Right Wing Think-Tank Cato Institute Takes Aim at Trump's Buy American Trade Policy

by Nomad

Cato, Then and Now

As a humble peasant, it always fills me with awe when billionaires with agendas begin to lob insults at one another. I don't have to particularly agree with one or the other, it's just nice to believe there are some cracks in a global conspiracy against the little guy.

If you are unfamiliar with the Cato Institute,  here's the run down for you.
Founded by Charles G. Koch and funded by the brothers Koch, Cato is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington. By and large, it has promoted policies that uphold "the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, and peace."
The Koch family has donated more than $30 million dollars to the organization, according to the New York Times as of 2012. In March of that year, there was a falling-out when the Kochs filed a lawsuit against Cato to gain control.

The Cato Institute wields a tremendous amount of influence among conservatives. In addition to its advocacy of far right positions, it has become a substantial funder of other "like-minded" think tanks For all those reasons, Cato is an organization that any president ought to take seriously. tanks around the U.S.

Any endorsement of criticism of Mr. Trump and his policies should be understood to come solidly from the conservative right.

Refuge of Scoundrels

On many subjects, such as climate change denial, school privatization, privatization of government services and anti-taxation, the Cato Institute's position and the Trump administration's agenda seem to dovetailed pretty tightly.

That's why a recent article by Cato's Daniel Ikenson, director of Cato’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, seems so counter-intuitive. Are these power-hungry Republic-destroying fat cats supposed to be working together?

Want to Know How Mr.Trump Really Feels About the Arts? Just Read This

by Nomad

Can the Arts be saved from President Trump's budget-slashing? If this story about a van Gogh painting is anything to go by, probably not. 

According to an article in The Hill, Trump's "skinny" budget includes slashing spending a lot of programs. Leaks from insiders on Trump's transition team say that, under Trump's proposed cuts, the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities would be eliminated entirely.

Conservative groups like The Heritage Foundation have long considered this kind of spending to be throwing money onto an artsy-fartsy bonfire. Where's the return on the government investment? What's the bottom line?
This brings up the question: What are President Trump's views on the Arts in general?

Deal of the Art

A very short snippet of dialogue from a May 1990 New York Magazine article gives us an insight into this billionaire's sensibilities and what he thinks about the arts in general. 

The story is actually short and sweet. In the late 1980s, Australian billionaire Alan Bond was interested in purchasing the Hotel St. Moritz, a luxury hotel located at 50 Central Park South, from Mr. Trump. As part of the agreement, Trump demanded equity.
No probs.
Bond had a veritable treasure to offer up.

Immigration Ban: How Trump's Inability to Distinguish Friend from Foe Destroyed a Family

by Nomad

What happens when a careless administration allows unqualified advisors to call the shots? As the world saw last Friday, innocent people get caught up in the cross-fire and families can be torn apart.

Bannon in Charge

As a businessman, Donald Trump was used to signing papers without a careful reading or deep comprehension of the potential complications or consequences. It's second nature to him.
He had teams of expensive and qualified lawyers to take care of that stuff. He had people that he trusted to sort all the boring details. These were experts in their profession. Men who knew what they were doing. These were people he knew he could depend on.

As president of the United States, Trump gets his advice primarily from, Steven Bannon, a former editor of a far-right-wing news site. If you somehow have doubts about the journalistic values of the
Breitbart News, just check this list of past headlines.

True, Bannon was once a Goldman Sachs as an investment banker as well as an executive producer in Hollywood. Nevertheless Bannon, however, has no expertise in Constitutional or international law. Could give a flying fig about human rights. He knows nothing about the complexities of immigration policy or international treaties. He is, in short, absolutely not unqualified for penning or spot-checking executive orders.

Nonetheless, PresidentTrump signs documents approved by Bannon without having any independent legal review. Trumps goes for the money shot and promptly displaying them for the press and moves on to sign more. And more like an assembly line for Constitutional hell.

In the wake of those executive orders, things, as we saw last week, can suddenly and dramatically spin out of control. Real lives are turned upside down.
Fox News- an outlet that Trump clearly trusts above all others-
reported the other day one such example.

Donald Trump Has Assembled a “Team of Generals.” So What’s the Problem?

by Nomad

A podcast takes a look at President-elect Trump's decision to surround himself with top military officials and the problem it presents to the long-standing neutrality of the armed forces.

You might not have heard of this news source but The UN Dispatch provides in-depth commentary and coverage on the UN and UN-related issues.
Its managing editor,  Mark Leon Goldberg, also hosts a fairly interesting podcast. Recently, the podcast investigated the implications of President-elect Trump's selection of "a team of generals" to fill key posts in his national security posts.  

His guest, Alice Hunt Friend is a former official in the Pentagon and is currently both a Senior Associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Adjunct Senior Fellow with the Center for a New American Security.

Top Brass

Most Americans (at least those with anti-fascist views) might find the idea of the former military officials dominating a presidential cabinet, a recipe for any number of disasters.That's especially true in peacetime and especially when the president refuses to support the opinions of intelligence agencies.

Indeed, Friend points out that while members of top military brass have served in civilian roles, (Colin Powell, for example) never before have so many generals been tapped to serve at once and in top positions in the government.

Among the many crumbling institutions when it comes to trust in government the military is saved from that. The American public still holds the United States military in very high regard.  

The problem comes in when  the US military is seen to approve or disapprove of a particular politician whatever his policies might be,
Trump's selection is a way of obtaining a kind of legitimacy that he could not acquire on his own merits. It implies that the United States military is de facto endorsing Trump and his policies. In effect, Trump has politicized the US military to become his private cheerleaders.