Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD

President Donald Trump signing an Executive Order

President Trump has been giving his Montblanc pen quite the workout this week signing Executive Orders.  More than a few people have had their feathers ruffled by this and have taken to the streets to VERY LOUDLY vent.  IMO many of the loudest protesters are mistaken when they insist "He [Trump] can't do that!"  From what I've read (in most cases at least) he DOES have the power to do what he's doing.

Today the big stink is his Executive Order regarding Muslim immigrants.  From the statute I read it appears he IS within his rights.  But just because he CAN doesn't mean he SHOULD.  With over three million Muslims living in the US right now, how many of them will become so incensed by this that they become some of those almost-impossible-to-detect "home-grown" jihadists we've been warned about?  Stop 3 foreign terrorists, create 10 domestic ones?

And while little publicized, the US has close working relationships with numerous Muslim countries involving intelligence gathering and matters pertaining to our national security.  Are they going to still want to work with us as closely after this?  Questionable.  If I were them I'd have some serious soul searching to do. 

Earlier in the week it was all about "The Wall".  It seems that years ago Congress voted the funds to build 700 miles (?) of border fence, but then didn't spend it all, so there's already money in the kitty.  I'm thinking Prez Trump CAN start up construction again if he wants, but SHOULD he?  If we build his border wall, 2017 might just become known as the start of the Golden Age of Mexican Tunnel Digging!  Where there's a will, there's a way.

And just as with the Muslim countries, US/Mexican cooperation on many sensitive national security issues might well be jeopardized.  You just can't kick someone in the 'nads and then expect them to act like nothing ever happened.  Secure the border, sure, but how about by another less expensive, less static, more flexible, more tactful means?

And Mexico is going to reimburse us for The Wall, or we'll put a 20% (?) tariff on their imports to the US?  Ummm....many of those products they sell to us are made with US components we sold to them!  *I think that's called shooting yourself in the foot* 

The President has historically been able to seat anyone he wants on his National Security Council.  Can Prez Trump choose to NOT give full-time NSC seats to the Chairman of of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence?  Yes he CAN, but SHOULD he?

I believe many thinking people are beginning to wonder if President Trump's decisions to date have been wise ones.  I understand he wants to honor his campaign promises to his supporters, but maybe he should slow down a bit and think of the unintentional consequences he might be creating.

S

She played him like a three-dollar fiddle....

Did you watch the Presidential Debate last night?  What did you think?  I'm in a unique position to comment as I don't plan to vote for either of them.  As if you care, here are my thoughts:

Overall, Donald Trump had a few good ideas, but he failed to articulate them in terms voters could understand.  He often didn't connect the dots.  For example, he claimed that our trade deals to date, particularly NAFTA, were bad for working Americans.  Hillary said NAFTA was a net jobs creator for the USA.  But Trump didn't follow up with, "yes, but we lost millions of good paying manufacturing jobs and gained lots of lower paying transportation and distribution jobs.  That's a major reason our middle class is in decline."  I think he'll see that as a lost opportunity.

He said he didn't think many NATO members were paying their fair share of the organization's costs.  I tend to agree.  But he could have followed up with "those Europeans who enjoy that comfortable social safety net you're so envious of can only afford to do that because they scrimp on their own defense....they know we'll cover their a$$ if they're ever seriously threatened.  We can't afford those things for our people because we're paying to protect their people."*

But he didn't.

*Not all 28 NATO countries are stingy funding their military.  Notable exceptions include The UK and France.

Trump pointed out that there were TRILLIONS of dollars of earnings kept by American companies overseas because our high corporate tax rate prohibited them from bringing it back here.  Why didn't he expound on that by asking "why would they want to bring it back here and pay 35% when they can leave it in Ireland or the Cayman Islands and pay a single-digit tax rate?"  That might make a believable case for a corporate tax cut.

But he didn't.

When he said that he would stop American companies from moving overseas, and Hillary asked "how", he said he would put a big tax on their (now cheap) products being brought back here for sale. In other words he would start a trade war....a big no-no.  

He could have pointed out that as our tax laws are now written, companies that make a move overseas can take a one-time tax write-off for the expenses involved, often up into the $BILLIONS for large companies.  In other words, the American taxpayers are subsidizing their move....the very taxpaying workers being laid off are paying their former employers for laying them off!  

But he didn't.

Hillary let more than a few opportunities slip by, too.  When Trump said his massive tax cut (to the wealthy) would enable them to create new and expand existing businesses and jobs, all Hillary said was "Trumped-up trickle-down economics doesn't work".  Why didn't she quote some of the authoritative research (such as by the Wall Street Journal) that says there is at least $1.7Trillion in wealth sitting idle on the sidelines right now because wealthy individuals and companies can't find enough good places to invest it, and when they do, it's often overseas?  A tax cut to the wealthy will likely create relatively few new American jobs.  

A lost opportunity, Hillary.

When she pointed out that years ago Trump was sued for racial discrimination regarding the leasing practices of his properties, his comeback was, "and I settled that without admitting any guilt."   She could have said that was like a mobster saying sarcastically "I didn't do it, nobody saw me, you can't prove a thing."  It isn't that he didn't discriminate, it's just that he got away with it.  Bye-bye black vote.

But she didn't.

I could go on and on, but you saw the same thing I did.  Basically I thought Hillary looked poised and well rehearsed, while Trump was just scattershooting and rude.  Hillary goaded him and he took the bait.  She had him on his heels most of the night.

Overall I didn't get a warm fuzzy about either.  Ummm....where was the Libertarian candidate?  The stage looked plenty big enough for a third podium to me.   ;)

S