You might be wondering how Republicans could be better off than owning a majority in both houses of Congress and occupying the White House. Well, they could do it longer. If Georgia’s 6th Congressional district, and even more surprisingly, South Carolina's fifth, are any indication, the Republicans are in for rude awakening in 2018 and 2020.

 

While Republican Karen Handel won the election, Democrat Jon Ossoff made us all pay attention to a district that’s been nothing but red since Apocalypse Now and Alien were in theaters.

 

While it’s highly unlikely the Democrats win three of the eight Republican Senate seats up for reelection in 2018 to win a majority, the House is a different story. It doesn’t matter whether Congress repeals and replaces Obamacare. House Republicans are under fire whether they do or don’t. Midterm elections have been historically bad for the party occupying the White House, as was epically the case for Barack Obama in 2014. The average loss of House seats by the party with a newly elected President is 23. There are already 23 House seats held by Republicans in districts Hillary Clinton won, while just 12 that have Democratic representatives and voted Trump.

 

FiveThirtyEight’s Harry Enten compared a President’s approval rating to the results in the midterm elections, and despite a large margin for error, (+/- 33 Congressional seats) there was a correlation. And Trump’s residency of the White House has only just begun. After 149 days, Trump’s approval rating, as measured by Gallup, has dropped to 38 percent, and Trump started with the lowest approval rating for any first-term President ever rated (45 percent). Trump has that record by six points. Barack Obama and George W. Bush had approval ratings of 61 and 55 percent, respectively, over roughly the same number of days. At the time of their first midterms, they were at 45 percent and 63 percent, respectively.

 

Bush’s 63 percent approval rating is the reason why he’s one of the exceptions to the rule that the party residing in the White House loses Congressional seats in the midterms. It’s the highest approval rating ever during a midterm election. An unpopular war brought Bush and Republican Congressional candidates back down to Earth the second time around.

 

The only President who’s experienced a similar decline to Trump over a similar period is Gerald Ford. Over 157 days in office, Ford saw his approval rating fall from a very respectable 71 percent to 37 percent, He pardoned Nixon and still only had nearly the same approval rating as Trump does now! So what I’m saying is there’s plenty of time for Trump to hit rock bottom.

 

Going back to that FiveThirtyEight analysis, if Trump’s approval rating were to fall to say 31 percent, “Democrats would be projected to gain 53 seats” (again, +/- 33 margin of error). I’m not betting on Trump’s approval rating to be that high. He’s already got the record for the lowest approval rating to start a Presidency by six points. I’m betting he has the lowest approval rating of a first-term President going into a midterm election by the same margin.

 

That record also belongs to George W. Bush. He entered the 2008 midterms with an approval rating of 31 percent. The Republicans lost 36 Congressional seats in that election. Now consider if Trump were six points worse than that. He’d be hovering around 25 percent, and House Democrats would stand to gain considerably.

 

The job Trump is doing (or not doing considering all the rounds of golf he’s getting in) is already rubbing off on incumbent Congressional candidates, and the stink is legendary. Georgia’s 6th Congressional district has been a Republican stalwart since 1979. The fact that race was even close shouldn’t be taken lightly. We’ve never had a President this disapproved of at the start of a Presidency, and we’ve never seen a White House like this, so I expect the worst.

 

--

 

If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: The Costa Report, Drop Your Energy Bill, Free Talk Live, Flow of Wisdom, America’s First News, America Tonight, Bill Martinez Live, Korelin Economics Report, The KrisAnne Hall Show, Radio Night Live, The Real Side, World Crisis Radio, Know Your Rights

 

Published in News & Information

This is the second of a series of articles about how the impoverished American can overcome proposed budget cuts by utilizing other services and methods.


Donald Trump’s proposed budget would cut funding that provides low-income Americans with affordable housing. Specifically, the $3-billion Community Development Block grant program would be cut entirely. Of that $3 billion, 70 percent must be used to benefit low- or moderate-income persons. It prevents or eliminates “slums or blight” and addresses “community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community for which other funding is not available.” I repeat, “for which other funding is not available.”

That’s not all, though. The entirety of the Section 4 Community Development and Affordable Housing Program funding -- the measly $35 million of it -- would be cut. That $35 million was distributed as grants in the following manner last year:

The HOME Investment Partnerships Program, the largest federal block grant to state and local governments designed exclusively to create affordable housing for low-income households, would also be cut from Trump’s budget. The HOME program awarded nearly $1 billion in grants in 2016 that built affordable homes all over the country.

Also proposed to be cut is the Choice Neighborhoods program, which has funded affordable housing on blighted or empty lots all over the country. To get an idea of what they’ve built go here.  

The Self-help Homeownership Opportunity Program, which awards grants to nonprofit organizations that build affordable homes with volunteer labor (like Habitat for Humanity), would also cease to exist. So affordable home builders would have fewer funds to build fewer affordable homes, and fewer Americans would realize the American Dream.

You might say the government shouldn’t be in the business of providing affordable housing, but if you say that, you’ve likely never been near a project or witnessed people sleeping on the sidewalk or under bridges. And just because you don’t see it everyday doesn’t mean it’s not happening. This money is an investment in America. It provides (or if cut, provided) funding to decrease the number of homeless Americans -- 8.6 percent of which are veterans.

But now that affordable housing is on the chopping block (actually it’s always been) and there will be fewer affordable homes to go around, a lot of low- and moderate-income Americans will have to find a way to pay a higher percentage of their income in rent.

There is still hope, though. The proposed budget cuts have to get through the Senate after all, and those programs are still at work building affordable housing throughout the country. Here are three ways you can pay less in rent despite budget cuts to housing and urban development programs.

Buy a Home

Bet you didn’t think that would be the first suggestion to save money on housing, but a mortgage on a single-family home is currently a cheaper monthly payment than a lease in most of America. I can see how much cheaper here. The Economist provided a review of America’s housing market in five interactive charts back in August of 2016, and the ratio of home prices to rents was below the long-run average.

In my area, even considering the low rent I pay because I share a two-bedroom apartment with a roommate, buying a home is 23 percent cheaper than renting. I know what you’re thinking: “But I don’t have enough for a 10-percent down payment.” Well, you don’t need it necessarily. There state and local, down-payment assistance providers who will loan or grant you a portion of your down payment if you live in the home for a certain period. You could end up putting down the minimum three percent down by coming up with one percent yourself and getting the other two percent as a grant if you live in the home for three years.

A good rule is to never pay more than 25 percent of your monthly income to your mortgage, home insurance, and property taxes. Use a mortgage calculator to determine the maximum amount you can spend on a home, and don’t let a lender tell you different, because they will.

I attended a Home Stretch homebuyer education course to get a better understanding of the homebuying process, and you should too. Registration fees for many of the courses are waived during the month of June for National Homeownership Month, and you can even complete the course on nights or a Saturday.

These classes tend to be offered by your state’s housing finance agencies, which you can find with a Google search of “<your state> housing finance agency.” I just searched “Home Stretch homebuyer education course near me” and registered in minutes. The class was very helpful, explaining the importance of inspections, budgeting and saving for a down payment, shopping for mortgages, working with a realtor and closing the sale. You even get a manual to take home, but the best part is you’ll get the business cards of people who can help you with the homebuying process. And since these folks already take time out of their day to help first-time homebuyers, you can trust them to look out for your interests. Sure they leave their business cards for a reason, but most of them wouldn’t present at the class if they weren’t interested in helping homebuyers.

The first thing you can do before you even start shopping for a home is start saving for a down payment by putting together a budget. The more money you can put down the lower monthly mortgage you’ll pay. And you should shop for a mortgage. There are so many banks out there, which means there’s plenty of competition for your money. Don’t take the first mortgage you’re offered. You should take the best of three or four options.

People think they can handle the homebuying process without a realtor, but a realtor doesn’t cost the homebuyer anything. Their fee comes out of the seller’s fees, so there’s no reason not to employ a realtor. It’s important to have someone looking out for your interests, and just because that realtor is from the same agency as the seller’s realtor, that doesn’t mean they’re trying to screw you over. In fact, it could work in your favor.

The one thing that does cost you money is the home inspection, which is worth the $400 to $600 you’ll pay. If you waive an inspection and buy a house that’s on land being eroded and have to repour a foundation, you will have wished you paid $500 for an inspection. And always be there for the inspection. It’s probably some of the most important information you can get before buying a home.

Also your responsibility is to investigate the neighborhood where you’re buying a home. The first rule of real estate is location, location, location. Go to open houses (they’re good practice) and afterwards talk to the neighbors to get an idea what the neighborhood is like. Come back at night and check the crime statistics online. Most police departments publish a crime map on their websites. If not, call them and ask what crimes have been committed in the area lately and how often. Zillow has a 10-point rating system for the schools in the area, but it’s not a bad idea to drive by them and the parks to see what kind of shape they’re in.

Even with average home prices increasing due to a lack of supply and low interest rates, it’s not a bad time to buy considering the proposed cuts to housing and urban development budgets. Supply is expected to increase but still won’t satisfy demand, and while it’s a seller’s market, taking advantage of the relatively low interest rates before they climb could save new homeowners thousands. Homes are only going to get more expensive, albeit at a slower rate, so you might as well get in while the getting’s still good.

Rent to Own

If you can afford to purchase a home outright, negotiating a contract for deed on a home is still better than paying rent. Paying rent doesn’t allow you to create equity in your home, but a contract for deed does. You’re going to own that place someday, but be careful to read your contract for deed carefully. Some are written so that just one missed payment can void the contract. Then all the work you put into the place that wasn’t yours yet is lost to holder of the deed. A lot of condos and townhomes can be found on a rent to own basis, and can still be cheaper than renting.  

Rent a Spare Bedroom

If you don’t qualify for a mortgage, you can still make renting more affordable if you rent a spare bedroom. Yes, renting more space than you need is more expensive and costs more to heat and cool, but you can make a whole lot of money in a whole lot of places renting that spare bedroom by the night using Airbnb. There are stories of Airbnb hosts making $1 million annually, but you’d need pretty nice digs to do that. But if you’re struggling to make rent (which is likely why you stumbled onto this piece), an Airbnb business can be a lifesaver.

If you’re a natural clean freak and don’t pay for water or laundry, an Airbnb business is perfect for you. All you have to do is figure out how much you can afford to pay in rent, because if the third month comes along and you don’t have half the rent because you couldn’t get enough people to reserve your spare bedroom, you won’t have a home for very long. Generally, if you're paying more than half of your income on rent, that's an unsafe place to be. But if you're going to rent your spare bedroom, you can stand to pay half of your income in rent. Whether the owner will accept your credit based on your income is another story, though.

The beauty is Airbnb does most of the work for you (for a small fee, of course, generally 3 percent of earnings). Take some pictures of your clean home and describe it, you and the location. Be honest. Don’t expect people from out of town to know what they’re getting into. You don’t want to host the people that give you bad ratings because of your location, even though they actually choose the location. If you’re in an urban area where gunshots are regularly heard, make sure people know that before they wake up to gunshots. Even community demographics can be helpful, because some people are racists, and you don’t want to host those people. Being thorough in the description of your home and location can save you from bad ratings down the road, and your rating will affect how many reservations you secure and what price you can charge.

Before you get ahead of yourself, though, call your city hall and ask them if there is an ordinance governing short-term renting or home sharing. Airbnb is not legal everywhere. Some cities have outlawed “transient lodging” or “short-term rentals,” with hefty fines accessed to those who are caught.

New York City started fining Airbnb hosts in February, but has issued only a few fines since. Basically, it’s a really hard law to enforce in large municipalities where city employees are already overwhelmed. But neither GCN Live nor I advocate illegal home sharing. I’m actually trying to change the ordinance in Bloomington, Minn. outlawing short-term rentals less than 30 days by forcing hosts to pay the same percentage in lodging taxes that hotels pay. It’s only fair, and it won’t cut too much into hosts’ profits. The city council doesn’t seem to be interested in taking me seriously, but if I get enough people to help me persuade them they’ll have to address the issue.

If home sharing is illegal in your city, move. If you can’t afford to move, you can use the following as a template to get the ball rolling on legalizing home sharing or short-term renting in your city. Of course, you’ll have to find the law governing transient lodging or short-term renting in your city code and alter it accordingly. Otherwise, you can use this to draft a letter or email to your city council:

To Whom It May Concern:

I think Bloomington’s ban on transient lodging is wrong, and I have a solution. First of all, what people do with the homes they own or rent is up to those people and their landlords, and the City of Bloomington, or any municipality, should not be allowed to limit a person’s ability to make a living.

Secondly, the current law is nearly impossible to enforce, because despite monitoring websites like Airbnb, there will still be transient lodging made available through Craigslist, WarmShowers, and other websites. People will find a way.

There’s no reason why the City of Bloomington shouldn’t profit from transient lodging, though. If every Airbnb or similar host paid the applicable lodging taxes for their location, hotels would have little reason to complain, as the people renting Airbnb rooms are more likely to camp than pay for a hotel, and the hosts would be paying the same taxes as the hotels.

I propose the following alteration to the City of Bloomington Code of Ordinances subsection 14.577.

14.577 ILLEGAL RENTALS, OCCUPANCY LIMITS AND NO SUBLETTING

An owner may adopt standards that reduce the maximum allowed occupancy of a dwelling unit from the standards set forth herein. The maximum permissible occupancy of any licensed rental dwelling unit is determined according to the 2012 International Property Maintenance Code and as follows.

 (a)   Not more than one family, except for temporary guests, will occupy a licensed rental dwelling unit.

 (b)   No one will lease, license or agree to allow the occupancy, possession or tenancy of a licensed rental dwelling unit to more than four unrelated persons.

 (c)   Tenants of a licensed rental dwelling unit must not lease or sublet the dwelling unit to another without the prior approval of the property owner.

 (d)   No one will lease, license or agree to allow the use of a dwelling unit, or portion thereof, for transient lodging, unless applicable lodging taxes are paid.

I believe that tax is seven percent for the City of Bloomington. You can find the applicable codes here: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/lodgetax.pdf.

Since Airbnb hosts must pay taxes on their Airbnb income and fill out a W-9 or other appropriate tax form, collecting the tax would be as simple as applying that seven percent to the Airbnb income already reported each year. Let me know your questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Your Name

If a member of your city council or an administrator from city hall doesn’t get back to you in a couple of weeks, contact them and ask when it will be addressed. If they say the council isn’t interested in addressing the issue, ask them when the next city council meeting is and attend. There’s always a time for public comment at those meetings, and it’s a good way to get media exposure for your cause and recruit other supporters. There really is strength in numbers, so if you show up to the next city council meeting with 20 people behind you, and every one of them takes the time to speak their mind on the issue, your city council members will have little choice but to refer your suggestion to the ordinance committee for review.

It takes months to accomplish anything in city government, so be prepared for a lot of waiting. Take solace in the fact you’re trying to improve your community by increasing tax revenue for street and sidewalk repair, etc.

So there are three ways to pay less in rent despite housing budget cuts. Next up in our series on how to navigate federal budget cuts, we’ll look at how to get around proposed cuts to energy and transportation.

--

If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: The Costa Report, Drop Your Energy Bill, Free Talk Live, Flow of Wisdom, America’s First News, America Tonight, Bill Martinez Live, Korelin Economics Report, The KrisAnne Hall Show, Radio Night Live, The Real Side, World Crisis Radio, The Tech Night Owl, The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Show, USA Prepares, American Survival Radio, Jim Brown’s Common Sense, Home Talk

Published in News & Information
Monday, 12 June 2017 18:47

Trump’s attorneys are staying busy

The State of Maryland and District of Columbia are suing the President for failing to divest his private businesses while in office. Unlike a similar suit brought by the watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the plaintiffs in this case are actual governmental entities, which might have stronger standing in court. The plaintiffs are also demanding that Donald Trump release his tax returns.

The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution makes it illegal for anyone “holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them” from profiting off their position or accept gifts without the consent of Congress.

The Atlantic provided a comprehensive list of all the conflicts of interest that might motivate Donald Trump’s decisions as President through his pocketbook. Warning: there are a lot of them, and Senate Democrats have introduced legislation that would force Trump to divest his interests or face impeachment.

There’s no shortage of reasons to impeach Trump, and now members of his own party are admitting it. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) said that if Trump asked former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey to drop the bureau’s investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, then that would be grounds for impeachment. Firing Comey could be considered obstruction of justice, which was one of two charges used to impeach Bill Clinton and one of three that was recommended against Richard Nixon.

The American people seem to think the President should be impeached, too, as Trump’s approval rating is lower than people’s approval of impeaching him. With a Republican majority in both houses of Congress, though, starting impeachment proceedings doesn’t necessarily mean Trump would be removed from office. But about two-thirds of people are betting on Trump not finishing his first term in office, according to BetFair.com.

Impeachment aside, Trump received another blow in the court system, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the freeze on Trump’s travel ban by unanimous decision. The three judges ruled that Trump’s travel ban lacked a sufficient national security or other justification that would make it legal. All three judges were appointed by Bill Clinton, and with a Supreme Court recess around the corner, the ban will likely expire before the Supreme Court rules.

--

If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: The Costa Report, Drop Your Energy Bill, Free Talk Live, Flow of Wisdom, America’s First News, America Tonight, Bill Martinez Live, Korelin Economics Report, The KrisAnne Hall Show, Radio Night Live, The Real Side, World Crisis Radio

Published in News & Information

While thawing glaciers release explosive methane that destroys the ozone and icebergs the size of Vermont threaten to increase sea levels by inches, Donald Trump kept his promise to withdraw America, the world’s second-leading producer of carbon emissions, from the Paris Agreement on climate change. Apparently, Trump’s America is too good or too greedy to care for the Earth we all call home.

Thanks to Trump’s uninformed decision, he’s actually made China and the European Union look good. Despite China and the EU ranked first and third in carbon emissions, respectively, they intend to form an alliance to further lower global carbon emissions. Both are still committed to the terms negotiated in the Paris Agreement, and the EU has even offered China $11.2 million to support China’s plan to cut carbon emissions.

So America is becoming imperial China, and communist China is becoming America, and not just when it comes to climate change. This sudden love of American nationalism is simply the American version of Chinese sinocentrism. But believing you are the center of the world does not make it so, and there are plenty of disadvantages associated with that arrogance.

Trump’s nationalism is making it more difficult for America to do business overseas everyday. He hopes to create American jobs but shrinks the market for American goods every time he does something like leave the Paris Agreement or Tweets about the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or any other trade agreement. If you don’t think trade partners take notice of that and act accordingly, you’re as ignorant as you are arrogant.

The things Americans perceive to be necessities are not made in America. Computers, televisions, mobile phones, handheld devices and their components are mostly made in Asia. As of 2011, China produced over 90 percent of all personal computers, 80 percent of all air conditioners, 80 percent of energy-saving light bulbs, 74 percent of solar cell production, and over 70 percent of all mobile phones. Do you think the prices of those items will increase or decrease as a result of China spending to limit carbon emissions while America does nothing to curb climate change?

Think we can build those things here in America? Think again. An American-made iPhone would cost $2,000 because Apple pays a little over $5 to construct a $600 phone. The whole idea of bringing back American production jobs is preposterous, which is why Trump’s nationalistic words and actions are so dangerous. Unlike China, America doesn’t have the production-based economy to back up its nationalism. If the things Americans needed were actually made in America by Americans, then sinocentrism would make sense. But that’s not the case at all. In fact, America depends on its trade agreements like NAFTA, and those agreements are not the reason for decreasing production jobs. NAFTA has been particularly good to farmers and ranchers and those in the automotive industry. Yet many of these farmers and ranchers and automotive workers supported Trump for uninformed or misguided reasons.

America made its bed with foreign automakers long ago, offering deep tax cuts and free money to build giant plants to put Americans to work building foreign cars. That’s not a recipe for success if one of your nation’s cornerstone industries is automobiles. That also can’t be undone, so bitching about the lack of auto exports because America doesn’t have the same deals in place with those automakers who fleeced the U.S. will get us nowhere. Building an automobile that everyone in the world wants will, however, allow for increased auto exports, and I fully expect the Tesla Model 3 to be that automobile. Hell, if Americans could get over their uninformed or misguided opinion that American cars aren’t as reliable or “nice” as foreign cars, there’d be little reason to bitch about the state of the auto industry. Frankly, if you’re an American driving anything but American, we should ship you overseas, not the cars.

America can also take pride in decreasing petroleum imports. The Tesla Model 3 should continue contributing to this decline, as will the Tesla Solar Roof and the fastest growing industry in America -- renewable energy. When America’s strongest industry’s mission is quite literally curbing climate change, there’s no need to risk relations with trade partners by withdrawing from a climate change agreement. It’s oxymoronic, but that’s what we’ve come to expect from Trump.

Cutting yourself off from the world and doing whatever the hell you please doesn’t mean you’re the only place in the world. You still have neighbors to whom you have to placate, and whether you acknowledge their existence or not, that doesn’t mean they don’t have a way of fighting back. I fully expect America’s imports of Chinese products to increase from the current $462.8 billion figure specifically due to a raise in cost and not in quantity. That’s what I would do to a trade partner who said he was going to help me do something and then didn’t.

--

If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: The Costa Report, Drop Your Energy Bill, Free Talk Live, Flow of Wisdom, America’s First News, America Tonight, Bill Martinez Live, Korelin Economics Report, The KrisAnne Hall Show, Radio Night Live, The Real Side, World Crisis Radio, The Tech Night Owl, The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Show

Published in News & Information

Republicans are again trying to repeal and replace Obamacare, but what they’re really doing is attempting to alter the Affordable Care Act just enough so they hold onto their jobs and fulfill a promise made by Donald Trump to repeal and replace Obamacare “one Day 1.” We are nearing Day 100, and the House Republicans can’t even agree amongst themselves let alone get enough votes in the Senate to pass their American Health Care Act.

The best thing that could have happened for Republicans with regard to the Affordable Care Act would have been to accomplish the goal announced by House Majority Leader Mitch McConnell just after Barack Obama was elected president. "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” he said. They failed, and so will their attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare.

The problem for Republicans, and specifically Southern Republicans, is that Obamacare is working for some and would work for most of their constituents. In fact, the South had the highest rate of uninsured people in 2012 at 18.6 percent. And it’s not all Hispanics. Over 68 million of them are white.

Southerners are also the least healthy of all Americans, with 20 percent reporting fair or poor health in 2014. Southerners are also the most impoverished Americans, with 17 percent of Southerners living below the poverty level in 2014. The South also has the highest rates for diabetes, obesity and infant mortality in the nation. The South accounts for nearly as many uninsured people as the rest of America combined, and 17 percent of the uninsured fall into the coverage gap for Medicaid expansion.

Yet Southerners have taken advantage of, or actually, been disadvantaged by the Supreme Court decision to not force Medicaid expansion upon all states. Had all states been required to expand Medicaid, 7 million people would gain coverage, 4.3 million fewer people would be uninsured and states would see between $5 and $10 billion in uncompensated care savings over the next 10 years, which would offset increased state spending by between 13 and 25 percent.

Of the 19 states resisting Medicaid expansion, 14 are in the South. The states with the most people who stand to gain insurance through expansion are Florida (1.253 million), Texas (1.186 million) and Georgia (.682 million). Georgia nearly elected a Democrat to the house just a few days ago, Texas is turning blue, and two Republican incumbents lost House seats to Democrats in Florida last November, while Democratic incumbents retained all six of their seats.

In short, Southerners need Obamacare and the subsidies that come along with it. They’re just starting to realize it. Now, if America adopted a Medicare-for-all system that Bernie Sanders has proposed, maybe we could stop spending nearly $3 quadrillion on health care as a nation.

--

If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: USA Prepares, Building America, Free Talk Live, The Easy Organic Gardener, American Survival Radio, Jim Brown’s Common Sense, Good Day Health, MindSet: Mental Health News and Information, Health Hunters, America’s Health Advocate, The Bright Side, The Dr. Daliah Show, Dr. Asa On Call, The Dr. Bob Martin Show, Dr. Coldwell Opinion Radio, The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Show, Drew Pearson Live

Published in News & Information

Now that a Russian hacker has been arrested in Spain at the request of American authorities, what are America’s options if he reveals Donald Trump’s political campaign members were involved in a hack of the 2016 Presidential election?

  1. Impeach Trump

If it is revealed that Trump was directly involved in the hacking of the 2016 Presidential election he will most certainly be impeached. That doesn’t mean he will be removed. While Trump doesn’t have a strong contingent of Republican support in Congress right now, and traditional Conservatives would most certainly prefer a more traditional Conservative in Mike Pence as President, Republicans still hold enough seats to avoid a two-thirds majority impeachment vote. It would take 166 Republicans (more than half the Republican delegation) to turn on Trump to remove him from the White House, but a lot could change in the 2018 midterm election.

  1. Cyber attack on Russia

America will most certainly respond to a Russian cyber attack of the 2016 Presidential election by doing something similar to Vladimir Putin. While they could remove him in a traditional manner (airstrike, sniper, drone, etc.), it’s more likely America avoids World War III and flexes its cyber muscle to reveal some things Russians might not find attractive about their leader to swing the needle against him for once. One of those things could be revealing Putin’s financial information, including homes and properties owned and net worth. This won’t likely affect a Russian election because Russians revere their shirtless, horse-riding leader and let him score eight goals in hockey games. It might not even happen if Trump is still in office, because Putin is allegedly in a position to blackmail him.

  1. Re-vote

Holding an entirely new Presidential election is almost certainly out of the question given the Republicans current control of Congress and secretary of state positions. Currently, 29 of the state officials charged with election duties are Republican, but there will be 26 secretary of state elections in 2018. Every state would have to agree to a re-vote, making this option all but impossible.

  1. Military attack on Russia

This is even more unlikely than a revote given that America and Russia have the two strongest military forces in the world. While America spent a whopping $516.5 billion more military dollars than Russia in 2015, Russia has about 200 more nuclear weapons than America, according to the Federation of American Scientists. If World War III were to break out, China, the third largest military in the world, would most certainly join Russia in the effort. Their combined military budget would be just over half that of America’s.

So America’s options in response to a confirmed hack of the 2016 Presidential election are not only limited, but most are highly unlikely.

--

If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: The Costa Report, Drop Your Energy Bill, Free Talk Live, Flow of Wisdom, America’s First News, America Tonight, Bill Martinez Live, Korelin Economics Report, The KrisAnne Hall Show, Radio Night Live, The Real Side, World Crisis Radio

Published in News & Information

While Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution grants only Congress the right to declare war, the United States has won and lost (or fought to a draw if it makes you feel better) many wars since Congress last declared war on Dec. 8, 1941. The Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Iraq War, the war in Afghanistan, Libya, and now Syrian attacks have all taken place without Congress declaring war.

 

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was a response to Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon’s advancement of the Vietnam War and was supposed to reinforce Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution over Article II, Section 2, which makes the president commander-in-chief of the armed forces. It clearly hasn’t, as President Donald Trump proved the night of April 6 when he launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles on a Syrian air base after it was determined the Syrian government attacked a rebel ammunition cache holding chemical weapons that killed over 100 people -- none of which were American civilians or soldiers.

 

When Pearl Harbor was bombed on the morning of Dec. 7, 1941, war was declared by Congress the very next day. When the Twin Towers came down on 9/11, the war effectively began the very next day, but without a declaration of war from Congress. Those were attacks on US soil, though. This, however, was not in response to an attack on America, which has members of both major political parties throwing a fit, which is uncharacteristic. Most often the party not inhabiting the White House makes a fuss about the president’s overreach. Both Elizabeth Warren and Rand Paul think Trump’s military action in Syria violates the Constitution.

 

The War Powers Resolution only requires the commander-in-chief to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing a military attack, and Trump did indeed notify more than two dozen members of Congress of his plan to attack Syria the night of April 6. He did not seek their authorization to do so because it wasn’t required of him thanks to the leeway offered by previous presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, all of whom launched attacks without Congress. Hell, George Bush, Sr. won the Gulf War in less than 100 hours. How can Congress expect to take back its Constitutional right to declare war if they allow presidents to bomb for 90 days when it took less than five days to win a war in 1991?

 

The most interesting thing about the War Powers Resolution is that it’s likely unconstitutional, which would make it pretty difficult to replace it. John McCain and Tim Kaine attempted to do so in 2014. They proposed the president should consult Congress before launching a military operation that is expected to last more than a week. It never happened, and it wouldn’t have any teeth today anyways. Bush, Bush, Jr. and Obama have knocked them all out. Drones helped a bit, too.

 

The War Powers Resolution is useless when one person can blow up the entire world in a matter of minutes without deploying a single soldier. War has become a lot like a catch in the NFL. We don’t really know how to define it, but we know it when we see it. And Americans have gotten used to waging war without declaring war. The United States is in a perpetual war against terrorism, and Americans keep waking up everyday, going to work and mostly ignoring what’s happening on the other side of the world. It’s no different than if war isn’t being waged. Americans everyday can safely assume their country is bombing somebody, and ignorantly assume those people had it coming.

 

I’m a big believer in the order of things. That is, the order in which information is presented matters, and that’s how I perceive the US Constitution. Article I holds more weight than Article II, and Amendment I of the Bill of Rights is listed before the Second Amendment for a reason. I mean, the whole reason white folks even stumbled upon this country was in search of religious freedom. And I’m not even religious, but I value the right to a free press and free speech over the right to own a gun. In this case, I think Congress’s right to declare war holds more weight than a president’s right to command the armed forces, and I think the Constitution was written in that order for that reason. While a president can’t declare war, he can control military operations once war is declared. I'm sure the drafters of the Constitution didn't think war would be waged prior to a declaration of war, or that bombs would be built that can blow up countries.

 

I also understand the importance of the president being able to command the armed forces in order to avoid an attack on Americans, and in a nuclear age when one bomb can wipe out an entire country, stopping those attacks is more important than retaliating. That is not the case here. Bush, Jr. didn’t have a very good reason to bomb Iraq, but he really didn’t need one. Neither does Trump with regard to Syria. Allowing Congress to decide whether to declare war might have saved the United States from entering either conflict.

 

I like the idea of checks and balances, but what Congress really wants is to reign in the powers of the president they’ve already given away. And if Congress really wanted that, they should have passed unconstitutional legislation that had some teeth the first time around, because it won’t happen again. That’s why I think the War Powers Resolution should be repealed and Constitutional order given precedence.

--

If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: The Costa Report, Drop Your Energy Bill, Free Talk Live, Flow of Wisdom, America’s First News, America Tonight, Bill Martinez Live, Korelin Economics Report, The KrisAnne Hall Show, Radio Night Live, The Real Side, World Crisis Radio

Published in News & Information

Despite a new study in Scientific Reports that shows climate change to amplify droughts and floods by disrupting jet streams, President Donald Trump signed executive orders to undo Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

So while the Trump administration couldn’t repeal and replace Obamacare, it can repeal and replace Obama’s climate legacy. But Bloomberg reports that the executive orders are unlikely to bring back mining jobs because demand for coal has fallen due to stiff competition from cheaper natural gas and a boom in wind and solar power.

A report from the Environmental Defense Fund states the wind and solar energy industries have been adding jobs 12 times as fast as the rest of the economy, and the fastest growing job over the next decade will likely be wind turbine technician, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Another recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences states that deaths related to extreme heat are expected to keep rising, especially in the world’s largest cities, and the United States will not be immune.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Scott Pruitt has incorrectly argued that carbon dioxide emissions are not the primary contributor to climate change and repeatedly called the 2015 Paris Agreement “a bad deal.”

Nations supporting the Paris Agreement, including the United States, agreed to limit the warming of the planet to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels. Despite the executive orders reversing America’s course to limit carbon dioxide emissions from coal-burning power plants, Pruitt said the EPA will continue working to provide Americans with clean air and water.

Even Fox News jumped on the bash Pruitt bandwagon on climate change, with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace citing American Lung Association information that half of Americans breathe unhealthy air everyday. He then asked Pruitt how he and the EPA expect to keep that number from rising now that carbon dioxide emissions from coal-burning power plants will increase. Pruitt instead focused on how America’s air quality is better than it has been in the past, which of course means we can risk dirtying it further.

A letter signed by 447 former EPA employees urged Congress to reject Trump’s nomination of Pruitt to run the agency. Pruitt is also one of many Republicans who originally filed a lawsuit against the EPA arguing that the EPA exceeded its legal authority in imposing carbon emission curbs on coal-burning power plants. He is no longer a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

--

If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: The Costa Report, Drop Your Energy Bill, Free Talk Live, Flow of Wisdom, America’s First News, America Tonight, Bill Martinez Live, Korelin Economics Report, The KrisAnne Hall Show, Radio Night Live, The Real Side, World Crisis Radio

Published in News & Information

Warning: mysqli_close(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in /home/gcnlive/httpdocs/JW1D/libraries/joomla/database/driver/mysqli.php on line 209