Posts

Perry Said to Be Trump’s Top Candidate for Energy Secretary

Donald Trump has narrowed his search for energy secretary to four people, with former Texas Governor Rick Perry the leading candidate.

People familiar with the president-elect’s selection process said two Democratic senators from energy-producing states — Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia — are also in the mix, along with Ray Washburne, a Dallas investor and former chairman of the Republican National Committee.

If Trump picks any of the four he’ll break with recent tradition of putting scientists at the top of the Energy Department. Among other things, the agency is responsible for policies on the safe handling of nuclear material and on emerging energy technologies.

Trump met with Perry and Washburne while attending the Army-Navy football game in Baltimore on Saturday. It was at least the second time he’d spoken to the men for potential roles in the new administration. Trump interviewed Heitkamp at Trump Tower in New York on Dec. 2, and is scheduled to meet with Manchin on Monday. (Read more from “Perry Said to Be Trump’s Top Candidate for Energy Secretary” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Donald Trump Is Appointing (Gasp!) Conservatives to Serve in His Administration

The perplexity, outrage, and shock of the left over the election of Donald Trump has been hilarious for those of us watching the liberal commentariat and its (sometimes unwitting) journalistic allies.

In recent days, the geyser of leftist anger has been given new life by the President-elect’s appointment of conservatives to prominent positions in his nascent administration. One headline after another seems to herald amazement that a man who promised conservative governance would appoint conservatives to leadership posts as he assembles his Cabinet. Incredible, right?

Mainstream Media Horrified at Trump’s Appointment of a Pro-Life Health Secretary

Tom Price is a physician who has served in Congress for more than a decade. A solid advocate for the unborn and opponent of the predatory abortion industry, Price is esteemed by his colleagues for his good judgment and sharp mind. Currently serving as chairman of the House Budget Committee, his “Empowering Patients First Act” is a comprehensive alternative to the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”).

Yet Price’s appointment to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services has been greeted with crass vitriol by liberals accustomed to using HHS as their political tool of choice to advance abortion on demand, whether surgical or contraceptive, in every facet of the American health care system. Here are some samples of Rep. Price’s reception by the Left:

“With Extremist Tom Price at Helm, the ‘War on Women Has Reached HHS’” – Reddit.com

“Tom Price, A Radical Choice for Health Secretary” – New York Times editorial board

“Women’s Health Care Threatened by Trump HHS Choice, Tom Price” – Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC

“Trump Pledged to Protect Medicare. His Choice for Health Secretary Has Other Ideas” – Los Angeles Times

Donald Trump promised to be a strongly pro-life President. He has appointed a man to lead the Department of Health and Human Services who is strongly pro-life; in fact, Price, has a 100 percent lifetime legislative score from the National Right to Life organization.

Donald Trump wants to block-grant Medicare to the states. “The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead,” explains his campaign website. “States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.”

This idea is fiscally sound and commensurate with the principles of federalism. And it is neither new or radical. Tom Price has long supported block-granting Medicare. Yet now he is “outside the mainstream” (says Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer) and a “radical.”

Getting Personal

The attacks against some of Mr. Trump’s appointments are also personal. Senate Judiciary chairman and 20-year Senate veteran Jeff Sessions has been tapped by the President-elect to head the Justice Department. Sessions, a man who for decades has served the people of his home state without a whisper of personal scandal or political defamation, is now being accused of hidden racism because of off-hand comments he made 35 years ago.

I do not defend any racial bigotry on the part of Senator Sessions or anyone else, for that matter. However, to say that the “Specter of Race Shadows Jeff Sessions” (New York Times headline) is ludicrous. His record speaks to his belief that “all men are created equal.” “The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People … has, without question, done more probably than any other organization to promote racial progress in the South,” he said in his 1986 Senate hearing concerning President Reagan’s nomination of him to be a federal judge and, during the same hearing, strongly condemned the Ku Klux Klan.

Should a remarkably well-qualified, dignified, and decent man be denied a post in which his leadership and probity could do so much good because of remarks he made in 1981? And could it not be that the real concern of determined liberals is not those long-ago comments but the fact that Sessions is a principled conservative who will bring strength, resolve, and courage to the task of de-politicizing a Justice Department that for eight years has been a forum of the extreme progressive agenda?

Here’s what Senator Quinton Ross, the African-American leader of the Democratic minority in the Alabama State Senate, said about Sen. Sessions after the latter was nominated to be Attorney General of the United States: “We’ve spoken about everything from Civil Rights to race relations and we agree that as Christian men our hearts and minds are focused on doing right by all people. We both acknowledge that there are no perfect men, but we continue to work daily to do the right thing for all people.”

Trump Was Elected by the People to Appoint Conservatives

Donald Trump was elected President of the United States. He has a constitutional duty to appoint people who will help him enact the agenda he was elected to implement. The Left should not be endlessly breathless over the conservatism of his appointees, nor so vicious in their hatred that they would destroy honorable people at whatever the cost.

They will continue their campaigns of disparagement and personal destruction, of course. But one thing is sure: If the media continue to parrot the excessive attacks of the left and if enraged liberal commentators continue to spew bile at the prospect of conservatives in charge of the executive branch, they will lose even more of the credibility they saw dissipate on the night of November 8, when their smug predictions and confident projections came to naught.

Even they should not be so out-of-touch as to recognize that. (For more from the author of “Donald Trump Is Appointing (Gasp!) Conservatives to Serve in His Administration” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

CIA Says Russia Intervened to Help Trump Win White House

The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, the Washington Post reported on Friday.

Citing U.S. officials briefed on the matter, the Post said intelligence agencies had identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, to WikiLeaks.

The officials described the individuals as people known to the intelligence community who were part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and reduce Clinton’s chances of winning the election.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” the Post quoted a senior U.S. official as saying. “That’s the consensus view.”

The Post said the official had been briefed on an intelligence presentation made by the Central Intelligence Agency to key U.S. senators behind closed-doors last week. (Read more from “CIA Says Russia Intervened to Help Trump Win White House” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pruitt Will Be Game Changer at EPA … If Congress Protects Him From Courts

Trump’s selection of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the EPA is by far his best non-security domestic policy pick. Choosing the man who led the battles against the EPA’s lawless regulations to head that very agency is every bit as sweet as choosing Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. (C, 78%) to clean out the Department of Justice. There is no doubt that Pruitt will bring game-changing reforms to the culture of the EPA, and refuse to enforce any regulations that reach beyond the scope of their statutory authority.

There’s just one problem. Any loyal reader of Conservative Review can already guess it. If left unchecked by Congress, environmental legal defense groups, in conjunction with the lower courts, will essentially require Pruitt to enforce many of the regulations Obama implemented with lawless discretion.

Broken and hypocritical rules for standing in court

For much of Obama’s presidency, conservatives were on offense in the courts as sued Obama for legislating from the executive branch in an attempt to crush power plants and manufacturing. Scott Pruitt was a leader in pushing back against Obama’s overreach. Now the Left will turn the tables on him and we will be exclusively on defense in the courts.

Well, don’t liberals have the same right to sue Pruitt’s EPA policies as Pruitt did during the Obama administration?

This is where the rules of standing have been bastardized over the years, and have essentially turned the federal judiciary into an imperial super legislature.

Nobody can argue that power plants and manufacturers shouldn’t get standing in a court to sue when the executive branch promulgates regulations without statutory authority. If there is ever a legitimate “case or controversy” with established injury-in-fact to the aggrieved party, it is those industries who face wholesale collapse resulting from EPA regulations. In fact, interpreting the laws passed by Congress on behalf of aggrieved parties in the face of lawless administrative fiat — rather than vetoing legislation and redefining the Constitution — is quintessentially the business of the courts.

Contrast this with the environmental legal defense groups that launch class action suits simply because they stand in opposition to the ideology of those in power. Even though there is no established personalized injury, they seek to enact cap-and-trade style policies without passing a bill in Congress. When Democrats are in power, these groups work together with the agency. When conservatives are in power, however, these same groups get the courts to do their bidding against the will of the agency. They should never have standing in court to simply oppose policies they disagree with when agencies are following the letter of the law. Yet, in the ‘70s, the Supreme Court began overturning settled law regarding the rules of standing and essentially granted any third party ideological group standing to sue against the lack of overzealous environment regulations.

Unless Congress reins in the rules of standing, the bottomless pit of moneyed organizations on the Left will sue Pruitt for not enforcing the endless Obama-era edicts. They will largely succeed for a number of reasons. As we’ve noted many times, the lower courts are a dumpster fire and it will take years to clean them out, if ever. In particular, the critical D.C. Circuit is a disaster — with an 11-1 liberal majority on the district level (among non-senior judges) and at least a 7-4 liberal majority at the appellate level. We will find that a court system so committed to the “Chevron doctrine” — which proscribes broad deference to agencies that regulate beyond the scope of congressional authority — will suddenly become heavy-handed enforcers of laws that never passed Congress against the wishes of the agency.

Even if we win a few defensive victories in the courts, there is no limit to the number of avenues that the Left can use to attack a conservative EPA on every facet of environmental regulation policy. The victories are usually narrowly tailored to each circumstance, giving the Left more bites at the apple.

Further complicating things for Pruitt is Massachusetts v. EPA. Another lawless 5-4 decision from Anthony Kennedy in which he ruled states can get standing to force the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide — even though no such law passed Congress — the grievance is speculative and political, and the ability to redress it is even more notional. This ruling occurred at the end of the Bush Administration and will come back to haunt us as blue states file endless lawsuits. This is very different from what Pruitt did when he was protecting states from economic collapse stemming from regulations that never passed Congress. Again, the key element is what the text of the law actually says and the nature of the grievance for standing.

Over the years, the courts have always blocked out conservatives from obtaining standing in court to sue when agencies are not following the letter of the law. At the same time, they grant left-wing groups standing to sue in matters such as a monument of the Ten Commandments, where there is no tangible injury whatsoever. This is why courts have consistently prevented law enforcement, states, and taxpayers from suing the administration for not enforcing unambiguous congressional immigration laws, even as their communities and jurisdictions are flooded with crime and the fiscal drain of importing criminal aliens. Those grievances are always deemed “speculative,” while the global warming groups get standing without question.

Consequently, the courts will be the last stand for the Left when it comes to pushing for cap-and-trade and amnesty. They already have the votes in the lower courts to push their agenda.

As always, Congress is king

To that end, Congress must rein in the ability of the legal profession to enact judicial regulations in place of Obama’s administrate regulations. As we’ve noted many times, with few exceptions, the courts only have jurisdiction over the subject-matter granted to them by Congress. The power of the courts to engage in judicial review over agency regulatory policy comes from Sections 701-706 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Congress must revise 5 U.S.C. § 702 to raise the threshold for injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability as it relates to third party groups suing for non-economic or phony economic grievances.

In addition, Congress can pass a bill making it clear that the EPA has no authority under existing law to regulate carbon dioxide or promulgate any of Obama’s rules, such as the mercury, Boiler MACT, and Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) rules. Congress should also place a provision in the April budget bill prohibiting any funding for the EPA to enact those regulations.

With the courts out of the way, Pruitt can be let loose to systemically reform the entire agency. Much like with Jeff Sessions, the confirmation of Scott Pruitt is all hands on deck for conservatives. (For more from the author of “Pruitt Will Be Game Changer at EPA … If Congress Protects Him From Courts” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Mark Levin: Trump Is Draining the Swamp … ‘With the Swamp Monsters!’

On his radio program Friday evening, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin ripped into reports that Ronna Romney McDaniel, Mitt Romney’s niece, is on the verge of being picked by Trump as chair of the Republican National Committee. Trump’s preference for chair would still need to be voted on by the full committee.

Mark lit into the pick and the outsized influence Reince Priebus is having on the Trump transition.

Listen:

Levin discussed how Priebus and Trump made a deal back at the Republican National Convention. Priebus got almost dictatorial control over the Committee, and Trump stopped a conscience vote on the floor. I wrote extensively about this back in July.

Before closing with a rebuke of the number of Goldman Sachs employees in the administration, Levin said, “We are draining the swamp with the swamp monsters.”

The new boss seems to be acting a lot like the old bosses lately. (For more from the author of “Mark Levin: Trump Is Draining the Swamp … ‘With the Swamp Monsters!'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Used to Hate Goldman Sachs. What Happened?

Donald Trump is taking quite a bit of flak for appointing Goldman Sachs President and Chief Operating Officer Gary Cohn to be his National Economic Council Director.

Cohn marks the fourth Goldman Sachs appointment into the administration. He joins 17-year Goldman Sachs veteran Steve Mnuchin, who was nominated to be Secretary of the Treasury, and former Goldman Sachs investment banker and managing partner Steven K. Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, in the cabinet. Also, Anthony Scaramucci, who spent seven years at Goldman Sachs, is advising the president-elect on the transition team.

This coziness with Goldman Sachs stands in stark contrast to statements President-elect Trump made on the campaign trail. Trump pointedly attacked rival Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) repeatedly on the issue of Cruz’s connections to the financial giant. Cruz’s wife Heidi is a former Goldman Sachs employee.

“I know the guys at Goldman Sachs,” Trump once said. “They have total, total control over [Cruz]. Just like they have total control over Hillary Clinton.”

Despite all that rhetoric blasting Goldman Sachs, Trump has not hesitated to move Goldman Sachs alumni into positions of power in his administration. Several people have picked up on the hypocrisy.

Will Donald Trump’s most ardent supporters be concerned with the appointment?

We’ll have to wait and see. (For more from the author of “Trump Used to Hate Goldman Sachs. What Happened?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Donald Trump Can Put an End to Sanctuary Cities

Just a few weeks ago, President-elect Donald Trump said, “Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars.”

And I absolutely agree. Since 2007, I’ve been fighting to end the dangerous existence of sanctuary cities by introducing legislation every Congress.

During the Obama administration’s tenure, over 300 cities—including my hometown of New Orleans—have provided safe haven for illegal immigrants, and at least 170,000 convicted criminal illegal immigrants who have been ordered to be deported remain at-large.

But now, I’m extremely optimistic the U.S. will soon make real efforts to end sanctuary cities under the leadership of Trump.

Sanctuary cities are dangerous and counterproductive to both law enforcement efforts and reducing illegal immigration.

Ending these policies is not so much about imposing new and burdensome immigration laws, as about simple enforcement of our current laws and ensuring local law enforcement jurisdictions work collaboratively with federal immigration authorities when they come across criminal illegal immigrants.

After the tragic murder of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco in April 2015, there has been growing momentum to end dangerous sanctuary city policies. She is far from being the only victim of a crime committed by a criminal illegal immigrant.

In LaPlace, Louisiana, this past August, three people were killed and dozens of others were injured when Denis Yasmir Amaya Rodriguez, an illegal immigrant, crashed a bus full of volunteers on their way to assist folks impacted by our recent 1,000-year flooding event. And this accident could have absolutely been prevented.

My hometown of New Orleans has been operating as a sanctuary city for several months now, having implemented regulations in February that bar New Orleans police officers from inquiring about individuals’ immigration status and then sharing that information with federal authorities.

It wasn’t until late September—due to much pressure from myself and others—that local officials made a small step toward complying with my request to reverse the city’s policy, but even now the city of New Orleans is not in complete compliance with federal law.

This policy is in direct conflict with federal law and is simply unacceptable. Worse still, these cities are actively releasing criminal illegal immigrants back into our communities instead of working with federal officials to deport them or lock them up.

I’ve offered several pieces of legislation that tackle this problem head on. My bill with the most traction is the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act.

Until we end all dangerous and illegal sanctuary city policies—which I am confident will happen sooner than later—the obvious first step is to enact tangible penalties for those cities refusing to comply with federal immigration laws, like limiting the flow of billions of federal taxpayer dollars.

There is absolutely no justifiable reason to reward these jurisdictions with federal funding when they are in clear violation of the law and are actually making our communities more dangerous rather than safer. Falling short of enforcing our laws designed to protect innocent American civilian lives is an absolute nonstarter.

Stopping these illegal policies and assuring safety for every American has to be an absolute top priority for the new Congress and president. America spoke clearly in November that the days of turning a blind eye to criminal illegal immigrants and similar misguided policies is over.

I am very eager to see Trump putting an end to dangerous sanctuary cities as soon as possible in the new year. (For more from the author of “How Donald Trump Can Put an End to Sanctuary Cities” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Taps Open Borders Zealot to Head Department of Labor

Amidst all of the political science theories analyzing the secret sauce for Trump’s victory, there is one factor we can say for certainly did not play a role in his victory. Nobody voted for him because they wanted him to be more like Bush on immigration. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Yet, that is exactly the sentiment expressed by Trump’s choice to head the Department of Labor, Andrew Puzder.

Puzder, the big restaurant mogul, is one of the most outspoken advocates for open borders in the business community and embodies everything the grassroots rejected in the elite mindset about immigration. Throughout his career, Puzder has parroted every straw-man, non-sequitur, and downright offensive talking point on immigration that we have heard from the elites all over Washington for years.

Here is a quick sample of Puzder’s ignorant open border talking points, each built upon a multitude of false premises:

Make the Gang of Eight great again

In 2013, Puzder praised the Gang of Eight bill, which was probably the worst piece of legislation introduced this decade after Obamacare. “A bill like the one before Congress could really be a benefit to the U.S. economy and it would be nice to participate in an economy that was constantly growing,” said Puzder at an open borders event in Washington.

Rather than learning the lessons of the rejected amnesty bill, Puzder wrote a patronizing column in the Wall Street Journal two years later, calling on Republicans to “end the drama” on immigration. Yes, as if we are the ones divorced from our history and tradition on immigration, not the Democrats. As the 2016 presidential primary began to heat up, Puzder advised that “every candidate should support a path to legal status — short of citizenship — for illegal immigrants willing to accept responsibility for their actions and take the consequences.”

Of course, it’s all about what to do for foreign nationals, not about putting American security, sovereignty, and fiscal interests first.

Make Bloomberg billionaires great again

That same year, Puzder signed a letter for a Bloomberg billionaire front group pushing Republicans to pass another amnesty bill. He joined a group of business moguls pushing the other candidates to follow in Jeb Bush’s footsteps: “People vote with their hearts… Our values indicate we should be the party of immigration reform,” Puzder said. “[Many undocumented immigrants] live in fear of being deported, losing what they’ve built and being separated from their families.”

Puzder also promoted endless low-skilled and high-skilled visas in the same op-ed: “The American Enterprise Institute found in 2011 that “temporary foreign workers — both skilled and less skilled — boost U.S. employment,” and that immigrants with advanced degrees working in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields “boost employment for U.S. citizens.”

Then, in July of this year, after it was clear Trump would not follow in Jeb’s footsteps, Puzder wrote an op-ed together with Stephen Moore, in part, beseeching Trump to change his mind on immigration. They offered the classic false choice argument: “We believe that deporting 11 million people is unworkable, and we hope in the end Mr. Trump comes to this same conclusion. Deportation should be pursued only when an illegal immigrant has committed a felony or become a “public charge.”

Yes, in other words, send the message that anyone who comes here will never be deported. And history has shown that anyone who subscribes to this view will never deport those who are criminals and certainly not those who constitute a public charge either.

What happened to putting Americans first?

Every word of Puzder’s long record of advocacy for open borders stands in contrast to Trump’s intellectually clear immigration speech he delivered in Arizona in late August:

When politicians talk about immigration reform, they usually mean the following, amnesty, open borders, lower wages. Immigration reform should mean something else entirely. It should mean improvements to our laws and policies to make life better for American citizens.…

The truth is, the central issue is not the needs of the 11 million illegal immigrants… Anyone who tells you that the core issue is the needs of those living here illegally has simply spent too much time in Washington… There is only one core issue in the immigration debate, and that issue is the well-being of the American people.

I’m hearing some conservatives dismiss these concerns by noting that Puzder is rock-solid on labor regulations and is the right fit for the job of labor secretary. After all, he is not being chosen to head the Justice Department or Homeland Security. The problem with this assessment is that Puzder has been such a high-profile supporter of all of the people and issues driving the open borders lobby. Historically, the labor secretary has wielded an enormous influence on immigration policy because they oversee all of the guest worker programs.

But it’s not just about guest worker visas. Anyone who has followed the immigration issue understands that the entire cabal of open borders lobbyists — which is essentially everyone in power in business, law, politics, lobbying, academia, etc. (“masters of the universe,” as Sen. Sessions, R-Ala. (C, 78%) calls them) — has formed an ideological logrolling gravy train. Every facet of the immigration expansionist community will vouch for each sphere of open borders policy, even if it doesn’t directly affect them. In other words, the agriculture lobby doesn’t care about H1-b visas, but they will support them because they view any restriction as an eventual threat to their turf. Likewise, Silicon Valley doesn’t need a flood of refugees from Somalia, but will fight any efforts to shut down the program.

With this understanding in mind, picture how the entire gravy train will have one of their own in a strategic position relevant to immigration (although not the most important position). Puzder will serve as a countervailing force against any effort to clamp down on refugees, mass migration from the Third World, and the endless scams with visa programs that place big business instead of the people as a whole in charge of our sovereignty and future destiny.

Make no mistake, we don’t need more countervailing forces on immigration. The inertia and political gravity on this issue is one-directional in Washington. Aside from Jeff Sessions, especially after passing over Kris Kobach as DHS secretary, there will be no strong force keeping Trump in line to begin with. He has already gone off message on the issue and has always been wobbly on visas. We certainly don’t need Michael Bloomberg in charge of the Labor Department. Conservatives in the Senate should get some answers from Puzder with regards to immigration before they vote to confirm him.

Immigration (along with Obamacare, of course) is the hill to die on in the Trump presidency. It’s no secret that a lot of free market conservatism will be sidelined during this administration and that conservatives will have to swallow a number of bitter pills. Many conservative Trump supporters have suggested all along that such concessions would be worth it as the price for finally getting immigration right. In that case, we better make sure of it, not simply hope for change. Otherwise, conservatives will be left with an empty bag of promises. (For more from the author of “Trump Taps Open Borders Zealot to Head Department of Labor” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Did Donald Trump Really Agree with Barack Obama That People Shouldn’t Make Too Much Money?

On Tuesday morning, President-elect Donald Trump Tweeted that Boeing’s effort to construct a new Air Force one for future presidents was too expensive:

Later in the day, he added, “we want Boeing to make a lot of money, but not that much money.”

The implications of this Tweet were heavily debated throughout Tuesday. Some, like The Washington Free Beacon — disclosure: this reporter is a contributor to The Free Beacon — suggested that he agreed with the president, who has said, “I do think, at a certain point, you’ve made enough money.”

On the surface, the Beacon is looking at similar comments: two wealthy men who are or will be president of the United States, neither a proponent of the free market, criticizing those who desire to make lots of money.

However, a deeper look indicates that Trump was looking out for the taxpayers, while Obama was expressing a personal opinion about income.

Why Target Boeing?

One of the nation’s largest defense contractors, Boeing receives billions in military contracts. Contrary to Trump’s Tweet, the company says that the Air Force One project is budgeted for $2.1 billion through 2021, though the Secretary of the Air Force said that the Air Force One construction will take about a decade. Reuters reports that the cost of two planes plus related research and development makes an accurate estimate difficult.

Trump might be wrong about the exact dollar amount for the contracts, and whether they are over-budget is something we won’t know for sure until the projects are completed a decade from now. However, Americans should not automatically consider Boeing a victim.

They are a major of a Department of Defense contracting system that is woefully inefficient, and they profit from the taxpayer-backed Export-Import Bank. This allows the company to take risks while putting average Americans at risk if the bank lost money. Additionally, it was heavily criticized for taking advantage of the Obama administration’s Iran deal to sell billions in planes to Iran.

Obama Versus Trump

On the surface, Trump’s comments express a similar opinion about income as Obama. However, as the folks at The Right Scoop pointed out, context creates a lot of space between Obama and Trump. The President-elect appears to be talking about Boeing costing taxpayers too much money. Obama was expressing a personal opinion that income should be halted at a certain point in general.

But even The Right Scoop didn’t entirely get it right. Here is more of what Obama said in the relevant speech, which was made about financial reform in 2010. “I want to be clear, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned.”

I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. [Laughter.] But part of the American way is you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or you’re providing a good service. We don’t want people to stop fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow the economy.

In other words, the president was expressing a personal desire about income, even as he said he doesn’t “begrudge success that’s fairly earned.” While he clearly does “begrudge success that is fairly earned” — as seen in his efforts to tax those who are honestly wealthy while simultaneously helping cronies become wealthier through the government bureaucracy — the statement he made does not make him “a socialist moron,” to quote The Right Scoop.

Trump’s Tweet a Good Sign of Times to Come?

At the risk of falling into the trap of assuming a Trump policy based upon a single Tweet and a brief statement, both made before he enters office, I hope that the president-elect will do what no president has been able to do: Reform our bloated and inefficient contracting system.

Holding Boeing and other contractors accountable to the taxpayers is very different than the tax bribes Trump negotiated with Carrier to keep some jobs inside the United States. The latter violates basic free market principles, much like Trump’s proposed protectionist policies.

Taking on Boeing is simply good policy and good politics — Trump’s Tweet came less than 12 hours after The Washington Post reported that the Pentagon hid a report whose authors recommended $25 billion in annual administrative savings for the nation’s military. (For more from the author of “Did Donald Trump Really Agree with Barack Obama That People Shouldn’t Make Too Much Money?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump’s Mexico Border ‘Wall’ Vanishing as GOP Lawmakers Bolt

The Mexican border wall that Donald Trump promised in the campaign doesn’t really have to be a wall, says Representative Dennis Ross, a member of the president-elect’s transition team.

“The ‘wall’ is a term to help understand it, to describe it,” says Ross, a Florida Republican, adding that it “really means ‘security.’ It could be a fence. It could be open surveillance to prevent people from crossing. It does not mean an actual wall.”

Even the president-elect’s closest allies in Congress are working to redefine Trump’s top campaign promise, which many view as too costly and impractical for securing the 1,933-mile border with Mexico. Most illegal immigration can be halted with fencing, more Border Patrol agents and drones, they contend. House Speaker Paul Ryan on Sunday suggested using approaches that simply make the most sense . . .

House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul said Wednesday, “We are going to build the wall. Period.” But he also described his plan, which he plans to propose next year, as a “historic, multi-layered defense system so that drug cartels and terrorists don’t skip through the cracks.”

“That means more Border Patrol agents, new authorities, aerial surveillance, sensors and other technology to protect our territory,” said McCaul of Texas at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. (Read more from “Trump’s Mexico Border ‘Wall’ Vanishing as GOP Lawmakers Bolt” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.