her gaffe’s devastating consequences — not only on the stock market and bond yields but also on the ECB’s credibility — she apologized. Market participants reacted positively to the new program announced, maybe because it was the only concrete package from the EU. The member states of the Union still today, as April begins, have not reached an agreement as to how best proceed. The debates on establishing the so-called corona-bonds or finding other ways to help European individuals and companies still continue without any success. Chaos is the message that comes from Brussels. The threat of incompetence from the ECB‘s current leader is what makes market participants anxious.

Europe’s Lose-Lose Economic Dilemma

To make matters worse, in addition to a lack of a proper response, the economic situation in Europe is far worse than in the US. Whereas, the American labor market was strong and the economy growing steadily when the pandemic hit, the Eurozone has been plagued with high unemployment, weak economic growth and high debt levels. This has to do not only with the lack of a common response, but also with the actual implementation of the wrong type of measures to the crisis of 2012. And that is an important lesson to learn for the current situation. If we do not identify the problem correctly, it will be impossible to implement the right solution. This is precisely what is happening around the world.

While it is true that the United States has been much quicker than Europe in preparing for a coming recession, their measures are also not enough. The US is stronger than the Eurozone, there is no doubt about it. The economic measures implemented by Donald Trump, like cutting taxes and deregulation, have helped strengthen the economy further. Consumer confidence and business sentiment have been in their highest points. Nevertheless, this does not mean the US will not be hit by a recession. The way it behaves now will be crucial to how it weathers the storm. Even in its weak state, the EU has the possibility to reverse the course it is currently in by adopting measures that work. There is no doubt that it will be hit much harder than the United States.

If the US can afford to provide helicopter money and trillion-dollar relief bills, Europe does not have the same luxury. It is highly indebted, badly managed with inefficient markets. Its labor market is highly inflexible compared to the American one. Government interventionism is high and frequent. This has done more harm than good to the economies of the Eurozone. Decades of Keynesian economics have failed in bringing more prosperity, leaving Europe with deep economic scars. In 2019, many of the major economies in Europe were already close to a recession.  What the US and especially Europe need is to produce. This cannot be achieved through demand-side policies, especially when the blow is not from the demand side.

The Coming Storm Isn’t About Demand-Side Shock

Currently, the crisis that is about to hit most countries has been misidentified as being caused by demand side shock. In reality, however, it is a supply-side shock that is hitting economies everywhere. Companies are being forced to close due to government mandates. It isn’t generally because they are in bad financial health, nor is it primarily due to consumers fearing to spend. This is the starting point of the crisis. Obviously, shutting whole sectors of the economy down will inevitably lead to a recession. Supply chains will also probably shift, because both emerging and developed countries are shutting down. Fiscal packages passed by governments are not effective and cannot serve as a stimulus. Why a company that is being forced to shut down, but is in good financial health, should take loans and inflate its debt?

On the other hand, can companies with high leverage ratios afford to increase their debt? How will they repay this debt when they do not know when they will resume normal activity? These companies do not suffer because they lack access to credit, which has been accessible at very low cost for some time now. They suffer due to forcibly closing their activity. So, the problem in its origin is not on the demand side. Nevertheless, due to consumers being forced to stay at home, and because of bars, restaurants, hotels, some shops etc. being closed, this may turn also into a demand side problem.

Printing More Money Isn’t Going to Fix This

Only once the problem is appropriately assessed, can the right solutions be implemented. Printing money and giving it to people will not stimulate the economy, while the relief will be only temporary. Nor will it ensure that the private sector is ready to start the engines of the economy once the pandemic is over. In the current situation, finding ways to increase consumer spending is not going to be enough to push the GDP up. Sure enough, government spending can. However, with the condition that Europe is currently in, it cannot afford to increase its debt by incredibly high values, because the consequences after the pandemic will be catastrophic. Many companies and banks in Europe are in the same boat as the governments when it comes to debt. In Europe there are banks with high NPLs that cannot afford to risk increasing it any further.

Governments have overspent during expansionary times, and central banks have dropped rates to negative levels, limiting the effectiveness of these tools immensely. So, what should be done? First, the governments should eliminate all unnecessary spending. They should revise their budgets and drop all expenses for the year that are not essential. Secondly, they should immediately open companies that produce in the industry sector. In many countries, most firms in the services sector can do smart working. A suggestion that economists like Lacalle have made is that governments can provide lines of credit to companies that need to finance their working capital. If the governments are going to spend money at low costs, they can do so in a way that produces results. It must be paramount that economic activity be steadily reawakened.

Thirdly, governments should decrease taxes at least by half for all companies. For those companies that are not working, corporate taxes should be zero for the whole FY 2020. Moreover, payroll taxes should also be eliminated, as well as local taxes. It is paramount that the cost of hiring is reduced so that the recovery can start.

Follow the South Korean Model

Many people may argue that health is more important and being locked in our houses is necessary even at the risk of burning down our economies. The reply to that is the South Korean model should be followed not the Italian one. They performed massive tests to most of the population and it worked. If the government wants to spend money, let them spend it on tests for the virus. Then they can isolate the infected without risking the whole world economy. People need to go back to work, because they cannot live otherwise. Death by recession is as awful as death by corona. We are still in time to stop a health crisis from turning into a recession of Biblical proportions.

As the US President said, we cannot risk the cure being worse than the virus itself.

L'articolo Erroneous Response to Economic Crisis Could be Devastating proviene da InsideOver.

When the impeachment trial against President Trump came to an end after almost three weeks this past Wednesday afternoon nobody was surprised. The outcome had been almost certain thanks to the Republican-majority Senate. Trump was acquitted on both counts of impeachment he had been charged with. Nonetheless, the acquittal carried a caveat that has granted the Democrats a small victory, as they can claim a bi-partisan guilty vote on article 1.

Republican Senator Mitt Romney Stands Up To Trump, Votes To Impeach

On the trial’s last day, Mitt Romney, the Republican Senator from Utah, entered the chamber. Prior to Chief Justice John Roberts opening the last session, the Senators had the opportunity to justify their verdict personally. Romney did precisely that. The former Governor of Massachusetts is known for being a profoundly religious man. In his speech, he reaffirmed this fact by amplifying the oath he had given to God to act as an impartial juror during the trial. Romney stated that his belief was the core of his personality before his voice broke and he was silent from emotion for a considerable time. Romney said he had known from the start that the task of passing judgment on the president – the leader of his party – would be one of the most difficult decisions he would ever have to make.

However, Romney made his case with more than just religious beliefs. He asked the question that the president’s defense lawyers had denied in the process: were Trump’s actions a crime of a category the Founding Fathers would have thought of when they wrote the removal from office into the constitution? Romney’s answer: Answer: yes, they were.

Romney: Trump Put America Second

Romney reiterated that the president had asked a foreign government to investigate his political opponent. Moreover, he had withheld military aid for the country to put pressure on it—a country that was an ally of America that was at war. It was an attack on the right to vote, national security, and American values. “Manipulating an election to defend his post is arguably the most blatant breach of the oath I can imagine,” Romeny said. Consequently, Romney voted with the Democrats on the first charge: abuse of power. On the second, obstruction of Congress, Romney voted not guilty.

Republican Reaction To Romney’s Decision

Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that he was “surprised and disappointed” by Romney’s decision, but he rejected sanctions. Other Republicans, such as former presidential candidate Ted Cruz called Romney’s decision a mistake but avoided the question of whether the Senator should be excluded from their ranks.

The Romney speech was a memorable, perhaps even a historical moment. In a speech full of honesty and emotion, Mitt Romney displayed traits that the public rarely gets to witness: backbone and courage. It was a speech by a man who clearly grappled with his conscience and ultimately spoke out despite the inevitable push back and anger from his party.

Romney: Oath To God More Important Than Voting ‘With The Team’

Romney was cognizant of the consequences. During the trial, Romney said there had been calls by Republicans trying to convince him to vote “with the team.” However, Romney emphasized that his oath to God was more important than partisan decisions, and the fact that he is now persona non grata within his own party could likely cost him his Senate seat during the next Utah election. Moreover, the president’s future hostility is guaranteed.

Trump And Romney’s Checkered History

Trump’s hostility towards Romney is not a new occurrence, however. When Trump ran for the White House in 2016, Romney was considered the Republicans’ last line of defense against Trump’s populism. In a now famous speech, Romney openly warned his party and the public against Trump. Romney labeled Trump’s economic and foreign policy idea crazy and incoherent, while also saying that Trump’s temperament was unsuitable for a commander-in-chief. The highlight was his conclusion in which Romney called Trump a “phony” and a “fraud” whose promises were as worthless as a degree from Trump University.

Nevertheless, when Trump won the election and interview for his future Secretary of State, Trump invited Romney—a potential candidate for the vacancy at that point—for dinner. Different versions of what transpired have been recounted ever since. One is that Trump never planned to hire Romney but sought the public humiliation of his arch-enemy, captured in a now infamous photo of the two. Another one is that Trump’s offer was genuine, as during the transition period, he needed the moderate Republicans on his side, and Romney had been the leader on this front. The conclusion of the second story states that Trump had asked for a public apology for the speech, but Romney refused. Trump nonetheless endorsed Romney during his Senate run a year and a half later.

With his vote against the president now, however, Romney might be fortunate to receive even a “hello” from the president whenever they cross paths. In fact, given the current state of the GOP, which has fully transformed into Trump’s party, Romney might even have to explore his future career options since it is virtually certain he will not have an easy go of it within the Republican party for as long as the president’s name is Donald Trump.

L'articolo The Grand Old Party: No Love Lost For Mitt Romney proviene da InsideOver.

The first day of the Trump impeachment trial commenced as anticipated: in utter acrimony between the Democrats and the Republicans, primarily over the trial’s resolution introduced by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, which Democrats labeled a farce.

In his opening statement, lead impeachment manager for the Democrats, Adam Schiff, attempted to call upon the senators’ integrity and reminded them what he believed was at stake before raising the question of whether Republicans will be able to say goodbye to partisanship and welcome to a fair and balanced procedure.

Schiff’s statement came after Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, had sharply scrutinized the resolution that Mitch McConnell aspired to put to the vote on Tuesday and which entailed the rules procedures for the forthcoming weeks. It stipulated that the Democrats, as well as the defense, were only granted 24 hours for their arguments. However, the appearance of each side ought to be restricted to two days, which would have resulted in twelve hours per day.

Since the trial should in no case begin before 9 am with longer breaks to be expected, the Democrats and Schumer feared that their team would be at the lectern at night to justify the impeachment and thus absent from the public’s spotlight.

The White House’s defense council, meanwhile, repudiated these allegations in the first session yesterday. Instead, it was the Democrats who attempted to void not only the 2016 election but steal 2020 also, the lawyers argued.

Nonetheless, in an apparent concession to Democrats, the resolution introduced at the start of the trial deviated from the resolution McConnell unveiled on Monday. Changes to the resolution were written by hand into the original text, highlighting how the adjustment to the opening remarks schedule occurred at the last minute – despite McConnell’s previous claims to possess sufficient votes to pass his original resolution.

It was unclear whether he feared an early showdown that the Trump loyalists could have lost or whether the moderate Republicans such as Mitt Romney beseeched McConnell into these concessions. As a result, the Democrats and the defense are now granted 24 hours over three days to conduct their arguments.

Besides the scheduling issues, the Democrats demanded various amendments to ensure, inter alia, that the Senate would summons witnesses – including Trump’s Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and former National Security Advisor John Bolton. The Democrats, moreover, attempted to enforce further requests that the Senate would subpoena numerous documents for the procedure in advance – including from the White House, the US State Department, and the Pentagon.

Republicans, however, rejected all efforts on day one.

After a 12-hour debate and just before 2 am, the GOP voted along party lines, 53 to 47, to ratify McConnell’s trial resolution and with it in favor of postponing the decision on whether to summon witnesses or subpoena documents for the trial.

Nonetheless, the fact that the moderate Republicans did not appear to be inclined to rush to early conclusions can be seen as a minor success for the Democrats, particularly after day one had impressively illustrated how far apart the Trumpian GOP and the Democrats are. The fact that, unlike during the Clinton trial in 1999, both sides could not even concur on the rules in advance is a testimony of the latter.

It remains to be seen, however, what price the Democrats are willing to pay for Mitt Romney and co. to ensure an infinitesimally more impartial trial. Romney, for one, has already affirmed he was interested in Bolton’s testimony. However, the trade-off would presumably be a subpoena for Hunter Biden. So far, the Democrats have not been inclined to make him a participant. Whether they are prepared to put their leading presidential candidate and his son in jeopardy in order to potentially obtain a smoking gun Bolton may or may not possess, remains to be seen though it is not entirely inconceivable after the first day of the Trump trial is in the books.

L'articolo The Trump Impeachment: Day One proviene da InsideOver.

In his six-page letter to US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, American President Trump denied all allegations against him and accused the Democrats of a deranged political witch-hunt, among many other things. As we know by now, it did not stop Pelosi from proceeding in her case against Trump. However, the letter was never meant to stop the impeachment process in the first place.

Unlike his usual approach, Trump did not announce his protest against the then-pending impeachment procedure via Twitter but protested it in the letter he sent to Pelosi on Tuesday. In the letter Trump accuses the Democrats of “perversion of justice and abuse of power.” He reiterates that he has done nothing wrong when he asked a foreign power, namely Ukraine, to investigate political rivals, i.e., Democratic Presidential candidate and former VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

Why Did Trump Write The Letter?

Trump’s letter wasn’t truly meant for Pelosi. It was a press release for the public. Not the general public, but the Trump public. It was done in order to rally the troops for the upcoming impeachment proceedings and inflame them with even more outrage. As such, the letter represents a summary of Trump’s “fight” against “the swamp,” “the deep state,” and all the other enemies who have been undermining his presidency according to his view. All the misleading statements, exaggerations, and downright falsehoods in the letter notwithstanding, its purpose is clear. Self-reflection? Nonexistent. Victim narrative? Omnipresent.

Trump Letter: Only Stupid People Believe The Democrats Are Sincere

By adhering to the impeachment process, Pelosi has declared an “open war on American democracy,” Trump wrote. The “campaign” of the Democrats against him was an “unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power.”

“You view democracy as your enemy!” Continues the President’s six-page letter. “You are the ones subverting democracy in America. You are the ones obstructing justice. You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish personal, political, and partisan gain.”

No “intelligent person” would believe the Democrats, Trump also claimed. “You are making a mockery of impeachment, and you are scarcely concealing your hatred of me, of the Republican Party, and tens of millions of patriotic Americans.”

Moreover, Trump claimed that he had been denied fundamental rights during the Democrats’ preparations for impeachment, such as the possibility of having witnesses interrogated at the House hearings. After all, “more due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials.”

In his letter, Trump also states that he has “no doubt” that “the American people will hold you and the Democrats fully responsible in the upcoming 2020 elections.”

Pelosi Unruffled By Angry Letter

Trump’s words—unsurprisingly—did not lead Pelosi to change course. Hours after having received the letter, she sent out the invitations for the impeachment votes the following day to “honor our oath to support our constitution and protect it from all foreign and domestic enemies.” Hours later, Trump became only the third President in the history of the republic to be impeached.

Indeed, the President’s most recent—and well calculated—outburst won’t deter the Democrats or interrupt their plan going forward. As part of the upcoming trial, they now seek to summon witnesses from Trump’s closest circle. Two of the four new witnesses are said to be former Security Adviser John Bolton and incumbent White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.

Moreover, in a letter to Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer proposed for the proceedings to be “fair and honest.” Mcconnell has said he will be working with the White House and there will be no difference between his approach and the President’s approach, while fellow Trump insider Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has said the impeachment is bogus and he will do whatever he can to “make it die quickly” in the Senate.

According to Schumer, the trial could begin as early as January 7th, with the process potentially lasting multiple weeks. Meanwhile, Schumer and McConnell are expected to agree on a roadmap for the planned process, just as it occurred during the impeachment proceedings against former President Clinton two decades ago.

L'articolo Trump’s Letter to Pelosi: Alternative Facts In An Alternate Reality proviene da InsideOver.