On TAP: Kuttner + Meyerson


Trump Turns Against Putin. Here’s this week’s news quiz. Why did Donald Trump attack his chum Vladimir Putin after reports that Putin’s puppet, Bashar al-Assad, had again used nerve gas to kill children in a rebel-held area near Damascus?

A) Is Trump, with Robert Mueller closing in, trying to signal distance from Putin? 

B) Is his new national security adviser, John Bolton, more of a Middle East hawk?

C) Was Trump genuinely troubled by the appalling images of suffocating children?

D) Is Trump trying to repair America’s frayed alliance with Europe?

E) Does Trump, who also lashed out against the Kremlin’s poisoning of a former double agent in Britain, have a thing about slow, agonizing death?

No, gentle reader, none of the above. Trump issued his indignant tweets after seeing the carnage on Fox News.

Basically, Trump derives nearly all of his abrupt policy statements based on what he watches on Fox. So the most powerful foreign-policymaker in the country is some junior Fox producer who decides what to air.

For the most part, if a major story makes headlines elsewhere but doesn’t play into the Fox narrative, it is ignored. Since nerve gas dropped on civilians in Syria didn’t quite fit the Fox template, pro or con, the gang at Fox went with the indignation, and Trump followed.

But what of Putin? Is Trump for real? Or was this just a momentary lapse?

The Treasury has lately gotten a lot tougher with blockage of financial activity by oligarch cronies of Putin. But angry tweets don’t exactly add up to a Syria policy, and Trump is basically in the same box as Obama was when it comes to deciding what sort of retaliation and against whom.

A colleague observes that he will believe Trump is serious about breaking with Putin when Trump begins using one of his trademark nicknames to mock the Russian leader.

Let’s see: Sad Vlad? Venal Vlad? Vlad the Impaler? Vladimir Puta? Poisoner Putin? Puppeteer Putin? Pukey Putin?

Is it great having foreign policy made via schoolyard insults, or what?


Trump’s Trade Tantrums. Donald Trump has a new toy: tariffs. He seems to be putting them in roughly the same mental category as tweets: something to use to express instant frustration and vituperation. This is not exactly a policy, much less an effective one.

Trump’s shadow trade war with China is reminiscent of his “mine is bigger” contest with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un. America imposes $50 billion in tariffs against China, Beijing retaliates with at least $50 billion in tariffs on U.S. exports, Trump doubles down to $100 billion.

One good thing about tariffs: They do less damage than nukes. We saw how both sides backed down from a nuclear confrontation in Korea. The professional trade negotiators will probably back Trump down from a full-blown trade war with China, too.

But here’s the problem. When Trump’s immediate tantrum dies down and his short attention span shifts to something else like National Guard troops on the Rio Grande, the issue hasn’t gone away. North Korea remains more of a threat than ever. And China plays a long game—long as in several thousand years.

China, with its strong state, has a better hand than we do and China’s astute leaders are playing their hand far better than Trump is. China’s system of state-led capitalism, combined with coerced or stolen tech transfer, is eating our lunch.

At the end of the day, the tariff escalation has to end in a draw, and that will change nothing. Only a concerted effort by the West to insist that China play by something like symmetrical rules, even if not identical rules, will restore balance to the system. Tariffs can be part of a bluffing game, but they can’t be the whole game.

The free trade establishment blew this challenge in one fashion. Trump is blowing it in another.


This coming weekend, Hungarians will go to the polls and likely re-elect—since the opposition parties refuse to coalesce—the nation’s demagogic, neo-fascist, anti-Semitic prime minister, Viktor Orbán. In the course of his most recent term, Orbán has curtailed the independence of the judiciary and the freedom of the press, rewritten Hungary’s history books to extol the nation’s Nazi-allied fascist government of the 1930s and early ‘40s, built a wall on the nation’s border to keep out immigrants, and proclaimed Hungary to be officially Christian. He has justified these policies by depicting Hungary as under threat not just from Muslim immigrants but from notorious Western and specifically Jewish influences—calculating that this was the way to solidify his support among the nation’s older, rural, more poorly educated voters.

Indeed, the central theme of his re-election campaign has been his 24/7 all-media attack on George Soros—the Hungarian-born-and-raised American investor who as a boy had to hide from the Nazis and as a young man flee the Soviet’s invasion in 1956. In the ‘70s and ‘80s, having become a billionaire, Soros funded the rise of civil society institutions behind the Iron Curtain—including in Hungary—with projects including sponsoring a number of talented young Eastern-bloc students, including Orbán himself, to study in the West. (That Soros, long a target of the American Right, did more to undermine communism than virtually any living member of the American Right is one of our more prominent current ironies.) After the Berlin Wall fell, Soros funded NGOs throughout Eastern Europe, and a new university in Budapest.

In recent years, as much of Eastern Europe, and Hungary in particular, have increasingly flouted basic democratic norms, Soros has continued to fund institutions that promote majority rule, minority rights, and the responsibility of nations to open their doors to refugees.

Soros, of course, is Jewish. And the Orbán re-election campaign has been one long anti-Soros screed, whose all but unconcealed message is that international Jews were undermining Hungary’s traditional Christian culture.

Orbán is not alone among world leaders in sounding this xenophobic tocsin (and toxin). The wall, the fear of the Other, the attack on civil society—sound familiar? But I’m not talking about Trump, who hasn’t yet singled out Soros for major vilification.

I’m talking about the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Israel’s prime minister has long vilified Soros for funding such groups as J Street, the American Jewish organization that advocates for a two-state solution, and the New Israel Fund, an NGO that supports civil rights and civil liberties in Israel. Recently, the Israeli right has leaned on Bibi to expel the roughly 30,000 African refugees who have come to Israel in recent years, fleeing their countries’ sectarian violence. The New Israel Fund—whose leaders had obviously read that portion of the Passover Haggadah that says Jews should welcome strangers in the land, since they once were strangers in the land of Egypt—supported Israeli groups that rejected the Right’s xenophobic, racist position. This week, as Bibi unveiled a revolving door of four separate and conflicting policies on the disposition of the refugees, none of which welcomed them to the land of Israel, he took to Facebook to excoriate both the New Israel Fund and Soros in particular. Like Orbán, Bibi and the Israeli right have sought to curtail foreign contributions to their NGOs, even though in Israel, those contributions come overwhelmingly from diaspora Jews, chiefly in the United States, who are alarmed by Israel’s self-transformation into an apartheid state increasingly under the sway of fundamentalist loons.

So a specter is haunting both Eastern Europe neo-fascists and the increasingly thuggish Israeli right: George Soros, champion of despised minorities, and the very personification of the international, cosmopolitan, secular, wandering Jew. Maybe the Likudniks will start burning crosses on Soros’s front yard.


Why Scott Pruitt’s Corruption Is in a Class by Itself. There is such a blizzard of personal corruption in the Trump administration that it’s worth pausing to sort out why Scott Pruitt’s corruption is in a different category from the others. And it's quite a list: HUD Secretary Ben Carson’s $31,000 dining set, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s $139,000 doors, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin’s subsidized visit to Fort Knox to watch the solar eclipse, VA Secretary David Shulkin’s $122,000 travel junket to Europe, and for that matter, Pruitt’s own $107,000 in unauthorized first-class air tickets.

EPA Administrator Pruitt was directly subsidized by the wife of a prominent energy industry lobbyist. He was charged just $50 a night to stay in a Capitol Hill condo, the market value of which was far above that. The lobbyist was working for Enbridge, a company that got EPA approval in March 2017 for a lucrative pipeline deal, despite having been fined by EPA in 2010 in for violations on another pipeline. 

Why would the power-couple extend Pruitt this courtesy? The ordinary word is bribe.

Even though the amount of money is smaller, Pruitt’s sin is in a different category from the misdeeds of other officials who’ve taken various perks at taxpayer expense, because it incurs a monetary favor from a lobbyist for a regulated industry. Yes, those other thefts of taxpayer money are disgusting and emblematic of the cynicism of this administration, but are more ordinary forms of corruption.

And Trump, in dispensing justice, applied his usual double standard. Shulkin, under fire from the right for defending the VA against the privatizers, got fired ostensibly for his taxpayer-financed junkets, but really for the sin of defending a public system. Carson, a pathetic excuse for a cabinet official, kept his job.

Now, in Pruitt’s case, it’s hardly surprising that neither the lobbyist nor Pruitt himself even noticed the conflict of interest—because everyone knows that he is in industry’s pocket without even having to be paid off. Pruitt’s appalling record of destroying environmental regulation is the more serious reason for firing him, but that’s what he was hired to do.

But if a relatively penny-ante payoff is what we have, let’s make the most of it. As we’ve all read, they got Al Capone for tax evasion.

Maybe they’ll get Donald Trump for tax evasion, too.


What the teachers’ strikes mean:

First, lumped with the Kansas Republican parents' revolt against extreme tax cuts underfunding their kids' schools, which took the form of defeating GOP legislators in the 2016 primaries, there is a growing repudiation of the Norquist pledge in GOP statehouses.
Second, there is a growing use of social media to mobilize the workers whom the unions haven't reached, though you need the union to be the closer (a Zeynep Tufekci sweet spot, as it were).
Third, this is part of a larger white-collar rising: Over the past decade, the share of union members who are professional or technical workers has risen from 33 percent to 42 percent, reflecting managers' inability to fire hard-to-replace skilled workers during organizing drives, but also their continued ability to fire workers in retail, food service, on assembly lines, or on construction sites.
Fourth, this is also part of the millennial turn to unions: In the most recent Pew Poll, a mind-boggling 76 percent of millennials approve of unions, which is a far higher share than the percentage of millennials who've actually encountered unions. This reflects their economic travails, in sync with their high level of support for Sanders in 2016. 
For a fuller exposition of this analysis, replete with some invective directed at the teachers’ enemies, see my new Prospect column: What the Teacher Strikes Mean

Enough to Make You Sick: Walmart & Humana. So let’s see: The nation's largest retailer is trying to buy one of the biggest and most predatory insurance and hospital conglomerates, Humana. That would give the combined entity a staggering amount of market power, and reduce competition among insurance companies.

Supposedly, the proposed merger increases efficiency by providing more walk-in clinics, more cut-rate drugs, as well as pressure on hospitals to restrain costs and prices. But the efficiencies are bogus. Hospitals cross-subsidize expensive patients where they don’t fully recover costs with cheaper ones such as outpatient surgeries.

If Walmart skims off the profitable cases and also adds pressure to lower hospital charges, then hospitals are doubly squeezed.

It’s certainly true that network efficiencies are there to be reaped. But the right way to do it is with a single insurance pool. That’s known as national health insurance.

In the meantime, we need to dust off and enforce the antitrust laws. There’s no reason for this proposed deal other than to increase private profits skimmed by middlemen at the expense of care.


Even a Stopped Clock Is Right Twice a Day. President Trump gets almost everything wrong. But once in a while he does something approximately right.

Exhibit A: Trump and his trade team have re-aligned U.S. trade policy, from pursuit of a wishful fantasy called universal “free trade” to a realistic recognition that other nations use protectionism to their advantage. The real task is to negotiate a fair balance of different national economic systems.

Though Trump, with his usual bombast and theatricality, began stupidly with universal tariffs on steel and aluminum, his trade team has been astutely turning that leverage into serious negotiations with the prime offenders. The tariffs are now better targeted and these efforts have borne early fruit with the South Korea trade deal. That deal both reduces subsidized exports of Korean steel and increases the openness of South Korea’s markets to U.S. exports of cars and other products.

Negotiations with China have now been ramped up as well. Trump’s Treasury will soon use a long-ignored legal provision to block China’s strategic acquisition of sensitive technologies by purchasing or extorting technology transfer from U.S. firms.

Moves like these do not lead to “trade wars,” whatever those are. They lead to negotiations, and sometimes to real progress. That makes once a day that Trump actually aligned with the clock.

But the clock has two 12-hour cycles, and he just did it again! Trump, in a characteristic fit of pique, has noticed that Amazon has too much market power and pays virtually no taxes. Imagine that.

Trump has even stumbled on a dormant doctrine known as antitrust. When one dominant company keeps scooping up others, that may produce cheaper products in the short run, but it opens the door to countless other abuses.

Did we really need Amazon to buy Whole Foods? Did we really need to let Facebook buy Instagram and WhatsApp? Should we let Walmart buy Humana? (Why does a discount department store need a health insurance and hospital company, which itself is one of the economy’s great conglomerate predators?)

Once in a blue moon, Trump actually sounds like the latent populist he professed to be in the campaign. Now, it could be that Trump wants to squeeze Amazon because its mastermind, Jeff Bezos, just happens to be the owner of The Washington Post.

With Trump, one can’t be too cynical. But at a time when Facebook, Google, and the rest of the tech giants are coming in for overdue scrutiny, it’s probably not a bad thing if even Trump is aware of the abuses of market concentration.

So maybe—just maybe—that makes twice that Trump coincidentally aligns with reality. It would probably be too much to expect three.


If you are reading this post, you might be interested to know that I’m also starting a weekly podcast. It’s called Provocations, and it can be found at prospect.org, or at this link

In it, I offer commentary and interviews, this week with Harold Meyerson on the West Virginia teachers strike, the coming Supreme Court decision affecting public employee unions in the Janus case, and the future of organizing. I also opine on Facebook, John Bolton, trade, the misuses of language, and other kindred topics.


Amazon, President Trump says, isn’t paying enough in taxes. Here’s one of his tweets from earlier today:

I have stated my concerns with Amazon long before the Election. Unlike others, they pay little or no taxes to state & local governments, use our Postal System as their Delivery Boy (causing tremendous loss to the U.S.), and are putting many thousands of retailers out of business!

Trump isn’t wrong on some of his particulars. Amazon has definitely put many retailers—most painfully, bookstores—out of business, though so has Walmart, which has yet to rouse Trump’s ire, possibly because Sam Walton’s children are reliably conservative donors, while Jeff Bezos owns the hated Washington Post. Amazon does collect and pay sales taxes in the states (there are 45 of them) that have sales taxes, but more broadly, it also poses a huge threat to the economy as an all-devouring monopoly.

But, cutting to the chase: Who the hell is Donald Trump to complain about someone not paying their taxes? Due entirely to his refusal to release his tax returns, breaking with a many-decades-long pattern of presidential candidates releasing theirs, we have no idea whether Trump paid his fair share in taxes, or, more likely, paid the “little or no” amounts he accuses Amazon of doing. This is a guy who once said that not paying taxes “makes me smart,” and who is notorious for not paying the contractors and employees for the work he asked them to do. I suspect if there’s one subject on which Trump could instruct Bezos, it’s tax avoidance.

In its display of zero self-awareness and its all-around chutzpah, this morning’s tweet is classic Trump.


When Trump Does Something Right. The trade deal with South Korea is a model for future trade agreements. What a pity that it fell to a lunatic like Donald Trump to bring it about. Credit mainly goes to Trump’s trade advisers, especially Peter Navarro and Robert Lighthizer.

The deal exempts South Korea from the steel tariffs, in exchange for an agreement by the Koreans to cut steel exports to the U.S. by about 30 percent. Past investigations have found that Korean steel is heavily subsidized.

The deal also commits South Korea to dismantle some of its many obstacles to U.S. exports of products such as cars and pharmaceuticals. And a separate agreement commits both countries not to use currency manipulation for trade advantage. What’s not to like?

Yet many commentators found it hard to get their minds around the idea that dismantling other nations’ protectionism wasn’t itself protectionist. Check out this NPR interview with Navarro.

Granted, the deal was unusual because the U.S. has more leverage with South Korea than with most nations. We are its geopolitical protector, and South Korea also needs America’s blessing or at least tacit consent as Seoul commences its own parallel diplomacy with the North. The U.S. is also one of South Korea’s most important markets.

Yet because of our huge and largely open domestic market, and a half-trillion trade deficit with the rest of the world, we also have substantial leverage with other nations to demand that they play fair, too. Other presidents have been reluctant to use that leverage.

If Trump can get this deal, just imagine what a sane, progressive president might get.


The Commerce Departments’ dead-of-night announcement yesterday that the 2020 Census would ask people if they were American citizens is perhaps the most purely partisan ploy we’ve yet seen in this age of Republican hyper-partisanship. The sole purpose of the question is to intimidate immigrants, the foreign-born, and the undocumented from participating in the census at all—thereby undercounting those chiefly urban neighborhoods that are heavily Latino or Asian, which in turn would lead to a decennial redistricting with fewer Democratic districts.

(The Commerce Department insists that the change was prompted by the Justice Department’s desire for better data to enforce the Voting Rights Act. If you believe that that was the motivation of Jeff Sessions’s department, you’re a good candidate to buy not just the Brooklyn Bridge but Brooklyn itself.)

Within a couple of hours after Commerce’s announcement, California’s redoubtable attorney general, Xavier Becerra, announced he was filing a lawsuit seeking to block the use of the question. The Constitution, Becerra argues, requires the government to perform an “actual enumeration” of the population every ten years, and by deliberately undercounting a portion of the population by asking the citizenship question, the Census Bureau would be violating its constitutional mandate.

I’m no one’s legal eagle, but I suspect the Federal Circuit with jurisdiction over California—the Ninth Circuit—will likely side with Becerra. Once that case proceeds to the Supreme Court—which currently also has a major case on the constitutionality of gerrymandering before it—we’ll see just how Republican the five Republican justices on the court are feeling. The Janus case, which would decimate the public employee unions that are a key part of Democratic electoral efforts, was argued in the Court last month. A pro-Janus ruling, which the five GOPniks are expected to deliver, would constitute a veritable Son of Bush v. Gore ruling—that is, a purely partisan expression of Republicanism. A decision that the citizenship question is constitutional would be Son of Bush v. Gore on steroids. It remains to be seen just how Republican the Chief Justice—John Roberts, who has shown some concern for the Court’s reputation—is willing to be.