Rex Tillerson Reportedly Plans To Skip NATO Meeting, Visit Russia Instead - Huffington Post

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson plans to skip a meeting with NATO foreign ministers next month in order to stay home for a visit by China’s president and will go to Russia later in April, U.S. officials said on Monday, disclosing an itinerary that allies may see as giving Moscow priority over them.

Tillerson intends to miss what would have been his first meeting of the 28 NATO allies on April 5-6 in Brussels so that he can attend President Donald Trump’s expected April 6-7 talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, four current and former U.S. officials said.

Skipping the NATO meeting and visiting Moscow could risk feeding a perception that Trump may be putting U.S. dealings with big powers first, while leaving waiting those smaller nations that depend on Washington for security, two former U.S. officials said.

Trump has often praised Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Tillerson worked with Russia’s government for years as a top executive at Exxon Mobil Corp, and has questioned the wisdom of sanctions against Russia that he said could harm U.S. businesses.

A State Department spokeswoman said Tillerson would meet on Wednesday with foreign ministers from 26 of the 27 other NATO countries ― all but Croatia ― at a gathering of the coalition working to defeat the Islamic State militant group.

POOL NEW / REUTERS

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson plans to miss what would have been his first meeting of the 28 NATO allies next month.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was due to have arrived in Washington on Monday for a three-day visit that was to include talks with U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis and to take part in the counter-Islamic State meetings.

The State Department spokeswoman said Tillerson would not have a separate, NATO-focused meeting the 26 foreign ministers in Washington but rather that they would meet in the counter-Islamic State talks.

“After these consultations and meetings, in April he will travel to a meeting of the G7 (Group of Seven) in Italy and then on to meetings in Russia,” she added, saying U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Tom Shannon would represent the United States at the NATO foreign ministers meeting.

‘GRAVE ERROR’

Representative Eliot Engel, the senior Democrat on the U.S. House of Representatives foreign affairs committee, said that Tillerson was making a mistake by skipping the Brussels talks.

“Donald Trump’s Administration is making a grave error that will shake the confidence of America’s most important alliance and feed the concern that this Administration simply too cozy with (Russian President) Vladimir Putin,” Engel said in a written statement.

“I cannot fathom why the Administration would pursue this course except to signal a change in American foreign policy that draws our country away from western democracy’s most important institutions and aligns the United States more closely with the autocratic regime in the Kremlin,” he added.

A former U.S. official echoed the view.

“It feeds this narrative that somehow the Trump administration is playing footsie with Russia,” said the former U.S. official on condition of anonymity.

“You don’t want to do your early business with the world’s great autocrats. You want to start with the great democracies, and NATO is the security instrument of the transatlantic group of great democracies,” he added.

X

Any Russian visit by a senior Trump administration official may be carefully scrutinized after the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on Monday publicly confirmed his agency was investigating any collusion between the Russian government and Trump’s 2016 presidential election campaign.

Trump has already worried NATO allies by referring to the Western security alliance as “obsolete” and by pressing other members to meet their commitments to spend at least 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense.

Last week, he dismayed British officials by shrugging off a media report, forcefully denied by Britain, that the administration of former President Barack Obama tapped his phones during the 2016 White House race with the aid of Britain’s GCHQ spy agency.

A former U.S. official and a former NATO diplomat, both speaking on condition of anonymity, said the alliance offered to change the meeting dates so Tillerson could attend it and the Xi Jinping talks but the State Department had rebuffed the idea.

The former diplomat said it was vital to present a united front toward Moscow. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created in 1949 to serve as a bulwark against the Soviet Union.

“Given the challenge that Russia poses, not just to the United States but to Europe, it’s critical to engage on the basis of a united front if at all possible,” the diplomat said.

Angela Merkel and her press corps show how big democracies are supposed to operate - Economist

German lessons

Angela Merkel and her press corps show how big democracies are supposed to operate

The contrast between the chancellor and Donald Trump could not be greater

Democracy in America

Mar 18th 2017by LEXINGTON

TO APPRECIATE how shocking President Donald Trump is to modern German sensibilities, consider the “America First!” slogan that so cheers his supporters. Then ponder how Germans—and indeed voters across Europe—would react if an avowed law-and-order nationalist were to seek the office of Bundeskanzler with the slogan: “Germany First!” Several issues divided Mr Trump and Chancellor Angela Merkel at their first meeting in the White House on March 17th. At an often awkward press conference in the East Room, the two leaders politely disagreed on everything from immigration to free trade and the value of seeking multinational agreements. Their comportment could hardly have been more different. Mrs Merkel was every inch the cool, reserved physicist-by-training, at moments giving her American host the icy stare of a Mother Superior told a dirty joke. Mr Trump was dyspeptic, defensive and visibly irritated by press questions about his latest controversial tweets.

But the real dividing line between the two involved the nature of political leadership. Mr Trump, being Mr Trump, presented himself as a tribune of the people, heeding and acting on public demands to end “unfair” treatment of America. He catalogued some of those resentments. He said it is time for members of the NATO alliance to pay their “dues”—countries “must pay what they owe”, he grumbled—though as members of NATO, governments do not technically “owe” anything but have merely made political commitments to spend the equivalent of 2% of GDP on defence. He cited public demands for tighter controls on immigration in the name of “national security,” adding that: “immigration is a privilege, not a right.” He condemned previous free trade deals and spoke of the need for American workers to come first from now on.

Mrs Merkel’s response was subtle but brutal. She noted that free trade agreements have “not always been that popular” in Germany, and referred to protests in her own country relating to free trade pacts that the European Union has either signed with foreign partners or wants to sign. She recalled the specific fears raised by an EU pact with South Korea, and the predictions that the German car industry would suffer from increased competition and more open markets. Instead, she said, the pact with South Korea “brought more jobs” and both sides won. “I represent German interests,” she said at one point, just as the American president “stands up for American interests.” Listen carefully and Mrs Merkel was telling Mr Trump that she, like every leader in the world, has domestic politics to think about. Left unspoken was the point that it is easy, even dangerously easy, to let such distinct national interests provoke a clash. Her core message to Mr Trump was that real political leadership involves seeking a co-operative solution that leaves everyone ahead, and that international relations do not have to be zero-sum.

Mrs Merkel had no desire to pick an open fight. She has long experience with swaggering male leaders who like to throw their weight around, from President Vladimir Putin of Russia to the former French leader, Nicolas Sarkozy. The German press corps that covers the chancellor has long swapped tales of the dry, off-the-record jokes that she cracks at the expense of such men, often under the cover of self-deprecation. After one European summit in Brussels at which the hyper-active Mr Sarkozy had been more manic than usual, Mrs Merkel told her press corps: “I think I am the most boring person that he has ever met.”

The German leader also came prepared. She is an atypical “Playboy” reader. But that magazine’s interview with Donald Trump in 1990 is one clue studied by Team Merkel before their first meeting. In that preview of his “America First” views, nearly 30 years ago, Mr Trump accused allies of subsidising exports while free-riding on American security, growling: "I'd throw a tax on every Mercedes-Benz rolling into this country.” The president remains an unlikely Merkel ally. He scorns detail, has praised Britain’s decision to leave the EU, obsesses over trade balances (Germany ran a $53bn trade surplus with America last year), and has called her decision to admit more than a million refugees into Germany “catastrophic”. He has appalled the German government with his open admiration for the iron-fisted nationalism of Mr Putin, his hints that he might lift sanctions imposed on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, and his suggestions that NATO is obsolete.

At their press conference Mrs Merkel managed to persuade Mr Trump to state his “strong support” for NATO. She also heard the American leader praise Germany’s schemes for job training and retraining, and apprenticeships in industry. Earlier, she had introduced Mr Trump to bosses from firms like Siemens and BMW, who talked up their American factories and investments. That was smart. Apprenticeships are a big part of Germany’s global brand, and an impressed-sounding Mr Trump noted from the podium that his government is “in the process of rebuilding the American industrial base.”

The most awkward moments involved Mr Trump’s repeated claims that he was spied on as a candidate by the Obama administration. Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress have said no evidence exists to support Mr Trump’s tweeted claim of two weeks ago that his telephones at Trump Tower were tapped—a very serious claim. Undaunted, the president sent out his press secretary, Sean Spicer, on March 16th to read out a list of news reports, some of them from far-right conspiracy theorists, which support the idea that the current president was spied on by his predecessor. Mr Spicer stood in the White House briefing room and noted that a conservative retired judge, Andrew Napolitano, had claimed on Fox News television that a British spy agency, GCHQ, secretly intercepted Mr Trump’s communications at Mr Obama’s request.

The British government reacted with unusually open anger, calling the claim “utterly ridiculous”. At the Merkel-Trump press conference German reporters asked Mr Trump if he regretted making that claim. Mr Trump replied, in effect, that the buck does not stop with him. “We said nothing,” the president said. “All we did was quote a certain very talented legal mind who was the one responsible for saying that on television.”

Mr Trump then sought to lighten the mood by referring to the kerfuffle that followed the revelation, in 2013, that American spooks had tapped one of Mrs Merkel’s mobile telephones. Turning to his guest, he said: “At least we have something in common, perhaps.” The look that the chancellor shot back blended incredulity with horror. For Washington-based observers, increasingly used to the idea of an American president who makes baseless claims and attacks other leaders without shame, her dismay was a useful reminder. This is not normal.

Who is Neil Gorsuch? A guide to the Supreme Court nominee - CNBC

Who is Neil Gorsuch? A guide to the Supreme Court nominee
Neil Gorsuch could be the 113th justice of the Supreme Court in less than three weeks. But most Americans still don't know much about him.
Here's a guide to the 49-year-old federal appeals court judge, who was nominated by President Trumpon Jan. 31:
Straight out of central casting
For conservatives smarting at the loss of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died 13 months ago, Gorsuch is just what the doctor ordered. He has a Republican pedigree handed down from his mom, who served in President Ronald Reagan's administration. He graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, then got a doctorate in philosophy from Oxford University.

Neil Gorsuch: Stellar résumé and Scalia-like legal philosophy
Who is Neil Gorsuch? 5 things to know about Trump's nominee
Former law clerks herald Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch's independence

How does he compare to Scalia?
From Trump's original list of 21 potential nominees, Gorsuch was among the closest to being a Scalia clone in terms of his adherence to the Constitution and laws as written. In addition, his reader-friendly writing style has been compared favorably to Scalia's brilliant but more acerbic prose. And like Scalia, he's known for being an active questioner from the bench.
How would he change the court?
In the short term, Gorsuch could give conservatives the fifth vote they need to resolve some 4-4 deadlocks, such as last term's tie vote on the right of labor unions to collect dues from non-members, or this term's potential tie vote on whether religious institutions can compete for public funds. Longer term, he could help form a younger conservative nucleus, particularly if Trump gets to fill more vacancies.

What's he like as a judge?
This is where originalism and textualism come in: Gorsuch basically divorces himself from policy matters or raw emotion by focusing on the words in the Constitution or the statutes requiring interpretation. As a result, liberals often complain about who wins and who loses the cases that come before him — but conservatives contend ideology isn't driving his decisions.
Will he be confirmed?
Gorsuch has some hurdles to clear, such as vehement opposition from liberal interest groups and most Senate Democrats. His brief tenure at the Justice Department during the war on terror means his fingerprints are on controversial subjects, such as the treatment of detainees and the use of warrantless wiretaps.
But thus far, he has emerged from the confirmation battle relatively unscathed, and his unanimous popularity among Republicans should be enough to carry him over the finish line — either by winning the 60 votes needed to clear a Democratic filibuster, or through a Senate rules change that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has threatened to carry out.
CNBC

Bloomberg - Top 100 billionaire in the world - Bloomberg

As of March 20, 2017
The Bloomberg Billionaires Index is a daily ranking of the world’s richest people. Details about the calculations are provided in the net worth analysis on each billionaire’s profile page. The figures are updated at the close of every trading day in New York.
Rank Name Total net worth
1 Bill Gates $86.2B
2 Warren Buffett $77.7B
3 Jeff Bezos $73.8B
4 Amancio Ortega $72.5B
5 Mark Zuckerberg $60.2B
6 Carlos Slim $55.4B
7 Charles Koch $48.1B
8 David Koch $48.1B
9 Larry Ellison $47.9B
10 Larry Page $43.7B
11 Ingvar Kamprad $43.7B
12 Sergey Brin $42.7B
13 Bernard Arnault $42.4B
14 Liliane Bettencourt $37.7B
15 Jack Ma $36.2B
16 Rob Walton $35.2B
17 Jim Walton $34.9B
18 Alice Walton $33.8B
19 John Mars $33.1B
20 Jacqueline Mars $33.1B
21 Wang Jianlin $31.3B
22 Li Ka-Shing $30.6B
23 Sheldon Adelson $29.8B
24 Jorge Paulo Lemann $29.4B
25 Mukesh Ambani $28.0B
26 Steve Ballmer $27.4B
27 George Soros $25.2B
28 Phil Knight $25.1B
29 Wang Wei $24.0B
30 Pony Ma $23.9B
31 Stefan Persson $22.0B
32 Giovanni Ferrero $22.0B
33 Dieter Schwarz $21.4B
34 Paul Allen $20.8B
35 Georg Schaeffler $20.2B
36 Lee Shau Kee $20.2B
37 Michael Dell $20.1B
38 Carl Icahn $19.8B
39 Alwaleed Al Saud $19.3B
40 Susanne Klatten $19.3B
41 Charlie Ergen $19.2B
42 Len Blavatnik $19.0B
43 Leonardo del Vecchio $18.5B
44 Ron Perelman $17.9B
45 Leonid Mikhelson $17.8B
46 Laurene Powell Jobs $17.7B
47 Stefan Quandt $17.5B
48 Francois Pinault $17.5B
49 William Ding $17.3B
50 Lee Kun Hee $17.1B
51 Alexey Mordashov $16.9B
52 Tadashi Yanai $16.8B
53 Lakshmi Mittal $16.8B
54 Serge Dassault $16.7B
55 Vladimir Potanin $16.6B
56 Donald Bren $16.6B
57 Elaine Marshall $16.5B
58 Joseph Safra $16.4B
59 Jim Simons $15.5B
60 Henry Sy Sr $15.0B
61 Alejandro Santo Domingo $15.0B
62 Dilip Shanghvi $15.0B
63 Ernesto Bertarelli $14.9B
64 Pallonji Mistry $14.8B
65 Viktor Vekselberg $14.8B
66 Alisher Usmanov $14.6B
67 Robert Kuok $14.6B
68 Thomas Peterffy $14.5B
69 Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi $14.3B
70 Vladimir Lisin $14.2B
71 Ray Dalio $14.1B
72 Marcel Telles $14.1B
73 Stefano Pessina $14.0B
74 Iris Fontbona $13.8B
75 Dustin Moskovitz $13.6B
76 Masayoshi Son $13.5B
77 Mikhail Fridman $13.5B
78 Azim Premji $13.4B
79 Henry Cheng $13.4B
80 Gina Rinehart $13.3B
81 Harold Hamm $13.1B
82 Shiv Nadar $12.9B
83 John Menard Jr $12.8B
84 Si Newhouse $12.8B
85 Alberto Bailleres $12.8B
86 Robin Li $12.7B
87 Rupert Murdoch $12.7B
88 Charlene de Carvalho-Heineken $12.6B
89 Klaus-Michael Kuehne $12.6B
90 Peter Woo $12.4B
91 George Kaiser $12.4B
92 Yongxing Liu $12.4B
93 Dietrich Mateschitz $12.4B
94 Takemitsu Takizaki $12.3B
95 Yeung Kin-Man $12.2B
96 Steve Cohen $12.1B
97 Hugh Grosvenor $12.0B
98 Lukas Walton $12.0B
99 Hasso Plattner $12.0B
100 Lui Che Woo $11.9B

How a possible Yellen departure could spark a fire under the Fed to cut its $4.5 trillion balance sheet - Reuters

How a possible Yellen departure could spark a fire under the Fed to cut its $4.5 trillion balance sheet
Javier E. David | @TeflonGeek
11 Mins Ago
CNBC.com

It's often said that good things come to those who wait — but a bloated $4.5 trillion balance sheet might be a notable exception to that rule.
With the Federal Reserve facing a Herculean conundrum in unwinding its crisis-era monetary policy — and a likely leadership transition on the horizon — Goldman Sachssuggested on Saturday the central bank could move early to reduce the vast sums of government and mortgage-backed securities (MBS) it holds on its books.
In a research note to clients, the bank pointed to the likelihood that President Donald Trumpmay "reshape the leadership" of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the Fed's powerful policy-making body, as the terms of Fed Chair Janet Yellen and Vice Chair Stanley Fischer expire in early 2018.

"This could be important for balance sheet policy because many Republican-leaning economists have criticized quantitative easing (QE) and have expressed a preference for rapid balance sheet rundown, perhaps even through asset sales," wrote Daan Struyven, a Goldman economist.
If the new appointments—especially the new chair—are thought to favor aggressive balance sheet normalization, perhaps even including asset sales, and if all decisions are left up to the incoming team, financial markets might experience heightened uncertainty during the transition."
Goldman suggested there was a "strong 'risk management' case for an announcement of very gradual balance sheet runoff later this year," because of the political risk associated with new leadership at the Fed.
"Our forecast is that the discussion around reinvestment continues for most of this year and the plan is formally announced in December 2017," Struyven said. "At that meeting, we expect the committee to hold the funds rate steady after hiking in both June and September. We expect the quarterly hikes to resume in March 2018."
The economist harked back to 2013's "taper tantrum," in which markets reacted the Fed's suggestions of tighter monetary policy by sending bond yields surging and stocks reeling — albeit temporarily.
A potential fire sale of Treasurys and mortgage-backed securities by the Fed "could have significantly more adverse effects on financial conditions than gradual runoff, and the mere risk of such an outcome might set up another 'taper tantrum,' " Struyven added.
'The uncertainty is substantial'
As the central bank begins a campaign to tighten benchmark interest rates — making a quarter-point hike just last week — it's renewed a debate over how to unwind the Fed's massive bond buying program.

Some market observers have long argued that the Fed has distorted financial conditions with QE, and the central bank faces a huge task trying to pare down its bloated balance sheet.
"The bigger the Fed's credit footprint, the more it interferes with the efficient employment and pricing of credit," wrote George Selgin, a senior fellow and director of the Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, in a blog post last month.
"By directing a large share of savings to purchases of longer-term MBS and Treasury securities, for example, the Fed has artificially raised both the prices of those securities, and the importance of the housing market and the federal government relative to the rest of the U.S. economy," Selgin wrote. "It has also dramatically increased its portfolio's duration gap and, by so doing, the risk that it will suffer losses should it sell assets before they mature."
On Friday, Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank President Neel Kashkari, the lone dissenter against the U.S. central bank's decision last week to raise interest rates, the U.S. economy is still falling short on employment and inflation.
Kashkari, an alumnus of both Goldman Sachs and the U.S. Treasury who oversaw the government's Temporary Asset Relief Program (TARP) during the financial crisis, believes the Fed should wait on raising interest rates until it publishes a detailed plan for how and when it will reduce its $4.5 trillion balance sheet.
Goldman set forth two scenarios under which the Fed could begin trimming its balance sheet. Under an "early start, passive runoff" scenario, the bank said the Fed "gradually tapers reinvestment in December 2017 over 10 months but does not sell assets."
Conversely, under a "late start, active sales" scenario, Goldman said the Fed could cease reinvesting in bonds in July 2018 "without tapering and actively sells $40bn of assets per month."
Under the latter, the Fed could shrink its balance sheet by about $250 billion per quarter starting in the second half of next year, "with similar contributions from maturing assets and active sales," the bank added.
However, neither scenario is without its risks, Goldman's economist wrote: "While our baseline estimate suggests relatively little tightening from balance sheet rundown, the uncertainty is substantial. The 2013 'taper tantrum' also provides a reminder that the impact of balance sheet policy on financial conditions is uncertain and could be larger than our baseline estimate."
--Reuters contributed to this article.

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.