Why does Trump lie? Just ask Billy Bush.

by Erik Wemple

The tireless mendacity of President Trump has roared back into the top of the news. “How to know when Trump is lying,” notes the headline on a CNN piece. Slate: “Trump’s Saturday of Lies: 

President Says Official Who Briefed Reporters ‘Doesn’t Exist.’ ” The New York Times has an article on how Trump’s repeated allegations about an FBI informant who cultivated sources on his 2016 presidential campaign squares with his history: “With ‘Spygate,’ Trump Shows How He Uses Conspiracy Theories to Erode Trust.”

Bring up Trump’s frequent lies, and White House officials will seek to change the topic. They’ll talk about the robust economy; they’ll talk about the move of the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; they’ll talk about the withdrawal from the Paris climate accord; they’ll talk about the blameworthiness of Trump’s Democratic critics. All of the programs of the Trump administration, however, are built to some degree of deception; lying, after all, was the central plank of Trump’s presidential election campaign.

In their look at Trump’s hyping of “Spygate,” Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Maggie Haberman of the New York Times summed up the latest in presidential misinformation:

Last week, President Trump promoted new, unconfirmed accusations to suit his political narrative: that a “criminal deep state” element within Mr. Obama’s government planted a spy deep inside his presidential campaign to help his rival, Hillary Clinton, win — a scheme he branded “Spygate.” It was the latest indication that a president who has for decades trafficked in conspiracy theories has brought them from the fringes of public discourse to the Oval Office.

Citing two former Trump officials, the New York Times reports that Trump resisted deploying the term “deep state” in his rhetoric, “partly because he believed it made him look too much like a crank.” So the guy who gripes incessantly and with no evidence about the “fake news” media is worried about appearing like a crank.

 Notes the New York Times: “Students of Mr. Trump’s life and communication style argue that the idea of conspiracies is a vital part of his strategy to avoid accountability and punch back at detractors, real or perceived, including the news media.”

True, no doubt. Yet the most clarifying point on this matter comes from Billy Bush, who is, if nothing else, a student of Mr. Trump’s life and communication style. Bush was the fellow chatting with Trump on the infamous 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape in which the mogul bragged about grabbing women by their genitals. Bush was fired from the “Today” show over the incident. It just so happened, however, that Bush had spent a lot of time with Trump back in his years as an entertainment correspondent, and he discussed his experiences on an episode of “Real Time with Bill Maher” in March. Maher noted that Trump had exaggerated the ratings of his program “The Apprentice,” prompting Bush:

Well, he’s been saying No. 1 forever, right. Finally I’d had enough. I said, “Wait, Donald. Hold it. Wait a minute. You haven’t been No. 1 for five years, four years — whatever it is. Not in any category, not in any demo.” He goes, “Well, did you see last Thursday? Last Thursday, 18-49 … last five minutes.” I said, “No. I don’t know that stat.” So he was like, “I told you.” And then later, when the cameras were off … he says, “Billy, look, look, you just tell them and they believe it. That’s it, you just tell them and they believe it. They just do.” And I said, “Ah, okay.”

That’s called telling the truth about lies.

Being a blabbermouth, Trump apparently cannot stop himself from confiding about his malicious tactics — to media types, of all people. Lesley Stahl of “60 Minutes” recently revealed that Trump had told her about the thinking behind his media-bashing ways. “You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe it,” Trump told Stahl shortly after his election, as she recalls it.

On Tuesday morning, Trump tweeted:

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump

The 13 Angry Democrats (plus people who worked 8 years for Obama) working on the rigged Russia Witch Hunt, will be MEDDLING with the mid-term elections, especially now that Republicans (stay tough!) are taking the lead in Polls. There was no Collusion, except by the Democrats!

News outlets scrambled to characterize the allegation. CNN: “Trump says, without proof, that Mueller team will meddle in midterm elections.” Associated Press via New York Times: “Trump: Mueller’s Team Is ‘Meddling’ in Midterm Elections.” Politico: “Trump says Mueller probe will meddle in midterms.”

“Without proof,” huh? CNN cannot call this particular tweet a lie because it doesn’t know 100 percent for certain that Mueller won’t meddle; and it doesn’t know 100 percent for certain that Trump doesn’t believe this allegation. Which is to say, the media has standards in covering a president who doesn’t. It has been a mismatch from Day 1.

Trump’s true talent isn’t negotiating. It’s marketing. By Fareed Zakaria

By Fareed Zakaria

Donald Trump’s recurring criticism of his predecessor is that he just didn’t know how to make a deal. “Obama is not a natural deal maker,” he tweeted in 2016, complaining that there was no accord on Syria. “Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly,” he predicted incorrectly back in 2013. Trump was scathing about President Barack Obama’s lack of legislative success, pronouncing him “unable to negotiate w/ Congress.” “We need leaders who can negotiate great deals for Americans,” Trump tweeted in 2015, and the implication was obvious — he was the ultimate dealmaker. 

It is nearly 500 days into the Trump administration. Where are the deals? Where is the renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement , the bilateral trade agreements that were going to replace the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the new and improved Iran nuclear pact, the China trade deal? Trump’s record in working with Congress is even less impressive. He has not been able to strike an accord with Democrats on anything, from immigration to infrastructure.

The world is laughing at us, he would often say. Well, what must the world be thinking now, as it watches the Trump administration careen wildly on everything from North Korea to China? What must it have thought as it watched the master negotiator in a televised session with congressional leaders on immigration, where he seemed to agree with the Democratic position, then agree with the (incompatible) Republican position, all the while asserting they were going to make a deal? They didn’t.

By now it is obvious Trump is actually a bad negotiator — an impulsive, emotional man who ignores briefings, rarely knows details, and shoots first and asks questions later.

Consider how the administration has handled the North Korea summit. First, the meeting was announced with great fanfare, with Trump soon lavishing praise on North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Agreeing to the meeting was an enormous symbolic concession to Pyongyang, while getting almost nothing in return. This was to be a head-of-state summit, though there was little preparation and no determination that the two sides were close enough to have a serious negotiation at that level.

Trump got excited enough to start hyping the prospects for a breakthrough agreement despite little evidence of any movement in the North Korean position. Next, Trump’s advisers embarked on a strange series of comments that seemed designed to threaten, scare and intimidate North Korea. Was this the plan? Did the administration regret its early overtures? Or was this all just incompetence? Is it any wonder the whole thing has collapsed? 

Trump has been even more ham-handed in his dealings with China. Just before entering the White House, he dangled the possibility of recognizing Taiwan. Beijing quickly shut down contact with the United States and, humiliatingly, Trump had to walk back his comments in a phone call with President Xi Jinping.

The current trade talks with China are a case study in bad negotiations. It is difficult to know where to begin. The U.S. government does not seem to know what it wants. Some days, it appears Washington is fixated on the size of the trade deficit. Other days, it focuses on technology transfer and the theft of intellectual property. The White House began its attacks by imposing tariffs on steel, which mostly affected American allies, ensuring that it had no partners in its attempt to pressure the Chinese. After insisting no countries would be exempted, the administration once again reversed course and doled out exemptions to the top five steel exporters to the United States, though it threatens to reverse itself again.

American negotiators have leaked furiously to the press to undermine each other’s positions, and even squabbled among themselves in front of a Chinese delegation earlier this month. Trump himself seems to switch gears repeatedly. After his administration announced it would punish ZTE, a huge Chinese tech company that committed serious trade violations, Trump suddenly changed his mind, citing concern for the impact on Chinese jobs. Imagine the outcry if Obama had backed away from putting pressure on the Chinese to help their economy!

On the legislative front, Trump chose to begin his presidency with the divisive issue of health care rather than a unifying one such as infrastructure — and failed to get Obamacare repealed anyway. Oh, and don’t forget, he and son-in-law Jared Kushner were going to broker the ultimate deal: peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. How is that going?

As talks fail, deals collapse and negotiations founder, Trump continues to tweet triumphantly about his great success. It makes one realize the president’s true talent. He has the confidence, bravado and skill to market failure as success. He can take a mediocre building, slap some gold paint on it and then convince people it’s a super-luxury condominium. Call it the Art of the Spin.

The alarming statistics that show the U.S. economy isn’t as good as it seems

by Heather Long

The U.S. economy has a problem. The usual economic bench marks look really good: America in 2018 is enjoying faster growth, low unemployment, record numbers of job openings and a stock market near an all-time high. Yet an alarming number of Americans are still struggling to get by.

In the past week, two reports — a new Federal Reserve survey of more than 12,200 Americans about their finances and a new United Way report on financial hardship — reveal just how unstable life remains for a large number of people. Here's a rundown of the key findings:

• Forty percent of American adults don't have enough savings to cover a $400 emergency expense such as an unexpected medical bill, car problem or home repair.
• Forty-three percent of households can't afford the basics to live, meaning they aren't earning enough to cover the combined costs of housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cellphone, according to the United Way study. Researchers looked at the data by county to adjust for lower costs in some parts of the country.
• More than a quarter of adults skipped necessary medical care last year because they couldn't afford it.
• Twenty-two percent of adults aren't able to pay all of their bills every month.
• Only 38 percent of non-retired Americans think their retirement savings is “on track.”
• Only 65 percent of African Americans and 66 percent of Hispanics say they are “doing okay” financially versus 77 percent of whites.

The Fed and United Way findings suggest the U.S. economy isn't nearly as strong as statistics such as the unemployment rate and the GDP growth rate suggest. Taken alone, these metrics mask the fact that some Americans are doing well and some are not.

“We have a ‘Two Realities’ economy in America,” said William Rodgers, a professor at Rutgers University and chief economist at the Heldrich Center for Workforce Development. “One segment has truly recovered from the Great Recession and is at full employment. The other continues to experience stagnating wages, involuntary part-time employment, inflexible work schedules and weaker access to health care.”

Rodgers is worried about how families that don't have $400 in savings are going to handle rising gas prices, higher rents and credit card rates that are climbing as U.S. interest rates rise.

President Trump and many Republicans in Congress are focused on getting people back to work with the belief that once people have jobs they will be able to lift themselves out of poverty. But a growing body of research like the Fed and United Way studies and anecdotes from people working on the front lines at food banks and shelters indicates that a job is no longer enough.

Wages in the United States, especially for workers who aren't managers, have stagnated for two decades, making it difficult to save for emergencies, let alone save to buy a home or take extra classes to get ahead.

There's hope that low unemployment and the large number of companies complaining they can't find enough workers will finally cause wages to rise, but so far, that has yet to happen on a wide scale.

The result is that more and more people are showing up at food pantries who have jobs, but still don't have enough income for food and rent.

“Half of the people we serve are above the poverty level. They are working, but they are not making it,” said Catherine D'Amato, president of the Greater Boston Food Bank. “It’s a deep struggle for people to provide for themselves based on their wages.”

D'Amato has worked at food banks and pantries since 1979, but she says she's never seen it like it is today with so many people with jobs but still unable to survive. October and November were the highest food bank usage on record for her organization, a reminder that many are still not stable years after the Great Recession officially ended in 2009.

Nonwhite households continue to have a harder time finding good-paying employment. The unemployment rates for African Americans and Hispanics, while at record lows, are still significantly higher than that of whites. The Fed survey highlighted that far fewer minorities in America feel “okay” financially compared with whites.

In addition to low pay, many struggling Americans say a major problem is that their hours vary greatly from month to month. They may be able to make it one week, but not the next because their hours — and their earnings — fall substantially. Three in 10 adults say their family income varies from month to month, according to the Fed survey, and one in 10 say their income varies a lot, making it difficult to pay bills on time.

One of the most widely watched statistics in the Fed's “Report on the Economic Well-being of U.S. Households” is how many adults say they could cover an unexpected $400 expense. When the survey was released for the first time in 2013, half of those surveyed said they didn't have enough savings to cover an emergency expense of a few hundred dollars.

Today that has fallen to 40 percent, a figure that is better but still troubling to many economists. It means nearly 48 million households aren't saving or are unable to save.

“Nothing is more fundamental to achieving financial stability than having savings that can be drawn upon when the unexpected occurs,” said Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate.com.

How a handful of tech companies control billions of minds every day

A handful of people working at a handful of tech companies steer the thoughts of billions of people every day, says design thinker Tristan Harris. From Facebook notifications to Snapstreaks to YouTube autoplays, they're all competing for one thing: your attention. Harris shares how these companies prey on our psychology for their own profit and calls for a design renaissance in which our tech instead encourages us to live out the timeline we want.

By

Tristan Harris

Design thinker

Trump violated the Constitution when he blocked his critics on Twitter, a federal judge rules

by Brian Fung and Hamza Shaban

President Trump's decision to block his Twitter followers for their political views is a violation of the First Amendment, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, saying that Trump's effort to silence his critics is not permissible because the digital space in which he engages with constituents is a public forum.

The ruling rejects administration arguments that the First Amendment does not apply to Trump in this case because he was acting as a private individual. In a 75-page decision, Judge Naomi Buchwald said Trump, as a federal official, is not exempt from constitutional obligations to refrain from "viewpoint discrimination."

"No government official — including the President — is above the law," wrote Buchwald for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

 Under the ruling, Buchwald did not order Trump to unblock his followers, saying that clarification of the law is sufficient to resolve the dispute. Should Trump ignore the ruling, analysts say, future litigation could force Twitter to unblock Trump's followers unilaterally.

The decision marks a victory for free-speech activists representing seven Twitter users who alleged that their rights had been infringed after they tweeted at Trump critiquing his policies. Trump blocked them on Twitter, preventing them from seeing his tweets from their account or interacting with them.

"We are extremely pleased that the judge held that the president’s blocking of critics from the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account violates the First Amendment,” Katie Fallow, a senior staff attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute who argued the case, said.

While the ruling narrowly targets the Trump administration and is not binding on other public officials, it establishes an important legal precedent that they will be likely to follow. Importantly, the ruling identifies only parts of Trump's account as a public forum subject to First Amendment protections, not the entire account nor the rest of Twitter.

"The decision may have implications for other government officials' blocking of critics on social media," said Joshua Geltzer, an expert in constitutional law at Georgetown University, "but it doesn't even come close to making all of Twitter a public forum, as the vast majority of the Twittersphere is not being converted into a public forum by government actors."

The government does not dispute that Trump blocked the Twitter users for political reasons. But the Justice Department had argued Trump was largely acting in a personal capacity, much like "giving a toast at a wedding or giving a speech at a fundraiser."

But through his Twitter bio and the way in which he frequently uses the medium to comment on public policy, Trump portrays his account as presidential "and, more importantly, uses the account to take actions that can be taken only by the President as President," Buchwald wrote.

What's more, Buchwald said, the space below Trump's tweets that show the public's replies are a public forum, because it is "generally accessible to the public" and anyone with a Twitter account is able to view those responses, assuming that the user has not been blocked.

While presidents retain their own First Amendment rights even when they take public office, the judge said, Trump "cannot exercise those rights in a way that infringes the corresponding First Amendment rights of those who have criticized him."

Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor, said he thinks the case was wrongly decided and expects it to be reversed. For a public forum to exist, the government has to own or control it, he said, but in this case, Twitter also controls Trump's account.

Twitter has long been dogged by questions about how far its users’ right to speech may extend. In the past, its own executives have described the company as being “the free speech wing of the free speech party,” holding that Twitter takes no position on the messages posted by its users.

But the rise of online bullying, hate speech and harassment on Twitter’s platform has forced the company to confront its insistence on neutrality. Last year, the company unveiled new policies to address threats of violence or reports of abuse. And it has barred some controversial right-wing figures, such as the writer Milo Yiannopolous, from the platform for violating its policies.

Wednesday's ruling could complicate that debate, said Feldman, potentially giving people such as Yiannopolous grounds to sue Twitter and demand that they be permitted back on Twitter to view Trump's account and to participate in the public forum surrounding it.

"That is crazy," he said. "But it is a possible logical outcome of this decision."

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Twitter declined to comment.

The Last of "Country First"

By Bill Maher


John McCain is close to the end, and it feels like the end of an era where Republicans had what James Comey called “A Higher Loyalty.”

I didn’t always agree with John McCain, but I always knew he was someone who thought seriously about the country, and about service, and basically wasn’t all the things we hate about Ted Cruz. There was always a man in there.




When the yahoos got up at his rally and said Obama wasn’t an American, McCain took the mic and said, “No ma’am. He's a decent family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues.”


When the Republicans put out a health care plan that was a total joke, he voted it down.

In both an upcoming HBO documentary, as well is in his own memoir, McCain says he regrets not going with his gut and choosing Democrat Joe Lieberman instead of Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008 – or as historians refer to it: the beginning of the end of vetting.




In the book, McCain disses Trump. He writes: Trump “has declined to distinguish the actions of our government from the crimes of despotic ones,” and that “the appearance of toughness, or a reality show facsimile of toughness, seems to matter more than any of our values.” Trump fired back saying that he prefers people who don’t get sick.


McCain also wrote: “I’m freer than colleagues who will face the voters again. I can speak my mind without fearing the consequences much. And I can vote my conscience without worry.” Why does a politician have to retire or die before they can speak their mind? Doesn’t the true maverick speak his mind when it’s difficult or unpopular?

There were clearly things that mattered to John McCain more than himself and his Party. And when I watch this disgusting conglomerate of crooks, hacks, and fools that is the modern day Republican Party, I know we’re going to miss the type of guy who wants Obama speak at his funeral, but not Trump.

Is this the death of the last bipartisan Republican and the pre-Trump GOP?

Teachers deserve more than appreciation

By Fareed Zakaria Columnist

Last week was Teacher Appreciation Week, and I intended to write on the subject, but a more newsy topic intervened. That’s an apt metaphor for the plight of teachers in America today. We live in a media environment in which the urgent often crowds out the important. But this week, I will stick to my plans. 

In “East of Eden,” a sprawling, magisterial novel about the great American West, John Steinbeck writes, “In the country the repository of art and science was the school, and the schoolteacher shielded and carried the torch of learning and of beauty. . . . The teacher was not only an intellectual paragon and a social leader, but also the matrimonial catch of the countryside. A family could indeed walk proudly if a son married the schoolteacher.”

The picture Steinbeck paints (set in the early 20th century) is almost unrecognizable in today’s America, where schoolteachers are so poorly paid that they are about five times as likely as the average full-time worker to have a second job, according to Vox. We have all heard about stagnant middle-class wages. But the average pay for a teacher in the United States, adjusted for inflation, has actually declined over the past 15 years, while their health-care costs have risen substantially. The Economist reports that teachers earn 60 percent of what a professional with comparable education does.

The average salary for a teacher in many states is under $50,000. Teachers in West Virginia went on strike a few months ago to demand higher wages, and the government agreed to a 5 percent pay raise, which means the average salary will rise to only $48,000. Like many other states, West Virginia failed to restore education spending after slashing it in the wake of the financial crisis a decade ago. As of last year, per-pupil state funding (adjusted for inflation) was still down between 8 and 28 percent in five of the six states where teachers have now gone on strike, according to a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

With low wages and stretched resources, American educators burn out and quit the profession at twice the rate of some of the highest-achieving countries, as Linda Darling-Hammond of the Learning Policy Institute points out. Since 35 percent fewer Americans have studied to become teachers in recent years, she notes, there are massive teacher shortages, forcing schools nationwide to hire more than 100,000 people who lack the proper qualifications. In fact, the New York Times reports, it is so hard for public schools to find qualified Americans that many districts are starting to recruit instructors from low-wage countries such as the Philippines.

It’s not all about salaries. One veteran educator I spoke with, who began working in California in the 1960s, reminisced about that “golden age” when she had ample resources to use in the classroom, went to seminars to develop her skills and felt fulfilled. Today, teachers have little time or money for any of this. A recent survey of public school teachers found that 94 percent pay for classroom supplies out of their own pockets, without reimbursement, at an average of $479 a year.

It’s not even all about money. Leading a classroom was never a pathway to riches, but teachers once did command the respect and status that Steinbeck’s quote reflects. Andreas Schleicher, who heads the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s education division and has spent years doing careful international comparisons on education, has often observed that the countries that do best at public education — Singapore, Finland, South Korea — can recruit top college graduates into the teaching ranks because they pay reasonably well, they invest in professional development and their societies show deep respect for the profession. In the United States, when we encounter a member of the armed services, many of us make a point to thank them for their service. When was the last time you did the same for a public school teacher?

Yes, education is a very complicated subject. Simply spending more money does not guarantee results — although there are studies that indicate a significant correlation between teacher pay and student achievement. Yes, the education bureaucracy is rigid and often corrupt. But all of this masks the central problem: Over the past 30 years, as part of the assault on government, bureaucrats and the public sector in general, being a teacher in America has become a thankless job. And yet, teaching is the one profession that makes all other professions possible.

One year of Robert Mueller

By Editorial Board

IT HAS been a year since special counsel Robert S. Mueller III took over the Justice Department’s Russia investigation. Since then, by all appearances, he has performed with professionalism, integrity and remarkable efficiency. 

That is not President Trump’s view, of course. The president rants frequently, inappropriately and with no foundation against a supposed “witch hunt.” His complaints only further the impression that he has something to hide. So do the attacks on Mr. Mueller from the Trump claque in the House of Representatives. So did last week’s rather pathetic chiming in from Vice President Pence, who instructed the special counsel, “It’s time to wrap it up.”

In fact, in the space of only one year, Mr. Mueller has secured guilty pleas from, or indictments against, 19 people and three firms, including very senior figures: Mr. Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and his former national security adviser, Michael Flynn. He obtained an indictment against a Russian company that helps illuminate the Russian effort to influence the 2016 election. He has done his work without leaks or drama, even as Mr. Trump and his allies continually slander him and his motivation.

Nor is there any evidence that Mr. Mueller has overstepped proper boundaries of prosecutorial behavior. Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein ordered the special counsel to investigate Russia’s 2016 election interference and any matter that “arose or may arise” in doing so. It is only logical that would include Mr. Manafort’s pre-election ties to Russia and the president’s possible post-election efforts to subvert the probe. Any good prosecutor would cover those bases.

Initially, Republican lawmakers praised the selection of Mr. Mueller and emphasized his reputation for honesty. Now that Mr. Trump has decided on a strategy to discredit the investigation, most GOP lawmakers are descending to the level of courage we have come to expect in the Trump era and are staying relatively mute. Polls still show wide public approval of the Mueller probe, but among Republicans Mr. Trump’s attacks are having an effect.

Mr. Mueller deserves more backup from Republicans in Congress — in both word and legislation. They should make clear that he will be given such time as he needs to complete his investigation. Republicans had no objection while independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr investigated President Bill Clinton for nearly five years on issues that were neither as complex nor as important. The American people deserve to learn as much as possible about the Kremlin’s 2016 meddling, how U.S. officials responded to it and whether any U.S. officials cooperated with it.

Some lawmakers have been willing to stick up for Mr. Mueller; the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill on a bipartisan basis that protects him from inappropriate termination. So far Senate and House GOP leaders have been unwilling to bring such a bill to a vote. That has left lawmakers scrambling for other options, which could include a bill requiring Mr. Mueller to release a public report on his findings, regardless of his fate. That is less than the bare minimum, but it would be better than nothing.

Trump’s only possible Iran strategy is a fantasy

By Fareed Zakaria Columnist

Jeb Bush said Donald Trump would be a “chaos president.” And this week, President Trump lived up to the billing, choosing to defy virtually the entire world, including America’s closest European allies, and raising tensions in the most unstable part of the globe, the Middle East. 

It is hard to understand the rationale behind Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal. If Iran is as dangerous and malign an actor as he says, surely it is best to have its nuclear program frozen at a pre-military level and monitored 24/7. The chances of getting Tehran to agree to more stringent terms are close to zero. If the terms of the Iran deal were applied to North Korea, it would require Pyongyang to destroy its nuclear weapons — the fruits of a decades-long effort — and agree to invasive inspections and foreign surveillance in a country so closed it is known as the Hermit Kingdom.

If there is a strategy behind Trump’s move, it is probably regime change. His closest advisers have long championed regime change and have argued that the best approach toward Iran is a combination of sanctions, support for opposition groups and military intervention. As a congressman, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo criticized the Obama administration for negotiating with Tehran and instead suggested that the United States launch close to 2,000 bombing sorties against Iran. National security adviser John Bolton has been even more forceful in pushing for regime change, advocating much greater support for the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), a militant opposition group with a checkered past and little support within Iran. Both Bolton and Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani have given paid speeches for the MEK, and in Paris last July, Bolton declared that the United States should pursue regime change in Iran so that the Islamic republic would not celebrate its 40th birthday (which would be in 2019). Thus, three of Trump’s closest advisers have views on Iran that are so extreme that it is hard to think of anyone outside of Saudi Arabia or Israel who shares them.

Iran is a repressive and anti-American regime that has spread its influence in the Middle East, often to America’s detriment. But it is also an ancient civilization, with centuries of power and influence in the region. The notion that the United States could solve all of its problems with Tehran by toppling the regime is fanciful. It has withstood U.S. pressure and sanctions for nearly four decades. And even if it were somehow possible to topple it, look around. The lesson of the past two decades in the Middle East is surely that regime change leads to chaos, war, refugee flows, sectarian strife and more. It opens a Pandora’s box in a land already rife with woes.

Look beyond the Middle East at the record of regime change. Whether it was an unfriendly ruler such as Guatemala’s Jacobo Arbenz or a friendly one such as South Vietnam’s Ngo Dinh Diem, regime change was followed by greater instability. Look at Iran itself, where a British-American-sponsored coup dislodged the elected government, which was one of the factors that led to and still legitimizes the Islamic republic. Consider also America’s heavy-handed intervention in the Cuban liberation movement at the turn of the 20th century, which left a legacy of anti-Americanism that the Cuban Communists exploit to this day. Misjudging and mishandling nationalism may be the central error in American foreign policy.

By contrast, when the United States has helped open countries to capitalism, commerce and contact, these acids of modernity have almost always eaten away at the nastiest elements of dictatorships. For all its problems, China today is a much better and more responsible country than it was under Mao Zedong. People often point to President Ronald Reagan’s campaign against the Soviet Union as one in which pressure against an evil empire helped produce regime change. But they remember only half the story. Reagan did pressure the Soviets. But as soon as he found a reformer, in Mikhail Gorbachev, he embraced him, supported him and made concessions to him. So much so that he drew furious opposition from conservatives in the United States who called him “a useful idiot” who was helping the Soviet Union win the Cold War. 

Iran is a complicated country with a complicated regime. But it does have moderate elements within it that were clearly hoping the nuclear deal would be a path to integration and normalization with the world. Those forces do not have the dominant hand, but they do have power, not least because President Hassan Rouhani has popular backing. But Iran has always had a strong hard-line element that believed that America could never be trusted, that the Saudis were mortal foes, and that self-reliance, autarky and the spread of Shiite ideology was their only strategy for self-preservation. Trump has just proved them right.

The rightwing takeover of the US court system will transform America

Paul Butler

Pushing the judicial system to the right has been the objective of every Republican president since Ronald Reagan. Now Trump is doing it 
 
Donald Trump has nominated an unprecedented number of judges to federal courts since his appointment. These are making steady progress through the Senate confirmation process and yet they have escaped the sort of scrutiny that Trump normally attracts. This is unfortunate, because the impact of Trump’s court picks will be profound, and will help reshape American society for years to come.

Of the nearly 60 judges he has nominated, only one is black, one is Hispanic and three are women. The rest are white men. All of these people are conservatives who will be interpreting and helping (re)write the law for decades.

These appointments reveal Trump for what he truly is: a Republican. His court picks amount to a right-wing takeover of the court system. This has been the objective of every Republican president since Ronald Reagan. Trump is distinguished only by his success at transforming the federal bench so early in his term.

The claim that Trump has not accomplished much in his first year in office is dead wrong. He is fashioning the federal court system of Steve Bannon’s dreams. The president has nominated judges who will cut back the civil rights of racial minorities and LGBT people, expand the power of police and prosecutors, restrict the ability of women to obtain abortions and favor big corporations over consumers.

Trump took office facing a backlog of 114 judicial appointments – the most of any president since Bill Clinton. This was not a coincidence but rather the product of a calculated project by Republicans in the US Congress to deny Barack Obama his authority to appoint judges. In a bold power play, Senate Republicans, who must confirm judicial nominees, simply refused to vote on most of Obama’s selections during the last year of his presidency. They were, in effect, waiting for Trump.

Now Republicans have been rewarded for their abdication of their constitutional responsibilities during the Obama administration. President Trump has nominated 60 judges to fill the vacancies, with 14 already confirmed. If Trump were to resign or be removed from office tomorrow, he could leave proud that his profound impact is already set in stone: a generation of ultra-conservative judges with lifetime appointments who will transform the US into more of a police state than it already is. But again, this is more of a Republican project than a Trumpian one.

In terms of their ideology, Trump’s judicial nominees – including racists, sexists, homophobes and gun nuts – are pretty much the same as any other Republican president would make.

Neil Gorsuch, his first appointment to the US supreme court, joined conservatives like Clarence Thomas, who thinks that states should be able to make gay sex a crime, Samuel Alito, who thinks there should be almost no restrictions on gun ownership, and John Roberts, who thinks affirmative action and substantial portions of the Voting Rights Act are unconstitutional.

Republicans widely view the Gorsuch appointment as the best thing Trump has done in office. Every Republican present in the Senate that day voted for Gorsuch’s confirmation, including moderates like John McCain and Susan Collins who have opposed some other aspects of Trump’s agenda.

On the US supreme court, Gorsuch has been really busy – he wrote more separate opinions in his first month on the court than Elena Kagan, the next newest justice, wrote in two years. And he’s been a right wing judicial activist, giving a speech at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, hanging out with Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, and writing opinions attacking the conservative chief justice John Roberts for not being conservative enough.

But it is in the federal and court of appeals that Trump’s court picks will have the most profound impact.

As Shira Scheindlin made clear in the first essay in this series, this is where the vast majority of American legal cases are heard. In 2015, the US supreme court decided approximately 82 cases. In 2016, it was approximately 69. In contrast, the United States courts of appeals decided 52,000 cases in 2015 and 58,000 in 2016. The United States district courts decided 353,000 cases in 2015 and 355,000 in 2016.

So, despite all the attention supreme court nominees get, we need to talk about the loonies Trump is placing on the lower courts that make the biggest difference in the lives of ordinary Americans.
Jeff Mateer, Trump’s nominee to the federal bench in Michigan, called transgender children “proof that Satan’s plan is working”, while John King, who was recently confirmed for the US court of appeals, described abortion as one of two “greatest tragedies” in US history, with slavery being the other.

Every Republican president since Roe v Wade has promised to appoint judges who would overturn Roe v Wade. A record of hostility to LBGT rights or school desegregation would be a resume enhancer for any person who aspires to the bench during a Republican administration.

Most Republicans wouldn’t be as open as Trump, who promised his judicial selections would “all be picked by the Federalist Society”, an organization of right-wing lawyers and law students. But, since its founding in 1982, the Federalist Society has played an important role in judicial selection for every Republican president, from Ronald Reagan who plucked Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork from the organization’s “faculty advisors”, to George W Bush, who made members of the ultra right-wing organization half of his appointments to the courts of appeal.

The problem with Trump exceptionalism – the claim that the Donald is an outlier – is that it lets other Republicans escape the blame for their long simmering bigotry. All President Trump has done is stir the pot. As the hip-hop expression goes, “don’t hate the player, hate the game”. 

Indeed, as a man who seems to have no permanent ideology outside of his vast narcissism, Trump’s right-wing takeover of federal courts might be the most Republican thing he does in his entire presidency.

Some progressives are bemoaning the lack of diversity of Trump’s nominations, almost 80% of whom are white men. To date Trump has nominated one African-American and one Hispanic judge. This stands out in stark contrast to Barack Obama, whose judicial appointments were over 40% female, and about 30% African American and Hispanic. Obama appointed more Asian-American federal judges than all the presidents before him, combined.

Of all the opportunities to resist that the Trump administration has inspired, protesting the lack of diversity of his court appointments is a fail. It shouldn’t be difficult for Trump to find some women and people of color who are Federalist-society approved. 

The fact that those names haven’t come forward is more evidence of the disdain in which Trump holds people who are not rich, white heterosexual men. But we already know that from Trump’s boasts about pussy-grabbing, his shout-out to the Nazi sympathizers in Charlottsville and his
It would not advance the causes of women’s rights, racial justice, and LGBT equity to have a bunch of female, minority and queer judges with the same reactionary jurisprudence as the white guys who Trump has nominated. African Americans learned this lesson the hard way. 

US supreme court justice Clarence Thomas was appointed by George HW Bush to the black “slot” on the supreme court after Thurgood Marshall, the pioneering civil rights lawyer, died. It was well known that he was extremely conservative, but many African Americans still supported him based on the idea that it was important for blacks to have a seat at the table, regardless. 

In the same way that Donald Trump seems animated by reversing the legacy of Barack Obama, Clarence Thomas has spent the last 25 years undoing everything Thurgood Marshall stood for. Thomas has voted against affirmative action, the Fair Housing Act and the Voting Rights Act. 

He wrote an opinion reversing a jury award of $14m to a black man who been wrongfully convicted and placed on death row for 14 years for a crime he did not commit. Donald Trump, during the campaign, called Clarence Thomas his “favorite” supreme court justice. But for many black folks, Justice Thomas’ presence on the court has become an embarrassment rather than a symbol that someone there is attentive to their concerns.

Do we really need a bunch of other minority and female justices in that mode? No thank you, Mr President. The larger problem is that the US faces is a new generation of federal judges, with lifetime appointments, dedicated to eliminating constitutional protections for anyone who is not white, male, heterosexual and rich. Don’t blame the Donald. He’s just a Republican.

The danger of absolute thinking is absolutely clear

Mohammed Al-Mosaiwi

is a postgraduate student in psychology at the University of Reading in the UK.

Think of the most happy and well-adjusted person you know – what can you say about their thinking style? Are they dogmatic, with an all-or-nothing outlook on the world? Do they place totally rigid demands on themselves and those around them? When confronted with stresses and misfortunes, are they apt to magnify and fixate on them? In short, do they have an absolutist thinking style? 
‘Absolutism’ refers to ideas, phrases and words that denote totality, either in magnitude or probability. Absolutist thoughts are unqualified by nuance and overlook the complexity of a given subject.

There are generally two forms of absolutism; ‘dichotomous thinking’ and ‘categorical imperatives’. Dichotomous thinking – also referred to as ‘black-and-white’ or ‘all-or-nothing’ thinking – describes a binary outlook, where things in life are either ‘this’ or ‘that’, and nothing in between. Categorical imperatives are completely rigid demands that people place on themselves and others. The term is borrowed from Immanuel Kant’s deontological moral philosophy, which is grounded in an obligation- and rules-based ethical code.

In our research – and in clinical psychology more broadly – absolutist thinking is viewed as an unhealthy thinking style that disrupts emotion-regulation and hinders people from achieving their goals. Yet we all, to varying extents, are disposed to it – why is this? Primarily, because it’s much easier than dealing with the true complexities of life. The term cognitive miser, first introduced by the American psychologists Susan Fiske and Shelley Taylor in 1984, describes how humans seek the simplest and least effortful ways of thinking. Nuance and complexity is expensive – it takes up precious time and energy – so wherever possible we try to cut corners. This is why we have biases and prejudices, and form habits. It’s why the study of heuristics (intuitive ‘gut-feeling’ judgments) is so useful in behavioural economics and political science.

But there is no such thing as a free lunch; the time and energy saved through absolutist thinking has a cost. In order to successfully navigate through life, we need to appreciate nuance, understand complexity and embrace flexibility. When we succumb to absolutist thinking for the most important matters in our lives – such as our goals, relationships and self-esteem – the consequences are disastrous.

In a recent research article in Clinical Psychological Science, I and my collaborator, the neuroscientist Tom Johnstone at the University of Reading in the UK, examined the prevalence of absolutist thinking in the natural language of more than 6,400 online members in various mental-health chat groups. From the outset, we predicted that those with depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation would have a more absolutist outlook, and that this would manifest in their style of language. Compared with 19 different online control chat groups on topics from cancer to parenting, the prevalence of absolutist words was approximately 50 per cent greater in depression and anxiety groups, and approximately 80 per cent greater in the suicidal-ideation group.

Previously, the best-known linguistic markers for mental-health disorders had been an excessive use of first-person singular pronouns such as ‘me’, ‘myself’ and ‘I’, with a reduced use of second- and third-person pronouns. This pattern of pronoun use reflects the isolation and self-focus common in depression. Negative-emotion words are also a strong linguistic marker for mental-health disorders, however researchers have reported that pronouns are actually more reliable in identifying depression. We find that the prevalence of absolutist words is a better marker than both pronouns and negative-emotion words. They produced bigger differences between mental-health and control groups compared with pronouns, and they tracked the mental-health groups better than negative-emotion words. Paradoxically, negative-emotion words were more prevalent in anxiety and depression groups than in the suicidal-ideation group.

How do we know that a greater use of absolutist words actually reflects absolutist thinking, and is not simply a result of extreme emotions and psychological distress? In a second study, we calculated the prevalence of absolutist words in mental-health conditions known to be linked to absolutist thinking (borderline personality disorder and eating disorder) with mental-health groups not linked to absolutist thinking (post-traumatic stress disorder and schizophrenia). All groups are shown to have the same levels of psychological distress, but only the groups known to be linked to absolutist thinking had elevated levels of absolutist words. This confirms that a greater use of absolutist words is specific to absolutist thinking, and not to psychological distress per se.

Despite the correlations, nothing yet suggests that absolutism causes depression. In a third study, we examined groups whose participants believe that they have recovered from a depressive episode, and write positive, encouraging posts about their recovery. We found that positive-emotion words were elevated by approximately 70 per cent, yet they continued to use a high prevalence of absolutist words, significantly greater than control groups and much closer to anxiety and depression levels. Crucially, those who have previously had depressive symptoms are more likely to have them again. Therefore, their greater tendency for absolutist thinking, even when there are currently no symptoms of depression, is a sign that it might play a role in causing depressive episodes.

These findings support the recent ‘third wave’ therapies that have entered clinical psychology. The most well-known of these is ‘mindfulness’, but they all advocate a flexible outlook, acceptance, and freedom from attachments. An early exponent of mindfulness is the noted psychologist John Teasdale, whose lab has produced a litany of empirical data to support its efficacy. In a landmark 2001 study, Teasdale and his colleagues at the University of Cambridge found that an ‘absolutist, dichotomous thinking style’ predicted future depressive relapse.

Many argue that the world is a harsh place, and that it is the stresses and misfortunes in life that make people depressed, not their thinking style. Wrong! Countless people suffer misfortunes and do not get depressed or anxious, while others seemingly suffer no misfortune at all, and are blighted with depression and anxiety. The Stoic philosopher (and former slave) Epictetus opined that ‘men are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them’. A sentiment that is totally, completely and absolutely correct.

How to Fix 23 Tax Problems for Americans Abroad with 3 Solutions

posted by Carmelan Polce | Taxation Task Force Chair
February 28, 2018

INTRODUCTION

Democrats Abroad has documented here the scope of tax problems that uniquely impact Americans living abroad. We hope that by profiling the wide range of U.S. tax code and other provisions that have – however unintended – severe adverse consequences for Americans abroad that we might persuade Congress to act on our behalf and resolve them.

The list includes 23 discrete matters and, to our disappointment, it has recently grown due to provisions in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. As is the case with most of the provisions that vex Americans abroad, the Repatriation Tax and GILTI provisions in the new law were enacted without due consideration for the impact they would have on non-resident filers.

Other examples include: the financial account reporting provision in the Bank Secrecy Act, which includes exorbitant and out-of proportion penalties for non-compliance and requires updates generally; SEC regulations and the USA PATRIOT Act which make both investing in the U.S. and investing abroad extremely difficult for Americans living abroad without a U.S. address; and the Windfall Eliminations Provision, which unintentionally denies fully entitled Social Security benefits to Americans abroad who have pensions in their country of residence. Saving and investing for the future is extremely difficult for Americans abroad because of these provisions.

Thus, we are burdened with an unfair, unreasonable and unjust compliance burden that causes financial and personal hardship and that will require remedies across myriad areas of the tax code and other laws, plus within existing U.S. double taxation treaties and the model U.S. tax treaty. We do not believe Congress has the time or political will to implement these remedies and so instead recommend three solutions that would eliminate the problems enumerated herein:

1. A switch from our current system of Citizenship-Based Taxation to Residency-Based Taxation. There is evidence to suggest that Residency-Based Taxation can be implemented on a revenue-neutral basis[1]. A switch from Citizenship-Based Taxation to Residency-Based Taxation would resolve most of the tax problems outlined herein.

2. A same country exemption for Americans abroad to eliminate FATCA reporting on financial accounts in their country of residence.H.R. 2136, the Overseas Americans Financial Access Act would provide Americans abroad from relief from the unintended adverse consequences of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). FATCA was enacted to discourage and apprehend those using foreign bank accounts to commit financial crimes and not to cause personal and financial pain to ordinary Americans abroad who use accounts in their countries of residence to pay bills and save for the future.[2]

3. Replace the Windfall Eliminations Provision with the Social Security Fairness Act (H.R. 2710).Filing from abroad alone is inordinately complex and costly. The forms required to declare income generated abroad are highly detailed, preparing them is extremely difficult and it very often requires the support of professional tax return preparers with specialist knowledge of overseas filing.[3] Our recommendations address the filing costs for Americans abroad which far exceeds the costs incurred by U.S. based tax filers.

TAX CODE PROVISIONS THAT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST AMERICANS ABROAD - AND PROPOSED REMEDIES
In our examination of the provisions in the Internal Revenue Code that govern tax filing and reporting for non-resident Americans we have identified these areas that require remedies in order to address their perhaps unintended but certainly adverse consequences.

Note: A switch from Citizenship-Based Taxation to Residency-Based Taxation would resolve most of these issues for Americans living abroad.

1. US Capital Gains Tax Exclusion – harmonization of capital gains treatment for properties owned by citizens living abroad with the treatment of properties owned by citizens living in the US.

2. Artificial Capital Gains/Losses due to Currency Fluctuations – elimination of artificial capital gains and losses when no currency has been exchanged by allowing the currency of the country of residence to be the functional currency for tax reporting purposes.

3. Applying foreign credits to NIIT – allow Americans abroad to apply foreign income tax credits in calculating Net Investment Income Tax.

4. Marital deduction for bequests to foreign surviving spouses – reinstate the marital deduction for bequests to surviving foreign spouses in the calculation of estate tax.


5. Declaration of foreign long term savings plan income – tax the income from foreign long-term savings plans at the time the money is withdrawn from the plan.

6. Taxation of welfare payments – tax imposed on foreign government invalidity, unemployment and social welfare payments to disabled and disadvantaged Americans abroad only by the country making the payments, i.e. the country of residence.

7. Tax-free transfer of foreign retirement plan assets – render tax-free the transfer of assets from foreign retirement plans deemed qualified plans under international tax treaties to retirement plans in the taxpayer’s new country of residence, be it the US or another country.

8. Revise punitive PFIC rules – For citizens residing abroad revise the punitive Passive Foreign Investment Company rules and reporting requirements that apply to non-US pension plans, foreign mutual funds and other investment savings vehicles that prohibit Americans abroad from using them to save efficiently for retirement.

9. Taxation of non-US non-qualified pension plans – simplify the reporting structure for non-US, non-qualified pension plans that would alleviate the onerous need for Form 3520 filings for non-employer funded pension schemes.

10. Reforms to the FEIE and FHE – maintain the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, merge it with the Foreign Housing Exclusion and eliminate the ceiling. This would completely eliminate double taxation of the earned income of non-resident taxpayers.

11. Repeal WEP – Replace the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) which drastically reduces the Social Security payments owed to Americans also receiving foreign pension payments with the Social Security Fairness Act to restore rightful Social Security payments to Americans abroad.

12. 15.5% Repatriation Tax – Provide an exemption for small to medium sized business owners from the 15.5% Repatriation Tax. Meant as a tax break for American companies retaining profits abroad, it forces small to medium size business owners to declare profits set aside for future capital investment.

13. GILTI tax regime - Harmonise the tax treatment of Global Intangible Low Tax Income and Foreign Intangible Direct Income across all types of foreign corporations owned by U.S. persons or entities by giving pass through-type S corporations owned by Americans living abroad access to the same offsets and deductions afforded to C corporations controlled by U.S multinationals.

IMPROVING TAX FILING AND REPORTING FOR AMERICANS ABROAD
Although these reforms would lose their importance for most Americans abroad after a switch from Citizenship-Based Taxation to Residency-Based Taxation, they would be enormously helpful for those who do not elect to file as non-resident US citizens for tax purposes.

14. Optional simplified earnings declaration – provide non-resident taxpayers who owe no US federal income tax with the option of a one-sentence, handwritten or printed declaration of earnings, accompanied by a tax return or assessment from the taxpayer’s country of residence

15. Expand the criteria for determining the threshold for who has to file – add a provision so that foreign earned income that can be excluded under current rules does not need to be included when determining your gross income for filing purposes.

16. Make electronic tax return filing possible for non-resident taxpayers declaring foreign tax credits - Allow taxpayers using the free, fillable IRS electronic forms to exclude the attachments eliminating the need for the taxpayer to file the return by post.

17. Translated IRS publications and forms – provide translated versions of IRS publications and tax forms commonly used by non-resident, non-English speaking US citizens.

18. Harmonize International Tax Treaties – align all international tax treaties with the US Model Income Tax Convention of November 15, 2006, especially (but not exclusively) as they apply to private pensions, social welfare benefits, annuities, alimony, child support and pension plans.

19. Promote the Streamline Filing Compliance (Offshore) Procedures (SFCP) – expand awareness of the SFCP, a tax compliance restoration program introduced in 2014 for Americans who non-wilfully are not compliant with their tax filing and reporting obligations.

20. Improve communication – encourage the IRS to do even more to expand communication with Americans living abroad, starting with the establishment of non-resident taxpayer support hotlines operated by officials schooled in matters unique to non-resident filers and including the reopening of overseas IRS offices and the restoration of offshore services lost due to cuts in IRS funding.

21. Protect American Citizens Services – ensure that proposed cuts to State Department funding do not result in further reductions in American Citizen Services provided by U.S. consulates and embassies, which often include advice about tax filing deadlines and local tax return services.

22. Reform the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) – enact HR 2136 to exempt from FATCA reporting, by both the U.S. citizen abroad and their financial account provider, the financial accounts of law-abiding overseas resident U.S. citizens in their bona fide country of residence.

23. Reform the Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts Report (FBAR) reporting requirement for U.S. Citizens in their bona fide country of residence – as follows

o Redress the enormous, out of proportion penalties – civil and criminal – imposed by the IRS for non-willfully neglecting to file forms;

o Adjust for inflation the $10,000 aggregate threshold amount that triggers a FBAR filing requirement, which has not been adjusted since the Bank Secrecy Act was enacted in 1970;

o Eliminate the duplication of information disclosed on the FBAR and FATCA reports;

o Exempt U.S. citizens from reporting foreign financial accounts that are not reportable by financial institutions in their country of residence;

o Address the vulnerability of FBAR data security inherent in electronic filing; and

o Remove the burden imposed on filers who are computer illiterate or with no access to computers by eliminating recently introduced mandatory electronic FBAR reporting.

REGULATIONS CONSTRAINING BANKING, INVESTMENT AND RETIREMENT SAVINGS FOR AMERICANS ABROAD
Note: A switch from Citizenship-Based Taxation to Residency-Based Taxation would resolve most of these issues for Americans living abroad.

Investment options for Americans abroad are increasingly limited and fraught. Due to SEC regulations and legislation designed to protect consumers in the market for financial products, a provider of financial fund products must be registered to sell and market their products in a foreign jurisdiction. Although U.S. brokerage firms have over time turned a blind eye to this requirement, more recently, in an atmosphere of increased disclosure and oversight, many have elected to prohibit clients residing abroad from buying U.S. mutual funds in order to avoid the registration requirement. Exchange-Traded Funds are a legal work-around for Americans abroad interested in a mutual fund-type investment exposure, however even Exchange-Traded Funds may not be an option for individuals whose foreign and/or U.S. bank and brokerage accounts have been closed.

Features of the U.S. tax code impacting investments, savings plans and retirement savings uniquely penalize Americans residing abroad in the following ways:

· Punitive taxation of retirement savings plans which qualify and are taxed under local laws but are not qualified plans for U.S. tax purposes;

· Punitive taxation of foreign government sponsored retirement savings plans that are not qualified plans for U.S. tax purposes;

· Capital gains tax laws that do not take into account currency fluctuations, thereby creating assessable capital gains upon the sale of assets even if no currency was exchanged;

· The inability to claim the foreign tax credit against taxes owing under the Affordable Care Act, the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax;

· Inflexible regulations involving Social Security and Medicare contributions particularly disadvantage (double-tax and other) self-employed Americans abroad.

· The Windfall Elimination Provision which drastically reduces the Social Security payments owed to Americans also receiving foreign pension payments;

· The Social Security benefit taxation regime for taxpayers who are Married Filing Separately provides no exclusion for spouses. Americans married to foreign nationals normally file as Married Filing Separately and as such cannot receive the exclusion afforded Americans married to Americans who file jointly;

· Social Security contributions required of self-employed Americans abroad are taxed (15.5%) even if they are already making contributions to an aged pension contribution scheme in their country of residence;

· Welfare payments made by foreign governments to Americans who are disabled, unemployed or disadvantaged are subject to US tax though they are normally not taxed abroad.

U.S. BANKING ALSO CONSTRAINED
The USA PATRIOT Act, ratified after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, established new “Know Your Customer” rules for US financial institutions. As a result, banks and financial institutions are no longer willing to hold or open accounts for customers whose only address is outside of the United States. This has constrained the banking, saving and investment activities of Americans abroad. A sensible reform would be to exempt American citizens living abroad from this provision even if they have only a non-US address.

Iran Deal: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

Although this video clip with John Oliver is a little hilarious, there is some truth in what he is saying about President D. Trump and the Iran Deal! Watch it and judge for yourselves.