Former Marine Corps captain says Trump defense budget is 'less bang for more bucks' - CNBC News

Former Marine Corps captain says Trump defense budget is 'less bang for more bucks'
Jeff Daniels | @jeffdanielsca
Sat, 18 Mar '17 | 8:43 AM ET
CNBC.com

If Americans think more defense spending will make them safer they should think again, according to a retired U.S. Marine Corps officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Just because you're spending more on the military doesn't mean we're going to have a more effective military force," said Dan Grazier, a former Marine captain and defense industry expert at the Project On Government Oversight, a Washington watchdog group. "That has proved true throughout history."
President Donald Trump's fiscal 2018 budget blueprint calls for a $54 billion increase in national defense spending, which represents an increase of about 10 percent over the sequestered levels.

"If President Trump wants to truly rebuild the military, he should actually slash budgets," Grazier wrote in a POGO blog post Friday. "It would force the Pentagon and Congress to make the difficult choices necessary to produce a more effective fighting force."
He notes that if the fiscal 2018 budget plan gets approved in Congress it would mean total defense spending of nearly $640 billion, which includes $65 billion for so-called Overseas Contingency Operations war funding. When combining other national security spending and veterans costs, the government outlays represent more than $1 trillion per year, Grazier said.
In the budget document, the Trump administration stated "this defense funding is vital to rebuilding and preparing our armed forces for the future."
The White House's budget request said "key investments in maintenance capacity, training systems, and additional F-35 Joint Strike Fighters would enable the Air Force, which is now the smallest it has been in history, to counter the growing number of complex threats from sophisticated state actors and transnational terrorist groups."
Yet Grazier contended that just throwing more money at defense isn't the answer because "it is just going to get flushed down the typical Pentagon spending holes." In an interview, he said what matters most is "how you spend it — and we do not have a track record of spending it well."
Grazier added, "Basically, the Pentagon and defense contractors and their allies in Congress want to throw a whole lot money at these really complicated [weapons] systems and spread the subcontracts around the country."
On his blog, Grazier wrote that defense budgets during the Obama administration peaked in 2011 and went "down incrementally in the years since, but they remained higher than at any time during previous administrations, including at the peak of the Reagan buildup in the 1980s."
"What did we get for those massive budgets? We didn't get more fighter planes. We didn't get more ships," he said. "Almost every day we are bombarded with dire warnings from services that the force is the smallest it has ever been. For some people, there will never be enough spending on the Pentagon."
Indeed, on Thursday Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain (R-Arizona) criticized Trump's proposed top-line defense budget plan as simply not enough. He said in a press statement that the budget doesn't amount to the 10 percent increase as touted by the White House but is "a mere 3 percent over President Obama's defense plan, which has left our military underfunded, undersized, and unready to meet the threats of today and tomorrow."
According to Grazier, the Pentagon waste needs to be addressed and overhead too. Moreover, he believes there's a need to "reexamine a dependence on contractors that can cost as much as four times more than federal employees. But none of this will happen unless Congress forces these changes, and they can only do that by restraining budgets."
Grazier also said spending big money on some of the programs with a history of problems needs to be looked at more closely, including the F-35 stealth fighter, as well as the Navy's newest class of aircraft carriers, the Ford Class. Then there's the Navy's littoral combat ship program, which the U.S. Government Accountability Office in December concluded "has taken longer, cost more, and delivered less capability than expected."
"None of these systems are performing all that well," he said.
Trump recently visited the USS Gerald R. Ford super-carrier, built by Huntington Ingalls Industries for around $13 billion, or $2.5 billion over budget. The Ford-Class carrier program has a price tag of approximately $40 billion and there have been calls to scale back the program. Some critics suggest even the new carriers are vulnerable at sea.
The president wants to increase the Navy's fleet to 350 ships, up from today's force of 275 deployable battle ships. That will require the investment of nearly $700 billionover 30 years and there's some concern whether the shipyards can meet the goal due to shortages of skilled workers and other obstacles.
Grazier questions the decision by the Navy to use a new electromagnetic launch technology system for aircraft on the Ford-Class carriers instead of sticking with the steam-powered catapult system on the battle-tested Nimitz-Class carriers. Swapping out older systems has resulted in a "very large expense and the system does not work all that well yet," he said.
Meantime, the retired Marine officer also is critical of the F-35, a program projected to cost more than $1 trillion over its life cycle of about 53 years. He said the Pentagon's top weapons tester wrote a report detailing 60 pages of problems with the aircraft but it's essentially been ignored. 

Trump has been complained about the cost of the F-35 and suggested the possibility of replacing some of the F-35 purchases with the "comparable F-18 Super Hornet."Lockheed Martin built three variants of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, for the Air Force, Navy, and Marines.
The lot 10 deal for the F-35 was announced last month and cut the per-plane price on the F-35A (Air Force variant) to $94.6 million, or a 7.3 percent price reduction from the previous lot 9 terms. That marked the first time the F-35A had been below $100 million.
Even so, Grazier said the F-35 price still remains "vastly more expensive" compared with legacy fighters it is replacing. "We continue to get less bang for more bucks," he said. "Whether it's fighter planes or Navy ships or anything like that, they are always vastly more complicated than the one before. We spend more and more money for these things but we get fewer and fewer of them. So we keep getting these smaller and smaller forces."

'Intellectual humility' could be key to becoming a better person, scientists say - But Trump doesn't have it - Independent

Scientists might have figured out one of the keys to becoming a better person.

Showing "intellectual humility" – recognising that you might be wrong about what you believe – is a reliable marker of how good people are at making choices and understanding, according to a new study.

The personality trait is little studied but doing so could shed light on how people make decisions in politics, health and other arenas, according to the researchers from Duke University.

The trait is equally spread between liberals and conservatives, and religious and non-religious people. But it affects how people make decisions about all those things and more, according to the study.

The authors define intellectual humility as the opposite of arrogance or conceit. It means that people are open-minded, they write – while people with the trait can have strong beliefs, they also recognise those beliefs as fallible and are willing to be proven wrong about them, according to lead author Mark Leary.

The researchers conducted four different studies to test out how he trait works and measure it in people.

In one, for instance, they read essays arguing for and against evolution, and then asked about the personality of the person writing it. Intellectually arrogant people tended to say that the person writing was immoral, dishonest, incompetent and cold – but intellectually humble people didn't judge the authors based on their views.

Violent video games don't make you a bad person, study suggests

Those people who proved intellectually humble were better at evaluating the quality of evidence, the research found. They could distinguish good arguments from weak ones much better, they found.

And they criticised politicians less if they changed their mind on issue, accusing them less often of "flip-flopping". Intellectually humble people were more likely to think that it was actually good when a politician changed what they thought based on new evidence.

That would prove helpful in a range of different arenas, the authors said. Showing a little more intellectual humility would be better in politics, for instance.

"If you think about what's been wrong in Washington for a long time, it's a whole lot of people who are very intellectually arrogant about the positions they have, on both sides of the aisle," Leary said. "But even in interpersonal relationships, the minor squabbles we have with our friends, lovers and coworkers are often about relatively trivial things where we are convinced that our view of the world is correct and their view is wrong."

And it would make better business people, too.

"If you're sitting around a table at a meeting and the boss is very low in intellectual humility, he or she isn't going to listen to other people's suggestions," Leary said. "Yet we know that good leadership requires broadness of perspective and taking as many perspectives into account as possible."

The researchers hope that they can work to encourage and teach intellectual humility, to help improve people.

Retirees: Blow This Tax Deadline and You Could Pay Dearly - TIME

Retirees: Blow This Tax Deadline and You Could Pay Dearly

Posted: 17 Mar 2017 03:00 AM PDT

This year, two important IRS drop-dead dates have shifted by one or more days. One gives you a little extra time; the other, a critical date for some retirees, is pushed forward.
First, the big change that affects taxpayers of all ages: The usual April 15 deadline for filing your income tax return is delayed to April 18. That’s a fluke of the calendar, involving a holiday celebrated only in Washington D.C. and the fact that April 15 falls on a Saturday.
The other change, for older taxpayers: The due date for taking an initial required minimum distribution (RMD) from a tax-advantaged savings account is March 31. The normal deadline is April 1, but because that falls on a Saturday the date was moved forward.

This is no small matter. Anyone who turned 70½ in 2016 and holds assets in a traditional IRA or (in most cases) a 401(k) plan must begin taking distributions. (You may be able to hold off on a 401(k) RMD if you are still working at that employer.)
The penalty for messing up an RMD is stiff: Miss the deadline and you forfeit half the amount you were required to withdraw. Few people miss this deadline on purpose, research shows. It’s usually due to procrastination and forgetfulness, or a clerical error of some sort.
This is a confusing deadline because every year after the initial distribution you must take your RMD by Dec. 31. Only in the first year do you get a grace period that usually runs to April 1 of the following year. And remember that taking an initial distribution now for 2016 means you must take another distribution–for 2017–by Dec. 31 of this year.
Millions of account holders cut it close on this deadline every year, and thousands miss it. Some 43% of Fidelity account holders due for their first RMD in 2016 had not taken the full amount as of Dec. 23. Some 40% had not taken anything, Fidelity reports.
Two-thirds of IRA holders put off taking any distributions until the age they are required to do so, Investment Company Institute data show. That means a lot of folks are likely bumping up against this important March 31 deadline. It may be extra easy to overlook this date, given that income tax returns need not be filed until April 18 this year.
A 2010 report by the Treasury Department’s Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration estimated that as many as 250,000 IRA owners each year miss the deadline for RMDs totaling $350 million. That tardiness generates potential tax penalties of $175 million.
The government requires distributions to keep individuals from avoiding income tax indefinitely. If you are required to take a distribution, your IRA or 401(k) custodian probably sent you a notice. If not, you should contact them immediately and ask for the calculation, which is based on a drawdown rate designed to get near a zero balance in the last year of your remaining life expectancy.
Going forward, consider automating the process—most IRA and plan administrators will calculate your annual RMD and send you a check quarterly or yearly. Automating your RMDs works best if you have all your tax-deferred savings in one place, which is a strong argument for consolidating your accounts. If you have multiple IRAs, your RMD is based on your total holdings but you can take the dollars from whichever IRA or IRAs you choose.
If you don’t need to spend the money you withdraw right away, it makes sense to reinvest it. You can cash out the required amount and stash it in a taxable account. Or if you want to keep your portfolio intact, you may be able to transfer the investments directly to a taxable account, which will save you the hassle of selling and repurchasing the holdings. Either way, of course, you will have to pay the taxes owed.

Jimmy Kimmel Thinks Trump Should Watch ‘Sesame Street’ - New York Times

Jimmy Kimmel Thinks Trump Should Watch ‘Sesame Street’

Welcome to Best of Late Night, a rundown that lets you sleep — and lets us get paid to watch comedy. What do you think of it? What else are you interested in? Let us know: thearts@nytimes.com.
Could Trump Learn From ‘Schoolhouse Rock’?
The late-show hosts took President Trump to task for the budget he released on Thursday that proposes eliminating funding for various arts and social programs. Jimmy Kimmel led the charge.
“There are a lot of cuts in the plan, including: PBS would be cut, Meals on Wheels would be cut, the National Endowment for the Arts would be cut. The guy who has three oil paintings of himself in his bathroom wants to cut the National Endowment for the Arts. And Meals on Wheels — how could that be? How can you cut Meals on Wheels? Meals on Wheels is out, but don’t worry, the golf trips to Mar-a-Lago every weekend, those will not stop.”
“Before he gets rid of ‘Sesame Street,’ I think we should make the president watch it a couple of times. That show teaches so many things he needs to know: which thing is bigger than the other, how to spell, the importance of telling the truth and sharing, listening to others. Maybe throw in some ‘Schoolhouse Rock,’ and he can find out how government works. Let’s get on that.”

Mr. Kimmel also gave a shout-out to Disney’s new movie, “Beauty and the Beast.” But that, too, was a swipe at the president.
“The live-action version of ‘Beauty and the Beast’ opens tomorrow. Now ‘Beauty and the Beast’ is the story of a beautiful woman from a small village who falls for a selfish, disgusting monster who lives in a palace filled with gold. Melania Trump is calling it the feel-good movie of the year.”

Psyched for Spring Training? Meyers Isn’t.
Most sports fans’ attention is on March Madness right now. (See the Punchiest Punchlines below.) But Major League Baseball spring training is also underway. You haven’t noticed? Seth Meyers isn’t surprised.
“Spring training? ‘Hey, everybody, I’m off to spend a week in Florida.’ ‘Oh, are you going to golf or go to the beach?’ ‘No, I’m going to watch some grown men stretch.’ News flash: Baseball is pretty boring when the games count. No one’s ever been like, ‘You know what I hate about baseball? The stakes are too high.’ Yet every spring people line up to watch their favorite stars give 80 percent for three innings. ‘All right, boys, look alive. This one’s for none of the marbles!’” — SETH MEYERS
The Punchiest Punchlines (March Madness Edition)
“Today was the start of March Madness. That’s right, President Trump released his new budget today.” — SETH MEYERS
“This is cool: I saw that John McCain filled out a March Madness bracket for ESPN. When asked about what he feels best about he said, ‘Arizona.’ When asked what pick he feels worst about he said, ‘Sarah Palin.’” — JIMMY FALLON
“Tomorrow is a great day to be Irish, a terrible day to be an Uber driver.” — JIMMY KIMMEL, talking about St. Patrick’s Day
The Bits Worth Watching
To get his St. Patrick’s Day lingo sorted out, Mr. Kimmel consulted his friend, the Northern Irish actor Jamie Dornan.
The producer and director J. J. Abrams spoke to Jimmy Fallon about his Broadway producing debut, “The Play That Goes Wrong.” A few things went wrong.
Have a Great Weekend
It’s the last weekend of winter — and it’s looking as if it’ll be a blustery one. Stay warm, and we’ll talk to you next week.
NYT

Trump’s Budget: A Visual Guide to the Biggest Winners and Losers - NBC News

POLITICS MAR 16 2017, 2:08 PM ET
Trump’s Budget: A Visual Guide to the Biggest Winners and Losers
by SAM PETULLA

President Donald Trump has released his "America First" budget, and it makes dramatic cuts to the federal government while adding $54 billion in defense spending.
"If [Trump] said it on the campaign, it's in the budget," Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said in statement.
But many of the proposed changes were met with rebuke before even being announced. "It's dead on arrival," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said last month, objecting to the then-rumored cuts in State Department funding. The president's budget is a blueprint — Congress has ultimate control.
See the full scope of Trump's budget proposal below.
Overview of Changes in Trump's Budget

-31.4%
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
-28.7%
State, USAID and International Programs
-20.7%
Agriculture
-20.7%
Labor
-16.3%
Corps of Engineers
-16.2%
Health and Human Services
-15.7%
Commerce
-13.5%
Education
-13.2%
Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
-12.7%
Transportation
-11.7%
Interior
-9.8%
Other
-5.6%
Energy
-5%
Small Business Administration
-4.4%
Treasury
-3.8%
Justice (DOJ)
-0.8%
NASA
0.2%
Social Security Administration
5.9%
Veterans Affairs
6.8%
Homeland Security
10%
Defense
Biggest Winners in the Trump Budget
Mulvaney described the mix of cuts and increases as a "hard power budget" in a briefing with reporters. The biggest winners are focused on defense and national security, consistent with Trump's promise to restore "law and order" and take a more aggressive posture towards terrorism.
5.9%
Veterans Affairs
6.8%
Homeland Security
10%
Defense
Biggest Losers in the Trump Budget
Almost every federal agency and department loses in Trump's budget, but the EPA is hit hardest. However, the proposal also entirely eliminates funding for dozens of smaller agencies and programs such as the National Endowment for the Arts, money for public broadcasting, programs to combat climate change and assistance for low-income Americans, including the Meals on Wheels program.
-31.4%
EPA
-28.7%
State, USAID and International Programs
-20.7%
Labor

NBC

Federal Reserve Raises Interest Rates for Second Time in 3 Months - TIME Business

Federal Reserve Raises Interest Rates for Second Time in 3 Months Posted: 15 Mar 2017 11:18 AM PDT (WASHINGTON) — The Federal Reserve has raised its benchmark interest rate for the second time in three months and signaled that any further hikes this year will be gradual. The move Wednesday reflects a consistently solid U.S. economy and will likely mean higher rates on some consumer and business loans. The Fed’s key short-term rate is rising by a quarter-point to a still-low range of 0.75 percent to 1 percent. The central bank said in a statement that a strengthening job market and rising prices had moved it closer to its targets for employment and inflation. The message the Fed is sending is that nearly eight years after the Great Recession ended, the economy no longer needs the support of ultra-low borrowing rates and is healthy enough to withstand steadily tighter credit. Investors had seemed unfazed in recent weeks by the possibility that the Fed will raise rates several times in the coming months. Instead, Wall Street has been sustaining a stock market rally that began with President Donald Trump’s election in November, buoyed by the prospect that tax cuts, an easing of regulations and higher spending for infrastructure will accelerate growth. A robust February jobs report — 235,000 added jobs, solid pay gains and a dip in the unemployment rate to 4.7 percent — added to the perception that the economy appears fundamentally strong. That the Fed is no longer unsettling investors with the signal of a forthcoming rate increase marks quite a change from the anxiety that prevailed after 2008, when the central bank cut its key rate to a record low and kept it there for seven years. During those years, any slight shift in sentiment about when the Fed might begin raising rates — a step that would lead eventually to higher loan rates for consumers and businesses — was enough to move global markets. In 2013, then-Chairman Ben Bernanke sent markets into a panic merely by mentioning that the Fed was contemplating slowing the pace of its bond purchases, which it was using then to keep long-term borrowing rates low. But now, the economy is widely considered sturdy enough to handle modestly higher loan rates. Inflation, which had stayed undesirably low for years, is edging near the 2 percent annual rate that the Fed views as optimal. And while the broadest gauge of the economy’s health — the gross domestic product — remains well below levels associated with a healthy economy, many analysts say they’re optimistic that Trump’s proposed tax cuts, infrastructure spending increases and deregulation may accelerate growth. Those proposals have lifted the confidence of business executives and offset concerns that investors might otherwise have had about the effects of Fed rate increases. Yet for the same reason, some caution that if Trump’s program fails to survive Congress intact, concerns will arise that the president’s plans won’t deliver much economic punch. Investors may start to fret about how steadily higher Fed rates will raise the cost of borrowing and slow spending by consumers and businesses. The Fed typically raises rates to prevent an economy from overheating and inflation from rising too high. But throughout the Fed’s history, its efforts to control inflation have sometimes gone too far — slowing borrowing and spending so much as to trigger a recession. Already, the current expansion, which officially began in 2009, is the third-longest in the post-World War II period. The Fed’s benchmark rate, after modest increases in December 2015 and December 2016 and again on Wednesday, is still quite low by historical standards. But if the Fed ends up raising rates three or four times this year and follows up with three additional hikes in 2018, its benchmark rate would be left at a level that might start to dampen economic activity.

President Trump Is Going to Challenge Fuel Efficiency Standards Shaped by Obama - Associated Press

President Trump Is Going to Challenge Fuel Efficiency Standards Shaped by Obama

Posted: 15 Mar 2017 06:29 AM PDT

(WASHINGTON) — Moving forcefully against Obama-era environmental rules, President Donald Trump is set to announce in Michigan plans to re-examine federal requirements that regulate the fuel efficiency of new cars and trucks.
Trump is expected to reveal his plans during an appearance Wednesday at the American Center for Mobility in Detroit where he’ll challenge the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) emissions targets that were a centerpiece of former President Barack Obama’s strategy to combat global warming. The rollback underscores the Trump administration’s rejection of mainstream climate science in an effort to boost economic growth.
The Detroit center was used to produce B-24 bombers during World War II and is now in the process of being converted into an automotive testing and product development center. While visiting there the president is expected to meet with auto executives and workers and discuss “how his plans for rolling back federal red tape will lead to more American jobs and higher wages, specifically in the automobile sector,” Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters.

The EPA under Obama’s stewardship had promulgated a rule for cars and trucks requiring a fleet-wide average of 54.5 mpg by 2025.
The president will travel later Wednesday to Nashville, Tennessee, where he’ll lay a wreath at President Andrew Jackson’s tomb to mark what would have been Jackson’s 250th birthday, before holding a campaign-style rally in the city.
But the most significant move of the day will likely be the president’s announcement on the CAFE emissions targets. The move will have no immediate effect. But it is expected to set the stage for weaker fuel efficiency standards as well as drawn-out legal battles with environmental groups and states like California that have adopted their own tough tailpipe standards for drivers.
The president will target the Obama administration’s January decision to end a review process before he left office.
Back in 2012, the Obama set fuel-economy regulations for model years 2017-2025. The administration agreed to complete a midterm evaluation in 2018. But seven days before Obama left office, the EPA decided to keep the stringent requirements it had set in place for model years 2022 to 2025. The industry balked at the decision, insisting it was rushed through to beat the change in administrations.
Trump will announce that he’s putting that midterm review back on track, so that officials can spend another year studying the issue before setting new standards in 2018.
While the administration has not said explicitly it wants to weaken the standards, a senior White House official said the Obama-era EPA had ignored reams of data cited by the automotive industry. The official spoke on condition of anonymity at a White House briefing in order to outline the action, despite the president’s criticism of the use of un-named sources.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which represents a dozen major car manufacturers including General Motors, Ford, Fiat Chrysler and Toyota, last month urged EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to relax the standards, saying they will drive up car costs, price customers out of the market and depress the industry. Obama’s EPA had argued the costs to consumers were mitigated by gas savings and that the rules would decrease greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.
Trump campaigned on eliminating “job killing” regulations, and the administration is expected to take additional steps in the coming days to roll back environmental regulations.
Environmentalists expect Trump to ease the gas mileage requirements, which translate to a fleet-wide average of 36 mpg in real-world driving by 2025. “This change makes no sense. Mileage standards save consumers money at the gas pump, make Americans less dependent on oil, reduce carbon pollution and advance innovation,” said Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Once in Nashville, Trump will be given a private tour of Jackson’s home, according to Howard Kittell, the President and CEO of the Hermitage mansion. He’ll also lay a wreath at Jackson’s tomb in honor of the seventh president’s birthday and deliver remarks.
Jackson has enjoyed something of a resurgence thanks to Trump. During the campaign, some of Trump’s aides took to comparing him to the former president — a fellow populist outsider who took on a member of the Washington establishment and ran a campaign railing against corrupt elites.
Trump mused during his first days in Washington that “there hasn’t been anything like this since Andrew Jackson” and hung a portrait of Jackson in the Oval Office after moving in.
Historians had been souring on the slave-owning president whose Indian Removal Act of 1830 commissioned the forced removal of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands. More than 4,000 died during their journeys west.
Jackson’s standing had fallen so much that that the U.S. Treasury opted to remove Jackson from the $20 bill.
But Kittell said that attendance at the museum has surged since the election.
“Jackson is probably getting more media attention now,” Kittell said, ‘than when he was president.”
___
Associated Press writers Tom Krisher and Matthew Daly contributed to this report.

Jackson and Trump: How Two Populist Presidents Compare - New York Times

Jackson and Trump: How Two Populist Presidents Compare
*
*
By PETER BAKER
MARCH 15, 2017
President Trump on Wednesday is visiting the Hermitage, Andrew Jackson’s estate near Nashville, as it begins the celebration of his 250th birthday.
Mr. Trump’s advisers have likened him to Mr. Jackson, the first populist to win the White House. The president has hung Old Hickory’s portrait in the Oval Office and called him “an amazing figure in American history.”
So how alike are the nation’s seventh and 45th presidents?
Physical stature
Mr. Trump, who relishes junk food like Doritos and disdains physical exercise, stands at 6-foot-3 and weighs 236 pounds, according to a letter from his doctor last year, qualifying him as overweight with a body mass index of 29.5. Some think he is overstating his height (his driver’s license lists him at 6-foot-2) and understating his weight (one writer estimated by 30 pounds).
Jackson, who survived diseases like smallpox, malaria, dysentery, rheumatism and dropsy and endured physical disability most of his adult life after being shot in the chest during a duel, was just shy of Mr. Trump in stature, standing 6-foot-1. But Jackson was far thinner, with estimates between 145 pounds and 154 pounds, putting his body mass index at 20 or lower.

Military service
At age 13, an unruly Mr. Trump was packed off by his frustrated parents to New York Military Academy, but he never served in the armed forces, receiving five deferments from the draft during the Vietnam War, four for education and one for bone spurs in his heels.
At age 13, Jackson fought with irregulars in the American Revolution and was captured by the British. Over the years, he rose to major general, won the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812, fought various Indian tribes and effectively conquered Florida.
Political experience
Mr. Trump is the first American elected president without having served in any political office or as a general. He won an Electoral College victory over Hillary Clinton despite drawing only 46 percent of the popular vote. Although a Republican, he often fights his own party orthodoxy on issues like trade and infrastructure spending.
Jackson was the first American elected president who was not part of the Eastern elite although he had served in the House and Senate. In 1824, he won the popular vote but failed to muster a majority in the Electoral College, throwing the race to the House, which chose John Quincy Adams. Four years later, Jackson ousted Adams with 56 percent of the vote, and later won a second term with 54 percent.

Philosophy
Mr. Trump, a wealthy real estate developer known for his bombast, styled himself as a man of the people, beating the dominant political dynasty of his day to win the presidency. He is fighting what his chief strategist calls “the administrative state” and signed orders to build a wall along the Mexican border and temporarily ban visitors from six predominantly Muslim countries. Critics accuse him of having an authoritarian streak, but he thrills supporters with his forthright, bare-knuckles style.
Jackson, a wealthy slaveholding plantation owner known for his bombast, styled himself as a man of the people, beating the dominant political dynasty of his day to win the presidency. He battled the Bank of the United States and signed a law that forced the Cherokee nation out of its land in what was called the Trail of Tears. Critics called him the American Bonaparte for what they saw as his dictatorial streak, but he was popular with everyday Americans who saw him as their champion.

Courting conflict
Mr. Trump relishes fights and made his name in part with a reality television show that pitted contestants against one another, some of whom he dismissed with his classic line, “You’re fired.” He has feuded for years with various figures, including Rosie O’Donnell, whom he has called “a pig,” “a real loser” and “a mentally sick woman.”
Jackson relished fights and made a name for himself as a frequent dueler against those he contended had slighted him. He fought between five and 100 duels, according to historians. In one, he killed a man who had insulted him as “a worthless scoundrel, a poltroon and a coward.” A poltroon was not a good thing to be called.

Battles with courts
After his travel ban was blocked in court, Mr. Trump said, “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”
After the chief justice of the Supreme Court ruled in a case involving the seizure of Cherokee land in Georgia, Jackson was said to have replied, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

The hair
Mr. Trump’s combed-over hair has generated endless commentary. His doctor reported that Mr. Trump takes a prostate-related drug to promote hair growth.
Jackson’s wavy hair in portraits like the one on the $20 bill has long made him stand him out in the presidential pantheon.

Bottom line
Some Jackson biographers find the parallels striking, not necessarily in the details but in the larger picture. “What Mr. Trump borrows from Jackson is not an issue, but a way of thinking about the world,” said Steve Inskeep, the host of NPR’s “Morning Edition” and author of “Jacksonland.” But Jon Meacham, author of “American Lion,” said there is “an essential difference,” noting that Jackson had political experience and could be self-aware. “We simply don’t know yet whether Trump possesses the kind of disciplinethat Jackson brought to the presidency,” he wrote.
NYT

China Says It Followed the Law in Approving 38 Trump Trademarks In ‘Unusually Quick’ Fashion - TIME Business

Posted: 09 Mar 2017 05:45 PM PST (SHANGHAI)—China on Thursday defended its handling of 38 trademarks it recently approved provisionally for President Donald Trump, saying it followed the law in processing the applications at a pace that some experts view as unusually quick. Democrats in Congress were critical of Trump after The Associated Press reported Wednesday that the potentially valuable trademarks had been granted, raising questions of conflict of interest and political favoritism. One senator said the issue “merits investigation.” Trump has sometimes struggled to win trademarks from China; he secured one recently after a 10-year fight that turned his way only after he declared his candidacy for the presidency. China’s foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said in a regular briefing with reporters that Chinese authorities handle all trademark applications “in accordance with the law and regulation.” He declined to comment on speculation about political influence on Trump’s trademark approvals. Critics fear foreign governments might gain leverage from Trump’s global portfolio of brands. Democrats in Congress have been pushing Trump to sever financial ties with his global businesses to avoid potential violations of the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bars federal officials from accepting anything of value from foreign governments unless approved by Congress. The monopoly right to a successful brand in a market like China can be worth huge sums. Former top ethics lawyers from the administrations of Barack Obama and George W. Bush say any special treatment from Beijing in awarding Trump intellectual property protection would violate the Constitution. Concerns about political influence are particularly sharp in China, where the courts and bureaucracy are designed to reflect the will of the ruling Communist Party, and foreign companies and the lawyers that work for them regularly ask embassy staff for help lobbying Chinese officials. Spring Chang, a founding partner at Chang Tsi & Partners, a Beijing law firm that has represented the Trump Organization, declined to comment specifically on Trump’s trademarks. But she did say government relations are an important part of trademark strategy in China. She said she has worked with officials from both the U.S. and Canadian embassies to help her clients. The key, she said, is “you should communicate closely with the government to push your case.” Drawing on public records from the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, the AP compiled a detailed list of 49 trademarks Trump’s lawyers applied for in 2016, even as he railed against China on the campaign trail. On Feb. 22, seven of those marks were rejected , though public records do not indicate why. China granted preliminary approval for 38 marks on Feb. 27 and Mar. 6. Four applications are pending. Matthew Dresden, a China intellectual property attorney at Harris Bricken in Seattle, said the rejections suggested that the trademark office hadn’t done Trump any special favors. “Some did not go through, that suggests it’s just business as usual,” he said. Dan Plane, a director at Simone IP Services, a Hong Kong intellectual property consultancy, said it would be difficult to draw firm conclusions without in-depth research. However, he said the efficiency of China’s trademark office in handling Trump’s caseload suggested favor for a man whose decisions could have a powerful impact on China. “For this many marks to all sail through to preliminary approval this quickly, with nary an issue in sight—that is unheard of to me, and I have been doing this for 16 years,” he said. “I wish my clients’ applications would be dealt with half as expeditiously and graciously.” If no one objects, the new marks will be officially registered after 90 days, bringing the number of Trump’s trademarks in China to 115. Nearly all are in the president’s own name; a few are registered to a Delaware company called DTTM Operations LLC. The new marks could lay the groundwork for an expanded range of branded businesses, including financial, insurance and real estate services, golf clubs, educational institutions, restaurants and bars. A number of the trademarks granted, including those for “social escort” and “body guard” services, appeared to relate specifically to hotels. Other international hotel companies whose documents were reviewed by AP sought similar trademarks. It’s unclear whether any of these Trump-brand businesses will materialize in China. Many companies here register trademarks just to prevent others from using their name inappropriately. Trump has also said he will refrain from new foreign deals while in office. Trump began to file trademark applications in China in late 2005, an effort that accelerated in 2008 as Trump’s lawyers fought for control of Chinese variations of his name, public records show. Years of ambition in China, however, have yet to yield a single marquee development. And despite all the recent activity, Trump still doesn’t have a firm hold on his brand in China. More than 225 Trump-related marks are held or sought by others in China, for an array of things including Trump toilets, condoms, pacemakers and even a “Trump International Hotel.” Trump Organization chief legal officer Alan Garten said the latest registrations were a continuation of efforts that long predate Trump’s presidential run. “Any suggestion to the contrary demonstrates a complete disregard of the facts as well as a lack of understanding of international trademark law,” he said in an email. But a growing number of Democrats disagree. After AP reported Wednesday about the sweep of new approvals, Senators Debbie Stabenow and Ben Cardin called a press conference to lambaste President Trump for his growing Chinese entanglements. Also citing AP’s report, Senator Richard Blumenthal said on the Senate floor that Trump’s intellectual property in China “merits investigation.” “This President’s conflicts of interest are creeping into every corner of the world,” he said in an email to the AP. “The consequence is that he has done nothing to counter Chinese currency manipulation, trade rules violations, military buildup, and other aggressive Chinese actions. Standing up for a great America means putting our nation before personal profit.” Democrats have written to Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson urging scrutiny of Trump’s intellectual property interests in China. “It’s time for Republicans in Congress to join our efforts to hold President Trump accountable,” Senator Dianne Feinstein said in a statement Wednesday. “The Constitution demands it and the American people deserve it.” ___ Associated Press researcher Fu Ting contributed from Shanghai.

Trading Health Care for the Poor for Tax cuts for the Rich - New York Times

Trading Health Care for the Poor for Tax Cuts for the Rich

Tom Price speaking to reporters about the Congressional Budget Office report on Monday at the White House.
STEPHEN CROWLEY / THE NEW YORK TIMES
Older people would be hard hit. The Republican plan repeals the penalty for not buying insurance. One predictable result of this change is that premiums will rise as younger, healthier people refuse to buy insurance. To hold down the cost of average premiums, the proposal would allow insurers to charge five times more for older enrollees than younger ones, rather than three times, as permitted under Obamacare. The outcome would be reduced premiums for young adults, essentially paid for by charging substantially higher premiums for older people — and higher deductibles and other cost-sharing for everyone.

At the same time, the plan provides a $600 billion tax cut over 10 years for wealthy Americans, because they would no longer be subject to the taxes that pay for the health care subsidies. When the tax cuts for the rich and the spending cuts to Medicaid are combined, they would result in deficit reduction of $337 billion by 2026. That’s a small fraction of the national debt in exchange for an enormous amount of human misery.
Trump administration officials and congressional Republicans knew the C.B.O. report would be devastating, so last week they launched a pre-emptive attack on the agency, disparaging its professionalism and findings. Their insults were an impressive display of staying on message for an administration and party that has descended into infighting over the elements of the repeal plan. This might have been expected. Yet in the past President Trump himself has tweeted C.B.O. findings to attack President Obama on economic growth, tax cuts, employment and other issues.
“We disagree strenuously with the report that was put out,” Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said on Monday. “It’s just not believable.”
Well, whether Mr. Price wants to believe it or not, the numbers are the numbers. The C.B.O. has called it as it sees it, and the picture is clear: Trumpcare would throw millions of Americans off their health coverage. And no amount of spin or scorn for the C.B.O. can alter that reality.
NYT

Top South Korean presidential candidate demands China stop retaliation over THAAD - Reuters

Top South Korean presidential candidate demands China stop retaliation over THAAD

By Jack Kim and Christine Kim | SEOUL
The South Korean politician expected to become its next president, Moon Jae-in, called on China on Tuesday to stop economic retaliation against South Korean firms over the deployment of a U.S. missile-defense system.
Moon, speaking in a debate with other presidential contenders from the main opposition Democratic Party, said South Korea must stand up to China and protest against any unjust moves, but also make diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue.
"We should complain about what needs to be complained about and we should make diplomatic efforts to persuade China," Moon said.
"It is also not desirable for China to harm our relationship with excessive retaliation," Moon said.
"I call on China to immediately stop".
By Jack Kim and Christine Kim | SEOUL
The South Korean politician expected to become its next president, Moon Jae-in, called on China on Tuesday to stop economic retaliation against South Korean firms over the deployment of a U.S. missile-defense system.
Moon, speaking in a debate with other presidential contenders from the main opposition Democratic Party, said South Korea must stand up to China and protest against any unjust moves, but also make diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue.
"We should complain about what needs to be complained about and we should make diplomatic efforts to persuade China," Moon said.
"It is also not desirable for China to harm our relationship with excessive retaliation," Moon said.
"I call on China to immediately stop".

China has increased pressure, and imposed some restrictions, on some companies doing business with and in South Korea, which many in South Korea perceive as retaliation for deployment of the missile system.
But Finance Minister Yoo Il-ho said on Monday that South Korea did not have firm evidence of Chinese retaliation and China has not directly said it is targeting South Korean firms.
South Korea will hold a presidential election by May 9 after the impeachment and dismissal last week of its former president, Park Geun-hye.
The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system is likely to be contentious issues in the campaign.
Moon, a human rights lawyer and prominent liberal politician who has been leading in opinion polls, said the government had mishandled the deployment plan by rushing into it and without public consensus.
China is vehemently opposed to South Korea's agreement with the United States to deploy the THAAD system in the South against North Korea's missile threat.
The United States and South Korea say THAAD is for defense against North Korea, but China fears its powerful radar can probe deep into its territory and compromise its security.
The United States began to deploy the system a week ago, a day after North Korea test-fired four missiles.
Russia also worries the deployment could compromise its security, and said it would lead to a stalemate on the Korean peninsula.

(Writing by James Pearson; Editing by Robert Birsel and Michael Perry)

After Pledging to Donate Salary, Trump Declines to Release Proof - CNBC

President Donald Trump pledged to forego a presidential salary, but as his second payday approaches, the White House is declining to say if the president has donated any of his earnings yet.
During the campaign, Trump promised he would take "no salary" if elected — a pledge he reiterated after he won.
"I'm not going to the take the salary," he told "60 Minutes" in November.

The Constitution, however, requires that the president receive a salary, and that it not be reduced during his term. Federal law mandates the president receive a $400,000 annual salary, paid out once a month.
Trump aides have previously said Trump would donate his salary to the Treasury Department or a charity.
MSNBC requested details and documentation about any salary donations from the White House, the Treasury Department and the Office of Personnel Management, which all declined to say whether Trump has donated any of his salary to date. (OPM referred questions to the White House.)
Last month, White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders told the website Politifact that Trump "will be giving" his salary "back to Treasury or donating." The site noted the White House "declined to answer several inquiries into whether Trump has gotten a paycheck already."
Under the law, Trump would receive his first monthly paycheck for $33,333 in February, and another $33,333 on March 20.
Salary donations are not the only area where Trump's pledges to donate revenue are lacking transparency.
During the transition, Trump also unveiled a plan to "donate all profits from foreign governments' patronage of his hotels and similar businesses" to the Treasury Department. The plan was released by Trump's private law firm, Morgan Lewis, but no system or accounting has been released for how or when such donations will be processed or disclosed.

Manufacturers Say They’re Already Seeing a ‘Trump Bump.’ But It’s Not That Simple - TIME Business

Manufacturers Say They’re Already Seeing a ‘Trump Bump.’ But It’s Not That Simple Posted: 10 Mar 2017 12:53 PM PST Two industries that President Donald Trump repeatedly vowed to revitalize during his campaign, coal mining and manufacturing, saw employment gains in the February jobs report. But one analyst says his nascent presidency is not necessarily responsible for those gains. “There’s a perception that just because things are happening now that it’s associated with other events that are happening now and that’s not at all the case,” said Tara Sinclair, an Associate Professor of Economics and International Affairs at George Washington University. “A lot of this is build up of several years from economic improvement.” Manufacturing jobs increased by 28,000 in February, for a total increase of 57,000 over the last three months dating back to the end of Barack Obama’s presidency, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Friday. At this time last year, the United States had lost 5 million manufacturing jobs since 2000, according to CNN. Jobs in the mining industry increased by 8,000 in February, the same month Trump rolled back an Obama-era coal mining regulation aimed at preventing the industry from putting mining waste in nearby water. Mining jobs have increased by 20,000 since hitting a recent low in October 2016. Workers in these industries are the type of people Trump appealed to frequently on the campaign trail, vowing to bring back their jobs. So are they getting what they wished for? It’s not quite that simple,. Sinclair acknowledged the positive trends for these two industries, but said it wasn’t as if Trump entered the Oval Office, waved a magic wand, and revitalized them.  “That is definitely the wrong takeaway,” Sinclair said. “It’s going to take a lot more than that.” Rather, Sinclair said, the increases could be the result of an economy that was already during Obama’s presidency, long before the first jobs report of Trump’s presidency beat economists’ expectations. Milder than usual winter weather has also been credited for the positive jobs report overall. Trade organizations like the National Mining Association and National Association of Manufacturers, however, were inclined to give more credit to the Trump Administration’s emphasis on promoting deregulation and domestic manufacturing as a cause for these gains.  National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President and CEO Jay Timmons released a statement praising the “Trump bump” in the jobs report. “Across America, manufacturers’ confidence is high, and business optimism continues to soar, because of President Donald Trump’s laser focus on policies that will accelerate a jobs surge in America,” Timmons said. Chad Moutray, chief economist for the National Association of Manufacturers, said that in anticipation of these policies, manufacturing companies were hiring more. “When I talk to a bunch of manufacturers they are optimistic about things coming down the pipe,” he said in an interview. “It’s too early to say if he is fulfilling campaign promises because it’s February but you’ve seen regulatory rollback that I think gives manufacturers reasons for hope.” Moutray did echo Sinclair, though, in noting that the gains were also partially due to an expanding global economy. Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association, said the increase in coal jobs is further proof the industry is on the upswing. “Our industry has noticed an improvement in fortunes since he [Trump] was elected and the regulatory relief that he offered,” said Popovich, who wrote shortly after the election about the positive impact Trump’s presidency could have on the coal industry. Sinclair did not rule out the possibility that deregulation could improve employment prospects in coal mining. But overall, she said, these gains are only a fraction of the lost jobs Trump has pledged to bring back. “Particularly with manufacturing, we’re never going back to the peaks that we saw before, particularly in terms of employment,” she said. “There are still people who didn’t see job gains that voted for Trump and he is going to have a hard time meeting those expectations.”

Questions of Profit in Politics Raised by Trump Administration Are Older Than You May Think - TIME

Questions of Profit in Politics Raised by Trump Administration Are Older Than You May Think Posted: 10 Mar 2017 08:00 AM PST In theory, what’s prohibited is clear: “using one’s official position to endorse any product or service,” as the director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics put it in a letter on Thursday. The letter expressed his disappointment that the White House would not be disciplining Presidential adviser Kellyanne Conway over her having told FOX News viewers in February to “go buy” Ivanka Trump’s fashion line in what she described as a “free commercial.” In practice, things can get a little murky. The ongoing dispute over Conway’s statement is just one of the many ways in which President Donald Trump’s short time in office has already been marked by several conflicts between the business of governing and business in the more typical sense. Not only has he nominated an extraordinarily business-oriented cabinet — which has presented its own problems for the Office of Government Ethics — but some legal scholars and bipartisan ethics watchdogs still don’t think he has done enough to distance himself from his family’s business. Also on Thursday, the State Department confirmed that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson would recuse himself from working on issues related to the Keystone XL pipeline, due to his history as an oil-business executive. At its core, the debate is about whether the President’s having a foot in the business world might sway his official decisions and, conversely, whether his political power and those of his associates might improperly help his business. But, despite the trouble caused by business interests in the Trump administration, experts say that this debate is in many ways just more of the same. Since the early days of the Republic, the question of whether government officials can do well for the nation and themselves at the same time has simmered — occasionally boiling over. Good Behavior? That said, for a couple of reasons, the first decades of U.S. history were relatively scandal-free in terms of conflicts of interest and corruption. “Between 1789 and 1820, there were hardly any records of ethics scandals or widespread corruption in the federal government,” says Robert Roberts, author of White House Ethics: The History of the Politics of Conflict of Interest Regulationand professor of political science at James Madison University. “That had a lot to do with who went into the federal government — primarily elites, recruited from very wealthy families, because they were the only ones who had the education to perform the functions of leading government.” But it wasn’t just a matter of wealth insulating the Founding Fathers from the financial concerns that might lead to conflicts of interest. The founders were also adamant about establishing safeguards to make sure American leaders were not tempted to profit personally from their positions of political power. They had seen the bribery that was common in Europe at the time, and they knew they knew that their relatively weak, young nation would be a tempting target for the monarchies of France, Great Britain, and the Eastern European regions that now include Austria, Hungary and Russia. (Yes, concerns about foreign intervention and influence in U.S. politics are as old as America is.) That was why the founders ended up including ideas like the Emoluments Clause, which prevents officeholders from accepting payment from foreign states, in the Constitution. Eventually, however, the founders’ fears — and their personal wealth — weren’t enough to prevent conflicts of interest and corruption from becoming a thing. Mass Politics and Mass Corruption In some ways, it starts with Alexander Hamilton. He was the one who decided to issue bonds to deal with America’s Revolutionary War debt, a system that — though risky — ended up making the wealthy wealthier. So it was that, when Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans came to power in the election of 1800, explains Roberts, they did so on a wave of “populist anger” that had been simmering in the 1780s and 1790s. Many felt that the Federalist government had been too close to the rich merchants and other financial speculators who had benefited from Hamilton’s system. So, by the 1820s, government service was no longer seen exclusively as the province of the elite. However, it took some adjusting to figure out what kind of pipeline to office would replace the old one. One early possibility, which was exemplified under the presidency of Andrew Jackson, was the “spoils system.” This system rewarded party loyalists with federal government jobs. Though some Americans were happy that Jackson was bringing new blood to Washington — in keeping with his campaign promises — the scramble for jobs and profit helped to spread a culture of corruption within government circles. Eventually, it was simply seen as par for the course that government officials would try to make some money on the side. Customs officials cleaned up especially well, such as Samuel Swartwout, the chief customs officer for the Port of New York from 1829 to 1838, who stole $1,225,705.67 during his eight years of office, according to Roberts’ book. In another particularly flagrant example, when the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican-American War in 1848 and included a provision to compensate those whose property had been damaged by the war, Sen. Thomas Corwin of Ohio —who went on to become President Millard Fillmore’s Treasury Secretary — was paid to serve as an attorney representing a fraudulent claim before the Mexican War Commission. Thus, a law enacted on Feb. 26, 1853, first prohibited members of Congress and federal employees from receiving anything of value for helping private citizens pursue claims against the government, and secondly, prohibited federal employees from assisting in the prosecution of a claim if they were paid for their efforts. Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter Civil War and Uncivil Service The Civil War, however, was where these conflicts of interest really came into focus as something that was both prevalent and problematic. After all, a financial conflict of interest was directly tied to the fight over slavery: elected officials and U.S. presidents who also managed large plantations clearly had a bias when it came to addressing slavery as lawmakers. “We didn’t deal with the issue that caused one of our worst constitutional crises, the Civil War, because of this financial conflict of interest,” Richard Painter, who was chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush and now teaches corporate law at the University of Minnesota Law School, argues. Secondly, on a much narrower level, supplying the Union Army was big business, and the 1853 statute did nothing to stop the widespread corruption among contractors hired to do that. “This was an opportunity for people to get rich quick by promising to sell the federal government horses, arms and uniforms, getting paid for those things and then supplying them with junk,” says Kathleen Clark, a professor of law at Washington University School of Law and a member of the D.C. Bar Rules of Professional Conduct Review Committee. And, she says, because many federal employees worked other jobs, too, that meant they were involved with such fraud too. For example, a federal employee who also owned a horse farm might profit by being able to influence a decision on a source of military horses. Or, a person might put in a claim for services rendered when no such services had been supplied, and a government official who helped see the claim through might get a cut of the profit. (One response to this widespread problem was the False Claims Act of 1863, considered the nation’s oldest whistle-blower law.) After the war, under the Ulysses S. Grant administration, officials were said to have lined their pockets and traded favors with private-sector representatives. During the era of railroads — a time when government had the power to decide whose rail company got to do what — deals flowed between executives and officials. Despite the laws that had been passed, the spoils system and the culture of corruption persisted. In fact, President James Garfield was assassinated in 1881 by Charles Guiteau, a man who believed the Republican leader “owed him a patronage position in the diplomatic corps,” according to the National Museum of American History. All of these problems led to the civil-service reform movement of the 1880s. For example, in 1883, a civil-service reform act — better known as the Pendleton Act — established a testing requirement for certain offices to ensure better-qualified officeholders. And eventually, says Painter, a perhaps more important step was taken: the federal government started paying legislators enough, in theory, to prevent them from needing to keep open any side businesses that could lead to potential conflicts of interest. Holding The Revolving Door Open And yet government officeholders continued to raise eyebrows — and more — with the ways they were seen to profit from their positions. For example, Andrew Mellon of Mellon Bank and Gulf Oil was the Treasury Secretary for Republican Presidents Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. Some, like Texas’ Rep. Wright Patman, argued at the time that Mellon’s simultaneous roles in the cabinet and the business world violated a prohibition on Treasury officials being “directly or indirectly be concerned or interested in carrying on the business of trade or commerce, or be owner in whole or in part of any sea-vessel.” (Mellon became a particular target of public ire after the stock market crash of 1929, which his bank survived relatively well.) Some presidents had profitable businesses themselves, which could cause problems. For example, Herbert Hoover, who cashed out on his mining business after World War I, claimed publicly throughout the years that his money was in what we would consider a blind trust — but his story shows how hard it is to separate the politician for his business life. Congress investigated whether his son Herbert Clark Hoover Jr. was using his White House connection to benefit his radio-technology business. Nothing came of the probe, but as Fortune put it in 1932, the president’s wealth and that of his family remained “naturally” and “logically” an “object of interest” to the citizenry. “Hoover made careful that he didn’t look like he had conflict of interest,” according to Spencer Howard, the archives technician at the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum. “He removed all appearances of impropriety as best he could, but there’s really strong circumstantial evidence that his financial advisor was more active than he was claiming. Even if you have divested yourself, you still know people.” In the middle of the Cold War-era defense buildup after the second World War II, scandal racked the Truman administration, in which “influence peddlers” nicknamed “five percenters” by New York Herald Tribune secured government contracts for clients willing to pay them 5% of the value of the contract. After Truman, President Dwight D. Eisenhower filled his cabinet with business leaders, Roberts points out, which progressives argued meant they would “use their power to favor interests of the industries they come from.” He says scandals “exploded” during the Eisenhower era. For example, in what TIME called the “highest-voltage power controversy of the Eisenhower era,” a utility combine’s claim for damages over a canceled contract was eventually tossed out by the Supreme Court because one banker served as both a vice-president of a bank and a financing expert for the Bureau of the Budget, which both selected the utility company for the project and chose that particular bank to finance it. On Oct. 23, 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed into law the first major attempt to reorganize America’s criminal conflict-of-interest statutes, some of which were a century old. The revisions expanded the types of government matters in which potential conflicts of interest could arise and in which conflicts of interest are prohibited. It also designated a category of “special Government employees” to cover the growing number of people who may do part-time consulting work for the government on occasion, and it hammered out a way that the government could receive advice from these individuals while not unduly restricting what they could do in their day jobs. The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (signed into law after Watergate) created the Office of Government Ethics. Further changes in 1989 made it easier for business executives to work in government by letting them sell off their financial assets without facing a tax penalty. Conflict-of-interest statutes continued to be revisited to this day — and yet it is clear that the question of propriety is far from settled. If American history is any indication, concerns about the role of money in government won’t go away any time soon.

Barack Obama-appointed US attorney fired after refusing calls from Donald Trump's administration to resign - Independent

An outspoken federal  prosecutor in New York known for fiercely railing against public corruption has been fired after he refused an order from Donald Trump's administration to stand down.

It emerged on Friday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was seeking the resignations of 46 US attorneys who served under the leadership of Barack Obama.

However, US Attorney Preet Bharara refused to resign, announcing on Twitter on Saturday that he was instead sacked from his position.

"I did not resign," he said. "Moments ago I was fired. Being the US Attorney in SDNY will forever be the greatest honour of my professional life."


His dismissal comes months after he met with the President at Trump Tower, telling reporters afterwards the president had asked him to stay on and he was intending to do so.

Many of the federal prosecutors who were nominated by Mr Obama had already left their positions before the request, but some had stayed on in the first weeks of the Trump administration.

Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said on Friday the forced resignations were necessary “in order to ensure a uniform transition”.


READ MORE
Sessions asks 46 Obama-era prosecutors to resign
“Until the new US attorneys are confirmed, the dedicated career prosecutors in our US attorney's offices will continue the great work of the department in investigating, prosecuting and deterring the most violent offenders,” she said in a statement.

Within hours of the order, US attorneys around the country — including in New Jersey, Rhode Island, Minnesota and Montana — had publicly announced their resignations.

Although it is customary for the 93 US attorneys to leave their positions when a new President enters the office, the changes do not usually happen all at once. Mr Sessions lost his position as US attorney for the Southern District of Alabama in a similar sweep by then-Attorney General Janet Reno in 1993.

Questions about Mr Bharara were directed to the Justice Department by the White House on Saturday.

Mr Bharara was appointed by Mr Obama in 2009. In frequent public appearances, Mr Bharara has decried public corruption after successfully prosecuting over a dozen state lawmakers, Democrats and Republicans alike.

One US attorney appointed by President George W Bush – Rod Rosenstein of Maryland – remained in his position for the duration of the Obama administration.

A Justice Department spokesman, Peter Carr, said Mr Trump has asked Rosenstein and Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente, who has served as US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to stay on.

Tim Purdon, a former US attorney for North Dakota in the Obama administration, recalled that President Barack Obama permitted Bush appointees to remain on until their successors had been appointed and confirmed.

READ MORE
Assad says he is open to cooperation with Trump on Syrian war
Donald Trump's new travel ban suffers first legal setback
Obsession with Trump's alleged Russia links is a dangerous distraction
“The way the Obama administration handled it was appropriate and respectful and classy,” he said. “This saddens me because many of these people are great public servants and now they are being asked to leave.”

Montana's US Attorney Mike Cotter said he received a phone call from Acting Attorney General Dana Boente telling him “the president has directed this".

“I think it's very unprofessional and I'm very disappointed,” he said. “What happened today on Friday, March 10, that was so important that all Obama appointees who are US attorneys need to be gone?”

“I gotta write that [resignation] letter. It's going to be a one-liner,” he added.

New York Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat, said in a statement last week that he was “troubled to learn” of the resignation demands, particularly of Mr Bharara, since Mr Trump called him in November and assured him that he wanted Bharara to remain Manhattan's top federal prosecutor.

Mr Schumer said that by requesting immediate resignations, Mr Trump was “interrupting ongoing cases and investigations and hindering the administration of justice.”

Mr Bharara, who was once lauded on the cover of Time magazine as the man who is “busting Wall Street” after successfully prosecuting dozens of insider traders, has in the past few years set his sights on prosecuting over a dozen state officeholders — Democrats and Republicans — including New York's two most powerful legislators.

The request from Mr Sessions came as Bharara's office is prosecuting former associates of Democratic Govenor Andrew Cuomo in a bribery case. Also, prosecutors recently interviewed New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio as part of a probe into his fundraising. The mayor's press secretary has said the mayor is cooperating and that he and his staff had acted appropriately.

Mr Sessions' decision to include Mr Bharara's name on the list of resignations of holdovers from the Obama administration surprised Manhattan prosecutors and other political figures.

New York State Assemblyman Steven McLaughlin, a Republican, had urged Mr Trump and Mr Sessions to reconsider. “Big mistake,” he wrote on Twitter.



The request for resignations came just days after Mr Trump claimed that Mr Obama tapped his telephones during last year's election. FBI Director James Comey privately asked the Justice Department to dispute the claim because he believed the allegations were false. Mr Bharara worked for Mr Comey when he was US attorney in Manhattan under President George W Bush.

A Popular Cure for the Retirement Crisis Isn’t Making Much Headway - TIME Business

A Popular Cure for the Retirement Crisis Isn’t Making Much Headway

Posted: 09 Mar 2017 03:00 AM PST

Automatic enrollment in company-sponsored savings plans has been hailed as a key part of the solution to our retirement savings crisis. But new evidence suggests this feature may be far less pervasive than previously believed.
U.S. Census Bureau researchers recently studied participation in workplace savings plans by gathering data from the annual W-2 wage and tax forms that employers send to employees. That encompassed a huge pool of small businesses likely missed in most surveys on employee benefits, which tend to focus on large employers. Incorporating data on this cache of small businesses changes the statistics on plan participation dramatically.

The researchers found that smaller employers are far less likely to offer plans than big companies. For instance, while 93% of companies with more than 10,000 employees offered 401(k)-type plans, the percentages were only 33% for companies with 25 to 49 workers and 20% for businesses with 10 to 24 employees.
Most alarming: The gap between those who are offered a 401(k) plan and those who participate is far wider than commonly believed. Some 79% of Americans are eligible to contribute to a 401(k) but only 41% of eligible workers do so, the Census Bureau research shows. By contrast, the American Benefits Council has estimated that 80% of eligible workers participate in their defined-contribution plan, the vast majority of which are 401(k) plans.
In a nutshell, the Census data suggests participation rates are half what was previously believed. And it runs counter to the thesis that automatic enrollment is on the rise and making a big difference in the retirement security of most Americans.
How do we account for this sobering news? Start with the sheer volume of small businesses. In the U.S., employers with fewer than 500 workers number 28 million while larger employers number just 18,500. Small businesses employ nearly half of all workers. Some 20 million small businesses are sole proprietors, meaning their lone employee is the owner.
Benefits surveys try to account for small businesses. But because large companies set the pace for benefits and employ so many people, these companies’ benefits plans may get overweighted in surveys. Meanwhile, small businesses are less likely to offer a 401(k) plan in the first place and even less likely to offer one with automatic enrollment.
Only 12.1% of businesses that employ fewer than 500 workers have a 401(k) plan with auto enrollment, according to the Urban Institute. That compares to 21% of companies that employ more than 1,000.
It stands to reason that if small businesses generally do not offer 401(k) plans with auto enrollment—and survey data miss millions of small businesses—the spread of this feature probably has been overstated.
That doesn’t change the fact that auto enrollment has been a success where it is offered. Bank of America Merrill Lynch found that plans with auto enrollment had 32% more participants than those that did not include the feature.
At the same time, sole proprietors have many savings options, like the tax-advantaged SEP IRA where they can sock away as much as $54,000 this year—even if they must opt in on their own. And workers at small businesses increasingly have access to state-sponsored tax-advantaged savings plans like those being rolled out in California, Oregon, Illinois, Maryland, and Connecticut.
But from a policy perspective, if we’re counting on auto enrollment to solve the retirement savings crisis, we should probably find a way to hook in more small businesses.

One in Six May Lose Health Insurance Under the GOP’s Obamacare Replacement - TIME

One in Six May Lose Health Insurance Under the GOP’s Obamacare Replacement

Posted: 08 Mar 2017 12:26 PM PST

A new study has some good news and some bad news about the GOP’s new health care proposal:
Average health care insurance premiums would go down for marketplace customers, but at least one out of six consumers covered under the Affordable Care Act’s individual marketplace would no longer have their insurance under the GOP’s replacement, according to a new report from S&P Global Market Intelligence.
Republican lawmakers debuted their proposal on Monday, potentially ending the ACA’s current mandate to buy insurance, while reorganizing Medicaid funding.
S&P, which expects a decline in enrollment in the individual marketplace and in those covered under Medicaid, estimates that the GOP’s changes would result in 2 million to 4 million fewer open marketplace enrollees, as compared to an estimated 12.2 million who opted into the ACA’s individual marketplace in 2017.
S&P is also expecting a 4 million to 6 million decrease in those covered by Medicaid between 2020 and 2024 if the new proposal passes. Roughly 51.6 million in 32 states and Washington, D.C. that participated in the Medicaid expansion were covered by Medicaid at the end of 2016, S&P reported.
Those lower enrollment figures would decrease premiums for consumers, but only for some groups.
The declines will result in “increased affordability for the eligible younger population, and reduced affordability for the older population,” the report stated.