Keywords
or Terms: CBS 60 Minutes program; Aspirant Donald Trump; Tax Plan; Immigration
plan; Job Creation Plan; Corporate
taxes; Simple tax code; Reagan-Era trickle down economy; Undocumented
Immigrant; Huge Southern Border Walls; China, North Korea; NAFTA; Power of the
Presidency; Republican fiscal Policies; Checks and Balances; United Nations; Arab
Spring; Latin America; Checks and Balances; and, the Separation of Powers
On Sunday, Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes interviewed Donald
Trump, the front-runner for Republican Party nomination in the 2016
Presidential Contest. CBS 60 Minute’s program gave Aspirant Donald Trump a
platform to tell the nation about his tax plan; immigration plan; and, jobs' creation plan. In the fifteen minute broadcast, part of an extended interview, shown on Sunday, September 27, 2015, you came out with either an absurd or unrealistic expectation
of the powers of the Office of US Presidency, the place of checks and balances of the three arms of government, and how much the aspirant can actually accomplish
in growing the American economy to an extent of outstripping nineteen trillion
dollars deficits and debts. You sense a set of complete confusion or an arrogance
of disbelief in someone attempting to win the US Presidency with a bravado that can only fool the die-hard; except you believe in the miracle that a US President
can actually grow the economy within a span of four or eight years, to outstrip
nineteen trillion dollars short falls, good enough to overcome long standing and
extended years of deficit spending and federal debt burden.
Here are glimpses of what I deduced from watching the segment
of the CBS 60 minute program:
On taxes, Presidential Aspirant Trump’s ideas and conception,
spread out in a subsequent infomercial released on Monday, a day after the
CBS’s broadcast, while somewhat appealing to the eighty percent of Republican
voters who see him as the light in the “darkness” of America’s economy, appears
more of a gimmickry. His proposal for a lopsided tax cut for the rich, has been
characterized by tax and budget experts as going to cost the nation a hell lot
of money. How is Mr. Trump going to pay
for his self-styled simplified tax proposal or system where corporate taxes
will be lowered from 35% to 15%; or, manage the shortfalls anticipated from the
four individual tax brackets of 25%; 20%; 10% and 0%, that is going to impact the
current peak level brackets of 39%. Is the aspirant expecting America to
believe that instituting a vastly simpler tax code that drops the tax rate for wealthy Americans is the new solution to the nation’s deficits? Why does the
candidate believe that America can suddenly subscribe to another tax code
system that is synonymous with the standard Republican fiscal policy of cutting
taxes for the rich and hoping it will trickle down to the poor and
underprivileged? Which American
household is looking forward to a tax cut so huge, it outclasses those
currently proposed by his rivals, including Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush? How does
the real estate developer anticipate corralling Republican and Democratic
Lawmakers to buy into a once failed Reagan-era trickle-down type tax cut or
economy?
A realistic immigration plan would be guided by specified
national interest and the means of achieving stability in the population,
including prescription of solutions that address the existing number of undocumented
immigrants living within America’s border. It need not be inconsistent with the
principle of humanness and rule of law. Mr. Trump was further honing his
southern border wall building message and how beautiful or probably impressive
the wall is going to be; unexpectedly to be paid for by the government of Mexico!
Resolution of the logistical problem of deporting eleven or twelve million
undocumented immigrants is hardly on the mind of the real estate developer;
rather, he continues to regurgitate the somewhat troublesome and racist
approach to resolving issue of illegal immigration. History of immigration in
America is hardly explained by draconian measures, after all, the nation is,
and has always been, one built on immigration. Yet, Mr. Trump’s interest in
resolving the issue of undocumented immigrants is to advance outlandish
proposal that makes the most anti-immigration Republican cringe at the thought
of deporting so many people from America’s commerce, in one swift and clean sweep.
Consider now, albeit Mr. Trump’s proposal to deport eleven to
twelve million people, two unwelcome consequences which may be essential for consideration: isolationism and the domino theory.
Isolationism is ingrained in the nationalistic epithet of
deporting all those undocumented immigrants in America. Unfortunately, the
aggressive approach as advanced by aspirant Trump will force many Latin American
countries to retaliate in ways never before seen in North America and Southern
American relationship. Count on many American Companies and citizens being
kicked out of many Southern American countries, count on many countries in that
hemisphere pursuing protective polices, political, social and economic,
including those specifically designed to defeat any American hegemony in that
continent. You imagine NAFTA is a job killer, just wait for the deportation of
twelve million people!
Reasonably expected, is alliance among South American
countries to undermine the real reason for deporting their citizens: illegal
immigration. As often is the case with radical ideas in resolving simple
problems, America must expect encompassing criticisms from nations in Europe,
Asia and Africa. Affected countries will make a case to United Nations,
defending the old desire to move the United Nations headquarters from New York,
since America is no longer a welcoming environment to do business for foreign governments,
companies and entities. Thus, deportation and building a wall of infamy would
be denounced and used by other countries to defend expansion of anti-American propaganda
and pursuing additional foreign policies hitherto absent in America’s
relationship with the world. How does America deal with the ‘double-face’ approach
of encouraging European countries to open their borders to new refugees from
Middle East and Africa, while it is set to ship out undocumented immigrants
within her borders and building a “beautiful” fence to keep them out, according
to aspirant Trump’s call?
Russia is already expanding its power of influence directly in
the Middle-East, especially with the power vacuum created by early withdrawal
of America’s troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. It is further working through the
difficulties of keeping Assad of Syria in power and managing the consequences
of the Arab Spring; while America is feisty dealing with harnessing the
success of fighting an unwinnable war in Afghanistan, fighting ISIS and
international terrorism, and addressing multiple domestic problems without bursting the bank. To deport all the undocumented immigrants within
America’s border would not only deal a huge blow on bilateral relations with
Southern American countries, it will create an avenue for criticisms of the
American ideal of societal openness; and probably, afford for additional
sympathetic alliance in the Arab World against America’s interest, especially in
fighting international terrorism. Instituting this isolationist policy is to
create room for return of Russia’s influence in Southern America. This time
unfortunately, hardly will it be limited to Cuba; but also, other Latin
American countries like Venezuela, that are sympathetic to the Marxist doctrine
and more.
Interestingly, China is already the largest holder of
America’s debt and fiduciary notes. Starting an economic war with the Chinese is
hardly a wise choice. However, this is what Mr. Trump is proposing in his CBS’s
60 Minute interview. Rightly or wrongly, the real estate developer believes
that China has been playing fast and loose balls with its currency exchange
regime and trade surpluses arrangement; and thus, it is time for some
reconciliation or outright economic war. How is “President Trump” going to
reconcile his economic war with China with his compulsion for Chinese
Government to take control or cap a lead on North Korea’s excesses in testing nuclear weapons
and furthering aggression in the Korean Peninsula? Can he not visualize that an
unnecessary economic war with China will degenerate further the already tense
relationship between the two countries and impact America’s influence in Asia
minor, including resolving long standing conflict between Japan and China over the island in South China sea?
On growing American jobs, Mr. Trump, once again is going to
compel American Companies doing business overseas to bring back their jobs or
face a huge penalty. Further, he is going to get rid of NAFTA and associated
national obligations under the treaty, because he is all about “fair trade” not
“free trade”. “President Trump” is repealing "OBAMACARE” and introducing a
Universal Health Care System that is going to "take care of everyone", because
his new health care law is going to create so much competition between health
insurance companies and allow many Americans to save money, while at the same
time expanding America’s economy without “much competition” from the outside
economies. To put it Donald Trump’s way: “We are going to be rich” as a nation,
no other country would ever dare to challenge us, because “we are going to
build a better military finer than the finest we have in the world as we speak!
Less the more than 80% of Republicans polled as supporting Mr.
Trump’s candidacy be taken in by his rather optimistic and bar-none approach to
getting into fights with constituencies that do not share his projections and
optimism, it is important to call the aspirant’s attention to the realities of
American Politics. John Boehner, the Speaker of US House of Representatives
just resigned under great pressure from special interest group(s) within the
Republican Party, the Tea Party and the so-called “Hell No” caucus in the House
of Representatives. The pressure of managing legislature to go along with
party dispensations on bills has, and will always remain challenging; the same
pressures are applied to the occupant of the White House; and no one in the
executive branch of government will tell you it is as easy as it is made to look
on television, press conferences and newspapers, once in government. In the
words of the US Speaker: “Some legislators are making promises of what they
know cannot be accomplished through the legislative process; including
over-turning OBAMACARE and defunding Planned Parenthood.” Former Republican Senate Majority Leader,
Trent Lott, lauded Mr. Boehner’s sacrifice of stepping down from power for the
good of the party and the institution of the House of Representatives. The
realities of dealing with the checks and balances of government make it difficult
for anyone in the pinnacle of the three branches of government to do as he pleases. This is how the forefathers envisaged it and this is how it will
remain until hell freezes over.
There is a popular misconception from those who have not had
the privilege of holding public office or serving as a public servant; that all
it takes is leadership to achieve success in national politics. That with
leadership alone, you can persuade people to do things your own way. While this may be true in managing private enterprises when you are a Chief Executive Officer, this is not necessarily
so in local and national politics. Many who have served in public offices will
tell you about how erroneous and naive this misconception truly is. With numerous
constituencies a US President attends to, it takes more than leadership; and
hardly is there much wiggle room to use monetary influence and the power of the office
to successfully achieve your ambition for the nation and your party.
To be
successful as the President of the United States, to be able to grow the
economy to outstrip the huge deficit as contemplated by aspirant Trump, it is
going to take more than personal achievement in companies’ board rooms
and the bravado of telling people, because I said so. Forget the position of
making money so much that you will be able to expand health care to everyone.
The machination of various characters in and outside of politics, long standing
congressional ethos and traditions, and a constant weight of demands from multiple
constituencies, limit the powers of the US Presidency.
Because
of the doctrine of Checks and Balances and the separation of powers among the three branches of government, executives, legislative and judicial, it is often
difficult to compel one branch of government to do what the other wants. The US
President can cajoled the legislature, can lobby party leaders and lawmakers; however, he
cannot force votes to achieve his dreams on the floors of both Chambers of Congress, all the time.
The President might even have the fair fortune of moving a bill through US
Congress successfully with the help of his party leadership and congressional members; however, he cannot
force the lawmakers to fund the provisions of the bill. While it is easier to
issue directives from the executive branch of government, the Hodge-podge
process of law making makes the process a long and arduous one; and often
times, the nastiness and brutality of the process, not to consider the crudity
of some tenets of lawmaking, ensure that nothing is ever going to be achieved
overnight as is expected in the private business sector. It just does not happen that way! Our
forefathers have made it so, that our Republic only functions through
consensus. Without consensus, a President is as “dumb” as a door knob! A
President needs the consent of the people to govern as well as the corporation of
lawmakers to pass a bill that he can sign into a law. Issuing out executive
orders may save some faces, however, the criticisms that follow, in some cases,
are not worth the initial effort or trouble.
Finally,
although no one is saying Mr. Trump cannot become a good President with his
strong business background; however, it is going to take more than the wheeling
and dealing in business suites or boardrooms to pass bills into laws and to implement and
fund the provisions of the bills. While Mr. Trump continues to stress that he
can work easily with politicians because he has always worked with them, seems
more like a face-saver or day dream at this time. There is a difference between you financing
a politician’s campaign or donating to his political ambition and actually working
with him or her once in office as a member of the august body of United States
Congress. A US President’s interest cannot always be of equal importance for all
legislators in his party, not to talk of every member in US Congress.
Legislators have priorities for their constituencies and often aggressively, if not selectively, defend their turf or rail against the US President over polices, even when he is attempting
to accomplish a proposal that is in the interest of all. Counter insurgence
within one’s party's legislators as well as proclivity have been known to derail
good intentions; both in US Congress and the White House. Often, the challenges of dealing with disagreements on policy directions with members of US Congress have always kept the US President on pins and needles. If in doubt, call up President Barack Obama! Support for a US Presidential aspirant is not the same as providing leadership when in office as the United
States President. Overestimation of US Congressional leaders’ willingness to
negotiate because of voters’ likability of one’s personality does not readily translate
to easy governance. Too often, a candidate has come to the office of the
Presidency assuming things are going to be done his own way, work out the way
he had planned or pre-conceived while running for the office, only to find out
that things are not always the way they seem, once in office. This is just the gospel truth, nothing more.