MoeIssuesoftheDay.blogspot.com

Say hello!!!!!!!

Write us at: mvl270@yahoo.com

Monday, June 27, 2016

Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Say hello!!!!!!!Write us at: mvl270@yahoo.com



Trump Embraces Executive Orders to Avoid Congressional Gridlock

Here are 13 policies Trump has proposed that he could accomplish without help from Congress.

1466997499_executiveordersrDonald Trump gestures as he speaks to members of the media at Trump International Golf Links in Aberdeen, U.K, on June 25, 2016.  Trump may be one of Barack Obama's toughest critics, but when it comes to the president's use of executive orders to circumvent Congress, the Republican sees him as a role model.
Trump has already promised to be as aggressive as Obama on executive orders on a wide range of issues. Early in his campaign, for instance, he vowed to use the power of the pen to give all cop killers the death penalty. More recently, in his response to the shooting death of 49 people inside an Orlando gay club this month, he pledged to use executive power to implement one of his signature proposals: A temporary ban on Muslim immigration (even though the shooter was born in New York).


“The immigration laws of the United States give the president powers to suspend entry into the country of any class of persons,” Trump said June 16, two days after the shooting. “I will use this power to protect the American people.”


John Yoo, a former Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration who wrote the so-called “torture memos” that authorized waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques, said such a ban is “counter-productive” and “would not have stopped with either the San Bernardino or Orlando shootings.”


But Yoo suggested there would be a way for a Trump administration to get it through the courts.


“Immigrants who have not yet entered the U.S. have not acquired the full rights of the Bill of Rights, but I tend to think that our framers never wanted our government to discriminate on the basis of religious belief for any reason,” Yoo told Bloomberg Politics. “The government could easily focus on the real problem by more closely scrutinizing immigrants from certain countries, which the Constitution would clearly permit.”


In addition to the Muslim ban, here are other policies Trump has proposed that he could accomplish without help from Congress:


• End special tax treatment for carried interest:
Trump—along with Hillary Clinton, his likely Democratic opponent—calls for taxing carried interest as regular income. A president's administration could accomplish that change by writing new regulations, said Eric Toder, co-director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank. But while Obama has repeatedly asked Congress to address carried interest, the Treasury Department under his administration has shied from the regulatory approach. “Treasury continues to explore its existing authority for ways to address the loophole,” a spokeswoman for the agency said.


The portion of investment-fund profits paid to managers of private-equity and other funds known as carried interest is treated as capital-gains income and taxed at a rate as low as 23.8 percent, well below the top individual rate of 39.6 percent.


Administration officials project that taxing carried interest as ordinary income would mean $19.3 billion in additional revenue over a decade. But in a Trump administration, the change might actually wind up costing the Treasury. His plan calls for a hefty rate cut on ordinary business income that would mean taxing carried interest at 15 percent, even lower than the 23.8 percent rate it's eligible for now.


Tighten regulations on money-transfer companies:
The cornerstone of Trump's candidacy has been a promise to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. While Congress approves spending for construction projects, Trump says he can force Mexico to pay for it by taking control of an estimated $26 billion that is wired to Mexico from the U.S. every year.


Trump has said he would halt these remittances “on day one” by rewriting banking rules to expand the federal regulations on companies like Western Union and PayPal. He'd then add a new rule to block undocumented immigrants from wiring money outside the borders.


Trump’s administration would have the authority to write these rules, said Peter Wallison, former White House counsel in the Reagan administration. But Wallison and others—including Republicans and Democrats—questioned the practicality of implementing such a plan. “The notion that we’re going to track every Western Union bit of money that’s being sent to Mexico, you know, good luck with that,” Obama said after Trump unveiled his proposal in April.


Cancel visas and increasing visa fees:
Trump says he could increase his leverage on Mexico's leaders by making it harder for their people to live and work in the U.S. The country accounted for about 14 percent of the 10.9 million visas issues by the U.S. in 2015, according to State Department data. Only Chinese visitors, who received one of every four U.S. visas last year, took more. Trump’s administration would have broad discretion in choosing who to give visas, and how much to charge, said John Sandweg, a former acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security.


Increase wages for certain foreign workers, and require companies to hire Americans first:
Foreign workers hired for high-skilled jobs, like software engineering and research, must be paid a prevailing industry wage, as determined by a Labor Department database. Trump says requiring higher wages for those who receive H1-B visas will deter companies from hiring foreign workers. U.S. companies want more of these visas, not fewer, but it’s something President Trump could do with the rule-making process, Sandweg said. Similarly, Trump could change rules to try to force companies to search for new hires first from the country's pool of unemployed workers before turning to overseas labor.


Mandatory deportation for all undocumented immigrants with criminal records, and detentions for those caught at the border:
Like Obama and Bush before him, the Trump administration would set parameters on how to focus the deportation budget. Obama has focused resources on violent criminals, but Trump could undo that to go after those with traffic offenses. The changes would require 200,000 detention beds per day, Sandweg said. Congress has appropriated money for an average of 34,000 detention beds per day.


Stop defending NATO allies:
Trump used his foreign policy address on April 27 to echo concerns shared by many U.S. officials that most of the 28 nations in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization don’t spend at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense, as required by the agreement. “The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense—and, if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves,” Trump said. As commander-in-chief, Trump could take that unprecedented step, foreign policy experts said.


“He would risk blowing up the entire alliance over what could be an exchange rate or accounting issue,” said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution.


Cancel the Paris climate accord and stop paying U.S. tax dollars into UN global warming programs:
During a May 26 speech in North Dakota, Trump said he would yank U.S. support from the Paris agreement to slash carbon dioxide emissions that 195 nations endorsed last December. There isn't much Trump could do to kill the accord itself. The deal isn't a treaty, and it doesn't require Senate ratification. Instead, it goes into force automatically when at least 55 parties, accounting for 55 percent of global emissions, have ratified the pact. Still, under Trump, the U.S. could sit out future United Nations negotiations designed to deepen carbon cuts over time. And because individual country commitments are voluntary, Trump could easily walk away from the U.S. pledges at the cost of alienating other world leaders. The most vulnerable aspect of the accord is Obama's commitment to deliver $3 billion into a United Nations fund to help developing countries adapt to rising seas and other effects of a rapidly changing climate. The idea already faces stiff resistance from Republicans on Capitol Hill, so if Trump's State Department refused to cut checks to the UN fund, lawmakers aren't likely to fight him on it.


Scrap “job-destroying” energy regulations:
Trump singled out Obama's new limits on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants -- and the “waters of the U.S.” rule that defines what waterways are under the government's jurisdiction. He would also rescind “any regulation that is outdated, unnecessary, bad for workers or contrary to the national interest.” A Trump administration could relax enforcement of some rules, but courts wouldn't look kindly on dramatic regulatory reversals, said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Rob Barnett. “It would be unprecedented to come in and take a final regulation and just wipe it out without a process,” Barnett said. “You may be able to start a new process that alters it, but that's very slow moving.”


Approve the Keystone XL pipeline: Trump has repeatedly pledged to green light the proposed oil pipeline if developer TransCanada Corp. reapplies—with conditions attached. At a January rally, Trump said TransCanada would have to fork over a “big, big chunk of the profits” or even ownership rights. During a May 26 speech in North Dakota, he insisted Keystone profits should be shared with the U.S. “so the American people can get some more money out of it.” The first part of Trump's pipeline pledge is an easy lift. If TransCanada were to reapply, he could easily approve the project, perhaps truncating any new State Department reviews in the process. But adding a tariff or tax on the project likely would require approval by Congress -- and that kind of tariff completely breaks with Republican orthodoxy on trade and a longstanding regulatory approach to pipelines. “There's all sorts of problems with what he has proposed” on Keystone, said ClearView Energy Partners analyst Kevin Book in a phone interview. “Our oil pipelines are operated as common carriers. If you want to do something to revive the rail that Trump is apparently less fond of, all you have to do is destroy the economics of crude transport by pipe.”


Reverse moratorium on coal leasing on federal lands:
Trump has pledged to give coal producers some help on the supply side by swiftly reversing Obama's moratorium on coal leasing on federal lands and paring safety checks that he has cast as excessive. But supply isn't the real problem for coal producers, which are being pushed into bankruptcy by low demand, as power utilities switch to cheap, cleaner-burning natural gas. “The fate of coal has much greater concerns than whether the Bureau of Land Management quickly reopens the leasing process,” said Barnett of Bloomberg Intelligence. Trump's options for reviving the U.S. coal industry are limited because “it's not a question of regulation,” ClearView's Book. “You can't convince the public utility commissions who have already approved the shutdown of plants and the investors of utilities that have already moved on to the next rate-based investment that they should go back to something that's gone.” Trump acknowledged those market realities in North Dakota: “The market forces will be whatever they are. All I can do is free up the coal.”


Declare China a currency manipulator:
Trump says that China isn’t a fair trading partner, and that its “Great Wall of Protectionism” is hurting U.S. workers and companies. To even the playing field, Trump says his administration would declare the country a currency manipulator “on day one,” echoing a promise that 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney made during the campaign that year. Trump’s Treasury Department would make that declaration, but it’s unclear if it would have any impact. China was labeled a currency manipulator in the early 1990s, and while the county agreed to reform its foreign exchange system, trade deficits have continued to increase.
Keep up with the race of a lifetime.

Bolster the U.S. military presence in the East and South China Seas:
Increasing troop levels here will help strengthen America’s ability to negotiate with the Chinese, Trump says. Obama’s administration sent about 300 additional troops with combat aircraft and helicopters into the area earlier this year in response to a border dispute between China and the Philippines. Trump has not said how many more troops he’d like in the region.

European SUPERSTATE to be unveiled: EU nations 'to be morphed into one' post-Brexit

EUROPEAN political chiefs are to take advantage of Brexit by unveiling their long-held plan to morph the continent’s countries into one GIANT SUPERSTATE, it has emerged today.
By NICK GUTTERIDGE









Frank-Walter SteinmeierGETTY
German Angela Merkel met with European heads today at the EU summit
The foreign ministers of France and Germany are due to reveal a blueprint to effectively do away with individual member states in what is being described as an “ultimatum”.

Under the radical proposals EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with all those powers being transferred to Brussels.

Controversially member states would also lose what few controls they have left over their own borders, including the procedure for admitting and relocating refugees.

The plot has sparked fury and panic in Poland - a traditional ally of Britain in the fight against federalism - after being leaked to Polish news channel TVP Info.
The European Central Bank in FrankfurtGETTY
Polish politicians say the plans include loss of control of a number of key policy areas
The public broadcaster reports that the bombshell proposal will be presented to a meeting of the Visegrad group of countries - made up of Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia - by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier later today.
Excerpts of the nine-page report were published today as the leaders of Germany, France and Italy met in Berlin for Brexit crisis talks.
In the preamble to the text the two ministers write: "Our countries share a common destiny and a common set of values ??that give rise to an even closer union between our citizens. We will therefore strive for a political union in Europe and invite the next Europeans to participate in this venture."

The revelations come just days after Britain shook the Brussels establishment by voting to leave the European Union in a move some have predicted could leave to the breakup of the EU.

A number of member states are deeply unhappy about the creeping federalism of the European project with anti-EU sentiments running high in eastern Europe, Scandinavia and France.
David Cameron in front of a map of EuropeGETTY
Opponents of the EU have warned of its ambitions to create a superstate
A British umbrella in front of Big BenGETTY||||\
Britain voted to leave the European Union in an historic referendum last Thursday
Responding to the plot Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski raged: "This is not a good solution, of course, because from the time the EU was invented a lot has changed.

“The mood in European societies is different. Europe and our voters do not want to give the Union over into the hands of technocrats.

“Therefore, I want to talk about this, whether this really is the right recipe right now in the context of a Brexit.

There are deep divides at the heart of the EU at the moment over how to proceed with the project in light of the Brexit vote.

Some figures have cautioned against trying to force through further political integration, warning that to do so against the wishes of the European people will only fuel further Eurosceptic feeling.

A few weeks before the Brexit vote European Council president Donald Tusk warned that European citizens did not share the enthusiasm of some of their leaders for “a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia of Europe imposing its own values on the external world, a utopia of Euro-Asian unity”.

He added: “Increasingly louder are those who question the very principle of a united Europe. The spectre of a break-up is haunting Europe and a vision of a federation doesn’t seem to me to be the best answer to it.”

His view was backed up by the leader of the eurozone countries, Dutch politician Jerome Dijsselbloem, who added: “In the eurozone some are pushing for a completion of the monetary union by creating a full political union, a euro area economic government or even a euro budget… to me it is obvious.

“We need to strengthen what we have and finish it, but let’s not build more extensions to the European house while it is so unstable.”

Investigation: Albania is set to join the EU

Albania is an official candidate for accession to the European Union. We follow a Daily Express exclusive investigation about Albania, the poelple and the culture in pictures





Meanwhile Lorenzo Condign, the former director general of Italy’s treasury, has said it is nearly impossible to see Europe opting for more integration at such a time of upheaval.

He said: “It seems difficult to imagine that the rest of the EU will close ranks and move in the direction of greater integration quickly. Simply, there is no political will.

“Indeed, the risk is exactly the opposite - namely that centrifugal forces will prevail and make integration even more difficult.”

But others see the Brexit vote as an opportunity to push ahead with the European elite’s long-cherished dream of creating a United States of Europe.

Spain’s foreign minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo has called for “more Europe” whilst Italy’s finance minister, Carlo Padoan, is advocating a common budget for the eurozone states.

And Emmanuel Macron, France’s economy minister, wants to go even further and set up a common eurozone treasury which would oversee the permanent transfer of funds from wealthier northern Europe to shore up Mediterranean economies.


Scott Brown says Warren could ‘take a DNA test’ to prove she’s part Cherokee

Former Massachusetts senator Scott Brown welcomes attendees to a Donald Trump campaign stop, in Portsmouth, N.H. (Matt Rourke/AP)

As Donald Trump continues to call Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" for claiming Native American heritage, former Massachusetts senator Scott Brown -- who lost to her in 2012 -- is defending that line of attack.
"As you know, she's not Native American," Brown, an early Trump endorser, told reporters on a conference call organized by the Republican National Committee. "She's not 1/32 Cherokee."
In the 2012 race, Brown tried and, for a short time, succeeded in making a campaign issue out of Warren's claim of Native American ancestry and whether it helped her win academic positions because of affirmative action. Brown allies in talk radio called her "Fauxcahontas," and to this day, photoshopped images of Warren with a feather headdress follow her around the Internet.
A daily briefing of what's happening on the campaign trail.
Four years ago, Warren struggled for a while with the storyline. "I still have a picture on my mantle at home," she explained at one point, "and it’s a picture of my mother’s dad, a picture of my grandfather, and my Aunt Bee has walked by that picture at least a thousand times, remarked that her father, my poppa, had high cheekbones, like all of the Indians do."
The storyline eventually backfired on Brown, especially after some campaign workers were filmed war-whooping and making "tomahawk chops" at Warren. Today, with the campaign very much in the rear-view mirror, Brown was happy to re-litigate it, suggesting ways for Warren to prove her ancestry.
"Harvard can release the records, she can authorize the release of those records, or she can take a DNA test," he said, insisting that Warren took a job that might have rightly gone to a non white applicant. "It’s a reverse form of racism, quite frankly."

Donald Trump's campaign slammed Sen. Elizabeth Warren after she campaigned with Hillary Clinton.

Trump campaign: Warren is a 'sellout'

On the same day Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) appeared alongside Hillary Clinton to savage Donald Trump for his past statements, not to mention his "goofy hat," the presumptive Republican nominee's campaign fired back with another word for the liberal firebrand senator: "sellout."


"As Clinton tries to salvage support among the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democrat Party, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has become a turncoat for the causes she supposedly supports," the campaign said in a statement with the subject line "Sellout Warren."


Noting that Warren has said Wall Street businesses have too much influence in Washington by paying "barely disguised bribes" as campaign contributions, the Trump campaign said Clinton has accepted more than $41 million during the presidential cycle from financial interests.


"Warren is also campaigning for the author of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a deal she has routinely slammed," the statement continues, although Clinton has said she no longer supports the trade deal despite having backed it in principle. "This is a trade deal that Clinton has expressed support for in over 45 public speeches. Warren’s campaigning for Clinton stands in stark contrast to the liberal ideals she once practiced."
Calling the joint campaigning appearance a "sad attempt at pandering," the Trump campaign deemed it "another example of a typical political calculation by D.C. insiders."


"Mr. Trump has been against TPP from the start of his campaign because he understands how detrimental it would be to American workers," the statement concludes. "He will continue to fight for the American people and serve them over the special interests in Washington, D.C."
Trump is scheduled to deliver a trade-focused speech outside Pittsburgh on Tuesday, in Monessen, Pennsylvania.


"As Clinton tries to salvage support among the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democrat Party, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has become a turncoat for the causes she supposedly supports," the campaign said in a statement with the subject line "Sellout Warren."


Noting that Warren has said Wall Street businesses have too much influence in Washington by paying "barely disguised bribes" as campaign contributions, the Trump campaign said Clinton has accepted more than $41 million during the presidential cycle from financial interests.


"Warren is also campaigning for the author of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a deal she has routinely slammed," the statement continues, although Clinton has said she no longer supports the trade deal despite having backed it in principle. "This is a trade deal that Clinton has expressed support for in over 45 public speeches. Warren’s campaigning for Clinton stands in stark contrast to the liberal ideals she once practiced."


Calling the joint campaigning appearance a "sad attempt at pandering," the Trump campaign deemed it "another example of a typical political calculation by D.C. insiders."


"Mr. Trump has been against TPP from the start of his campaign because he understands how detrimental it would be to American workers," the statement concludes. "He will continue to fight for the American people and serve them over the special interests in Washington, D.C."
Trump is scheduled to deliver a trade-focused speech outside Pittsburgh on Tuesday, in Monessen, Pennsylvania.



Building the Bomb: FDR's Cataclysmic Decision

Seventy-six years ago today, Franklin D. Roosevelt officially committed the United States to the task of building an atom bomb. This presidential action came in the form of a classified directive creating the National Defense Research Committee, an innocuous-sounding addition to the Council of National Defense, which was created in 1916 -- just before America entered what then was called the Great War.
The world conflagration that followed two decades later was even greater, if greatness can ever be measured in human death and suffering. The morality of war had changed since 1918: In World War II, noncombatants were singled out as often as military targets. Meanwhile, technological advances had made armed conflict even more lethal.
Although only a handful of people on Earth knew it on June 27, 1940, that technology was about to take a quantum leap. Here is now Carnegie Institution President Vannevar Bush, the man tapped by FDR to head the new advisory council, explained it later:
“World War II was the first war in human history to be affected decisively by weapons unknown at the outbreak of hostilities.”
President Roosevelt grasped this point even before the U.S. formally entered the war. FDR had become persuaded that civilians such as Bush, the former dean of the school of engineering at MIT, were essential to the nation’s defense.
The reason was that even our ablest military leaders -- men such as George C. Marshall -- were unfamiliar with rapid advances taking place in the field of particle physics. These looming breakthroughs suggested that if it fell into the wrong hands, this new technology could plunge the world into a thousand years of darkness.
Little known to history is the unsung role played by a female chemist in making sure it didn’t happen.
*       *       *
In December of 1938, two German scientists, Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann, succeeded in splitting the atom. The two men, working at Berlin’s Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, weren’t quite sure what they had. They knew that things were moving fast in their field. Enrico Fermi was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics that same month for showing that slow neutrons could start a nuclear reaction.
Hahn and Strassmann’s experiment was different -- and more ominous. But what had they discovered, exactly? The two scientists were unsure themselves. By bombarding uranium with neutrons, they had split uranium atoms into substances of nearly equal atomic weight, one of which they believed to be radium.
The following month Hahn wrote a letter to a former colleague, a brilliant chemist named Lise Meitner. World War II had not started yet, unless you count the Allies’ acquiescence to Czechoslovakia being carved up pursuant to Hitler’s whims. But things were already bad in Germany and Austria for Jews, which was why Meitner has fled to Sweden: She was Jewish.
So, too was Fermi’s wife. The Fermis had sailed for New York directly from Stockholm after he received his Nobel.
The much-beloved Otto Hahn was no Nazi. Nor was he anti-Semitic, or even political, which is probably why he wrote to Meitner. He wasn’t trying to alert the Allies to danger; he was trying to solve a scientific riddle: What had happened in his lab?
Meitner was the right person to ask. She recognized that barium, not radium, was the element produced by the Germans’ success at achieving nuclear fission. She also realized the immense implications of their experiment. Using Albert Einstein’s famous 1905 equation (E = MC2), Meitner calculated that a nuclear reaction involving a mere a pound of uranium would produce an explosion the likes of which the world had never seen.
Alarmed, she alerted a nephew, who was also a physicist, about her theory; he, in turn, informed Niels Bohr, a Danish scientist (and another Nobel laureate) who was about to leave for Washington, D.C., which was hosting an international conference on physics.
Fermi was present at that conference, as was yet another European expat, a Hungarian named Leo Szilard. They took their concerns to the U.S. Navy -- which blew them off -- before deciding to ask Einstein himself to write a letter to Roosevelt.
Szilard persuaded Lehman Brothers head Alexander Sachs to deliver it personally to Franklin Roosevelt.
“Alex,” said the president, “what you are after is to see that the Nazis don’t blow us up.”
In “March to Armageddon,” historian Ronald E. Powaski recounted what happened next. After Sachs nodded in affirmation, Roosevelt replied, “This requires action.”
“And with these words,” wrote Powaski, “the United States had entered the arms race.”
The National Defense Research Committee created by FDR was soon dispensing grants. One of the biggest went to Fermi’s Columbia University lab, though eventually most of the work on what became the Manhattan Project would be shifted to a facility in the New Mexico desert.
As for Otto Hahn, he won a Nobel Prize in 1944, but was jailed by the Allies after the fall of Berlin in 1945. Hahn learned about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki while in custody in England.
“The news completely shattered him,” wrote American historian Lawrence Badash. “He felt… personally responsible for the thousands of deaths in Japan.”
Carl M. Cannon is the Washington Bureau Chief for RealClearPolitics. Reach him on Twitter @CarlCannon.


G’ day Ciao…….
Moe & Helen  Lauzier

About Me

My Photo
As of 1-1-2016 our blog is by Helen and me. We will attempt to provide adult oriented issues and topics.

Blog Archive

issues