DNI Designee Ratcliffe - Best Qualified

Mueller Questioned by Ratcliffe     [CBSN]

Click here for related story

There is quite a furor over the appointment of Representative John Ratcliffe to become the next DNI [Director of National Intelligence].

Brennan

David Ignatius, a long-time supplicant of the CIA in even its most corrupt form, calls Ratcliffe a "dangerous, demented clown."  Keep in mind that Ignatius thought Brennan, the Muslim buffoon, to be brilliant; so much for the Ignatius credibility quotient.

Clapper

He also referred to James Clapper [the guy we saw smirking at Congressional committee members as he repeatedly perjured himself] "the most successful DNI since the position was created."  So, Ignatius manages to squeeze himself into a corner, worshipping the two most egregious criminals in the Intelligence Community since Jonathan Pollard, Ana Montes, Aldrich Ames, and Kim Philby.

The Washington Post, lacking any real understanding of a professional Intelligence Community, regards  the appointment of Ratcliffe as horrendous, tagging Ratcliffe as an "inexperienced, partisan politician."

We also hear from "former Intelligence officers" who demand that the DNI be selected from the executive levels of the CIA, or, at least from the existing DNI staff, or, By Gawd, from maybe the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence [SSCI], managed by Dianne Feinstein who employed a Chinese Spy as her driver for 20 years.

Why, Ratcliffe lacks "any real experience, and worse, he likely has embraces Trump's 'Deep State' conspiracy theories about the CIA and FBI.  Goodness! Even a former "Station Chief" [aka: COS] claimed "this place is under siege."  That, of course, would presume there are any Station Chiefs with any degree of credibility these days.

Pretty much ignored is that the Intelligence Community lost virtually ALL credibility when it conspired in a combined effort to effect a coup against President-elect Trump.  And, let's not forget that Ilhan Omar, a Somali, sits on our House Foreign Affairs Committee - with a Top Secret Clearance.

So, before we comment on Mr Ratcliffe's selection, we refer you to the ABOUT section on our blog site so you can grasp a bit about our background, and why we feel entitled to weigh in on this topic, and to give our full endorsement to Mr Rattcliffe as the new DNI.
----

After the dust of  9-11 had settled, we sat down with President Reagan's Attorney General, Ed Meese, and laid the groundwork for the new position of the DNI.






Until 9-11 [and for a while after] the Intelligence Community was managed by the Director of Central Intelligence [DCI], who also was the Director of the CIA, giving that agency extraordinary power over the entire IC analyses, assessments, and operational activities. The DCI could over-rule any agreements and suppress any reporting; and the CIA could take credit for any assessments or reporting by other agencies. And when its own fumbling created disastrous results, it could, and did blame other agencies for its own errors.

 If there were successes, the CIA would claim the credit, no matter which agency had succeeded; and, if there were a failure, the CIA would run to the SSCI and point a finger [usually at Military Intelligence] claiming the Military was incompetent at Intelligence matters, and CIA should control all those operations [or analyses].

Given that history of abuse, we created the position of DNI to oversee the coordination of all components of the IC, but without the power the DCI had. Initially, the concept worked. But, then, under Obama, an IC which was limited to a few thousand employees of many specialties engorged to a population of nearly a million government and contract employees, creating a bureaucracy incapable of conducting or producing viable Intelligence. Thus, Trump's disdain for his IC support. Once again, having succeeded in neutering other components of the IC [e.g., DIA], the CIA assumed control of the IC once again with the combined power of Brennan and Clapper.

In plain and simple terms, the CIA was a Bully, and a fairly incompetent one at that with a long string of Intelligence failures, fiascos, abuses, and implications of corruption. Needless to say, this bullying annoyed the other members of the IC, and we all lurked in the shadows, waiting for the opportunity to drive a wooden stake through  the heart of this almighty vampire.

CIA ignored all the Indicators and Reports

And that day came with the horrors of 9-11, an event the planning/plotting details of which were discovered and provided by FBI agents, foreign intelligence and police services [e.g., the Philippines], and indicators from commercial [Private Sector] resources.

In essence, there was a plethora of Indicators completely and totally ignored by the highly touted and self-proclaimed "Terrorism Expert" John Brennan, who, in spite of missing/ignoring all the indicators, immediately rose to prominence with George W Bush, going on to become, what else, the Director of the CIA!

This came as a stunning surprise to the entire IC, but particularly to the remaining CIA professionals who almost unanimously despised Brennan and regarded him as a complete buffoon [much as they had regarded Bob Gates, a previous Bush designee, who, in spite of a continuous history of failure at the CIA, was promoted to the position of DCI by President GHW Bush.

[We can speak pejoratively here since we were intimately familiar with the IC and had deep friendships and alliances with many CIA, DIA, NSA and FBI professionals, as well as colleagues in the Military Intelligence Services. Why, we even spent time with CIA as an operative, and at the Departments of Defense and State as a senior analyst with highly credible recognition (even from the DCI) - so we can't be accused of blowing smoke out our butt.]  We knew lots of folks (still do) throughout the IC and coordinated operations directly with the Assistant Attorney General, back before the IC became politicized and weaponized by Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and Mueller.  Given their atrocious behavior, we even wrote a blog on restructuring the IC.]

But, we have again digressed.
[Enough of slamming Brennan and Clapper; we'll spend more time on them in separate blogs.]

We worked with Ed Meese [Reagan's Attorney General] to create the DNI after 9-11 to eliminate the DCI position and to neuter the CIA's dominance of the analytical and operational community. We sought to create a lean and efficient Intelligence Community, unencumbered by bureaucratic bloating; one which could focus on creating viable operations through thorough and cooperative analyses from all elements.

Our proposed process, for example, might follow these components:
1) A CIA station might report rumors, via clandestine operatives, of coup plotting, while the Defense Attache might report comments by one or more of the military plotters.
2) CIA and DIA analysts would examine the profiles of the plotters, and establish key words for NSA to monitor in Communications Intelligence [COMINT].
3) NRO [the satellite imagery guys at the National Reconnaissance Office] could then monitor any and all military movements which might be gauged as supportive of a coup.
4) Since most coups are bloodless, we would also review Private Sector Intelligence showing commercial movements of personal goods and wealth transfers in preparation of the soon-to-be deposed leader.
5) We might even send in covert operatives to help the soon-to-be deposed leader on his way with dark means of transport.
6) And, all elements of the IC would work together on this project via the DNI o!ce where information on analyses and operations could be exchanged.

In fact, the process actually worked like that, briefly.  

We originally envisioned the DNI to occupy a rather small building near the White House which had served as a place for representatives of the IC to meet and coordinate issues and operations around the world.  Gradually, however, it expanded into a bloated empire of hundreds of thousands of bureaucratic entities incapable of coordination, much less creating actionable Intelligence.

Saddam Hussein

The politicization and bloating of the process began under George W Bush, whose primary goal was to create a smokescreen disguising his 9-11 attack as the basis for our new international war adventures throughout the Middle East, disposing of Saddam Hussein, our long-time Middle East ally and stabilizer [albeit brutal].  

[See Rick Francona's book: Ally to Adversary, which examines the bewildering process by which Saddam was transitioned from our Ally to the basis for the Gulf War and Operation Desert Storm.]

And then, the IC was directed to create the basis for the endless war in Afghanistan to track down Osama bin Laden and kill him - a simple enough task in the old days with a few teams of lightly armed Special Forces operatives.  

But, the Bush and Obama Administrations expanded both the Military and the IC into massive, expensive, and incoherent bureaucracies, while destroying the competency of both entities. 

[Unfortunately for The Swamp, particularly IC executives, modern technology is now revealing that 9-11 was a Bush ruse which cost the lives of thousands of people for the amusement and profit of a select group of Deep State puppet-masters; they've been identified and will find their way to Gitmo for trial, and likely execution. The professional investigators of 9-11 can no longer be dismissed as "Truthers" or Conspiracy Theorists with Tin Foil caps since forensic science now includes highly technical resources to discount the official versions with detailed revelations of the events and participants.]

But, we've digressed again.

When the Deep State positioned Obama in the Oval Office, it became important to create Intelligence Estimates [NIE] which lent credence to the Global War on Terrorism and justified the bloating of the IC from as few as 10,000 analysts and operatives to nearly a million government employees and private contractors, destroying any hope of processing any level of intelligence through hundreds of layers of indecisive and incompetent, but well-paid bureaucrats.

The Plan was to make the system so convoluted that no one could understand it, or its products.

When Trump took office, he was faced with nonsensical IC smoke and mirrors briefings which  had no bearing on reality. 

Thus, Trump's disdain for, and refusal to accept his IC support. 

He preferred to get his Intelligence assessments from the Private Sector -- which had hired the professionals from the IC and given them the resources and facilities to conduct Intelligence as we had envisioned the DNI to operate.

Clapper and Brennan recognized the Handwriting on the Wall, indicating their power positions and commercial contracts, post retirement, were in jeopardy, at which point they attempted to stage a coup with the amateurish resources they had at hand. 

And, we are now witnessing the unravelling of that process.

So, now, we return to the origin of this tale.

What about Mr Ratcliff's qualifications, or lack thereof, to become the DNI.
[We list his Committee participation below]

Briefly, as we've noted, the DNI position is not one of power over the IC, but is precisely limited in that respect. 

In fact, the DNI, by charter, is limited to only MANAGE the IC and to coordinate the functions of the components of the IC as the Chief Executive Officer [CEO] of a large corporation would manage all the components of a large company. Just as the corporate CEO need not be a programmer to manage an Google, or an engineer to manage Bechtel, the DNI needs only management skills, and a legal mind since much of what the IC does require a legal review. 

Judge William Webster
No Intelligence Background
Before Appointment

Keep in mind, the IC currently consists of highly technical resources [NSA, NRO, NGA], along with HUMINT [clandestine, covert, and open source operations]. 

You will never find any executive skilled in all those specialties, but, recall that Jack Welch managed General Electric and increase the company's value by 4,000%.

Ross Perot managed EDS, leading it to become one of the most successful companies in US history.. 

The skills of Welch and Perot consisted of directing capable executives who, in turn, managed highly technical components -- much the same as the DNI would direct the executives in charge of the various Intelligence agencies which comprise the IC.

Perhaps the best and most respected Director was  Judge William Webster who successfully managed not only the FBI, but later became the Director of Central Intelligence -- as a lawyer/jurist - NOT an Intelligence specialist.

Mr Ratcliffe is a manager, so, like Webster, he won't favor one agency over another in his management process.  As an attorney, he can recognize all the elements of a good legal brief

as it would pertain to clandestine or covert operations; and, he would be the most capable executive of listening to the heads of the specialty units of NSA, NRO, NGA, DEA, FBI, DIA, and the Military Services and evaluating their assessments and/or their proposed courses of actions as they would merge into achieving an ultimate goal, or operation.

So, we suspect Mr Ratcliffe can manage the Intelligence Community in an equally common sense manner, even if he is not an Intelligence technician.

----------

Ed Notes:
Congressman Ratcliffe's assignments on Capitol Hill

House Committee Assignments

• House Intelligence Committee 
  • Strategic Technologies and Advanced Research Subcommittee
  • Intelligence and Modernization Readiness Subcommittee
• House Judiciary Committee
  • Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security (Ranking Member)
  • Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet
• House Committee on Homeland Security
  • Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Innovation
  • Subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime Security
• House Ethics Committee

Trump Pulls Troops Out of Syria and Afghanistan

Mattis, a superb combat warrior, disagrees with a  superb strategist
They're both right! 

We may take a bit of flack from pseudo-hawks and NeoCons, but we support Trump's decision 100%.

Old Military and Intelligence guys have wondered at the rationale of keeping our troops in the Middle East.
Saddam is dead,
Osama bin Laden is still dead.

We have no stake in the Middle East other than to assist governments to stabilize, which does not include the massive presence of Central Command Forces. Nor does it require keeping massive US Military forces in Europe under the European Command -- a relic of the Cold War. Let the Europeans fund and populate NATO; we're tired of taking their lip and funding their exquisite tastes.

As necessary, we have the capability of transporting a fully equipped combat division, with combat support aircraft from the US to a crisis site within hours via our Transportation Command's  C-5 and
C-17 cargo planes.  We can deploy supersonic bombers and fighters from the US to arrive over the Middle East with minimal flight time with maximized combat effectiveness.

We should learn from history [an odd idea, now, isn't it?]

We've been involved in these faux wars for decades, the purpose of which always remains vague - other than to support the Military-Industrial Complex -- as detailed by General/POTUS Eisenhower.

As the Soviet Empire was crumbling, we sat with Bill Clark, then the Assistant Secretary of the Army [General Mark Clark's son] as he bemoaned the future/demise of the Military without a defined enemy.

Specifically, without a definable enemy, we would have no reason to maintain a large, standing Military; and if a new global crisis arose, how could we mobilize in time to meet that crisis?

We've spent a few years in combat in a variety of countries, supposedly to "defend our country", only to learn the enemies we fought were once our friends, and our current friends were once our enemies.

Worse, we learned our "leaders" [e.g., Kissinger, Bush-1, W, Robert Gates, Obama, Billary] were the actual enemy we've come to know as the Deep State, all leading us into senseless wars.

After we [personally] were able to defeat the insurgency in Northeast Thailand, we gloated until we learned the insurgency had been sponsored by the Chinese who coopted the anti-government movement protesting the government's confiscation of farmlands in order to build a hydro-electric dam, funded by our very own Agency for International Development [USAID].  The dam construction devastated famers by claiming their fertile land and relegating this once prosperous group to generations of poverty and government subsidies.

But, the "greater good" prevailed as the region received electricity -- although few could use it.

That revelation in 1974, got us to thinking about our major Military commitments.

China and Vietnam [Ho Chi Minh] were some of our greatest supporters in WW2, establishing OSS spy networks (which we inherited during the Vietnam War) and recovering our downed pilots; but now, that enemy, Japan - the invading force, is our close ally in the Pacific, and China is now our enemy.

Ho Chi Minh worked in England and in France, and on the docks in Baltimore, so he was fluent in English as well as the US culture.

He led the movement for independence from France and formed the Indochinese Communist Party, and following WW2, sought Eisenhower's support for Vietnam's independence - which Ike declined.

LBJ initiated the war with North Vietnam by sending our warships into their territorial waters, drawing fire, thus convincing Congressional hawks to declare war.

As it turns out, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution was drafted a full six months before the attacks on US vessels occurred.

While we valiantly fought that war until 1975, Henry Kissinger, without the knowledge of Nixon, was selling us out to the Chinese in 1972, in exchange for a trade agreement.

But, throughout that war, we were often reminded of the heroin trade, via the Golden Triangle, through US Military transport, to the US.  Some folks are convinced that trade was sponsored or conducted by the CIA.

Iraq, for decades before we invaded to depose Saddam, was our closest Middle East Arab Ally [see our colleague, #Rick Francona's book "Ally to Adversary"], as well as our principal oil supplier.

Dick Cheney's Defense Contractors made a fortune exploiting the war -- and our soldiers, and we then had a generation of soldiers succumb to the Gulf War Syndrome [attributed to the oil vapor from burning wells, or, depleted uranium munitions, but in fact, derived from the Anthrax vaccine immunizations in 1990 by order of the Department of Defense on all Army troops who "might" be deployed to Iraq -- Bush's friends in the Pharmaceutical Industry profited mightily from that requirement -- even though it had not been through more than one (incomplete) trial.

Theoretically, the US would use oil sales from Iraq to pay for that war, but, in the end, the oil fields went under the control of other countries, and the US got not a cent!  On the other hand, US Defense contractors made fortunes.

Estimates by Reuters put the estimated total cost of the Iraq War at more than $5.6 Trillion.  
The war killed an estimated 150,000 Iraqi civilians, with unconfirmed estimates ranging up to 600,000, including security forces, insurgents, journalists, and humanitarian workers!  Bush demonstrated US power by publicly executing Saddam by hanging him, by the neck, until dead.
[Rumor has it that W faced that same sentence in Gitmo in December, 2018]

The social impact in Iraq included the reinvigoration of Islamic militants, reversal of women's rights, and a weakened an already precarious healthcare system.  The multi-billion reconstruction effort was regarded a failure as most of the monies spent on security was lost to waste or fraud.

Keep in mind that the basis of George W Bush's invasion of Iraq was based on his announcement that Saddam Hussein held "Weapons of Mass Destruction" [WMD] a claim discounted by Rick Francona who was/is an expert on the region and acted as General Schwartzkopf's personal Arabic interpreter and Intelligence Advisor.

Schwartzkopf, opposed by Dick Cheney later became critical of the rationale behind the war once he learned the "WMD" claim was fraudulent and handed in his retirement papers rather than remain on Active Duty.  No evidence was ever substantiated of WMDs in Iraq.

Our legacy in Iraq was, perhaps, to create the subsequent regional terrorist factions which represent our current global threat.

The Afghans were our closest allies in their battles against the Soviets, as we helped create and aided the Mujahiden; but, there were even allegations that the CIA created Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, via Operation Cyclone, -- and then, once the Soviets were defeated, we abandoned our Afghan colleagues, allowing religious zealots to control the Taliban who were then dubbed terrorists; they're now our enemy because bin Laden was reportedly hiding out in Afghanistan.

In spite of the Special Operations assault on bin Laden's Pakistan hideout and his assassination, he has been repeatedly reported in sightings vacationing in the Caribbean with his family.

The faux assassination of bin Laden was conducted by Admiral McRaven's Special Operations units under the guise of Operation Neptune Spear as a public relations event for then-POTUS Obama.  McRaven reportedly was one of the flag rank officers who signed on to Obama's requirement that they agreed to fire on US Civilians if so ordered.

Contrary to all Intelligence protocols, bin Laden was killed and his [supposedly his] mutilated body was dumped in the ocean, sparking Muslim outrage throughout the world, and leaving professional Intelligence officers bewildered that he was not taken captive [he was unarmed] and interrogated to obtain his knowledge of regional and global terrorist groups.

Notably, SEAL Team Six, the lead on the bin Laden assault, later suffered 38 casualties, to include 15 participants of the bin Laden raid when their Chinook helicopter was shot down on August 6, 2011IN [Extortion 17] -- not long after members of the Team lampooned Obama as in Clint Eastwood's Empty Chair soliloquy.

Loading 38 SEALs aboard a chopper in a combat zone strains credulity, but, apparently, the orders came down from McRaven -- an officer we all respected until too many of these incidents surfaced, and he has recently become a highly vocal critic of President Trump.

The chopper was allegedly shot down by a Surface to Air [SAM/MANPAD]


But, why are we in Afghanistan now?

Most experts remain bewildered, other than the US now tacitly protects the poppy/heroin trade.

And, we learned that ISIS, our Enemy-du-Jour, has been led and funded by senior officers of our closest Mid-East Allies, apparently so we would have an officially recognized enemy.

Later, we learned that Benghazi was all about covering up Hillary's arms deals with ISIS and al Qaeda by overthrowing Qadafi and transferring the contents of Libyan armories to al Qaeda -- who just might be tempted use those weapons against US forces.


Of late, we received from an anonymous donor, the complete [unclassified] war-plan designed by [former General] Wesley Clark [Clinton's protege and commander of the Military raid on Waco] in which Clark planned a war between Ukraine and Russia, into which US forces would be inserted and engaged.
[It was difficult to determine who would have been the enemy in that war, but US engagement would guarantee profits for our Defense Contractors.]

In Central America, a grouping of 'banana republics" and a hotbed of corruption, the US built up the Southern Command [SouthCom] headquarters from a Military retirement vacationland to a highly energized and blossoming combat command, focused on defeating the communist threat to Nicaragua, which Jimmy Carter had turned over to the Sandinistas by pulling support from the "evil despot", Somoza - [a West Point graduate] and allowing communist Daniel Ortega to come to power and who then ushered in the Cubans and Soviets -- who presented The Threat.

We were assigned as the Special Intelligence Advisor to SouthCom, a thinly staffed regional headquarters which could respond to any regional crisis, and watched it mushroom into a bloated, top heavy bureaucracy which justified its existence by toppling our host and ally, Noriega with a massive invasion, built a huge Military force in Honduras and El Salvador, created a war zone in El Salvador, and essentially destabilized an entire sub-continent by becoming the common enemy of all, and a seeming ally of the Drug Cartels, thanks to Bush-1, Clinton, Bush-2, and Obama.

The US militarized El Salvador, Honduras, and Costa Rica, and headquartered Army and Air Force bases in each country, and supported Panama's Noriega as a "benevolent despot", who profited by accepting payments from the KGB, the CIA, Army Intelligence, -- and the Chinese.

[We managed HUMINT programs in CentAm following a by-name request by the CIA DDO-LA [D Clarridge] and the former DCI [V Walters] to restructure both the CIA and the Military Intelligence HUMINT operations in Latin America]

Noriega was also a drug runner and arms dealer; but, then we created an intelligence program that revealed that Noriega was not just a tin-horn dictator, but masterminded a global network of hundreds of front companies through which he moved drugs, arms, and laundered money -- a sophisticated network CIA/Deep State coveted, so Noriega was declared evil, and the US invaded Panama, and the CIA took control of all the Noriega Front Companies to carry on their global, Black enterprises.

But, all that is hidden in the background, and Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria are sort of enemy strongholds, but, we're not sure who are the good guys, or the bad guys.

So, now, who will the US have to identify and combat "The "Threat"?
Afghanistan for another 10 or 15 years? or Syria, for another 10 years!

We have the highly skilled and specialized Special Forces [the Special Operations Commmand (SOCOM) designed for insertion into hostile zones to address "Terrorists".

We have a Cyber Command which theoretically can combat hacking by all our Cyber enemies, and even the Russians, if we can admit that the US targets the successor to the USSR
[the Cyber Command apparently includes Spookdblog as an enemy since they have bombarded our residences with impulse waves, hacked our cell-phones and texted Clapper's threats to us, along with excerpts of our highly classified Officer Evaluation Reports (OER)-- just to let us know they could do it.]

Notably, there are several other Unified Commands [AfriCom, SouthCom, Strategic Command, etc.,] which serve no purpose other than to create command slots for unnecessary generals and bureaucrats, and to fund NATO.

But, let's not forget the Defense contractors who provide that expensive support for our Military forces deployed in those regions. The massive expansion of our Military and Intelligence organizations under Bush and Obama have created a huge financial burden, and a bloated Military hierarchy unseen in the history of the US -- even at the peak of World War 2.

These Commands waste manpower and equipment, and create the scenarios for regional wars - usually backing the wrong elements; they augment their forces by deploying National Guard units from the US at great expense. It's time to rethink our Military from top to bottom.

Do we need to remain in Afghanistan or Syria?

Lots of senior Military officers will state adamantly that the US must live up to its commitments in both areas of operation [AO].  But, precisely what commitment is there?

1) Afghanistan: 
After 17 years, our accomplishments consist of:
   a) Trillions of dollars spent,
   b) Deployment of countless National Guard units in six month deployments barely long enough
        to familiarize them with the environment before coming under attack,
    c) Countless suicides during, and after deployments, abominable leadership, massive
        post-deployment illnesses,
    d) Assassination of US personnel by Afghan allies, and
    e) Absolutely no positive results other than protecting Poppy fields for local drug lords,
    f) Bad guys control most of the country and the Afghan Government [our Ally] controls
        a few acres
    g) Most Afghans regard us as their enemy

2) Syria:
We've only been engaged in Syria for seven years, since 2011, and here's a list of accomplishments:
   a) Roughly 500,00 people are dead
   b) Dozens of countries are involved
   c)  Many [exact number unknown] terrorist groups are involved -- on both sides
   d)  Syrian President Assad is backed by Iran and Russia [our current "enemies"] and Pakistan
   c)  Opposition to Assad includes
        (1) hundreds of "militias" from an estimated 85 countries,
        (2) Syrian Democratic Forces [Kurdish-led coalition of Arab and Kurdish Militias],
              (a) led by the Kurdish Worker's Party (PKK)
              (b) regarded by the US and the UK as a Terrorist group although the US provides
                   them air support against ISIS]
              (c) BUT, Turkey fights the Kurds fearing they will use a victory to declare an independent
                    state along the border
        (3) Miscellaneous Arabs, Sunnis, Christians, Druze, and Kurds],
        (4) Islamic extremists -- some of which have been declared terrorists,
              including the Syrian version of al Qaeda [armed by Hillary from Libyan
              military warehouses]
        (5) ISIS- supposedly local Islamic extremists, although manpower derives from a variety
              of countries including Canada, the US, Australia, Israel, the UK, Iraq, etc.
        (6) Official backing by outside nations includes the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Turkey
       

Mr Trump has stated he will pull out of Syria, but, given the complexities listed above, he faces a great deal of opposition from Allies, the Democrats, the Pentagon, the GOP, and all those who anticipate profiting from the continuation of this conflict.

Essentially, Trump is removing his "Boots-On-The-Ground" units and still maintaining a protective shield by creating a "No-Fly-Zone" in the Northeast of Syria which is rich in Agriculture, Water, and Energy resources - the target of all the Bad Guys.

The US can remove its primary units deployed by Obama, but tactically, can still respond, as needed from other Middle East areas, or,  from the US with Special Operations units and A-10 Warthogs, the close-air support aircraft Obama was intent on eliminating.

Assuming the reports of satellite enabled weaponry [Star Wars], bad guys [if accurately identified] could be targeted and blasted into oblivion in seconds using the Directed Energy Weapons developed back in the 1970s, or lasers developed during the 1960s, now significantly enhanced, with targeting via sophisticated technology developed since then.

In the ancient words of Walt Kelly's POGO,

"We have met the enemy, and he is US!"

Trump has an uphill battle to fix this.

Trump's Tax Plan

Today's discussion will focus on the impact of President Trump's Tax Plan.

[We feel qualified to discuss this topic as we maintain advanced degrees in 

Business Administration and Economics from well regarded institutions 

such as Webster, Georgetown, and Oxford Universities, and

we have taught senior level International Business 

courses at the University of Maryland.

We also conducted a NSC/CSIS study of the impact of business

 on local and international economies to assist the 

Reagan Administration develop a strategy for 

International Economic Development.

]

Leftist [e.g., NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc.,] criticism of Trump's Tax Plan worries that it will reduce tax revenues, undercutting the ability of Congress to spend extraordinary amounts of money on pet projects, like the Trillion Dollar F-35, and will benefit "The Rich" at the expense of "The Working Class".

In reality, most economists [including this author] will point out that Economies of Scale play a major role in increasing tax revenues:

1)  The tax base of employed taxpayers expands as jobs are created
      by the return of corporation to the US [inspired by a reduced tax
      rate]; the more taxpayers, the more tax revenue,
2)  Companies previously squeezed by ObamaCare's requirement
      to provide health benefits forall employees, if the number of
      employees exceeds 49, can now return to normal business
      practices and hire more than 49 employees legally; thus, a
      larger taxpayer base,
3)   New companies will be created to meet increased demand for goods and services, no longer
       hampered by the burdensome bureaucratic regulations and criminal penalties buried
       in ObamaCare,
4)   The defunding and termination of enforcement of ObamaCare criminal penalties will end the cost
       of ObamaCare special enforcement units which had hired massive staffs and generated equally
       massive budgets, incurring massive court costs in prosecution of "offenders".
5)  Disposable income of taxpayers will increase, facilitating their expenditures on taxable goods
      and services; the net tax revenues gained through expanded commerce will more than offset
      the reduction in individual tax revenue.

6)  Home equity will continue to increase for
      taxpayers who no longer have to worry that
      Obama or Congress will eliminate the tax
      deduction for mortgage interest and real estate
      taxes; that concept created a negative impact
      on the expansion of the housing industry
      which had begun to contract based on rumors
      from Capitol Hill.
      a)   Home equity allows homeowners greater
             availability of cash through refinancing,
      b)   Home equity translates to more profit in
             the pocket when homeowners sell,
      c)   Home equity encourages new homebuyers,
             expanding the housing market at all levels.
      d)   Housing Market expansion encourages new construction, which employs skilled and
             unskilled labor, expanding the workforce -- and again, expands the taxpayer base,
       e)  Housing Market expansion translates into increased sales of goods and services at all levels,
             from wood, nails, electrical components, stoves, ovens, HVAC systems, etc., all of which will
             both expand as well as create new companies which will hire new workers/taxpayers.
        f)  Housing Market expansion will create new companies which will not only hire new workers,
             but which will increase the business tax base for local and federal taxes.

Individual Reform

1)  Tax relief for American families, especially middle-income families:

     a)  Reducing the 7 tax brackets to 3 tax brackets of 10%, 25% and 35%

     b)  Doubling the standard deduction

     c)  Providing tax relief for families with child and dependent care expenses
     d)  Eliminate tax on individuals earning below $25,000 per year,
           and on couples eating less than $50,000 per year,

2)  Simplification:

     a)  Eliminate targeted tax breaks that mainly benefit the wealthiest taxpayers    

     b)  Protect the home ownership and charitable gift tax deductions

     c)  Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax, allowing standard deductions once again,

     d)  Repeal the death tax, allowing family wealth to be passed directly to heirs

As for business, we've noted the expansion above of Small Business in the economy is of major significance.  Here are the documented facts of the impact of Small Business:

1)  99.7%    of US employers
2)  64%       of net "new Private-Sector jobs"
3)  42.9%    of Private-Sector payroll
4)  46%       of Private-Sector output
5)  43%       of high-tech employment
6)  98%       of exporting firms
7)  33%       of value of exported goods

Notably, the impact of ObamaCare provisions forced many Small Business to shut their doors and cease to operate, laying off employees, terminating their sale of goods and services, eradicating their percentage of the economy of local, national, and international commerce, and thus eliminating the tax revenues previously tied to Small Business.

Most politicians -- and economists -- fail to factor in the impact of ObamaCare on the economy and joblessness rates.  The data above makes it a bit more clear for the uninformed.

As a footnote to this mini-discussion of Small Business. we will point out that such companies as Microsoft, Apple, Northrup-Gumman, Oracle, HP, Google, Amazon, and EBay all began as "Small Businesses" -- none of which would have flourished had ObamaCare existed when these companies were start-ups.

Business Reform

1)   15% business tax rate

2)   Territorial tax system to level the playing field for American companies

3)    One-time tax on trillions of dollars held overseas

4)    Eliminate tax breaks for special interest groups
5)    Repeal the 3.8% Obamacare tax that hits small businesses and investment income

The reform of the tax rates on business is especially significant for large, multi-national corporations [MNC], many of which moved their operations outside the US to avoid high taxes and onerous regulations which significantly increased overhead costs and decreased the levels of profit centers.

Lowering the tax rate will attract these extra-territorial companies back to the US where they will not only pay corporate taxes on their profits, but, they will hire American workers to produce goods and services.  These new hires will pay taxes, and consume goods and services provided by Small Business; they will also buy durable goods such as Appliances, TVs, Electronics, etc., and, they will consume services as they expand and enhance their lifestyles.

The territorial tax system will also make these American-based MNCs more competitive, increasing taxable profits, and expanding employment.

The One-Time tax on the protected overseas assets will generate hundreds of billions of dollars in a single event, which can then be invested in the US infrastructure -- creating more jobs.  It has the spin-off effect of eliminating the burden of criminality declarations against US executives who can better expend their resources on building business enterprises rather than expanding the number of lawyers in their legal offices.

And, last, but certainly not least, repeal of the 3.8% ObamaCare tax which has smothered Small Business enterprise, and stifled investment in publicly traded companies, many of which have gone private to reduce the costly impact of federal restrictions.

Noteworthy of this entire review is the impact of ObamaCare -- which most critics have considered merely a fly in the health-care ointment.  In reality, its impact has affected US commerce in all phases of the economy based on its myriad provisions hidden from view in the thousands of pages of both the original ACA as well as the implementation instructions.  

Eliminate ObamaCare, and we can return to business as normal.