Commentary on "How Trump Withholding His Tax Return is Affecting Tax Reform"

From the Politically Correct-ish’s blog, an article, “How Trump Withholding His Tax Return is Affecting Tax Reform,” provides arguments for why Donald Trump should release his tax returns by claiming the unity in the Republican party is ripping at the seams which is resulting in an unsuccessful tax reform bill.

She begins by stating that the possibility of the release of his tax returns might result in widespread anger and frustration. Despite this, she argues that his tax returns are imperative for Republicans to come together in order to openly discuss the bill. With that argument in mind, I don’t believe Trump releasing his tax returns would benefit the economy. Trump should definitely be open about what every president has been open about in the past. His interests would be revealed and his true intentions would be recognized. However, the tax reform bill Republicans have in mind is one that would cut the taxes of the top businesses from 39% to 15%. Personally, I believe the more you make should require you to pay more taxes. Quite simply, the tax reform bill is unacceptable which is why Democrats are voting against the bill. With or without his tax returns, the bill would still be considered unsatisfactory. By this sense, releasing Trump’s tax returns should have no effect on how Congressmen should vote since their vote must be on their belief of whether it is good or bad for the economy.

She goes on to examine how the tax reform bill could have a dramatic effect on Trump as well. She claims he must release his tax returns so politicians and citizens can truly understand how it would benefit him. Despite his possible advantages, she argues Trump should release his tax returns, “no matter what the consequences to follow are.” I agree with this claim. Cowering behind an audit does not allow him to be excused from years of tradition or from the criticism of citizens. In conclusion, I don’t agree with the author’s first reason to release his tax returns; the beliefs of the Congressperson should be what determines whether the tax reform bill gets passed. Yet, I also believe Trump should release his tax returns. After all, if he is such an honest man, then why not?

Budget Cuts

The recent budget proposal by the Trump administration contains an emphasis on defunding many organizations and agencies that have ties to liberal activism. The money from agencies which are receiving budget cuts - the Environmental Protection Agency (31% decrease in funding), NASA (.8% decrease in funding), the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (elimination in funding), the National Endowment for the Arts (elimination in funding), among others - are then being allocated to agencies that promote and boost defense spending in order to rebuild the military to fulfill campaign promises such as eliminating ISIS by increasing the amount of ships in the US Navy and expanding the Air Force by building more F-35 fighter jets and tactical missiles. The administration’s reasoning for this 54 billion dollar increase is that they believe it is reasonable to ask citizens to pay for things that the administration believes will be beneficial to them as Budget Director Mick Mulvaney claims. Yet, I believe these cuts will hurt the American people more than the Trump administration expects them to do so.

The proposed cuts are expected to hurt America’s more vulnerable folks. The targeted agencies specifically help low-income Americans but sucking the air out of what makes them benefit these people will result in the people’s contempt and hatred for their government. These cuts also guarantees an increased gap between the rich and the poor. Considering many of these agencies are what enable poor people to survive, it is not beneficial for Mulvaney and the Trump administration to request the needy be the ones to suffer by paying for agencies that do not help them. For example, claiming after-school programs don’t help kids in school when there is research suggesting otherwise does not bode well to those who depend on these programs. Also, curtailing the Department of Housing and Urban Development will result in an increase to the housing shortage which is already at a low for the poor. Additionally, eliminating a majority of the budget for programs intended to benefit the progression of Earth and science is not about to help Americans now or in the future. If the Trump administration wishes to excel, they must be willing to look at what all of the people want and what will benefit them all in the future.

With the upcoming deadline for a spending bill, Congress must be able to find a way to prevent a possible shutdown by incorporating some Democratic ideals in the proposal or by mildly redefining their budget in order to please at least eight democrats. I believe the Trump administration should retract their dramatic proposal of defunding many of these agencies which will be satisfying to Democratic senators as well as to the American people. Yet, this would be a difficult task to undertake in one day. Nonetheless, perhaps a government shutdown is what the Trump administration needs in order to understand the people and what they require.

Commentary on "Mary Jane and Me"

From the Love Administration’s blog, an article,“US Gov: Mary Jane and Me,” argues for the approval of recreational marijuana in America. The author includes numerous factors for the legalization of marijuana such as cognitive benefits to students, medication, and economic benefits.

He begins by explaining higher achieving students are more likely to improve their cognitive abilities using marijuana. This seems kind of counterintuitive considering marijuana is meant to slow down your neuropathways. I suppose by slowing down their neuropathways, they could roam through their thoughts calmly and have an “openness to experience” as the author considered. This was an interesting point of view, considering the stereotype of marijuana users are those who have a carefree view on schoolwork. Perhaps with more conclusive scientific evidence, this theory could become a beneficial factor when arguing for the legalization for marijuana. For now, I do not believe there is sufficient proof to this claim.

Next, he acknowledges the medicinal value of marijuana in reference to those who may lose their appetite or have insomnia. I agree with this claim since marijuana leads to drowsiness and the “munchies.” Also, many veterans who have PTSD use marijuana to alleviate stress and calm themselves from the terrors they experienced. Marijuana's ability to help natural chemicals work better also allows it to aid with pain from various diseases such as cancer and seizures. Though marijuana may cause negative side effects as well, its aid in PTSD and pain in general lead me to the conclusion that the good outweighs the bad.

Finally, he recognizes that legalizing marijuana would bring economic benefits by allowing this to become a billion dollar industry. I believe this could become a possibility. Currently, marijuana is considered illegal on the federal level, yet legal marijuana businesses must pay taxes for it since that is their source of income, which creates unhappiness and low morale in this industry. If America were to legalize marijuana, it would create fair tax breaks which would allow more marijuana business to fund areas of our government like education or the infrastructure. In conclusion, I agree with the author that legalizing marijuana would bring medical and economic relief to America.

Conflicts of Interest

Donald Trump sees his businesses and foundations as no big deal, however expert ethics advisers insist his properties be put into a blind trust to expel any conflicts of interest when it comes to his personal dealings. This imperative duty of using a blind trust is critical as we can see that every president has done this for 40 years. Previous scandals of Trump funneling money from the Trump Foundation to his own businesses has resulted in unrest by politicians and experts, leading to further controversies over his businesses. And while President Trump promised to further himself from these controversies by handing his business over to his sons, he ruins this mediocre image of him being a sensible man by inviting his son-in-law to take high-level government positions. This clear sign of nepotism has resulted in scandal as his actions are under investigation for Russian ties. This issue is important to remember because Trump’s businesses and nepotism may bring other political leaders to the conclusion that Trump may be bought.

A letter sent to the President-elect stated the bipartisan expertise of government officials urging him to “divest your business enterprises into a true blind trust managed by an independent trustee, or the equivalent, in accordance with the guidelines of the Ethics in Government Act.” It’s interesting to see this bipartisan unionship as well as how devout Trump supporters are not afraid to be vocal when it comes to his misconducts. These requests to use a blind trust is not some personal ploy of upset politicians to destroy his businesses, but a valid decision government officials are advising him to take. The letter also states Trump’s lack of political skill when saying, “We write to you again as organizations and individuals from all parts of the political spectrum with expertise in government issues, including ethical conduct and conflicts of interest.” This is an important aspect to his presidency, considering he is not a politician or from a military background. Hopefully, Trump appreciates this guidance and acts upon it. I believe it’s important for him to divest his businesses as the experts advise him considering if he does not do so, other countries may take the opportunity to take advantage of his holdings.

It can be expected that some Trump supporters do not care of his business dealings and prefer him to own his companies considering he was a businessman before becoming President. However, this does not matter considering he has transferred his power from a businessman to the president. His influence may be swayed when it comes to his businesses that will always be in his rear-view mirror if he does not put them into a blind trust. Despite giving his holdings to his children, domestic and foreign affair leaders may still blackmail and hope to achieve their own personal agenda.

Democrats Must Fight

In Richard Eskow’s March 1st, 2017 commentary article - “Trump Offers ‘A Nation of Miracles.’ Your Move, Democrats” - argues for Democrats to become proactive as Donald Trump becomes more “presidential.” The author focuses on Trump’s recent speech at a joint session in Congress. This speech differed from his previous ones, garnering support from Republicans and surprise from the mainstream media. His positive tone and composed stature cloaked the underlying subtext of Republican ideals on infrastructure, healthcare, and Social Security. Eskow notices Republicans have more readily accepted Trump and Trump has more readily accepted their policy standings, which is why this speech did not resemble his other speeches. Eskow also notices the hidden meaning behind key parts of the speech, explaining that financing infrastructure “through public and private capital” would fatten the wallets of parts of his administration. The author continues by evaluating the Democratic response that seemed scattered and bleak. He suggests that Democrats are not fighting, but merely complying and hopes that this will soon change.

Eskow offers an interesting point on the Congressional joint speech. Trump’s even composure led the media to disregard the policies in the speech and convey them to be of not much importance considering his newfound presidential quality of patience. When you think about it, that is what happens. When Barack Obama was president, I was not aware of his decisions because I knew that our President was solid and calm. Because of that, I had no interest - nor did I consider it a need - in learning his policies. That is exactly what is happening here with Trump. Once Trump presents himself as a serene and mature president, reporters may stop grilling him with tough questions. People will go about their day as if there is no unjustness in the world. This cannot happen. I agree with Eskow’s argument; Democrats must step up and must not be blinded by a reassuring tone when dealing with the government.

This article was written for left-wing political supporters considering the Huffington Post leans towards the left-wing when writing their articles. The author makes witty remarks in response to quotes from Trump which also suggests this is an article meant for anti-Trump supporters. He also argues for Democratic action demonstrating the audience is for Democrats. The author, Richard Eskow, was a consultant, policy advisor, and senior executive who worked for the United States as well as more than 20 foreign countries. His experience in a high-profile workplace gives him the credibility to write and discuss his opinions on the recent Congressional joint speech.

End Fake News

In their February 23rd editorial article, the Dallas Morning News Editorial’s argument is directly in the title of their piece - “Elected Officials Have An Obligation To Avoid Spreading 'Fake News'”. The Editorial focuses on two stories spread by Texas politicians that have been proven to be false or have no reliable information in relation to illegal immigrants. The Texas Agricultural Commissioner, Sid Miller, posted a statement for the support of tougher immigration reforms when two Texans were shot by “illegal aliens”, when they had actually shot each other. The author also mentions that Texas governor, Greg Abbott, had tweeted about a mugging done by an illegal immigrant. However, upon further investigation, law enforcement discovered no illegal immigrants were involved. This falsification of news spread by what we assume to be credible politicians have garnered support for harsher immigration reforms and resulted in widespread fear of people of color.

It’s frustrating to witness politicians that citizens hold to a high standard succumb to the current misrepresentations of the diverse American population. Spreading false information does not boost their own ratings with the people, but delegitimizes their position. Wanting to fit in with the present day administration comes with a price and supporting its policies and political ideologies without verifying the truth brings backlash, as it should. Miller claims to not be “a news source” but that does not excuse him of his wrongdoings. You can not simply brush off something that would result in mass distrust of a person because you are “not a news source.” This is not the responsibility that we entrusted him with, but cowardice. Politician’s duty is to represent the people. How will the people understand these important political topics if they are given incorrect information by people they trust?

I completely agree with the author’s argument. Politicians have no right to claim the media as crooked when they themselves are the ones spreading the false information. These two accusations by respected politicians infuriates me. This false information should never have been circulated, yet it was. I want the truth; everyone wants the truth, especially in relation to the government and its policies.

Although there is no specific author mentioned, details such as the opposition to “fake news” and slander against immigrants suspects me to believe this author has a liberal viewpoint rather than conservative. Because there is no author listed, we cannot research whether this person is credible, however we can assume so due to the evidence presented in both cases in Texas. The mere fact that the author is against “fake news” suggests that this person is against lying to their audience about pertinent information on illegal immigration. This liberal viewpoint indicates that the audience would be liberals as well, however I suspect the author would like to inform all Americans about the fabrications told by today’s politicians that should be further investigated.

Trump Administration Plans For Extreme Vetting

On February 4th, 2017, NPR wrote an article about how the Trump administration’s recent refugee ban will remain enacted until the government can procure an “extreme vetting” procedure. This procedure includes questions pertaining not just to the individual's beliefs on religion but also their beliefs on government and whether they “hate a free society.” The individual’s opinion on a free society has become of equivalent importance to the individual’s nonviolent beliefs when deciding who will be allowed to enter the United States. However, many of these questions target Muslims - particularly Syrians seeking refuge from their country’s civil war. Nonetheless, anti-immigration advocates such as Frank Gaffney have had success in corralling the president to view Islam as a religion to fear which requires an extreme vetting process as well as an ideological test. Denying access of entry to someone on their beliefs has attracted immigration experts as well as citizens who fear this will allow daily intrusion and harassment into not just their lives but the lives of others. This article is worth reading to understand what the Trump administration is planning for the future of refugees, immigrants, as well as Americans.