Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...y-council-exodus-foreign-policy-michael-flynn

White House faces exodus of foreign policy experts ahead of Trump's arrival


An unusual number of the National Security Council’s more junior officials are looking to depart, due to concerns about incoming advisor Michael Flynn



Michael Flynn reportedly improperly shared classified information with foreign military officers. Photograph: Kathy Willens/AP
Julian Borger in Washington

Sunday 18 December 2016 11.00 GMT

The White House is struggling to prevent a crippling exodus of foreign policy staffers eager to leave before the arrival of the Trump administration, according to current and former officials.

The top level officials in the National Security Council (NSC) are political appointees who have to submit resignations and leave in a normal transition. The rest of the 400 NSC staff are career civil servants on secondment from other departments. An unusual number of these more junior officials are now looking to depart.

Many are concerned by a proliferation of reports about the incoming national security adviser, Michael Flynn. On Wednesday the Washington Post reportedthat Flynn had improperly shared classified information with foreign military officers. On the same day, CNN reported that the former DIA chief had this week deleted a tweet he had sent out a few days before the election that linked to a fake news story suggesting Hillary Clinton took part in crimes against children.

“Career people are looking get out and go back to their agencies and pressure is being put on them to get them to stay. There is concern there will be a half-empty NSC by the time the new administration arrives, which no one wants,” said one official.

The official added that the “landing team” sent to the NSC – Trump representatives who are supposed to prepare for the handover to Trump appointees – have been focused on issues of process, how the office functions, rather than issues of substance involving an explanation of current national security threats and the state of the world the new administration will inherit.

The Trump transition team in New York did not respond to a request for comment. The current NSC spokesman, Ned Price said in an email: “The administration has undertaken its national security transition planning with the utmost rigour and seriousness in order to effect the most seamless and responsible transition.”

Price added: “We have been working since this spring to assemble a broad variety of transition material focused on critical national security challenges as well as NSC organizational issues and the NSC-led interagency policy process. The NSC staff also is offering to the incoming team in-person briefings and discussions with current NSC leadership and staff, and is coordinating statutorily-required interagency homeland security exercises that will include both incoming and outgoing national security leadership from departments and agencies, as well as senior career public servants who will provide continuity through the transition.”

It is not clear how many of the incoming team have taken up the offer of personal briefings. Flynn himself has been meeting a steady flow of foreign diplomats in New York in recent days. He met the UK national security adviser, Mark Lyall Grant, over the weekend, and French president’s diplomatic adviser, Jacques Audibert, a few days earlier.

It is unclear how much contact there is between the embryonic policy teams in New York and the landing teams in Washington, however.

“Most of the folks I have talked to at the three agencies: DoD (department of defence), state and White House, claim they have little or no interaction with these teams to date,” Julianne Smith, a former deputy national security adviser to vice-president Joe Biden, said.

“There are very important substantive hand-offs that need to be occurring, that are in fact not happening. That is creating added concern about the career civil servants who are in these agencies, wondering what they are in for.”

Smith, now director or strategy and statecraft and the Centre for a New American Security, added: “Many of them are starting to look at other options, some of the younger people are looking to switch careers, return to graduate school, try and go abroad. I have seen and met with a lot of these people and there does seem to be an unusual level of worry and concern and fear.”

It could be hard for NSC staffers “detailed” (seconded) from other departments to return to their former positions ahead of schedule. That would require the agreement of their managers and could harm long-term career prospects. Those that do leave however, will leave vacancies that are hard to fill. Their replacements would have to be drawn from career civil servants at other agencies, as the White House does not have the budget to fund the posts if they are filled by political appointees. As a result the process of filling the empty posts could take months. Ultimately, Republicans want to reduce the NSC to 200 staff, but it would have to be restructured if it is to be cut in half.

“An understaffed White House is one potential risk right now and another is having a team that hasn’t had the substantive briefing they need from the current team for the hand off,” Smith said.

Reports from the state department suggest most of its staff are taking a wait-and-see to the prospect of having the ExxonMobil oil executive, Rex Tillerson, at the helm. On Thursday, most of the Democrats on the House foreign affairs committee wrote to the current secretary of state, John Kerry, offering his staff protection against a “witch-hunt” by the new administration against civil servants who worked on Obama policies Trump wants to reverse. The letter was sent after the energy department refused to hand over to the Trump transition team a list of names of staffers who had worked on climate chang
 
America's Republican (and the UK's Tory) Future

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_...he_south_is_it_the_future_for_your_state.html

"I commend to your attention an article from the Washington Post published on December 2 titled "A Grim Bargain: Once a weakness, low-skilled workers who earn little have become the South's strength." It tells the tale of James Deschler, a young man living in ironically named Sunny South, Alabama, a very low-income community that has been down on its luck for a long time. Five years ago, Deschler, now 29, left a job with Hyundai in Montgomery that paid $25 an hour. He thought he could do better than that if he had higher skills and he had always wanted to be a machinist, so he enrolled in a community college program with his savings from his Hyundai job and graduated as a certified machinist.

But there were no jobs, so he went to work at his parent's convenience store, splitting one minimum wage job there with another family member, making $3.70 an hour, just barely getting by. That's when he saw the trucks going down the road to a new construction site. That site belonged to the Golden Dragon Company, a Chinese firm that makes copper tubing for air conditioning and similar applications. Golden Dragon wanted access to the American market, but they found that they could not compete if they had to pay the tariffs on goods imported from China. The only way to get around that was to manufacture in the United States.

Everyone that Golden Dragon had talked with said that they should look at locations in the American South. There, they were told, they could find very cheap labor, no unions, cheap land and a lot of concessions from the state and local governments. Golden Dragon did not need highly skilled labor, and the promise of low wages would enable them to make a profit according to their business plan. Their advisors set up a competition among southern American states for the Chinese business. Five states submitted bids. Alabama won by offering to levy not one penny in taxes for 20 years, free land, free roads to their plant and, believe it or not, a cash payment to Golden Dragon reimbursing the firm to the tune of $20 million for the tariffs it had paid to the United States government for several prior years. All told, the various subsidies paid to Golden Dragon were worth $200 million.

Deschler was among the first to be employed by Golden Dragon. He thought his problems were over. They were only beginning. Though the average machinist in Alabama was making $19 an hour, Golden Dragon paid only $11. He worked really hard at his job and was eventually offered a job running a whole machine shop. Once again, he thought he was over the hump. He thought he'd be offered maybe $16 an hour. It did not happen. His pay was bumped up to $11.75 an hour. He still could not cover his mortgage, insurance, light bills and baby food. "Literally," he said, "going to Dairy Queen is like a mini-vacation." His Dad opined that Deschler "might as well be working at Wal-Mart."

Why are wages so low? When K. C. Pang, Golden Dragon's human resources director, was asked that question, he said that wages were determined on the basis of market value and skill set and "...the quality of workers is not very good."

When Deschler realized that his prospects at Golden Dragon were severely limited and always would be, he joined with several other workers to start a union. The workers divided evenly on the proposition. That is because many workers realized that, even though wages were very low and were likely to be for a long time, low wages were better than no wages. No wages were a very real prospect in a community where one in five workers could not get any kind of job.

Economists describe economies of this kind as being in a "low-skill equilibrium." Because the prevailing skill levels are very low, the only businesses interested in locating there are businesses that employ low-skilled people. But companies that can only survive if they are competing on the basis of the cost, not the quality, of their labor, can only pay low wages. If their wages go up, they cannot compete.

Such companies can afford to pay very little not just for their labor, but for everything else, too. So they look for places that offer to forgive state and local tax payments. States with poorly performing education systems work hard to outbid each other to get firms employing low skill labor to locate in their state, because they don't have a highly skilled workforce to offer.

After they grant these abatements and "win" the competition, the governments are obliged to provide the services the taxes were supposed to pay for, without the additional tax revenues to pay for them. Public schooling typically takes up about half the state budget. So this means that 'winning' these competitions for low-skill firms results in lowering the quality of education even further. State governments using this kind of strategy for economic 'development' cannot make the investments in education that are their only hope for raising the skill levels of their citizens. They are on a treadmill to nowhere.

It is a vicious circle. With each turn of the screw, there is less money to educate and train students in school and adults in the workforce. The lower the skills, the more unemployment there is, which leads to even lower tax revenues and even less money for the schools. Alabama will never recover in taxes the $200 million it invested in Golden Dragon. Bringing low-skill, low-wage employers to Alabama is a formula for further impoverishing the state and its people.

But surely, you will tell me, this corner of the Deep South is not typical of the United States, does not foretell a nationwide disaster, and has nothing to do with me. Recall that five states competed for the favor of Golden Dragon. That may have been all that were invited to bid. It is certainly not all that would have been interested in bidding. The fact is that large swaths of the United States are dominated by businesses that believe they can compete only by keeping their labor costs and their taxes as low as possible. Those businesses believe they can get by with low-skill labor and they know that labor markets dominated by people with low skills are a good place to get the cheap labor they think of as their key to decent profits. That way lies Sunny South, Alabama.

Singapore shows us a very different way of thinking about competitive advantage. That country started out in the early1960s selling a low-skilled workforce to global firms looking for cheap labor. But, almost as soon as Singapore succeeded in bringing those firms to Singapore, they invested heavily in the education and job training of their people. It was as if, instead of forgiving $200 million in taxes for low-wage, low-skill employers like Golden Dragon willing to come to Singapore, the government had instead invested that $200 million in the education and training of the people of the county in which Golden Dragon is now located. Two hundred million dollars is a lot of money. Do that over and over again, and it becomes possible to turn a down and out, impoverished county, state or even small country into a powerhouse.

That is exactly what Singapore did. It was not long before they kicked out the firms that had come there for cheap labor and attracted firms looking to add more value to the products they made and the services they were selling, firms that were willing to pay well for more highly skilled labor. Year in and year out, Singapore has been ratcheting up the skills of its people and year after year, it has upgraded the firms that are located there. At each turn of the screw, they have gone after firms that would pay higher and higher wages for ever more skilled workers. Both the companies and the workers pay high taxes, which the companies are willing to do because they get highly competent workers and use those workers to make very healthy profits. The individuals are willing to do so as well because they are earning the high wages they need to pay those taxes. That is a virtuous circle, the exact opposite of what the Washington Post article described.

Some states in the United States are investing heavily and wisely in the knowledge and skills of their people. Others, not all of them in the South by any means, are going down the Alabama road. This is the great American divide. You can see the results of this educational divide now in our politics. It will not be long before you can see it in dramatically different economic outcomes and levels of social stability. Which kind of state do you want to live in?"

* * *

From the cabinet choices so far, and the Freedom Caucus blueprint, it's now clear that the 2016 Election will go a long way to answering the question "which kind of [country] do you want to live in?" in favour of the former model rather than the latter - and by the time most Trump supporters realize this it will already be far too late.
 
abelard said:
America's Republican (and the UK's Tory) Future

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_...he_south_is_it_the_future_for_your_state.html

"I commend to your attention an article from the Washington Post published on December 2 titled "A Grim Bargain: Once a weakness, low-skilled workers who earn little have become the South's strength." It tells the tale of James Deschler, a young man living in ironically named Sunny South, Alabama, a very low-income community that has been down on its luck for a long time. Five years ago, Deschler, now 29, left a job with Hyundai in Montgomery that paid $25 an hour. He thought he could do better than that if he had higher skills and he had always wanted to be a machinist, so he enrolled in a community college program with his savings from his Hyundai job and graduated as a certified machinist.

But there were no jobs, so he went to work at his parent's convenience store, splitting one minimum wage job there with another family member, making $3.70 an hour, just barely getting by. That's when he saw the trucks going down the road to a new construction site. That site belonged to the Golden Dragon Company, a Chinese firm that makes copper tubing for air conditioning and similar applications. Golden Dragon wanted access to the American market, but they found that they could not compete if they had to pay the tariffs on goods imported from China. The only way to get around that was to manufacture in the United States.

Everyone that Golden Dragon had talked with said that they should look at locations in the American South. There, they were told, they could find very cheap labor, no unions, cheap land and a lot of concessions from the state and local governments. Golden Dragon did not need highly skilled labor, and the promise of low wages would enable them to make a profit according to their business plan. Their advisors set up a competition among southern American states for the Chinese business. Five states submitted bids. Alabama won by offering to levy not one penny in taxes for 20 years, free land, free roads to their plant and, believe it or not, a cash payment to Golden Dragon reimbursing the firm to the tune of $20 million for the tariffs it had paid to the United States government for several prior years. All told, the various subsidies paid to Golden Dragon were worth $200 million.

Deschler was among the first to be employed by Golden Dragon. He thought his problems were over. They were only beginning. Though the average machinist in Alabama was making $19 an hour, Golden Dragon paid only $11. He worked really hard at his job and was eventually offered a job running a whole machine shop. Once again, he thought he was over the hump. He thought he'd be offered maybe $16 an hour. It did not happen. His pay was bumped up to $11.75 an hour. He still could not cover his mortgage, insurance, light bills and baby food. "Literally," he said, "going to Dairy Queen is like a mini-vacation." His Dad opined that Deschler "might as well be working at Wal-Mart."

Why are wages so low? When K. C. Pang, Golden Dragon's human resources director, was asked that question, he said that wages were determined on the basis of market value and skill set and "...the quality of workers is not very good."

When Deschler realized that his prospects at Golden Dragon were severely limited and always would be, he joined with several other workers to start a union. The workers divided evenly on the proposition. That is because many workers realized that, even though wages were very low and were likely to be for a long time, low wages were better than no wages. No wages were a very real prospect in a community where one in five workers could not get any kind of job.

Economists describe economies of this kind as being in a "low-skill equilibrium." Because the prevailing skill levels are very low, the only businesses interested in locating there are businesses that employ low-skilled people. But companies that can only survive if they are competing on the basis of the cost, not the quality, of their labor, can only pay low wages. If their wages go up, they cannot compete.

Such companies can afford to pay very little not just for their labor, but for everything else, too. So they look for places that offer to forgive state and local tax payments. States with poorly performing education systems work hard to outbid each other to get firms employing low skill labor to locate in their state, because they don't have a highly skilled workforce to offer.

After they grant these abatements and "win" the competition, the governments are obliged to provide the services the taxes were supposed to pay for, without the additional tax revenues to pay for them. Public schooling typically takes up about half the state budget. So this means that 'winning' these competitions for low-skill firms results in lowering the quality of education even further. State governments using this kind of strategy for economic 'development' cannot make the investments in education that are their only hope for raising the skill levels of their citizens. They are on a treadmill to nowhere.

It is a vicious circle. With each turn of the screw, there is less money to educate and train students in school and adults in the workforce. The lower the skills, the more unemployment there is, which leads to even lower tax revenues and even less money for the schools. Alabama will never recover in taxes the $200 million it invested in Golden Dragon. Bringing low-skill, low-wage employers to Alabama is a formula for further impoverishing the state and its people.

But surely, you will tell me, this corner of the Deep South is not typical of the United States, does not foretell a nationwide disaster, and has nothing to do with me. Recall that five states competed for the favor of Golden Dragon. That may have been all that were invited to bid. It is certainly not all that would have been interested in bidding. The fact is that large swaths of the United States are dominated by businesses that believe they can compete only by keeping their labor costs and their taxes as low as possible. Those businesses believe they can get by with low-skill labor and they know that labor markets dominated by people with low skills are a good place to get the cheap labor they think of as their key to decent profits. That way lies Sunny South, Alabama.

Singapore shows us a very different way of thinking about competitive advantage. That country started out in the early1960s selling a low-skilled workforce to global firms looking for cheap labor. But, almost as soon as Singapore succeeded in bringing those firms to Singapore, they invested heavily in the education and job training of their people. It was as if, instead of forgiving $200 million in taxes for low-wage, low-skill employers like Golden Dragon willing to come to Singapore, the government had instead invested that $200 million in the education and training of the people of the county in which Golden Dragon is now located. Two hundred million dollars is a lot of money. Do that over and over again, and it becomes possible to turn a down and out, impoverished county, state or even small country into a powerhouse.

That is exactly what Singapore did. It was not long before they kicked out the firms that had come there for cheap labor and attracted firms looking to add more value to the products they made and the services they were selling, firms that were willing to pay well for more highly skilled labor. Year in and year out, Singapore has been ratcheting up the skills of its people and year after year, it has upgraded the firms that are located there. At each turn of the screw, they have gone after firms that would pay higher and higher wages for ever more skilled workers. Both the companies and the workers pay high taxes, which the companies are willing to do because they get highly competent workers and use those workers to make very healthy profits. The individuals are willing to do so as well because they are earning the high wages they need to pay those taxes. That is a virtuous circle, the exact opposite of what the Washington Post article described.

Some states in the United States are investing heavily and wisely in the knowledge and skills of their people. Others, not all of them in the South by any means, are going down the Alabama road. This is the great American divide. You can see the results of this educational divide now in our politics. It will not be long before you can see it in dramatically different economic outcomes and levels of social stability. Which kind of state do you want to live in?"

* * *

From the cabinet choices so far, and the Freedom Caucus blueprint, it's now clear that the 2016 Election will go a long way to answering the question "which kind of [country] do you want to live in?" in favour of the former model rather than the latter - and by the time most Trump supporters realize this it will already be far too late.
Click to expand...

Ironic that American (and European) companies have been manufacturing in China for cheap labour and now the opposite seems to be happening.

Singapore is cool and from what I know about it just about the only place that has managed to get capitalist globalisation working for all its people (while wealth inequality is high, that is only because it has so many millionaires and not because those at the bottom are in such a bad state).
 
So Trumps cabinet is full of war hungry and self serving nutters.

Sounds terrible but is it really any worse or different than what it has been with other presidents?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top