Health Care Insurance

The Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017, Story 1: Flynn Fibbed FBI — Process Crime — Is That All There Is? — Hillary Clinton and James Comey Conflicted Mueller Gang Should Be Fired — Wasting Taxpayer Money On A Wild Goose Chase — Still No Evidence Trump Colluded With Russians –Indict and Prosecute Clintons Before Statue of Limitations Runs Out — The Party’s Over — Videos — Story 2: Trump Not Pleased With Attorney General Sessions Sweeping Clinton Scandals Under The Rug — Videos — Story 3: Democratic Party No Longer Cares About American Citizens and Workers — Wants Citizenship For 30-60 Million Criminal Illegal Aliens in United States — Pass Katie’s Law Now Senator McConnell — Videos

Posted on December 1, 2017. Filed under: American History, Bill Clinton, Blogroll, Books, Breaking News, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Countries, Donald J. Trump, Elections, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, Health Care Insurance, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, James Comey, Law, Life, Lying, Media, News, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, President Trump, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Robert S. Mueller III, Security, Senate, United Kingdom, United States of America, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1007, November 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1006, November 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1005, November 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1004, November 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1003, November 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1002, November 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1001, November 14, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 1000, November 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 999, November 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 998, November 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 997, November 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 996, November 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 995, November 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 994, November 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 993, November 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 992, October 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 991, October 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 990, October 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 989, October 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 988, October 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 987, October 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 986, October 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 985, October 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 984, October 16, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 983, October 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 982, October 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 981, October 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

See the source image

Story 1: Flynn Fibbed FBI — Process Crime — Is That All There Is? — Much Ado About Nothing — Hillary Clinton and James Comey Conflicted Mueller Gang Should Be Fired — Wasting Taxpayer Money On A Wild Goose Chase — Still No Evidence Trump Colluded With Russians –Indict and Prosecute Clintons Before Statue of Limitations Runs Out — The Party’s Over — Videos —

Peggy Lee — Is That All There Is? 1969

Is That All There Is

I remember when I was a very little girl, our house caught on fire
I’ll never forget the look on my father’s face as he gathered me up
in his arms and raced through the burning building out to the pavement
I stood there shivering in my pajamas and watched the whole world go up in flames
And when it was all over I said to myself, is that all there is to a fire
Is that all there is, is that all there is
If that’s all there is my friends, then let’s keep dancing
Let’s break out the booze and have a ball
If that’s all there is
And when I was twelve years old, my father took me to a circus, the greatest show on earth
There were clowns and elephants and dancing bears
And a beautiful lady in pink tights flew high above our heads
And so I sat there watching the marvelous spectacle
I had the feeling that something was missing
I don’t know what, but when it was over
I said to myself, “is that all there is to a circus?
Is that all there is, is that all there is
If that’s all there is my friends, then let’s keep dancing
Let’s break out the booze and have a ball
If that’s all there is
Then I fell in love, head over heels in love, with the most wonderful boy in the world
We would take long walks by the river or just sit for hours gazing into each other’s eyes
We were so very much in love
Then one day he went away and I thought I’d die, but I didn’t
and when I didn’t I said to myself, is that all there is to love?
Is that all there is, is that all there is
If that’s all there is my friends, then let’s keep dancing
I know what you must be saying to yourselves
if that’s the way she feels about it why doesn’t she just end it all?
Oh, no, not me I’m in no hurry for that final disappointment
for I know just as well as I’m standing here talking to you
when that final moment comes and I’m breathing my first breath, I’ll be saying to myself
Is that all there is, is that all there is
If that’s all there is my friends, then let’s keep dancing
Let’s break out the booze and have a ball
If that’s all there is
Songwriters: Jerry Leiber / Mike Stoller
Is That All There Is lyrics © Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, Warner/Chappell Music, Inc

Boom! President Trump Nails The FBI, Unloads On Them As He Issues Bold Warning

Russia Investigation Just Backfired On Obama As It’s Revealed He Gave This Secret Order To Flynn

Michael Flynn’s Big Regret

Gen. Flynn: I am working to set things right

What does Flynn’s plea deal reveal about the Russia probe?

Judge Napolitano: Flynn’s plea deal is a nightmare for Trump

After Flynn plea deal, Mueller likely to target Kushner: Gasparino

Michael Flynn to Plead Guilty. In Depth Report. Watch.

Source: Flynn broken financially and emotionally

Michael Flynn pleads guilty to lying to FBI

Roger Stone reacts to Gen. Flynn Pleading Guilty

Michael Flynn Pleads to Chicken Sh*t Lying Charge to Save His Son and Rat Out Trump, Mueller Prays

William Binney – General Flynn Russia and Trump

James Clapper on Michael Flynn plea: This isn’t fake

Alex Jones: The REAL STORY Behind General Flynn Guilty Plea

Ben Shapiro: Michael Flynn pleads guilty to lying to the FBI (audio from 12-01-2017)

Alan Dershowitz says Michael Flynn isn’t a credible witness

Michael Flynn guilty plea opens pathway to Donald Trump?

Judge Napolitano: What does Flynn have that Mueller wants?

Bombshell? Cortes: Flynn charge ‘isn’t even a firecracker’

LIMBAUGH: CALM DOWN. Mike Flynn Guilty Plea Is ‘Much Ado About Nothing’

Ann Coulter Responds to Gen. Flynn Pleading Guilty

Peter Schweizer talks to Laura Ingraham about the totality of evidence in the Uranium One story

Peter Schweizer reacts to Jeff Sessions hearing with Sean Hannity

Ben Shapiro – What Exactly Happened With Uranium One

Judge Napolitano: Clinton Cash Allegations Amount To Bribery

Fox News Sunday Panel Discusses Clinton Cash

Andrew Napolitano – The Lying Class

Democrats Drowning In Scandals – Hannity

Clinton Probe Given ‘Special’ Status By FBI – Uranium One – Ingraham Angle

Tucker: Fake Russia collusion has unintended consequences

Hannity: Exposing the real Russia collusion

Top FBI Investigator Who Led Hillary Email Case Suddenly Resigns Special Counsel!

Judy Holliday – The Party’s Over

Peggy Lee – The Party’s Over

PEGGY LEE

The Party’s Over Lyrics

The party’s over
It’s time to call it a day
They’ve burst your pretty balloon
And taken the moon away
It’s time to wind up the masquerade
Just make your mind up the piper must be paidThe party’s over
The candles flicker and dim
You danced and dreamed through the night
It seemed to be right just being with him
Now you must wake up, all dreams must end
Take off your makeup, the party’s over
It’s all over, my friendThe party’s over
It’s time to call it a day
Now you must wake up, all dreams must end
Take off your makeup, the party’s over
It’s all over, my friendIt’s all over, my friend

Michael Flynn’s Russia Timeline

CNN: White House claims Obama admin approved Flynn calls with Russian ambassador

Flynn enters guilty plea, will cooperate with Mueller

The White House said on Friday that it was the Obama administration that authorized former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during President Trump’s transition, according to CNN.

Flynn pleaded guilty on Friday to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Kislyak in the month before Trump took office, the first current or former Trump White House official brought down by special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s election meddling.

Court records indicate that his communications with Kislyak were directed by a Trump transition official, with multiple news outlets reporting that official was Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner.

“They are saying here at the White House that Flynn’s conversations with Sergey Kisylak were quote ‘authorized’ by the Obama administration,” CNN correspondent Jim Acosta said.

“We should point out, that is something that we have not heard before in terms of a defense from this White House,” he said.

The White House did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for comment.

James Clapper, who served as the Director of National Intelligence under Obama, said that the claim that the Obama administration authorized Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak was “absurd,” adding that the administration was concerned by the communications at the time.

“That’s absurd. That’s absolutely absurd,” Clapper said on CNN.

“There was great concern at the time, not just with this particular contact, but with the violation of the principle that historically been followed of one president, one administration at a time,” he added. “So to say that we blessed it, or acquiesced it is a stretch.”

In a statement released shortly after he entered his guilty plea, Flynn acknowledged that he is cooperating with Mueller’s probe into Russian interference during last year’s election and any coordination between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

According to court documents, Flynn lied to investigators when he told them that he did not ask Kislyak to refrain from retaliating against U.S. sanctions imposed by the Obama administration in response to the Russian meddling.

Flynn also lied when he told the FBI that he did not lobby Kislyak to oppose or delay a United Nations Security Council vote condemning Israeli settlements, a resolution strongly condemned by Trump.

Flynn resigned from the Trump White House in February — just 24 days into office — after it was reported that he misled Vice President Pence and other officials about his contacts with Kislyak.

The White House sought to distance itself from Flynn on Friday, noting that he only served as Trump’s national security adviser for a few weeks and that he lied to Pence about his interactions with Kislyak in the same vein that he lied to the FBI.

Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, and his associate Richard Gates were indicted last month in Mueller’s probe, and George Papadopoulos, a former foreign policy adviser to Trump’s campaign, pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents.

But unlike them, Flynn was part of nearly Trump’s entire presidential campaign and held a high-level national security position in the administration.

Flynn served as the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency under former President Obama, but was removed from that post in 2014. Obama reportedly advised Trump against bringing him back to the White House.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/362856-cnn-white-house-claims-obama-admin-approved-flynn-calls-with-russian

FBI reviewed Flynn’s calls with Russian ambassador but found nothing illicit


Michael Flynn, U.S. national security advisor, arrives to a swearing in ceremony of White House senior staff on Sunday. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)
 January 23
The FBI in late December reviewed intercepts of communications between the Russian ambassador to the United States and retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn — national security adviser to then-President-elect Trump — but has not found any evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the Russian government, U.S. officials said.The calls were picked up as part of routine electronic surveillance of Russian officials and agents in the United States, which is one of the FBI’s responsibilities, according to the U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss counterintelligence operations.

Nonetheless, the fact that communications by a senior member of Trump’s national security team have been under scrutiny points up the challenge facing the intelligence community as it continues its wide-ranging probe of Russian government influence in the U.S. election and whether there was any improper back-channel contacts between Moscow and Trump associates and acquaintances.

Although Flynn’s contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were listened to, Flynn himself is not the active target of an investigation, U.S. officials said. The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that U.S. counterintelligence agents had investigated the communications between Flynn and Kislyak.

The controversy about Michael Flynn, Trump’s new national security adviser, explained 

Of particular note was a Dec. 29 telephone conversation, initiated in an exchange of text messages the day before. Trump officials previously had said the call took place on the 28th. On the 29th, the Obama administration announced sanctions against Russia and expelled 35 officials from the Russian Embassy in response to what the U.S. intelligence community has said was interference in the presidential election on Trump’s behalf.

Earlier this month and on Monday, during his first official White House news conference, press secretary Sean Spicer said that the call covered several subjects. They included a Russian invitation to the Trump administration to take part in Russian-sponsored Syrian peace talks that began Monday in Kazakhstan. The men also talked about logistics for a post-inauguration call between Trump and Russian President Vladi­mir Putin.

Flynn also conveyed condolences for a Russian plane crash that killed a famed military band the day before the call, said Spicer, who said that Kislyak initiated the call after he and Flynn exchanged holiday greetings by text. Spicer also said Monday that the two had followed up with a subsequent call “two days ago . . . three days ago” to further discuss a Trump-Putin call.

In remarks when the Dec. 28 call was first reported this month, Spicer and other officials said there had been no mention of the sanctions that were announced the next day. On Monday, he said he was unaware of any other conversations between Flynn and members of the Russian government. Spicer said he asked Flynn if there had been conversations with any other Russian officials “beyond the ambassador. He said no.”

Earlier news media reports had also cited a Flynn call to Kislyak on Dec. 19 to express condolences for the terrorist killing of the Russian ambassador to Turkey that day.

Although Flynn has written critically about Russia, he also was paid to deliver a speech at a 2015 Moscow gala for RT, the Kremlin-sponsored international television station, at which he was seated next to Putin.

The FBI’s counterintelligence agents listen to calls all the time that do not pertain to any open investigation, current and former law enforcement officials said. Often, said one former official, “they’re just monitoring the other [foreign official] side of the call.”

Dmitry Medvedev , the prime minister of Russia, walks with Sergey Kislyak, Russian ambassador to the U.S., as he arrives for the G8 Summit at Dulles International Airport in Chantilly, Va., May 18, 2012. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

Both Flynn, a former head of the Pentagon’s intelligence agency, and Kislyak, a seasoned diplomat, are probably aware that Kislyak’s phone calls and texts are being monitored, current and former officials said. That would make it highly unlikely, the individuals said, that the men would allow their calls to be conduits of illegal coordination.

greg.miller@washpost.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-reviewed-flynns-calls-with-russian-ambassador-but-found-nothing-illicit/2017/01/23/aa83879a-e1ae-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.d3df7f7ededa

House Republicans Prepare Contempt Action Against FBI, DOJ

Updated on 
  • Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, FBI Director Wray named
  • ‘It all starts to make sense,’ Trump says of Russia probe
Rod Rosenstein.Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

U.S. House Republicans are drafting a contempt of Congress resolution against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray, claiming stonewalling in producing material related to the Russia-Trump probes and other matters.

Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes and other committee Republicans, after considering such action for several weeks, decided to move after media including the New York Times reported Saturday on why a top FBI official assigned to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Russia-Trump election collusion had been removed from the investigation.

Republicans, including the president, pointed to the reports as evidence that the entire probe into Russian meddling has been politically motivated.

In his statement Saturday, Nunes pointed to the reports that the official, Peter Strzok, was removed after allegedly having exchanged anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton text messages with his mistress, who was an FBI lawyer working for Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.

Another Trump tweet referred to the agent as “tainted (no, very dishonest?).” The president added that the FBI’s reputation “is in Tatters – worst in History!” In a busy morning of notes to his 44 million followers, Trump earlier said that “I never asked” former FBI Director James Comey “to stop investigating Flynn. Just more Fake News covering another Comey lie!”

Agent’s Dismissal

Until now, Nunes said, the FBI and Department of Justice have failed to sufficiently comply with an Aug. 24 committee subpoena — including by refusing repeated demands “for an explanation of Peter Strzok’s dismissal from the Mueller probe.”

“In light of today’s press reports, we now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make Deputy Director McCabe available to the Committee for an interview,” Nunes said.

“By hiding from Congress, and from the American people, documented political bias by a key FBI head investigator for both the Russia collusion probe and the Clinton email investigation, the FBI and DOJ engaged in a willful attempt to thwart Congress’ constitutional oversight responsibility,” he said.

‘Fully Met’

Nunes, in the statement, said the committee will move on a resolution by the end of the month unless it demands are “fully met” by the close of business Dec. 4.

He cited “a months-long pattern by the DOJ and FBI of stonewalling and obstructing this Committee’s oversight work,” including also withholding subpoenaed information about their use of an opposition research dossier that targeted Trump in the 2016 election.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions would not be a target of any contempt action by the committee, Nunes has said, because he recused himself from any investigation into charges that Russia meddled in the election.

Justice Department spokeswoman Sara Isgur Flores said in an email that “we disagree with the chairman’s characterization and will continue to work with congressional committees to provide the information they request consistent with our national security responsibilities.”

Documents and Briefings

The department has already provided members of House leadership and the Intelligence Committee with “several hundred pages of classified documents” and multiple briefings — including whether any FBI payments were made related to the dossier — and has cleared witnesses including McCabe and Strzok to testify, she said.

The House committee’s top Democrat, Representative Adam Schiff of California, responded in a statement that the Department of Justice inspector general is “properly investigating the handling of the investigation, including the current allegation of bias” by Strzok.

“I am concerned, however, that our chairman is willing to use the subpoena and contempt power of the House, not to determine how the Russians interfered in our election or whether the president obstructed Justice, but only to distract from the core of our investigation,” Schiff said.

Salacious Allegations

The dossier, which included salacious allegations about Trump, was paid for in part by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton through a law firm. Nunes and other committee Republicans — backed by Speaker Paul Ryan — say they want to investigate whether the Justice Department and FBI may have improperly relied on the dossier to kick-start federal surveillance that caught up Trump associates, without independently confirming the information they used to justify such spying.

“The DOJ has now expressed — on a Saturday, just hours after the press reports on Strzok’s dismissal appeared — sudden willingness to comply with some of the Committee’s long-standing demands,” Nunes said. “This attempted 11th-hour accommodation is neither credible nor believable, and in fact is yet another example of the DOJ’s disingenuousness and obstruction.”

Those agencies “should be investigating themselves,” he said.

Comity Strained

The committee’s infighting has stepped up since October, coinciding with Democratic complaints that Nunes has returned to a more active capacity for Republicans in the committee’s Russia investigation.

Nunes said April 6 he was stepping back amid criticism of his handling of classified material, reportedly obtained from White House officials, that he said showed officials of former President Barack Obama’s administration “unmasked” the identities of people close to Trump who were mentioned in legal surveillance of foreign individuals.

Representative Michael Conaway of Texas officially has taken over the Republican reins from Nunes on the investigation. But Nunes’s statement Saturday is another signal he’s returned to a leading role.

 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-03/u-s-house-republicans-prepare-contempt-action-against-fbi-doj-jaqegooo

Mueller aide fired for anti-Trump texts now facing review for role in Clinton email probe

Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department’s Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email investigation by Peter Strzok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.

A source close to the matter said the OIG probe, which will examine Strzok’s roles in a number of other politically sensitive cases, should be completed by “very early next year.”

The task will be exceedingly complex, given Strzok’s consequential portfolio. He participated in the FBI’s fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email server.

As deputy FBI director for counterintelligence, Strzok also enjoyed liaison with various agencies in the intelligence community, including the CIA, then led by Director John Brennan.

Key figure

House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump “dossier” and launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.

The “dossier” was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The firm’s bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has sought documents and witnesses from the Department of Justice and FBI to determine what role, if any, the dossier played in the move to place a Trump campaign associate under foreign surveillance.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, March 24, 2017. Nunes said Friday that Paul Manafort, the former campaign chairman for President Donald Trump, volunteered to be interviewed by committee members. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif.

Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months of that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant suggesting that there was “documentary evidence” that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the House probe into the dossier.

In early October, Nunes personally asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – who has overseen the Trump-Russia probe since the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions – to make Strzok available to the committee for questioning, sources said.

While Strzok’s removal from the Mueller team had been publicly reported in August, the Justice Department never disclosed the anti-Trump texts to the House investigators. The denial of access to Strzok was instead predicated, sources said, on broad “personnel” grounds.

When a month had elapsed, House investigators – having issued three subpoenas for various witnesses and documents – formally recommended to Nunes that DOJ and FBI be held in contempt of Congress. Nunes continued pressing DOJ, including a conversation with Rosenstein as recently as last Wednesday.

That turned out to be 12 days after DOJ and FBI had made Strzok available to the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is conducting its own parallel investigation into the allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

Contempt citations?

Responding to the revelations about Strzok’s texts on Saturday, Nunes said he has now directed his staff to draft contempt-of-Congress citations against Rosenstein and the new FBI director, Christopher Wray. Unless DOJ and FBI comply with all of his outstanding requests for documents and witnesses by the close of business on Monday, Nunes said, he would seek a resolution on the contempt citations before year’s end.

“We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy Director [Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview,” Nunes said in a statement.

“We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy Director [Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview.”

– House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif.

Early Saturday afternoon, after Strzok’s texts were cited in published reports by the New York Times and the Washington Post – and Fox News had followed up with inquiries about the department’s refusal to make Strzok available to House investigators – the Justice Department contacted the office of House Speaker Paul Ryan to establish a date for Strzok’s appearance before House Intelligence Committee staff, along with two other witnesses long sought by the Nunes team.

Those witnesses are FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and the FBI officer said to have handled Christopher Steele, the British spy who used Russian sources to compile the dossier for Fusion GPS. The official said to be Steele’s FBI handler has also appeared already before the Senate panel.

The Justice Department maintained that the decision to clear Strzok for House interrogation had occurred a few hours prior to the appearance of the Times and Post stories.

In addition, Rosenstein is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 13.

The Justice Department maintains that it has been very responsive to the House intel panel’s demands, including private briefings for panel staff by senior DOJ and FBI personnel and the production of several hundred pages of classified materials available in a secure reading room at DOJ headquarters on Oct. 31.

Behind the scenes

Sources said Speaker Ryan has worked quietly behind the scenes to try to resolve the clash over dossier-related evidence and witnesses between the House intel panel on the one hand and DOJ and FBI on the other. In October, however, the speaker took the unusual step of saying publicly that the two agencies were “stonewalling” Congress.

All parties agree that some records being sought by the Nunes team belong to categories of documents that have historically never been shared with the committees that conduct oversight of the intelligence community.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) speaks during a press briefing on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., September 6, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts - RC136EFF4EB0

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

Federal officials told Fox News the requested records include “highly sensitive raw intelligence,” so sensitive that officials from foreign governments have emphasized to the U.S. the “potential danger and chilling effect” it could place on foreign intelligence sources.

Justice Department officials noted that Nunes did not appear for a document-review session that his committee’s ranking Democrat, U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., attended, and once rejected a briefing by an FBI official if the panel’s Democratic members were permitted to attend.

Sources close to the various investigations agreed the discovery of Strzok’s texts raised important questions about his work on the Clinton email case, the Trump-Russia probe, and the dossier matter.

“That’s why the IG is looking into all of those things,” a Justice Department official told Fox News on Saturday.

A top House investigator asked: “If Mueller knew about the texts, what did he know about the dossier?”

Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel, said: “Immediately upon learning of the allegations, the Special Counsel’s Office removed Peter Strzok from the investigation.”

Carr declined to comment on the extent to which Mueller has examined the dossier and its relationship, if any, to the counterintelligence investigation that Strzok launched during the height of the campaign season.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/03/mueller-aide-fired-for-anti-trump-texts-now-facing-review-for-role-in-clinton-email-probe.html

Mueller reportedly ousted an investigator on his team over possible anti-Trump texts

What the Flynn Plea Means

 by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY December 1, 2017 12:20 PM

There’s less to the news than meets the eye.

Former Trump-administration national-security adviser Michael Flynn is expected to plead guilty today to lying to the FBI regarding his conversations with Russia’s ambassador to the United States. Flynn, who is reportedly cooperating with the investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller, is pleading guilty in federal district court in Washington, D.C., to a one-count criminal information (which is filed by a prosecutor in cases when a defendant waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury).

The false-statement charge, brought under Section 1001 of the federal penal code, stems from Flynn’s conversation on December 29, 2016, with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. At the time, Flynn was slated to become the national-security adviser to President-elect Donald Trump. The conversation occurred on the same day that then-president Barack Obama announced sanctions against Russia for its interference in the 2016 election. It is believed to have been recorded by the FBI because Kislyak, as an agent of a foreign power, was subject to monitoring under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Mueller has charged Flynn with falsely telling FBI agents that he did not ask the ambassador “to refrain from escalating the situation” in response to the sanctions. In being questioned by the agents on January 24, 2017, Flynn also lied when he claimed he could not recall a subsequent conversation with Kislyak, in which the ambassador told Flynn that the Putin regime had “chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of [Flynn’s] request.”

Furthermore, a week before the sanctions were imposed, Flynn had also spoken to Kislyak, asking the ambassador to delay or defeat a vote on a pending United Nations resolution. The criminal information charges that Flynn lied to the FBI by denying both that he’d made this request and that he’d spoken afterward with Kislyak about Russia’s response to it.

Thus, in all, four lies are specified in the one count. The potential sentence is zero to five years’ imprisonment. Assuming Flynn cooperates fully with Mueller’s investigators, there will be little, if any, jail time.

Obviously, it was wrong of Flynn to give the FBI false information; he could, after all, have simply refused to speak with the agents in the first place. That said, as I argued early this year, it remains unclear why the Obama Justice Department chose to investigate Flynn. There was nothing wrong with the incoming national-security adviser’s having meetings with foreign counterparts or discussing such matters as the sanctions in those meetings. Plus, if the FBI had FISA recordings of Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak, there was no need to ask Flynn what the conversations entailed.

Flynn, an early backer of Donald Trump and a fierce critic of Obama’s national-security policies, was generally despised by Obama administration officials. Hence, there has always been cynical suspicion that the decision to interview him was driven by the expectation that he would provide the FBI with an account inconsistent with the recorded conversation — i.e., that Flynn was being set up for prosecution on a process crime.

While initial reporting is portraying Flynn’s guilty plea as a major breakthrough in Mueller’s investigation of potential Trump-campaign collusion with the Russian regime, I suspect the opposite is true.

Speculation that Flynn is now cooperating in Mueller’s investigation stirred in recent days due to reports that Flynn had pulled out of a joint defense agreement (or “common interest” arrangement) to share information with other subjects of the investigation. As an ethical matter, it is inappropriate for an attorney whose client is cooperating with the government (or having negotiations toward that end) to continue strategizing with, and having quasi-privileged communications with, other subjects of the investigation and their counsel.

Nevertheless, as I explained in connection with George Papadopoulos (who also pled guilty in Mueller’s investigation for lying to the FBI), when a prosecutor has a cooperator who was an accomplice in a major criminal scheme, the cooperator is made to plead guilty to the scheme. This is critical because it proves the existence of the scheme. In his guilty-plea allocution (the part of a plea proceeding in which the defendant admits what he did that makes him guilty), the accomplice explains the scheme and the actions taken by himself and his co-conspirators to carry it out. This goes a long way toward proving the case against all of the subjects of the investigation.
That is not happening in Flynn’s situation.
Instead, like Papadopoulos, he is being permitted to plead guilty to a mere process crime.
A breaking report from ABC News indicates that Flynn is prepared to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians — initially to lay the groundwork for mutual efforts against ISIS in Syria. That, however, is exactly the sort of thing the incoming national-security adviser is supposed to do in a transition phase between administrations. If it were part of the basis for a “collusion” case arising out of Russia’s election meddling, then Flynn would not be pleading guilty to a process crime — he’d be pleading guilty to an espionage conspiracy.
Understand: If Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador had evinced the existence of a quid pro quo collusion arrangement — that the Trump administration would ease or eliminate sanctions on Russia as a payback for Russia’s cyber-espionage against the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic party — it would have been completely appropriate, even urgently necessary, for the Obama Justice Department to investigate Flynn. But if that had happened, Mueller would not be permitting Flynn to settle the case with a single count of lying to FBI agents. Instead, we would be looking at a major conspiracy indictment, and Flynn would be made to plead to far more serious offenses if he wanted a deal — cooperation in exchange for sentencing leniency.
To the contrary, for all the furor, we have a small-potatoes plea in Flynn’s case — just as we did in Papadopoulos’s case, despite extensive “collusion” evidence. Meanwhile, the only major case Mueller has brought, against former Trump-campaign chairman Paul Manafort and an associate, has nothing to do with the 2016 election. It is becoming increasingly palpable that, whatever “collusion” means, there was no actionable, conspiratorial complicity by the Trump campaign in the Kremlin’s machinations.

Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

 http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454269/michael-flynn-plea-no-breakthrough-russia-investigation

Trump’s lawyer attacks Mike Flynn as a liar and says guilty plea does NOT implicate the president in attack on credibility of Mueller’s star witness

  • Ty Cobb, Trump’s lawyer, says nothing in Mike Flynn’s guilty plea ‘implicates anyone other than Mr. Flynn’
  • Flynn admitted lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian officials during the presidential transition period
  • Cobb insisted Friday that Flynn’s dishonesty is consistent with how he lied to White House officials about those contacts after the inauguration
  • Flynn was fired after less than a month as the president’s National Security Advisor, for lying to Vice President Mike Pence about it 

Donald Trump‘s lawyer insisted Friday that Michael Flynn’s guilty plea hasn’t implicated the president in any wrongdoing, despite a report that the former National Security Advisor plans to testify that Trump himself directed him to reach out to Russians before Inauguration Day.

‘Today, Michael Flynn, a former National Security Advisor at the White House for 25 days during the Trump Administration, and a former Obama administration official, entered a guilty plea to a single count of making a false statement to the FBI,’ Ty Cobb said.

‘The false statements involved mirror the false statements to White House officials which resulted in his resignation in February of this year.’

‘Nothing about the guilty plea or the charge implicates anyone other than Mr. Flynn,’ Cobb continued.

Scroll down for video

Liar: Admitted liar Mike Flynn is under attack from the Trump legal team who say he lied to the president to, an assault on his credibility in the hope that his testimony can be seen as flawed

My client isn't implicated: Trump's lawyer Ty Cobbs tried to pain Flynn as a liar who was barely in the administration - and mentioned his service in the Obama administration

HE LIED TO US TOO: TRUMP’S LAWYER’S FULL STATEMENT

‘Today, Michael Flynn, a former National Security Advisor at the White House for 25 days during the Trump Administration, and a former Obama administration official, entered a guilty plea to a single count of making a false statement to the FBI.

The false statements involved mirror the false statements to White House officials which resulted in his resignation in February of this year.

‘Nothing about the guilty plea or the charge implicates anyone other than Mr. Flynn.

The conclusion of this phase of the Special Counsel’s work demonstrates again that the Special Counsel is moving with all deliberate speed and clears the way for a prompt and reasonable conclusion.’

– Ty Cobb, Trump’s lawyer

‘The conclusion of this phase of the Special Counsel’s work demonstrates again that the Special Counsel is moving with all deliberate speed and clears the way for a prompt and reasonable conclusion.’

The White House itself remained mum on Friday, clamping down on communications after Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.

Flynn agreed to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with Russians when he was a presidential candidate, according to ABC News.

That revelation cast a pall over the West Wing as senior aides geared up for an annual Christmas reception that could be less than merry.

Fox News Channel reports that the federal government said in court Friday that it was a ‘senior member’ of the Trump transition team – not an aide during the campaign itself – who directed Flynn to contact nations including Russia about a United Nations vote.

Trump is expected to deliver holiday remarks at the afternoon party. The room will be full of reporters, but the White House insists it’s strictly ‘off the record.’

Cobb represents Trump in the ongoing saga over whether his campaign colluded with Russians to swing the 2016 election.

Neither did White House press secretary Sarah Sanders and her deputy Raj Shah.

The White House has typically referred questions about Robert Mueller’s special counsel probe to Trump’s personal lawyers.

Those attorneys have insisted in the past that the president himself is not under investigation.

Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One last month during his trip to Asia that ‘everybody knows there was no collusion’ between his campaign and the Kremlin.

‘There is no collusion. There’s nothing,’ he said.

TEAM TRUMP FOR PRISON 2018: THE OTHER AIDES ALREADY FACING JAIL – SO WHO WILL MUELLER TARGET NEXT?

PAUL MANAFORT 

Trump campaign manager March – August 2016

Manafort, 68, was charged with conspiracy against the US, conspiracy to launder, and other charges, after US intelligence agencies concluded that Russia undertook a campaign of hacking and misinformation to tilt the election in Trump’s favor. He pleaded not guilty in October to a 12-count indictment by a federal grand jury.

RICK GATES 

Business associate and deputy to Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort

Gates, 45, was indicted along with his business associate, Paul Manafort after the first charges from the probe of possible Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election were unsealed. He pleaded not guilty to a 12-count indictment

George Papadopoulos

Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, March 2016 – January 2017

Papadopoulos, 30, pleaded guilty on October 5 to making false statements to investigators about his conversations with overseas sources about potential Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Flynn spoke with then-Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak after the 2016 election concerning a raft of sanctions the Obama administration had just imposed on Moscow.

Intelligence intercepts established what he talked about, but he hid the truth from the FBI.

Flynn reportedly asked Kislyak to delay reaction to the Obama sanctions until after Trump took office, a hint that the incoming president might reverse them.

A law called the Logan Act established that only the incumbent administration can negotiate with foreign powers. At the time of Flynn’s contact with Kislyak, Trump had won the election but was not yet sworn in.

ABC News reported Friday morning that Flynn is cooperating with the Mueller probe, and is prepared to testify that Trump ‘directed him to make contact with the Russians’ – back when he was still a candidate.

But a Fox Business Network report portrays Trump as confident that he is still not a target of the investigation.

‘I spoke to one person who spoke to the president directly,’ an FBN reporter said on-air.

‘The president has been telling associates of his – I would say associates as friends and people that talk to the president regularly – that he believes, based on his conversations with his lawyer Ty Cobb, that he believes that he will be cleared in the Russian probe,’ he said.

‘The president is saying on the Russian matter, he believes it is done for him and he is going to be able to announce that soon.’

Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski said last week on the Fox news Channel that the investigation would stop short of implicating his former boss.

‘That’s where it stops,’ he predicted, ‘and there has been never any indication that the President of the United States, or anyone else within that circle of the President of the United States, has done anything wrong.’

The FBI interviewed Flynn just a few days after Trump’s inauguration. The president fired him in February after White House officials learned that he had lied to the vice president about whether he had discussed sanctions with Kislyak.

‘My guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the special counsel’s office reflect a decision I made in the best interest of my family and of our country. I accept full responsibility for my actions,’ Flynn said in a statement on Friday.

He pleaded guilty to making ‘false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements’ – an offense which carries a maximum prison sentence of five years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5137167/Trumps-lawyer-attacks-Mike-Flynn-liar.html#ixzz502rGqewG

 

Flynn pleads guilty to lying to FBI, is cooperating with Mueller

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • The charge against Flynn is the first in Mueller’s probe that has reached someone in the Trump White House
  • The charges mark yet another stunning downfall for Flynn

Washington (CNN)Former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty Friday to lying to the FBI about conversations with Russia’s ambassador and disclosed that he is cooperating with the special counsel’s office.

Flynn is the first person inside President Donald Trump’s administration to be reached by special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe. The developments are a sign that the investigation is intensifying, and details revealed Friday provide the clearest picture yet of coordination between Flynn and other Trump advisers in their contact with Russian officials to influence international policy.
According to an FBI statement, Flynn communicated with then-Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak after being asked by a senior Trump transition official to find out how foreign governments stood on a coming UN Security Council resolution about Israel. The prosecutors did not name any transition officials.
In court Friday morning, Flynn’s only comments were to answer yes and no to questions from the judge. He told the judge he has not been coerced to plead guilty or been promised a specific sentence. Flynn faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison, according to federal sentencing guidelines, though the judge Friday morning stressed he could impose a harsher or lighter sentence.
In a statement, Flynn said he acknowledged that his actions “were wrong, and, through my faith in God, I am working to set things right.
“My guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel’s Office reflect a decision I made in the best interests of my family and of our country. I accept full responsibility for my actions,” he said.
The White House said late Friday morning that “nothing about the guilty plea or the charge implicates anyone other than Mr. Flynn.
“The conclusion of this phase of the special counsel’s work demonstrates again that the special counsel is moving with all deliberate speed and clears the way for a prompt and reasonable conclusion,” Ty Cobb, a White House lawyer, said in a statement.
Flynn is the fourth person connected to Trump’s campaign to be charged as part of Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the Russian government and members of Trump’s team, as well as potential obstruction of justice and financial crimes.
Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy Rick Gates were indicted last month; they pleaded not guilty. And Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty for making a false statement to the FBI over contacts with officials connected to the Russian government.
Flynn’s plea agreement stipulates that he’ll cooperate with federal, state or even local investigators in any way Mueller’s office might need, according to a document filed in court Friday. He could also be required to participate in covert law enforcement operations (such as wearing a wire) if asked, or share details of his past dealings with the Trump transition and administration.
The agreement adds that Mueller’s office won’t prosecute Flynn for additional crimes they outlined in his statement of offense Friday, such as his misreported foreign lobbying filings about his work for Turkey. If other prosecutors outside the special counsel’s office, such as US attorneys or state law enforcement, wanted to charge Flynn with alleged crimes, they still could, and he’s not protected if he lies to investigators again in the future or breaks the terms of his plea agreement.

What Trump has said about Michael Flynn

What Trump has said about Michael Flynn 01:33

Calls made during transition

In court, prosecutors detailed calls made by Flynn in late December 2016 to the senior Trump transition team at Mar-a-Lago to discuss conversations with Kislyak. There were multiple conversations with the transition while he was having conversations with Kisyak about Russia sanctions and the Russian response.
According to a statement of offense filed in court, Flynn conducted several calls with senior officials on the Trump transition team about his discussions with Kislyak related to US sanctions of Russia.
Flynn and Trump advisers discussed US sanctions three times. Their first call discussed the potential impact on the “incoming administration’s foreign policy goals,” according to the court filing, from which details were partially read during Flynn’s plea hearing.
Flynn then called Kislyak to ask that Russia not respond too harshly to US sanctions, the statement of offense said. He told a Trump transition official about that call. Russia responded by choosing not to retaliate to the sanctions.
The bulk of the back-and-forth calls from Flynn to the Russian ambassador and to Trump advisers happened around December 29, while the advisers were at Mar-a-Lago in Florida.
They “discussed that the members of the presidential transition team at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to escalate the situation,” the filing said.
Flynn lied to investigators about these calls with the ambassador, according to his guilty plea and the criminal statement of offense.
The charging document states that Flynn made a false statement to the FBI when he stated that in December 2016 he did not ask Kislyak “to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia that same day; and Flynn did not recall the Russian ambassador subsequently telling him that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of his request.”
The document also says that Flynn falsely said he did not ask Kislyak to delay the vote on a pending United Nations Security Council resolution.
Flynn’s other instance of lying to investigators involved what he told them about his conversations with foreign officials related to their planned UN Security Council votes on Israeli settlements.
A “very senior member” of Trump’s transition team, who sources familiar with the matter told CNN was Jared Kushner, told Flynn on December 22 to contact officials from foreign governments about how they would vote and “to influence those governments to delay the vote or defeat the resolution.”
An attorney for Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and a White House senior adviser, did not comment.
Flynn then asked Kislyak to vote against or delay the resolution, the statement of offense said.
Toobin: Flynn's actions an insult to veterans
‘This is a win for the White House’
White House allies initially tried to put a positive spin on the news.
One person familiar with the mood in the West Wing insisted top White House officials were breathing a sigh of relief.
“People in the building are very happy,” the source said. “This doesn’t lead back to Trump in any way, shape or form.” The source noted that Flynn is being charged for making false statements, but not for any improper actions during the campaign.
“This is a further indication that there’s nothing there,” the source said. “This is a win for the White House.”
A source with knowledge of the legal team’s thinking tells CNN the Flynn plea “is not going to be a problem” for the President, though it could be a problem for people who worked with Flynn. The source said legal exposure for others would depend on what they might have said to the special counsel.
Hillary Clinton, whom Trump defeated in the 2016 general election and was the focus of the “lock her up” chant first popularized by Flynn at the Republican National Convention, declined through a spokesman to comment on Friday’s developments.

See Michael Flynn walk into court

Stunning downfall for Flynn

Flynn’s lawyers have previously criticized media reports about his connection to the Russia investigation as peddling “unfounded allegations, outrageous claims of treason, and vicious innuendo directed against him.” Flynn hasn’t spoken publicly since his ouster in February.
The charges mark yet another stunning downfall for Flynn, 58, a retired general who rose to the highest ranks of the Army over a three-decade career — only to see him fired from the military by the Obama administration before unexpectedly rising again on the heels of Trump’s election victory.
A key campaign surrogate and adviser during Trump’s presidential campaign, Flynn was tapped as Trump’s national security adviser in November 2016, a senior White House job that put him in a vital role for all of the administration’s national security and foreign policy decisions.
Though he wasn’t initially considered for the top job, Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, and son-in-law Jared Kushner made it clear to the Trump transition team that they wanted him there, CNN has reported.
Flynn would hold the job less than a month, resigning from the post after he misled Pence and then-chief of staff Reince Priebus about his conversations with Kislyak in which they discussed US sanctions against Russia.
Flynn is also the spark of potential trouble for the President in Mueller’s probe, as the special counsel is investigating potential obstruction of justice in the firing of FBI Director James Comey.
Comey testified before the Senate intelligence committee that Trump asked him to drop the Flynn probe during a February Oval Office meeting not long after Flynn resigned as national security adviser.

Adam Schiff Trump Russia lied wolf_00000000

Schiff: Trump lied about Russia 01:36

Talking about sanctions

Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak, which amounted to the crux of his guilty plea Friday, were the main reason for his firing shortly after Trump took office. The calls were captured by routine US eavesdropping targeting the Russian diplomat, CNN has reported.
The Trump transition team acknowledged that Flynn and Kislyak spoke on the day in December 2016 that the Obama administration issued new sanctions against Russia and expelled 35 diplomats, but they insisted the conversation did not include sanctions — including denials that Pence and Priebus later repeated on national television.
Flynn resigned on February 13 after reports that he and Kislyak had spoken about sanctions and that the Justice Department had warned the White House that Flynn was potentially vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians.
Details of how the DOJ warned the White House about Flynn’s conduct were revealed months later in stunning testimony from former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, who said that she “believed that General Flynn was compromised with respect to the Russians” because of the misleading denials.

Flynn lawyers cut off talks with Trump team

Flynn lawyers cut off talks with Trump team 02:32

Warnings before Trump took office

Flynn’s legal issues stem from foreign payments he received after he started his own consulting firm.
Flynn founded the Flynn Intel Group after he retired from the military in 2014. The Obama White House pushed him out of his role as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the military’s intelligence arm. Flynn was fired over claims he was a poor manager, though he says he was ousted by Obama administration officials unwilling to listen to his warnings about the rise of ISIS and an increasingly aggressive Iran.
Before he was named national security adviser, the FBI began investigating Flynn for secretly working during the presidential campaign as an unregistered lobbyist for Turkey, an investigation he disclosed to the Trump transition team before Trump took office.
Flynn wasn’t the only Trump associate who faced scrutiny over foreign lobbying laws — Manafort also filed a retroactive registration earlier this year for work he previously did in Ukraine.
Federal investigators were probing whether Flynn was secretly paid by the Turkish government as part of its public campaign against Fethullah Gulen, a critic of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan who lives in exile in Pennsylvania. Erdogan blames Gulen and his supporters for plotting the failed Turkish coup last summer.

Michael Flynn in less than 2 minutes

Payments from Russian businesses

Flynn has also been scrutinized for his work with Russian businesses.
In his initial financial disclosure form filed in February with the Office of Government Ethics, Flynn left off payments of thousands of dollars from RT, the Russian government-funded television network and two other Russian companies. Flynn subsequently added the payments in an amended disclosure.
Among the payouts, Flynn received $33,000 of a $45,000 speaking fee for a 2015 speech at a Moscow event hosted by RT, where he sat at the same table as Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Flynn’s presence at the gala celebrating RT’s 10th anniversary raised eyebrows among his critics. The US intelligence community said earlier this year that the Kremlin uses RT to push propaganda on American audiences, and that the English-language channel was involved in the effort to interfere in the election.
Trump said in May that he hadn’t known that Flynn took payments from Russia and Turkey.

Flynn’s son also faces scrutiny

Flynn’s son, Michael Flynn Jr., has also faced scrutiny from Mueller’s investigation, though he was not charged on Friday.
Flynn Jr. served as his father’s chief of staff and top aide at their consulting firm, the Flynn Intel Group. In that capacity, Flynn Jr. joined his father on overseas trips, such as Moscow in December 2015 when Flynn dined with Putin at the RT gala.
The younger Flynn has a penchant for spreading conspiracy theories on Twitter. He has smeared Trump’s opponents — ranging from Clinton to Republican Sen. Marco Rubio — as well as Muslims and other minorities. Most prominently, he peddled the debunked claim that a Washington pizzeria was a front for Democrats to sexually abuse children.
Flynn Jr. has remained defiant as the investigation has heated up. Days after Manafort and Gates were indicted, Flynn Jr. sent a message to his critics: “The disappointment on your faces when I don’t go to jail will be worth all your harassment.”

Justice Dept. to Weigh Inquiry Into Clinton Foundation

The Shootaring Canyon uranium mill in the desert outside Ticaboo, Utah, last month.CreditGeorge Frey/Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department said Monday that prosecutors were looking into whether a special counsel should be appointed to investigate political rivals President Trump has singled out for scrutiny, including Hillary Clinton.

The department, in a letter sent to the House Judiciary Committee, said the prosecutors would examine allegations that donations to the Clinton Foundation were tied to a 2010 decision by the Obama administration to allow a Russian nuclear agency to buy Uranium One, a company that owned access to uranium in the United States, and other issues.

The letter appeared to be a direct response to Mr. Trump’s statement on Nov. 3, when he said he was disappointed with his beleaguered attorney general, Jeff Sessions, and that longstanding unproven allegations about the Clintons and the Obama administration should be investigated.

Any such investigation would raise questions about the independence of federal investigations under Mr. Trump. Since Watergate, the Justice Department has largely operated independently of political influence on cases related to the president’s opponents.

Mr. Trump’s statement galvanized conservative news outlets — like Fox News and Breitbart News — which have since beaten the drum for a special prosecutor to be appointed.

People close to the White House said there might be another issue at play: Mr. Sessions might be able to forestall the president’s firing him by appointing a special counsel to investigate the uranium deal.

Mr. Trump blames Mr. Sessions for the cloud of the Russia investigation that has hovered over his 10-month presidency, saying that if Mr. Sessions had never recused himself from the inquiry this year, the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, would never have been appointed.

On Tuesday, Mr. Sessions is scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, where he is expected to be questioned sharply by both Republicans and Democrats. The letter was a reply to formal requests from congressional Republicans for a Justice Department inquiry into various Clinton-related issues.

Image
Attorney General Jeff Sessions this month in New York.CreditSam Hodgson for The New York Times

Although Mr. Sessions has recused himself from all matters related to the election, he and the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, will oversee the prosecutors’ decision to appoint the special counsel, the letter said.

“These senior prosecutors will report directly to the attorney general and the deputy attorney general, as appropriate, and will make recommendations as to whether any matters not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any matters merit a special counsel,” Stephen E. Boyd, an assistant attorney general, said in the letter to the House Judiciary Committee.

Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, criticized the Justice Department’s letter.

If the AG bends to pressure from President Trump and his allies, and appoints a special counsel to investigate Trump’s vanquished rival, it could spell the end of the DOJ as an independent institution. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/930251722341089280 

Republicans have long tried to link Mrs. Clinton to the uranium deal, which was revealed in the run-up to her 2016 presidential campaign. The deal was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States when she was secretary of state under President Barack Obama and had a voting seat on the panel.

Conservative news outlets have kept the story line alive and pushed the allegations as part of a continuing narrative that the Clintons are corrupt. They claim Mrs. Clinton was part of a quid pro quo in which the Clinton Foundation received large donations in exchange for support of the deal.

As the special counsel’s investigation into Mr. Trump and his associates has intensified in recent weeks, Mr. Trump has asked allies and advisers why Mr. Mueller is not investigating the Uranium One case, according to a person familiar with the president’s discussions on the matter.

The allies and advisers have told Mr. Trump that Mr. Mueller’s purview is only to look into Russian interference in the 2016 election, the person said. In response, Mr. Trump has protested that Uranium One also relates to Russia.

However, White House officials in recent days have played down questions about whether the president or his immediate advisers were seeking a new special counsel.

It was before leaving for a 12-day trip to Asia this month that Mr. Trump publicly vented about how the Justice Department had operated under Mr. Sessions.

“I’m really not involved with the Justice Department,” Mr. Trump told reporters. “I’d like to let it run itself.”

Read the Justice Department Letter Saying Prosecutors Will Consider Special Counsel for Clinton Investigation

In a letter to Congress, an assistant attorney general said prosecutors would recommend whether a special counsel should investigate “alleged unlawful dealings related to the Clinton Foundation.”

“But, honestly, they should be looking at the Democrats,” Mr. Trump said, adding, “And a lot of people are disappointed in the Justice Department, including me.”

Mr. Trump has been repeatedly criticized for trying to intervene in the Justice Department’s investigations since he took office.

In May, it was revealed that Mr. Trump had asked James B. Comey, then the F.B.I. director, to end the investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser — a disclosure that led to the appointment of Mr. Mueller. Mr. Trump has repeatedly criticized Mr. Mueller’s investigation — which has intensified in recent weeks as three Trump campaign members were charged — as a witch hunt.

During his Senate confirmation hearing this year, Mr. Sessions said he would not name a special prosecutor to investigate Mrs. Clinton even if ordered to do so by the president.

“This country does not punish its political enemies,” he told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Trump, who closely monitors the conservative news media ecosystem for ideas on how to attack his opponents, has cited reports from those outlets to aides and friends as examples for why a special counsel should be appointed.

One commentator in particular, the Fox News host Jeanine Pirro — who is a friend of Mr. Trump’s and whose show he rarely misses — has aggressively denounced Mr. Sessions as weak for not investigating the uranium deal. In addition to making scathing critiques on her show, Ms. Pirro — who had interviewed to be the deputy attorney general, according to three transition officials — recently met with the president to excoriate the attorney general.

In an Oval Office meeting on Nov. 1, Ms. Pirro said that a special counsel needed to be appointed, according to two people briefed on the discussion. Through a Fox News spokeswoman, Ms. Pirro said, “Everything I said to President Trump is exactly what I’ve vocalized on my show, ‘Justice with Jeanine.’”

After his victory last November, Mr. Trump struck a far different tone on prosecuting Mrs. Clinton.

“Look, I want to move forward, I don’t want to move back,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with The New York Times. “And I don’t want to hurt the Clintons. I really don’t.”

“She went through a lot. And suffered greatly in many different ways. And I am not looking to hurt them at all,” he said. “The campaign was vicious. They say it was the most vicious primary and the most vicious campaign. I guess, added together, it was definitely the most vicious; probably, I assume you sold a lot of newspapers.”

Michael S. Schmidt reported from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York.

A Uranium One sign that points to a 35,000-acre ranch owned by John Christensen, near the town of Gillette, Wyo. Uranium One has the mining rights to Mr. Christensen’s property. CreditMatthew Staver for The New York Times

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

Photo

Frank Giustra, right, a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton, left.CreditJoaquin Sarmiento/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.

In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” He emphasized that multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary. “To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,” he added.

American political campaigns are barred from accepting foreign donations. But foreigners may give to foundations in the United States. In the days since Mrs. Clinton announced her candidacy for president, the Clinton Foundation has announced changes meant to quell longstanding concerns about potential conflicts of interest in such donations; it has limited donations from foreign governments, with many, like Russia’s, barred from giving to all but its health care initiatives. That policy stops short of a more stringent agreement between Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration that was in effect while she was secretary of state.

Either way, the Uranium One deal highlights the limits of such prohibitions. The foundation will continue to accept contributions from foreign sources whose interests, like Uranium One’s, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States.

When the Uranium One deal was approved, the geopolitical backdrop was far different from today’s. The Obama administration was seeking to “reset” strained relations with Russia. The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.

GRAPHIC

Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover

Uranium investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s office was involved in approving a Russian bid for mining assets in Kazakhstan and the United States.

 OPEN GRAPHIC

Now, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the Moscow-Washington relationship is devolving toward Cold War levels, a point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr. Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around the world.

“Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. “Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.”

A Seat at the Table

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.

Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

If the Kazakh deal was a major victory, UrAsia did not wait long before resuming the hunt. In 2007, it merged with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, in what was described as a $3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which kept the Uranium One name, was controlled by UrAsia investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million, said he sold his stake in 2007.

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming “a powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” the company declared.

Photo

Ian Telfer was chairman of Uranium One and made large donations to the Clinton Foundation.CreditGalit Rodan/Bloomberg, via Getty Images

Still, the company’s story was hardly front-page news in the United States — until early 2008, in the midst of Mrs. Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, when The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

(In a statement issued after this article appeared online, Mr. Giustra said he was “extremely proud” of his charitable work with Mr. Clinton, and he urged the media to focus on poverty, health care and “the real challenges of the world.”)

Though the 2008 article quoted the former head of Kazatomprom, Moukhtar Dzhakishev, as saying that the deal required government approval and was discussed at a dinner with the president, Mr. Giustra insisted that it was a private transaction, with no need for Mr. Clinton’s influence with Kazakh officials. He described his relationship with Mr. Clinton as motivated solely by a shared interest in philanthropy.

As if to underscore the point, five months later Mr. Giustra held a fund-raiser for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a project aimed at fostering progressive environmental and labor practices in the natural resources industry, to which he had pledged $100 million. The star-studded gala, at a conference center in Toronto, featured performances by Elton John and Shakira and celebrities like Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Robin Williams encouraging contributions from the many so-called F.O.F.s — Friends of Frank — in attendance, among them Mr. Telfer. In all, the evening generated $16 million in pledges, according to an article in The Globe and Mail.

“None of this would have been possible if Frank Giustra didn’t have a remarkable combination of caring and modesty, of vision and energy and iron determination,” Mr. Clinton told those gathered, adding: “I love this guy, and you should, too.”

But what had been a string of successes was about to hit a speed bump.

Arrest and Progress

By June 2009, a little over a year after the star-studded evening in Toronto, Uranium One’s stock was in free-fall, down 40 percent. Mr. Dzhakishev, the head of Kazatomprom, had just been arrested on charges that he illegally sold uranium deposits to foreign companies, including at least some of those won by Mr. Giustra’s UrAsia and now owned by Uranium One.

Publicly, the company tried to reassure shareholders. Its chief executive, Jean Nortier, issued a confident statement calling the situation a “complete misunderstanding.” He also contradicted Mr. Giustra’s contention that the uranium deal had not required government blessing. “When you do a transaction in Kazakhstan, you need the government’s approval,” he said, adding that UrAsia had indeed received that approval.

Photo

Bill Clinton met with Vladimir V. Putin in Moscow in 2010. CreditMikhail Metzel/Associated Press

But privately, Uranium One officials were worried they could lose their joint mining ventures. American diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks also reflect concerns that Mr. Dzhakishev’s arrest was part of a Russian power play for control of Kazakh uranium assets.

At the time, Russia was already eying a stake in Uranium One, Rosatom company documents show. Rosatom officials say they were seeking to acquire mines around the world because Russia lacks sufficient domestic reserves to meet its own industry needs.

It was against this backdrop that the Vancouver-based Uranium One pressed the American Embassy in Kazakhstan, as well as Canadian diplomats, to take up its cause with Kazakh officials, according to the American cables.

“We want more than a statement to the press,” Paul Clarke, a Uranium One executive vice president, told the embassy’s energy officer on June 10, the officer reported in a cable. “That is simply chitchat.” What the company needed, Mr. Clarke said, was official written confirmation that the licenses were valid.

The American Embassy ultimately reported to the secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton. Though the Clarke cable was copied to her, it was given wide circulation, and it is unclear if she would have read it; the Clinton campaign did not address questions about the cable.

What is clear is that the embassy acted, with the cables showing that the energy officer met with Kazakh officials to discuss the issue on June 10 and 11.

Three days later, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom completed a deal for 17 percent of Uranium One. And within a year, the Russian government substantially upped the ante, with a generous offer to shareholders that would give it a 51 percent controlling stake. But first, Uranium One had to get the American government to sign off on the deal.

Among the Donors to the Clinton Foundation

Frank Giustra
$31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million more
He built a company that later merged with Uranium One.
Ian Telfer
$2.35 million
Mining investor who was chairman of Uranium One when an arm of the Russian government, Rosatom, acquired it.
Paul Reynolds
$1 million to $5 million
Adviser on 2007 UrAsia-Uranium One merger. Later helped raise $260 million for the company.
Frank Holmes
$250,000 to $500,000
Chief Executive of U.S. Global Investors Inc., which held $4.7 million in Uranium One shares in the first quarter of 2011.
Neil Woodyer
$50,000 to $100,000
Adviser to Uranium One. Founded Endeavour Mining with Mr. Giustra.
GMP Securities Ltd.
Donating portion of profits
Worked on debt issue that raised $260 million for Uranium One.

The Power to Say No

When a company controlled by the Chinese government sought a 51 percent stake in a tiny Nevada gold mining operation in 2009, it set off a secretive review process in Washington, where officials raised concerns primarily about the mine’s proximity to a military installation, but also about the potential for minerals at the site, including uranium, to come under Chinese control. The officials killed the deal.

Such is the power of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The committee comprises some of the most powerful members of the cabinet, including the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state. They are charged with reviewing any deal that could result in foreign control of an American business or asset deemed important to national security.

The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation; the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium.

Instead, it concerned American dependence on foreign uranium sources. While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves, according to Marin Katusa, author of “The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp.”

“The Russians are easily winning the uranium war, and nobody’s talking about it,” said Mr. Katusa, who explores the implications of the Uranium One deal in his book. “It’s not just a domestic issue but a foreign policy issue, too.”

When ARMZ, an arm of Rosatom, took its first 17 percent stake in Uranium One in 2009, the two parties signed an agreement, found in securities filings, to seek the foreign investment committee’s review. But it was the 2010 deal, giving the Russians a controlling 51 percent stake, that set off alarm bells. Four members of the House of Representatives signed a letter expressing concern. Two more began pushing legislation to kill the deal.

Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, where Uranium One’s largest American operation was, wrote to President Obama, saying the deal “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.”

Photo

President Putin during a meeting with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko, in December 2007.CreditDmitry Astakhov/Ria Novosti, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

“Equally alarming,” Mr. Barrasso added, “this sale gives ARMZ a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan.”

Uranium One’s shareholders were also alarmed, and were “afraid of Rosatom as a Russian state giant,” Sergei Novikov, a company spokesman, recalled in an interview. He said Rosatom’s chief, Mr. Kiriyenko, sought to reassure Uranium One investors, promising that Rosatom would not break up the company and would keep the same management, including Mr. Telfer, the chairman. Another Rosatom official said publicly that it did not intend to increase its investment beyond 51 percent, and that it envisioned keeping Uranium One a public company

American nuclear officials, too, seemed eager to assuage fears. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote to Mr. Barrasso assuring him that American uranium would be preserved for domestic use, regardless of who owned it.

“In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One Inc. or ARMZ would need to apply for and obtain a specific NRC license authorizing the export of uranium for use as reactor fuel,” the letter said.

Still, the ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee, including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One.

Undisclosed Donations

Before Mrs. Clinton could assume her post as secretary of state, the White House demanded that she sign a memorandum of understanding placing limits on the activities of her husband’s foundation. To avoid the perception of conflicts of interest, beyond the ban on foreign government donations, the foundation was required to publicly disclose all contributors.

To judge from those disclosures — which list the contributions in ranges rather than precise amounts — the only Uranium One official to give to the Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began percolating.

Photo

Uranium One’s Russian takeover was approved by the United States while Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state. CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times

But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians. With the Russians offering a special dividend, shareholders like Mr. Telfer stood to profit.

His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.

The Clinton campaign left it to the foundation to reply to questions about the Fernwood donations; the foundation did not provide a response.

Mr. Telfer’s undisclosed donations came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakh mines. Without those assets, the Russians would have had no interest in the deal: “It wasn’t the goal to buy the Wyoming mines. The goal was to acquire the Kazakh assets, which are very good,” Mr. Novikov, the Rosatom spokesman, said in an interview.

Amid this influx of Uranium One-connected money, Mr. Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One.

The $500,000 fee — among Mr. Clinton’s highest — was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its investor conferences.

Renaissance Capital analysts talked up Uranium One’s stock, assigning it a “buy” rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was “the best play” in the uranium markets. In addition, Renaissance Capital turned up that same year as a major donor, along with Mr. Giustra and several companies linked to Uranium One or UrAsia, to a small medical charity in Colorado run by a friend of Mr. Giustra’s. In a newsletter to supporters, the friend credited Mr. Giustra with helping get donations from “businesses around the world.”

Photo

John Christensen sold the mining rights on his ranch in Wyoming to Uranium One.CreditMatthew Staver for The New York Times

Renaissance Capital would not comment on the genesis of Mr. Clinton’s speech to an audience that included leading Russian officials, or on whether it was connected to the Rosatom deal. According to a Russian government news service, Mr. Putin personally thanked Mr. Clinton for speaking.

A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, said that for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence: “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?” But whether it actually does is another question. And in this case, there were broader geopolitical pressures that likely came into play as the United States considered whether to approve the Rosatom-Uranium One deal.

Diplomatic Considerations

If doing business with Rosatom was good for those in the Uranium One deal, engaging with Russia was also a priority of the incoming Obama administration, which was hoping for a new era of cooperation as Mr. Putin relinquished the presidency — if only for a term — to Dmitri A. Medvedev.

“The assumption was we could engage Russia to further core U.S. national security interests,” said Mr. McFaul, the former ambassador.

It started out well. The two countries made progress on nuclear proliferation issues, and expanded use of Russian territory to resupply American forces in Afghanistan. Keeping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon was among the United States’ top priorities, and in June 2010 Russia signed off on a United Nations resolution imposing tough new sanctions on that country.

Two months later, the deal giving ARMZ a controlling stake in Uranium One was submitted to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for review. Because of the secrecy surrounding the process, it is hard to know whether the participants weighed the desire to improve bilateral relations against the potential risks of allowing the Russian government control over the biggest uranium producer in the United States. The deal was ultimately approved in October, following what two people involved in securing the approval said had been a relatively smooth process.

Not all of the committee’s decisions are personally debated by the agency heads themselves; in less controversial cases, deputy or assistant secretaries may sign off. But experts and former committee members say Russia’s interest in Uranium One and its American uranium reserves seemed to warrant attention at the highest levels.

Photo

Moukhtar Dzhakishev was arrested in 2009 while the chief of Kazatomprom.CreditDaniel Acker/Bloomberg, via Getty Images

“This deal had generated press, it had captured the attention of Congress and it was strategically important,” said Richard Russell, who served on the committee during the George W. Bush administration. “When I was there invariably any one of those conditions would cause this to get pushed way up the chain, and here you had all three.”

And Mrs. Clinton brought a reputation for hawkishness to the process; as a senator, she was a vocal critic of the committee’s approval of a deal that would have transferred the management of major American seaports to a company based in the United Arab Emirates, and as a presidential candidate she had advocated legislation to strengthen the process.

The Clinton campaign spokesman, Mr. Fallon, said that in general, these matters did not rise to the secretary’s level. He would not comment on whether Mrs. Clinton had been briefed on the matter, but he gave The Times a statement from the former assistant secretary assigned to the foreign investment committee at the time, Jose Fernandez. While not addressing the specifics of the Uranium One deal, Mr. Fernandez said, “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”

Mr. Fallon also noted that if any agency had raised national security concerns about the Uranium One deal, it could have taken them directly to the president.

Anne-Marie Slaughter, the State Department’s director of policy planning at the time, said she was unaware of the transaction — or the extent to which it made Russia a dominant uranium supplier. But speaking generally, she urged caution in evaluating its wisdom in hindsight.

“Russia was not a country we took lightly at the time or thought was cuddly,” she said. “But it wasn’t the adversary it is today.”

That renewed adversarial relationship has raised concerns about European dependency on Russian energy resources, including nuclear fuel. The unease reaches beyond diplomatic circles. In Wyoming, where Uranium One equipment is scattered across his 35,000-acre ranch, John Christensen is frustrated that repeated changes in corporate ownership over the years led to French, South African, Canadian and, finally, Russian control over mining rights on his property.

“I hate to see a foreign government own mining rights here in the United States,” he said. “I don’t think that should happen.”

Mr. Christensen, 65, noted that despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.

Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan. At the moment, with the uranium market in a downturn, nothing is being shipped from the Wyoming mines.

The “no export” assurance given at the time of the Rosatom deal is not the only one that turned out to be less than it seemed. Despite pledges to the contrary, Uranium One was delisted from the Toronto Stock Exchange and taken private. As of 2013, Rosatom’s subsidiary, ARMZ, owned 100 percent of it.

Correction: April 23, 2015 
An earlier version of this article misstated, in one instance, the surname of a fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is Peter Schweizer, not Schweitzer.An earlier version also incorrectly described the Clinton Foundation’s agreement with the Obama administration regarding foreign-government donations while Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state. Under the agreement, the foundation would not accept new donations from foreign governments, though it could seek State Department waivers in specific cases. It was not barred from accepting all foreign-government donations.
Correction: April 30, 2015 
An article on Friday about contributions to the Clinton Foundation from people associated with a Canadian uranium-mining company described incorrectly the foundation’s agreement with the Obama administration regarding foreign-government donations while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Under the agreement, the foundation would not accept new donations from foreign governments, though it could seek State Department waivers in specific cases. The foundation was not barred from accepting all foreign-government donations.

Story 2: Trump Not Pleased With Attorney General Sessions Sweeping Clinton Scandals Under The Rug — Videos —

See the source imageImage result for cartoons Kate Steinle

Trump Goes On Rampage After Learning What Sessions Did To Bury Biggest Scandal In American History

Special Council in Hot Water, after Letter to AG Sessions Accuses Mueller of High Treason

ROBERT MUELLER SHOCKS THE NATION WITH TRUMP ANNOUNCEMENT!

Seconds Ago Jeff Sessions Did Something That Should Get Him Fired From Office Immediately – Hot News

SHOTS FIRED: If Jason Chaffetz Is Right, Then Jeff Sessions Should Be Fired Immediately – Hot News

Jason Chaffetz: Jeff Sessions ‘worse’ than Loretta Lynch

Rep Jim Jordan angrily GRILLS Attorney General Jeff Sessions in capitol hill

Trey Gowdy ŠHÓĆKŠ Jeff Sessions and Jim Jordan “We Don’t Need A Special counsel to Investigate”

Fireworks between Jeff Sessions and Trey Gowdy

Russian Linked Company Got Control of Key Strategic Asset After Paying $6 million to Bill Clinton.

Whistle-blower Has Tapes of Russian Bribes to Hillary —Dick Morris

Trump finally discovered he can’t force the feds to prosecute Clinton — and he’s not happy

“The saddest thing is because I’m president of the United States, I’m not supposed to be involved in the Justice Department.”

Kevin Dietsch-Pool/Getty Images

A year after defeating Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, President Donald Trump is still really, really angry that the federal government he runs isn’t going after her.

Everybody is asking why the Justice Department (and FBI) isn’t looking into all of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary & the Dems..

….People are angry. At some point the Justice Department, and the FBI, must do what is right and proper. The American public deserves it!

But while the president has been known to use tweets to set federal policy (as he did while announcing a ban on trans service members in the US military, without warning the Pentagon he would be doing so), Friday morning’s tweets don’t actually mean he’s ordering the federal government to prosecute his electoral opponent based on the president’s own conviction that she committed a crime.

They actually mean that Trump may have finally accepted, apparently belatedly, that he can’t actually order the federal government to go after his political opponents — and he’s really, really not happy about it.

Trump opened up to talk-radio host and Mediaite contributor Larry O’Connor on Thursday, in an interview broadcast on Washington radio station WBAL. “The saddest thing,” Trump told O’Connor, “is because I’m the president of the United States, I’m not supposed to be involved in the Justice Department.”

The idea that the head of the government can’t use his power to prosecute his enemies is literally at the core of the idea of the “rule of law” as it’s understood in America. Outside legal experts and lawmakers from both parties have been making that argument for months.

But it seems that it came as a nasty surprise to President Donald Trump, and it’s not clear when he found out that he couldn’t manipulate the activity of the Justice Department — of if he has, in fact, made a decision he won’t try to soon reverse.

Remember that he certainly didn’t seem to know that he wasn’t “supposed to be involved” when he (allegedly) demanded the loyalty of FBI Director James Comey; fired Comey (ostensibly for being too harsh on Hillary Clinton), and later admitted that he’d fired Comey because he thought the FBI’s investigation of ties between his campaign and the Russian government was “fake news.”

And he certainly didn’t know he wasn’t “supposed to be involved” when for months he held a grudge against his own attorney general and close adviser Jeff Sessions, because Sessions felt that his entanglement in the Russia scandal was a reason to recuse himself from the federal investigation rather than trying to quash it. (That move led to the eventual appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller, who indicted former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort earlier this week.)

It is not ideal, to say the least, for a president to learn on the job about fundamental principles of American governance. But it appears that at some point, someone got through to him, and explained that Comey and Sessions weren’t acting deliberately to spite the president but were trying to uphold the integrity of their offices. So on one level, Trump’s petulant tweets about the need for the FBI and DOJ to listen to public outcry and start going after “Crooked Hillary” are just that: petulant.

But there’s also the more sinister possibility that Trump is trying to use his public platform to make the FBI, and the ongoing Mueller investigator, to feel public and congressional pressure to reopen their case against Clinton. Put another way, he’s deliberately using his Twitter account as a literal bully pulpit.

That is also not how the federal government is supposed to work. The DOJ doesn’t poll the public about which cases it should open. But it’s not clear that Donald Trump knows just how deep prosecutorial independence is supposed to go — or if he cares.

https://www.vox.com/2017/11/3/16602182/trump-prosecute-hillary-clinton

Story 3: Democratic Party No Longer Cares About American Citizens and Workers — Wants Citizenship For 30-60 Million Criminal Illegal Aliens in United States — Pass Katie’s Law Now Senator McConnell — Videos

BREAKING NEWS TRUMP 12/1/17: Kate Steinle’s family has received no justice

Ted Cruz: Kate Steinle Would be Alive if ‘Kate’s Law’ Was Enacted

Rep. Steve King on the future of ‘Kate’s Law’

Breaking News – US prosecutors seek arrest of illegal immigrant…

Trump calls Kate Steinle verdict “disgraceful”

Ben Shapiro FURIOUS at the Kate Steinle’s Trial Verdict – Illegal Immigrant Acquitted

Trump Urges Senate To Pass Kate’s Law: ‘These Deaths Were Preventable’

Justice for Kate Steinle: Trump Has to Get Medieval on Illegal Multiple Deportee Dirtbag Jose Zarate

 Lionel Nation

Published on Dec 1, 2017

A jury found seven-time felon, five times deported illegal alien Jose Garcia Zarate not guilty in the case of the 2015 murder of Kate Steinle Thursday evening. The only count Zarate was found guilty on was felony possession of a weapon. Thirty-two-year-old Steinle was shot and killed on a pier in San Francisco in 2015 while walking with her father. Her final words were pleas to her father for help, as she died in his arms. Zarate faces a maximum sentence of three years for the weapons charge, according to Breitbart News’ Joel Pollak. The time Zarate has served thus far will likely be factored in as time already served on the sentence, meaning he will likely be released soon. Zarate, previously known as Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, previously confessed to shooting Steinle in a jailhouse interview with a local ABC News affiliate. He also told the outlet that he had chosen to go to San Francisco because he knew it was a sanctuary city. Breitbart News reported: An ICE official told Breitbart News that ICE Enforcement and Removal had begun processing the suspect for reinstatement of removal from the U.S. in March. But instead, Lopez-Sanchez was transferred on March 26 from the Bureau of Prisons in another city to the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department (SFSD) because of a drug warrant. ICE then filed the detainer request to be notified prior to Lopez-Sanchez’s release from custody. California lawmakers have since voted to make California a sanctuary state.

Proposed Kate’s Law would not have saved Kate Steinle

July 3, 2017 Updated: July 4, 2017 1:51pm

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill last week called “Kate’s Law” (HR3004). The bill is named for Kate Steinle, the young woman whose unfortunate death in San Francisco in 2015 has been exploited as a recurrent shibboleth in efforts across the nation to instigate anti-immigrant fervor.

Were it in effect in 2015 however, nothing in this proposed law — which increases maximum sentences for immigrants who re-enter the country illegally after a deportation — would have prevented Steinle’s death. Her death was the result of systemic defects and individual errors that the bill does not address. What the law will do is fill our already overcrowded prisons with nonviolent immigrants.

The bill would do two things:

• Increase the maximum sentence for previously deported people who re-enter the U.S. from two years to 10, and increase the maximum sentences for people who re-enter after being convicted of certain criminal offenses — including for immigration offenses — to up to 25 years.

These law changes have nothing to do with the circumstances preceding Steinle’s death. Had the bill been law in 2015, it would have had no effect on Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, the man accused of causing her death. That’s because Lopez Sanchez already faced a 20-year prison sentence each time he entered the country, based on a minor narcotics conviction from 1993 in the state of Washington — an offense that aggravates any illegal entry he committed (8 U.S. Code §1326).

The facts of this case are largely unknown to the public. Lopez Sanchez didn’t travel to San Francisco voluntarily. He was transferred here by federal authorities, because San Francisco maintained a 20-year-old warrant in a marijuana offense. Lopez Sanchez then appeared in San Francisco Superior Court, where his case was promptly and predictably dismissed and he was released. Alone, unemployed, in a city he did not want to be in, Lopez Sanchez wandered the streets. In statements to ABC-7 news while incarcerated, Lopez Sanchez described picking up an object wrapped in a T-shirt that discharged while he handled it. What is uncontested: He did not know the victim, she was 100 feet away from him when shot, and the single bullet ricocheted off the concrete pier near where Lopez Sanchez was seated. The Sig Sauer .40 caliber automatic pistol, known for having a hair trigger, is documented in hundreds of accidental discharges, even when handled by trained law enforcement.

The firearm should never have been on the streets. The Bureau of Land Management official who left his loaded weapon unsecured in a car that was burglarized has never accounted for his negligence in starting the chain of events that resulted in Steinle’s death.

The frenzy surrounding the House’s passage of this law — and the repeated false assertions that being tougher on immigrants would have averted this tragedy — now threatens Lopez Sanchez’s chances of a fair trial. Yet, none of the tragic events that led to Steinle’s death would have been affected by Kate’s Law. It wouldn’t have prevented Lopez Sanchez’s transfer to San Francisco or subsequent release, nor prevented the negligence and theft that placed a firearm in his path.

For those who want to whip up fear of immigrants, it is politically expedient to cast Lopez Sanchez as dangerous. But the truth is he’s never previously been charged with a crime of violence. He is a simple man with a second-grade education who has survived many hardships. He came to the U.S. repeatedly because extreme poverty is the norm in many parts of Mexico. He risked going to jail so that he could perform a menial job that could feed him. Each time, he came to the U.S. because American employers openly encourage illegal immigration to fill the jobs U.S. citizens don’t want.

Matt Gonzalez is one of the attorneys representing Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, whose trial is scheduled to begin later this month. He is the chief attorney in the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office.

Kate Steinle’s Killer An Illegal Immigrant To Be Set Free – Hannity

Trump to city of San Fran – “I will handle Kate Steinle case”

Jury Finds Illegal Immigrant Not Guilty In Murder Of Kate Steinle – Defense Attorney Attacks Trump

Ben Shapiro: Big injustice in Kate Steinle’s case (audio from 12-01-2017)

Bill O’Reilly Reacts to Kate Steinle Verdict

Kate Steinle Murderer Found NOT Guilty, Def. Attorneys Attack Trump

Michelle Malkin Powerfully Reacts to Kate Steinle Trial Decision

The murder of Kate Steinle

Senator Ted Cruz Makes The Case To Congress to Pass Kate’s Law

Tucker takes on Kate’s Law opponent

House Passes ‘Kate’s Law’ Tucker Carlson

Kate’s Law, Sanctuary City Defunding Passes House

Savage ERUPTS over Mexican Illegal Alien Killer (Kate Steinle, Kate’s Law)

What Pisses Me Off About The Kate Steinle Murder Acquittal

Kate Steinle’s Father (Jim Steinle) Testifies At Senate Hearing on Illegal Immigration

In Memory Of Kate Steinle

Ted Cruz Calls on Senate to Pass ‘Kate’s Law’ After Acquittal

Image: Ted Cruz Calls on Senate to Pass 'Kate's Law' After Acquittal
(Zach Gibson/Getty Images)

By Todd Beamon    |   Friday, 01 Dec 2017 03:54 PM

Sen. Ted Cruz on Friday called on the Senate to pass “Kate’s law” after an illegal immigrant was acquitted Thursday for fatally shooting Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier with her father in 2015.

“The verdict was frustrating — and it makes you angry,” the Texas Republican told Dana Perino on Fox News. “Kate Steinle, a beautiful 32-year-old young woman, shot down in the prime of her life.

“The grief makes it harder to deal with,” Cruz said, adding that “this should’ve never happened.”

The illegal, Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 45, was acquitted by a San Francisco court jury of charges of murder, involuntary manslaughter, and assault with a deadly weapon.

He was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Garcia Zarate had been deported five times and was wanted for a sixth deportation on drug felonies when Kate Steinle was fatally shot in the back while walking with her father on the pier in July 2015.

Garcia Zarate did not deny shooting Steinle and said it was an accident.

The incident came in the middle of the presidential campaign and touched off a fierce debate over the country’s immigration policies.

Republican candidate Donald Trump relentlessly slammed San Francisco’s “sanctuary city” policy, which limits local officials from cooperating with U.S. immigration authorities.

Cruz told Perino that passing “Kate’s law”— which imposes a mandatory aggravated felony charge and prison term on immigrants who illegally re-enter the U.S. a second time — was “the best response” for the Senate after the acquittal.

“The person who shot Kate Steinle had been deported five times,” Cruz said. “He had been in and out of jail.

“If case law had been on the books, the person who pulled the trigger would’ve been in a federal prison cell instead of out there on that pier that night.

“And Kate Steinle would still be alive and with us today.

“The best thing Congress can do is pass Kate’s law right now to prevent the next tragic murder we saw in California.”

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/ted-cruz-senate-pass-kates-law/2017/12/01/id/829396/

Senate Has Not Voted On ‘Kate’s Law’ Five Months After It Passed House With Bipartisan Support

 By WILL RACKE
Immigration and Foreign Policy Reporter

The Senate has yet to take up a bill that would toughen penalties for illegal aliens who re-enter the country after being deported, almost five months after the measure passed the House in a bipartisan vote.

In June, the House approved “Kate’s Law,” a Trump administration-backed bill that would raise the maximum prison sentence for illegal aliens caught re-entering the U.S. following deportation and increasing penalties for repeat offenders.

The bill is named after Kate Steinle, the woman who was shot and killed when an illegal immigrant, Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, discharged a firearm on the San Francisco pier in 2015. Zarate, a Mexican national who had been deported five times, was acquitted Thursday of Steinle’s murder as well as involuntary manslaughter and assault with a deadly weapon. (RELATED: Jury Finds Illegal Immigrant NOT GUILTY In Kate Steinle Murder)

The shooting sparked a nationwide debate over sanctuary city policies and later became a key refrain in President Donald Trump’s promises to crack down on illegal immigration.

This summer, GOP Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia introduced “Kate’s Law” to near-universal Republican approval. The bill also received backing across the aisle, with 24 Democrats voting yes in a floor vote on June 29.

In the wake of Zarate’s acquittal, conservative activists and immigration hawks are likely to pressure Senate lawmakers to take up the bill in the next legislative session. Trump has also seized on the verdict to attack Democrats, tweeting Friday that the party would “pay a big price” in the midterm elections for failing to support tougher immigration policies.

An earlier version of Kate’s Law was considered by the Senate in 2016, it but failed to get to the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a Democratic filibuster. Only three Democrats — Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly, North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp and West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin — voted with Republicans.

Since then, electoral circumstances have changed in favor of passing Kate’s Law. In addition to Manchin, Heitkamp and Donnelly, seven other Democratic senators are up for re-election in states that Trump won in 2016, which could motivate them to support some aspects of Trump’s immigration agenda in order to shore up political support at home.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/01/senate-has-not-voted-on-kates-law-five-months-after-it-passed-house-with-bipartisan-support/

DOJ files arrest warrant for illegal immigrant acquitted in Kate Steinle case

The Department of Justice unsealed an arrest warrant Friday for Jose Inez Garcia Zarate, the illegal immigrant acquitted Thursday in Kate Steinle’s murder trial.

Zarate was found not guilty of murdering Steinle on a pier in San Francisco in July 2015. Steinle was walking with her father and a family friend when she was shot, collapsing into her father’s arms.

Zarate had been released from a San Francisco jail about three months before the shooting, despite a request by federal immigration authorities to detain him for deportation. The case sparked a widespread national debate over illegal immigration and sanctuary cities.

He was acquitted of first- and second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter and found not guilty of assault with a semi-automatic weapon. He was found guilty of posessing a firearm by a felon.

DOJ WEIGHING FEDERAL CHARGES IN KATE STEINLE MURDER CASE, AFTER NOT GUILTY VERDICT

The arrest warrant was originally drafted in 2015 and amended this week to include violations related to the charges of a felon in possession of a firearm, involuntary manslaughter and assault with a deadly weapon, all of which were filed after the defendant’s initial arrest, according to Friday’s warrant.

Officials at the Department of Justice told Fox News that there is an existing federal detainer that requires Zarate to be remanded into the custody of the U.S. Marshals to be transported to the Western District of Texas pursuant to the arrest warrant.

After the verdict, U.S. immigration officials announced late Thursday that Zarate would be deported.

“Following the conclusion of this case, ICE will work to take custody of Mr. Garcia Zarate and ultimately remove him from the country,” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said.

KATE STEINLE MURDER CASE EXPLAINED, FROM TRUMP’S COMMENTS TO DOJ ARREST WARRANT

ICE Deputy Director Tom Homan added, “San Francisco’s policy of refusing to honor ICE detainers is a blatant threat to public safety and undermines the rule of law. This tragedy could have been prevented if San Francisco had turned the alien over to ICE, as we requested, instead of releasing him back onto the streets.”

San Francisco is a sanctuary city, with local law enforcement officials barred from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. President Trump has threatened to withhold federal funding to cities with similar immigration policies, but a federal judge in California permanently blocked his executive order last week.

Trump tweeted late Thursday night calling the Steinle verdict “disgraceful,” adding “No wonder the people of our Country are so angry with Illegal Immigration.”

SANCTUARY CITIES: WHAT ARE THEY?

He tweeted again early Friday morning saying, “The Kate Steinle killer came back and back over the weakly protected Obama border, always committing crimes and being violent, and yet this info was not used in court. His exoneration is a complete travesty of justice. BUILD THE WALL!”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions also released a statement saying that despite California’s attempt at a murder conviction, Zarate was able to walk away with only a firearm possession conviction because he was not turned over by San Francisco to ICE.

“When jurisdictions choose to return criminal aliens to the streets rather than turning them over to federal immigration authorities, they put the public’s safety at risk,” the statement said. “San Francisco’s decision to protect criminal aliens led to the preventable and heartbreaking death of Kate Steinle.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/01/doj-files-arrest-warrant-for-illegal-immigrant-acquitted-in-kate-steinle-case.html

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1008

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 994, Story 1: President Trump Nominates Fed Governor Jerome Powell To Chair Federal Reserve Board of Governors — Expect Continuation of Interventionist Easy Monetary Policy — More Money Creation or Quantitative Easing When Economy Enters Next Recession in 2018-2019 — Videos — Part 1 of 2 — Story 2: No Tax Reform By Changing From Income Tax System to Broad Based Consumption Tax — The FairTax or Fair Tax Less — No Middle Class Tax Relief From Payroll Taxes — No Real Cuts in Federal Spending As Budget Deficits Rise with Rising National Debt and Unfunded Liabilities — Spending Addiction Disorder — Government Obesity — Crash Diet of Balanced Budgets Required — Videos

Posted on November 2, 2017. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Barack H. Obama, Blogroll, Breaking News, British Pound, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, College, Congress, Constitutional Law, Countries, Culture, Currencies, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Euro, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, Health Care Insurance, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Middle East, Monetary Policy, National Interest, Natural Gas, News, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, President Trump, Presidential Appointments, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Resources, Rule of Law, Scandals, Security, Senate, Social Science, Social Security, Success, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, Transportation, U.S. Dollar, Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 994, November 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 993, November 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 992, October 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 991, October 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 990, October 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 989, October 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 988, October 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 987, October 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 986, October 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 985, October 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 984, October 16, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 983, October 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 982, October 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 981, October 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Image result for President trump nominates Powell for fed chairImage result for u.S. dollar purchasing power 1913 - 2016

Image result for top us marginal tax rate 1913-2016

Image result for top us marginal tax rate 1913-2016

Story 1: President Trump Nominates Fed Governor Jerome Powell To Chair Federal Reserve Board of Governors — Expect Continuation of Interventionist Easy Monetary Policy — More Money Creation or Quantitative Easing When Economy Enters Next Recession in 2018-2019 — Videos

Trump makes his pitch for new Fed chair, tax reform

Trump Announces Fed Chair Pick: Jerome Powell – Full Event

Trump nominates Powell as new Fed chair

PETER SCHIFF – THE NEXT FINANCIAL CRISIS, US ECONOMIC COLLAPSE

End The Fed? … Libertarian Republicans? … #AskRonPaul

Ron Paul’s Texas Straight Talk 10/23/17: Trump’s Fed Picks? More of the Same!

Bill Gross on Fed Chair Candidates, Bonds, U.S. Deficit

Bill Gross on the Future of Asset Management and the Fed

Who is Jerome Powell?

Trump leaning toward Jerome Powell for Fed Chair: sources

The Economic Club of New York Event – Jerome Powell

Published on Jun 28, 2017
Thursday June 1, 2017 Jerome Powell Governor, Federal Reserve System

Powell Is a Force at the Federal Reserve, Says Wallace

KEYNOTE ADDRESS – Jerome H. Powell

Trump Said to Be Leaning Toward Powell for Fed Chair

Powell, Taylor Said to Be Leading Fed Chair Choices

Trump: Fed’s a very important position

Published on Oct 23, 2017
President Donald Trump on tech regulations, the Federal Reserve, NAFTA, the outlook for U.S. economic growth and defense spending.

Alan Greenspan Is ‘Nervous’ Bond Prices Are Too High

Published on Aug 1, 2016
July 28 — Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve chairman and founder of Greenspan Associates, discusses nervousness over bond prices and moving into currencies to counter negative interest rates, as well as dealing with uncertainties in the global economy. He speaks with Bloomberg’s Alix Steel on “Bloomberg ‹GO›.”

Greenspan: You Can’t Fix U.S. Economy Until You Fix Entitlements

Published on Dec 14, 2016
Dec.13 — Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan discusses his outlook for productivity and U.S. economic growth. He speaks with Bloomberg’s David Westin.

Who will be next Fed chair?

BVTV: The race to be next Fed chair

The Men Who Will Soon Run The Federal Reserve – What You Need To Know

A Powell, Taylor Fed Hawkish to Markets, Says Zentner

What John Taylor Would Bring to the Federal Reserve

Published on Oct 17, 2017
Oct.17 — David Riley, head of credit strategy at Bluebay Asset Management, and Ed Perks, chief investment officer at Franklin Templeton Multi-Asset Solutions, examine what John Taylor would offer as Federal Reserve Chairman. They speak on “Bloomberg Daybreak: Americas.”

Interview with Professor John Taylor

The Fed Should Raise Rates to Help the Economy – John Taylor

Published on Nov 13, 2015

 The Federal Reserve should return to conventional monetary policy as soon as possible as higher interest rates would be beneficial to the U.S. economy, said noted economist John Taylor of Stanford University. Taylor spoke with TheStreet during a conference called ‘Rethinking Monetary Policy,’ which was held at the Cato Institute in Washington D.C. Thursday. ‘To me the rethinking in some sense is going back and seeing why things worked well when they did in the ‘80s and ’90s until this period,’ said Taylor. ‘Rethinking means adapting some of the things that we forgot.’ Taylor argues that unconventional Fed policy, which was enacted in response to the financial crisis, has in some ways been detrimental. ‘The world has suffered in a way from being off track, from these very unusual policies. And so fixing that, getting back to where I think the Fed wants to go, would be an improvement,’ explained Taylor. ‘Just globally speaking, it’s not been a very successful decade,’ he added. Taylor argues for a rules-based policy system for Central Banks, saying it would lead to less volatility in policy making. TheStreet’s Rhonda Schaffler reports.

John B. Taylor’s Keynote Address: Monetary Rules for a Post-Crisis World

Monetary Policy Based on the Taylor Rule

Debate on the “Neutral” Interest Rate: Opening Presentations

Debate on the “Neutral” Interest Rate: John Taylor’s Take

Debate on the “Neutral” Interest Rate: Audience Q&A

A Powell, Taylor Fed Hawkish to Markets, Says Zentner

5 Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity: John B. Taylor

n his new book, First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity, Stanford University professor of economics John B. Taylor, details the not-so-secret ingredients to rebuilding American’s economic future: predictable policy, rule of law, strong incentives, reliance on markets, and a clearly limited role for government. “America can be great again, economically speaking,” Taylor explains, “it’s just more recently where we’ve gone off track.” Taylor sat down with Reason Magazine Managing Editor Katherine Mangu-Ward to discuss his book, the principles that underlie America’s economic supremacy and what’s gone wrong over the past decade. Taylor is the Raymond Professor of Economics at Stanford University and the George Shultz Senior Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. He was Treasury Under Secretary for International Affairs from 2001 to 2005. His previous books include Getting Off Track: How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis.

John B. Taylor “How Government Interventions Caused the Financial Crisis.”

Author John B. Taylor discusses his book “Getting Off Track — How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis,” with Reason.tv’s Michael C. Moynihan.

Is the Fed Making the Crisis Worse? – John B. Taylor

Uncommon Knowledge with John B. Taylor

Economist Lee Says Taylor Can Be One of Best Fed Chairs

The Fed Should Raise Rates to Help the Economy – John Taylor

How to Think About the Federal Reserve – Peter Schiff

Exposing the Federal Reserve!

The Story of Your Enslavement

A War on Homelessness

The Owners of the Country

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS – George Carlin

America is one big lie and you are a fool for believing in it.

Trump to Tap Jerome Powell as Next Fed Chairman

The president is expected to announce his decision Thursday

Federal Reserve governor Jerome Powell spoke in Washington on Oct. 3. He has been on the board of governors since 2012.
Federal Reserve governor Jerome Powell spoke in Washington on Oct. 3. He has been on the board of governors since 2012. PHOTO:JOSHUA ROBERTS/REUTERS

If confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Powell would succeed Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen, the central bank’s first female leader, whose four-year term as Fed chief expires in early February.

In his five years at the Fed, Mr. Powell has been a reliable ally of Ms. Yellen and would likely continue the Fed’s current cautious approach to reversing the central bank’s crisis-era stimulus policies as the economy expands.

That would mean gradually raising short-term interest rates in quarter-percentage-point steps through 2020 while slowly shrinking the Fed’s $4.2 trillion portfolio of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities it purchased to lower long-term rates.

Mr. Powell’s nomination would mark the first time in nearly four decades that a new president hasn’t asked the serving Fed leader to stay on for another term, even though that person was nominated by a president of a different party. The last time a first-term president didn’t do that was in 1978, when President Jimmy Carter chose G. William Miller to succeed Arthur Burns.

The president spoke with Mr. Powell on Tuesday, according to people familiar with the matter who couldn’t describe what they discussed.

Mr. Trump had settled on Mr. Powell by Saturday, but people familiar with the process had cautioned that he could change his mind. The president plans to formally announce the decision Thursday before he leaves for a trip to Asia on Friday.

Reached by phone Wednesday, both Mr. Powell and Ms. Yellen declined to comment. A Fed spokeswoman also declined to comment.

Ms. Yellen was one of five finalists for the position, along with Stanford University economics professor John Taylor, former Fed governor Kevin Warsh and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn.

Mr. Taylor and Mr. Warsh didn’t respond to requests seeking comment Wednesday. Mr. Cohn’s spokeswoman didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Trump said in a video last week that he had “somebody very specific in mind” for the job. “It will be a person who hopefully will do a fantastic job,” Mr. Trump said in a video posted to Instagram, adding, “I think everybody will be very impressed.”

Fed officials began raising their benchmark federal-funds rate in December 2015 after holding it near zero for seven years following the financial crisis. They voted in June to lift rates to a range between 1% and 1.25% and in October started the process of slowly shrinking the Fed’s bond portfolio.

FED SPEECH ANALYZER

“The economy is as close to our assigned goals as it has been for many years,” Mr. Powell said in June. If it continues growing as expected, “I would view it as appropriate to continue to gradually raise rates.”

Officials have penciled in one more rate increase this year. But they indicated in September such increases are likely to end at a lower point than they had previously projected—at a longer-run level of around 2.75%—considerably lower than where officials have stopped raising rates in the past.

Mr. Trump told The Wall Street Journal in July, “I’d like to see rates stay low.”

The Fed on Wednesday left short-term interest rates unchanged, but signaled it would consider lifting them before year’s end amid signs the economy is gaining momentum.

Mr. Powell has never dissented on a Fed monetary or regulatory policy vote and in speeches hasn’t deviated far from the board’s consensus.

Where he could lead a shift is on regulatory policy. He has advocated loosening some of the financial rules adopted by the Fed and other agencies since the crisis, a position that meshes with Mr. Trump’s deregulatory agenda. Mr. Powell has suggested softening the Volcker rule barring banks from using their own money to make risky bets and easing some bank stress tests.

He also has endorsed reviewing some of the supervisory duties imposed on banks’ boards of directors to prevent them from being burdened with “an ever-increasing checklist.”

“More regulation is not the best answer to every problem,” Mr. Powell said in a speech in early October.

How Fed Chairs Have Fared

A look at various Fed regimes, and how they used interest rates to manage inflation, growth and the economy

*Seasonally adjusted †Change from a year earlier in the price index for personal-consumption expenditures

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

“To some extent he offers Trump the best of both worlds. You get broadly speaking continuity of Yellen’s careful and relatively dovish approach to monetary policy but with somebody who is a card-carrying Republican and who is significantly more inclined to revisit some of the postcrisis regulations,” said Krishna Guha, vice chairman at Evercore ISI and a former New York Fed official.

Karen Petrou, managing partner of the financial-services consulting firm Federal Financial Analytics, said Mr. Powell’s recent remarks on regulation “were certainly much more flexible than [Ms. Yellen] has been.”

Mr. Powell, a lawyer, would be the first Fed leader in three decades without a Ph.D. in economics. Before joining the Fed board, Mr. Powell worked as an investment banker in New York City, as Treasury undersecretary for financial institutions in the George H.W. Bush administration, as a partner at the Carlyle Group and as a scholar at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

That background could serve him well, said Aaron Klein, an economic studies fellow at the Brookings Institution and director of the Center on Regulation and Markets.

“The Federal Reserve’s mandate has grown significantly since the financial crisis,” he said. “With a broader mandate, one should expect broader and more diverse backgrounds of potential good fits for a chair.”

“He would represent continuity of the Fed system and culture but a break from the predominance of monetary policy as the core background of the chair,” Mr. Klein said.

The decision marks the culmination of an unusually public and drawn-out search for one of the top economic policy-making jobs in the world.

Mr. Trump upended the usually staid selection process by openly weighing the pros and cons of various candidates and asking lawmakers, businesspeople and media personalities for their input.

Mr. Trump polled GOP senators last month on their preferred choice at a lunch on Capitol Hill, and said he was still considering “two, and maybe three” people for the job.

Mr. Trump has other opportunities to reshape the central bank. Randal Quarles, his first nominee to the Fed’s powerful seven-member board of governors, took office in October. Three other seats remain open.

Nominations for all board positions, including chairman and vice chairman, are subject to Senate confirmation.

Mr. Powell should have little trouble winning Senate approval, but his views could clash with those of some Republican senators who have criticized him for supporting the Fed’s easy-money and postcrisis regulatory policies.

He won confirmation to the Fed with bipartisan support in the Senate twice before: to fill an unfinished governor’s term in 2012 and for a full term in 2014. Some Republicans have suggested he could face difficult questions from his own side of the aisle. “I think we should move in a different direction,” from current Fed policies, Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) said last month about the possibility of a Powell nomination.

Write to Kate Davidson at kate.davidson@wsj.com, Peter Nicholas at

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-to-tap-feds-jerome-powell-for-fed-chairman-1509568166

Taylor rule

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In economics, a Taylor rule is a reduced form approximation of the responsiveness of the nominal interest rate, as set by the central bank, to changes in inflationoutput, or other economic conditions. In particular, the rule describes how, for each one-percent increase in inflation, the central bank tends to raise the nominal interest rate by more than one percentage point. This aspect of the rule is often called the Taylor principle. Although such rules may serve as concise, descriptive proxies for central bank policy, and are not explicitly proscriptively considered by central banks when setting nominal rates.

The rule was first proposed by John B. Taylor,[1] and simultaneously by Dale W. Henderson and Warwick McKibbin in 1993.[2] It is intended to foster price stability by systematically reducing uncertainty and increasing the credibility of future actions by the central bank. It may also avoid the inefficiencies of time inconsistency from the exercise of discretionary policy.[3] The Taylor rule synthesized, and provided a compromise between, competing schools of economics thought in a language devoid of rhetorical passion.[4] Although many issues remain unresolved and views still differ about how the Taylor rule can best be applied in practice, research shows that the rule has advanced the practice of central banking.[5]

As an equation

According to Taylor’s original version of the rule, the nominal interest rate should respond to divergences of actual inflation rates from target inflation rates and of actual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from potential GDP:

{\displaystyle i_{t}=\pi _{t}+r_{t}^{*}+a_{\pi }(\pi _{t}-\pi _{t}^{*})+a_{y}(y_{t}-{\bar {y}}_{t}).}i_{t}=\pi _{t}+r_{t}^{*}+a_{\pi }(\pi _{t}-\pi _{t}^{*})+a_{y}(y_{t}-{\bar y}_{t}).

In this equation, {\displaystyle \,i_{t}\,}\,i_{t}\, is the target short-term nominal interest rate (e.g. the federal funds rate in the US, the Bank of England base rate in the UK), {\displaystyle \,\pi _{t}\,}\,\pi _{t}\, is the rate of inflation as measured by the GDP deflator{\displaystyle \pi _{t}^{*}}\pi _{t}^{*} is the desired rate of inflation, {\displaystyle r_{t}^{*}}r_{t}^{*} is the assumed equilibrium real interest rate, {\displaystyle \,y_{t}\,}\,y_{t}\, is the logarithm of real GDP, and {\displaystyle {\bar {y}}_{t}}{\bar y}_{t} is the logarithm of potential output, as determined by a linear trend.

In this equation, both {\displaystyle a_{\pi }}a_{{\pi }} and {\displaystyle a_{y}}a_{y} should be positive (as a rough rule of thumb, Taylor’s 1993 paper proposed setting {\displaystyle a_{\pi }=a_{y}=0.5}a_{{\pi }}=a_{y}=0.5).[6] That is, the rule “recommends” a relatively high interest rate (a “tight” monetary policy) when inflation is above its target or when output is above its full-employment level, in order to reduce inflationary pressure. It recommends a relatively low interest rate (“easy” monetary policy) in the opposite situation, to stimulate output. Sometimes monetary policy goals may conflict, as in the case of stagflation, when inflation is above its target while output is below full employment. In such a situation, a Taylor rule specifies the relative weights given to reducing inflation versus increasing output.

The Taylor principle

By specifying {\displaystyle a_{\pi }>0}a_{{\pi }}>0, the Taylor rule says that an increase in inflation by one percentage point should prompt the central bank to raise the nominal interest rate by more than one percentage point (specifically, by {\displaystyle 1+a_{\pi }}1+a_{{\pi }}, the sum of the two coefficients on {\displaystyle \pi _{t}}\pi _{t} in the equation above). Since the real interest rate is (approximately) the nominal interest rate minus inflation, stipulating {\displaystyle a_{\pi }>0}a_{{\pi }}>0 implies that when inflation rises, the real interest rate should be increased. The idea that the real interest rate should be raised to cool the economy when inflation increases (requiring the nominal interest rate to increase more than inflation does) has sometimes been called the Taylor principle.[7]

Alternative versions of the rule

Effective federal funds rate and prescriptions from alternate versions of the Taylor Rule

While the Taylor principle has proved very influential, there is more debate about the other terms that should enter into the rule. According to some simple New Keynesian macroeconomic models, insofar as the central bank keeps inflation stable, the degree of fluctuation in output will be optimized (Blanchard and Gali call this property the ‘divine coincidence‘). In this case, the central bank does not need to take fluctuations in the output gap into account when setting interest rates (that is, it may optimally set {\displaystyle a_{y}=0}a_{y}=0.) On the other hand, other economists have proposed including additional terms in the Taylor rule to take into account financial conditions: for example, the interest rate might be raised when stock prices, housing prices, or interest rate spreads increase.

• Taylor Rule 1993 – the original definition by John Taylor with {\displaystyle a_{\pi }=a_{y}=0.5}{\displaystyle a_{\pi }=a_{y}=0.5}

• Taylor Rule 1999 – adapted and updated by John Taylor in a new research paper: {\displaystyle a_{\pi }=0.5,a_{y}\geq 0}{\displaystyle a_{\pi }=0.5,a_{y}\geq 0}

Empirical relevance

Although the Federal Reserve does not explicitly follow the Taylor rule, many analysts have argued that the rule provides a fairly accurate summary of US monetary policy under Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan.[8][9] Similar observations have been made about central banks in other developed economies, both in countries like Canada and New Zealand that have officially adopted inflation targeting rules, and in others like Germany where the Bundesbank‘s policy did not officially target the inflation rate.[10][11] This observation has been cited by ClaridaGalí, and Gertler as a reason why inflation had remained under control and the economy had been relatively stable (the so-called ‘Great Moderation‘) in most developed countries from the 1980s through the 2000s.[8] However, according to Taylor, the rule was not followed in part of the 2000s, possibly leading to the housing bubble.[12][13] Certain research has determined that some households form their expectations about the future path of interest rates, inflation, and unemployment in a way that is consistent with Taylor-type rules.[14]

Criticisms

Athanasios Orphanides (2003) claims that the Taylor rule can misguide policy makers since they face real-time data. He shows that the Taylor rule matches the US funds rate less perfectly when accounting for these informational limitations and that an activist policy following the Taylor rule would have resulted in an inferior macroeconomic performance during the Great Inflation of the seventies.[15]

In 2015, financial manager Bill Gross said the Taylor rule “must now be discarded into the trash bin of history”, in light of tepid GDP growth in the years after 2009.[16] Gross believed low interest rates were not the cure for decreased growth, but the source of the problem.

See also

References

  1. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (1993). “Discretion versus Policy Rules in Practice” (PDF). Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy39: 195–214. (The rule is introduced on page 202.)
  2. Jump up^ Henderson, D. W.; McKibbin, W. (1993). “A Comparison of Some Basic Monetary Policy Regimes for Open Economies: Implications of Different Degrees of Instrument Adjustment and Wage Persistence”. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy39: 221–318. doi:10.1016/0167-2231(93)90011-K.
  3. Jump up^ Taylor, John (2012). First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Economic Prosperity. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. p. 126
  4. Jump up^ Kahn, George A.; Asso, Pier Francesco; Leeson, Robert (2007). “The Taylor Rule and the Transformation of Monetary Policy”. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Working Paper 07-11SSRN 1088466Freely accessible.
  5. Jump up^ Asso, Pier Francesco; Kahn, George A.; Leeson, Robert (2010). “The Taylor Rule and the Practice of Central Banking”. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Working Paper 10-05SSRN 1553978Freely accessible.
  6. Jump up^ Athanasios Orphanides (2008). “Taylor rules,” The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. v. 8, pp. 2000-2004, equation (7).Abstract.
  7. Jump up^ Davig, Troy; Leeper, Eric M. (2007). “Generalizing the Taylor Principle”. American Economic Review97 (3): 607–635. JSTOR 30035014doi:10.1257/aer.97.3.607.
  8. Jump up to:a b Clarida, Richard; Galí, Jordi; Gertler, Mark (2000). “Monetary Policy Rules and Macroeconomic Stability: Theory and Some Evidence”. Quarterly Journal of Economics115 (1): 147–180. JSTOR 2586937doi:10.1162/003355300554692.
  9. Jump up^ Lowenstein, Roger (2008-01-20). “The Education of Ben Bernanke”The New York Times.
  10. Jump up^ Bernanke, Ben; Mihov, Ilian (1997). “What Does the Bundesbank Target?”. European Economic Review41 (6): 1025–1053. doi:10.1016/S0014-2921(96)00056-6.
  11. Jump up^ Clarida, Richard; Gertler, Mark; Galí, Jordi (1998). “Monetary Policy Rules in Practice: Some International Evidence”. European Economic Review42 (6): 1033–1067. doi:10.1016/S0014-2921(98)00016-6.
  12. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (2008). “The Financial Crisis and the Policy Responses: An Empirical Analysis of What Went Wrong” (PDF).
  13. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (2009). Getting Off Track: How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis. Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 0-8179-4971-2.
  14. Jump up^ Carvalho, Carlos; Nechio, Fernanda (2013). “Do People Understand Monetary Policy?”. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Working Paper 2012-01SSRN 1984321Freely accessible.
  15. Jump up^ Orphanides, A. (2003). “The Quest for Prosperity without Inflation”. Journal of Monetary Economics50 (3): 633–663. doi:10.1016/S0304-3932(03)00028-X.
  16. Jump up^ Bill Gross (July 30, 2015). “Gross: Low rates are the problem, not the solution”CNBC. Retrieved July 30, 2015.

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_rule

Real interest rate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yields on inflation-indexed government bonds of selected countries and maturities.

The real interest rate is the rate of interest an investor, saver or lender receives (or expects to receive) after allowing for inflation. It can be described more formally by the Fisher equation, which states that the real interest rate is approximately the nominal interest rate minus the inflation rate.

If, for example, an investor were able to lock in a 5% interest rate for the coming year and anticipated a 2% rise in prices, they would expect to earn a real interest rate of 3%.[1] The expected real interest rate is not a single number, as different investors have different expectations of future inflation. Since the inflation rate over the course of a loan is not known initially, volatility in inflation represents a risk to both the lender and the borrower.

In the case of contracts stated in terms of the nominal interest rate, the real interest rate is known only at the end of the period of the loan, based on the realized inflation rate; this is called the ex-post real interest rate. Since the introduction of inflation-indexed bondsex-ante real interest rates have become observable.[2]

Risks

In economics and finance, an individual who lends money for repayment at a later point in time expects to be compensated for the time value of money, or not having the use of that money while it is lent. In addition, they will want to be compensated for the risks of having less purchasing power when the loan is repaid. These risks are systematic risks, regulatory risks and inflation risks. The first includes the possibility that the borrower will default or be unable to pay on the originally agreed upon terms, or that collateral backing the loan will prove to be less valuable than estimated. The second includes taxation and changes in the law which would prevent the lender from collecting on a loan or having to pay more in taxes on the amount repaid than originally estimated. The third takes into account that the money repaid may not have as much buying power from the perspective of the lender as the money originally lent, that is inflation, and may include fluctuations in the value of the currencies involved.

Nominal interest rates include all three risk factors, plus the time value of the money itself.
Real interest rates include only the systematic and regulatory risks and are meant to measure the time value of money.

The “real interest rate” in an economy is often considered to be the rate of return on a risk free investment, such as US Treasury notes, minus an index of inflation, such as the rate of change of the CPI or GDP deflator.

Fisher equation

The relation between real and nominal interest rates and the expected inflation rate is given by the Fisher equation

{\displaystyle 1+i=(1+r)(1+\pi _{e})}1+i=(1+r)(1+\pi _{e})

where

i = nominal interest rate;
r = real interest rate;
{\displaystyle \pi _{e}}\pi _{e} = expected inflation rate.

For example, if somebody lends $1000 for a year at 10%, and receives $1100 back at the end of the year, this represents a 10% increase in her purchasing power if prices for the average goods and services that she buys are unchanged from what they were at the beginning of the year. However, if the prices of the food, clothing, housing, and other things that she wishes to purchase have increased 25% over this period, she has in fact suffered a real loss of about 15% in her purchasing power. (Notice that the approximation here is a bit rough; since 1.1/1.25 = 0.88 = 1 – 0.12, the actual loss of purchasing power is exactly 12%.

Variations in inflation

The inflation rate will not be known in advance. People often base their expectation of future inflation on an average of inflation rates in the past, but this gives rise to errors. The real interest rate ex-post may turn out to be quite different from the real interest rate (ex-ante real interest rate) that was expected in advance. Borrowers hope to repay in cheaper money in the future, while lenders hope to collect on more expensive money. When inflation and currency risks are underestimated by lenders, then they will suffer a net reduction in buying power.

The complexity increases for bonds issued for a long term, where the average inflation rate over the term of the loan may be subject to a great deal of uncertainty. In response to this, many governments have issued real return bonds, also known as inflation-indexed bonds, in which the principal value and coupon rises each year with the rate of inflation, with the result that the interest rate on the bond approximates a real interest rate. (E.g., the three-month indexation lag of TIPS can result in a divergence of as much as 0.042% from the real interest rate, according to research by Grishchenko and Huang.[3]) In the US, Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) are issued by the US Treasury.

The expected real interest rate can vary considerably from year to year. The real interest rate on short term loans is strongly influenced by the monetary policy of central banks. The real interest rate on longer term bonds tends to be more market driven, and in recent decades, with globalized financial markets, the real interest rates in the industrialized countries have become increasingly correlated. Real interest rates have been low by historical standards since 2000, due to a combination of factors, including relatively weak demand for loans by corporations, plus strong savings in newly industrializing countries in Asia. The latter has offset the large borrowing demands by the US Federal Government, which might otherwise have put more upward pressure on real interest rates.

Related is the concept of “risk return”, which is the rate of return minus the risks as measured against the safest (least-risky) investment available. Thus if a loan is made at 15% with an inflation rate of 5% and 10% in risks associated with default or problems repaying, then the “risk adjusted” rate of return on the investment is 0%.

Importance in economic theory

Effective federal funds rate and prescriptions from alternate versions of the Taylor Rule

The amount of physical investment—in particular the purchasing of new machines and other productive capacity—that firms engage in depends on the level of real interest rates, because such purchases typically must be financed by issuing new bonds. If real interest rates are high, the cost of borrowing may exceed the real physical return of some potentially purchased machines (in the form of output produced); in that case those machines will not be purchased. Lower real interest rates would make it profitable to borrow to finance the purchasing of a greater number of machines.

The real interest rate is used in various economic theories to explain such phenomena as the capital flightbusiness cycle and economic bubbles. When the real rate of interest is high, that is, demand for credit is high, then money will, all other things being equal, move from consumption to savings. Conversely, when the real rate of interest is low, demand will move from savings to investment and consumption. Different economic theories, beginning with the work of Knut Wicksell have had different explanations of the effect of rising and falling real interest rates. Thus, international capital moves to markets that offer higher real rates of interest from markets that offer low or negative real rates of interest triggering speculation in equities, estates and exchange rates.

Real federal funds rate

In setting monetary policy, the U.S. Federal Reserve (and other central banks) establish an interest rate at which they lend to banks. This is the federal funds rate. By setting this rate low, they can encourage borrowing and thus economic activity; or the reverse by raising the rate. Like any interest rate, there are a nominal and a real value defined as described above. Further, there is a concept called the “equilibrium real federal funds rate” (r*), alternatively called the “natural rate of interest” or the “neutral real rate”, which is the “level of the real federal funds rate, if allowed to prevail for several years, [that] would place economic activity at its potential and keep inflation low and stable.” There are various methods used to estimate this amount, using tools such as the Taylor Rule. It is possible for this rate to be negative.[4]

Negative real interest rates

The real interest rate solved from the Fisher equation is

{\displaystyle {\frac {1+i}{1+\pi }}-1=r}{\frac {1+i}{1+\pi }}-1=r

If there is a negative real interest rate, it means that the inflation rate is greater than the nominal interest rate. If the Federal funds rate is 2% and the inflation rate is 10%, then the borrower would gain 7.27% of every dollar borrowed per year.

{\displaystyle {\frac {1+0.02}{1+0.1}}-1=-0.0727}{\frac {1+0.02}{1+0.1}}-1=-0.0727

Negative real interest rates are an important factor in government fiscal policy. Since 2010, the U.S. Treasury has been obtaining negative real interest rates on government debt, meaning the inflation rate is greater than the interest rate paid on the debt.[5] Such low rates, outpaced by the inflation rate, occur when the market believes that there are no alternatives with sufficiently low risk, or when popular institutional investments such as insurance companies, pensions, or bond, money market, and balanced mutual funds are required or choose to invest sufficiently large sums in Treasury securities to hedge against risk.[6][7]Lawrence Summers stated that at such low rates, government debt borrowing saves taxpayer money, and improves creditworthiness.[8][9] In the late 1940s through the early 1970s, the US and UK both reduced their debt burden by about 30% to 40% of GDP per decade by taking advantage of negative real interest rates, but there is no guarantee that government debt rates will continue to stay so low.[6][10] Between 1946 and 1974, the US debt-to-GDP ratio fell from 121% to 32% even though there were surpluses in only eight of those years which were much smaller than the deficits.[11]

See also

References

  1. Jump up^ https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_Qxj5U7eaJTZTJkODYzN2ItZjE3Yy00Y2M0LTk2ZmUtZGU0NzA3NGI4Y2Y5&hl=en&pli=1 page 24
  2. Jump up^ “FRB: Speech with Slideshow–Bernanke, Long-Term Interest Rates–March 1, 2013”http://www.federalreserve.gov. Retrieved 2017-03-07.
  3. Jump up^ Grishchenko, Olesya V.; Jing-zhi Huang (June 2012). “Inflation Risk Premium: Evidence from the TIPS Market” (PDF). Finance and Economics Discussion Series. Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs Federal Reserve Board, Washington, D.C. Retrieved 26 May 2013.
  4. Jump up^ U.S. Federal Reserve-Remarks by Vice Chairman Roger W. Ferguson Jr. October 29, 2004
  5. Jump up^ Saint Louis Federal Reserve (2012) “5-Year Treasury Inflation-Indexed Security, Constant Maturity” FRED Economic Data chart from government debt auctions (the x-axis at y=0 represents the inflation rate over the life of the security)
  6. Jump up to:a b Carmen M. Reinhart and M. Belen Sbrancia (March 2011) “The Liquidation of Government Debt” National Bureau of Economic Research working paper No. 16893
  7. Jump up^ David Wessel (August 8, 2012) “When Interest Rates Turn Upside Down” Wall Street Journal (full text)
  8. Jump up^ Lawrence Summers (June 3, 2012) “Breaking the negative feedback loop” Reuters
  9. Jump up^ Matthew Yglesias (May 30, 2012) “Why Are We Collecting Taxes?” Slate
  10. Jump up^ William H. Gross (May 2, 2011) “The Caine Mutiny (Part 2)”PIMCO Investment Outlook
  11. Jump up^ “Why the U.S. Government Never, Ever Has to Pay Back All Its Debt” The Atlantic, February 1, 2013

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_interest_rate

John B. Taylor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
John Taylor
JohnBTaylor.jpg
Personal details
Born John Brian Taylor
December 8, 1946 (age 70)
Yonkers, New YorkU.S.
Political party Republican
Education Princeton University(BA)
Stanford University(PhD)
Academic career
Field Monetary economics
School or
tradition
New Keynesian economics
Doctoral
advisor
Theodore Wilbur Anderson[1]
Doctoral
students
Lawrence J. Christiano
Influences Milton Friedman
Paul Volcker
E. Philip Howrey
Alan Greenspan
Contributions Taylor rule
Information at IDEAS / RePEc

John Brian Taylor (born December 8, 1946) is the Mary and Robert Raymond Professor of Economics at Stanford University, and the George P. Shultz Senior Fellow in Economics at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.[2]

Born in Yonkers, New York, he graduated from Shady Side Academy[3] and earned his A.B. from Princeton University in 1968 and Ph.D. from Stanford in 1973, both in economics. He taught at Columbia University from 1973–1980 and the Woodrow Wilson School and Economics Department of Princeton University from 1980–1984 before returning to Stanford. He has received several teaching prizes and teaches Stanford’s introductory economics course as well as Ph.D. courses in monetary economics.[4]

In research published in 1979 and 1980 he developed a model of price and wage setting—called the staggered contract model—which served as an underpinning of a new class of empirical models with rational expectations and sticky prices—sometimes called new Keynesian models.[5][6] In a 1993 paper he proposed the Taylor rule,[7] intended as a recommendation about how nominal interest rates should be determined, which then became a rough summary of how central banks actually do set them. He has been active in public policy, serving as the Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs during the first term of the George W. Bush Administration. His book Global Financial Warriors chronicles this period.[8] He was a member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors during the George H. W. Bush Administration and Senior Economist at the Council of Economic Advisors during the Ford and Carter Administrations.

In 2012 he was included in the 50 Most Influential list of Bloomberg Markets Magazine. Thomson Reuters lists Taylor among the ‘citation laureates‘ who are likely future winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics.[9]

Academic contributions

Taylor’s research—including the staggered contract model, the Taylor rule, and the construction of a policy tradeoff (Taylor) curve[10] employing empirical rational expectations models[11]—has had a major impact on economic theory and policy.[12] Former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has said that Taylor’s “influence on monetary theory and policy has been profound,”[13] and Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen has noted that Taylor’s work “has affected the way policymakers and economists analyze the economy and approach monetary policy.”[14]

Taylor contributed to the development of mathematical methods for solving macroeconomic models under the assumption of rational expectations, including in a 1975 Journal of Political Economy paper, in which he showed how gradual learning could be incorporated in models with rational expectations;[15] a 1979 Econometrica paper in which he presented one of the first econometric models with overlapping price setting and rational expectations,[16] which he later expanded into a large multicountry model in a 1993 book Macroeconomic Policy in a World Economy,[11] and a 1983 Econometrica paper,[17] in which he developed with Ray Fair the first algorithm to solve large-scale dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models which became part of popular solution programs such as Dynare and EViews.[18]

In 1977, Taylor and Edmund Phelps, simultaneously with Stanley Fischer, showed that monetary policy is useful for stabilizing the economy if prices or wages are sticky, even when all workers and firms have rational expectations.[19] This demonstrated that some of the earlier insights of Keynesian economics remained true under rational expectations. This was important because Thomas Sargent and Neil Wallace had argued that rational expectations would make macroeconomic policy useless for stabilization;[20] the results of Taylor, Phelps, and Fischer showed that Sargent and Wallace’s crucial assumption was not rational expectations, but perfectly flexible prices.[21] These research projects together could considerably deepen our understanding of the limits of the policy-ineffectiveness proposition.[22]

Taylor then developed the staggered contract model of overlapping wage and price setting, which became one of the building blocks of the New Keynesian macroeconomics that rebuilt much of the traditional macromodel on rational expectations microfoundations.[23][24]

Taylor’s research on monetary policy rules traces back to his undergraduate studies at Princeton.[25][26] He went on in the 1970s and 1980s to explore what types of monetary policy rules would most effectively reduce the social costs of inflation and business cycle fluctuations: should central banks try to control the money supply, the price level, or the interest rate; and should these instruments react to changes in output, unemployment, asset prices, or inflation rates? He showed[27] that there was a tradeoff—later called the Taylor curve[28]—between the volatility of inflation and that of output. Taylor’s 1993 paper in the Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy proposed that a simple and effective central bank policy would manipulate short-term interest rates, raising rates to cool the economy whenever inflation or output growth becomes excessive, and lowering rates when either one falls too low.[7] Taylor’s interest rate equation has come to be known as the Taylor rule, and it is now widely accepted as an effective formula for monetary decision making.[29]

A key stipulation of the Taylor rule, sometimes called the Taylor principle,[30] is that the nominal interest rate should increase by more than one percentage point for each one-percent rise in inflation. Some empirical estimates indicate that many central banks today act approximately as the Taylor rule prescribes, but violated the Taylor principle during the inflationary spiral of the 1970s.[31]

Recent research

Taylor’s recent research has been on the financial crisis that began in 2007 and the world economic recession. He finds that the crisis was primarily caused by flawed macroeconomic policies from the U.S. government and other governments. Particularly, he focuses on the Federal Reserve which, under Alan Greenspan, a personal friend of Taylor, created “monetary excesses” in which interest rates were kept too low for too long, which then directly led to the housing boom in his opinion.[32] He also believes that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae spurred on the boom and that the crisis was misdiagnosed as a liquidity rather than a credit risk problem.[33] He wrote that, “government actions and interventions, not any inherent failure or instability of the private economy, caused, prolonged, and worsen the crisis.”[34]

Taylor’s research has also examined the impact of fiscal policy in the recent recession. In November 2008, writing for The Wall Street Journal opinion section, he recommended four measures to fight the economic downturn: (a) permanently keeping all income tax ratesthe same, (b) permanently creating a worker’s tax credit equal to 6.2 percent of wages up to $8,000, (c) incorporating “automatic stabilizers” as part of overall fiscal plans, and (d) enacting a short-term stimulus plan that also meets long term objectives against waste and inefficiency. He stated that merely temporary tax cuts would not serve as a good policy tool.[35] His research[36] with John Cogan, Tobias Cwik, and Volcker Wieland showed that the multiplier is much smaller in new Keynesian than in old Keynesian models, a result that was confirmed by researchers at central banks.[37] He evaluated the 2008 and 2009 stimulus packages and argued that they were not effective in stimulating the economy.[38]

In a June 2011 interview on Bloomberg Television, Taylor stressed the importance of long term fiscal reform that sets the U.S. federal budget on a path towards being balanced. He cautioned that the Fed should move away from quantitative easing measures and keep to a more static, stable monetary policy. He also criticized fellow economist Paul Krugman‘s advocacy of additional stimulus programs from Congress, which Taylor said will not help in the long run.[39] In his 2012 book First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity, he endeavors to explain why these reforms are part of a broader set of principles of economic freedom.

Selected publications

Reprinted in Taylor, John B. (1991), “Staggered wage setting in a macro model”, in Mankiw, N. Gregory; Romer, David, New Keynesian economics, volume 1, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, pp. 233–42, ISBN 9780262631334.
  • Taylor, John B. (September 1979). “Estimation and control of a macroeconomic model with rational expectations”. EconometricaWiley47 (5): 1267–86. JSTOR 1911962doi:10.2307/1911962.
  • Taylor, John B. (December 1980). “Scale economies, product differentiation, and the pattern of trade”. The American Economic ReviewAmerican Economic Association70 (5): 950–59. JSTOR 1805774.Pdf.
  • Taylor, John B. (1986), ‘New econometric approaches to stabilization policy in stochastic models of macroeconomic fluctuations’. Ch. 34 of Handbook of Econometrics, vol. 3, Z. Griliches and M.D. Intriligator, eds. Elsevier Science Publishers.
  • Taylor, John B. (December 1993). “Discretion versus policy rules in practice”Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public PolicyElsevier39: 195–214. doi:10.1016/0167-2231(93)90009-L.Pdf.
  • Taylor, John B. (1999), “An historical analysis of monetary policy rules”, in Taylor, John B., Monetary policy rules, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 9780226791265.
  • Taylor, John B. (2007). Global financial warriors: the untold story of international finance in the post-9/11 world. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 9780393064483.
  • Taylor, John B. (2008), “Housing and monetary policy”, in Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Housing, housing finance, and monetary policy: a symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, August 30-September 1, 2007, Kansas City, Missouri: Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pp. 463–76, OCLC 170267547
  • Taylor, John B. (2009), “The financial crisis and the policy response: an empirical analysis of what went wrong”, in Bank of Canada Staff, Festschrift in honour of David Dodge’s contributions to Canadian public policy: proceedings of a conference held by the Bank of Canada, November, 2008, Ottawa: Bank of Canada, pp. 1–18, ISBN 9780660199276.
  • Taylor, John B. (2009). Getting off track: how government actions and interventions caused, prolonged, and worsened the financial crisis. Stanford, California: Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 9780817949716.
  • Taylor, John B.; Shultz, George P.; Scott, Kenneth, eds. (2009). Ending government bailouts as we know them. Stanford, California: Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 9780817911287.
  • Taylor, John B.; Ryan, Paul D. (30 November 2010). “Refocus the Fed on price stability instead of bailing out fiscal policy”Investor’s Business Daily. Archived from the original on 13 April 2011.
  • Taylor, John B. (2012). First principles: five keys to restoring America’s prosperity. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 9780393345452.

See also

Further reading

References

  1. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (September 24, 2016). “The Statistical Analysis of Policy Rules”economicsone.com. Economics One (A blog by John B. Taylor). Retrieved October 2, 2016.
  2. Jump up^ “Hoover Institution Senior Fellow: Biography”Hoover Institution. Retrieved 27 October 2011.
  3. Jump up^ “Notable alumni”shadysideacademy.orgShady Side Academy.
  4. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. “Curriculum vitae” (pdf). Stanford University.
  5. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (May 1979). “Staggered wage setting in a macro model”. The American Economic ReviewAmerican Economic Association69 (2): 108–113. JSTOR 1801626.
    Reprinted in Taylor, John B. (1991), “Staggered wage setting in a macro model”, in Mankiw, N. Gregory; Romer, David, New Keynesian economics, volume 1, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, pp. 233–242, ISBN 9780262631334.
  6. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (February 1980). “Aggregate dynamics and staggered contracts”Journal of Political EconomyChicago Journals88 (1): 1–23. JSTOR 1830957doi:10.1086/260845.
  7. Jump up to:a b Taylor, John B. (December 1993). “Discretion versus policy rules in practice”Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public PolicyElsevier39: 195–214. doi:10.1016/0167-2231(93)90009-L. Pdf.
  8. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (2007). Global financial warriors: the untold story of international finance in the post-9/11 world. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 9780393064483.
  9. Jump up^ “Hall of ‘citation laureates’ (in economics)”science.thomsonreuters.com. Thomson-Reuters.
  10. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (September 1979). “Estimation and control of a macroeconomic model with rational expectations”EconometricaWiley47 (5): 1267–86. JSTOR 1911962doi:10.2307/1911962. Pdf.
    Reprinted in Taylor, John B. (1981), “Estimation and control of a macroeconomic model with rational expectations”, in Lucas, Jr., Robert E.; Sargent, Thomas J., Rational expectations and econometric practice, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, ISBN 9780816610983.
  11. Jump up to:a b Taylor, John B. (1993). Macroeconomic policy in a world economy: from econometric design to practical operation. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 9780393963168.
  12. Jump up^ Ben Bernanke refers to the “three concepts named after John that are central to understanding our macroeconomic experience of the past three decades—the Taylor curve, the Taylor rule, and the Taylor principle.” in “Opening Remarks,” Conference on John Taylor’s Contributions to Monetary Theory and Policy
  13. Jump up^ Bernanke, Ben (2007). Opening Remarks. Remarks at the Conference on John Taylor’s Contributions to Monetary Theory and Policy.
  14. Jump up^ Yellen, Janet (2007). Policymaker Roundtable (PDF).Remarks at the Conference on John Taylor’s Contributions to Monetary Theory and Policy.
  15. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (October 1975). “Monetary policy during a transition to rational expectations”Journal of Political EconomyChicago Journals83 (5): 1009–22. JSTOR 1830083doi:10.1086/260374.
  16. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (September 1979). “Estimation and control of a macroeconomic model with rational expectations”. EconometricaWiley47 (5): 1267–86. JSTOR 1911962doi:10.2307/1911962.
  17. Jump up^ Taylor, John B.; Fair, Ray C. (July 1983). “Solution and maximum likelihood estimation of dynamic nonlinear rational expectations models”EconometricaWiley51 (4): 1169–85. JSTOR 1912057doi:10.2307/1912057.
  18. Jump up^ Judd, Kenneth; Kubler, Felix; Schmedders, Karl (2003), “Computational methods for dynamic equilibria with heterogeneous agents”, in Dewatripont, Mathias; Hansen, Lars Peter; Turnovsky, Stephen J., Advances in economics and econometrics theory and applications (volume 3), Cambridge, U.K. New York: Cambridge University Press, p. 247, ISBN 9781280163388 and “Eviews Users Guide II.”
  19. Jump up^ Taylor, John B.; Phelps, Edmund S. (February 1977). “Stabilizing powers of monetary policy under rational expectations”Journal of Political EconomyChicago Journals85 (1): 163–90. JSTOR 1828334doi:10.1086/260550.
  20. Jump up^ Sargent, Thomas; Wallace, Neil (April 1975). “‘Rational’ expectations, the optimal monetary instrument, and the optimal money supply rule”Journal of Political EconomyChicago Journals83 (2): 241–54. JSTOR 1830921doi:10.1086/260321.
  21. Jump up^ Blanchard, Olivier (2000), “Epliogue”, in Blanchard, Olivier, Macroeconomics (2nd ed.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, p. 543, ISBN 9780130557872.
  22. Jump up^ Galbács, Peter (2015). The theory of new classical macroeconomics: a positive critique. Heidelberg / New York / Dordrecht / London: Springer. ISBN 9783319175782doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17578-2.
  23. Jump up^ King, Robert G.; Wolman, Alexander (1999), “What should the monetary authority do when prices are sticky?”, in Taylor, John B., Monetary policy rules, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 9780226791265.
  24. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (1999), “Staggered price and wage setting in macroeconomics”, in Taylor, John B.; Woodford, Michael, Handbook of macroeconomics, Amsterdam New York: North-Holland Elsevier, pp. 1009–50, ISBN 9780444501585.
  25. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (April 1968). Fiscal and monetary stabilization policies in a model of endogenous cyclical growth (BA thesis). Princeton University.
  26. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (October 1968). “Fiscal and monetary stabilization policies in a model of endogenous cyclical growth”(pdf). Research Memorandum No. 104. Econometric Research Program, Princeton University. OCLC 22687344.
  27. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (September 1979). “Estimation and control of a macroeconomic model with rational expectations”EconometricaWiley47 (5): 1267–86. JSTOR 1911962doi:10.2307/1911962.
  28. Jump up^ Bernanke, Ben (2004). The Great Moderation. Remarks at the meeting of the Eastern Economic Association.
  29. Jump up^ Orphanides, Athanasios (2007). Taylor rules (pdf). Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2007–18. Federal Reserve Board.
  30. Jump up^ Davig, Troy; Leeper, Eric M. (June 2007). “Generalizing the Taylor Principle”. The American Economic ReviewAmerican Economic Association97 (3): 607–35. JSTOR 30035014.NBER Working Paper 11874, December 2005.
  31. Jump up^ Clarida, Richard; Galí, Jordi; Gertler, Mark (February 2000). “Monetary policy rules and macroeconomic stability: evidence and some theory”Quarterly Journal of EconomicsOxford Journals115 (1): 147–80. doi:10.1162/003355300554692. Pdf.
  32. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (2008), “Housing and monetary policy”, in Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Housing, housing finance, and monetary policy: a symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, August 30-September 1, 2007, Kansas City, Missouri: Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pp. 463–76, OCLC 170267547
  33. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (2009), “The financial crisis and the policy response: an empirical analysis of what went wrong (housing and monetary policy)”, in Bank of Canada Staff, Festschrift in honour of David Dodge’s contributions to Canadian public policy: proceedings of a conference held by the Bank of Canada, November, 2008, Ottawa: Bank of Canada, pp. 1–18, ISBN 9780660199276.
  34. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (February 9, 2009). “How government created the financial crisis”The Wall Street Journal. p. A19. Pdf.
  35. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (November 25, 2008). “Why permanent tax cuts are the best stimulus”The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved June 30, 2011.
  36. Jump up^ Taylor, John B.; Cogan, John F.; Cwik, Tobias; Wieland, Volker (March 2010). “New Keynesian versus old Keynesian government spending multipliers”Journal of Economic Dynamics and ControlElsevier34 (3): 281–95. doi:10.1016/j.jedc.2010.01.010.
  37. Jump up^ Coenen, Guenter; et al. (September 2011). “Effects of fiscal stimulus in structural models”American Economic Journal: MicroeconomicsAmerican Economic Association4 (1): 22–68. doi:10.1257/mac.4.1.22. Pdf.
  38. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (September 2011). “An empirical analysis of the revival of fiscal activism in the 2000s”Journal of Economic LiteratureAmerican Economic Association49 (3): 686–702. JSTOR 23071727doi:10.1257/jel.49.3.686. Pdf.
  39. Jump up^ “Taylor Says U.S. Needs `Sound’ Monetary, Fiscal Policies”Bloomberg Television thru Washington Post. June 27, 2011. Retrieved June 30, 2011.

External links

Story 2: No Tax Reform By Changing From Income Tax System to Broad Based Consumption Tax — The FairTax or Fair Tax Less — No Middle Class Tax Relief From Payroll Taxes — No Real Cuts in Federal Spending As Budget Deficits Rise with Rising National Debt and Unfunded Liabilities — Spending Addiction Disorder — Government Obesity — Crash Diet of Balanced Budgets Required — Videos

Paul Ryan’s full interview on GOP tax plan

GOP unveils tax plan (full event)

The House GOP Announces Their Tax Cut Plan

How the tax reform rollout will play out for Republicans

BREAKING: President Trump making jobs and tax proposal announcement

The House Republican tax bill, explained

It radically cuts taxes on corporations and wealthy heirs.

House Ways and Means Chair Kevin Brady (center) with House and Senate leaders Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.
 Alex Wong/Getty Images

After months, even years, of outlines and blueprints and “frameworks,” Republicans in the House of Representatives finally released their first attempt at an actual tax reform billon Thursday.

While the broad strokes of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act were telegraphed weeks, if not months, in advance, this is the first time Republicans in any branch of the federal government have described their tax plan in enough detail that it can actually be debated, scored by the Congressional Budget Office so its cost and effects on the rich and poor are known, and voted upon by the House and Senate.

The legislation seeks to dramatically cut taxes on corporations and consolidate benefits like personal exemptions, the standard deduction, and the child credit for individuals. It would eliminate the alternative minimum tax and estate tax, and pare back certain individual deductions. It would also offer a new low tax rate for owners of “pass-through” businesses like LLCs and partnerships, whose income from their businesses is taxed as personal income.

The bill in its current form would almost certainly give disproportionate benefits to wealthy Americans, who tend to benefit from corporate tax cuts more than non-wealthy Americans and who could likely exploit the pass-through rate by setting up dummy corporations. People earning between $400,000 and $1 million would face a significantly lower top income tax rate.

But the bill will almost certainly not remain in its current form. As written, it is almost guaranteed to increase the budget deficit by trillions over 10 years, and quite possibly keep increasing the deficit after 10 years are up.

That’s a big problem: Under Senate rules, some legislation can pass with only 51 votes only if it doesn’t increase the long-run deficit. So the current draft of the legislation would probably need 60 votes instead, meaning significant Democratic support, which Republican leaders haven’t been even trying to court. They need legislation that can pass with 51 votes, and for that, they need the bill to not raise the long-run deficit.

That means the bill needs to change — either the cuts need to get smaller or Republican leaders need to find new ways to raise money, or both. But the bill in its current form at least suggests what GOP leaders want to do.

The bill would good for corporations and the wealthy

Before delving into the bill’s details, it’s worth taking a moment to consider who, all told, comes out ahead and behind. Here’s who would be better off:

  • Corporations, broadly, are the focus of most of the tax cuts. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent, as the bill does, costs nearly $1.5 trillion over 10 years. They also gain new, more favorable treatment of income earned abroad, which is either not taxed or taxed at an even lower rate than 20 percent.
  • Wealthy, particularly ultrawealthy people, who tend to earn a disproportionate share of their income from capital (like stock sales and dividends) and thus benefit from cuts to the corporate tax, which is largely a tax on capital. If the corporate tax also reduces wages, as some conservative economists allege, then corporate cuts still disproportionately help the wealthy, as a huge share of wages go to high earners, not low- or median-wage workers. Additionally, the pass-through cut could enable some wealthy people who either own pass-throughs or create new ones to shelter some of their income from high rates.
  • People making mid to high sixfigure incomes, who arguably should count as wealthy or rich too. By raising the threshold for the 39.6 percent rate on individual income to $1 million for couples, up from $470,700 today, people with incomes in the $600,000 to $700,000 range will get a sizable reduction, in addition to the low-end tax cut they get because the new 12 percent bracket will apply to income now taxed at 15 or 25 percent.
  • Pass-through companies, like the Trump Organization, which get a new very low rate. There are some provisions included meant to prevent rich individuals from using this tax break as a way to shelter income, but they only limit the benefit in many cases. The overwhelmingly rich owners of these companies will still come out way ahead.
  • Heirs and heiresses, as the estate tax is first reduced (by increasing the exemption and applying it to an even smaller sliver of the hyperrich) and then eliminated entirely.

But the bill would hurt the poor and increase the deficit

The GOP’s tax reform proposal would leave other groups worse off:

  • Blue state residents would pay higher taxes, as the state and local income/sales tax deduction is eliminated and the one for property taxes is somewhat curtailed. That said, wealthy people benefiting from these deductions will likely see this tax hike offset by the other tax cuts in the package.
  • The housing sector faces a new limit on the mortgage interest deduction. For individual taxpayers, the rate cuts largely make up for this, but it reduces the incentive to buy and build homes, which could affect lenders, construction companies, real estate firms, etc.
  • Poor families were rumored to be getting a tax cut due to a change in the refundability formula for the child tax credit — but that didn’t make it into the bill. The credit only goes to families with $3,000 in earnings or more, and phases in slowly; some in Congress were pushing to lower the threshold to $0, but they didn’t succeed. Instead, a provision denying the child tax credit to American citizen children whose parents are undocumented immigrants is included.
  • And it would increase the deficit; the Joint Committee on Taxation has reportedly scored the bill as costing $1.51 trillion over 10 years, about what the House/Senate budget allocated for the bill but still a sizable increase in the public debt.

Here’s the Joint Committee on Taxation’s estimates of what each provision raises and costs in tax revenue:

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s summary of the bill’s costCommittee for a Responsible Federal Budget

Individual income tax rates are consolidated and cut

The new tax reform bill (which, again, draws on plans Trump and congressional Republicans have released going back over a year now) would significantly change individual income tax brackets:

  • The seven current individual income tax brackets would be consolidated to four: 12 percent (up from the current bottom rate of 10 percent), 25 percent, 35 percent, and 39.6 percent.
  • Keeping the 39.6 percent top rate is a huge change from past Republican plans, which have focused heavily on cutting the maximum rate the richest households pay. However, the plan significantly reduces how many people pay the top rate: The threshold for the last bracket would increase from $470,700 for married couples today to $1 million.
  • The 35 percent rate would cover some affluent households currently paying a marginal rate of 33 percent, potentially raising their taxes; and the 12 percent bracket would extend into the income range currently covered by the 25 percent bracket, lowering taxes for many middle- and upper-middle-class households.
  • The thresholds for brackets will be adjusted according to chained CPI, a slower-growing measure of inflation than normal CPI, which is used currently; this change raises revenue over time by gradually pushing more and more people into higher tax brackets.
  • De facto taxes on some corporate executives would go up: Performance pay and commissions above $1 million would no longer be deductible for the purposes of corporate taxes.

The standard deduction is increased, personal exemptions are eliminated, and the child tax credit is mildly boosted

Standard benefits for families are changed significantly, with an eye toward simplifying the vast array of benefits (standard deductions, personal exemptions, child credits, etc.) currently available:

  • The standard deduction will be raised to $24,000 for couples and $12,000 for individuals, a near doubling from current levels.
  • The child tax credit, currently $1,000, will grow to $1,600, and a new $300 credit for parents and other non-child dependents in the house (the $300 credit expires after five years, presumably to save money).
  • Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Mike Lee (R-UT) have spent months working with Ivanka Trump, and persuaded her to abandon her plan to add a tax deduction for child care in favor of an increased child tax credit. It appears House Speaker Paul Ryan and Ways and Means Chair Kevin Brady (R-TX) have adopted this approach — but have fallen short of the $2,000, more refundable credit Rubio and Lee want.
  • The child credit would be available for more wealthy households: It would start to phase out at $230,000 in earnings for married couples, as opposed to $110,000 under current law. It would not be expanded for poor families without a tax liability, as Rubio and Lee had proposed.
  • The personal exemption (currently offering households $4,050 per person in deductions) is eliminated, replaced in theory by the higher child credit and standard deduction.

Some deductions are limited, but most remain intact

  • The mortgage interest deduction is unchanged for current homeowners, but for all future mortgages, the benefit would be capped at a home value of $500,000, down from $1 million under current law.
  • The deduction for state and local income/sales taxes would be eliminated.
  • The deduction for state and local property taxes would be capped at $10,000, somewhat curtailing the current tax break.
  • A variety of other, much smaller deductions, like the medical expense deduction and the property casualty loss deductions, are repealed.
  • Most major tax breaks for individuals — the charitable deduction, retirement incentives like 401(k) and IRA provisions, the tax exclusion for employer-provided health care, the earned income tax credit, and the child and dependent care tax credit — would remain unchanged.

Corporate taxes are slashed dramatically

  • The corporate income tax rate will be lowered from 35 percent to 20 percent.
  • The corporate tax will be “territorial”: Foreign income by US companies will be tax-free.
  • All untaxed income currently held overseas will immediately be taxed at a fixed rate: 12 percent for money held in liquid assets like stocks and bonds, 5 percent for intangibles like buildings and factories.
  • Despite the tax being “territorial” in principle, there will be a 10 percent “minimum tax” imposed on profits above a certain threshold from foreign subsidiaries of US companies in the future, to prevent companies from moving income abroad to avoid taxes.
  • Additionally, any money that multinational corporations move from the US abroad will be subject to a new 20 percent tax.
  • Instead of having companies “depreciate” investments by deducting them over several years, companies could immediately expense all their investments. This benefit expires after five years, presumably to save money, which dampens any positive effect it has on economic growth.
  • Companies paying the corporate income tax would face a limit on how much debt they can deduct from their taxable income, a significant change for highly leveraged companies like banks. They could only deduct interest worth up to 30 percent of earnings before interest/taxes/depreciation/amortization. But real estate firms would be exempt from that limit.
  • Two big existing credits for corporations — the research and development tax credit and the low-income housing credit — won’t be repealed. But a deduction for domestic manufacturing is gone.

Pass-throughs like the Trump Organization win big

“Pass-through” companies like LLCs, partnerships, sole proprietorships, and S corporations, which are overwhelmingly owned by rich individuals like Donald Trump and currently pay normal income tax rates after their earnings are returned to the companies’ owners, would get a huge number of tax cuts too:

  • Taxes on pass-through income would be capped at the 25 percent bracket rather than the top individual rate.
  • Pass-through companies would still be able to deduct interest on loans in full, unlike C-corporations.
  • The 25 percent bracket creates a huge loophole for rich people, who could incorporate as sole proprietorships and “contract” with their employers so their income is pass-through income rather than wages.
  • To partially control that, the law would assume that 100 percent of earnings from professional services firms, like law firms and accounting firms, is wages, not pass-through income. For other businesses, people actively involved in the business as more than passive investors would see 70 percent of their income classified as wages and taxed normally, and 30 percent taxed at the pass-through rate.

Two other significant tax provisions are abolished:

  • The alternative minimum tax, which increases taxes for certain affluent or upper-middle-class households, is repealed.
  • The exemption for the estate and gift tax, the most progressive component of the federal tax code, only paid by extremely rich estates, is doubled, further limiting who pays it, and the whole tax is then gradually abolished.

And a brand new 1.4 percent tax on university endowment income is added.

The case for the bill

For the public at large, the case for a massive corporate tax cut is sort of hard to grasp. Seventy-three percent of Americans, and 53 percent of Republicans, say they want corporate taxes either kept the same or raised, according to Pew Research Center polling. That the cuts are pared with some tax increases on individuals, like the elimination of the deduction for state and local income taxes and the Social Security Number requirement which kicks some 3 million kids off the child tax credit, makes the choice even more confounding.

But the GOP has a specific economic theory that it claims supports the bill and makes the changes it envisions worthwhile.

The basic idea is that while most economists believe corporate taxes are primarily paid by owners of capital (that is, people who own stock in corporations) in the form of lower profits, a sizable minority, including White House chief economist Kevin Hassett, think that a large share of the tax is paid by workers in the form of lower wages.

In an influential 2006 paper analyzing data in 72 countries across 22 years, he and his American Enterprise Institute colleague Aparna Mathur estimated that a “1 percent increasein corporate tax rates is associated with nearly a 1 percent drop in wage rates.” A second paper in 2010 found a slightly smaller effect (a 0.5 to 0.6 percent decrease in wage rates per 1 percent increase in corporate tax rates) but still concluded that labor was ultimately paying the tax. More than paying it, in fact — they estimate that labor pays 2,200 percent of the tax’s burden, a really extraordinary estimate.

That suggests that cutting corporate taxes would be a very easy way to raise wages for ordinary workers. Hassett has also gone a step further and, with his AEI colleague Alex Brill, argued that cutting the corporate income tax could raise economic growth enough to actually increase revenue: a Laffer effect. They conclude, based on a data set covering rich developed countries from 1980 to 2005, that the revenue-maximizing corporate tax rate is about 26 percent, significantly below the US rate.

Plenty of economists and tax researchers have argued that Hassett’s results in particular are implausible, and reach some absurd conclusions. Jane Gravelle and Thomas Hungerford at the Congressional Research Service noted that the initial Hassett-Mathur study predicted a $1 increase in the corporate tax would reduce wages by between $22 and $26. Their 2010 follow-up predicted a wage loss of $13 per for every additional dollar paid in corporate taxes. But it’s very strange to imagine a corporation responding to an increase in costs like that. The implication is that corporations could have cut wages significantly before the tax hike without negative consequences and simply didn’t.

A more recent survey of the empirical research by Reed College’s Kimberly Clausing found “very little robust evidence linking corporate tax rates and wages.” The consensus in the field remains that most of the tax is paid by capital (as Treasury and the CBO both assume).

But if you believe that corporate tax cuts lead to raises, then corporate taxes should help workers. The biggest beneficiaries will, again, be rich people earning the most wages, but the benefits will trickle down more broadly too.

Other, smaller provisions of the reform package also have reasonable cases for them. The mortgage interest deduction is a huge distortion that leads to fewer people renting than should and hoards benefits among rich homeowners; the bill would reduce that advantage. Opponents of the state and local tax deduction, which the bill would largely eliminate, argue it’s regressive and concentrates benefits on rich states rather than poor ones that actually need the money. The current mix of standard deductions, personal exemptions, and child credit is needlessly duplicative, and the bill simplifies it a bit.

Others are a bit harder to defend. Many economists oppose wealth taxes like the estate tax on the grounds that they penalize savings, but intergenerational transmission of wealth also has huge negative externalities (heirs less willing to work, less equal politics, etc.) that eliminating the estate tax entirely would worsen.

Cutting taxes on pass-through income is particularly hard to defend. Pass-throughs already get a sizable tax advantage relative to other companies. While corporate profits are taxed in two stages — first by the corporate income tax, and then through dividend or capital gains taxes — pass-through income is only taxed once, at the individual level. This change would worsen that advantage.

Pass-throughs will counter that in many cases, people who own stock through 401(k)s and IRAs don’t have to pay capital gains or dividend taxes, and so their profits are only taxed at the corporate rate, which is lower than the top individual rate (and would be much lower under this plan), putting pass-throughs at a potential disadvantage. But analysts who’ve looked at this comparison generally conclude that pass-throughs are taxed less overall, and certainly don’t need another break.

Where the bill goes from here

As of this writing, the bill has not been officially scored for its cost and distribution, though the Joint Committee on Taxation has reportedly scored it as costing $1.51 trillion, just outside the $1.5 trillion the GOP budget set aside for tax reform.

Given that price tag, it’s hard to imagine the bill not raising the deficit after 10 years. Some provisions phase out, presumably to lower the long-run deficit effects for scoring purposes, but that’s unlikely to be enough. And so long as the legislation still increases the long-run deficit, it’s a nonstarter in the Senate.

What’s likely, then, is that this is an opening entry designed to pass the House and then be worked over, and shrunk in scale, in the Senate.

The legislation will face a lot of pressure to expand or protect certain cuts, and to abandon certain pay-fors. Mortgage lenders and housing builders will push against limiting the mortgage interest deduction, blue-state Republicans will fight the limit on property tax deductions, and just about every business will fight for as much as they can get in corporate tax cuts and pass-through cuts (the fact that lobbying firms are organized as pass-throughs might mean trouble for the rule eliminating pass-through privileges for law firms). Social conservatives and anti-poverty campaigners will fight for a bigger child tax credit, available to more poor families.

All of that makes the bill more expensive, and harder to pass in the Senate. So far, Republican leaders have mostly punted on designing the kinds of pay-fors that would make the plan viable under Senate rules. They can’t keep punting for much longer.

https://www.vox.com/2017/11/2/16596896/house-republican-tax-reform-cuts-trump-ryan-explained

House GOP tax plan filled with tough tradeoffs

The tax overhaul is Republicans’ top priority ahead of next year’s elections, and lawmakers are desperate for a victory after the Obamacare repeal failed.

Updated 

House Republicans unveiled plans Thursday for a sweeping overhaul of the tax system calling for fundamental changes in business and individual taxes, including big cuts in rates and new breaks for families.

It also includes provisions sure to stoke controversy and fierce lobbying, including new limits on the popular mortgage interest deduction. People could only deduct interest on the first $500,000 of loans for newly purchased homes, down from the current $1 million, and lawmakers would eliminate the break for second homes. The bill would also make it harder for people to sell their homes without paying taxes on any capital gains.

And there would be sharply lower limits on a long-standing break for state and local taxes.

While big companies would get a significantly lower 20 percent corporate rate, down from 35 percent, they would face new limits on their ability to deduct interest on their loans, a new global minimum tax on their overseas earnings, and new taxes on U.S. companies heading abroad.

Republicans dropped a contentious plan to curb tax benefits for 401(k) retirement plans, which had GOP lawmakers cheering House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady at a closed door briefing on the plan.

The unveiling of the 429-page bill — and a summary that runs 82 pages — kicks off what is sure to be a grueling slog to get legislation to President Donald Trump by the end of the year.

Exactly who would lose in the proposal — dubbed the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” — has been a closely guarded secret, and many lawmakers will surely be surprised at the scope of changes needed to make the numbers behind the plan work.

Several influential business groups slammed the proposal.

The National Federation of Independent Business announced its opposition, citing restrictions lawmakers included on which small businesses can claim their lower tax rate on unincorporated “pass-through” firms. The issue has been one of the most difficult for lawmakers to work out, and could prove to be one of the most contentious going forward.

Though lawmakers would reduce the rate on those businesses to 25 percent, there would be limits on which firms could take advantage, provisions designed to avoid gaming by wealthy individuals.

Under the proposal, pass-throughs would get the lower rate on 30 percent of their profits, with the remainder taxed at ordinary income tax rates, though there would be circumstances in which businesses could qualify for a bigger share being subject to the special rate. That means, though, that some pass- throughs would actually pay more than 25 percent under the plan.

“This bill leaves too many small businesses behind,” said Juanita Duggan, the group’s president. “We believe that tax reform should provide substantial relief to all small businesses.”

The National Association of Home Builders said the legislation “eviscerates” housing tax benefits, and “abandons middle class taxpayers.”

The National Association of Realtors meanwhile has already begun lobbying against the proposal, running online ads in tax writers’ districts. “Don’t let tax reform become a tax increase for middle-class homeowners,” the ad says.

Other business groups embraced the plan, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable.

“This bold tax reform bill is exactly what our nation needs to get our economy growing faster,” said Neil Bradley, a senior vice president at the Chamber of Commerce. Said Jamie Dimon, head of JP Morgan Chase & Co. and the Business Roundtable: “We support this tax reform effort because it is good for all Americans.”

The plan is Republicans’ top priority ahead of next year’s elections, and lawmakers are desperate for a victory to take to voters after the failed campaign to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Republicans are hoping to move it quickly through the House, with committee action penciled in for next week. Lawmakers aim to forward it on to the Senate later this month. Senate Republicans are working on their own competing plan they aim to unveil next week. Lawmakers hope to land a compromise on Trump’s desk by the end of the year.

House leaders, who have written the plan in secret, have avoided identifying most of the breaks that would be quashed under the proposal in order to keep lobbyists at bay. But many Republicans had little inkling of what’s in the bill, and the strategy means leaders have not had much opportunity to build support among rank-and-file members for controversial proposals.

The bill is loaded with sure-to-be contentious ideas affecting broad swathes of the economy. It would delete a long-standing deduction for people with high medical bills — including those with chronic conditions. People would have to live longer in their homes, under the bill, to qualify for tax-free treatment of capital gains when they sell their houses.

It would also kill a long-standing breaks for adoptions, and for student loan interest costs. Private universities would face a new 1.4 percent tax on their investment earnings from their endowments. The Work Opportunity Credit, which encourages businesses to hire veterans, would be eliminated. So too would the New Markets Tax credit, which encourages investment in poor areas.

Tax benefits related to fringe benefits would be curtailed. It would also dump a long-standing break for casualty losses that allow people to deduct things lost in fires and storms, although it would continue to allow the provision for people hit by hurricanes — no doubt reflecting the influence of Brady, whose Houston-area district was hit by Hurricane Harvey.

Foreign companies operating in the United States would face higher taxes under the proposal, as would companies such as pharmaceutical firms that move overseas and want to sell goods back to the United States.

An official cost estimate of the legislation was not immediately available, though Brady said that would be released Thursday. He said the legislation met his party’s budget stipulating that they could not cut taxes by more than $1.5 trillion.

For individuals, the plan would reduce the number of tax brackets to four from the current seven, with the top rate remaining at 39.6 percent. Republicans would more than double the income threshold at which the top rate would kick in to $1 million for married couples. They would simultaneously raise taxes on the rich, though, by limiting their ability to take advantage of their lowest income tax bracket. The 35 percent bracket would begin at $260,000 for married couples, and the threshold for a 25 percent bracket would be $90,000 under the plan.

Republicans would also get rid of personal exemptions, which are designed to adjust tax burdens for family size. The plan would instead double the standard deduction while increasing both the size of the child tax credit to $1,600, from the current $1000, while increasing the income threshold at which it could be claimed. They would also create a new $300 credit for adult dependents as well as another $300 “family flexibility” credit.

The bill would ease the estate tax by doubling the threshold at which it would kick in before eventually repealing it.

But they would face new limits on their ability to deduct interest payments on the money they borrow. They would also face a new 10 percent foreign minimum tax targeting companies that squirrel away money in offshore tax havens. Life insurance companies would lose a number of tax benefits, private activity bonds would be eliminated and tax-exempt bonds could no longer be used to help build professional sports stadiums.

Rachael Bade and Sarah Ferris contributed to this report.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/02/tax-reform-house-gop-plan-244453

House GOP Tax Plan Sticks With Big Corporate Cuts

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act seeks the biggest transformation of tax code in more than 30 years; leaves top individual tax rate at 39.6%

WASHINGTON—House Republicans, seeking the biggest transformation of the U.S. tax code in more than 30 years, aim to permanently chop the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%, compress the number of individual income tax brackets, and over time repeal the taxes paid by large estates.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/republicans-stick-with-big-corporate-tax-cuts-in-house-bill-1509629510

 

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-994

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

 

 

Trump picks Jerome Powell to succeed Yellen as Fed chair

  • President Donald Trump nominated Jerome Powell to run the Federal Reserve once current Chair Janet Yellen’s term expires in February.
  • Powell led a diverse field of potential nominees that included former Governor Kevin Warsh, Stanford economist John Taylor, chief Trump economic advisor Gary Cohn, and Yellen herself.
  • Yellen’s term has been marked by a mostly uninterrupted bull market that began in March 2009 and low interest rates even as the Fed has sought to unwind the stimulus initiated during the crisis.

President Donald Trump announces his nominee for Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell (L), in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, DC, November 2, 2017.

President Trump announces Jerome Powell as next Fed chair nominee  

President Donald Trump nominated Jerome Powell to run the Federal Reserve once current Chair Janet Yellen’s term expires, in a move widely expected and one unlikely to disturb the roaring stock market.

Trump made the announcement during a Thursday afternoon ceremony in the Rose Garden.

The move follows an extended period of speculation over who would be named to head the central bank, whose aggressive policies have been considered central to a climate of low interest rates, surging job creation and booming asset prices.

“Today is an important milestone on the path to restoring economic opportunity to the American people,” Trump said with Powell standing to his right and the prospective chairman’s family nearby. The president said the Fed requires “strong, sound and steady leadership” and Powell “will provide exactly that type of leadership.”

“He’s strong, he’s committed and he’s smart, and if he is confirmed by the Senate, Jay will put his considerable talents and experience to work leading our nation’s independent central bank,” Trump added.

President Donald Trump announces Federal Reserve board member Jerome Powell as his nominee for the next chair of the Federal Reserve in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 2, 2017.

Alex Brandon | Reuters
President Donald Trump announces Federal Reserve board member Jerome Powell as his nominee for the next chair of the Federal Reserve in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 2, 2017.

Powell led a diverse field of potential nominees that included former Governor Kevin Warsh, Stanford economist John Taylor, chief Trump economic advisor Gary Cohn, and Yellen herself.

Trump’s relationship with Yellen has evolved; during the 2016 presidential campaign he said the Fed chief should be “ashamed” of the way she has run the Fed, arguing that Yellen kept policy loose for political reasons to boost the fortunes of former President Barack Obama.

Since taking office, though, his views have changed and he offered warm words for her Thursday despite deciding to replace Yellen and make her the briefest-serving Fed chair since G. William Miller from 1978-79.

Yellen’s term has been marked by a mostly uninterrupted bull market run in stocks that began in March 2009 and low interest rates even as the Fed has sought to unwind the stimulus initiated during the crisis. The central bank has hiked its benchmark interest rate four times under Yellen and has taken the first steps in unwinding the $4.5 trillion balance sheet built up during the efforts to spur growth through bond purchases.

Yellen is “a wonderful woman who’s done a terrific job,” Trump said. “We have been working together for 10 months and she is absolutely a spectacular person. Janet, thank you very much. We appreciate it.”

Though the Powell nomination was widely reported and anticipated for weeks, markets reacted positively to the announcement, with the Dow industrials tacking on about 60 points in the half-hour or so after Trump took the podium.

“Jerome Powell is a smart choice for Fed chair,” said Richard Clarida, global strategic advisor at bond giant Pimco. “He is likely to provide monetary policy continuity by adopting Yellen’s framework of gradually normalizing rates and predictably reducing the Fed’s balance sheet. He is also likely to be more receptive to calls for adjusting financial regulation prudently, especially for smaller banks.”

Powell had been named to fill an unexpired term in 2012 that won’t end until 2028. He is viewed as a convenient choice, someone who likely will continue the programs of the Yellen Fed but allow Trump a chance to put his own stamp on the central bank.

“I’m both honored and humbled by this opportunity to serve our great country,” Powell said. “If I am confirmed by the Senate, I will do everything within my power to achieve our congressional assigned goals of stable prices and maximum employment.”

The Fed is in the midst of normalizing the historically accommodative monetary policy it had begun to help pull the U.S. from the throes of the financial crisis and the Great Recession.

Under Yellen, the Fed has hiked interest rates four times and is expected to approve another increase in December. In addition, it is unwinding its $4.5 trillion balance sheet, which primarily consists of bonds the Fed purchased in an effort to drive down mortgage rates and push investors to risk assets like stocks and corporate bonds.

Powell has been part of the Fed’s voting consensus since taking his seat, not once veering from the majority’s position.

“I think the president has made a spectacular choice, and I’m really supportive of what the president is doing,” Cohn told the Economic Club of Washington, D.C. earlier in the day.

But the move had some critics, primarily from those worried about Powell’s academic background. Most Fed chairs have been PhDs and have more background in economics than Powell, who has spent much of his career as a lawyer, in investment banking and at the Treasury under former President George H.W. Bush.

” Powell’s resume is not up to the standards we would expect of a nominee for Fed Chair,” Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at forecasting firm Capital Economics said in a note. “The risk of a serious policy mistake — in either direction — will arguably be higher under Powell’s leadership than under Yellen’s.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/02/trump-picks-jerome-powell-to-succeed-yellen-as-fed-chair.html

 

 

Jerome H. Powell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jerome H. Powell
Jerome H. Powell.jpg
16th Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Nominee
Assumed office
February 4, 2018*
President Donald Trump
Preceded by Janet Yellen
Member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors
Assumed office
May 25, 2012
President Barack Obama
Preceded by Frederic Mishkin
Under Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance
In office
1992–1993
President George H. W. Bush
Preceded by Robert R. Glauber
Succeeded by Frank N. Newman
Personal details
Born Jerome Hayden Powell
February 4, 1953 (age 64)
Washington, D.C.
Political party Republican[1]
Spouse(s) Elissa Leonard (m. 1985)
Children 3
Residence Chevy Chase, Maryland
Education Princeton University (BA)
Georgetown University (JD)
Net worth $19.7 – 55 million[2][3]
*Pending Senate confirmation

Jerome Hayden Powell (born February 4, 1953) is a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and has served since 2012. On November 2, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Powell to serve as the Chair of the Federal Reserve.[4]

Early life and education

Jerome H. Powell was born on February 4, 1953 in Washington, D.C., the son of Patricia (Hayden) and Jerome Powell, a lawyer in private practice.[5] His maternal grandfather, James J. Hayden, was Dean of the Columbus School of Law.[6]

In 1971, Powell graduated from Georgetown Preparatory School, a Jesuit university-preparatory school. He received a Bachelor of Arts in politics from Princeton University in 1975. In 1975-1976, he spent a year as a legislative assistant to Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania,[7][8] who ran an unsuccessful campaign for Vice President of the United States on a ticket with Ronald Reagan during the primary election in 1976.

Powell earned a Juris Doctor degree from Georgetown University in 1979, where he was editor-in-chief of the Georgetown Law Journal.[9]

Career

In 1979, Powell moved to New York City and became a clerk to Judge Ellsworth Van Graafeiland of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. From 1981 to 1983, he was a lawyer with Davis Polk & Wardwell, and from 1983 to 1984, he worked at the firm of Werbel & McMillen.[8]

From 1984 to 1990, Powell worked at Dillon, Read & Co., an investment bank, where he concentrated on financing, merchant banking, and mergers and acquisitions, rising to the position of vice president.[8][10]

Between 1990 and 1993, Powell worked in the United States Department of the Treasury, at which time Nicholas F. Brady, the former chairman of Dillon, Read & Co., was the United States Secretary of the Treasury. In 1992, Powell became the Under Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance after being nominated by George H. W. Bush.[8][10][7] During his stint at the Treasury, Powell oversaw the investigation and sanctioning of Salomon Brothers after one of its traders submitted false bids for a United States Treasury security.[11] Powell was also involved in the negotiations that made Warren Buffett the chairman of Salomon.[12]

In 1993, Powell began working as a managing director for Bankers Trust, but he quit in 1995 after the bank got into trouble after several customers suffered large losses due to derivatives. He then went back to work for Dillon, Read & Co.[10]

From 1997 to 2005, Powell was a partner at The Carlyle Group, where he founded and led the Industrial Group within the Carlyle U.S. Buyout Fund.[9][13]

After leaving Carlyle, Powell founded Severn Capital Partners, a private investment firm focused on specialty finance and opportunistic investments in the industrial sector.[14]

In 2008, Powell became a managing partner of the Global Environment Fund, a private equity and venture capital firm that invests in sustainable energy.[14]

Between 2010 and 2012, Powell was a visiting scholar at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank in Washington, D.C., where he worked on getting Congress to raise the United States debt ceiling during the United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2011. Powell presented the implications to the economy and interest rates of a default or a delay in raising the debt ceiling.[13] He worked for a salary of $1 per year.[3]

Federal Reserve Board of Governors

In December 2011, along with Jeremy C. Stein, Powell was nominated to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors by President Barack Obama. The nomination included two people to help garner bipartisan support for both nominees since Stein’s nomination had previously been filibustered. Powell’s nomination was the first time that a president nominated a member of the opposition party for such a position since 1988.[1] He took office on May 25, 2012, to fill the unexpired term of Frederic Mishkin, who resigned. In January 2014, he was nominated for another term, and, in June 2014, he was confirmed by the United States Senate in a 67-24 vote for a 14-year term ending January 31, 2028.[15]

In 2013, Powell made a speech regarding financial regulation and ending “too big to fail“.[16] In April 2017, he took over oversight of the “too big to fail” banks.[17]

Nomination as Chair of the Federal Reserve

On November 2, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Powell to serve as the Chair of the Federal Reserve.[4]

Economic philosophy

Monetary policy

A survey of 30 economists in March 2017 noted that Powell was slightly more of a monetary dove than the average member of the Board of Governors. However, The Bloomberg Intelligence Fed Spectrometer rated Powell as neutral (i.e. neither a hawk or a dove). Powell has been a skeptic of round 3 of quantitative easing, initiated in 2012, although he did vote in favor of implementation.

Financial regulation

Powell “appears to largely support” the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, although he has stated that ““we can do it more efficiently”.[18]

In an October 2017 speech, Powell stated that higher capital and liquidity requirements and stress tests have made the financial system safer and must be preserved. However, he also stated that the Volcker Rule should be re-written to exclude smaller banks and asked “Can we achieve this safety and soundness objective, this stability objective, at a lower cost to consumers and financial institutions?”[19]

Housing finance reform[edit]

In a July 2017 speech, Powell said that, in regards to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the status quo is “unacceptable” and that the current situation “may feel comfortable, but it is also unsustainable”. He warned that “the next few years may present our last best chance” to “address the ultimate status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac” and avoid “repeating the mistakes of the past”. Powell expressed concerns that, in the current situation, the government is responsible for mortgage defaults and that lending standards were too rigid, noting that these can be solved by encouraging “ample amounts of private capital to support housing finance activities”.[20]

Personal life

In 1985, Powell married Ellissa Leonard.[5] They have 3 children[9] and reside in Chevy Chase Village, Maryland, where Ellissa is vice chair of the board of managers.[21] In 2006, they purchased a house for $3 million.[22]

In 2017, Powell reported that he had a net worth of between $19.7 million and $55 million, making him the richest member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.[2][3]

Powell has served on the boards of charitable and educational institutions including DC Prep, a public charter school, the Bendheim Center for Finance at Princeton University, and The Nature Conservancy. He was also a founder of the Center City Consortium, a group of 16 parochial schools in the poorest areas of Washington, D.C.[13]

Powell is a registered Republican.[1] In 2008, he contributed $30,800 to the 2008 election campaign of John McCain.[23]

References

  1. Jump up to:a b c APPELBAUM, BINYAMIN (December 27, 2011). “Obama to Nominate Two for Vacancies on Fed Board”The New York Times.
  2. Jump up to:a b “Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 278e)” (PDF). United States Office of Government Ethics. June 28, 2017.
  3. Jump up to:a b c Long, Heather (October 31, 2017). “Jerome Powell, Trump’s pick to lead Fed, would be the richest chair since the 1940s”The Washington Post.
  4. Jump up to:a b Gensler, Lauren (November 2, 2017). “Trump Taps Jerome Powell As Next Fed Chair In Call For Continuity”Forbes.
  5. Jump up to:a b “ELISSA LEONARD WED TO JEROME H. POWELL”The New York Times. September 15, 1985.
  6. Jump up^ “Patricia H. Powell’s Obituary on The Washington Post”The Washington Post.
  7. Jump up to:a b “Nomination of Jerome H. Powell To Be an Under Secretary of the Treasury” (Press release). University of California, Santa Barbara. April 9, 1992.
  8. Jump up to:a b c d GREENHOUSE, STEVEN (April 14, 1992). “New Duties Familiar To Treasury Nominee”The New York Times.
  9. Jump up to:a b c “Board Members: Jerome H. Powell”Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
  10. Jump up to:a b c “Banker Joins Dillon, Read”The New York Times. February 17, 1995.
  11. Jump up^ Powell, Jerome (October 5, 2017). “Treasury Markets and the TMPG”Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
  12. Jump up^ Loomis, Carol J. (October 27, 1997). “Warren Buffett’s Wild Ride at Salomon”Fortune.
  13. Jump up to:a b c “Bipartisan Policy Center: Jerome Powell”Bipartisan Policy Center.
  14. Jump up to:a b “GEF Adds to Investment Team” (Press release). Business Wire. July 8, 2008.
  15. Jump up^ “PN1350 — Jerome H. Powell — Federal Reserve System”United States Senate.
  16. Jump up^ Robb, Greg (March 4, 2013). “Fed’s Powell: Ending too big to fail to take years”MarketWatch.
  17. Jump up^ Borak, Donna (April 7, 2017). “Fed taps Jerome Powell to head oversight of ‘too big to fail’ banks”CNNMoney.
  18. Jump up^ Matthews, Steve (October 5, 2017). “Trump’s Short List for Fed Chair Features These Hawks and Doves”Bloomberg L.P.
  19. Jump up^ Price, Michelle; Schroeder, Pete (October 31, 2017). “Good news for overburdened small banks if Powell picked for Fed chair”Reuters.
  20. Jump up^ Klein, Matthew C. (July 7, 2017). “Jerome Powell has some curious ideas about housing finance”Financial Times.
  21. Jump up^ “Chevy Chase Village: Staff Directory”Chevy Chase Village, Maryland.
  22. Jump up^ “Home Sales”The Washington Post. October 12, 2006.
  23. Jump up^ “SCHEDULE A (FEC) ITEMIZED RECEIPTS”Federal Election Commission. May 27, 2008.

External links

Government offices
Preceded by
Robert R. Glauber
Under Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance
1992–1993
Succeeded by
Frank N. Newman
Preceded by
Frederic Mishkin
Member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors
2012–present
Incumbent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_H._Powell

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 982, October 12, 2017, Story 1: President Trump Signs Executive Order Promoting Competition in Health Insurance Market With Association and Temporary Health Insurance Plans — Ends Health Care Subsidies To Insurance Companies Never Approved By Congress — Video — Story 2: President Trump Nominates New Secretary of Homeland Security Nominee Kirstjen Nielsen — Videos — Story 3: Will Trump’s Promised Middle Class Tax Cut Become Law? — Tax Cut Yes — Fundamental Tax Reform No — Videos

Posted on October 12, 2017. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, College, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Elections, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, History, House of Representatives, Human, Independence, Insurance, Investments, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Life, Media, Medicare, Mike Pence, Monetary Policy, Networking, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Senate, Social Networking, Social Security, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 982, October 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 981, October 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

Image result for trump signs executive order promoting competition in health insurance market 12 October 2017Image result for trump names new homeland security secretary appointment october 12, 2017

Image result for  cartoons fair tax and trumpImage result for trump speech in harrisburg pa on taxes

Image result for fairtaxImage result for cartoons on trump tax framework

Image result for cartoons on trump tax framework

Image result for cartoons on trump tax framework

Image result for branco cartoons fair tax and trump

Image result for branco cartoons fair tax and trump

 

 

Story 1: President Trump Signs Executive Order Promoting Competition in Health Insurance Market With Association and Temporary Health Insurance Plans — Ends Health Care Subsidies To Insurance Companies Never Approved By Congress — Video —

Sen. Rand Paul Discusses Association Health Plans and Lowering Taxes – Oct. 12, 2017

Sen. Rand Paul Criticized Obama for Executive Orders. #SenRandPaul #Obama #JakeTapper

President Trump Signs an Executive Order to Promote Healthcare Choice and Competition

Sen. Rand Paul on Trump’s Health Order, Tax Reform

Senator Paul Joins President Trump in Signing of Executive Order

ALERT: Trump Issues Major “Healthcare” Announcement, No One Saw This Coming

Sen. Rand Paul Criticized Obama for Executive Orders. #SenRandPaul #Obama #JakeTapper

 

What Is an ERISA Health Insurance Plan? : Health Insurance & More

Selling Insurance Across State Lines – ACA’s Impact | HealthWatch Wisconsin & ABC for Health

Health Insurance Across State Lines

BREAKING: Trump Humiliates Congress With Jaw-Dropping Order

Rand Paul: Trump Will Kill Obamacare With Executive Actions

Executive Powers & Limitations | Principles of the Constitution

History Of Executive Orders – TheBlaze

Executive Orders from Hell! Why would an American President ever do this?

Are Executive Orders Constitutional?

Presidential Powers 2: Crash Course Government and Politics #12

Shadegg Discusses Buying Insurance Across State Lines with Neil Cavuto

Should companies sell across state lines?

Foiled in Congress, Trump Signs Order to Undermine Obamacare

President Trump signed an executive order on Thursday that clears the way for potentially sweeping changes to the country’s health insurance system, including sales of cheaper policies with fewer benefits and protections for consumers than those mandated under the Affordable Care Act.

The president’s plan, an 1,100-word directive to federal agencies, laid the groundwork for an expanding array of health insurance products, mainly less comprehensive plans offered through associations of small employers and greater use of short-term medical coverage.

It was the first time since efforts to repeal the landmark health law collapsed in Congress that Mr. Trump has set forth his vision of how to remake the nation’s health care system using the powers of the executive branch. It immediately touched off a furious debate over whether the move would fatally destabilize the Affordable Care Act marketplaces or add welcome options to consumers complaining of high premiums and not enough choice.

In Congress, the move seemed to intensify the polarization over health care. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said the president was offering “more affordable health insurance options” desperately needed by consumers. But the Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, said Mr. Trump was “using a wrecking ball to single-handedly rip apart our health care system.”

Most of the changes will not occur until federal agencies write and adopt regulations implementing them. The process, which includes a period for public comments, could take months. That means the order will probably not affect insurance coverage next year, but could lead to major changes in 2019.

“With these actions,” Mr. Trump said at a White House ceremony, “we are moving toward lower costs and more options in the health care market, and taking crucial steps toward saving the American people from the nightmare of Obamacare.”

“This is going to be something that millions and millions of people will be signing up for,” the president predicted, “and they’re going to be very happy.’’

But many patients, doctors, hospital executives and state insurance regulators were not so happy. They said the changes envisioned by Mr. Trump could raise costs for sick people, increase sales of bare-bones insurance and add uncertainty to wobbly health insurance markets.

“Today’s executive order could leave millions of cancer patients and survivors unable to access meaningful coverage,’’ said Chris Hansen, the president of the lobbying arm of the American Cancer Society.

GRAPHIC

We’re Tracking the Ways Trump Is Scaling Back Obamacare. Here Are 11.

What the administration has done to weaken the health law.

In a statement from six physician groups, including the American Academy of Family Physicians, the doctors predicted, “Allowing insurers to sell narrow, low-cost health plans likely will cause significant economic harm to women and older, sicker Americans who stand to face higher-cost and fewer insurance options.”

While many health insurers remained silent about the executive order, some voiced concern that it could destabilize the market.

The Trump proposal “would draw younger and healthier people away from the exchanges and drive additional plans out of the market,” warned Ceci Connolly, the chief executive of the Alliance of Community Health Plans. “In turn, premiums would continue to increase, threatening the security of affordable coverage for millions of working families.”

The Affordable Care Act has expanded private insurance to millions of people through the creation of marketplaces, also known as exchanges, where people can purchase plans, in many cases using government subsidies to offset the cost. It also required that plans offered on the exchanges include a specific set of benefits, including hospital care, maternity care and mental health services, and it prohibited insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions.

The order’s quickest impact on the marketplaces would be the potential expansion of short-term plans, which are exempt from Affordable Care Act requirements. The Obama administration limited the length of time people could enroll in such plans because companies were marketing them to healthy customers and luring people away from Affordable Care Act marketplaces, said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University. She predicted companies would seize the opportunity to resume sale of such policies, which are much less expensive than A.C.A. plans. “There are companies that are poised to aggressively market this stuff,” she said.

Many health policy experts worry that if large numbers of healthy people move into such plans, it would drive up premiums for those left in Affordable Care Act plans because the risk pool would have sicker people.

“If the short-term plans are able to siphon off the healthiest people, then the more highly regulated marketplaces may not be sustainable,” said Larry Levitt, a senior vice president for the Kaiser Family Foundation. “These plans follow no rules.”

Short-term policies could be useful to people in counties where only one insurer is offering plans in the Affordable Care Act marketplace, according to a White House document.

But short-term policies can also limit benefits and charge higher premiums to people who have expensive medical conditions, a type of discrimination banned in policies regulated under the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Trump’s order would also eventually make it easier for small businesses to band together and buy insurance through entities known as association health plans, which could be created by business and professional groups. A White House official said these health plans “could potentially allow American employers to form groups across state lines” — a goal championed by Mr. Trump and many other Republicans — allowing more options and the formation of larger risk pools.

“This could turn back the clock three decades on small business insurance,” Mr. Levitt said. Without the oversight by states, “this could create an unregulated and risky market that we haven’t seen for decades,’ he said.

The order won applause from potential sponsors of association health plans, including the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Restaurant Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Associated Builders and Contractors, a trade group for the construction industry.

The White House released a document saying that some consumer protections would remain in place for association plans. “Employers participating in an association health plan cannot exclude any employee from joining the plan and cannot develop premiums based on health conditions” of individual employees, according to the document.

But state officials pointed out that an association health plan can set different rates for different employers, so that a company with older, sicker workers might have to pay much more than a firm with young, healthy employees.

“Two employers in an association can be charged very different rates, based on the medical claims filed by their employees,” said Mike Kreidler, the state insurance commissioner in Washington.

Mr. Trump’s order followed the pattern of previous policy shifts that originated with similar directives to agencies to come up with new rules. Within hours of his inauguration in January, he ordered federal agencies to find ways to waive or defer provisions of the Affordable Care Act that might burden consumers, insurers or health care providers. In May, he directed officials to help employers with religious objections to the federal mandate for insurance coverage of contraception.

Both of those orders were followed up with specific, substantive regulations that rolled back policies of President Barack Obama.

In battles over the Affordable Care Act this year, Mr. Trump and Senate Republicans said they wanted to give state officials vast new power to regulate insurance because state officials were wiser than federal officials and better understood local needs. But under the order, the federal government could pre-empt many state insurance rules, a prospect that alarms state insurance regulators.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, representing state officials, has long opposed association health plans because they could be largely exempt from state regulation. Ted Nickel, the president of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, who is also the top insurance regulator in Wisconsin, said the proliferation of association health plans could further destabilize “already fragile markets.’’

Another part of Mr. Trump’s order indicates that he may wish to crack down on the consolidation of doctors, hospitals and other health care providers, a trend that critics say has driven up costs for consumers. Mr. Trump said that administration officials, working with the Federal Trade Commission, should report to him within 180 days on federal and state policies that limit competition and choice in the health care industry.

Trump’s Association Health Plans Are An Old Idea That Hasn’t Worked

I write about healthcare business and policy  Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

President Donald Trump issued an executive order on health care Thursday that he said was designed to spur competition in the individual insurance market, but the main component of it has been tried before and hasn’t worked out well for small business or consumers.

Trump Thursday directed his cabinet to ease rules to allow small employers to band together through trade groups to create “Association Health Plans” that could form across state lines to offer coverage while attracting more competition among insurers.

President Donald Trump signs an executive order Thursday “to promote healthcare choice and competition.” (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

“They will have so many options,” Trump said Thursday morning at a signing ceremony for the executive order. “This will cost the U.S. government virtually nothing.”

But those who have studied insurance sales across state lines and past efforts dating to the 1980sof small groups to band together to compete with health plans say they haven’t worked. And when association health plans offering skimpier benefits have operated in the past, consumers have suffered and established insurers have stayed away from offering bare-bones policies as analysts expect they will do this time.

“AHPs do have a poor track record, both in terms of insolvency and also, unfortunately, of fraud,” Sabrina Corlette , professor with the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University who is also the consumer representative to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners said Thursday.

Trump said Thursday these new plans will draw “millions” of consumers to lower rates and policies free of “Obamacare” rules and regulations under the Affordable Care Act.

“The health insurance sold via the AHP could become exempt from consumer protections such as the essential health benefits standard and the prohibition on charging higher premiums to people with preexisting conditions,” Corlette and colleague Kevin Lucia wrote for The Commonwealth Fund. “The result would be increased risk for higher premiums and fewer plan options on the individual market, as well as fraud and insolvency.”

Even if AHPs have fewer rules to abide by than health insurers that sell on public exchanges under the ACA, the plans will still have to be well capitalized to pay doctors and hospitals and pool premiums to pay insurance claims. That requires a lot of money to establish health plan networks.

A key reason insurers like Aetna, Humana and UnitedHealth Group left the ACA’s public exchanges is due to lack of customers and disinterest in creating larger networks, particularly in rural areas where they haven’t historically operated. Rural areas have been largely dominated by Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans, which are continuing to participate on the ACA’s public exchanges.

Health insurance companies in some states can already sell health coverage across state lines, but it hasn’t worked in large part because plans haven’t wanted to spend the money contracting with more doctors and hospitals in areas they have no enrollees. Six states have enacted laws allowing health plan sales across state lines and “no state was known to actually offer or sell such policies,” National Conference of State Legislatures said in a new report last week.

The health insurance industry issued a statement after Trump’s executive order that was far from an endorsement, saying plans needed to further evaluate its impact. But insurers don’t appear interested in eliminating consumer protections and the trend toward health plan networks that measure quality and health outcomes.

“Health plans remain committed to certain principles,” America’s Health Insurance Plans, which represents Anthem, Centene and several Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies, said. “We believe that reforms must stabilize the individual market for lower costs, higher consumer satisfaction, and better health outcomes for everyone. And we believe that we cannot jeopardize the stability of other markets that provide coverage for hundreds of millions of Americans.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2017/10/12/trumps-association-health-plans-are-an-old-idea-that-hasnt-worked/#695e56562748

President Trump signed an executive order on health care in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Thursday. CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Trump will scrap subsidies to health insurance companies that help pay out-of-pocket costs of low-income people, the White House said late Thursday. His plans were disclosed hours after the president ordered potentially sweeping changes in the nation’s insurance system, including sales of cheaper policies with fewer benefits and fewer protections for consumers.

The twin hits to the Affordable Care Act could unravel President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement, sending insurance premiums soaring and insurance companies fleeing from the health law’s online marketplaces. After Republicans failed to repeal the health law in Congress, Mr. Trump appears determined to dismantle it on his own.

Without the subsidies, insurance markets could quickly unravel. Insurers have said they will need much higher premiums and may pull out of the insurance exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act if the subsidies were cut off. Known as cost-sharing reduction payments, the subsidies were expected to total $9 billion in the coming year and nearly $100 billion in the coming decade.

“The government cannot lawfully make the cost-sharing reduction payments,” the White House said in a statement.

It concluded that “Congress needs to repeal and replace the disastrous Obamacare law and provide real relief to the American people.”

In a joint statement, the top Democrats in Congress, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, said Mr. Trump had “apparently decided to punish the American people for his inability to improve our health care system.”

“It is a spiteful act of vast, pointless sabotage leveled at working families and the middle class in every corner of America,” they said. “Make no mistake about it, Trump will try to blame the Affordable Care Act, but this will fall on his back and he will pay the price for it.”

Lawmakers from both parties have urged the president to continue the payments. Mr. Trump had raised the possibility of eliminating the subsidies at a White House meeting with Republican senators several months ago. At the time, one senator told him that the Republican Party would effectively “own health care” as a political issue if the president did so.

“Cutting health care subsidies will mean more uninsured in my district,” Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican of Florida, wrote on Twitter late Thursday. She added that Mr. Trump “promised more access, affordable coverage. This does opposite.”

But Speaker Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, praised Mr. Trump’s decision and said the Obama administration had usurped the authority of Congress by paying the subsidies. “Under our Constitution,” Mr. Ryan said, “the power of the purse belongs to Congress, not the executive branch.”

The future of the payments has been in doubt because of a lawsuit filed in 2014 by House Republicans, who said the Obama administration was paying the subsidies illegally. Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the United States District Court in Washington agreed, finding that Congress had never appropriated money for the cost-sharing subsidies.

The Obama administration appealed the ruling. The Trump administration has continued the payments from month to month, even though Mr. Trump has made clear that he detests the payments and sees them as a bailout for insurance companies.

This summer, a group of states, including New York and California, was allowed to intervene in the court case over the subsidies. The New York attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, said on Thursday night that the coalition of states “stands ready to sue” if Mr. Trump cut off the subsidies.

GRAPHIC

We’re Tracking the Ways Trump Is Scaling Back Obamacare. Here Are 12.

What the administration has done to weaken the health law.

Mr. Trump’s decision to stop the subsidy payments puts pressure on Congress to provide money for them in a spending bill.

Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the Senate health committee, and Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the senior Democrat on the panel, have been trying to work out a bipartisan deal that would continue the subsidy payments while making it easier for states to obtain waivers from some requirements of the Affordable Care Act. White House officials have sent mixed signals about whether Mr. Trump was open to such a deal.

The decision to end subsidies came on the heels of Mr. Trump’s executive order, which he signed earlier Thursday.

With an 1,100-word directive to federal agencies, the president laid the groundwork for an expanding array of health insurance products, mainly less comprehensive plans offered through associations of small employers and greater use of short-term medical coverage.

It was the first time since efforts to repeal the landmark health law collapsed in Congress that Mr. Trump has set forth his vision of how to remake the nation’s health care system using the powers of the executive branch. It immediately touched off a debate over whether the move would fatally destabilize the Affordable Care Act marketplaces or add welcome options to consumers complaining of high premiums and not enough choice.

Most of the changes will not occur until federal agencies write and adopt regulations implementing them. The process, which includes a period for public comments, could take months. That means the order will probably not affect insurance coverage next year, but could lead to major changes in 2019.

“With these actions,” Mr. Trump said at a White House ceremony, “we are moving toward lower costs and more options in the health care market, and taking crucial steps toward saving the American people from the nightmare of Obamacare.”

“This is going to be something that millions and millions of people will be signing up for,” the president predicted, “and they’re going to be very happy.”

But many patients, doctors, hospital executives and state insurance regulators were not so happy. They said the changes envisioned by Mr. Trump could raise costs for sick people, increase sales of bare-bones insurance and add uncertainty to wobbly health insurance markets.

Chris Hansen, the president of the lobbying arm of the American Cancer Society, said the order “could leave millions of cancer patients and survivors unable to access meaningful coverage.”

In a statement from six physician groups, including the American Academy of Family Physicians, the doctors predicted that “allowing insurers to sell narrow, low-cost health plans likely will cause significant economic harm to women and older, sicker Americans who stand to face higher-cost and fewer insurance options.”

While many health insurers remained silent about the executive order, some voiced concern that it could destabilize the market. The Trump proposal “would draw younger and healthier people away from the exchanges and drive additional plans out of the market,” warned Ceci Connolly, the chief executive of the Alliance of Community Health Plans.

Administration officials said they had not yet decided which federal and state rules would apply to the new products. Without changing the law, they said, they can rewrite federal regulations so that more health plans would be exempt from some of its requirements.

The Affordable Care Act has expanded private insurance to millions of people through the creation of marketplaces, also known as exchanges, where people can purchase plans, in many cases using government subsidies to offset the cost. It also required that plans offered on the exchanges include a specific set of benefits, including hospital care, maternity care and mental health services, and it prohibited insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions.

The executive order’s quickest effect on the marketplaces would be the potential expansion of short-term plans, which are exempt from Affordable Care Act requirements. Many health policy experts worry that if large numbers of healthy people move into such plans, it would drive up premiums for those left in Affordable Care Act plans because the risk pool would have sicker people.

“If the short-term plans are able to siphon off the healthiest people, then the more highly regulated marketplaces may not be sustainable,” said Larry Levitt, a senior vice president for the Kaiser Family Foundation. “These plans follow no rules.”

Mr. Trump’s order would also eventually make it easier for small businesses to band together and buy insurance through entities known as association health plans, which could be created by business and professional groups. A White House official said these health plans “could potentially allow American employers to form groups across state lines” — a goal championed by Mr. Trump and many other Republicans — allowing more options and the formation of larger risk pools.

Association plans have a troubled history. Because the plans were not subject to state regulations that required insurers to have adequate financial resources, some became insolvent, leaving people with unpaid medical bills. Some insurers were accused of fraud, telling customers that the plans were more comprehensive than they were and leaving them uncovered when consumers became seriously ill.

The White House said that a broader interpretation of federal law — the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 — “could potentially allow employers in the same line of business anywhere in the country to join together to offer health care coverage to their employees.”

The order won applause from potential sponsors of association health plans, including the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Restaurant Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Associated Builders and Contractors, a trade group for the construction industry.

The White House released a document saying that some consumer protections would remain in place for association plans. “Employers participating in an association health plan cannot exclude any employee from joining the plan and cannot develop premiums based on health conditions” of individual employees, according to the document. But state officials pointed out that an association health plan can set different rates for different employers, so that a company with older, sicker workers might have to pay much more than a firm with young, healthy employees.

“Two employers in an association can be charged very different rates, based on the medical claims filed by their employees,” said Mike Kreidler, the state insurance commissioner in Washington.

Mr. Trump’s order followed the pattern of previous policy shifts that originated with similar directives to agencies to come up with new rules.

Within hours of his inauguration in January, he ordered federal agencies to find ways to waive or defer provisions of the Affordable Care Act that might burden consumers, insurers or health care providers. In May, he directed officials to help employers with religious objections to the federal mandate for insurance coverage of contraception.

Both of those orders were followed up with specific, substantive regulations that rolled back Mr. Obama’s policies.

3350COMMENTS

In battles over the Affordable Care Act this year, Mr. Trump and Senate Republicans said they wanted to give state officials vast new power to regulate insurance because state officials were wiser than federal officials and better understood local needs. But under Thursday’s order, the federal government could pre-empt many state insurance rules, a prospect that alarms state insurance regulators.

Another part of Mr. Trump’s order indicates that he may wish to crack down on the consolidation of doctors, hospitals and other health care providers, a trend that critics say has driven up costs for consumers. Mr. Trump said that administration officials, working with the Federal Trade Commission, should report to him within 180 days on federal and state policies that limit competition and choice in the health care industry.

Executive order (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Executive Orders are presidential directives issued by United States Presidents and are generally directed towards officers and agencies of the U.S. federal government. Executive orders may have the force of law, if based on the authority derived from statute or the Constitution itself. The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).[1]

Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review and may be overturned if the orders lack support by statute or the Constitution.[2] Major policy initiatives require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging wars, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.

Basis in the United States Constitution

The United States Constitution does not have a provision that explicitly permits the use of executive orders. The term executive power in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution is not entirely clear. The term is mentioned as direction to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” and is part of Article II, Section 3. The consequence of failing to comply could possibly be removal from office.[3][4]

The U.S. Supreme Court has held[5] that all executive orders from the President of the United States must be supported by the Constitution, whether from a clause granting specific power, or by Congress delegating such to the executive branch.[6] Specifically, such orders must be rooted in Article II of the US Constitution or enacted by the congress in statutes. Attempts to block such orders have been successful at times when such orders exceeded the authority of the president or could be better handled through legislation.[7]

The Office of the Federal Register is responsible for assigning the executive order a sequential number after receipt of the signed original from the White House and printing the text of the executive order in the daily Federal Register and Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations.[8]

History and use

With the exception of William Henry Harrison, all presidents beginning with George Washington in 1789 have issued orders that in general terms can be described as executive orders. Initially they took no set form. Consequently, such orders varied as to form and substance.[9]

The first executive order was issued by George Washington on June 8, 1789, addressed to the heads of the federal departments, instructing them “to impress me with a full, precise, and distinct general idea of the affairs of the United States” in their fields.[10]

The most famous executive order was by President Abraham Lincoln when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. Political scientist Brian R. Dirck states:

The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order, itself a rather unusual thing in those days. Executive orders are simply presidential directives issued to agents of the executive department by its boss.[11]

Until the early 1900s, executive orders went mostly unannounced and undocumented, seen only by the agencies to which they were directed. This changed when the Department of State instituted a numbering scheme in 1907, starting retroactively with United States Executive Order 1 issued on October 20, 1862, by President Abraham Lincoln.[12] The documents that later came to be known as “executive orders” apparently gained their name from this order issued by Lincoln, which was captioned “Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana”.[13] This court functioned during the military occupation of Louisiana during the American Civil War, and Lincoln also used Executive Order 1 to appoint Charles A. Peabody as judge, and to designate the salaries of the court’s officers.[12]

President Truman’s Executive Order 10340 in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) placed all steel mills in the country under federal control. This was found invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders. Likewise, when presidents believe their authority for issuing an executive order stems from within the powers outlined in the Constitution, the order will simply proclaim “under the authority vested in me by the Constitution” instead.

Wars have been fought upon executive order, including the 1999 Kosovo War during Bill Clinton‘s second term in office. However, all such wars have had authorizing resolutions from Congress. The extent to which the president may exercise military power independently of Congress and the scope of the War Powers Resolution remain unresolved constitutional issues, although all presidents since its passage have complied with the terms of the resolution while maintaining that they are not constitutionally required to do so.

President Truman issued 907 executive orders, with 1,081 orders by Theodore Roosevelt, 1,203 orders by Calvin Coolidge, and 1,803 orders by Woodrow Wilson. Franklin D. Roosevelt has the distinction of making a record 3,522 executive orders.

Franklin Roosevelt

Prior to 1932, uncontested executive orders had determined such issues as national mourning on the death of a president, and the lowering of flags to half-staff. President Franklin Roosevelt issued the first of his 3,522 executive orders on March 6, 1933, declaring a bank holiday, forbidding banks to release gold coin or bullionExecutive Order 6102 forbade the hoarding of gold coin, bullion and gold certificates. A further executive order required all newly mined domestic gold be delivered to the Treasury.[14]

By Executive Order 6581, the president created the Export-Import Bank of the United States. On March 7, 1934, he created the National Industrial Recovery Act (Executive Order 6632). On June 29, the president issued Executive Order 6763 “under the authority vested in me by the Constitution”, thereby creating the National Labor Relations Board.

In 1934, while Charles Evans Hughes was Chief Justice of the United States (in the time period known as the Hughes Court), the Court found that the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) was unconstitutional. The president then issued Executive Order 7073 “by virtue of the authority vested in me under the said Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935“, reestablishing the National Emergency Council to administer the functions of the NIRA in carrying out the provisions of the Emergency Relief Appropriations Act. On June 15, he issued Executive Order 7075, which terminated NIRA and replaced it with the Office of Administration of the National Recovery Administration.[15]

In the years that followed, President Roosevelt replaced the outgoing judges with those more in line with his views, ultimately appointing Hugo BlackStanley ReedFelix FrankfurterWilliam O. DouglasFrank MurphyRobert H. Jackson and James F. Byrnes to the Court. Historically, only George Washington had equal or greater influence over Supreme Court appointments, choosing all of its original members. Justices Frankfurter, Douglas, Black, and Jackson dramatically checked presidential power by invalidating the executive order at issue in The Steel Seizure Case (i.e., Executive Order 10340). In that case Roosevelt’s successor, President Truman, had ordered private steel production facilities seized in support of the Korean War effort, but the Court held the executive order was not within the power granted to the President by the Constitution.

Table of Presidents using Executive Orders

President Number
issued [14]
Starting with
E.O. number [14]
George Washington 8 n/a
John Adams 1 n/a
Thomas Jefferson 4 n/a
James Madison 1 n/a
James Monroe 1 n/a
John Quincy Adams 3 n/a
Andrew Jackson 12 n/a
Martin van Buren 10 n/a
William Henry Harrison 0 n/a
John Tyler 17 n/a
James K. Polk 18 n/a
Zachary Taylor 5 n/a
Millard Fillmore 12 n/a
Franklin Pierce 35 n/a
James Buchanan 16 n/a
Abraham Lincoln 48 1
Andrew Johnson 79
Ulysses S. Grant 217
Rutherford B. Hayes 92
James Garfield 6
Chester Arthur 96
Grover Cleveland (first term) 113
Benjamin Harrison 143
Grover Cleveland (second term) 140
William McKinley 185
Theodore Roosevelt 1,081
William Howard Taft 724
Woodrow Wilson 1,803
Warren G. Harding 522
Calvin Coolidge 1,203
Herbert Hoover 968 5075
Franklin D. Roosevelt (~3.05 terms) 3,522 6071
Harry S. Truman 907 9538
Dwight D. Eisenhower 484 10432
John F. Kennedy 214 10914
Lyndon B. Johnson 325 11128
Richard Nixon 346 11452
Gerald R. Ford 169 11798
Jimmy Carter 320 11967
Ronald Reagan 381 12287
George H. W. Bush 166 12668
Bill Clinton[16] 308 12834
George W. Bush[16] 291 13198
Barack Obama[16] 276 13489
Donald Trump (as of September 29, 2017) [16][17] 49 13765

Reaction

Large policy changes with wide-ranging effects have been implemented through executive order, including the racial integration of the armed forces under Harry Truman and the desegregation of public schools under Dwight D. Eisenhower[citation needed].

Two extreme examples of an executive order are Franklin Roosevelt’s Executive Order 6102 “forbidding the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States” and Executive Order 9066, which delegated military authority to remove any or all people in a military zone (used to target Japanese-Americans and German-Americans in certain regions). The order was then delegated to GeneralJohn L. DeWitt, and subsequently paved the way for all Japanese-Americans on the West Coast to be sent to internment camps for the duration of World War II.

President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13233 in 2001, which restricted public access to the papers of former presidents. The order was criticized by the Society of American Archivists and other groups, who stated that it “violates both the spirit and letter of existing U.S. law on access to presidential papers as clearly laid down in 44 USC 2201–07″, and adding that the order “potentially threatens to undermine one of the very foundations of our nation”. President Barack Obama revoked Executive Order 13233 in January 2009.[18]

The Heritage Foundation has accused presidents of abusing executive orders by using them to make laws without Congressional approval and moving existing laws away from their original mandates.[19]

Legal conflicts

In 1935, the Supreme Court overturned five of President Franklin Roosevelt’s executive orders (6199, 6204, 6256, 6284, 6855). Executive Order 12954, issued by President Bill Clinton in 1995, attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll; a federal appeals court subsequently ruled that the order conflicted with the National Labor Relations Act, and invalidated the order.[20][21]

Congress has the power to overturn an executive order by passing legislation that invalidates it. Congress can also refuse to provide funding necessary to carry out certain policy measures contained with the order or to legitimize policy mechanisms. In the case of the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event, due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers vulnerable to political criticism.[22]

On July 30, 2014, the Republican-led House of Representatives approved a resolution authorizing Speaker of the HouseJohn Boehner to sue President Barack Obama over claims that he exceeded his executive authority in changing a key provision of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) on his own[23] and over what Republicans claimed had been “inadequate enforcement of the health care law”, which Republican lawmakers opposed. In particular, Republicans “objected that the Obama administration delayed some parts of the law, particularly the mandate on employers who do not provide health care coverage”.[24] The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on November 21, 2014.[25]

Part of President Donald Trump’s executive order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, which temporarily banned entry to the US from citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, including for permanent residents, was stayed by a federal court on January 28, 2017.[26]

State governors’ executive orders

Executive orders issued by state governors are not the same as statutes passed by state legislatures, but do have the force of law in a similar way to the federal system. State executive orders are usually based on existing constitutional or statutory powers of the governor and do not require any action by the state legislature to take effect.

Executive orders may, for example, demand budget cuts from state government when the state legislature is not in session, and economic conditions take a downturn, thereby decreasing tax revenue below what was forecast when the budget was approved. Depending on the state constitution, a governor may specify what percentage each government agency must reduce by, and may exempt those that are already particularly underfunded, or cannot put long-term expenses (such as capital expenditures) off until a later fiscal year. The governor may also call the legislature into special session.

There are also other uses for gubernatorial executive orders. In 2007, for example, George “Sonny” Perdue, governor of Georgia, issued an executive order for all of its state agencies to reduce water use during a major drought. This was also demanded of its counties‘ water systems, however it is unclear whether this order would have the force of law.

Presidential proclamation

According to political expert Phillip J. Cooper, a presidential proclamation “states a condition, declares a law and requires obedience, recognizes an event or triggers the implementation of a law (by recognizing that the circumstances in law have been realized)”.[27]Presidents define situations or conditions on situations that become legal or economic truth. These orders carry the same force of law as executive orders—the difference between the two is that executive orders are aimed at those inside government while proclamations are aimed at those outside government.

The administrative weight of these proclamations is upheld because they are often specifically authorized by congressional statute, making them “delegated unilateral powers.” Presidential proclamations are often dismissed as a practical presidential tool for policy making because of the perception of proclamations as largely ceremonial or symbolic in nature. However, the legal weight of presidential proclamations suggests their importance to presidential governance.[28]

See also

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States)

Powers of the President of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The President of the United States has numerous powers, including those explicitly granted by Article II of the United States Constitution.

The Constitution explicitly assigned the president the power to sign or veto legislation, command the armed forces, ask for the written opinion of their Cabinet, convene or adjourn Congress, grant reprieves and pardons, and receive ambassadors. The president may make treaties which need to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The president may also appoint Article III judges and some officers with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. In the condition of a Senate recess, the president may make a temporary appointment.

Executive powers

Within the executive branch itself, the president has broad powers to manage national affairs and the priorities of the government. The president can issue rules, regulations, and instructions called executive orders, which have the binding force of law upon federal agencies but do not require approval of the United States Congress. Executive orders are subject to judicial review and interpretation.

The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 put additional responsibilities on the presidency for the preparation of the United States federal budget, although Congress was required to approve it.[1] The act required the Office of Management and Budget to assist the president with the preparation of the budget. Previous presidents had the privilege of impounding funds as they saw fit, however the United States Supreme Court revoked the privilege in 1998 as a violation of the Presentment Clause. The power was available to all presidents and was regarded as a power inherent to the office. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed in response to large-scale power exercises by President Nixon. The act also created the Congressional Budget Office as a legislative counterpoint to the Office of Management and Budget.

The president, as the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, may also call into federal service individual state units of the National Guard. In times of war or national emergency, the Congress may grant the president broader powers to manage the national economy and protect the security of the United States, but these powers were not expressly granted by the United States Constitution.[2] During the Vietnam War, in 1973, Congress expeditiously passed the War Powers Act and severely limited the ability of the President to conduct warfare without Congressional approval. Congress was constitutionally provided the power to declare the war,[3] but if the president needed to send the troops to other countries for emergency reasons, approved statutes required the notification of Congress within forty-eight hours. For any time beyond sixty days, further congressional approval was required.

Powers related to legislation

The president has several options when presented with a bill from Congress. If the president agrees with the bill, he can sign it into law within ten days of receipt. If the president opposes the bill, he can veto it and return the bill to Congress with a veto message suggesting changes unless the Congress is out of session then the president may rely on a pocket veto.

Presidents are required to approve all of a bill or none of it; selective vetoes have been prohibited. In 1996, Congress gave President Bill Clinton a line-item veto over parts of a bill that required spending federal funds. The Supreme Court, in Clinton v. New York City, found Clinton’s veto of pork-barrel appropriations for New York City to be unconstitutional because only a constitutional amendment could give the president line-item veto power.[4]

When a bill is presented for signature, the president may also issue a signing statement with expressions of their opinion on the constitutionality of a bill’s provisions. The president may even declare them unenforceable but the Supreme Court has yet to address this issue.[5]

Congress may override vetoes with a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. The process has traditionally been difficult and relatively rare. The threat of a presidential veto has usually provided sufficient pressure for Congress to modify a bill so the President would be willing to sign it.

Much of the legislation dealt with by Congress is drafted at the initiative of the executive branch.[6] The president may personally propose legislation in annual and special messages to Congress including the annual State of the Union address and joint sessions of Congress. If Congress has adjourned without acting on proposals, the president may call a special session of the Congress.

Beyond these official powers, the U.S. president, as a leader of his political party and the United States government, holds great sway over public opinion whereby they may influence legislation.

To improve the working relationship with Congress, presidents in recent years have set up an Office of Legislative Affairs. Presidential aides have kept abreast of all important legislative activities.

Powers of appointment

The President of the United States has several different appointment powers.

Before taking office, the president-elect must appoint more than 6,000 new federal positions.[7] The appointments range from top officials at U.S. government agencies, to the White House Staff, and members of the United States diplomatic corps. Many, but not all, of these positions at the highest levels are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the United States Senate.[8]

The president also nominates persons to fill federal judicial vacancies, including federal judges, such as members of the United States Courts of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. These nominations require Senate confirmation, and this can provide a major stumbling block for presidents who wish to shape the federal judiciary in a particular ideological stance.

As head of the executive branch, the president appoints the top officials for all federal agencies. These positions are listed in the Plum Book which outlines more than seven thousand appointive positions in the government. Many of these appointments are made by the president. In the case of ten agencies, the president is free to appoint a new agency head. For example, it is not unusual for the CIA‘s Director or NASA‘s Administrator to be changed by the president. Other agencies that deal with federal regulation such as the Federal Reserve Board or the Securities and Exchange Commission have set terms that will often outlast presidential terms. For example, governors of the Federal Reserve serve for fourteen years to ensure agency independence. The president also appoints members to the boards of directors for government-owned corporations such as Amtrak. The president can also make a recess appointment if a position needs to be filled while Congress is not in session.[9]

In the past, presidents could appoint members of the United States civil service. This use of the spoils system allowed presidents to reward political supporters with jobs. Following the assassination of President James Garfield by Charles J. Guiteau, a disgruntled office seeker, Congress instituted a merit-based civil service in which positions are filled on a nonpartisan basis.[10] The Office of Personnel Management now oversees the staffing of 2.8 million federal jobs in the federal bureaucracy.

The president must also appoint his staff of aides, advisers, and assistants. These individuals are political appointments and are not subject to review by the Senate. All members of the staff serve “at the pleasure of the President“.[11][12] Since 1995, the president has been required to submit an annual report to Congress listing the name and salary of every employee of the White House Office. The 2011 report listed 454 employees.[13]

Executive clemency

Article II of the United States Constitution gives the president the power of clemency. The two most commonly used clemency powers are those of pardon and commutation. A pardon is an official forgiveness for an acknowledged crime. Once a pardon is issued, all punishment for the crime is waived. The person accepting the pardon must, however, acknowledge that the crime did take place.[14] The president can only grant pardons for federal offences.[15] The president maintains the Office of the Pardon Attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice to review all requests for pardons. The president can also commute a sentence which, in effect, changes the punishment to time served. While the guilty party may be released from custody or not have to serve out a prison term, all other punishments still apply.

Most pardons are issued as oversight of the judicial branch, especially in cases where the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are considered too severe. This power can check the legislative and judicial branches by altering punishment for crimes. Presidents can issue blanket amnesty to forgive entire groups of people. For example, President Jimmy Carter granted amnesty to Vietnam draft dodgers who had fled to Canada. Presidents can also issue temporary suspensions of prosecution or punishment in the form of respites. This power is most commonly used to delay federal sentences of execution.

Pardons can be controversial when they appear to be politically motivated. President George W. Bush commuted the sentence of White House staffer Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

Foreign affairs

Under the Constitution, the president is the federal official that is primarily responsible for the relations of the United States with foreign nations. The president appoints ambassadors, ministers, and consuls (subject to confirmation by the Senate) and receives foreign ambassadors and other public officials.[2] With the Secretary of State, the president manages all official contacts with foreign governments.

On occasion, the president may personally participate in summit conferences where heads of state meet for direct consultation.[16] For example, President Wilson led the American delegation to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 after World War I; President Franklin D. Roosevelt met with Allied leaders during World War II; and every president sits down with world leaders to discuss economic and political issues and to reach agreements.

Through the Department of State and the Department of Defense, the president is responsible for the protection of Americans abroad and of foreign nationals in the United States. The president decides whether to recognize new nations and new governments,[17] and negotiate treaties with other nations, which become binding on the United States when approved by two-thirds of the Senate. The president may also negotiate executive agreements with foreign powers that are not subject to Senate confirmation.[18]

Emergency powers

The Constitution does not expressly grant the president additional powers in times of national emergency. However, many scholars think that the Framers implied these powers because the structural design of the Executive Branch enables it to act faster than the Legislative Branch. Because the Constitution remains silent on the issue, the courts cannot grant the Executive Branch these powers when it tries to wield them. The courts will only recognize a right of the Executive Branch to use emergency powers if Congress has granted such powers to the president.[19]

A claim of emergency powers was at the center of President Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus without Congressional approval in 1861. Lincoln claimed that the rebellion created an emergency that permitted him the extraordinary power of unilaterally suspending the writ. With Chief Justice Roger Taney sitting as judge, the Federal District Court of Maryland struck down the suspension in Ex Parte Merryman, although Lincoln ignored the order. [20]

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt similarly invoked emergency powers when he issued an order directing that all Japanese Americans residing on the West Coast be placed into internment camps during World War II. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this order in Korematsu v. United States[21]

Harry Truman declared the use of emergency powers when he nationalized private steel mills that failed to produce steel because of a labor strike in 1952.[22] With the Korean War ongoing, Truman asserted that he could not wage war successfully if the economy failed to provide him with the material resources necessary to keep the troops well-equipped.[23] The U.S. Supreme Court, however, refused to accept that argument in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, voting 6-3 that neither Commander in Chief powers nor any claimed emergency powers gave the president the authority to unilaterally seize private property without Congressional legislation. [24]

Executive privilege

Executive privilege gives the president the ability to withhold information from the public, Congress, and the courts in national security and diplomatic affairs.[25] George Washington first claimed privilege when Congress requested to see Chief Justice John Jay‘s notes from an unpopular treaty negotiation with Great Britain. While not enshrined in the Constitution, Washington’s action created the precedent for privilege. When Richard Nixon tried to use executive privilege as a reason for not turning over subpoenaed audio tapes to a special prosecutor in the Watergate scandal, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Nixon that privilege was not absolute. The Court reasoned that the judiciary’s interest in the “fair administration of criminal justice” outweighed President Nixon’s interest in keeping the evidence secret.[26] Later President Bill Clinton lost in federal court when he tried to assert privilege in the Lewinsky affair. The Supreme Court affirmed this in Clinton v. Jones, which denied the use of privilege in cases of civil suits.[27]

Constraints on presidential power

Because of the vast array of presidential roles and responsibilities, coupled with a conspicuous presence on the national and international scene, political analysts have tended to place great emphasis on the president’s powers. Some have even spoken of “the imperial presidency“, referring to the expanded role of the office that Franklin D. Roosevelt maintained during his term.

President Theodore Roosevelt famously called the presidency a “bully pulpit” from which to raise issues nationally, for when a president raises an issue, it inevitably becomes subject to public debate. A president’s power and influence may be limited, but politically the president is certainly the most important power in Washington and, furthermore, is one of the most famous and influential of all Americans.

Though constrained by various other laws passed by Congress, the president’s executive branch conducts most foreign policy, and their power to order and direct troops as commander-in-chief is quite significant (the exact limits of what a president’s military powers without Congressional authorization are open to debate).

The Separation of Powers devised by the founding fathers was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist. Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. The separation of powers provides a system of shared power known as “checks and balances”. For example, the President appoints judges and departmental secretaries, but these appointments must be approved by the Senate. The president can veto bills, or deny them. If he does that, the bill is sent back to Congress.

See also

References

 

Story 3: Will Trump’s Promised Middle Class Tax Cut Become Law? — Tax Cut Yes — Fundamental Tax Reform No — Videos

President Trump Delivers Incredible Tax Speech In PA

President Trump’s Major Speech on Tax Reform in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 10/11/17

Trump vows largest tax cut in the history of this country

FULL President Trump Hannity Interview 10/11/17

Donald Trump: Simplify the Tax Code

Bill Gates: Don’t tax my income, tax my consumption

Wealth Inequality in America

The middle class is shrinking just about everywhere in America

There’s less middle in the middle class as income inequality grows, Pew analysis finds

The American dream is turned into poverty. Documentary 2017

 

FairTax

Freedom from the IRS! – FairTax Explained in Detail

Fair Tax Economics 2016 DO

Income Tax vs. Consumption Tax

Shattering The FairTax Evasion Myth (long version)

Pence on the Fair Tax

Sen. Moran Discusses FairTax Legislation on U.S. Senate Floor

How will the FairTax affect CPA’s and Accountants?

FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD)

FairTax Composite

 

Trump to trucking: Tax reform a boon for carriers, drivers and industry at large

By James Jaillet

 

Trump promises big tax cuts, but GOP-led Congress is already thinking about scaling back

President Trump promised the largest tax cut in history, but as he hit the road Wednesday to promote the plan, Republicans in Congress were quietly discussing scaling back key provisions in an effort to deliver the top White House priority.

There’s already talk that the cornerstone of the GOP proposal — a dramatically reduced 20% corporate tax rate that Trump has called a “red line” — may slip to 22% or 23%, those familiar with negotiations said.

Trump had originally promised a 15% rate for corporations. But Republicans are running into resistance from lawmakers and lobbyists who want to preserve deductions and loopholes that were targeted for elimination under the White House plan to offset the massive corporate cut from the current 35% rate.

Some Republicans are also pushing back against other parts of the president’s plan, such as scrapping the estate tax for the rich and eliminating deductions for state and local taxes, which would hurt residents in high-tax states like California and New York.

At an evening rally in Harrisburg, Pa., Trump said the corporate rate would be “no more than 20%.” But earlier this week, he acknowledged that changes may lie ahead. “We’ll be adjusting a little bit over the next few weeks to make it even stronger,” he said.

Negotiators say changes will be needed if Republicans, who can afford to lose only two votes in the Senate and about 20 in the House if no Democrats join in support, hope to avoid another embarrassing defeat like the collapse of their Obamacare repeal plan.

Fiscally conservative Republicans will be the hardest to win over because the GOP tax plan has been estimated by some outside groups to add more than $2 trillion to the deficit over 10 years.

Republicans are racing to pass their tax overhaul by the end of the year, hoping to give the economy a boost and quiet complaints that they have accomplished little with the party’s hold on the White House and Congress.

Yet even as Trump and top Republicans, including House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and Vice President Mike Pence, talk up the tax plan in whistle-stop tours across the nation, it remains in flux, more of a concept than a proposal. Actual legislation remains weeks away.

“Everything is fluid right now,” said one business lobbyist, granted anonymity to discuss the private talks, adding that there are “realistic tensions” over the details.

Republicans are finding that their desire for lowering corporate and individual rates is running into the fiscal challenge of how to pay for the reductions without exacerbating the nation’s debt load.

They argue that tax cuts, even if deficit-financed, will spur economic growth and provide new revenue. But many economists question that theory, saying it hasn’t worked that way in the past.

In addition, Republicans — in order to take advantage of special budget rules that will allow them to pass the tax plan in the Senate with a simple majority — must find ways to offset some of the costs.

Every percentage-point reduction in the corporate rate reduces federal tax revenue by about $100 billion over 10 years. Slashing the corporate rate to 20% would cost about $1.5 trillion.

With lobbyists and lawmakers lining up to protect deductions and loopholes, tax bill drafters are having a tough time finding ways to cover the costs.

One main revenue source, the elimination of state and local tax deductions, could generate as much as $1.3 trillion over the decade. But talk of killing the deduction set off an outcry among high-tax state lawmakers in New York, New Jersey and California. Talks are now underway to restructure that proposal.

“As the swamp kicks in, they’re going to argue to keep all their special loopholes and deductions, and the more they get to keep, the less you can reduce the tax rate,” said Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.). “There’s going to be tremendous pressure, but that’s why we have to hold the line on that.”

Corporate tax rates have been the focus throughout the process, as lawmakers try to bring the U.S. on par with the 35 developed nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which have an average rate of 22.5%. Many U.S. corporations, however, pay much less than 35% thanks to loopholes.

Lowering corporate rates has been a top priority for businesses. The Koch brothers-aligned Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce released new ads Wednesday warning lawmakers against protecting favorite deductions.

In Harrisburg, Trump argued that corporate tax changes would benefit ordinary Americans, delivering as much as $4,000 per household. “You’re going to have so much money to spend,” he told the crowd.

The White House said changing the way foreign earnings are taxed — along with a one-time incentive to bring back some of the estimated $2.5 trillion U.S. companies have parked abroad — would result in $4,000 more for American workers over an eight-year period.

But experts doubted such a windfall would flow to workers and said the GOP’s planned changes to individual income tax rates would largely benefit the wealthiest Americans.

Mark Mazur, director of the Tax Policy Center, said he was “incredibly skeptical” of the White House’s $4,000 estimate, explaining that there are many reasons why wages have not kept up with the growth of corporate profits. He cited less powerful labor unions and competition from lower-wage workers abroad.

On Wednesday, Ryan outlined the schedule ahead during a closed-door meeting that left lawmakers expecting a House vote on a tax bill by Thanksgiving.

The Senate would follow if it clears a preliminary budget hurdle next week. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has panned the tax proposal as benefiting the wealthy. And Trump’s recent personal attacks on Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) certainly won’t help win his vote. Even before Trump mocked him, Corker was concerned the tax plan would increase the deficit.

But even as Republicans pursue a largely partisan approach without Democratic input, some predicted Wednesday there would be no adjustments to the proposed 20% corporate rate, since that seemed to be a core area of agreement.

“That’s so locked and loaded that I just don’t see that changing,” said Rep. Chris Collins(R-N.Y.), a Trump ally.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative Freedom Caucus, said the 20% rate was “for sure. I have commitments.”

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-congress-tax-cuts-20171011-story.html

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-982

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017, Part 3 of 3,  Story 1: The Tiny Timid Trump Tax Reform Resembles Liberal Democratic Party Proposals vs. Fair Tax Less Would Replace All Federal Taxes With A Single Consumption Tax On What You Buy Not What You Earn With A Generous Tax Prebate and Future Government Spending Limited To 90% of Fair Tax Less Revenues — Affordable, Effective, Efficient, Fair, Reasonable, Simple, and Transparent With Progressive Effective Rates Due To A Generous Monthly $1,000 Per Month or $12,000 Per Year Tax Prebate For All Adult American Citizens — American Friendly Not Revenue Neutral — Balanced Budgets With Real Spending Cuts and No More Budget Deficits — Booming Economy With Jobs, Jobs, and Jobs — The Time Is Now or Never For Fair Tax Less — Videos — Story 2: Secretary of Health and Human Resources Thomas Price Resigns and President Trump Accepts After Trump Outraged Over Use Expensive Private Chartered Jet Flight To Conduct Government Business — Don Wright to serve as acting secretary of the HHS — Videos —

Posted on September 30, 2017. Filed under: Addiction, Airlines, American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Business, Cartoons, Comedy, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Fourth Amendment, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hate Speech, Health, Health Care Insurance, History, House of Representatives, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Insurance, Investments, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Pro Life, Public Relations, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Social Security, Spying, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Transportation, U.S. Dollar, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 921, June 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 920, June 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 919, June 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 918, June 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 917, June 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 916, June 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 915, June 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 914, June 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 913, June 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 912, June 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 911, June 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 910, June 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 909, June 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 908, June 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 907, June 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 906, June 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 905, June 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 904, June 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 903, June 1, 2017

Image result for Donald Trump Plan Tax BracketsImage result for trump's tax frameworkImage result for fairtax

Image result for cartoon's trump's tax frameworkImage result for trump's tax framework

Image result for HHS secretary resigns tom price resigns

Image result for fairtax

Image result for trump's new tax plan compared with current tax system

Corporations paying fewer taxes

 

Part 3 of 3,  Story 1: The Tiny Timid Trump Tax Reform Resembles Liberal Democratic Party Proposals vs. Fair Tax Less Would Replace All Federal Taxes With A Single Consumption Tax On What You Buy Not What You Earn With A Generous Tax Prebate and Future Government Spending Limited To 90% of Fair Tax Less Revenues — Affordable, Effective, Efficient, Fair, Reasonable, Simple, and Transparent With Progressive Effective Rates Due To A Generous Monthly $1,000 Per Month or $12,000 Per Year Tax Prebate For All Adult American Citizens — American Friendly Not Revenue Neutral — Balanced Budgets With Real Spending Cuts and No More Budget Deficits — Booming Economy With Jobs, Jobs, and Jobs — The Time Is Now or Never For Fair Tax Less — Videos


The American People Want The FairTax and

The New Improved Version — Fair Tax Less

Demand Fair Tax Less From Your Elected Representatives and President Trump

FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD)

Image result for Fair Tax Replaces


Inside the GOP’s tax blueprint

Mulvaney: Impossible to say tax benefit to rich – NEWS TODAY

Mick Mulvaney defends Trump’s Puerto Rico response, tax plan

Treasury secretary on Trump administration’s new tax plan

“IT WOULD BE LIKE HOUDINI!!!” Chuck Todd’s BRILLIANT Takedown of Trump Lackey Steven Mnuchin |News

Newt Gingrich with Martha MacCallum on Donald Trump Tax Reform Plan. #NewtGingrich #TaxReform #POTUS

LIMBAUGH: Trump’s Tax Plan Is NOT A Tax Break For The Rich

Middle Class Will ‘Get Nothing’ In Tax Proposal: Steve Rattner | Morning Joe | MSNBC

What Democrats don’t like about Trump’s tax reform plan

Milton Friedman – Why Tax Reform Is Impossible

🔴 Ep. 287: Pros and Cons of the Trump Tax Plan

Trump pitches tax reform plan to manufacturers

Sen. John Kennedy on Tax Reform

Speaker Ryan Previews Unified Framework for Tax Reform

Trump pushes first tax overhaul since President Reagan

Trump tax reform is very pro-growth: Norquist

Who wins and loses in the GOP’s proposed tax overhaul

President Trump Unveils STUNNING Tax Plan | Full Speech 9/27/17

President Donald Trump unveils his ‘middle class miracle’, a stunning tax plan with three brackets, zero tax on couples’ first $24,000 and a massive corporate rate slash. ‘The largest tax cut in American History.’ MAGA 🇺🇸

Milton Friedman – Is tax reform possible?

Ep. 287: Pros and Cons of the Trump Tax Plan

What Trump’s tax plan could mean for workers and businesses

Trump’s tax plan mirrors Ronald Reagan’s

PRESIDENT TRUMP UNVEILS SWEEPING TAX PLAN

Chuck Schumer SLAMS Trump’s New Tax Reform Plan on his Press Conference 9/27/2017

Inside Politics 09/27/17: TRUMP TAX PLAN COULD COST $5 TRILLION

Rush Limbaugh 09/27/2017 | Trump tax plan isn’t conservative, it’s populist, raises taxes on rich

Hannity: Trump’s tax plan is designed to grow the economy

Analyzing President Trump’s tax plan

Trump Unveils Tax Plan: It’s Mostly Good

Gordon Gray discusses President Trump’s tax plan details jpg

Will Trump’s tax plan deliver the goods on jobs?

What to expect from Trump’s tax plan

Trump Tax Reform Explained

David Stockman: We are heading into an absolute fiscal bloodbath

Keiser Report: America’s Falling Apart (E1123)

$20 Trillion: U.S. Debt Crisis | Peter Schiff and Stefan Molyneux

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Trump’s tax cuts won’t pay for themselves: David Stockman

Congress not likely to tackle tax reform without spending cuts?

Milton Friedman – Why Tax Reform Is Impossible

When Did America Stop Caring About Anything Critical?

When Did America Stop Caring About Anything Critical?

Revenue Neutral

Sen. McConnell to soften on revenue-neutral tax plan: Gasparino

McConnell Seeks Revenue-Neutral Tax Reform This Congress

Rand Paul’s Frustration with “Revenue Neutral” Tax Cuts!


The American People Want The FairTax 

Especially The New Improved Version — Fair Tax Less

Demand Fair Tax Less From Your Elected Representatives and President Trump

FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD)

FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD)

FairTax or Fair Tax Less — It Is Time

Bill Gates: Don’t tax my income, tax my consumption

Flat Tax vs. National Sales Tax

Why is the FairTax better than a flat income tax?

Freedom from the IRS! – FairTax Explained in Detail

Congressman Pence – FairTax and FlatTax

Pence on the Fair Tax

Congressman Woodall Discusses the FairTax

Rob Woodall Floor Speech: The FairTax will bring jobs back to America

Rep. Woodall Discusses FairTax with Colleagues on House Floor

The Fair Tax

Congressman King Speaks in Favor of FairTax

Rep. Woodall Discusses FairTax on House Floor

Sen. Moran Discusses FairTax Legislation on U.S. Senate Floor

Why is the FairTax better than other tax reform efforts?

AIRtax-What is It? Replaces income tax and payroll tax with sales tax

Why is the FairTax better than a flat income tax?

What is the FairTax legislation?

Does the FairTax protect privacy and other civil liberties?

How is the FairTax collected?

How does the FairTax affect the economy?

How does the FairTax impact interest rates?

Are any significant economies funded by a sales tax?

Is consumption a reliable source of revenue?

How will used goods be taxed?

What assumptions does the FairTax make about government spending?

Will the FairTax lead to a massive underground economy?

Can’t Americans just cross the border to avoid the FairTax

Will the FairTax drive the economy down if people stop buying?

How does the FairTax impact savings?

How does the FairTax impact the middle class?

How will the FairTax impact seniors?

How will Social Security payments be calculated under the FairTax?

How will the FairTax impact people who don’t file income taxes?

How will the FairTax help people who don’t hire an accountant?

How does the FairTax affect compliance costs?

How does the FairTax impact tax free bonds?

What will happen to cities who depend on tax free bonds?

What is the impact of the FairTax on business?

How does the FairTax impact retailers?

How does the FairTax affect tax preparers and CPAs?

Will the FairTax tax services?

Can I pretend to be a business to avoid the sales tax?

If people bring home their whole paychecks how can prices fall?

What is the Prebate?

How does the “prebate” work?

Is the FairTax truly progressive?

Wouldn’t it be more fair to exempt food and medicine from the FairTax?

How is the FairTax different from a Value Added Tax (VAT)?

Is it fair for rich people to get the same prebate as poor people?

Will the prebate create a massive new entitlement system?