Trump to feedl military-industrial complex while starving others

President Trump has proposed increasing the U.S. military budget by $54 billion to over $600 billion a ten percent increase but will decrease spending in other agencies to match the increased expenditures,

Large decreases will most likely come from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State Department. Trump said: "I am sending the Congress a budget that rebuilds the military, eliminates the defense sequester and calls for one of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history." Jeffrey Sachs, an economist at Columbia University and head of the Earth Institute, noted that the approximately $600 billion the U.S. spends on the military is probably much less than should be counted:

"I was just going to add that the $600 billion that we spend is only counting a part of what we really spend on the military. We have another $60 billion on addition to the $600 billion of the Pentagon. That is the intelligence agencies. We have Homeland Security. We have military expenses hidden in the Department of Energy. Of course, we have the incredible costs, the human damage and health in the Veterans Administration. If you add it all up, it’s probably closer to $900 billion a year. It completely swamps everything else that we’re doing right now. And now he’s going to add on top of that — and propose tax cuts for rich people and for corporations. So, this is just one illusion after another. And it’s got to come to a bad end in some way."Sachs is an expert on development economics and poverty reduction.

A similar refrain is noted in a Nation article in relation to Trump's address to Congress last night:Donald Trump used his first Joint Address to the Congress of the United States to engage in an unprecedented flight of fiscal fantasy. Specifically, the president imagined that the United States could cut taxes for wealthy Americans and corporations, rip tens of billions of dollars out of domestic programs (and diplomacy), hand that money over to the military-industrial complex, and somehow remain a functional and genuinely strong nation.In his speech Trump only mentioned that he had placed a hiring freeze on non-military and non-essential Federal workers. This will not include border guards and others charged with immigrant control no doubt. Trump had earlier suggested the State Department and EPA as targeted for reductions. While some workers in the military-industrial complex may prosper from Trump's military spending others will lose their jobs and also suffer from reduced services.

Mick Mulvaney, head of the Office of Management and Budget said: “The president is doing what he said he’d do when he ran". While this is true, he also said that he would protect Social Security and Medicare and spend a trillion on infrastructure. It is not clear how he will do that while spending billions more on the military by cutting elsewhere. The $54 billion dollar increase for the U.S. military is almost equal to the entire U.K. expenditure on its military. Russia spends only $66.4 billion in total.

During his campaign for the presidency in 2016 Trump criticized the U.S. war in Iraq and warned about risky military adventures and also spoke out against the bloated Department of Defense budgets. On NBC's Meet the Press in 2015 he said: “I’m gonna build a military that’s gonna be much stronger than it is right now. It’s gonna be so strong, nobody’s gonna mess with us. But you know what? We can do it for a lot less.” He should have said he can do it for a lot more. Of course Trump did also promise during his campaign to increase spending to the military in — contradiction to what he said in 2015.

Mulvaney defended Trump's policy: “[We] took $54 billion out of non-defense discretionary spending in order to increase defense spending — entirely consistent with what the president said that he would do. So what’s the president done? He’s protected the nation, but not added any additional money to the 2018 deficit. This is a winning argument for my friends in the House and a winning argument for a lot of folks all over the country. The president does what he says but doesn’t add to the budget [deficit]. That’s a win.” However, the Trump policy does not consider a proper balance between military and other spending.

Former president Dwight Eisenhower spoke of "a burden of arms draining the wealth and labor of all people; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the people's of this earth." Eisenhower said: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

Even though the U.S. contains just 4.34 percent of the world's population, it accounts for 37 percent of total military spending and is roughly the same size expenditure of the next seven military budgets combined. Other countries are bound to see this as unbalanced expenditures. The U.S. should hardly be surprised if other countries such as China and Russia vastly expand their military expenditures. The Trump policy should remind us of what Eisenhower said: . “We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/politics/op-ed-trump-to-feed-us-military-industrial-complex-starve-others/article/486939#ixzz4b58aroq3

Net neutrality may be threatened by Trump administration

While the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has approved a number of rules that are pro-consumer during the last few years, they were often passed by a meager three to two margin.

FCC board member Ajit Pai was often one of the two dissenters. Pai is likely to become the chairman when the Trump administration takes power in January. He has made it known that he hopes to do away with the Open Internet Rule, popularly known as net neutrality. Wikipedia describes net neutrality as follows:

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003, as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier, which was used to describe the role of telephone systems.

It often includes related ideas such as the open Internet:

The idea of an "open Internet" is the idea that the full resources of the Internet and means to operate on it should be easily accessible to all individuals, companies and organizations. This often includes ideas such as net neutrality, open standards, transparency, lack of Internet censorship, and low barriers to entry.

Net neutrality has been fought tooth and nail by industry giants such as AT&T which filed suit against the net neutrality rule. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments a year ago in December and decided in June to side with the FCC and uphold the rule. Pai considers this ruling an error.

In a speech before the Free State Foundation Pai claimed the FCC needed to scale back regulation and spoke against several FCC rules and also against regulation in general. Pai said: “In the months to come, we need to remove outdated and unnecessary regulations. We need to fire up the weed whacker and remove those rules that are holding back investment, innovation and job creation.” Notice there is no mention of increasing corporate profits — it is all about job creation, investment and innovation!

Pai argues that if harms are not already proved to have happened the FCC should not regulate the market. Of course what is really involved has nothing to do with a free market and everything to do with the interests of giant corporations in remaining unregulated. Pai pontificates: “Proof of market failure should guide the next Commission’s consideration of new regulations. And the FCC should only adopt a regulation if it determines that its benefits outweigh its costs.” Of course cost-benefit analysis often is slanted in the interests of those doing the analysis. If the costs to corporations is more than the benefits to consumers does that mean you should not regulate? This would be special pleading masquerading as objective economics.

Yet Pai continues: “Today, I am more confident than ever that this prediction will come true. And I’m hopeful that beginning next year, our general regulatory approach will be a more sober one that is guided by evidence, sound economic analysis, and a good dose of humility.” Pai never mentions the relationship of regulation to the profit interests of corporations.

Pai's views on the review process contain a number of positive suggestions. He wants the FFC review process to be more transparent and open and also to release more information to the public on its operations. The text of documents being voted on should be released to the public.

The present chair of the FCC Tom Wheeler will step down as chair when Trump becomes president. He said: “When so-called controversy is the result of choosing between the broader common good or those incumbents preferring the status quo, I believe the public interest should prevail. I think it’s an important thing to remember that taking a fast, fair and open Internet away from the public and away from those who use it to offer innovative new services to the public would be a real mistake.” It would not be a mistake, but a government agency operating to advance corporate interests. Pai has the correct line that the regulation was a mistake.

The present net neutrality rules are as follows:Broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. They may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of content, application, services, or any classes thereof. They may not favor some internet traffic over other internet traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind — no paid prioritization or fast lanes.

Corporate providers are unable to make profits that they could if the net were not neutral. For example they could set up fast access to the Internet material on the basis of paying a premium. The regulation ensures the rights of the Internet user but at the same time commits the mortal sin, not of interfering with the free market, but of backing consumer rights over corporate profits.

Trump has prominent Muslim business friends in Dubai

Republican presidential candidate and frontrunner Donald Trump is known for his diatribes against Muslims. In a recent statement, the Trump campaign recommended a ban on Muslim immigration into the United States.

Trump said there should be a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" until the country's representatives could "figure out what is going on." His campaign office claimed the discrimination was justified because large segments of the Muslim population bear "great hatred toward Americans." Trump has also called for the deportation of 11 million illegal immigrants in the US. He also wants to erect a substantial wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

As well as being a GOP presidential candidate, Trump is a prominent real estate mogul and also featured in a popular TV series, The Apprentice, until recently. Trump is both the chair and president of The Trump Organization and founder of Trump Entertainment Resorts. According to the Wikipedia entry on Trump: In 2015, Forbes estimated his net worth at $4 billion.[49] In June 2015, Business Insider published a June 30, 2014, financial statement supplied by Trump. The statement reflects his net worth as $8.7 billion. Of that amount, $3.3 billion is represented by "Real Estate Licensing Deals, Brand and Branded Developments", described by Business Insider as "basically [implying] that Trump values his character at $3.3 billion."[50]In spite of — or perhaps because of — his controversial views Trump has the support of many celebrities including Dennis Rodman, Jesse Ventura, and Ted Nugent among 14 listed here.

Trump certainly has Muslim friends in the Gulf area. One is Hussain Sajwani, head of Damac Properties a Dubai-based luxury real estate company. Trump calls Muslim Sajwani not only a good friend but a great man. Trump even flew off to Dubai to spend time with Sajwani when they announced their joint huge real estate project in the UAE.

The project will include 104 villas and mansions with a price tag beginning at more than $1 million U.S. and at the higher end will be over $10 million each. The development will also have the "Trump World Golf Club." The video appended shows the opening of the resort. The Trump Private Mansions are touted as "the most distinguished address in Dubai", including a view of the Trump International Championship golf course. The development includes a luxury spa, restaurants, and stores.

Sajwani has a clouded history, being convicted in 2011 for a land deal with an Egyptian government minister. He was sentenced in absentia to five years in prison. However, a settlement was reached in 2013 with the new more friendly government and Damac properties is free to operate again in Egypt. The Dubai project also faces issues concerning conditions for migrant workers on these construction projects. Workers have been required to work 14 plus hours in temperatures of up to 100 degrees F and have poor living quarters as well. At a press conference in Dubai in 2014 a reporter from Vice news asked: “Mr. Trump, the workers who build your villas make less than $200 a month. Are you satisfied?” People in the room reportedly gasped at the question. Trump refused to answer, instead remaining stone-faced. The project’s publicist then told the reporter, “That’s not an appropriate question.”

Trump is not content with his Dubai Muslim friends. His company is also exploring opportunities in Qatar and Saudi Arabia. If he wins the presidency of the US, perhaps Trump will issue special presidential passes for his wealthy Muslim business friends so they can enter the United States. The passes will trump the Trump ban on Muslims entering the U.S.