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

Trump. La Marea Blu potrebbe non vedersi. – The New York Times.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-10-21.

2018-10-18__Trump__001

«An apparent drastic shift toward the Republican candidate highlights the challenges of polling generally, and of polling in certain states particularly.»

*

In a Crucial Pennsylvania District, Gun Policy Reigns Supreme. Oct. 10, 2018

As Suburban Women Turn to Democrats, Many Suburban Men Stand With Trump. Oct. 13, 2018

Republicans Abandon Vulnerable Lawmakers, Striving to Keep House. Oct. 11, 2018

In Deeply Blue New Jersey, an Unexpected Battle for Senate. Aug. 5, 2018.

*

Negli ultimi due anni i liberal democratici hanno a lungo sbandierato il concetto che a midterm si sarebbe vista la Marea Blu. Stando agli annunci, i democratici avrebbero vinto il 90% dei seggi alla Camera e quasi tutti i seggi del Senato messi in palio. Per quanto riguarda i Governatori, ne avrebbero conquistato i quattro quinti.

Insomma, un cappotto completo.

Subito dopo dovrebbe prender luogo l’impeachment per il Presidente Trump e quello per Sua Giustizia Mr Kavanaugh.

*

Con il tempo le previsioni elettorali hanno smorzato in modo sostanziale i toni: vittoria sicuramente sì, ma non certo ai livelli prima proclamati.

Adesso iniziano a comparire anche dei dubbiosi, che prospetterebbero un Senato con 52 – 54 senatori repubblicani.

Insomma: si iniziano a vedere previsioni ragionevoli.

*

L’articolo comparso sul The New York Times apparirebbe essere ancor più cauto. L’ottavo distretto del Minnesota, un feudo democratico, sembrerebbe essere transitato ai repubblicani.

Articolo scritto molto cautamente, ma significativo.


The New York Times. 2018-10-16. Did Minnesota’s Eighth District Really Swing by Almost 20 Points?

Minnesota’s Eighth District is one of a handful of Democratic-held House seats where Republicans have a realistic shot to win in the midterms in three weeks. The incumbent, Rick Nolan, is retiring, and he won by only one percentage point in 2016 in a district President Trump carried by 15.

When we polled this district in September, we found the Democratic candidate, Joe Radinovich, up by one point. Now, we have the Republican, Pete Stauber, up by 15.

The underlying numbers have changed a lot, too. Last time, voters disapproved of Mr. Trump by one point. Now they approve by 18. Last time, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by two percentage points; now Republicans outnumber Democrats by 10.

Is the shift real? Probably not entirely. But there’s probably more truth to it than a lot of Democrats criticizing the poll want to admit.

It’s a case that highlights the challenge of polling in general, and the particular challenges of polling in some states.

The case for a phantom shift

Minnesota is a tough state for pollsters because its voter file, a data set of every registered voter in the state, doesn’t contain information on partisanship, like party registration or whether people voted in Democratic or Republican primaries.

In contrast with most states, we can’t adjust to make sure we have the right number of registered Democrats or Republicans.

Based on all of the other polls we’ve done, we can say with some confidence that the ability to control the number of registered Democrats and Republicans in a poll is a very important factor in results.

Response rates are extremely low nowadays, and our samples, at 500 per poll, are pretty small. Some of our poll results would have been 10 points different without the ability to weight by party registration or primary vote history, and occasionally even more than 10 points different. (Weighting means giving more weight to respondents from an underrepresented group to ensure the sample reflects the demographic profile of likely voters.) In almost all of these cases, it’s Democrats who have been overrepresented, not Republicans.

Based on that, and as we wrote at the time, we decided in September to largely avoid districts without party registration or primary vote history, including some places we’d really like to poll, like Montana or Minnesota’s First and Seventh Districts. For the same reason, we also considered not re-polling Minnesota’s Eighth.

It would be foolish to rule out the possibility that this poll result would have been 10 points different if we could have weighted by party registration, given that we know it has had that kind of effect in other districts. One could find additional evidence for this case by looking at President Trump’s approval rating and the party identification of the poll, two measures that lurched far to the right even though we don’t have much reason to believe that either ought to have moved so far.

It should be noted that this problem isn’t limited to us. A lot of pollsters going without party registration will occasionally get weird results like this. To compensate, some try to weight to party identification — whether people consider themselves Democrats or Republicans.

The challenge of weighting by party identification is that it’s hard to know the “real” party identification. That’s especially true in a congressional district where we’ve done only one poll before (typically, a firm weighting by party identification will choose to weight to the average result over several previous polls of the same area).

If we had weighted to the party identification from our September poll (in which we had Democrats outnumbering Republicans by two percentage points) or the average of the two polls (R+4), the results in this survey would indeed have moved to the left.

Mr. Stauber would have led by nine points if we had weighted to the average party identification of the two polls together. He would have led by four points if we had weighted to the party identification from September.

Either of those results could be a more accurate reflection of the race. But I would note that Mr. Stauber leads in all of these hypothetical situations. There are some reasons that shouldn’t be too surprising.

The case for a real shift

I would guess that response bias — the possibility that Republicans were likelier to respond — plays a pretty meaningful role in moving this result. But there are at least three reasons to think there’s more driving the shift than that.

One factor is that we are now naming third-party candidates in the final stretch, and the Independence candidate, Skip Sandman, has 4 percent of the vote. Mr. Sandman, who has previously attracted 4 percent of the vote here as a Green Party candidate, almost exclusively wins voters who disapprove of President Trump, and voters who live in the Duluth area, which leans heavily Democratic.

Another factor: There has been a lot of campaigning since early September, and this is one of the few districts where Republicans are airing more advertisements than Democrats. Republicans are believed to be favored in basically all of the other contests where they are broadcasting more advertisements.

Third, there’s evidence of improved Republican standing in conservative areas since early September, including in the nearby North Dakota Senate race. If there’s a broad trend toward greater polarization of the electorate along the lines of the presidential election, that might be particularly helpful to Republicans in a conservative area where Mr. Trump won by 15 points. And while Democrats do often win here, it is worth noting that this is a socially conservative area that opposed same-sex marriage by a wide margin in 2012. The Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination fight may be helping Republicans here, too.

Put it all together, and the change from one poll to another is probably a combination of a real shift and of the challenge of polling in a state like Minnesota, without party registration or primary vote history.

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

Germania. Il ‘popolo bue’ in rivolta. Più che bue sembrerebbe essere un toro.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-09-30.

2018-09-30__Germania__001

Il mese di ottobre che inizia domani sarà cruciale per i destini dell’Occidente.

Negli Stati Uniti stiamo assistendo alle ultime battute sulla nomina di Sua Giustizia Kavanaugh a membro a vita della Suprema Corte: nel caso che, dopo aver approvato la nomina in sede di Commissione Giustizia, il Senato la confermasse con la votazione in aula, per circa trenta anni questa Corta sarebbe a maggioranza repubblicana. Questo evento segnerebbe l’inizio di una fine certa dell’ideologia libera a socialista negli Stati Uniti.

Se poi, come potrebbe essere, il Presidente Trump alle elezioni di midterm, che si terranno ai primi di novembre, conservasse la maggioranza in Senato, avrebbe il via libera alla nomina di 19 giudici nelle corti di appello federali. Tranne due circuiti giudiziari, tutto il sistema dei giudici americani avrebbe matrice culturale repubblicana.

A questo punto, se anche i liberal democratici assassinassero con efferatezza Mr Trump, per più di una generazione il sistema dei giudici statunitensi governerebbe esattamente come se Mr Trump fosse ancora presente ed attivo.

Nessuno intende sovra enfatizzare quanto potrebbe accadere, ma nei fatti è Harmageddon: la battaglia finale.

Liberal e socialisti hanno sempre disprezzato quel ‘popolo bue‘ dal quale si aspettavano di essere sempre votati, essendo essi gli illuminati, le guide naturali dei popoli.

Non hanno voluto prestargli l’orecchio: nessun problema, i Cittadini Elettori adesso li stanno cacciando via a pedate. La società civile è costituita dai Cittadini Elettori, non dagli iscritti alle ngo.

*

Ma ad ottobre si terranno anche le elezioni regionali e provinciali in Italia, ed anche in questa nazione sembrerebbe ragionevole supporre che i partiti ad ideologia liberal e socialista ne escano ulteriormente ridimensionati: ridotti a percentuali talmente basse da risultare politicamente ininfluenti per un lungo lasso di tempo, se non per sempre.

*

Si voterà anche in Brasile ed in Lussemburgo. In un Brasile insanguinato dall’attentato fatto dai liberal socialisti per eliminare il loro avversario politico Mr Bolsonaro, in Lussemburgo per decidere quale atteggiamento terrà quel piccolo stato in seno al Consiglio Europeo.

*

Ma gli occhi degli europei sono focalizzati ora sulla Germania, ove il 14 ottobre si voterà in Baviera ed il 28 in Hessen.

Secondo le previsioni elettorali disponibili Cdu, Csu ed Spd dovrebbero perdere in modo clamoroso.

Negli ultimi due giorni ben sei differenti società di prospezioni elettorali sono concordi: Emnid, Forsa, Forsch’gr Wahlen, Gms, Infratest dimap, ed Insa stimano la Union, Cdu ed Csu, tra il 27% ed il 28% e la Spd al 16%.

Un ulteriore crollo che si attuerebbe dopo la già severa débâcle del 24 settembre dello scorso anno.

Molto verosimilmente la Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel potrebbe dare le dimissioni, aprendo una crisi politica mai vista in Germania. Ma se anche rimanesse al Governo, la sua forza politica in patria e nell’Unione Europea sarebbe semplicemente nulla.

Queste sono le ultime previsioni per la Baviera:

2018-09-30__Germania__002 Baviera

E queste sono le ultime previsioni per l’Hessen:

2018-09-30__Germania__003 Hessen

* * * * * * *

Se si è sicuramente certi che le previsioni debbano essere prese sempre con grande circospezione e buon senso, un calo di dieci punti percentuali per i partiti della Union e di 7 – 8 punti percentuali per la Spd dovrebbe essere l’epitaffio da iscriversi sulla tomba politica di questi partiti.

Né ci si dimentichi che a maggio del prossimo anno si terranno le elezioni europee, ove con questi numeri la rappresentanza dei partiti tradizionali tedeschi sarà ridotta a numeri trascurabili.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. La guerra privata contro gli stati liberal. – Bloomberg.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-08-30.

Donald Trump photographed at Trump Tower in NYC

Le menti ideologizzate trovano Mr Trump inintelligibile, imprevedibile, capricciosamente estroso e senza un suo proprio piano strategico: nulla di più clamorosamente errato!

Quanti invece siano degli empiristi, privi di ogni residuo ideologico nel capo, quelli che ragionano con logica non contraddittoria, trovano Mr Tump lineare e facilmente comprensibile: tutto sommato, prevedibile.

I liberal risultano essere irritati e sconcertati da un Trump che prima di fare qualcosa di importante li stuzzica nel loro debole: una questione religiosa oppure sessuale. Quelli impazziscono dietro lo straccio sventolato e Mr Trump lavora sotto sotto ai suoi scopi.

*

Alla fine persino i giornalisti di Bloomberg stanno iniziando a darsela.

* * *

Se come sembrerebbe essere probabile ai primi di settembre il Senato americano ratificherà la nomina di Sua Giustizia Kavanaugh, la Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti rimarrà per almeno tre decenni a maggioranza repubblicana. Dalla Corte Suprema si governa il mondo occidentale.

I democratici non amano parlarne, ma lo sanno benissimo.

A quel punto, anche se Mr Trump fosse assassinato, i destini degli Stati Uniti sarebbero segnati.

Fatto si è che Mr Trump ama andare al sodo: colpisce solitamente la chiave portante, quella di volta. Dopo, la costruzione non può fare altro che implodere.

Il suo obbiettivo è portare i liberal democratici alla fame: vir pauper est imago mortis. Deprivati di uno stato da sacchegiare allegramente, i liberal democratici stanno accumulando mancati ‘guadagni’ su mancati ‘guadagni’. Alla fine saranno costretti a lavorare per vivere.

* * * * * * *

«Donald Trump has a powerful philosophy defining his presidency»

*

«That may surprise you»

*

«After all, it’s hard to see a consistent ideology in the areas where he claims to be winning big, as he likes to put it: taxes, trade, regulation, and health care.»

*

«It’s not populism, which he claims to espouse»

* * *

«So what is his philosophy?»

«

Look again at the very same tax, trade, regulatory, and health-care policies, and a different pattern emerges. Check out the places they target.»

*

«His tax overhaul has capped at $10,000 the federal income tax deduction that a homeowner can claim for payment of state and local taxes, affecting taxpayers especially severely in the Northeast and California.»

*

«At the same time, Trump’s continuing efforts to undermine Obamacare will affect states that run their own health-insurance markets under the act—most of them Democratic or trending that way»

*

«Trump’s effort to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census questionnaire, which could shift the balance of power for a generation, is yet another blue-state jab. Asking participants if they’re U.S. citizens will likely result in a lower head count, especially in blue states that have provided sanctuary to millions of undocumented immigrants, including those brought to the U.S. as children.»

*

«A lower state tally could translate into smaller population-based federal grants, fewer seats in Congress, and a reduced Electoral College presence for at least the next two presidential elections. For these reasons, blue states are fighting to stop the citizenship question in federal court.»

*

«He’s not just slapping down voters for sending Democrats to Washington. He’s waging war on an economic model that devotes greater resources to public education and a stronger social safety net; relies less on fossil fuels and encourages alternative energy sources; celebrates an urban lifestyle; and welcomes immigrants. The strategy may be working better than even Trump expected»

*

«Blue-state antagonism comes through in his one real legislative victory, the 2017 tax rewrite. By capping state and local tax breaks at $10,000, Trump not only makes it more expensive for taxpayers to live in blue states, he’s shrinking the value of their retirement nest eggs—their homes»

*

«The lawsuit is probably a long shot, but the states have a point: Because incomes are higher and homes generally more expensive in states along the coasts, taxes are also higher. That means the $10,000 cap is easily reached, even by middle-class homeowners. About 3 million California residents alone will hit it. New York has calculated the cost to its residents will be about $14 billion in the first year. For those living in West Virginia and Mississippi, $10,000 probably covers them.»

*

«While Alabama, Kentucky, and South Carolina get more than $2 back for each $1 in taxes they send to Washington, New York gets 56¢ back and California gets 64¢.»

*

«Trump’s tax cut is also making it difficult for blue states to fund their schools. Public education depends on property taxes for revenue. The National Education Association says that over the next decade the tax law will punch a $150 billion hole in school budgets. That puts about 130,000 education jobs at risk. California’s funding loss will come to about $35 billion, while New York’s will be about $31 billion»

* * * * * * *

«For these reasons, blue states are fighting to stop the citizenship question in federal court.»

Già.

Ma se la Suprema Corte è a maggioranza repubblicana, le sentenze emesse da Corti di livello inferiori sono alla fine nullificate, tranciate via ed in modo definitivo, senza possibilità di appello.

Il piano di Mr Trump è di una semplicità angelica: tagliare alle radici le fonti di potere e finanziamento dei liberal democratici.

Tutti questi discorsi, di cui abbiamo riportato soltanto alcuni passi, indicano anche chiaramente la dabbenaggine con cui i liberal avevano costruito il loro impero: il diavolo si cela nei particolari.


Bloomberg. 2018-08-21. Trump’s War Against Blue States

Donald Trump has a powerful philosophy defining his presidency. That may surprise you. After all, it’s hard to see a consistent ideology in the areas where he claims to be winning big, as he likes to put it: taxes, trade, regulation, and health care.

It’s not populism, which he claims to espouse. His tax overhaul has mostly benefited the wealthy, studies show, spurring not higher wages but $679 billion in share buybacks in the first half of this year. By imposing tariffs on thousands of imports, he’s putting a regressive tax on the American consumer. He’s done what he can to undermine the Affordable Care Act, the result of which has been higher premiums for workers who depend on the program.

So what is his philosophy? Look again at the very same tax, trade, regulatory, and health-care policies, and a different pattern emerges. Check out the places they target. His tax overhaul has capped at $10,000 the federal income tax deduction that a homeowner can claim for payment of state and local taxes, affecting taxpayers especially severely in the Northeast and California. As part of his deregulation push, he wants to revoke a federal waiver that lets 13 left-leaning states adopt tougher carbon-pollution standards. He proposes to unwind the fuel-economy standards that automakers agreed to work toward under a deal struck with President Barack Obama.

At the same time, Trump’s continuing efforts to undermine Obamacare will affect states that run their own health-insurance markets under the act—most of them Democratic or trending that way. He also wants to ask about citizenship in the next census questionnaire, which will surely decrease participation in the decennial head count—and likely affect the size of the congressional delegations of states such as California, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts.

Do you see the pattern? Trump is targeting America’s blue states—those whose voters are mostly liberal or lean left and choose Democrats in presidential elections. (The color coding has its origins in TV coverage of presidential elections.) He’s not just slapping down voters for sending Democrats to Washington. He’s waging war on an economic model that devotes greater resources to public education and a stronger social safety net; relies less on fossil fuels and encourages alternative energy sources; celebrates an urban lifestyle; and welcomes immigrants. The strategy may be working better than even Trump expected.

Blue-state antagonism comes through in his one real legislative victory, the 2017 tax rewrite. By capping state and local tax breaks at $10,000, Trump not only makes it more expensive for taxpayers to live in blue states, he’s shrinking the value of their retirement nest eggs—their homes.

In July four states—New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Maryland—sued the federal government, alleging that a blue-state mugging took place in December 2017 when Trump signed the law. The suit says the Republican-led Congress and the White House deliberately wrote the measure to target left-leaning states, interfering with their legal right to tax their residents.

The lawsuit is probably a long shot, but the states have a point: Because incomes are higher and homes generally more expensive in states along the coasts, taxes are also higher. That means the $10,000 cap is easily reached, even by middle-class homeowners. About 3 million California residents alone will hit it. New York has calculated the cost to its residents will be about $14 billion in the first year. For those living in West Virginia and Mississippi, $10,000 probably covers them.

The cap grew out of a misapprehension. Republican lawmakers took to the House floor to complain that the ability to deduct state and local taxes meant red-state taxpayers were subsidizing more affluent blue-state free-riders. The opposite is true: Many red states have low taxes because they rely heavily on federal aid and have relatively large low-income populations, says the Tax Foundation, a right-of-center policy group. More than 40 percent of Mississippi’s revenue comes from the federal government, for example. While Alabama, Kentucky, and South Carolina get more than $2 back for each $1 in taxes they send to Washington, New York gets 56¢ back and California gets 64¢.

Evidence is emerging that the tax law is having its intended effect. In high-end real estate markets in blue states, some homeowners are finding that buyers are increasingly holding back, often because they’re put off by the prospect of higher taxes, according to Bloomberg News. This is evident in Westchester County, a suburban enclave for New York City commuters. Home sales in the county, where the average resident paid $17,179 in property taxes last year, plunged 18 percent in the second quarter of 2018 from the same quarter in 2017. That was the fourth quarterly sales decline in a row—and the biggest one since 2011.

Other top-end markets in blue states, including Seattle and Silicon Valley, also seem headed for a slowdown in home sales. Of course, additional factors are at work, especially rising interest rates, the runup in home prices in recent years, and weak wage growth. But the national data all began pointing in the wrong direction just months after Trump signed the tax law: Existing-home sales dropped in June for a third straight month. New-home purchases are at their slowest pace in eight months. Housing inventories have begun to grow again, after declining for years. New York City is seeing falling real estate prices. It’s only likely to get worse next year. That’s when homeowners will file their 2018 taxes and for the first time feel the sting of the $10,000 limit.

New York and other states have tried to skirt the new tax law through such means as allowing residents to make tax-deductible donations to charities in exchange for tax credits equal to a percentage of the donations. But the IRS isn’t likely to allow these too-clever-by-half workarounds.

Trump’s tax cut is also making it difficult for blue states to fund their schools. Public education depends on property taxes for revenue. The National Education Association says that over the next decade the tax law will punch a $150 billion hole in school budgets. That puts about 130,000 education jobs at risk. California’s funding loss will come to about $35 billion, while New York’s will be about $31 billion.

The most recent blue-state assault took place in August when officials at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation proposed rules that would suspend the mandatory increases in fuel economy put in place under Obama. Under the new proposal, automakers’ fleets would have to hit only about 37 miles a gallon by 2021 on average, instead of about 47 miles per gallon by 2025.

Automakers had agreed to the stricter fuel-economy rules during the previous administration even though they were tough—and required Detroit to commercialize some technologies that existed only in labs. But the standards were widely supported by industry, labor, and environmental groups alike. Trump would unwind all that and also revoke a waiver that allowed California to set tougher tailpipe greenhouse-gas standards.

His proposal would extinguish efforts by California and the 12 other blue states that follow its lead. Together they account for about one-third of U.S. auto sales. The stricter emissions regime is their way of attempting to moderate the effects of climate change, including the rising tides, hurricanes, droughts, wildfires, and floods that are hitting their states.

Trump is not merely reneging on the Obama deal, he could send automakers back to the pre-Obama era, when they faced two sets of emissions standards—unless the U.S. wins what will be an inevitable lawsuit over the 13 states’ right to exceed the federal rules.

At the same time, Trump is undermining blue-state investments in electric-vehicle charging stations, mass transit systems, and electric buses. Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology LLC, an economic consulting firm, estimates that the White House proposal will increase emissions by 11 percent and cost the U.S. economy $457 billion by 2050.

Trump officials say their proposal will result in less-expensive cars (because fuel-sipping technologies can be costly), which means the national fleet will turn over faster, resulting in safer autos on the road and fewer highway deaths. And that will produce a $198 billion societywide savings for vehicles built between 1975 and 2029.

Nonsense, says Nic Lutsey, the director of the International Council on Clean Transportation’s electric-vehicle and fuels work. He tells Bloomberg News: “There’s no evidence that efficiency regulations have depressed sales and added fatalities as a result—in any market in the world.” Anyway, whatever happened to states’ rights, once an article of faith among conservative lawmakers?

Trump, having been unable to persuade Congress to repeal Obamacare, is finding ways to subvert it. Of the 17 states (including the District of Columbia) that run their own insurance markets under the Affordable Care Act, 13 are blue or lean that way. One study found that those 17 marketplaces had been holding up better than the rest despite Trump’s relentless attacks, including his October 2017 pronouncement that “there’s no such thing as Obamacare anymore,” a month before the start of open enrollment.

The president has used his regulatory powers to let insurers sell skimpy, temporary policies that attract younger, healthier people. These plans tend to be cheaper, because they don’t have to cover needs such as maternity care, drug-abuse treatment, mental-health services, or cancer drugs. As a result, Obamacare-plan insurers are left covering an older and sicker population, forcing them to increase premiums.

Trump’s administration has also stopped paying the ACA law’s important cost-sharing subsidies. Such payments offset the expenses insurers incur for offering plans with smaller deductibles and out-of-pocket costs to lower-income people. More than half the 12 million people who have signed up for coverage through the exchanges benefit from these subsidies.

Trump’s effort to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census questionnaire, which could shift the balance of power for a generation, is yet another blue-state jab. Asking participants if they’re U.S. citizens will likely result in a lower head count, especially in blue states that have provided sanctuary to millions of undocumented immigrants, including those brought to the U.S. as children.

A lower state tally could translate into smaller population-based federal grants, fewer seats in Congress, and a reduced Electoral College presence for at least the next two presidential elections. For these reasons, blue states are fighting to stop the citizenship question in federal court.

By law, the census is supposed to find out how many people live in the U.S., not how many citizens do. It’s right there in the Constitution, which requires the federal government to do an “actual enumeration” every 10 years. But asking about citizenship could cause millions of undocumented immigrants—and even some who are documented but reside with others who aren’t and fear exposing them—to recede into the shadows.

The Athenian historian Thucydides understood that people of common heritage but sharply different ideologies will develop interests that clash over time. He saw that developing between the Greek city-states: Athens was the cultural and philosophical center of the world in the fifth century B.C., while its neighbor Sparta, with its militarist culture, produced one of its most efficient armies. “What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear this caused in Sparta,” he wrote. The economic and cultural divide between red and blue states in America may be the Athens vs. Sparta for our times.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

CMA CGM. Trump inarca il sopraciglio e Macron in ginocchio gli lecca i piedi.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-07-11.

Porta Container 001

Un redivivo Victor Hugo riscriverebbe i Les Misérables mettendo Mr Macron al posto di Jean Valjean.

*

Mr Macron soffre di un disturbo di sdoppiamento della personalità

C’è un Mr Macron che inneggia alla Grandeur e, ovviamente, al presidente che ora la rappresenta, mietendo successi diplomatici su successi diplomatici.

Macron in visita nel Burkina Faso. Per poco lo accoppano. Incidente diplomatico.

Cina risponde all’ultimatum di Macron in stile cinese.

Macron licenzia in tronco l’ambasciatore in Ungheria.

L’enigma della bega Macron – Pierre de Villiers.

Macron. Gran bella mazzata le elezioni di Pontoise.

Macron. Litiga anche con il Bahrain. Re al Khalifa annulla visita a Parigi.

I comportamenti tenuti da Mr Macron prima al G20, quindi al G7 ed infine al Consiglio Europeo furono degni di Re Sole: a suo dire Mr Trump si era dovuto nascondere sotto una sedia, supplicandolo di non voler invadere l’America.

E che dire dei suoi apprezzamenti sulla “nuova lebbra” che affligge l’Europa?

E come ciliegina sulla torta, la sua grandiosa trasformazione dell’Unione Europea in nuovi Stati Uniti di Europa è sotto gli occhi di tutti. Mr Macron non è riuscito a farla digerire nemmno ai calamai.

*

C’è però anche un Mr Macron inginocchiato supplice innanzi a Mr Trump, il Presidente degli Stati Uniti di America, tutto intento a leccargli i piedi nell’attesa che questi gli lasci cadere addosso uno sguardo benevolo.

* * * * * * *

«French shipping giant CMA CGM has pulled out of doing business with Iran for fear of antagonizing the US»

*

«Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has called on European countries do more to offset renewed US sanctions.»

*

«One of the world’s largest cargo shipping companies has announced that it is pulling out of Iran for fear of becoming entangled in US sanctions»

*

«Washington has ordered all countries to stop buying Iranian oil by November»

*

«It has also ordered foreign firms to stop doing business there or face US blacklists»

*

«European powers, however, still support the nuclear deal and say they will do more to encourage their businesses to remain engaged with Iran»

*

«But the prospect of being banned in the United States appears to have been enough to persuade some European companies to keep out»

* * * * * * * *

Questi i fatti.

Adesso domandiamoci qualcosa.

«Washington has ordered»

Questo è il cuore del tutto.

Mr Macron si metta l’animo in pace e si tolga lo scolapasta dalla testa. I “lebbrosi” gli danno ordini.

Mr Trump è in grado di dare ordini all’Europa, che questa voglia o meno.

E se i suoi governanti sono in delirio euforico, gli imprenditori corrono come leprotti.


Deutsche Welle. 2018-07-08. Iran calls for EU help as French shipping giant leaves

French shipping giant CMA CGM has pulled out of doing business with Iran for fear of antagonizing the US. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has called on European countries do more to offset renewed US sanctions.

*

One of the world’s largest cargo shipping companies has announced that it is pulling out of Iran for fear of becoming entangled in US sanctions.

The news comes amid demands from Iranian President Hassan Rouhani that European countries do more to offset the US measures.

The announcement by the French company CMA CGM deals a blow to Tehran’s efforts to persuade European countries to keep their companies operating in Iran despite the threat of new American sanctions.

Iran says it needs more help from Europe to keep alive the 2015 deal it worked out with world powers to curb its nuclear program. In May, US President Donald Trump abandoned the agreement and announced new sanctions on Tehran. Washington has ordered all countries to stop buying Iranian oil by November. It has also ordered foreign firms to stop doing business there or face US blacklists.

European powers, however, still support the nuclear deal and say they will do more to encourage their businesses to remain engaged with Iran. But the prospect of being banned in the United States appears to have been enough to persuade some European companies to keep out.

“European countries have the political will to maintain economic ties with Iran based on the JCPOA [nuclear deal], but they need to take practical measures within the time limit,” Rouhani said on Saturday on his official website.

Following the rules

According to the United Nations, CMA CGM operates the world’s third-largest container shipping fleet with more than 11 percent of global capacity. It said it would halt service for Iran because it did not want to fall foul of the rules, given its large presence in the United States.

“Due to the Trump administration, we have decided to end our service for Iran,” said CMA CGM chief Rodolphe Saade. “Our Chinese competitors are hesitating a little, so maybe they have a different relationship with Trump, but we apply the rules.”

The market leader in shipping, A.P. Moller-Maersk of Denmark, said in May that it was pulling out of Iran.

Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh has defined the tension between Tehran and Washington as a “trade war,” though said it had not led to changes in Iranian oil production and exports.

Zanganeh also echoed Rouhani’s remarks that the European package did not meet all of Iran’s economic demands.

“I have not seen the package personally, but our colleagues in the Foreign Ministry who have seen it were not happy with its details,” Zanganeh was quoted as saying by Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency.

Some Iranian officials have threatened to block oil exports from the Gulf region in retaliation for US efforts to reduce Iranian oil sales to zero. Rouhani himself made a veiled threat along those lines in recent days, saying there could be no oil exports from the region if Iran was shut down.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Unione Europea

White House. La visita di Mr Conte a Mr Trump.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-06-28.

Merkel e Juncker

Xinhua Net si dimostra sempre più essere una fonte oggettiva nel riportare le notizie.

Italian PM to visit U.S. in July: White House

«WASHINGTON, June 27 (Xinhua) — The White House said on Wednesday that Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte will visit Washington and meet President Donald Trump on July 30.

During Conte’s visit, Washington and Rome will look to deepen cooperation in addressing global conflicts and promote economic prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement released on Wednesday night.

The two leaders will hold a private conversation, followed by an expanded bilateral meeting.

Sanders said Trump and Conte will recognize the historical and cultural ties that underpin their bilateral relationship.

Conte was sworn in as Italy’s new prime minister on June 1.»

*

Per comparazione, si legga quanto riportato dal The New York Times.

Trump to Meet With Italian Prime Minister at White House

«WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump will meet with Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte at the White House on July 30, the White House said on Wednesday, with the trade spat between the United States and the European Union likely to top the agenda.

“The United States and Italy will look to deepen cooperation in addressing global conflicts and promoting economic prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic,” the White House said in a statement.

Earlier this month, Trump praised Conte in a tweet as a “really great guy” after meeting him at the Group of Seven summit in Canada.

Trump left the summit early and declined to join the leaders’ communique because of differences over trade. Trump has accused U.S. trading partners of taking advantage of the United States.

Washington has imposed tariffs on imports of EU aluminum and steel, and Trump has threatened to slap a 20 percent tariff on all imports of EU-assembled cars. The EU has retaliated with its own tariffs.

Conte, who took office on June 1, has backed Trump’s call for Russia to rejoin the Group of Seven, with the Italian leader saying it would be “in the interests of everyone.”»

*

Poniamoci adesso una domanda.

Come si sta schierando l’Italia nello scenario internazionale?

 

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump, Unione Europea

Trump, Macron e Merkel. Usa Today liquida tutti in una frase lapidaria.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-04-27.

Trump, Macron, Merkel 001

Usa Today è una testata ragionevolmente equilibrata, anche se usualmente schierata con i lib dem: si potrebbe dire che non debordi troppo dal comune buon senso.

Mr David Jackson e Mr John Fritze poi scrivono piacevoli articoli, anche usando un ottimo inglese, nei quali l’uso dei termini è molto curato: sono sempre molto appropriati.

Sarebbero da segnalare alcune frasi, affilate come rasoi, tratte da questo articolo:

Trump to tussle with German chancellor Merkel over Iran and trade

«Days after buttering up French President Emmanuel Macron with a state dinner and other ceremonies, President Trump held a shorter and more somber summit Friday with another key European leader, German Chancellor Angela Merkel.»

*

«a short meeting and lunch at the White House»

*

«Look forward to meeting with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany today,” Trump tweeted a few hours before her arrival. “So much to discuss, so little time! It will be good for both of our great countries!»

*

«Like Macron and other European leaders, 

Merkel is expected to implore Trump»

* * * * * * *

Non dovrebbero essere necessari molti commenti.

Vorremo però riportare un certo quale numero di frasi inglesi nelle quali compare il termine “to implore” per consentire di valutarne meglio la portata, il significato.

*

«They implored God, who in Christ has become God-with-us»

*

«Let us implore God’s mercy for the present generation.»

*

«We come before you today to implore your protection.»

*

«Let us implore him that, like her, we may welcome the word of God into our hearts, and carry it out with docility and constancy»

*

«Since a compromise is well within reach, I am imploring the Commission to come up with a fresh proposal in 2007.»

*

Trump, Macron, Merkel 002

Una frase e due fotografie spesso spiegano meglio quello che sta succedendo di quarantotto trattati di politica e di economia.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump, Unione Europea

Angela Senzaterra. Mr Trump adesso riceve anche i barboni della politica.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-04-27.

Merkel 999

Angela Merkel, la cancelliera «dimezzata» ovvero Angela Senzaterra, è stata ammessa alla presenza di Mr Trump, dopo lunghe suppliche insistenti.

Dopo aver celebrato per tre giorni consecutivi la presenza a Washington di Mr Macron e consorte, il Presidente americano ha aperto le porte della White House anche ai barboni della politica, concedendo alla Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel quasi due ore e mezzo del suo tempo, dei quali solo circa venti minti primi di colloquio reale.

Banchetto ufficiale? Ma che, scherziamo? Una colazione di lavoro con due panini imbottiti con i resti del banchetto per Mr Macron.

Questo è quello che vale l’orgogliosa Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel, quella che un anno fa diceva:

«we Europeans must really take our fate into our own hands» [Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel – NYT]

*

«The Paris deal isn’t just any other deal. It is a key agreement that shapes today’s globalization» [Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel]

*

«By 2050, the whole German economy will be fully renewable» [Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel]

*

Quasi a farle ulteriore sfregio, è di questi giorni questa notizia:

Baviera. Dal 1° giugno gli uffici pubblici dovranno esporre la Croce.

Gelidi i commenti di Mr Putin.

«“political schizophrenia”» [Mr Putin – Bloomberg]

*

«the Russian leader suggested that the Europeans had “bosses” in Washington whom they couldn’t disobey — not the right note to strike as Europe seeks to bolster its global role.» [Mr Putin – Bloomberg]

* * * * * * *

Per il momento Frau Merkel è ancora Bundeskanzlerin, ma vale meno di uno zerbinotto.

Persino l’articolista del Corriere si toglie il sugo di prendere questa femmina per le terga.


Corriere. 2018-04-27. Merkel a Washington, solo 150 minuti per lei: Trump poco «ospitale»

La cancelliera «dimezzata» vede il presidente alla Casa Bianca: 4 dossier li separano, dall’accordo sul nucleare dell’Iran al rischio di un guerra commerciale

*

Nel marzo 2017, Donald Trump riceveva a Washington il «nuovo leader dell’Occidente». Sovrana e sicura di sé, Angela Merkel incarnava davanti al neopresidente americano, isolazionista e protezionista, la consapevolezza di un’Europa che capiva finalmente di «dovere prendere il destino nelle proprie mani».

È passato un anno, un secolo in politica. E quella che torna questa mattina alla Casa Bianca è una cancelliera dimezzata. Un risultato elettorale disastroso e sei lunghi mesi di paralisi politica l’hanno indebolita sul piano interno, bloccandone anche l’azione internazionale. Mentre la scena europea e globale ha trovato un mattatore in Emmanuel Macron, sempre più a suo agio nel ruolo, vero o percepito fa lo stesso, di nuova guida della comunità transatlantica.

È una visita difficile e densa di rischi, quella in America, per «Angela senza terra», la prima da quando è stata rieletta per la quarta volta alla guida della Germania. Sul piano simbolico e sostanziale. Simbolico perché segue di poco più di 24 ore la trionfale accoglienza riservata da Trump e dal Congresso a Macron, il quale ha confermato tutta l’efficacia di un’impostazione, dove il legame strategico e personale non è necessariamente in contraddizione con la difesa dei principi e degli interessi europei. Sostanziale perché forse mai come adesso i rapporti fra Germania e America sono stati così scadenti.

Trump non perde occasione per additare Berlino come la pecora nera. Si tratti del costruendo gasdotto russo-tedesco North Stream 2, che aumenterebbe la dipendenza energetica dalla Russia; dell’insufficiente spesa militare, una delle più basse della Nato; ma soprattutto del commercio internazionale, nel Trump-pensiero solo una grande truffa ai danni dell’industria americana, la Germania è sul banco degli accusati. Ad aumentare diffidenze e sospetti, l’ultimo episodio in ordine di tempo: il rifiuto di Merkel a partecipare ai raid in Siria.

Le comunicazioni sono ridotte al minimo. Dopo 15 mesi al potere, Trump non ha ancora insediato il suo ambasciatore sulla Sprea. Richard Grenell è stata confermato solo ieri dal Senato Usa. Berlino ha appena cambiato il suo inviato diplomatico. I consiglieri di Merkel cercano di abbassare il livello delle attese. In fondo saranno in tutto 150 minuti di colloqui — un pranzo di lavoro, poi una conferenza stampa alle 19.30 italiane —, un tempo che dice molto dopo le ore dedicate a Macron. Risultati clamorosi, secondo le fonti della cancelleria, non sono da aspettarsi. Sarebbe già qualcosa che la visita serva a cambiar clima, ristabilire linee di comunicazione e, non ultimo, convincere Trump a una ulteriore pausa di riflessione sul tema più urgente: la guerra commerciale che incombe tra Europa e Usa. Le speranze sono al lumicino. Ieri la Sueddeutsche Zeitung ha citato una fonte del governo, secondo cui Berlino considera ormai «probabile» che Trump non prolunghi la clausola di esclusione dell’Europa dai dazi punitivi su alluminio e acciaio, in scadenza il 1 maggio. Sarebbe l’inizio delle ostilità.

Ma i colloqui, che inizieranno con un faccia a faccia per poi allargarsi alle delegazioni, saranno difficili anche sul resto. Sull’Iran, Merkel cercherà di seguire la falsariga di Macron, spiegando a Trump che è nell’interesse anche degli Usa non ritirarsi dall’accordo nucleare. Sulla Nato, il presidente continuerà ad accusare la Germania di non volersi assumere gli oneri concordati. E su questo almeno non ha tutti i torti.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump, Unione Europea

Trump, Macron e la Siria. L’arte di fare figuracce grame.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-04-16.

Trump Macron 010

Quello che è accaduto in Siria dovrebbe essere cosa nota, adesso anche nella versione fornita dai russi.

Siria. Versione del Ministero Difesa Russo.

*

Segnaliamo, nella tragicità di un evento bellico, un siparietto che ci lascia sorridere.

«French President Emmanuel Macron asserted that Paris had convinced Trump to stay engaged in Syria “for the long-term.”»

*

«“Ten days ago, President Trump was saying the United States of America had a duty to disengage from Syria,” Macron said during a two-hour grilling on French television, broadcast days after his government joined the US and Britain in launching strikes against alleged Syrian regime chemical weapons facilities»

*

«“I assure you, we have convinced him that it is necessary to stay for the long-term,” Macron told»

* * * * * * *

Riassumendo.

Mr Macron ha annunciato al pubblico che avrebbe convinto Mr Trump a rimanere in Siria per un lungo lasso di tempo. Una gran bella abilità, anche conoscendo il caratterino di Mr Trump.

«President Donald Trump still wants U.S. forces in Syria to return home as soon as possible, the White House said on Sunday»

*

«President Donald Trump wants US troops home “as quickly as possible.”»

* * * * * * *

I russi sono stati taglienti nel loro comunicato:

«Announced French aircraft have not been registered by the Russian air defence systems.»

Sorge spontanea una domanda:

Ma chi mai si crede di essere Mr Macron?


The New York Times. 2018-04-15. White House: Trump Wants U.S. Forces in Syria to Come Home as Quickly as Possible

President Donald Trump still wants U.S. forces in Syria to return home as soon as possible, the White House said on Sunday, after French President Emmanuel Macron said he had convinced Trump to keep a U.S. presence there for “the long term.”

“The U.S. mission has not changed — the president has been clear that he wants U.S. forces to come home as quickly as possible,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said in a statement.

“We are determined to completely crush ISIS and create the conditions that will prevent its return. In addition we expect our regional allies and partners to take greater responsibility both militarily and financially for securing the region,” she said. 


Nst Mes. 2018-04-15. US mission in Syria ‘has not changed,’ forces to return as soon as possible: WH

WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES: American objectives in Syria have not altered, the White House said Sunday, reiterating that President Donald Trump wants US troops home “as quickly as possible.”

“The US mission has not changed – the President has been clear that he wants US forces to come home as quickly as possible,” press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement.

“We are determined to completely crush ISIS and create the conditions that will prevent its return. In addition we expect our regional allies and partners to take greater responsibility both militarily and financially for securing the region,” she added.

The statement came hours after French President Emmanuel Macron asserted that Paris had convinced Trump to stay engaged in Syria “for the long-term.”

“Ten days ago, President Trump was saying the United States of America had a duty to disengage from Syria,” Macron said during a two-hour grilling on French television, broadcast days after his government joined the US and Britain in launching strikes against alleged Syrian regime chemical weapons facilities.

The three allies joined forces for the missile strikes a week after a deadly attack on the town of Douma where civilians were hit with chlorine and sarin, according to the Western powers.

“I assure you, we have convinced him that it is necessary to stay for the long-term,” Macron told veteran journalists Jean-Jacques Bourdin and Edwy Plenel.


Reuters. 2018-04-15. White House: Trump wants U.S. forces in Syria to come home as quickly as possible

President Donald Trump still wants U.S. forces in Syria to return home as soon as possible, the White House said on Sunday, after French President Emmanuel Macron said he had convinced Trump to keep a U.S. presence there for “the long term.”

“The U.S. mission has not changed — the president has been clear that he wants U.S. forces to come home as quickly as possible,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said in a statement.

“We are determined to completely crush ISIS and create the conditions that will prevent its return. In addition we expect our regional allies and partners to take greater responsibility both militarily and financially for securing the region,” she said. 

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Ordine Esecutivo per la riduzione della povertà.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-04-16.

Washington. White House. 001

Anche i grandi paesi industrializzati hanno un pressante problema di miseria.

Cina. Il lavoro forzato e la nuova schiavitù.

Cina. La dottrina economica vincente di Deng Xiaoping.

Forced labour in the UK: ‘There was no escape. I lived every day in fear’

US trafficking report records forced labour in UK and Ireland

21 million people are now victims of forced labour, ILO says

*

America. 44.752 milioni sotto la soglia di povertà.

Lo United States Census Bureau ha recentemente pubblicato una tabella aggiornata e corretta da pregresse minime omissioni:

Number and Percentage of People in Poverty Using the Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2016 and 2015

USA. Reddito delle famiglie per scaglioni. – Census Bureau

Trump ha vinto perché metà America è in miseria. – I dati della Fed.

*

«Nel 2014, le spesa quotidiana annua degli americani si è attestata su 38.600 dollari. Ricordiamo che, oggi, il 51% dei lavoratori americani guadagna meno di 30mila dollari l’anno, mentre il 28% guadagna addirittura meno di 20mila dollari. Dieci anni prima, gli americani che riuscivano a far fronte a tutte le spese potevano mediamente contare su un residuo attivo di 1500 dollari l’anno. Dieci anni dopo, quegli stessi americani si trovano un passivo di 2300 dollari.» [Fonte: CNBC].

*

«La ricchezza della classe media americana è crollata del 20% in dieci anni, tendenza che ha fatto crollare gli USA al 19° posto nella classifica mondiale per ricchezza media. La ricchezza media famigliare era di 137.955 dollari nel 2007, ma oggi si è quasi dimezzata raggiungendo quota 82.725 dollari.» [Fonte]

* * * *

In breve, gli Stati Uniti di America hanno quasi quarantacinque milioni di persone che vivono sotto la soglia della povertà ed il 51% dei lavoratori americani guadagna meno di 30,000 dollari l’anno, cifra da sopravvivenza tene3ndo conto del costo della vita.

Durante i mandati della pregressa Amministrazione Obama il problema è rimasto sempre in secondo piano, e si sono finanziati enti governativi che avrebbero dovuto elargire contributi ai poveri con quello che rimaneva in cassa dopo che i funzionari addetti avevano percepito lo stipendio.

* * * * * * *

«The United States and its Constitution were founded on the principles of freedom and equal opportunity for all.  To ensure that all Americans would be able to realize the benefits of those principles, especially during hard times, the Government established programs to help families with basic unmet needs»

*

«While bipartisan welfare reform enacted in 1996 was a step toward eliminating the economic stagnation and social harm that can result from long-term Government dependence, the welfare system still traps many recipients, especially children, in poverty and is in need of further reform and modernization in order to increase self-sufficiency, well-being, and economic mobility»

*

«In 2017, the Federal Government spent more than $700 billion on low-income assistance.  Since its inception, the welfare system has grown into a large bureaucracy that might be susceptible to measuring success by how many people are enrolled in a program rather than by how many have moved from poverty into financial independence.»

*

«The Federal Government’s role is to clear paths to self-sufficiency, reserving public assistance programs for those who are truly in need»

*

«The Federal Government should do everything within its authority to empower individuals by providing opportunities for work, including by investing in Federal programs that are effective at moving people into the workforce and out of poverty»

*

«Improve employment outcomes and economic independence»

*

«Promote strong social networks as a way of sustainably escaping poverty (including through work and marriage)»

*

«Reduce the size of bureaucracy and streamline services to promote the effective use of resources»

*

«Reserve benefits for people with low incomes and limited assets»

*

«review current federally funded workforce development programs»

*

«invest in effective workforce development programs»

* * * * * * *

L’Executive Order del Presidente Trump introduce una rivoluzione copernicana nella lotta alla povertà finora condotta dagli Stati Uniti.

La passata Amministrazione spendeva circa 700 miliardi ogni anno per sovvenzionare i poveri tramite un apparato burocratico gigantesco, talmente ipertrofico da assorbire larga parte delle risorse. Non solo, ma i risultati erano valutati in base al numero degli assistiti.

D’ira in poi la lotta alla povertà sarà attuata generando posti di lavoro, così da far emergere le persone in modo stabile dalla miseria e dalla povertà. I risultati saranno valutati sulla riduzione del numero delle persone in fascia misera ed in fascia povera.



The White House. Executive Order Reducing Poverty in America by Promoting Opportunity and Economic Mobility

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to promote economic mobility, strong social networks, and accountability to American taxpayers, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1Purpose.  The United States and its Constitution were founded on the principles of freedom and equal opportunity for all.  To ensure that all Americans would be able to realize the benefits of those principles, especially during hard times, the Government established programs to help families with basic unmet needs.  Unfortunately, many of the programs designed to help families have instead delayed economic independence, perpetuated poverty, and weakened family bonds.  While bipartisan welfare reform enacted in 1996 was a step toward eliminating the economic stagnation and social harm that can result from long-term Government dependence, the welfare system still traps many recipients, especially children, in poverty and is in need of further reform and modernization in order to increase self-sufficiency, well-being, and economic mobility.

Sec. 2Policy.  (a)  In 2017, the Federal Government spent more than $700 billion on low-income assistance.  Since its inception, the welfare system has grown into a large bureaucracy that might be susceptible to measuring success by how many people are enrolled in a program rather than by how many have moved from poverty into financial independence.  This is not the type of system that was envisioned when welfare programs were instituted in this country.  The Federal Government’s role is to clear paths to self-sufficiency, reserving public assistance programs for those who are truly in need.  The Federal Government should do everything within its authority to empower individuals by providing opportunities for work, including by investing in Federal programs that are effective at moving people into the workforce and out of poverty.  It must examine Federal policies and programs to ensure that they are consistent with principles that are central to the American spirit — work, free enterprise, and safeguarding human and economic resources.  For those policies or programs that are not succeeding in those respects, it is our duty to either improve or eliminate them.

(b)  It shall be the policy of the Federal Government to reform the welfare system of the United States so that it empowers people in a manner that is consistent with applicable law and the following principles, which shall be known as the Principles of Economic Mobility:

(i)     Improve employment outcomes and economic independence (including by strengthening existing work requirements for work-capable people and introducing new work requirements when legally permissible);

(ii)    Promote strong social networks as a way of sustainably escaping poverty (including through work and marriage);

(iii)   Address the challenges of populations that may particularly struggle to find and maintain employment (including single parents, formerly incarcerated individuals, the homeless, substance abusers, individuals with disabilities, and disconnected youth);

(iv)    Balance flexibility and accountability both to ensure that State, local, and tribal governments, and other institutions, may tailor their public assistance programs to the unique needs of their communities and to ensure that welfare services and administering agencies can be held accountable for achieving outcomes (including by designing and tracking measures that assess whether programs help people escape poverty);

(v)     Reduce the size of bureaucracy and streamline services to promote the effective use of resources;

(vi)    Reserve benefits for people with low incomes and limited assets;

(vii)   Reduce wasteful spending by consolidating or eliminating Federal programs that are duplicative or ineffective;

(viii)  Create a system by which the Federal Government remains updated on State, local, and tribal successes and failures, and facilitates access to that information so that other States and localities can benefit from it; and

(ix)    Empower the private sector, as well as local communities, to develop and apply locally based solutions to poverty.

(c)  As part of our pledge to increase opportunities for those in need, the Federal Government must first enforce work requirements that are required by law.  It must also strengthen requirements that promote obtaining and maintaining employment in order to move people to independence.  To support this focus on employment, the Federal Government should:

(i)   review current federally funded workforce development programs.  If more than one executive department or agency (agency) administers programs that are similar in scope or population served, they should be consolidated, to the extent permitted by law, into the agency that is best equipped to fulfill the expectations of the programs, while ineffective programs should be eliminated; and

(ii)  invest in effective workforce development programs and encourage, to the greatest extent possible, entities that have demonstrated success in equipping participants with skills necessary to obtain employment that enables them to financially support themselves and their families in today’s economy.

(d)  It is imperative to empower State, local, and tribal governments and private-sector entities to effectively administer and manage public assistance programs.  Federal policies should allow local entities to develop and implement programs and strategies that are best for their respective communities.  Specifically, policies should allow the private sector, including community and faith-based organizations, to create solutions that alleviate the need for welfare assistance, promote personal responsibility, and reduce reliance on government intervention and resources.

(i)   To promote the proper scope and functioning of government, the Federal Government must afford State, local, and tribal governments the freedom to design and implement programs that better allocate limited resources to meet different community needs.

(ii)  States and localities can use such flexibility to devise and evaluate innovative programs that serve diverse populations and families.  States and localities can also model their own initiatives on the successful programs of others.  To achieve the right balance, Federal leaders must continue to discuss opportunities to improve public assistance programs with State and local leaders, including our Nation’s governors.

(e)  The Federal Government owes it to Americans to use taxpayer dollars for their intended purposes.  Relevant agencies should establish clear metrics that measure outcomes so that agencies administering public assistance programs can be held accountable.  These metrics should include assessments of whether programs help individuals and families find employment, increase earnings, escape poverty, and avoid long-term dependence.  Whenever possible, agencies should harmonize their metrics to facilitate easier cross-programmatic comparisons and to encourage further integration of service delivery at the local level.  Agencies should also adopt policies to ensure that only eligible persons receive benefits and enforce all relevant laws providing that aliens who are not otherwise qualified and eligible may not receive benefits.

(i)   All entities that receive funds should be required to guarantee the integrity of the programs they administer.  Technology and innovation should drive initiatives that increase program integrity and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse in the current system.

(ii)  The Federal Government must support State, local, and tribal partners by investing in tools to combat payment errors and verify eligibility for program participants.  It must also work alongside public and private partners to assist recipients of welfare assistance to maximize access to services and benefits that support paths to self-sufficiency.

Sec. 3Review of Regulations and Guidance Documents.  (a)  The Secretaries of the Treasury, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, and Education (Secretaries) shall:

(i)    review all regulations and guidance documents of their respective agencies relating to waivers, exemptions, or exceptions for public assistance program eligibility requirements to determine whether such documents are, to the extent permitted by law, consistent with the principles outlined in this order;

(ii)   review any public assistance programs of their respective agencies that do not currently require work for receipt of benefits or services, and determine whether enforcement of a work requirement would be consistent with Federal law and the principles outlined in this order;

(iii)  review any public assistance programs of their respective agencies that do currently require work for receipt of benefits or services, and determine whether the enforcement of such work requirements is consistent with Federal law and the principles outlined in this order;

(iv)   within 90 days of the date of this order, and based on the reviews required by this section, submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy a list of recommended regulatory and policy changes and other actions to accomplish the principles outlined in this order; and

(v)    not later than 90 days after submission of the recommendations required by section 3(a)(iv) of this order, and in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, take steps to implement the recommended administrative actions.

(b)  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretaries shall each submit a report to the President, through the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, that:

(i)    states how their respective agencies are complying with 8 U.S.C. 1611(a), which provides that an alien who is not a “qualified alien” as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1641 is, subject to certain statutorily defined exceptions, not eligible for any Federal public benefit as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1611(c);

(ii)   provides a list of Federal benefit programs that their respective agencies administer that are restricted pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1611; and

(iii)  provides a list of Federal benefit programs that their respective agencies administer that are not restricted pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1611.

Sec. 4Definitions.  For the purposes of this order:

(a)  the terms “individuals,” “families,” and “persons” mean any United States citizen, lawful permanent resident, or other lawfully present alien who is qualified to or otherwise may receive public benefits;

(b)  the terms “work” and “workforce” include unsubsidized employment, subsidized employment, job training, apprenticeships, career and technical education training, job searches, basic education, education directly related to current or future employment, and workfare; and(c)  the terms “welfare” and “public assistance” include any program that provides means-tested assistance, or other assistance that provides benefits to people, households, or families that have low incomes (i.e., those making less than twice the Federal poverty level), the unemployed, or those out of the labor force.

Sec. 5General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

April 10, 2018.

Pubblicato in: Stati Uniti, Trump, Unione Europea

Trump. Macron e Merkel convocati a rapporto a fine aprile.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-04-12.

Donald Trump photographed at Trump Tower in NYC
Donald Trump photographed at the Trump Tower on 5th Ave. in Manhattan, NYC on Monday, September 21, 2015. (Damon Winter/ The New York Times)

«U.S. President Donald Trump will host French President Emmanuel Macron for a state visit on April 24»

*

«The president and first lady will welcome President and Mrs. Macron of France to the White House on April 24»

*

«This visit will advance American and French cooperation on economic and global issues and deepen the friendship between the two countries»

*

«Angela Merkel is set to visit US president Donald Trump at the end of April»

*

«Merkel’s visit would fall on the same day as South Korean president Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un»

*

«Merkel’s trip, three days after French president Emmanuel Macron’s state visit to the U.S. capital, will come just before the expiry of an exemption for the European Union from U.S. import duties on steel and aluminium»

*

«differences over a nuclear deal with Iran and trade cast a shadow over the transatlantic relationship»

* * * * * * *

Il mondo sta cambiando a velocità impressionante, ma apprezziamo la bontà d’animo del Presidente Trump che ha concesso udienza persino a due dei suoi recalcitranti sudditi.

A nessuno è sfuggita la malizia di aver convocato la Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel giusto nella giornata in cui arriverà a Washington il Presidente Sud Koreano Moon Jae-in.

Ma per Frau Merkel sarà sufficiente il concederle di inginocchiarsi e di baciare l’anello. Gli ordini li piglierà dall’uscere.


Reuters. 2018-04-10. Trump to host France’s Macron for state visit on April 24: White House

U.S. President Donald Trump will host French President Emmanuel Macron for a state visit on April 24, the White House said on Monday.

“The president and first lady will welcome President and Mrs. Macron of France to the White House on April 24,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters.

“This visit will advance American and French cooperation on economic and global issues and deepen the friendship between the two countries.”

Sanders said it would be the first official state visit since Trump took office.

The French presidency said in a brief statement Macron’s visit would take place on April 23-25 and include a joint news conference, several official ceremonies as well as a state dinner.


The Local. 2018-04-10. Merkel to visit Trump in Washington at end of April: report

Angela Merkel is set to visit US president Donald Trump at the end of April, according to reports in the German media.

The German Chancellor is planning to visit Washington DC on April 27th, Bild reported on Thursday.

Though the visit is yet to be confirmed, Bild claimed that this is to be expected. They point out that Merkel’s last visit to Washington was only confirmed by the Americans days before it happened.

This would be Merkel’s second visit to the White House since Trump’s inauguration.

If it were to take place on April 27th, Merkel’s visit would fall on the same day as South Korean president Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un meet for historic talks in the peninsula’s Demilitarized Zone.

Merkel’s last visit to Washington, in March last year, was most memorable for Trump’s apparent refusal to shake the Chancellor’s hand during a press event.


Reuters. 2018-04-10. Germany’s Merkel to visit Trump, as trade, Iran deadlines loom

German Chancellor Angela Merkel will visit U.S. President Donald Trump on April 27, a senior U.S. official said on Thursday, as differences over a nuclear deal with Iran and trade cast a shadow over the transatlantic relationship.

Merkel’s trip, three days after French president Emmanuel Macron’s state visit to the U.S. capital, will come just before the expiry of an exemption for the European Union from U.S. import duties on steel and aluminium.

The twin visits would give the European Union’s two leading national leaders the opportunity to lobby for the bloc to be exempted permanently from the steel and aluminium tariffs. The tariffs are suspended for the EU until May 1.

Merkel’s visit to the United States, first reported by mass-selling daily Bild, will also take place shortly before a May 12 deadline that Trump has set to improve an international deal to curb Iran’s nuclear programme.

Her office had no immediate comment on the planned visit.

Merkel, in a telephone call with Trump last week, urged dialogue on trade policy between the EU and the United States, “taking into account the rules-based international trade system”.

Merkel’s relationship with Trump got off to a frosty start after his November 2016 election.

Before a phone conversation on March 1 to discuss the war in Syria and Russian nuclear arms, the two leaders had not spoken to each other for more than five months.

Trump has threatened to withdraw the United States from an accord between Tehran and six world powers, signed in 2015 before he took office, unless France, Britain and Germany help to agree a follow-up pact by that date. Trump does not like the deal’s limited duration, among other things.


Bloomberg. 2018-04-10. Merkel, Trump Reported to Plan Talks in Washington on April 27

– Germany’s Bild newspaper says trip still in planning stages

– Chancellor is intent on avoiding U.S.-Europe trade war

*

German Chancellor Angela Merkel plans to hold talks with President Donald Trump in Washington on April 27, Bild reported.

Details of Merkel’s second official trip to the U.S. during Trump’s presidency are still being worked out , the German newspaper said Thursday, citing officials it didn’t identify. A government spokeswoman declined to comment.

The timing would allow Merkel and Trump to meet days before a U.S. tariff waiver on imports of European steel and aluminum lapses on May 1. Trump also must decide by May 12 whether the U.S. will stand by the Iran nuclear agreement, which Germany and its European Union allies want to preserve.

Disputes over trade, security and energy have marked ties between the U.S. and Europe’s biggest economy since Trump won the 2016 presidential election. Merkel’s governing coalition scoffed at his comment this week that a new natural-gas pipeline would send “billions of dollars” to Russia.

Merkel had an awkward first meeting with Trump in March 2017. Although the two leaders lauded the encounter, it didn’t prevent Trump from slamming Germany’s defense spending and trade surplus soon afterward.

The U.S. president’s signal that he’d withdraw from the Paris climate accord two months later prompted Merkel to declare in May that the countries’ reliable relations established after World War II “are to some extent over.”