Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti, Trump

Supreme Court. Gerrymanderings. Bocciate le sentenze dei giudici liberal.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-26.

2019-05-25__Gerrymanders__001

Supreme Court temporarily blocks rulings requiring new voting maps for Ohio and Michigan [Nbc]

«Lower courts had invalidated the GOP-friendly maps as partisan gerrymandering and ordered them redrawn before the 2020 election.»

*

«The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings that invalidated, as partisan gerrymandering, Ohio’s map for congressional districts and Michigan’s maps for congressional and state legislative districts.

The high court’s orders put on hold efforts in both states to redraw their electoral maps ahead of the 2020 elections, a remedy ordered by the lower courts.

In the Ohio case, a three-judge panel ruled unanimously earlier this month that the district map drawn up by the Republican-controlled Legislature unconstitutionally discriminated against Democrats. “We are convinced by the evidence that this partisan gerrymander was intentional,” the ruling said.»

* * * * * *

Abbiamo già ampiamente riportato sul problema del gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering. Republicani e democratici si stanno scannando.

Ogni dieci anni, ovvero quando ne emergessero le necessità, gli stati hanno la possibilità di ridisegnare con una apposita legge i confini dei distretti elettorali, equiripartendo al meglio possibile la popolazione nei seggi. Il termine gerrymandering designa una mappa di distretto elettorale artatamente manipolata per ottenere un vantaggio elettorale.

Negli ultimi anni i liberal democratici hanno contestato la mappatura fatta da governi repubblicani, portando il tutto nanti corti federali ove sedessero giudici di eguale dottrina. Queste corti avevano immediatamente bloccato la mappatura, imponendo agli stati il ritorno al pristino.

Orbene, il tutto è finito davanti alla Suprema Corte, che ha cassato le sentenze emesse da quelle corti inferiori.

La faccenda è al momento tutt’altro che conclusa, ma l’orientamento della Suprema Corte sembrerebbe essere oramai definito.

Con la nomina delle loro Giustizie Mr Gorsuch e Mr Kavanaugh, Mr Trump ha ricostituito la Suprema Corte con giudici ligi e rispettosi della costituzione: l’epoca in cui i giudici liberal democratici imponevano la loro ideologia con sentenze tribunizie sembrerebbe andare al termine. È la fine dei processi alle intenzioni, dei processi politici, dell’uso partigiano delle corti di giustizia.

* * * * * * *

«The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings that had ordered Republican legislators in Michigan and Ohio to redraw U.S. congressional maps ahead of the 2020 elections after finding that the current districts were designed to illegally diminish the power of Democratic voters»

*

«The justices granted requests from Republican lawmakers in both states to stay those decisions»

*

«The lower courts found that the electoral maps had been drawn to entrench the majority party in power, a practice known as partisan gerrymandering, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.»

*

«While both disputes involve U.S. House of Representatives districts in the two states, the Michigan case also challenges districts in the state legislature as well»

*

«Two other gerrymandering challenges are already pending at the Supreme Court, with rulings due by the end of June. In one case, Republican legislators in North Carolina are accused of rigging congressional maps to boost their party’s chances in that state»

* * * * * * *

Entro qualche mese la Suprema Corte dovrà sentenziare su molte questioni che avrebbero dovuto essere oggetto di dibattito politico in sede congressuale. A seconda di come orienteranno il giudizio, il mondo potrebbe subire una mutazione.



Reuters. 2019-05-25. U.S. Supreme Court blocks redrawing of Ohio, Michigan electoral maps

The Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings ordering Republican legislators in Michigan and Ohio to redraw U.S. congressional maps ahead of the 2020 elections, dealing a blow to Democrats who had argued that the electoral districts were intended to unlawfully diminish their political clout.

The justices granted requests from Republican lawmakers in both states to put those decisions on hold, halting further action in the cases and the need to rework electoral district boundaries. The justices did not provide any explanation for their brief orders.

The lower courts found that the electoral maps in the two states had been drawn to entrench Republicans in power by manipulating boundaries in a way that reduced the voting clout of Democrats – a practice known as partisan gerrymandering – in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

While both disputes involve U.S. House of Representatives districts in the two states, the Michigan case challenges districts in the state legislature as well.

The decisions in Michigan and Ohio that were put on hold by the justices were the latest rulings by federal courts determining that electoral maps designed by a state’s majority party unconstitutionally undermined the rights of voters who tend to support the other party.

But the action by the justices was not unexpected as they weigh two other gerrymandering cases – one from North Carolina and the other from Maryland – that could decide definitively whether federal judges have the power to intervene to curb partisan gerrymandering. The rulings in those cases, due by the end of June, are likely to dictate whether the legal challenges against the Ohio and Michigan electoral maps can move forward.

The Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings ordering Republican legislators in Michigan and Ohio to redraw U.S. congressional maps ahead of the 2020 elections, dealing a blow to Democrats who had argued that the electoral districts were intended to unlawfully diminish their political clout.

The justices granted requests from Republican lawmakers in both states to put those decisions on hold, halting further action in the cases and the need to rework electoral district boundaries. The justices did not provide any explanation for their brief orders.

The lower courts found that the electoral maps in the two states had been drawn to entrench Republicans in power by manipulating boundaries in a way that reduced the voting clout of Democrats – a practice known as partisan gerrymandering – in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

While both disputes involve U.S. House of Representatives districts in the two states, the Michigan case challenges districts in the state legislature as well.

The decisions in Michigan and Ohio that were put on hold by the justices were the latest rulings by federal courts determining that electoral maps designed by a state’s majority party unconstitutionally undermined the rights of voters who tend to support the other party.

But the action by the justices was not unexpected as they weigh two other gerrymandering cases – one from North Carolina and the other from Maryland – that could decide definitively whether federal judges have the power to intervene to curb partisan gerrymandering. The rulings in those cases, due by the end of June, are likely to dictate whether the legal challenges against the Ohio and Michigan electoral maps can move forward.

In the North Carolina case, Republican legislators were accused of rigging congressional maps to boost their party’s chances. In the Maryland, Democratic lawmakers faced similar allegations over one U.S. House district.

The Ohio and Michigan lawsuits accused Republican-controlled legislatures in the two states of discriminating against Democratic voters for their political views in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal treatment under the law and freedom of association.

Critics have said that gerrymandering, a feature of U.S. politics for generations, has become increasingly extreme and effective at advancing the interests of a political party as a result of precise voter data and powerful computer technology, illegally shaping the outcome of elections.

The Supreme Court has previously intervened when legislators impermissibly sought to dilute the voting power of racial minorities, but it has never curbed gerrymandering for purely partisan purposes.

The Michigan and Ohio lawsuits were filed by voting rights groups and individual Democratic voters. Nine U.S. House and 25 state legislative districts were at issue in Michigan, while Ohio’s case involved 16 U.S. House districts.

A three-judge panel in Detroit on April 25 ruled in the Democratic voters’ favor in the Michigan case, calling gerrymandering a “pernicious practice that undermines our democracy,” and ordered state officials to draw new maps by Aug. 1.

A three-judge panel in Cincinnati on May 3 sided with the Democratic voters in the Ohio case, and ordered the state to create a plan to fix the map by June 14.

Electoral districts are typically redrawn once a decade after the U.S. census to reflect population changes. In many states, the party in power controls the map-making.

*


MSN. 2019-05-25. U.S. Supreme Court blocks redrawing of Ohio, Michigan electoral maps

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings that had ordered Republican legislators in Michigan and Ohio to redraw U.S. congressional maps ahead of the 2020 elections after finding that the current districts were designed to illegally diminish the power of Democratic voters.

The justices granted requests from Republican lawmakers in both states to stay those decisions. The lower courts found that the electoral maps had been drawn to entrench the majority party in power, a practice known as partisan gerrymandering, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

While both disputes involve U.S. House of Representatives districts in the two states, the Michigan case also challenges districts in the state legislature as well.

The decisions in Michigan and Ohio that were put on hold by the justices were the latest rulings by federal courts determining that electoral maps designed by a state’s majority party unconstitutionally undermined the rights of voters who tend to support the other party.

Two other gerrymandering challenges are already pending at the Supreme Court, with rulings due by the end of June. In one case, Republican legislators in North Carolina are accused of rigging congressional maps to boost their party’s chances in that state. In the other case, Democratic lawmakers in Maryland face similar allegations over one U.S. House district.

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump taglia i fondi all’alta velocità Sacramento – San Diego.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-23.

California Bulet Train 001

«California High-Speed Rail (abbreviated CAHSR or CHSR) is a high-speed rail system under construction in the U.S. state of California. It is projected to connect the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center in Anaheim and Union Station in Downtown Los Angeles with the Salesforce Transit Center in San Francisco via the Central Valley, providing a one-seat ride between Union Station and San Francisco in 2 hours and 40 minutes. Future extensions are planned to connect to stations to San Diego County via the Inland Empire, as well as to Sacramento. ….

The CAHSRA was established by an act of the California State Legislature and tasked with presenting a high-speed rail plan to the voters. This plan, Proposition 1A, was presented to and approved by voters in 2008 and included a $9-billion bond to begin construction on the initial leg of the network.

Construction began in 2015 after a groundbreaking ceremony in Fresno.

On February 12, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom in his first State of the State address announced that, while work would continue on the 171-mile (275 km) Central Valley segment from Bakersfield to Merced, the rest of the system would be indefinitely postponed, citing cost overruns and delays ….

The 2008 business plan proposed a 2028 completion date for Phase 1 and a one-way fare of $55 from Los Angeles to San Francisco. In 2012 the Authority re-estimated the project’s cost at $53.4 billion (2011$) or $68.4 billion (YOE) In 2018 the Authority pushed estimated costs to between $63.2 billion and $98.1 billion (YOE) and delayed initial service to 2029, with Los Angeles to San Francisco service in 2033» [Fonte]

*

Ricapitoliamo.

Nel 2008 lo stato della California deliberò la costruzione di una linea ad alta velocità che collegasse la capitale Sacramento, quindi San Francisco fino a San Diego, coprendo una distanza iniziale di 840 km, per un fine progetto di 1,300 km, cui aggiungere i rami collaterali. Il costo dell’opera era stato inizialmente preventivato a 9 miliardi Usd, circa il costo sostenuto per studiare il progetto.

Nel 2018 il costo dell’opera

era levitato a 98 miliardi Usd.

Il problema attuale dello stato della California è banale: non hanno più fondi disponibili e quindi l’intera opera è virtualmente bloccata, né si riesce a capire se o quando possa essere ripresa.

*

La California ha ottenuto una grande quantità di fondi federali, una parte di finanziamento diretto, un’altra, per nulla trascurabile, di sovvenzioni varie, per esempio, alla ricerca e progettazione.

La California è infatti oberata dal debito pubblico.

«We estimate that California’s total state and local government debt as of June 30, 2017 totaled just over $1.5 trillion. That total includes all outstanding bonds, loans, and other long-term liabilities, along with the officially reported unfunded liability for other post-employment benefits (primarily retiree healthcare), as well as unfunded pension liabilities.

This represents a rise of about $200 billion – or 15% – over our last debt analysis, in January 2017 ….

Our analysis differs from government reporting in a few ways, the most significant of which is governments’ use of a very generous expected rate of return on their pension fund investments. Using a more accurate rate, we calculate the total of unfunded pensions in California at $846 billion – $530 billion more than the official estimate of $316 billion. But even using only the officially reported estimates, California’s state and local governments are about $1.0 trillion in debt.» [California Policy Center]

Con un debito statale di 1,500 miliardi, dei quali 846 miliardi usati per finanziare i fondi pensioni, lo stato della California ha ben poche possibilità di accedere ulteriormente al credito.

Non solo, secondo quanto riportano le statistiche federali, il debito delle istituzioni locali sarebbe più che doppio di quello statale.

* * * * * * *

«The Trump administration said on Thursday it was formally cancelling $929 million in previously awarded funding for California’s high-speed rail program after rejecting an appeal by the state»

*

«The U.S. railway regulator, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), said on Thursday it had canceled the funding awarded in a 2010 agreement after it said the state had “repeatedly failed to comply” and “failed to make reasonable progress on the project.”»

« »

«The decision is the latest salvo in an ongoing battle between the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump and California over a series of issues including immigration, vehicle emissions standards and internet policy»

*

«The largest U.S. state has repeatedly sued the Trump administration and officials expect the state will sue over the rescinding of rail funding»

*

«The Trump administration moved to end funding after California Governor Gavin Newsom said in February the state would scale back the planned $77.3 billion high-speed rail project after cost hikes, delays and management concerns, but would finish a smaller section»

*

«The Obama administration awarded California $3.5 billion in 2010 and California voters in 2008 approved nearly $10 billion in bond proceeds. In March 2018, the state forecast project costs had jumped $13 billion to $77 billion and warned costs could be as much as $98.1 billion.»

*

«Federal officials may also claw back $2.5 billion in funds»

* * * * * * * *

Negli Stati Uniti, e parzialmente anche nell’Unione Europea, è in corso una vera e propria guerra civile.

Guerra civile americana. Si avvicina lo scontro finale.

La sconfitta elettorale alle elezioni presidenziali ha spinto i liberal democratici ad una aperta ribellione: non essendo riusciti a vincere politicamente nelle urne hanno puntato tutto sulle dimostrazioni di piazza, sul tentativo di demonizzare Mr Trump, su di una campagna giudiziaria ove le corti di livello inferiore bloccavano gli ordini esecutivi della White House, avendo a cassa di risonanza tutti i media. Salvo poi vedersi le sentenze cassate dalla Corte Suprema.

Ciò nonostante, Mr Trump alle elezioni di midterm è riuscito a mantenere il controllo del senato e quello dei governatorati: la maggioranza democratica al Congresso è esigua e, soprattutto, dilacerata dalle fazioni interne.

Poi, Mr Trump è riuscito ad imporre la nomina di due giudici, Sua Giustizia Gorsuch e Sua Giustizia Kavanaugh, spostando 5 a 4 gli equilibri repubblicani versus democratici.

È stata una svolta cruciale nei rapporti di forza.

Suprema Corte cassa sentenza del 9th Circuit e da ragione a Trump.

Corte Suprema. Respinte le ‘stravaganti’ argomentazioni dei giudici del 9° Circuito

Trump sferra l’attacco alle Corti distrettuali ed inferiori.

Trump Administration Will Ask Supreme Court To End Nationwide Injunctions

Dal 23 aprile i giudici politicizzati sanno che saranno incriminati.

*

Adesso Mr Trump prosegue a tagliare i fondi federali agli stati ed alle istituzioni governate dai liberal democratici: senza denaro pubblico sono destinate a soccombere.

Ci si pensi bene.

Quando un progetto levita da un preventivo di nove miliardi ad oltre novantotto la conta lunga sulle capacità gestionali dei democratici. Anche molte persone non si stupirebbero che tutto questo possa nascondere grossolane interferenze di interessi privati nella cosa pubblica.


Reuters. 2019-05-16. U.S. cancels $929 million in California high speed rail funds after appeal rejected

The Trump administration said on Thursday it was formally cancelling $929 million in previously awarded funding for California’s high-speed rail program after rejecting an appeal by the state.

The U.S. railway regulator, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), said on Thursday it had canceled the funding awarded in a 2010 agreement after it said the state had “repeatedly failed to comply” and “failed to make reasonable progress on the project.”

In a statement, the FRA said it was still considering “all options” on seeking the return of $2.5 billion in federal funds the state has already received.

The decision is the latest salvo in an ongoing battle between the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump and California over a series of issues including immigration, vehicle emissions standards and internet policy.

The largest U.S. state has repeatedly sued the Trump administration and officials expect the state will sue over the rescinding of rail funding.

The Trump administration moved to end funding after California Governor Gavin Newsom said in February the state would scale back the planned $77.3 billion high-speed rail project after cost hikes, delays and management concerns, but would finish a smaller section.

In a statement on Thursday, Newsom called the action “illegal and a direct assault on California, our green infrastructure, and the thousands of Central Valley workers who are building this project.”

He added “the Trump Administration is trying to exact political retribution on our state,” and vowed to go to court to protect “California’s money, appropriated by Congress.”

The traffic-choked state had planned to build a 520-mile (837-km) system in the first phase that would allow trains to travel at up to 220 miles per hour (354 kph) from Los Angeles to San Francisco and begin full operations by 2033.

Newsom said in February the state would instead complete a 119-mile high-speed link between Merced and Bakersfield in the state’s Central Valley.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, who overseas FRA, in February said California’s drastically scaled back rail project “is a classic example of bait and switch… We have a right to ask for that $2.5 billion back as well.”

The state said in March that ending funding “would cause massive disruption, dislocation, and waste, damaging the region and endangering the future of high-speed rail in California.”

The Obama administration awarded California $3.5 billion in 2010 and California voters in 2008 approved nearly $10 billion in bond proceeds.

In March 2018, the state forecast project costs had jumped $13 billion to $77 billion and warned costs could be as much as $98.1 billion.

*


Bloomberg. 2019-05-16. Trump Cancels $929 Million Grant for California Bullet Train

– Comes amid escalating tension between state and administration

– Federal officials may also claw back $2.5 billion in funds

*

The Trump administration officially canceled $929 million in federal grants earmarked for California’s ambitious high-speed rail project, escalating tensions between the federal government and the most-populous U.S. state.

Federal Railroad Administrator Ronald Batory said in a letter Thursday to Brian Kelly, the chief executive officer of the state agency running the project, that California has failed to show progress and meet requirements under the agreements for the funds. Governor Gavin Newsom, through a spokesman, vowed a court fight.

“It is now clear that California has no foreseeable plans, nor the capability, to pursue that statewide HSR System as originally proposed,” Batory wrote.

Initially conceived as connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles with a high-speed train that would slash travel times and transform the state’s economy, the project has been beset by cost overruns and delays, causing its estimated price to balloon to $79 billion. Newsom, a Democrat who took office this year, said in February that the train as planned “would cost too much and take too long,” and he would focus on finishing roughly 170 miles of track already under construction in the Central Valley.

The announcement from Washington came the same day that a top California environmental regulator threatened to enact tougher pollution rules that could include a ban on vehicles that burn petroleum-based fuels in retaliation against a federal plan to relax vehicle emission standards. California’s leaders and Trump, who often criticizes the state’s policies in tweets, have fought over issues in court dozens of times.

“The Trump administration’s action is illegal and a direct assault on California, our green infrastructure, and the thousands of Central Valley workers who are building this project,” Nathan Click, a spokesman for Newsom, said by email. “Just as we have seen from the Trump administration’s attacks on our clean air standards, our immigrant communities and in countless other areas, the Trump administration is trying to exact political retribution on our state.”

Newsom’s comments on the train in February were initially interpreted as walking away from the project that has been in the works for more than a decade, and the Trump administration subsequently seized on them to announce its intent to cancel the grant and claw back dollars already spent. The Federal Railroad Administration “continues to consider all options” regarding the return of $2.5 billion in federal funds already awarded to the project, the agency said in a statement Thursday.

Kelly argued in a March letter to the federal administration that Newsom’s proposal wasn’t a “fundamental change” and that it’s a “pragmatic approach” to ultimately connect the line to Silicon Valley and southern California.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump sferra l’attacco alle Corti distrettuali ed inferiori.

Giuseppe Sandro mela.

2019-05-17.

Supreme Court

Il sistema giudiziario americano è complesso perché complessa è la struttura degli Stati Uniti.

Anche se nominalmente politica e giustizia dovrebbero essere poteri separati, nei fatti sicuramente non lo sono, se non altro perché i giudici sono di nomina politica, ancorché vidimata da un assenso senatoriale. Ma il senato è pur sempre composto da politici.

Nei tempi passati, quando un giudice di basso livello si imbatteva in un problema che avesse coinvolto un giudizio costituzionale, era consuetudine rimandare il tutto alla Suprema Corte, attendendo quindi il suo giudizio.

Il sistema ha retto fino a circa due decenni or sono, quando i liberal democratici hanno usato i tribunali di baso livello come arma politica: i giudici di basso livello iniziarono non solo a dare pareri di costituzionalità, ma soprattutto iniziarono ad emettere provvedimenti di blocco su scala federale.

Questo fenomeno è diventato gigantesco con la presidenza Trump, del quale quasi ogni ordine Esecutivo era stato bloccato da un giudice distrettuale. Poi, dopo un anno circa, la Corte Suprema rimetteva le cose a loro posto, bacchettando anche i giudici inferiori, ma era evidente sia l’intromissione dei giudici nella politica sia l’abuso  del potere operativo del giudice.

Il problema giuridico si configura quindi nello stabilire norme giuridiche inequivocabili che regolino la possibilità che un giudice distrettuale possa emettere ordinanza a valore federale.

È semplicemente evidente come un sentenza della Corte Suprema possa bloccare alla radice la guerra legale dei liberal democratici.

«Vice President Mike Pence said the Trump administration will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent lower courts from imposing nationwide injunctions against the president’s policies»

*

«federal district courts have imposed more nationwide injunctions against Trump than the first 40 presidents combined»

*

«A Supreme Court justice has to convince four of his colleagues to uphold a nationwide injunction — but a single district court judge can issue one, effectively preventing the duly-elected president of the United States from fulfilling his constitutional duties»

*

«In the days ahead, our administration will seek opportunities to put this question before the Supreme Court»

*

«Justice Clarence Thomas said he was that skeptical federal trial judges have the power to issue nationwide injunctions»

*

«Thomas wrote in an opinion that no other justice joined»

* * * * * * * *


Trump Administration Will Ask Supreme Court To End Nationwide Injunctions, Pence Says

«Nationwide injunctions, in which federal trial judges bar the federal government from enforcing a law or carrying out a policy across the entire country, have beset President Donald Trump since he took office. District courts have blocked administration policy priorities on immigration, national security and health care.

“The Supreme Court of the United States must clarify that district judges can decide no more than the cases before them — and it’s imperative that we restore the historic tradition that district judges do not set policy for the whole nation,” Pence told the conservative lawyers group.»

* * * * * * *

Si faccia grande attenzione

«The Supreme Court of the United States must clarify that

district judges can decide no more than the cases before them»

Non è un cavillo di lana caprina: qualsiasi sia la decisione della Corte Suprema sarà pur sempre una decisione epocale.


Bloomberg. 2019-05-09. Trump to Ask Supreme Court to Prevent Nationwide Injunctions

– Administration has previously attemped to curb injunctions

– High court hasn’t ruled on question because policies upheld

*

Vice President Mike Pence said the Trump administration will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent lower courts from imposing nationwide injunctions against the president’s policies.

Pence complained Wednesday in a speech to the conservative Federalist Society that federal district courts have imposed more nationwide injunctions against Trump than the first 40 presidents combined. On Tuesday, an appeals court lifted such an injunction against a Trump policy that allows U.S. immigration authorities to force some migrants seeking asylum to wait in Mex while their cases are adjudicated.

“A Supreme Court justice has to convince four of his colleagues to uphold a nationwide injunction — but a single district court judge can issue one, effectively preventing the duly-elected president of the United States from fulfilling his constitutional duties,” Pence said in prepared remarks. “This judicial obstruction is unprecedented.”

“In the days ahead, our administration will seek opportunities to put this question before the Supreme Court,” Pence said.

The Trump administration has already tried on several occasions to persuade the Supreme Court to curb nationwide injunctions. It was an issue when the court considered Trump’s travel ban last year, but the justices didn’t reach the question because they upheld the ban in its entirety.

In a concurring opinion in that case, Justice Clarence Thomas said he was that skeptical federal trial judges have the power to issue nationwide injunctions.

“These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system — preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the executive branch,” Thomas wrote in an opinion that no other justice joined.

The administration similarly offered the Supreme Court a chance to curb nationwide injunctions in a clash over military service by transgender people. Lower courts had blocked Trump’s effort to bar most transgender people from service. At the Supreme Court, the administration said those orders should, at most, cover the people involved in the case.

Much like with the travel ban, the high court didn’t address the issue because it let the policy take full effect.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Senza categoria, Stati Uniti, Trump

Cnn. Trump si avvia ad essere rieletto.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-14.

Minosse & Macron

«The US economy is booming.»

*

«The economy added 263,000 jobs in the month of April, and the unemployment rate is now just 3.6% — the lowest it’s been since 1969! On top of the better-than-expected GDP news last month, it’s now quite clear that President Donald Trump is overseeing an economy going gangbusters»

*

«Which brings me to a radical idea I have been kicking around for a while now: Trump’s best chance at winning would be to cease issuing statements — or tweets — about anything other than the economy. And to cut ALL statements and tweets down to, roughly, one a day.»

*

«No Mueller report. No name-calling of potential Democratic candidates. No nothing — other than tweeting or speaking about the current state of the economy. And doing that once a day.»

*

«But such an extreme approach to his public pronouncements would also give Trump the best chance to bridge the current chasm between people who think he is doing a good job on the economy (a majority of the public) and people who approve of the job he is doing overall»

*

«A less divisive — and less abnormal — Republican president, with this same economic record through two-plus years of his term, would be sitting pretty for reelection.»

*

«Yes, more people still disapprove of the job Trump is doing (50%) than approve of it. And, yes, again, Trump has come close to 46% approval before — he got to 45% in June 2018 and in January 2017. And, yes, for a third time, there is no meaningful statistical difference between 45% approval and 46% approval.»

*

«Likely a series of good economic numbers — led by 3.2% GDP growth in the first quarter of 2019. (Worth noting: The Gallup poll was out of the field by April 30, meaning that the gangbusters April jobs report isn’t even factored into Trump’s numbers.)»

*

«It’s among Democrats where Trump’s job approval has improved the most month-to-month; just 4% approved of the job he was doing in March compared to 10% who said the same in April. Independents went from 33% job approval for Trump in March to 39% in April.»

*

«The more the strong economy is front and center, the better for Trump.»

* * * * * * * *

È una Cnn sconsolata che parla affranta con il cuore in mano.

Più l’economia tira e più Mr Trump aumenta le probabilità di essere rieletto l’anno prossimo.

Alla gente comune interessa avere un lavoro dignitoso, con cui mantenere sé stessi e la propria famiglia. Interessa avere uno stipendio in crescita, avendo con ciò un maggior potere di acquisto.

Delle sottili diatribe e di tutte le altre discussioni che stanno riempiendo la pagine dei giornali ben poco se ne cale.

E questo è un punto sul quale i liberal democratici hanno ben poco potere di intervento. Possono sicuramente impostare leggi che blocchino oppure ostacolino il processo economico, possono sicuramente far fuoco di sbarramento usando le corti distrettuali, ma alla fine la gente guarda a quanto entra ed a quanto deve uscire dal proprio portafoglio.

Far lavorare e guadagnare la gente è la migliore propaganda elettorale che sia possibile.

Ma se Mr Trump dovesse essere rieletto, ebbene, allora i liberal democratici sarebbero davvero finiti.

Me Trump finirebbe di bonificare le corti distrettuali e quelle federali, immettendovi giudici quarantenni, che occuperebbero il loro posto per altri quaranta anni.


CNN. 2019-05-07. Donald Trump is more popular than ever before

Donald Trump is the only president in modern history to never crack 50% job approval in Gallup’s weekly tracking poll of how Americans perceive the job that the president is doing. 

But in the latest Gallup numbers, Trump is at 46% approval — the highest mark he has reached in more than two years as President.

Yes, more people still disapprove of the job Trump is doing (50%) than approve of it. And, yes, again, Trump has come close to 46% approval before — he got to 45% in June 2018 and in January 2017. And, yes, for a third time, there is no meaningful statistical difference between 45% approval and 46% approval.

But, still! This is Donald Trump we are talking about. A man who has struggled for much of his presidency to even win the approval of 40% of Americans for the job he is doing. Just look at Trump’s week-by-week performance in Gallup. Not good!

What explains Trump’s upward trajectory? Likely a series of good economic numbers — led by 3.2% GDP growth in the first quarter of 2019. (Worth noting: The Gallup poll was out of the field by April 30, meaning that the gangbusters April jobs report isn’t even factored into Trump’s numbers.)

Dig into the numbers and you see something very interesting. Trump’s gains of late are not, as you might expect, from Republicans. Nine in 10 Republicans backed Trump in March, the same number who did so in April. It’s among Democrats where Trump’s job approval has improved the most month-to-month; just 4% approved of the job he was doing in March compared to 10% who said the same in April. Independents went from 33% job approval for Trump in March to 39% in April.

Obviously, Trump’s gains of late come even as special counsel Robert Mueller has concluded his report into Russian interference in the 2016 election and the entire 448-page behemoth, with some redactions, has been released to the public. The report’s finding — no provable criminal conspiracy with the Russians by anyone within the Trump campaign, no recommendation on whether to charge Trump with obstruction of justice — remain a vigorously debated subject but don’t seem to have adversely affected how people perceive Trump to be doing his job.

All of which seems to prove the point White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney made last week: “People will vote for somebody they don’t like if they think it’s good for them.”

The Point: The more the strong economy is front and center, the better for Trump. Now, all he needs to do is get out of his own way — which is easier said than done.

*


CNN. 2019-05-07. A radical proposal to get Donald Trump reelected in 2020

The news on Friday confirmed — beyond a shadow of a doubt — this fact: The US economy is booming.

The economy added 263,000 jobs in the month of April, and the unemployment rate is now just 3.6% — the lowest it’s been since 1969! On top of the better-than-expected GDP news last month, it’s now quite clear that President Donald Trump is overseeing an economy going gangbusters.

And yet, for all of the successes of the economy — and the fact that a majority of Americans (56%) give him credit for his handling of the nation’s finances — Trump’s job approval ratings remain mired in the low 40s, a dangerous place to be for a sitting president ramping up a reelection bid.

Which brings me to a radical idea I have been kicking around for a while now: Trump’s best chance at winning would be to cease issuing statements — or tweets — about anything other than the economy. And to cut ALL statements and tweets down to, roughly, one a day.

No Mueller report. No name-calling of potential Democratic candidates. No nothing — other than tweeting or speaking about the current state of the economy. And doing that once a day.

Yes, such a strategy might prompt accusations that Trump is hiding from the media. Or that he is walking away from things such as building the border wall that his base quite clearly values.  

But such an extreme approach to his public pronouncements would also give Trump the best chance to bridge the current chasm between people who think he is doing a good job on the economy (a majority of the public) and people who approve of the job he is doing overall (43% in the latest CNN-SSRS poll).

That gap seems, quite clearly, the result of the fact that people simply do not like Trump and his overall approach — bragging, bullying etc. — to the job. What better way to make people focus on the part of the Trump presidency they do like (the economy) than by downplaying the part they don’t like (Trump personally)?

To be clear: This will NEVER happen. Trump is not capable of the sort of discipline it would require. And, even if he were, other issues would likely crop up that, as president, he and his advisers would feel compelled to address.

But, I propose it to make this point: Trump’s biggest hurdle to a second term is his personality and behavior in office.

The Point: A less divisive — and less abnormal — Republican president, with this same economic record through two-plus years of his term, would be sitting pretty for reelection. Trump, because he is Trump, isn’t.

Pubblicato in: Banche Centrali, Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Ministero del tesoro. Ad aprile surplus di 160.3 miliardi.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

201-05-13.

2019-05-13__America__Teesoro__001

Il Bureau of The Fiscal Service ha rilasciato il

Monthly Receipts, Outlays, and Deficit or Surplus, Fiscal Years 1981-2019:

Per il mese di aprile.

«The federal government recorded a $160.3 billion surplus in April as revenues for the month»

*

«But even with a flood of tax receipts, the deficit so far this year is running 37.7% higher than a year ago»

*

«The Treasury Department reported Friday that the deficit for the first seven months of the budget year that began Oct. 1 totals $530.9 billion, compared to a deficit of $385.5 billion for the same period a year ago»

*

«The Trump administration projected in March that this year’s deficit will hit $1.1 trillion, up from last year’s deficit of $779 billion»

*

«The administration is projecting the deficit will stay above $1 trillion for four straight years before starting to decline for the rest of the decade»

*

«The deficits have increased following congressional passage in December 2017 of a $1.5 trillion tax cut promoted by President Donald Trump as well as a boost last year in spending on domestic and military programs»

*

«The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the deficit this year will climb to $896 billion, smaller than the administration’s $1.1 trillion forecast»

*

«The new report showed that customs duties total $41 billion so far this year, up 82% from a year ago, a big increase that reflects the higher tariffs the Trump administration has imposed on China and other countries»

* * * * * * *

Solitamente ad aprile i conti americani registrano un surplus dovuto al versamento delle tasse.

Si resta piuttosto stupiti per il fatto che sia stato conseguito e per la sua entità.

Lo scorso anno infatti era stato varato un taglio delle tasse di circa 1,500 miliardi, per cui ci si sarebbe aspettati non tanto un surplus, quanto piuttosto un deficit, cosa invece che non è stata.

I soli dazi doganali ammontano a 41 miliardi, essendo aumentati dell’82%.


Bloomberg. 2019-05-13. U.S. Government Records $160.3 Billion April Surplus

The federal government recorded a $160.3 billion surplus in April as revenues for the month jumped to an all-time high. But even with a flood of tax receipts, the deficit so far this year is running 37.7% higher than a year ago.

The Treasury Department reported Friday that the deficit for the first seven months of the budget year that began Oct. 1 totals $530.9 billion, compared to a deficit of $385.5 billion for the same period a year ago.

The Trump administration projected in March that this year’s deficit will hit $1.1 trillion, up from last year’s deficit of $779 billion. The administration is projecting the deficit will stay above $1 trillion for four straight years before starting to decline for the rest of the decade.

The deficits have increased following congressional passage in December 2017 of a $1.5 trillion tax cut promoted by President Donald Trump as well as a boost last year in spending on domestic and military programs.

The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the deficit this year will climb to $896 billion, smaller than the administration’s $1.1 trillion forecast but still 15% higher than last year.

The CBO shows slightly smaller deficits in the short-term, projecting that they will remain below $1 trillion through 2021 but after that will top $1 trillion and will remain above the $1 trillion mark for the rest of the decade.

While the government runs deficits in most months, April has been a surplus month for 60 of the past 65 years, reflecting the flood of revenue that comes in with the annual deadline for individuals to pay tax bills.

This year’s surplus was down from a $214.3 billion surplus in April 2018. That primarily reflected calendar quirks which had shifted $45 billion in benefit payments into March last year because April 1 fell on a weekend.

The new report showed that customs duties total $41 billion so far this year, up 82% from a year ago, a big increase that reflects the higher tariffs the Trump administration has imposed on China and other countries. The duties on China increased again Friday with both sides unable to reach a deal to resolve a number of contentious trade issues.

So far this year, receipts are up 1.8 percent to $2 trillion while spending is up 7.6% to $2.57 trillion.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Stati Uniti, Trump

Gli ‘economisti’ liberal erano solo falsi profeti. – The New York Times.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-09.

Falsi Profeti 001

«The labor market the United States is experiencing right now wasn’t supposed to be possible»

*

Già. Tutti gli economisti liberal credevano a livello religioso che fosse impossibile. Le teorie che avevano elaborato indicavano il fatto impossibile.

Poi, nei loro conciliaboli si incensavano vicendevolmente, magari anche insignendosi del titolo di Premi Nobel per l’Economia.

I media liberal facevano il coro, inneggiando la immensa intelligenza degli economisti liberal, tappa ultima e perfetta di un’evoluzione arrivata al compimento, e quindi non ulteriormente evolvibile. Tutte le ecclesiazuse annuivano gravemente, pregustandosi il dolce banchetto finale.

Invece era più che possibile.

Sarebbe stato sufficiente che la gente si fosse letta, magari anche capendoli, Adam Smith oppure von Mises. Il dramma di questi grandi è che ben pochi li hanno letti ed ancor meno li hanno capiti. Mr Trump è una eccezione.

* * *

Il problema è semplice. Lo lasciamo esporre al The New York Times.

*

«Maybe using data from a few decades in the middle of the 20th century to set policy in the 21st isn’t such a good idea»

*

«The labor market the United States is experiencing right now wasn’t supposed to be possible»

*

«Not that long ago, the overwhelming consensus among economists would have been that you couldn’t have a 3.6 percent unemployment rate without also seeing the rate of job creation slowing (where are new workers going to come from with so few out of work, after all?) and having an inflation surge (a worker shortage should mean employers bidding up wages, right?)»

*

«After more than two years of the Trump administration, warnings that trade wars and erratic management style would throw the economy off course have proved wrong so far, and tax cuts and deregulation are most likely part of the reason for the strong growth rates in 2018 and the beginning of 2019 (though most forecasts envision a slowing in the coming quarters as the impact of tax cuts fades).»

*

«The last few years have made it clear that the Phillips curve — the relationship between unemployment and inflation — has either changed shape or become irrelevant.»

*

«The breakdown of the old guidelines suggests that policymakers need to avoid overreliance on them, and to stay broad-minded to the full range of economic possibilities. Maybe using data from a few decades in the middle of the 20th century to set policy in the 21st isn’t actually a good idea.»

*

«The results of the last few years make you wonder whether we’ve been too pessimistic about just how hot the United States economy can run without inflation or other negative effects.»

* * * * * * * *

«The continued boom in the American job market suggests that economic policymakers need to be open-minded about when the old relationships and rules of thumb no longer apply»

*

Non molto tempo fa, il consenso schiacciante tra gli economisti sarebbe stato che non si sarebbe potuto avere un tasso di disoccupazione del 3,6% senza vedere in rallentamento anche il tasso di creazione di posti di lavoro (da dove arriveranno i nuovi lavoratori con così pochi disoccupati, dopo tutto?) e con un aumento dell’inflazione (una carenza di lavoratori dovrebbe significare che i datori di lavoro offrono salari più alti, giusto?).

Dopo più di due anni di amministrazione Trump, gli avvertimenti che le guerre commerciali e lo stile di gestione erratico avrebbero fatto fallire l’economia si sono rivelati finora sbagliati, e i tagli fiscali e la deregolamentazione sono probabilmente parte della ragione dei forti tassi di crescita nel 2018 e all’inizio del 2019.

Questi fatti, che sono sotto il naso di tutti, porterebbero alla conclusone che i politici economici dovrebbero essere di mentalità ben più aperta quando i vecchi rapporti e le regole empiriche non siano più applicabili. Le toerie obsolete dovrebbero essere collocate nel cestino.

Su questi fatti su riportati si infrangono letteralmente tutte le teorie fatte dagli economisti liberal. Tolto un tassello, crolla tutta la strutura che su di esso era fondata.

Ma il dramma nel dramma è costituito dal fatto che i liberal considerano ciò che avrebbe dovuto essere considerato una mera teoria come un credo religioso: chi lo accetta è un credente e chi lo mettesse anche solo in dubbio sarebbe un eretico da bruciare sul fuoco. Nessuno condanna i liberal per aver tentato teorie errate: ma la condanna è priva di appello perché le avevamo consoderate essere vere.

Il vero errore consta nella assolutizzazione.

Di nuovo, nei fatti, gli economisti liberal non hanno mai azzeccato una previsione, nemmeno per sbaglio. Le teorie che non sanno prevedere cono false per definizione.

Hanno solo fatto dilapidare migliaia di miliardi per nulla.

Nota.

Il The New York Times è il tempio dei liberal democratici. Tutti gli intellettuali di sinistra si abbeverano a quanto propala, e poi lo ripetono come dischi inceppati. Ma la realtà dei fatti li corrode alla base e li fa crollare come castelli di carte. Questa autocritica ricorda ben da vicino quelle che erano state fatte nella ex Unione Sovietica, che almeno però spediva in Siberia con un biglietto di sola andata gente come gli ‘economisti’ liberal. Non ne hanno azzeccato una che fosse una, nemmeno per sbaglio.


The New York Times. 2019-05-04. The Economy That Wasn’t Supposed to Happen: Booming Jobs, Low Inflation

Maybe using data from a few decades in the middle of the 20th century to set policy in the 21st isn’t such a good idea.

*

The labor market the United States is experiencing right now wasn’t supposed to be possible.

Not that long ago, the overwhelming consensus among economists would have been that you couldn’t have a 3.6 percent unemployment rate without also seeing the rate of job creation slowing (where are new workers going to come from with so few out of work, after all?) and having an inflation surge (a worker shortage should mean employers bidding up wages, right?).

And yet that is what has happened, with the April employment numbers putting an exclamation point on the trend. The jobless rate receded to its lowest level in five decades. Employers also added 263,000 jobs; the job creation estimates of previous months were revised up; and average hourly earnings continued to rise at a steady rate — up 3.2 percent over the last year.

Compare that reality with the projections the Federal Reserve published just three years ago. In mid-2016, Fed officials thought that the long-run rate of unemployment would be around 4.8 percent, and that this would coincide with 2 percent inflation.

If that were the jobless rate today, 1.9 million Americans would not be working who are instead gainfully employed. And despite this ultralow unemployment rate, inflation is only 1.6 percent over the last year, below the level the Fed aims for.

Because this is 2019 and everything immediately devolves into partisan warfare, these good results are immediately seized upon by Trump partisans who view the good news as a result of the president’s policies, and by opponents who give credit to the already-improving economy that President Obama handed over in January 2017.

There is truth in both. The job market had already been improving for years when President Trump took office, and its performance since then has been more continuation of the trend than an abrupt upturn.

After more than two years of the Trump administration, warnings that trade wars and erratic management style would throw the economy off course have proved wrong so far, and tax cuts and deregulation are most likely part of the reason for the strong growth rates in 2018 and the beginning of 2019 (though most forecasts envision a slowing in the coming quarters as the impact of tax cuts fades).

In particular, it now appears that recession fears that emerged at the end of 2018 were misguided — especially once the Fed backed off its campaign of rate increases at the start of 2019.

But beyond the assigning of credit or blame, there’s a bigger lesson in the job market’s remarkably strong performance: about the limits of knowledge when it comes to something as complex as the $20 trillion U.S. economy.

The last few years have made it clear that the Phillips curve — the relationship between unemployment and inflation — has either changed shape or become irrelevant.

The breakdown of the old guidelines suggests that policymakers need to avoid overreliance on them, and to stay broad-minded to the full range of economic possibilities. Maybe using data from a few decades in the middle of the 20th century to set policy in the 21st isn’t actually a good idea.

The results of the last few years make you wonder whether we’ve been too pessimistic about just how hot the United States economy can run without inflation or other negative effects.

There are even early signs that the tight labor market may be contributing to, or at least coinciding with, a surge in worker productivity, which if sustained would fuel higher wages and living standards over time. That further supports the case for the Fed and other policymakers to let the expansion rip rather than trying to hold it back.

It’s tough setting economic policy. To make decisions, you have to create a forecast, and there’s a reason these forecasts tend to be based on historical experience.

But the last 20 years have been a wrenching period for the world economy, with all sorts of forces that have reshaped fundamentals: globalization, demographic shifts, technological changes and much more.

The continued boom in the American job market suggests that economic policymakers need to be open-minded about when the old relationships and rules of thumb no longer apply.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Cnn. Il declino dei media liberal. ‘Down 41 percent’

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-03.

Cnn_whitewashing_bahrain_dictatorship

I media statunitensi negli ultimi due anni e mezzo hanno svolto una martellante campagna contro la Presidenza Trump.

Ogni giorno che la sorte mandava, decine e decine di articoli ne narravano le presunte malefatte, il presunto malgoverno, la sua avversione alla visione lgbt del mondo, all’immigrazione clandestina illegale, e così via. Lo avevano persino definito omofobo, il peggiore dei peggiori insulti nel loro linguaggio politicamente corretto.

Per questi due anni e mezzo hanno accusato Mr Trump di collusioni con la Russia, senza poi riuscire a trovare uno straccetto di prova piccolo piccolo.

Il buon Voltaire diceva: “calunniate, calunniate, calunniate: qualcosa resterà sempre“.

Ma nonostante tutto questo sforzo a midterm Mr Trump ha financo migliorato il numero dei seggi nel senato ed i repubblicani hanno retto più che bene nelle competizioni per il governo degli stati.

*

Questo overkilling mediatico si è rivelato alla fine controproducente: la gente legge sempre meno i media liberal democratici, che sono quasi oramai letti solo nelle enclavi liberal, tra gli adepti. Sono diventate testate autoreferenziali.

La Cnn ha visto contrasi l’audience perdendo quote sempre più severe nel corso di questo tempo.

CNN. Declino irrefrenabile. Primetime -23%, demo -29%. [2018-05-15]

A concorre al crollo è stato il vezzo di proporre notizie vistosamente false, fatto questo che ha irritato non poco i lettori in fuga.

Cnn. Crollo dell’audience dopo la pubblicazione di troppe fake news.

Trump. Cnn licenzia in tronco Mrs Kathy Griffin. Non serve più.

Trump. CNN, NYT ed AP ammettono di aver riportato artatamente notizie false su Mr Trump.

3 CNN Journalists Resign After Retracted Story on Trump Ally [The New York Times]

Ratings Collapse: CNN Now Losing To Nick-At-Nite In Prime Time Ratings War

Cnn. 21° Fake News. Cnn ha alterato uno scritto di Abraham Lincoln.

Scontro con Cnn, Trump revoca accredito al corrispondente Acosta

*

Si direbbe che la Cnn sia incapace di imparare qualcosa dai propri errori.

«CNN’s prime time hosts can only hope it will be better in the new building»

*

«CNN’s total audience in prime time was well under a million viewers–767,000–while competitors MSNBC and Fox News finished the month far ahead: MSNBC in second place overall with 1.660 million total viewers, and Fox News leading all of cable with a total audience of 2.395 million»

*

«April ranks as CNN’s lowest-rated month among total viewers in nearly four years, since October 2015»

*

«CNN’s Cuomo Primetime, which has been the network’s highest-rated hour, drew a total audience of 917,000 viewers in April, the show’s worst-ever performance.»

*

«the falloff for CNN was even more stark: down 41 percent»

*

«Among prime time cable news shows, Fox News’ Hannity led with a total audience of 3.086 million, followed by FNC’s Tucker Carlson Tonight (2.834 million) and MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show (2.630 million).»

* * * * * * * *

Ma i problemi non vengono mai da soli.

Al calo dell’audience si associa una minore penetrazione delle inserzioni pubblicitarie, e gli inserzionisti stanno reclamando una diminuzione delle tariffe, pena la cessazione del rapporto.

*


Forbes. 2019-05-01. CNN Drops 26% In Prime Time As Fox News Dominates April Cable Ratings

CNN’s prime time hosts can only hope it will be better in the new building.

As CNN prepares to move its prime time studios and operations to a glitzy new building at New York City’s brand new–and widely reviled–Hudson Yards development, the network saw its prime time lineup drop 26% in April compared to the same month one year ago. CNN’s total audience in prime time was well under a million viewers–767,000–while competitors MSNBC and Fox News finished the month far ahead: MSNBC in second place overall with 1.660 million total viewers, and Fox News leading all of cable with a total audience of 2.395 million.

April ranks as CNN’s lowest-rated month among total viewers in nearly four years, since October 2015. CNN’s Cuomo Primetime, which has been the network’s highest-rated hour, drew a total audience of 917,000 viewers in April, the show’s worst-ever performance.

Among viewers 25-54, the demographic most coveted by national advertisers, the falloff for CNN was even more stark: down 41 percent. CNN drew 198,000 viewers in the demo, behind MSNBC (255,000) and Fox News (389,000). All three networks saw year-over-year declines in April, with MSNBC down 36% and FNC down 19%.

Among prime time cable news shows, Fox News’ Hannity led with a total audience of 3.086 million, followed by FNC’s Tucker Carlson Tonight (2.834 million) and MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show (2.630 million). None of CNN’s prime time hours finished among the top five shows overall. CNN’s top-rated hour, Cuomo Primetime, finished in 26th place.

For Fox, the ratings data released Tuesday by Nielsen put the network into a staggering unbeaten streak as the most-watched cable news network in prime time and total day, at 208 consecutive months.

Pubblicato in: Economia e Produzione Industriale, Stati Uniti, Trump

USA. Primo Trimestre. Pil cresce del +3.2%.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-04-27.

White House Gatto 001

«During the three-month period from January to March, the GDP rose at a 3.2 percent annualized rate, beating most analysts’ expectations of 2.5 percent»

*

«It also bested GDPNow, a real-time tracker monitored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, which lowered its forecast to 2.7 percent this week because of weakness in existing-home sales and a drop in residential investment growth»

*

«But despite the better-than-expected figure, some analysts suggested the U.S. economy will still decelerate in 2019 and 2020»

* * * * * * *

Per comparazione, l’eurozona nel primo trimestre evidenzia una variazione del pil dello +0.2%.

A questo punto dovrebbe sorgere spontanea la domanda del perché mai il sistema economico americano cresca più che bene mentre quello dell’eurozona stia stagnando.

Cercare di capire perché gli altri facciano meglio di noi, e cercare quindi di imitarli, sembrerebbe essere un ragionamento di buon senso.


Fox Business. 2019-04-26. US economic growth rebounds at 3.2 percent pace in first quarter

The U.S. economy grew more quickly than most economists expected during the first quarter of 2019, according to data released Friday by the Commerce Department.

During the three-month period from January to March, the GDP rose at a 3.2 percent annualized rate, beating most analysts’ expectations of 2.5 percent.

It also bested GDPNow, a real-time tracker monitored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, which lowered its forecast to 2.7 percent this week because of weakness in existing-home sales and a drop in residential investment growth.

The economy largely shook off the effects of a five-week long government shutdown — the longest in U.S. history — that White House officials once warned could result in near-zero growth. The standoff was a result of a feud between President Trump and Democratic congressional leaders over funding for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Disposable income rose $116 billion, or 3 percent, in the first quarter. Overall prices 0.8 percent.

Investors were closely watching the report’s release for signs to dismiss fears of an impending economic recession. Stocks rose on the better-than-expected results in pre-market trading.

We started 2019 with fears that the longest government shutdown in history, along with a softening global growth outlook, would weigh on economic activity in the first quarter,” Michael Reynolds, an investment strategy officer at Glenmede said. “3.2 percent growth is a solid result, suggesting this long, late-stage expansion may be more resilient than feared.

But despite the better-than-expected figure, some analysts suggested the U.S. economy will still decelerate in 2019 and 2020. Although inventories were high — boosting the growth number — Agathe Demarais, the global forecasting director at the Economist Intelligence Unit, said it’s likely to become a drag on growth soon.

Demarais estimated that growth in 2019 will stand at 2.2 percent — a sharp fall from 2.9 percent in 2018. She attributed part of that to the effects of global trade tensions. In 2020, she said growth is expected to fall to 1.7 percent amid softening consumer demand and a less supportive external environment.

“Against this backdrop, we expect the Federal Reserve to hold interest rates stable this year before cutting rates by 50 basis points in 2020,” she said. “This path for monetary policy will cushion growth in 2019 to 2020 and help to guard against a sharper downturn in US economic conditions.”

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Goldman lo prognostica rieletto.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-04-18.

2019-04-16__Goldman__001

«Incumbency and state of economy help Trump’s chances»

*

«Trump ‘more likely to win’ than lose second term, says Goldman»

*

«Incumbent presidents carry a 5 to 6 percentage-point edge over rival candidates in the popular vote and Goldman Sachs’s economic forecast also leans in favor of Trump»

*

«The advantage of first term incumbency and the relatively strong economic performance ahead of the presidential election suggest that President Trump is more likely to win a second term than the eventual Democratic candidate is to defeat him»

* * * * * * *

Da oggi al novembre 2020 passa un anno a mezzo:troppo per poter fare una stima accurata.

Tuttavia sarebbe vero che il Presidente in carica sia favorito per un eventuale rinnovo, specie poi se la situazione economica fosse buona: bassa disoccupazione e bassi costi degli energetici, benzina e gasolio in primis.

A nostro personale parere malto farà l’avversario che uscirà dalla convention democratica.

Resta difficile pensare che Mr Trump abbia la fortuna di ritrovarsi un avversario quale fu Mrs Clinton, tutta tesa a temi comportamentali con scarso interesse all politica economica interna.


Bloomberg. 2019-04-14. Goldman Economists Say Trump Re-Election More Likely Than Not

– Incumbency and state of economy help Trump’s chances

– Trump ‘more likely to win’ than lose second term, says Goldman

*


President Donald Trump enjoys a “narrow advantage” over rival candidates heading into the 2020 election given the outlook for the U.S. economy, according to analysts at Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Incumbent presidents carry a 5 to 6 percentage-point edge over rival candidates in the popular vote and Goldman Sachs’s economic forecast also leans in favor of Trump, although that is partly offset by his negative approval rating, economists Alec Phillips and Blake Taylor wrote in a report released late on Saturday.

“The advantage of first term incumbency and the relatively strong economic performance ahead of the presidential election suggest that President Trump is more likely to win a second term than the eventual Democratic candidate is to defeat him,” said Phillips and Blake.

Goldman Sachs currently predicts the U.S. economy will grow 2.5 percent this year and 2.3 percent in 2020, a pace that will be enough to push unemployment down to 3.3 percent next year from 3.7 percent this year.

Historically, Phillips and Taylor found variables such as employment and income are better indicators of an election result than market-based forces such as equity or oil prices. The performance of the economy in the second quarter of the election year is often a strong guide to the result, they said.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti, Trump

Corte Appello del 9th Circuit sentenzia costituzionale l’operato di Mr Trump.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-04-16.

Pollo allo Spiedo

In America è in corso una guerra civile che si combatte all’ultimo sangue.

Il terreno di scontro è la composizione delle Corti Federali di Appello, i giudici delle quali sono di nomina presidenziale ma devono essere approvate dal senato, con diverse modalità a seconda del grado. Al momento attuale, gran parte di queste Corti è composta da giudici liberal democratici, ed emette sentenze di conseguenza.

Questo potere giudiziario ha la potestà di annullare le decisioni presidenziali, anche se in via transitoria, perché poi la Corte Suprema ristabilisce lo stato di diritto. Ma quanto sia interesse di Mr Trump di prendere il controllo delle Corti Federali è fuori discussione: è semplicemente evidente.

Mr Trump ha avviato un lavoro sottile ma deciso di nomine di giudici, per riequilibrare la situazione. È già riuscito a far nominare Sua Giustizia Gorsuch e Sua Giustizia Kavanaugh nella Corte Suprema, ed ha già ribaltato la composizione della Corte di Appello del 3th Circuit. Il lavoro prosegue operoso anche nei confronti del 9th Circuit, ove i liberal democratici avevano una schiacciante maggioranza.

White House plans to send 50 judicial nominees to new Congress

White House names 3 nominees for 9th Circuit after conservative attacks

«After a day of attacks from commentators on the right, the White House announced Wednesday night that it planned to nominate three judges for the California seats on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

The left-leaning 9th Circuit has been a frequent target of President Donald Trump, but when the White House last week announced its plans to renominate dozens of judges who had not received a hearing during the last Congress, those who had been previously nominated for the 9th Circuit weren’t on the list.»

*

White House nominations to 9th Circuit set off firestorm

«While President Donald Trump has had unprecedented success in reshaping the judiciary by placing two justices on the Supreme Court and a record breaking 29 judges on federal appeals courts, he believes he has been stymied by what he considers the liberal bent of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. It’s a powerful court headquartered in San Francisco that has jurisdiction over nine West Coast states and two territories. ….

….

Now the President is taking the gloves off, hoping to eventually flip that court.»

* * *

In una sintesi supersemplificata, Mr Trump sta sia nominando ai posti vacanti nel 9th Circuit dei giudici repubblicani, sia sta tentando un colpo che, se riuscisse, sarebbe magistrale.

«the White House last week announced its plans to renominate dozens of judges who had not received a hearing during the last Congress»

A soldoni: i giudici nominati dalla pregressa Amministrazione Obama senza audizione in Senato potrebbero essere rimpiazzati.

* * * * * * *

I giudici liberal democratici del 9th Circuit stanno sentendo già le mani di Mr Trump attorno alla loro gola.

Se Mr Trump riuscisse nel suo piano, l’intero sistema delle Corti di Appello Federale finirebbe in mano ai repubblicani, che si assicurerebbero il governo per molte decine di anni.

Il coltello alla gola, ed in mano ad uno che lo sa usare, ha determinato un ribaltone insperato ed insperabile nei Giudici del 9th Circuit.

*


Il The New York Times ha tenuto questa notizia in evidenza per ventitre minuti, poi la ha rimossa disperdendola nell’ambiente.

«A federal appeals court said Friday that the Trump administration could temporarily continue to force migrants seeking asylum in the United States to wait in Mexico while their cases are decided.»

*

«A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a stay of a lower-court ruling four days earlier that blocked the administration’s protocol. The appeals court will consider next week whether to extend that stay — and allow the Trump administration policy to remain in effect for longer.»

*

«The administration in December announced its new policy, called the migration protection protocols, arguing that it would help stop people from using the asylum process to enter the country and remain there illegally. President Trump has long been angered by so-called catch and release policies, under which asylum seekers are temporarily allowed in the United States while they wait for their court hearings»

*

«On Monday, Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an injunction against Mr. Trump’s new protocols, saying that the president did not have the power to enforce them and that they violated immigration laws»

*

«Judge Seeborg said in his ruling that the protocols did not include “sufficient safeguards” to comply with the Department of Homeland Security’s obligation against returning migrants to places where their “life or freedom would be threatened.” …. On Friday, as Judge Seeborg’s injunction was set to go into effect, a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit issued the temporary stay»

*

«In a tweet late Friday night, President Trump wrote: “Finally, great news at the Border!” He has previously criticized the Ninth Circuit, which is based in San Francisco, saying that the court always ruled against him. While that is not always true, the administration’s track record in the circuit has been poor.»

* * * * * * *

«The 9th Circuit Court has been a frequent target for Trump’s criticisms of the judicial system, which has blocked his immigration policies on numerous occasions» [Reuters]

*

La maggioranza dei giudici della Corte di Appello del Nono Circuito sono in grande maggioranza liberal democratici. La cosa non sarebbe fastidio a nessuno se codesti giudici non fossero prima liberal democratici e dopo, solo dopo, anche giudici che applicano le leggi in ossequio alla Costituzione.

«At the end of 2016, the court was authorized 29 judgeships, with four of those seats vacant. Of those 25, 18 were appointees of Democratic presidents and seven were appointees of Republicans. Currently, there are six vacancies. Sixteen judges are appointees of Democratic presidents and seven are appointees of Republican presidents.»

Come correttamente fa notare Reuters:

«The 9th Circuit Court has been a frequent target for Trump’s criticisms of the judicial system, which has blocked his immigration policies on numerous occasions»

Quando poi la causa è portata davanti la Suprema Corte, invariabilmente, con deprimente regolarità, l’augusto consesso annulla la sentenza emessa dai giudici del Nono Circuito.

Ma sono passati dei mesi di blocco dell’attività governativa, e tutti i media controllati dai liberal democratici sbandierano quella sentenza come se fosse definitiva.

Se è vero che la politica non dovrebbe interferire con i procedimenti giudiziari, sarebbe altrettanto vero constatare che i poteri giudiziari non dovrebbero interferire con la politica. Nel caso in oggetto, bloccare in tutta la Unione gli atti governativi dell’Amministrazione Trump con argomenti così speciosi da lasciare perplessi anche gli studenti di una scuola di giurisprudenza (sono parole della Suprema Corte).

* * * * * * *

Adesso le cose sembrerebbero essere cambiate.

Judge Seeborg aveva emesso una sentenza che pareva un manifesto politico, privo di un ubi consistat giuridico: si era allargato fin troppo. Fino al punto che persino la Corte di Appello Federale del Nono Circuito ha rigettato quella sentenza emessa. E si pensi che il tutto si è consumato in meno di una settimana ….


The New York Times. 2019-04-13. Rule Keeping Asylum Seekers in Mexico Can Temporarily Proceed, Court Says

Migrants seeking asylum at the United States’ southwestern border have to stay in Mexico while their asylum cases are decided, under a Trump administration policy that was temporarily allowed to remain in effect Friday.

*

A federal appeals court said Friday that the Trump administration could temporarily continue to force migrants seeking asylum in the United States to wait in Mexico while their cases are decided.

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a stay of a lower-court ruling four days earlier that blocked the administration’s protocol. The appeals court will consider next week whether to extend that stay — and allow the Trump administration policy to remain in effect for longer.

The administration in December announced its new policy, called the migration protection protocols, arguing that it would help stop people from using the asylum process to enter the country and remain there illegally. President Trump has long been angered by so-called catch and release policies, under which asylum seekers are temporarily allowed in the United States while they wait for their court hearings.

On Monday, Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an injunction against Mr. Trump’s new protocols, saying that the president did not have the power to enforce them and that they violated immigration laws.

Judge Seeborg said in his ruling that the protocols did not include “sufficient safeguards” to comply with the Department of Homeland Security’s obligation against returning migrants to places where their “life or freedom would be threatened.”

On Friday, as Judge Seeborg’s injunction was set to go into effect, a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit issued the temporary stay.

In a tweet late Friday night, President Trump wrote: “Finally, great news at the Border!” He has previously criticized the Ninth Circuit, which is based in San Francisco, saying that the court always ruled against him. While that is not always true, the administration’s track record in the circuit has been poor.

The Justice Department, which appealed Judge Seeborg’s decision, argued that the injunction would “impose immediate, substantial harm on the United States, including by diminishing the executive branch’s ability to work effectively with Mexico to manage the crisis on our shared border.”

The Ninth Circuit will consider next week whether to keep the stay — and Mr. Trump’s protocols — in place during the appeal.

Judy Rabinovitz, the deputy director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case, said she expected that decision to come next week.

“The question will be, can the government continue to implement the policy while it appeals it to the Ninth Circuit,” she said. “Obviously, we don’t think it should be able to.”

She called the policy unlawful and cruel.

“We think it should be stopped,” she said.

Lawyers for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The appeals court’s decision comes as the nation’s immigration system may have reached a breaking point as migrants increasingly arrive at the country’s southwestern border with Mexico.

The flow of migrant families has reached record levels, with February totals 560 percent above those for the same period last year. Many are seeking asylum, in which they have the burden to show evidence of past persecution or testimony that establishes the “well-founded” fear that they would face danger if they return home.

The Trump administration’s migration protection protocols were an attempt to deter migrants. Mexico’s government reluctantly agreed to house the migrants in December.

*


The New York Times. 2018-12-20. U.S. Will Send Migrants Back to Mexico as They Wait on Asylum Claims

The Trump administration announced a new migration policy Thursday that will require asylum seekers who cross the Mexican border illegally to return to Mexico while their cases are decided.

The United States has been trying for months to get Mexico’s leaders to agree to house those migrants, and on Thursday Mexico’s new government reluctantly agreed.

The American secretary of homeland security, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, said the move would prevent people from using the asylum process as a way of slipping into the United States and remaining in the country illegally.

“Today we are announcing historic measures to bring the illegal immigration crisis under control,” she said. “Aliens trying to game the system to get into our country illegally will no longer be able to disappear into the United States, where many skip their court dates.”

In a statement, she said, “‘Catch and release’ will be replaced with ‘catch and return.’”

The new policy, announced as the president and Congress were at odds over funding for a border wall, amounts to the boldest effort yet by the Trump administration to discourage people from seeking refuge in the United States. It follows a series of other curbs that had been introduced, including the separation of migrant families, which was later reversed in an executive order after a public outcry.

The migrant issue has put considerable pressure on the United States’ relationship with Mexico as Trump administration restrictions have left thousands of asylum seekers stranded in Mexican border towns, overwhelming local shelters and resources.

The new policy would also alleviate pressure on American border agents, who for months have argued that they are overwhelmed by the record-breaking number of migrant families seeking asylum.

Mexican officials say they were told of the latest American decision on Thursday morning in letters from the Department of Homeland Security and the United States chargé d’affaires in Mexico, John S. Creamer. The letters stated that the returns would begin immediately under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Mexican Foreign Ministry has essentially agreed to accept the decision by the United States, and will be forced to house thousands of people from other countries, particularly from Central America, as they await their asylum decisions.

A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Roberto Velasco, said the move did not represent an agreement between the two countries, but rather “a unilateral move by the United States that we have to respond to.”

Mr. Velasco said the rules would apply only to new asylum applicants, not to individuals who have already entered the United States with processes underway. The United States did not initially make clear if the policy applied only to new applicants.

The administration’s move is a sharp departure from decades of American asylum practice, according to legal experts and advocates. The United States has long accepted individuals from across the world fleeing harm or persecution in their home countries.

The program is almost certain to be challenged in the United States courts by human rights groups and advocates. Many have already claimed that sending persecuted individuals to Mexico, one of the most violent countries in the world, places them in harm’s way.

“This deal is a stark violation of international law, flies in the face of U.S. laws passed by Congress, and is a callous response to the families and individuals running for their lives,” said Margaret Huang, the executive director of Amnesty International.

While the individuals would be allowed to return to the United States for court hearings, they would remain in Mexico under a humanitarian visa until their process is completed.

Mexico’s decision to accept the asylum seekers is likely to be seen as a capitulation by the new government to President Trump, who proclaimed over Twitter two weeks ago that Mexico would house asylum applicants to the United States on its soil.

The decision to turn Mexico into a waiting room for migrants seeking entry to the United States is likely to stir anger in Mexico.

Mexico has found itself in the center of Mr. Trump’s ire over migration policy, with the American president lambasting the country for not doing enough to inhibit the passage of Central Americans and others through its territory.

But while Mr. Trump has proposed building walls along the border, Mexico’s new president. Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has taken a different approach.

He and his foreign minister announced a new development plan for southern Mexico and Central America that would require some $30 billion in aid to address the root causes of the migration.

This week, the United States applauded the proposal, and promised to work with the Mexicans to realize that plan with more than $5 billion. But that money did not reflect a new commitment of funds — for the most part, the United States government was already spending it in the region.

“This is total capitulation in exchange for the fig leaf of a nonexistent development plan with no financial commitments by the U.S. and no timetable,” said Jorge Castañeda, a former Mexican foreign minister.

Shelters for asylum seekers in Mexico have already been overwhelmed by people who would previously have been quickly processed into the United States, but now have to wait weeks or months to be allowed in under curbs put in place by the Trump administration.

As with many of the administration’s harshest immigration plans that have been introduced with little notice, it was unclear on Thursday how exactly the new policy would be carried out.

A senior Department of Homeland Security official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that the announcement on Thursday came as a surprise to many people in the agency’s leadership, as well as the rank and file who would be charged with carrying it out.