Saturday, December 29, 2018

Qualifications

These two tweets from the Republican Party outline the qualifications of Heather Nauert to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations:







Before we review her resume in detail, here are the qualifications of her predecessors.

Nikki Haley served six years in the South Carolina House of representatives and was in the middle of serving her second term as Governor of South Carolina prior to her nomination to be our Ambassador to the UN.

Samantha Power worked as a foreign policy fellow in the office of then-Senator Barack Obama in 2005 and 2006.  She was a foreign policy advisor for his 2008 presidential campaign but had to resign after she called Hilary Clinton a "monster."  She was a member of Obama's National Security Council from 2009 through 2013.  Then she was nominated and confirmed as the U.S. Ambassador to the UN.

Susan Rice was a member of President Clinton's National Security Council from 1993 to 1997.  Then she was appointed as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, a position she held for more than three years.  She worked at the Brookings Institute as a Senior Fellow on foreign policy issues until joining the 2008 Obama presidential campaign as a senior foreign policy advisor.

Zalmay Khalizad was the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan from Nov 2003 through June of 2005.  He then became U.S. Ambassador to Iraq from June of 2005 until March of 2007.  His resume in foreign policy issues dates back to 1979 when he was a Professor of Political Science at Columbia University's School of International and Political Affairs.  He worked on foreign policy issues during the Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr, administrations.

John Bolton's resume is long and distinguished.  Only a Democratic filibuster prevented him from being confirmed as the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, although he did serve in that role for 17 months through a recess appointment to the job.

John Danforth was elected to two terms as Attorney General of Missouri and then to three terms as U.S. Senator from Missouri before being nominated as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

John Negroponte was the U.S. Ambassador to the UN from September of 2001 through June of 2004.  Prior to that he'd been U.S. Ambassador to Honduras, Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Deputy National Security Advisor, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico and U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines.

Richard Holbrooke was the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Ambassador to Germany and Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs.  He remains the only person in history to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for two different regions of the world.

The resumes of the predecessors of these men and women are equally distinguished.

* * *

Heather Nauert's career has been in journalism until April of 2017 when she was hired as U.S. State Department spokesperson.  Since 3/13/2018 she has been the Acting Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.  That is a position that requires Senate confirmation, but it appears she was never nominated for that position.

She has all of one year and eight months of experience at the State Department.  The fact that Trump is removing the position of U.S. Ambassador to the UN from his Cabinet doesn't reduce the need for a fully qualified and experienced individual to serve in that position.

Elliot Abrams spent eight years in high level State Department positions during the Reagan Administration.  He was a Special Assistant to President George H. W. Bush and is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.  When asked about Ms Nauert's qualifications to be our Ambassador to the UN, this is what he said:

"(Nauert) is very well-informed about any issue senators are likely to ask about, but what she's not experienced in is the political give-and-take she'll need to negotiate compromises at the UN."

 Ms Nauert may be a fast study.  But even as a non-Cabinet level position, the job she's been nominated to do requires more than months rather than years of related experience.

The Senate should reject her nomination.

posted by me at 5:25 AM

Friday, December 28, 2018

Why signing those red hats was wrong

Donald Trump claims that the MAGA hats he signed while visiting military personnel at al-Asad Air Base in Iraq were brought by the troops.  Earlier reports that he had provided the hats to the troops were disputed by both the White House and the Air Force.

Fair enough.  I withdraw my earlier comment about them being campaign swag.  That doesn't change the fact that those hats should not have been in the hands of military personnel in uniform.  There is a Department of Defense (DOD) Directive on the subject.  DOD Directive 1344.10 is very clear on what someone serving on active duty in the military can and cannot do regarding political activity.  There is no "but the President is here" exception regarding the prohibition on doing anything that even resembles political activity while in uniform.  Wearing, carrying and doing anything else with a MAGA hat while in uniform is almost certainly a violation of this directive.


Will the individual pictured here face discipline for displaying that hat while in uniform?  Under a strict interpretation of military regulations, they should.  But they almost certainly won't.  In a statement, United States Air Forces Europe said there is no rule against bringing personal items to an event to get them signed by the president.  I'm not the only one who disagrees.




Visiting the troops is about honoring their sacrifice.  Not about promoting your own political agenda.  Photo-ops are fine.  But the presence of a MAGA hat in such a photo is wrong.  MAGA was an official campaign slogan during the 2016 campaign and appears to be in play as one for Trump's 2020 campaign.

I was in the U.S. Air Force from August of 1977 through July of 1987.  Where was I on Christmas day in those years?

1977, 78 and 79 were spent at Homestead Air Force Base in Florida.
1980 was spent on Guam.
1981 was spent with family.
1982 was spent with family.
1983 was spent at Keesler Air Force Base in Mississippi
1984 was spent in South Korea.
1985 and 1986 were spent at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada.

You cannot not have feelings about your Commander-in-Chief when you are wearing our nation's uniform.  Jimmy Carter had run on a platform of making big cuts in defense spending.  The perception of military personnel I knew during the Carter years was that he didn't do enough to protect our pay from the cost of living.

Year                        Military Pay Raise                Rate of Inflation

1978                                 6.2%                                       9.0%
1979                                 5.5%                                      13.3%
1980                                 7.0%                                      12.5%
1981                                 11.7%                                     8.9%

Most of us were big fan of Ronald Reagan for a number of reasons.  He pushed through a raise for us in 1982 of 14.3% and then our annual raises were on par with the inflation rate (in almost every year, but not all).

But that wasn't the only reason we were fans of President Reagan.




That's Master Sergeant Roy P. Benavidez.  In 1968 he was involved in what is now known as "Six Hours in Hell" during a tour of duty with the 5th Special Forces Group.  He saved eight lives that day.  He was so badly wounded that the doctor was about to zip up the body bag in which he'd been place, when Benavidez spat in his face to show he was still alive.

He was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, which was upgraded to the Medal of Honor in 1980.  In his autobiography Colin Powell wrote that one of the things that solidified his belief that the Carter administration had an "insensitivity" towards the military was President Carter's choice to not present the Medal of Honor to MSGT Benavidez.

President Reagan didn't just jump at the chance to bestow that honor on MSGT Benavidez.  He read the citation himself at the presentation.


The reading of the citation begins just after the nine minute mark in the above recording.


* * *

Donald Trump doesn't place a real value on the men and women serving our nation, as the rest of us do.  He sees them as his employees.  Campaign props.  Tools of foreign policy.  He didn't go to Iraq and Germany for the primary purpose of honoring those men and women.  He went there to deflect criticism aimed at him.  He went to try to prop up his support among the population.  He went to campaign for the 2020 election.

Barry McCaffrey is a retired four-star Army General.  A true American hero, twice awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his extraordinary heroism during the Vietnam War.  He also earned two Silver Stars and three Purple Hearts.  He said the following about Trump's trip to Iraq.

“It’s a good thing that the president went to Iraq and visited the troops, even better that he brought Melania along,” McCaffrey said. “It was entirely inappropriate to use that as a point of a political rally.”

He also pointed out that Trump lied about to the troops about military pay raises, taking credit for getting them a 10% raise.  The actual raise is 2.6%.  He lied by claiming it was their first raise in a decade.  Military personnel cost of living adjustments (the raises I mentioned earlier) were given to military personnel every single one of the last ten years.

If military personnel want to support Donald Trump, they are free to do so.  When out of uniform.

posted by me at 10:39 AM

Thursday, December 27, 2018

Chickenhawk

Let's examine the military draft history of Donald Trump, who graduated from high school in the spring of 1964.

1964 - student deferment while enrolled at Fordham University
1965 - student deferment while enrolled at Fordham University
1966 - student deferment while enrolled at University of Pennsylvania (Wharton Business School)
1967 - student deferment while enrolled at University of Pennsylvania (Wharton Business School)
1968 - receives medical deferment for bone spurs.

President Barack Obama was born in 1961.  The draft ended in 1973.  He was not subject to the draft.

President George W. Bush received student deferments while he attended Yale from the fall of 1964 through June of 1968.  At that time he joined the Texas Air National Guard.  The controversy around his enlistment in the Air National Guard is well documented.

As is the controversy surrounding the draft history of President Bill Clinton, who also received multiple deferments.

Presidents prior to Bill Clinton weren't subject to being drafted to serve during the Vietnam War.

* * *

The New York Times is reporting that the medical deferment letter that enabled Donald Trump to avoid the draft was written as a "favor" to his father, Fred Trump.  

It seems obvious that the enlistment of George W. Bush into the Texas Air National Guard was due to his father being a member of Congress.

Did Bill Clinton survive 17 months of being classified 1-A (eligible to be drafted) because of the actions of his Uncle, Raymond Clinton?  Very possible.

The fact is, many fathers, mothers and other relatives did things during the Vietnam-era draft to help their loved ones avoid military service.  So did the men who did not want to serve in Vietnam.  Rudy Guiliani applied for an occupational deferment while clerking for a judge.  His request was denied.  He got his boss to lobby the draft board to reverse that decision and was successful.  

Did Michigan Governor George Romney have a hand in obtaining the deferment his son Mitt received to go on a Mormon mission to France?  Probably not.  While the Mormon church had agreed to limit those deferments, the low number of Mormons of draft age who were residents of Michigan at the time all but ensured he would receive the deferment.

* * *

So why does this issue of Trump and his alleged bone spurs bother me so much, in light of the fact so many others did virtually the same thing?




Chickenhawk is a term that doesn't get much play these days, but it was in common usage during the Vietnam War.  Donald Trump is the epitome of a chickenhawk.  It refers to someone who advocates/supports war but actively avoided military service.

Worse is that he denigrates the sacrifices made by those who have served, as he did in his description of the late Senator John McCain.  Now he's gone to Iraq for a photo-op with the troops.  I challenge anyone to provide evidence of any other Commander-in-Chief who passed out campaign swag while visiting the troops.

Donald Trump made a telephone condolence call to the grieving widow of a soldier who had been killed in action in Niger.  The widow claims that he didn't remember the name of her dead husband and said that her husband "...knew what he signed up for."

* * * 

I was very critical of Bill Clinton's draft dodging during the 1992 presidential campaign and after his election.  My views have changed.  When it comes to those who were opposed to the war, avoiding the draft makes sense.  For those who supported the war, like Donald Trump and Mitt Romney, avoiding the draft is a different issue.  To quote John McCain:

"One aspect of the conflict, by the way, that I will never ever countenance is that we drafted the lowest-income level of America, and the highest-income level found a doctor that would say that they had a bone spur."

The odds of winning the $348 million MegaMillions jackpot tomorrow night are higher than of Donald Trump having the stones to admit he did not have the alleged bone spurs.  

posted by me at 12:59 PM

Wednesday, December 26, 2018

Trump's 2016 fundraiser for Veterans - a look back

Back in June of 2016, I wrote about the fundraiser Donald Trump held rather than participate in a Republican primary debate.  The fundraiser took place in January of that year.  Recently I decided to go back over the Donald Trump Foundation's 2016 tax return (nonprofit foundations must file a Form 990 with the IRS annually).  This video sums up my reaction:



Dishonest Donnie trumpeted the $5.6 million raised.  What he did not talk about was that $3 million of that total came from three individuals.  Himself, Phil Ruffin (who is partners with Trump and the Hilton Corporation in owning the Trump International property in Las Vegas) and Isaac Perlmutter (the record shows his wife Laura made the donation, but Trump spoke about the fact it came from Mr. Perlmutter).  The website to which people were directed to make donations online shows that over $1,670,000 was raised online.

But it took time for the money to be disbursed to the veterans groups on the list he ultimately released.

According to the Form 990 on file with GuideStar.org, the Donald Trump Foundation claims to have raised $2,865,653 in 2016.  That same form shows that it made grants totaling $3,023,800.

Of the total of grants that were made, $223,800 went to charities other than those focused on veterans and related issues.  That leaves $2,800,000 for the veteran charities.

There are another $2,800,000 in grants that aren't on the Foundation's tax return, but are on Trump's list.

There is a note at the bottom of the return that some might believe explains this discrepancy.  It reads as follows:

The Foundation received contributions for tax-exempt veterans organizations as a result of an event held by a candidate for public office.  The Foundation did not incur any expenditures for the fundraiser, and the contributions received were subsequently distributed to the veterans organizations.

That doesn't jibe with the IRS instructions.  They state quite clearly that the organization must reports their gross receipts for ALL sources of revenue.

Which raises the question, why was half of the money "raised" reported and half not reported?  What purposes does this serve?

Why did Dishonest Donnie not fully disclose that 54% of the funds came from himself and two of his close associates?

Now what's really curious is that Dishonest Donnie's own contribution of $1,000,000 was not reported as received by the foundation.  Why is that?  While he wrote a personal check to the charity, did he reimburse himself from some other source?

Dishonest Donnie doesn't like anyone looking into the details of his finances.  This needs some scrutiny.  I know his foundation is in the process of dissolving, but something is wrong here.

posted by me at 10:40 AM

Trump says it's Wall or Nothing

On Christmas Day it is traditional for the Oval Office occupant to call military personnel serving on active duty, usually overseas.  He also talked about the shutdown.

"Many of those workers have said to me, communicated, stay out until you get the funding for the wall.  These federal workers want the wall."

Not according to Tony Reardon.  He is the head of the National Treasury Employees Union, representing over 150,000 federal employees at 33 federal agencies and departments.  A survey of his union's membership indicates that 85% had said they will have to limit holiday spending because of the furloughs.  He described one instance where a union member said:

"I recently lost my wife and now...I have to put off buying her headstone.  Breaks my heart."

 Then there is this:




Fortunately for this family, former NFL quarterback Ryan Leaf stepped up to help this family with their mortgage.

#DishonestDonnie also said:

I can't tell you when the government is going to be open.  I can tell you, it's not going to be open until we have a wall, a fence, whatever they'd like to call it.  I'll call it whatever they want."

He can stomp his feet, hold his breath until he turns blue and refuse to stop the shutdown, but the reality is; once we get into January, Democrats will control the House.  At that point, his life becomes much more difficult.

When questioned about the investigative powers that become available to a Democratically controlled House of Representatives, he said:

"It's probably presidential harassment and we know how to handle that.  I know how to handle that better than anybody."

No Donnie.  That's oversight.  Part of our nation's system of checks and balances.

As an aside, with the government currently in shutdown mode, 88% of IRS employees are currently out on furlough.  With all of the changes to the Internal Revenue Code necessitated by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, this couldn't come at a worse moment.  Many of those employees will have to come in and work without pay if the shutdown goes on much longer.

Wall or Nothing won't work.

* * *

I went for a drive this morning.  Drove through portions of my hometown, Santa Monica.  Saw a number of things that caught my eye.

The building at 146 Entrada Drive is still boarded up, with no trespassing signs on the entrances.  The parking lot is being used by Patrick's Roadhouse Café.  Why that location has sat empty for so many years puzzles me.

I drove by the address where my mother grew up.  The house that had been on the lot the last time I'd passed by was gone.  There was a construction fence up and it appeared that someone was in the process of building a "McMansion" on that very large lot.  The lot is more than 20,000 square feet and the home that was razed to clear the lot was over 5,000 square feet.  It will be interesting to see what goes up at that address.

I will know it forever as Lincoln Junior High School, but these days the sign reads Lincoln Middle School.  When I was a student there, the running track circled a poorly maintained grass field.  This morning as I passed by, I saw an immaculately groomed football field.  There were soccer goals at each end.  The open front face of the school is now fully fenced and gated.

It was good to get out of the house for an hour.  I've had more fatigue than usual of late.  Since I know I'll be working a lot of hours in a few weeks, I'm paying attention to my body.  But I will resume moviegoing on Thursday.  I have a full shift on Wednesday, and am then off until next year.

* * *

Random Ponderings:

If #DishonestDonnie is so concerned with the troops, why did he become the first Oval Office occupant in more than a decade to not visit troops on Christmas?

Why is it that the aforementioned con artist is critical of news stories about him with anonymous sources, but he can claim things without offering any evidence?

Jennifer Lawrence continues to visit a hospital near where she grew up, every Christmas Day.  That's awesome.

So is the story of an 8 year old boy who suffers from cancer, who asked Santa to lend him some money to donate to cancer research.  He found $1,200 from Santa under the tree.

I think the wall issue is because #DishonestDonnie has seen this scene too many times


posted by me at 5:57 AM

Monday, December 24, 2018

A "sneaky" way of raising taxes

A few numbers to begin with

$25,000 in 1983 adjusted for inflation by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI calculator equals the buying power of $62,262 today.

$32,000 in 1983 adjusted for inflation by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI calculator equals the buying power of $79,696 today.

 We'll come back to these numbers in a bit.

* * *

In 1982, the Internal Revenue Code was changed.  The change modified the "minimum tax" that had been enacted in 1969 into what we know today as the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).  It was supposed to ensure that the "rich" pay their "fair share" of income taxes.  What that share is has been the subject of intense debate since the income tax was signed into law.

Many argue that the wealthy already pay an outsized share of income taxes, as shown in this chart from the Tax Foundation:


This blog is not designed to review and discuss what that fair share is, but I will say that this chart is misleading.  Why?  Because the more than 1/5th of all Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) earned by the top 1% in 2014 does not include their income from tax-exempt investments like municipal bonds.  According to Thomson Reuters, on 12/312008 there was $2.67 trillion in outstanding municipal bonds.  The same source reports that there were $61.9 billion in such bonds issued in the first quarter of 2018, a decline of 54.6% from the $136.4 billion issued the previous quarter.  Based on those numbers, the total amount of outstanding municipal bonds has grown significantly in the last decade.

If we make conservative estimates that the total now sits at $4 trillion and they are yielding only 3% per annum, that means the holders of these bonds (held by people in every income bracket but concentrated among the most wealthy) is generating $120 billion in untaxed income annually.

* * *

I've digressed.  Back to the AMT.  When it came into being in its present form in 1982, the Exemption Amount was $45,000 for taxpayers who were married filing jointly (MFJ), $33,750 for unmarried taxpayers and $22,500 for taxpayers who filed as married filing separately (MFS).

Those amounts were not indexed (adjusted for inflation) until 2001, and until the year 2012, they were subject to the whims of patchwork legislation each year.  Now, the AMT exemption amount is somewhat indexed for inflation.

$45,000 in 1982 = $115,732 in 2018.  2018 MFJ AMT exemption amount is $109,400
$33,750 in 1982 = $86,789 in 2018.  2018 unmarried AMT exemption amount is $70,300
$22,500 in 1982 = $57,866 in 2018.  2018 MFS AMT exemption amount is $54,700.

Still, the percentage of Americans who are subjected to the AMT has grown dramatically since its inception.



* * *

What Congress has done for the AMT, it has not done for a much more important number.  That number being the amount of other income one can earn before their Social Security (Social Insecurity for those who prefer that label) benefits become subject to being partially taxable.

As personal finance columnist Liz Weston writes, the amounts of "combined income" one can earn when receiving Social Security benefits (either retirement or disability benefits) before those benefits become partially taxable have not been indexed for inflation since the government began taxing Social Security in 1983.

$25,000 for unmarried taxpayers
$32,000 for married taxpayers.

Now what would those amounts be when indexed for inflation?  I repeat:

$25,000 in 1983 adjusted for inflation by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI calculator equals the buying power of $62,262 today.

$32,000 in 1983 adjusted for inflation by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI calculator equals the buying power of $79,696 today.

So what is this combined income calculation?  You take 1/2 of the Social Security benefit and add it to all other income (including income from the previously discussed tax-exempt income) and if that number is more than $25,000, an unmarried individual will be taxed on 50% of their Social Security benefits.  The number for MFJ filers is $32,000.

When those numbers exceed $34,000 and $44,000 respective, the portion of Social Security subject to income tax rises to 85%.

By not indexing those thresholds for inflation over the last 35 years, Congress has increased the amount of income tax paid by recipients of Social Security who earn more than the allowable amount of combined income.

Why more people aren't up in arms about this escapes me.

posted by me at 4:29 PM

Christmas Eve edition of Monday musings

When I was a high school student between the fall of 1974 and the spring of 1977, wrestling on television was not what it is now.  Professional wrestling on television was a local/regional thing.  The first nationally broadcast wrestling "show" didn't air until 1979.  While I have vivid memories of watching "Classy" Freddie Blassie, John "The Golden Greek" Tolos and Terry Funk from those days of local wrestling telecasts, the only easily recognizable name from the era was a very young "Rowdy" Roddy Piper.  As a high school wrestler, I did not dream of growing up to make it into the professional wrestling squared circle.  I doubt any of my teammates had those dreams either.  As a scene from the 1986 movie The Breakfast Club shows, wrestling was not a sport that was as well-regarded as baseball, basketball and football were.



Things have changed since then.  For the week of November 26 through December 2, World Wide Entertainment (WWE) has two of the top ten most watched shows on cable television.  Monday Night Raw tied for 5th and Smackdown (airs on Tuesdays) was 7th.

Do high school wrestlers dream of being the next John Cena, A.J. Styles, etc?  I don't know.  Do they dream of making it to the ultimate mat at the Olympic Games?  Probably a more likely dream.

You may or may not have seen the video of a high school wrestling match where a referee who made racist remarks in the past; forced a competitor to cut off his dreadlocks or forfeit the match.  In case you didn't.


The rules for wrestling in New Jersey make it clear that the wearing of a cap to cover hair that extends below the earlobe or below the shirt collar level; is allowable.  Rules are important.

Here's the problem with this referee's decision to force Andrew Johnson to cut his dreadlocks.  A check of his career stats shows that Mr. Johnson wrestled in 25 matches during the 2017-2018 season.  He had 13 wins and 12 losses.  Was there no issue with his hair last season?

What if the locs were new this season?  Well, the record shows that Mr. Johnson had a match on 12/15 at the Robin Leff tournament.  No issues with his hair earlier this month.

There needs to be an investigation into this to provide due process.  I suspect the outcome will reveal that this decision was wrong and the referee in question should be banned from officiating at all levels, permanently.

* * *

We are in day 3 of the "partial" government shutdown.  800,000 people not being paid, over 420,000 of whom are being forced to work without being paid.  I like this idea from Congressmember-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:




The problem is, this idea doesn't go far enough.  I believe that the members of Congress should forfeit their pay for every day that the government is shut down.  I also believe that Congress needs to stop passing continuing resolutions to keep the government operating after October 1st of each year.  The Congress is supposed to have passed all of the appropriations bills prior to that date.  If it were up to me, they would forfeit their pay and benefits for every day after October 1st where there is not a fully executed set of appropriations bills.  No more continuing resolutions.  They kick far too many cans down the road to begin with.

While I'm on the topic, Congress should also eliminate the exemptions they gave themselves from the following laws:

Whistleblower Protections for their staff employees.
Being subject to OSHA Health and Safety probe subpoenas.
Being required to keep workplace records.
Employee protections against employer retaliation.
Being subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

* * *

A mother has found a unique, brilliant way to ensure her kids do their chores.


Genius!

* * *

Mariano Rivera was the "closer" for the New York Yankees from 1997 through his retirement in 2013.  He is considered by many to be the greatest closer in Major League Baseball history.  The 2019 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot is his first chance at election to the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown.  He might be the first unanimous selection to that august institution in the history of balloting.

He won't get votes from all of those eligible to vote though.  Bill Ballou penned a piece on why he won't cast his ballot at all this year, which would give Rivera a chance to be a unanimous selection.  In that piece he offers an explanation for his choice that focuses on his opinion that the value of the closer on a baseball team is vastly overstated.

I don't agree with his logic.  In his 652 career saves, a MLB record, Rivera had saves that stretched over more than one inning a record 119 times.  No other closer has more than 55 in a career.  Rivera is one of only four relief pitchers to win the World Series MVP award since its inception in 1955.

There is one glaring omission in Mr. Ballou's evaluation of Mariano Rivera.  He ignores the fact that Rivera is far and away the career leader in the Adjusted ERA (ERA+) statistic.  His stands at 205.  Clayton Kershaw, the Dodgers ace starter is a distant second, at 159.  Here are the ERA+ numbers for a few pitchers who are enshrined at Cooperstown:

Lefty Grove (has highest winning percentage of HOF pitchers) - 148
Walter Johnson (had 414 career wins, 2nd to only Cy Young) - 147
Cy Young - 138
Christy Mathewson - 136
Sandy Koufax - 131
Bob Gibson - 127

Mariano Rivera earned his spot at Cooperstown.


posted by me at 9:52 AM

Saturday, December 22, 2018

Trump's Wall - a Mass of Myths

Donald Trump says that a wall will make stop the flow of illegal immigrants and illegal narcotics into the U.S.  That's just not true.

NBC News reports that data from the Center on Migration Studies tell us that 2/3rd of the people in the U.S. illegally actually entered with a valid visa, and then didn't leave when it expired.

Data from the Pew Research Center shows that the number of people in the country illegally has been declining since hitting a peak of 12.2 million in 2007.


That data from Pew also shows that the number of illegal immigrants in the workforce, and as a percentage of the overall labor force have also declined.



Most illegal drugs no longer arrive in bags carried by those crossing the border illegally.  They are smuggled in through the legal ports of entry.  They come into the U.S. through the more than 200 tunnels dug beneath the border that have been discovered since 1990.  In April of 2016, one such tunnel that was more than one-half mile in length was discovered.  It had ventilation vents, electricity and rails to facilitate smuggling large quantities of "product."

Donald Trump has talked about the fact that the White House has a wall around it.  It actually has a fence.  But there are multiple layers of security on the inside of that wall.  Those layers are what makes the White House safe, not the fence itself.

When his supporters say that Trump is just trying to keep a campaign promise, they conveniently forget that one of his promises was that Mexico would pay for his wall.  If that were true, he wouldn't have forced the government to shut down because Congress won't give him the money that is supposed to come from Mexico.

Trump's wall.  Built on myths and lies.

posted by me at 5:00 PM

Friday, December 21, 2018

General Mattis quits

It will be remembered forever as the "Saturday Night Massacre."  It happened on October 20, 1973.


It is worth remembering because in the wake of President Richard Nixon's order to fire the Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, Elliot Richardson resigned as the nation's Attorney General.  A NY Times story the following June points out that at that point in the 20th Century, only four cabinet level officials had resigned in protest of a policy decision by a president.

Defense Secretary James Mattis resigned in protest over Donald Trump's decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Syria and 50% of the 14,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.  His letter of resignation makes this all too clear.

If you review the 15 cabinet positions (14 under George H. W. Bush) and add in the White House Chief of Staff billet, the turnover in the first two years of the five most recent presidencies is somewhat higher in the Trump Administration.

Bush Sr - 5 position changes
Clinton - 5 position changes
Bush Jr - 3 position changes
Obama - 3 position changes
Trump - 7 position changes

The impasse between Donald Trump and the Congress has us within hours of a shutdown of roughly 25% of the federal government.  Unless a solution is found, the government of the United States of America is going to shutdown for the third time this year tonight at midnight.  This is unacceptable.

Donald Trump may have labeled himself a "stable genius" but he has what may be the least stable in our nation's history.  His administration has been plagued by scandals.

The resignation of Secretary Mattis is a warning.  Is anyone listening?

posted by me at 7:27 AM

Wednesday, December 19, 2018

The right to express an opinion

Just watched Sarah Huckabee Sanders give a press briefing.  It is December 18, 2018 and CNN introduced this as the first White House press briefing of the month.  That in and of itself says a lot.

Ms Sanders was asked about this tweet from Donald Trump during this briefing, the reporter asking if he was "venting" about the Federal Reserve:




Ms Sanders responded by saying, "the president is stating his opinion which he is perfectly within his right to do so.  I think that is one of the reasons people like him is because he does that and he does that regularly."  As a private citizen, Donald Trump certainly has that right.  As the Oval Office occupant, he has the right to do that about a lot of things.  However, there are limits, and he's violated one of those limits recently.




As the Commander-in-Chief, Donald Trump has absolutely no business inserting himself into any issue involving a case being handled by the military justice system.  It is a clear case of what's known as Unlawful Command Influence (UCI).

It is a simple concept.  In a court-martial, the prosecutor is a military attorney.  The defense counsel is usually a military attorney.  The judge presiding over the court-martial is a military officer, almost always a military attorney.

When a court-martial takes place, there is a convening authority.  That officer is prohibited from attempting to exercise UCI on the proceedings, as outlined in Article 37(a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice:
837. ART. 37. UNLAWFULLY INFLUENCING ACTION OF COURT

(a) No authority convening a general, special, or summary court-martial, nor any other commanding officer, may censure, reprimand, or admonish the court or any member, military judge, or counsel thereof, with respect to the findings or sentence adjudged by the court, or with respect to any other exercises of its or his functions in the conduct of the proceedings. No person subject to this chapter may attempt to coerce or, by any unauthorized means, influence the action of a court-martial or any other military tribunal or any member thereof, in reaching the findings or sentence in any case, or the action of any convening, approving, or reviewing authority with respect to his judicial acts. The foregoing provisions of the subsection shall not apply with respect to (1) general instructional or informational courses in military justice if such courses are designed solely for the purpose of instructing members of a command in the substantive and procedural aspects of courts-martial, or (2) to statements and instructions given in open court by the military judge, president of a special court-martial, or counsel. 
The potential for this to become a problem is that in many cases that convening authority is in the chain of command for the prosecutor and/or judge.  Not delivering the result desired by that convening authority could therefore adversely impact the career of those officers.  Article 37(a) is designed to prevent this from happening.

To prevent the convening authority from exercising UCI on the officer(s) appointed to represent, a system exists so that the military attorneys who represent these defendants are not part of the convening authority's chain of command.  The Army has the Trial Defense Service.  Every Air Force installation has a local office known as the Area Defense Counsel.  The Marine Corps and the Navy have the Defense Service Office.  The officers that work for these units providing defense counsel to military personnel do not report to the convening authority.

As Commander-in-Chief, Donald Trump is most definitely in the chain of command of every single member of the military.  That would include the convening authority, judge and prosecutor of Major Matthew Golsteyn.  Mr. Trump should not be involving himself in this matter.

* * *

There is no question that Matthew Goldsteyn performed heroically on 20 February 2010 (military parlance).  The citation for the Silver Star Medal that he was awarded for his actions on that day makes that crystal clear.  Here is an excerpt.

"Captain Golsteyn repeatedly exposed himself to direct and accurate enemy fire during a four-hour engagement in which his calm demeanor, decisive actions and fearlessness in the face of the enemy ultimately led to the liberation of the citizens of Marjeh from an oppressive insurgent regime. His actions are in keeping with the finest traditions of military heroism and reflect distinct credit upon himself, the Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-Afghanistan, Combined Forces Special Operations Component Command-Afghanistan, and the United States Army."

The issue is what he is accused of having done two days earlier.  According to an Army investigation that the Washington Post obtained, two Marines in then Captain Golsteyn's unit were wounded by an Improvised Explosive Device (IED).  That led to Captain Golsteyn having his unit search for and locate the alleged bombmaker.

The investigation claims that during a job interview for a position with the CIA, Golsteyn recounted how the suspected bomb maker was taken to their base where he was held.  While being held, the bomb maker saw a tribal leader who was engaged in assisting Captain Golsteyn's unit.  That tribal leader expressed fears that his life was in danger if the bomb maker was released.

NBC News reports that Golsteyn has been charged with murder.  In an interview with Fox News, Golsteyn admitted to killing the alleged bomb maker.

The right thing for Donald Trump to do in this case is remain silent.  If he wants to pardon Golsteyn after a court-martial conviction, he can.  Until then he needs to stay far away from this matter.

posted by me at 6:47 AM

Tuesday, December 18, 2018

The story of Mr. and Mrs. Smith

Mr. and Mrs. Smith have been clients of my firm for decades.



No, not that Mr. and Mrs. Smith.  The couple in question are retired government workers and became my clients when their prior tax professional retired a few years back.  Turns out they'd been talking with a friend who believes himself to be an expert in every single aspect of finance.  His name is Peabody Knows Everything.  Mr. Everything had offered the Smiths some unsought advice about estate planning and Mr. Smith had been very impressed by Mr. Everything's apparent knowledge of how such things work.

Right after they wed, the Smiths had begun investing in real estate.  When they did retire, the four rental properties they'd acquired during their marriage were providing a tidy income every year.  Now they were planning to retire to Florida and wouldn't be in the area to manage their real estate portfolio.  They planned to hand over the property management tasks to their only child.  Mr. Everything had heard about this and was giving the Smiths some tips on how to make the most of the situation.

"You should gift the properties to your son now, rather than letting him inherit them.  That way, you'll get some really big tax advantages."

Mr. Smith wanted to follow Mr. Everything's advice immediately.  Mrs. Smith, the wiser of the two by a wide margin, suggested they verify the existence of those tax advantages.  So they came to talk this over with me, as her insistence.

I explained the difference between giving someone real estate and allowing them to inherit it.  It's a big difference.  Let's use just one of their four properties as an example.

The Smiths had purchased this home in 1985 for $100,000.  It is now worth just under $1 million.

When you give someone a gift, their " basis" in the gift is whatever the giver's basis was on the day of the gift.  The Smiths had paid $100,000 for it, so that was their original basis.  But when you use property in a business, you recover the investment (cost) of that property over its useful life.  This is known as depreciation.  The useful life for depreciation purposes of residential real estate is 27.5 years.  This meant that the Smiths' adjusted basis in the property is now zero.  If they gave it to their only child, the child's basis would also be zero.  Were he to then turn around and sell the property for $1 million, the entire sale price would be taxable.

On the other hand, if they were to allow their son to inherit the property, his basis in it would be whatever the fair market value of the property was on the day that the last member of the couple passed away.  If that happened now, that's $1 million.  If the son then sold it for $1 million, he would pay no income tax on that $1 million.

Now this is not a true story in terms of the people and property involved.  But I did have a client come in recently who had been given some very bad tax advice by their financial advisor.  I tell this story to illustrate that experts need to focus on those areas where they actually have the requisite expertise.

I don't give specific financial advise to my clients about investing.  I'm not a certified financial planner or registered investment advisor.  I will give some general knowledge advise about such things, like remembering to include age into the calculation of how much risk to take in investing.  The older one gets, the less time there is to make up for the losses that come as part of making high-risk investments.

I am a big fan of people consulting with certified financial planners and other qualified investment advisors.  But when it comes to the tax implications of moves and strategies suggested by such individuals, the best advise they can give their clients is to "check with your tax advisor before making any decisions."




posted by me at 10:10 AM

Monday, December 10, 2018

Monday Morning Musings

Something woke me from a sound sleep way too early.  The result is that I'm sitting here at my computer at 3:44 in the morning, watching a recorded episode of the dating show "Baggage."  You never know who you might spot on a TV dating show, before they achieved fame.







Fortunately, I am not aware of any video of my appearance on Shop Til You Drop back in the early 1990s.  We did win the game, although we didn't quite win the big prize.

* * *

From the WTF were they thinking file:


* * *

One of the hot topics of conversation in the entertainment industry is who will replace Kevin Hart to host the Oscars in 2019.  Nick Cannon suggested that a few female comics aren't suitable replacements based on their own old tweets.










I'm guessing her description of Ivanka Trump would disqualify Samantha Bee.

So I suggest that the Academy have Whitney Cummings, Tiffany Haddish and Ross Matthews co-host.

* * *

Someone could make a fortune by creating software that takes click-bait sites and reorganizes all of their actual content into a single page with limited advertising.

Even better, come up with an email unsend program that could cause your sent email to be unread by the recipient, even if they've read it.  Just encode this into the application:



* * *

Louisiana has had a law prohibiting women under the age of 21 from performing as strippers.  Stormy Daniels is upset at this law (she's from Louisiana).

Good thing the Jerry Springer show is no longer being produced, their stripper guest pool would be negatively impacted by this change.

I'm guessing the state legislators who pushed to increase the age requirement from 18 to 21 have other jobs in mind for these young women.  Internships in the Legislature perhaps.

* * *

Random thoughts:

A gun buyback in Chicago netted over 100 guns over the weekend.  It's a good move, but I can't help but wonder just how many of them were no longer functional.  The sellers got a $100 gift card.

A high-five/thumbs-up to Tyler Perry and Kid Rock for their separate, generous acts by paying off layaway items for dozens of people.

If they ever bring back Celebrity Boxing, I want to see a bout between Siri and Alexa.

Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis is not happy that Donald Trump chose Marine Corps General Mark Milley as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Mattis reportedly wanted to get back to the tradition of rotating the job among the four services and favored the appointment of Air Force General David Goldfein.  Trump probably did it just to be contrarian.

When you think of singers who do weddings, Beyoncé doesn't come to mind.  But she just played a wedding in India where the list of A-list guests included Hillary Clinton.

Speaking of music acts, wonder whatever happened to the group that played at my Bar Mitzvah in 1972?  They were known as The Oily Scarf Wino Band and were a group that played on the streets in the area of Sunset Blvd and Crescent Heights.  One of them had a bed pan as his musical instrument.

Maybe Dr. Phil would say yes if Trump asked him to be the next White House Chief of Staff.  He has the right skill-set for that quagmire of a job in terms of dealing with personality clashes among Trump's inner circle.



posted by me at 8:11 AM

Sunday, December 09, 2018

Talking Tax Reform - Part IS

I'm told that IS is the way the Romans would have written out the number we know as 1.5 back in the day.  Since this blog is an expansion on the first in this series, I thought it best to label as such.

I wrote about changes to the rules regarding the deduction for a personal casualty loss.  Under the rules prior to passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), such deductions required the taxpayer to use the itemized deduction method in order to benefit from that deduction.  The loss of the personal exemption under this act; combined with the increase in the amount of the standard deduction, means fewer people will benefit from itemizing on their 2018 tax returns.

Personal casualty losses were further limited.  First, they were limited to the amount of the unreimbursed loss.  As an example, if you had a brand new car that you'd paid $40,000 for just days earlier.  It is totaled in an accident.  Because you'd driven it off the lot, your auto insurance company says it was already worth only $37,500.  For the purpose of simplicity we will pretend there was no deductible involved and you got a check for that amount.  Your unreimbursed loss is therefore the difference of $2,500.

Then there are two other limitations.  There is a calculation on a tax return where the "total" income is reduced by allowable "adjustments" to create what is known as Adjusted Gross Income (AGI).  Your casualty losses are limited to those that exceed $100, and that are more than 10% of your AGI.

Thanks to the TCJA, those losses are no longer allowable as itemized deductions.  But an exception was carved out for situations like most of the wildfires that happened in CA in 2018.  Almost all of them were designated as disaster areas through a presidential declaration.  Personal casualty losses incurred as a result of such a disaster are deductible, under the limitations described above.

So where is the problem?  There were a number of multi-million dollar homes in the Malibu area destroyed in the Woolsey fire.  Depending on their insurance coverage, their owners may or may not have suffered a large personal casualty loss.  Since the Woolsey fire was declared a disaster area through FEMA, any personal casualty loss would be deductible.

This past September, a fire in Brentwood completely destroyed a home that had sold earlier in the year for $13.7 million.  Depending on how much the deductible was on the policy covering that home, the homeowner might have a large unreimbursed loss.  Maybe not.  But the point is, that under the new rules, that loss isn't deductible.

What I cannot understand is why this particular deduction was targeted.  It was designed to benefit those who have suffered a loss that is larger than 10% of their income for the year.  It isn't being abused, at least not that I've seen.

Again, a reminder that the TCJA is really nothing more than a gigantic (in Trumpspeak, Yuge) giveaway to the wealthy.


posted by me at 3:22 PM

Learning from history

"Those who cannot learn from the past are doomed to repeat it" - George Santayana 

There are many people who will begin rejoicing the moment that any member of the House of Representatives introduces Articles of Impeachment against Donald J. Trump.  John Dean, who was Richard M. Nixon's White House Counsel was on CNN after the release of the Mueller court filings on Friday.  He said:

"I think what this totality of today's filings show that the House is going to have little choice, the way this is going, other than to start impeachment proceedings."

 The late Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill points out in his autobiography Man of the House that a resolution calling for impeachment of any government official is by definition, a "privileged" resolution.  That makes it much easier to force a vote on that resolution.  The subject arose 45 years ago when Father Robert Drinan (D-MA) introduced a resolution into the House calling for the impeachment of President Nixon.  Not for the involvement of the White House in the Watergate scandal, but because of the secret bombing of Cambodia at Nixon's direction.

 Tip O'Neill was the Speaker of the House at the time.  He still holds the record for the longest uninterrupted period of time holding that position.  He and the other members of the Democratic leadership were rightly concerned about the timing of Drinan's resolution.

The problem was, it was premature.  And because of it being a privileged resolution, under the House rules at the time, any member of the House could force an immediate vote on the measure.  None of the Democrats in the House would have done so, but the leadership was concerned that a smart Republican might do just that.  Speaker O'Neill wrote about that possibility in the aforementioned autobiography.

"We could certainly see to it that no Democrat would bring it (Drinan's impeachment resolution) up, but who knew what the Republicans might try.  If I had been in their shoes, I would have brought up Drinan's resolution immediately, because an early, overwhelming vote against impeachment would have been an effective insurance policy against having to vote on a similar resolution at a later date.  If it ever came up, the Republicans could legitimately say, 'Why bother?  We've already been through this.'"

 * * *

The Democratic majority in the House that takes control next month would do well to learn from this lesson.  A premature resolution calling for the impeachment of Donald J. Trump could easily backfire.

Even if such a resolution did pass, the probability of his being found guilty by a 2/3rds majority in a U.S. Senate firmly in control of the Republican party would be almost nil; with the evidence currently available.

With the loss of two seats in the Senate, there will be 45 Democrats, two Independents and 53 Republicans in the "upper house."  To get 67 votes, even with all 45 Dems and both Independents, 20 of those 53 Republicans would have to vote to impeach a member of their party.

Back in February of 1999, there were 45 Democrats in the Senate when the votes were held on the two articles of impeachment against President Clinton.  All 45 voted not guilty.  That made whatever the Republican votes were irrelevant.

I challenge anyone to find 20 Republicans in the Senate who would vote to impeach Trump based on what we know now.  With the evidence available now, it would be political suicide for any Republican to vote to impeach Trump; when they run for reelection.  It might be political suicide for a Senate Democrat representing a "purple" state to case a "guilty" vote.

* * *

The incoming Democratic leadership needs to exercise patience.  Work on the key issues that the people want you to work on.  Addressing the inequality of income and wealth.  Ensure that every American has access to healthcare.  Fulfill the promises you made during the campaign.

Let the Mueller investigation run until it reaches the end of the evidence.  Then it will be time to see if it is feasible to successfully impeach Donald Trump.

posted by me at 9:35 AM

Friday, December 07, 2018

Let their sacrifice never be forgotten

It was December 2, 1941.  Aboard Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto's flagship, the Nagato, a coded message was sent to Vice Admiral Chuichi Nagumo.  It translates as "Climb Mount Niitaka 1208."  It was the command to launch the attack on Pearl Harbor, as scheduled, on December 7, 1941.

As outlined in the seminal book on the subject, At Dawn We Slept by noted historian Gordon Prange, the tension between the U.S. and Japan; and Japan's preparations for this attack, had been going on for quite some time.

The attack began at 7:48 a.m. local time, before the Japanese Ambassador in Washington, D.C. had an opportunity to deliver the message announcing that the Japanese were breaking off the peace talks.  In point of fact, the so-called 14 Part Message does not contain a formal declaration of war. An entry in Japanese documents discovered after the war says, "...our deceptive diplomacy is steadily proceeding toward success."  The Army and Navy of Japan did not want there to be a formal declaration of war prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Fortunately, the two U.S. carriers assigned to Pearl Harbor were at sea, ferrying aircraft to Wake and Midway at the time of the attack.  But the Japanese air assault sank four battleships and damaged four more.  Two of the four that were sunk were salvaged and put back into service.  But the USS Arizona and the USS Oklahoma were a total loss.


Every time I stopped on Oahu and was able to leave the airport; during my tours of duty on Guam and in South Korea, I went to the Arizona Memorial.

2,335 military personnel were killed, along with 68 civilians. Another 1,143 military personnel and 35 civilians were wounded.

Heroism was the order of the day for the U.S. military personnel during the attack.  There were 15 Medals of Honor, 51 Navy Crosses and 53 Silver Stars awarded for actions on that day.  Reading the citations for these awards shows incredible bravery and self-sacrifice.  Here is one of those citations:

"For conspicuous devotion to duty, extraordinary courage, and complete disregard of his own life, above and beyond the call of duty, during the attack on the Fleet in Pearl Harbor, by Japanese forces on 7 December 1941. Ens. Jones organized and led a party, which was supplying ammunition to the antiaircraft battery of the U.S.S. California after the mechanical hoists were put out of action when he was fatally wounded by a bomb explosion. When 2 men attempted to take him from the area which was on fire, he refused to let them do so, saying in words to the effect, "Leave me alone! I am done for. Get out of here before the magazines go off."

 Those were the actions of Ensign Herbert C. Jones.  RIP to him and all of the others who died on that day of infamy.

posted by me at 2:56 PM