January 6, 2017

Trump irked that media reports make it look as though he's given up on his big promise that Mexico will pay for the wall.

If you're dubious about Trump's use of Twitter, look at how effectively he pushed back, as Politico pretty much has to report:
“The dishonest media is not reporting that any money spent, for the sake if [sic] speed, on building the Great Wall, will be paid back by Mexico,” Trump wrote on Twitter Friday morning.

The president-elect appeared to be responding to reports out Thursday that his team and Republican lawmakers have considered relying on a 2006 law signed by then-President George W. Bush that provided for the construction of 700 miles-worth of a “physical barrier” along the southern border. That barrier was never constructed, but the law did not include a sunset provision, allowing Republicans to seek funding for a program already on the books.

The GOP could tie money for Trump’s wall into a must-pass spending bill that would put Democrats in the position of having to shut down the government if they choose to oppose it.

The shift, from forcing Mexico to pay to sending the Mexican government a bill once the wall is built, alters one of Trump’s most powerful campaign trail talking points....
Is that a shift? I expect another "dishonest media" tweet from Trump. How is "sending a bill" different from "forcing Mexico to pay"? The only difference is in how people hearing the talking point pictured the sequence of construction and financing events. Or perhaps the difference is that those who'd like to stop the wall are disappointed to learn that the building process won't be stalled by difficult interaction with Mexico.

Remember: Another one of those campaign talking points was: "That wall will go up so fast your head will spin."



What you're hearing now is the spinning of heads.

122 comments:

PB said...

The media would never paint Democrats as obstructionists, shutting down the government. That charge is only leveled when Republicans don't agree with Democrats. There's nothing in this that keeps them from doing it again and again

damikesc said...

Literally, a significant increase in government fees for monetary remittances to Mexico would pay for the wall easily.

Amadeus 48 said...

In the case of the Washington Post, he is apparently making their heads spin like Linda Blair in The Exorcist.

Bill Harshaw said...

Trump often stiffs the people owes, why shouldn't Mexico do the same with his bill?

damikesc said...

The media would never paint Democrats as obstructionists, shutting down the government. That charge is only leveled when Republicans don't agree with Democrats. There's nothing in this that keeps them from doing it again and again

Rush Limbaugh saying he hoped Obama would fail two months after his Presidency was an "outrage". McConnell's hope to make Obama a "one term President" months after his Presidency started was an "outrage".

THIS nonsense, weeks before Trump is even sworn in, is no big deal, apparently.

TreeJoe said...

Damiksec said, "Literally, a significant increase in government fees for monetary remittances to Mexico would pay for the wall easily."

No, it wouldn't. Much like taxes, when you increase the cost of doing something "significantly" then behavior changes. And since this is literally a dollar going from one side of the family to the other, the effect will be enormous.

A MINOR increase in fees on remittances - which can keep the behavior in place but siphon some off the top - now that would pay for the wall. Over perhaps the course of10 years.

damikesc said...

Trump often stiffs the people owes, why shouldn't Mexico do the same with his bill?

Given that remittances were their biggest source of income last year, they don't have the power to do so. We can dry those up easily if we so chose to do so. And they cannot really retaliate because their oil is a global commodity. Not selling it to us won't harm us.

damikesc said...

No, it wouldn't. Much like taxes, when you increase the cost of doing something "significantly" then behavior changes. And since this is literally a dollar going from one side of the family to the other, the effect will be enormous.

And if Mexicans cannot send money back home, then coming here becomes far less desirable and problem is solved that way. And Mexico cannot remotely afford to have remittances stopped or curbed significantly.

Amadeus 48 said...

McConnell made his comments immediately after the Republicans gained control of the House in the 2010 elections. He also said that if Obama reacted the way Bill Clinton had in 1994 and meet the GOP halfway, McConnell was sure that there were many things that could be accomplished.

I think the Dems have raised over a billion dollars by misrepresenting what McConnell said and when he said it.

rehajm said...

The GOP could tie money for Trump’s wall into a must-pass spending bill that would put Democrats in the position of having to shut down the government if they choose to oppose it.

This seems like leftie wishful thinking. Using the Bush law Republicans need only allocate the program within a budget resolution, then pass with reconciliation. No Dems needed. Am I missing something?

MikeR said...

I am always fascinated when I see liberal commenters blithely mentioning that "The Wall is a dumb idea, but..." They generally don't say what's dumb about it. Walls work. Google Israel-Egypt Barrier, Israel's West Bank Barrier, and European Border Walls. All of them work well. It's a dumb idea that they wouldn't.

MountainMan said...

I see on Drudge this morning that Obama is building a wall around his new D.C. home.

David Begley said...

One thing I really like about Trump is how he calls out the media on its spin and speculation.

Hugh Hewitt made a great point about Trump. Trump's background real estate development. That informs everything he does. Mexico will pay for the wall but it won't send a check. The payment will be something like a tax on money transfer remittances to Mexico. It is an indirect payment. Example: There is no cost to buyer of a house for a real estate commission, but it is built into the price. The real estate agent's commission is deducted at closing from the selker's gross. Think about a real estate closing when analyzing Trump and the wall.

damikesc said...

I am always fascinated when I see liberal commenters blithely mentioning that "The Wall is a dumb idea, but..." They generally don't say what's dumb about it. Walls work. Google Israel-Egypt Barrier, Israel's West Bank Barrier, and European Border Walls. All of them work well. It's a dumb idea that they wouldn't.

These same people think Mary and Joseph were refugees and not a couple with a pregnant woman whom the government forced to travel far from home to honor the government's requests.

It's also hilarious that a wall cannot possibly work --- but gun control? Easy fix.

MikeR said...

"This seems like leftie wishful thinking. Using the Bush law Republicans need only allocate the program within a budget resolution, then pass with reconciliation. No Dems needed. Am I missing something?" As usual, I have no comprehension of the rules within which Congress operates. I have tried to look things up and it just got more complicated.
My first exposure to it - same for most Americans - was when Scott Brown was sent to the Senate and everyone assumed that meant No Obamacare. By everyone, I include liberals like Chris Matthews. I remember him asking an interviewee very sharply, "How in the world could they think they can pass this with reconciliation - I have a lot of experience with Congress and we all know it can't be used for that." Well, they just went ahead and did it; no one remembered that it was a Nuclear Option or something.

damikesc said...

I see on Drudge this morning that Obama is building a wall around his new D.C. home.

Open borders advocates when you notice that or ask them why they lock their doors. Since those things "don't work anyway"

MikeR said...

Ahh - found it. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/22/believe-it-or-not-chris-matthews-destroys-grayson-over-reconciliation-on-obamacare/

Curious George said...

Truth is most of those for the wall have no problem with the US paying for it...cheaper than alternative so a good investment.

But one way or another those Messicans are gonna pay.

Ann Althouse said...

"Trump often stiffs the people owes, why shouldn't Mexico do the same with his bill?"

He paid when it was in his interest to pay. When did he get away with not paying? Wasn't it when he had the argument that the performance wasn't in keeping with the contract (and when, in addition, he saw self-interest in withholding payment)?

No one expects Mexico to just pay up because a bill is presented. We always understood that Mexico would pay either because it chooses to pay (because it's in its self-interest) or because a mechanism would be set up to extract a payment that excludes the option not to pay.

I think Trump sees how to do this, and those who are carping about it are not able to see how he plans to do it. That's why he said it will happen so fast your head will spin.

rehajm said...

I think Trump sees how to do this, and those who are carping about it are not able to see how he plans to do it. That's why he said it will happen so fast your head will spin.

They must not read WaPo..

David Begley said...

Althouse at 7:25 re payment method is spot on. The people who thought we would send a bill to Mexico and Mexico would send a check were dead wrong.

And Trump didn't pay unsecure creditors in bankruptcy because the law allowed it. He was always angling,

Bill Harshaw said...

Trump stiffs people when they're small and they don't have the resources to fight him--he'd rather pay lawyers to fight suits. Nice guy--a real role model.

rehajm said...

For those who don't want to click through, the Trump idea from last April was to use the remittances mentioned by David Begely as leverage in negotiations with Mexico for payment. Tariffs, visa cancellations and increased visa fees if Mexico doesn't pay up...

Curious George said...

"Bill Harshaw said...
Trump stiffs people when they're small and they don't have the resources to fight him--he'd rather pay lawyers to fight suits. Nice guy--a real role model."

Bet he won't send the power of the US Government and IRS after them. Like your role model.

Freder Frederson said...

I think Trump sees how to do this, and those who are carping about it are not able to see how he plans to do it.

And I think Trump is full of shit and doesn't have a clue how he can actually make Mexico pay for the wall.

Considering that Trump has lied without any regard for the truth, why do you assume he actually has a plan. Hell this week he claimed he knew things about the DNC hacking that nobody else knew and he was going to reveal it Tuesday or Wednesday. Didn't happen. (Don't claim that Assange claiming he didn't get the leaks from the Russian was the information, that is old news, Assange told Hannity that a month ago.)

Then in the space of two tweets he both praised and claimed he didn't praise Assange.

What a lying jerk.

Bill Harshaw said...

“Donald Trump’s Business Plan Left a Trail of Unpaid Bills,” by the Wall Street Journal from Vox.

traditionalguy said...

All this winning is happening so fast. The Russians must be behind it. Fe Fi Fo Fum, I smell the hack of a Putin.

PB said...

Fees on remittances? Yeah right. That money will find a new path to Mexico to avoid the fee.

Curious George said...

"Freder Frederson said...
And I think Trump is full of shit and doesn't have a clue how he can actually make Mexico pay for the wall.

Considering that Trump has lied without any regard for the truth, why do you assume he actually has a plan. "

Hey could you pull up links to your protestation comments on Obama closing Gitmo? Or do you think he can still do it?

Ann Althouse said...

@rehajm

Thanks for the link to the Trump memo from March 2016.

traditionalguy said...

To all the deranged Trump attackers out there, DJT never said he would Executive Order his promises into being. He promised Congress would pass bills that carry out his promises, and unless you are brain dead, that implies there will be compromise deals as he goes.

Only real question: Why are Trump attackers so stupid? It appears that's all they got.

rhhardin said...

Some Humpty Dumpty will come along and knock it down.

rhhardin said...

The power of the egg.

AllenS said...

Kidnap rich Mexican drug cartel people and ransom them back. You could make millions every time you did that. Waterboarding them first would be a good idea, so you could learn about other people to kidnap.

Ann Althouse said...

Also on the subject of "Trump stiffs people..."

Trump was continually talking about how the United States gets stiffed by other people. His role now is to protect all of us from getting stiffed.

There will be some debate about what is actually a fair exchange in international relations and trade and maybe Trump will ask for too much for us, but we will be represented by someone who is dedicated to getting the best deal for us.

Why isn't that a good thing? Is it the fear that the countries that have been stiffing us will be mad that they can't continue to take advantage of us?

DanTheMan said...

>>Fees on remittances? Yeah right. That money will find a new path to Mexico to avoid the fee.

Of course, but that's not an argument for not imposing the fee. It will also act as a disincentive to come here in the first place. If illegals start mailing boxes of cash home, and the USPS intercepts enough to make that *seem* like a risky proposition, then coming to the US to work for cash gets less attractive.

Reward the behavior you want. Punish the behavior you don't want.

Freder Frederson said...

Hey could you pull up links to your protestation comments on Obama closing Gitmo? Or do you think he can still do it?

Congress made it impossible for Obama to close Gitmo. If Congress stymies Trump's effort to build the wall, I will concede the point. I expect him to backpedal on building a physical wall the entire length of the border (which after all is what he promised, plus that it would be beautiful--but I'll give him a pass on that promise) so fast Ann's poor head will spin.

Just the EIS for such an endeavor will take several years (and unless Congress repeals NEPA an EIS must be prepared).

rhhardin said...

and maybe Trump will ask for too much for us

That's absolutely normal. Those are the cases where no deal is made because one party or the other doesn't come out ahead. Then the correct economic decision is no deal.

Freder Frederson said...

Why isn't that a good thing? Is it the fear that the countries that have been stiffing us will be mad that they can't continue to take advantage of us?

Because he is simply lying when he claims we are being stiffed by other countries.

rehajm said...

Fees on remittances? Yeah right. That money will find a new path to Mexico to avoid the fee.

We deal with wires daily and I can't imagine a clear and easy work around using wire transfers or ACH. Anybody who deals with money transfers of US origin has experienced how difficult the Patriot Act would be to work around. You'd have to resort to currency and all the challenges of physical movement thereof.

Hagar said...

Innocents do not last long in the development business. Trump has been in it for going on 50 years and he and his suppliers and contractors know each other quite well. The degree of "stiffing" to be tolerated is figured into the quotes on both sides.

Curious George said...

"Freder Frederson said...
Congress made it impossible for Obama to close Gitmo. If Congress stymies Trump's effort to build the wall, I will concede the point. I expect him to backpedal on building a physical wall the entire length of the border (which after all is what he promised, plus that it would be beautiful--but I'll give him a pass on that promise) so fast Ann's poor head will spin.

Just the EIS for such an endeavor will take several years (and unless Congress repeals NEPA an EIS must be prepared)."

So that's a no, right? Funny thing is I don't remember Obama putting any qualifications on it's closing. Do you?

WisRich said...

Wow, talk about losing sight of the forest for the trees.


The point is the wall will be built. Everything else is Liberal hyperventilating.

David Begley has it right.

Trump see's it as a real estate deal. Trump doesn't wait to get all the unit's sold before he builds a condo building, he takes out a loan, builds the Condo's, then collects money through either sales and/or rents.

This is not a hard concept.

Curious George said...

"Freder Frederson said...
Why isn't that a good thing? Is it the fear that the countries that have been stiffing us will be mad that they can't continue to take advantage of us?

Because he is simply lying when he claims we are being stiffed by other countries."

Name one claim and show it was a lie. One.

DanTheMan said...

>>Congress made it impossible for Obama to close Gitmo

I guess that's why Obama has been unable to release or transfer any prisoners, right?




TosaGuy said...

"I think the Dems have raised over a billion dollars by misrepresenting what McConnell said and when he said it."

They certainly don't have much to show for that billion.

MikeR said...

"I expect him to backpedal on building a physical wall the entire length of the border (which after all is what he promised)" Uh, no. He said about a thousand miles needs a physical wall. 700 has already been ordered by Congress.
Amazing how snow-blind Trump has made liberals. They are just wandering around, telling each other what he can't possibly do. There's this issue, and that issue! So it won't happen!
Same as with Brexit. For months I saw articles on how it wasn't really going to happen. After all, there's this issue!
Watch and learn. If you want to learn.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

I would think that taxing remittances to Mexico would be a no-brainer, regardless of building or not building a wall. It would help pay for the border patrol expenses and make it less monetarily rewarding for illegal immigrants to come to the US, thus lowering the number who do come.

Oh!

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The shift, from forcing Mexico to pay to sending the Mexican government a bill once the wall is built, alters one of Trump’s most powerful campaign trail talking points....

One has to wonder, do they really think their readers are that dumb?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Never forget, journalists are dumb rich kids who couldn't hack it in law school, so their parents got them into J-school instead.

Hunter said...

damikesc said...

Rush Limbaugh saying he hoped Obama would fail two months after his Presidency was an "outrage". McConnell's hope to make Obama a "one term President" months after his Presidency started was an "outrage".

Good news for the new year. Obama may not have been a one-term president, but he did fail to fully remake the country in his image. And now that transformation has been halted and will, hopefully, begin to be reversed (like the rising of the oceans).

Ron Winkleheimer said...

And after J-school there is a fierce competition to see who can promote the narrative most effectively with the winners eventually getting to go on MSNBC where they sit in a semi-circle and assure each other how evil and dumb Republicans are.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

I really don't care who pays for the wall. Just get the damn thing built.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

MSNBC is The View for liberals with intellectual pretensions.

Chuck said...

Althouse; no, I am not getting it.

How does "sending a bill" count as "making Mexico pay"?

TosaGuy said...

"MSNBC is The View for liberals with intellectual pretensions."

It is also for those lefties who think NPR stands for Nice Polite Republicans.

Yes, there is a wing of the left that thinks NPR is oriented to the right.

Sebastian said...

I don't mind the wall being built but at my age I do mind it going up so fast my head will spin. Or is DJT bullshitting me again?

Amadeus 48 said...

And NPR is mental chewing gum for humanities professors.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

As for fees on remittance, at least liberals are making progress. They now understand the Laffer Curve!

It is true if you impose a tax that is too high there will be work arounds and the government will get less money then with a lower tax.

But there is no free way to send money overseas. Even taking cash, the most dangerous if all methods, still has a normal exchange rate fee from around 5-12℅.

MountainMan said...

"Fees on remittances? Yeah right. That money will find a new path to Mexico to avoid the fee."

Depends on the size of the fee. A 1% fee on $27B a year is $270M. A lot in the aggregate, almost invisible on each transaction. Over 10 years that eould add up to real money and is so small most consumers would ignore it. Lower it to 0.5% and it is even less visible but still generates lots of cash. Easy to collect from the processor, too.

traditionalguy said...

If the Tamale Eaters don't payup, then we will build an artificial Island in the Gulf of Mexico and claim that all the Mexican oil is under our territorial waters. We can get a good Chinese Lawyer.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

How does "sending a bill" count as "making Mexico pay"?

Sounds like a first step to me.

The US has a lot of leverage over Mexico, and Mexico has some leverage it can use in negotiations with us. A mutually beneficial agreement can be reached, which includes financing a wall, in order to reduce illegal immigration.

Up to now the deal has been that Mexico gets to send as many illegal immigrants to the US and the US pretty much accepts them. The benefits for Mexico to this deal are numerous and obvious, so I won't bother listing them. The benefits to the US is cheap labor. The problem with that arrangement is that cheap labor primarily benefits capital. The middle and working classes, not so much.

Globalization is becoming untenable because the middle and working classes, and increasingly large numbers of the upper-middle classes are seeing that it threatens their livelihood and that a borderless world means that they get replaced with cheap labor from overseas.

Therefore, those classes were receptive to a message that they were getting screwed over by globalization because they are. In a not very surprising turn of events someone showed up to represent that point of view in the political sphere. Also not surprisingly, people who felt screwed over by globalization supported that person. The only surprising thing is that that person was Donald Trump.

Now everyone opposed to Trump, that is the pro globalization people are insisting that Trump really didn't mean what he said and he is going to screw his supporters over. To which I reply:

1) Why?

and

2) If he does the anti-globalization forces will find someone else to support. And that guy will be way less nice than Trump.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

The president-elect appeared to be responding to reports out Thursday that his team and Republican lawmakers have considered relying on a 2006 law signed by then-President George W. Bush that provided for the construction of 700 miles-worth of a “physical barrier” along the southern border. That barrier was never constructed, but the law did not include a sunset provision, allowing Republicans to seek funding for a program already on the books.

See, the fact right there is what's wrong! It apparently doesn't even merit a mention, but the duly-empowered US government passed a law in 2006 to do a thing--a thing members of the government said was important and included as selling points in campaigns for office. We went through the whole "I'm Just A Bill" process, made a law, and then...nothing.
That's the fucking problem! When people say "well, this isn't a real issue, the law says X" that ignores that for a whole list of laws/issues the government is not bothering to execute or enforce the law. Which, you know, is pretty much the only thing a government is supposed to be for, right?
This is why it's so maddeningly specious when nice people and people in the Media argue that people who favor immigration restrictions are all extremists and/or are unreasonable--they always say "oh we already have laws on that, we already have those rules, you're asking for too much now and you only take that extreme position because you're a racist/whacko."
No. People don't trust the government on this issue. That's the correct view! The government has shown itself to be untrustworthy, and the fact that the Media doesn't understand that this very example is one that (rightly) outrages lots of people...well, that's a good illustration of why they still don't get how we, as a nation, "got Trump."

Michael K said...

do they really think their readers are that dumb?

Read some of Freder's comments and then get back to me.

Yes, they are that dumb and deluded.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...Why isn't that a good thing? Is it the fear that the countries that have been stiffing us will be mad that they can't continue to take advantage of us?

Well put, Professor. I take Trump's NATO comments to mean just that--not that he's really threatening to leave the organization, but that he's going to push other members hard to live up to their obligations and contribute more (to stop freeloading off of the US).

A smart Republican would point out that this is essentially the same argument the Left uses w/r/t reimportation of drugs--the world markets free-ride of of US pharmaceuticals (we pay full price and bear the costs of R&D, etc, to keep the drug companies in business, other countries pay more-or-less marginal production costs and thus free-ride off of the US).

The world/West gets a lot out of the US (free navigation of the oceans, legal standards/business norm enforcements, etc) and there are a lot of people who feel like the "deal" we get isn't as good as it should be. We benefit, of course, but so does everyone else. Lots of Trump voters seem to feel like other nations should be shouldering more of the burden, especially w/r/t military spending.

Personally I'm skeptical that Trump will be able to make a lot of progress on that front, but it's not some crazy idea/issue. The Left recognizes the argument on other specific topics, so they ought to admit that it's a valid argument more generally (whether one agrees with a specific application or not).

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Interesting fact: things are taking a turn for the worse in Mexico at the moment. The peso is getting hammered and their economy as a whole seems to be stuttering (after a decent amount of pretty steady growth); consumer gas prices have spiked (20% or more) and there are reports of pretty widespread unrest including some riots and looting in the last few days.

Now it's true that net immigration from Mex. slowed down during the US economic downturn. With relative US economic conditions improving (from Mex. troubles if nothing else), will we see a spike in illegal immigration from Mexico in the near term? How will Pres. Trump address that, and how might a high-profile increase in illegal immigration early in Trump's administration affect his policymaking around that issue?

Interesting times.

Unknown said...

The president-elect appeared to be responding to reports out Thursday that his team and Republican lawmakers have considered relying on a 2006 law signed by then-President George W. Bush that provided for the construction of 700 miles-worth of a “physical barrier” along the southern border. That barrier was never constructed, but the law did not include a sunset provision, allowing Republicans to seek funding for a program already on the books.

YES!! YES!! YES!!. That we actually passed a law and then MY CONGRESSPEOPLE (from Texas) defended it has been a burr in my saddle for a while. Good for Trump, build it first, worry about the politics later.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

How is "sending a bill" different from "forcing Mexico to pay"?

Those are two completely different things. Somewhat interrelated, but completely different.

One Using the bill to fund the wall using the legal methods available right now. It gets things done. Starts the process. In business we call it a construction loan.

The other: Making Mexico pay by diverting funds going to Mexico. Taking money from the cash flowing INTO Mexico, from the remittances or money earned by illegals, and most likely not taxed. Diverting that money into uses for the American public. 28 BILLION dollars last year went out of the country to Mexico. If we took 8 to 10% of each dollar being sent, it would go a long way to offset the money in the bill.

And another: Putting some small tariffs on goods imported from Mexico. It doesn't have to be punitive, just enough to not hurt too badly and to be able to massively increase revenue.

People who get their panties in a wad over money being spent have never been in business and don't understand the concept of UNDERspending in one area so you can OVER spend in another. During construction and expansion of a company, this is the norm. Don't spend here.....spend there.

As you begin to increase your cash flow.....fees and tariffs....you begin to pay off your construction loan.

This is fiscal discipline and good business.

Unfortunately, our Government, which has been mostly controlled by Democrats, Liberal Progressives and GOPe weenies also don't understand discipline, fiscal or any other kind and just spend spend spend. Never ever decreasing or eliminating programs.

Thank God we have a businessman in office. Now if the government lackeys and whining libtards will just get out of the GD way.

eric said...

Who paid to build my house?

Because it seems like I paid. Because I bought the house. But I didn't pay until the house was built. Weird how that works.

Original Mike said...

"...2006 law signed by then-President George W. Bush that provided for the construction of 700 miles-worth of a “physical barrier” along the southern border. That barrier was never constructed..."

Yeah, where the hell is it?

Fen said...

Freder: "I think Trump is full of shit and has no clue-"

Spot on. Trump is an idiot with no clue. It's mere coincidence that he just pulled the most stunning upset in political history. You keep clinging to such reasonable analysis and your tribe will sweep the midterms.

Birkel said...

eric:

You may recall that you didn't build that. And necessarily that means you didn't pay for it either.

Obama, who Althouse is pre-missing, has taught me that in the last eight propaganda years in which we were told to all be socialists now.

Michael said...

do they really think their readers are that dumb?

52% o Democrats believe the Russians changed the vote count. I expect that 75% of the media believe the same, at least from listening to them describe the "Russian interference in our election" meme that is prevalent. Astonishing but true, that our media mavens are often stone stupid. They aren't just in a bubble. They aren't just influenced by their friends in the business and the people who they envy in the real world. They are simply stupid. Thick.

Fen said...

"Do they really think their readers are this stupid?"

Insty had a link up yesterday about "educated idiots"

Short version - yes they really are this stupid. I can't grab the link (on a crappy laptop atm) but it talks about how libs can write a wonderful paper about changing a flat tire and remain incapable of changing a flat tire.

Althouse comments back that up. I've been here since Valenti posed her breasts for Clinton, and the only Lefty commenter we've gotten that isn't a complete moron is RythymBalls...

eric said...

Blogger rehajm said...
Fees on remittances? Yeah right. That money will find a new path to Mexico to avoid the fee.

We deal with wires daily and I can't imagine a clear and easy work around using wire transfers or ACH. Anybody who deals with money transfers of US origin has experienced how difficult the Patriot Act would be to work around. You'd have to resort to currency and all the challenges of physical movement thereof.


Some cultures have trusted carriers. In the middle East they call these hawalas. These are near impossible for the government to track because it's all cash. It works really well for terrorism.

Bitcoin is also another way to transfer money that hasn't been explored much but can get around governments.

I expect that Mexicans are no different than anyone else in the world. With enough incentive, they'll find a way around the law.

n.n said...

JournoListic heads. Pravda was never this obvious.

Fen said...

Same reason why they need a "study" every 6 months to reassure them they are the smart enlightened ones.

Thorley Winston said...

Fees on remittances? Yeah right. That money will find a new path to Mexico to avoid the fee.

What path?

If they start sending it through the postal service, they run the risk that people working in the Mexican postal service (which is likely as corrupt as the rest of the Mexican government) will start searching packages or envelopes sent from the United States and stealing the contents.

If they send someone to physically bring it across the border (which is expensive and time-consuming) after we’ve increased security, they run the risk that they won’t be able to get back into the United States.

The key is to set whatever tax or charge is placed on remittances so that it’s still less costly/risky than trying to send money through the most likely substitute paths.





Fen said...

"with enough incentive -"

Sure but that's already baked in. Note that the IRS still managed to collect millions last year, despite all the incentives to dodge taxes.

Michael said...

I'm not sure anyone really cares who pays for the wall in the end. What people care about is doing (or not doing) something serious about illegal immigration. If the wall is built and works, Trump opponents will shriek in frustration "Mexico didn't pay for it!," but his supporters will shrug and move on.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Unknown said...YES!! YES!! YES!!. That we actually passed a law and then MY CONGRESSPEOPLE (from Texas) defended it has been a burr in my saddle for a while. Good for Trump, build it first, worry about the politics later.

Right, and the whole appeal of a physical wall (as opposed to other, possibly better, enforcement mechanisms) is that it is visible, verifiable, and difficult to hide/not enact/enforce. If I trusted the government to actually do what it says then the money a wall costs would better be spent on additional officers...but we've seen all too often that money originally earmarked for one purpose gets quietly diverted to another. Once a wall is up, it's up--I can tell its there and it's difficult to get around that verification.

The fact that people demand a wall/"permanent" physical structures is itself a symptom of the sorry state of trust btw citizen and government.

Fen said...

good point. a wall may not be the most effective barrier to illegal immigration, but it can't be "suspended" by some petty diversity hire to "punish those hicks in Texas for opposing my agenda"

Original Mike said...

Just the EIS for such an endeavor will take several years (and unless Congress repeals NEPA an EIS must be prepared)."

Who adjudicates the EIS? Ryan Zinke's agency? Scott Pruitt's agency?

Fen said...

And we've already seen that the Left's immigration policy is about resettling amnestied illegals and muslim "refugees" in Red states with the intent of turning the Electoral College map purple-blue.

Never in my life have I had a President that made me feel like an enemy in my own country. Thanks for the lesson Obama, it won't be forgotten.

David Baker said...

Obama and the DNC should pay for the wall.

Obama should also be "resettled" in Gitmo, for aiding and abetting the enemy.

In any case, it will be a incredible miscarriage of justice if Obama is allowed to go scot-free.

Freder Frederson said...

And how exactly is a tax on remittances going to work? Congress, not the president, imposes taxes, so it will take a new law. It will be challenged immediately on equal protection grounds. And do you really want the government monitoring every cash transfer from Western Union.

The WTO will certainly throw out any tariff (which again would probably require an Act of Congress) imposed on Mexico to pay for the wall.

You people, like Donald Trump, are not thinking this through.

rehajm said...

If they start sending it through the postal service, they run the risk that people working in the Mexican postal service (which is likely as corrupt as the rest of the Mexican government) will start searching packages or envelopes sent from the United States and stealing the contents.

If they send someone to physically bring it across the border (which is expensive and time-consuming) after we’ve increased security, they run the risk that they won’t be able to get back into the United States.


This is correct. You've opened yourself up to all the risks associated with cash. Someone suggested Bitcion but it has similar problems with theft, transaction and price risk (Bitcoin value slid nearly 20% yesterday)...

The key is to set whatever tax or charge is placed on remittances so that it’s still less costly/risky than trying to send money through the most likely substitute paths.

Remember, too the key rule Trump has said they'll use is the 'know your customer' provision for financial institutions. It would essentially shut down the wire option completely for illegals in the US. With the point being to get Mexicans back to the bargaining table that's a powerful incentive.

Drago said...

Freder the helpless: "And how exactly is a tax on remittances going to work?"

Apparently, its now totes required that any bill be fully laid out and discussed prior to passing! In fact, prior to even assuming office!

Yes, an Obamacare/dem fan is actually demanding that, without any sense of shame or irony.

Freder the helpless: "Congress, not the president, imposes taxes, so it will take a new law."

LOL

Yes, an Obama fan actually just wrote that without any sense of shame or irony.

Freder the helpless: "And do you really want the government monitoring every cash transfer from Western Union."

I'm sure the federal agencies would be quite up to the task. I hear they are very very very very good at drilling down into the minutia of economic/political activities of those they really want to learn about, regardless of whether or not its proper.

You know Freder, if you had uttered even 1 work of concern over the last 8 years of executive/federal government overreach you might have been given the benefit of the doubt.

No one is listening to you anymore since the last 8 years of dem/left activities can no longer be covered up.

You'd better come up with a new schtick. Of course, we've already seen the left doesn't have anything else.

Drago said...

Freder: "You people, like Donald Trump, are not thinking this through."

You mean, if we like our plan we might not be able to keep our plan?

We have much to learn about "thinking things through" from the likes of you.

Drago said...

Freder, tell us more of Red Lines and videos inspiring riots.

We need to learn more about "thinking things through".

Curious George said...

"Freder Frederson said...
And how exactly is a tax on remittances going to work? Congress, not the president, imposes taxes, so it will take a new law. It will be challenged immediately on equal protection grounds. And do you really want the government monitoring every cash transfer from Western Union."

How is the an equal protection issue? And the government wouldn't have to monitor companies like Western Union. If the law passes, they will comply with any tariff. I mean are you really that dumb that you don't understand that?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

And how exactly is a tax on remittances going to work? Congress, not the president, imposes taxes

Well..This is simple. We already have a precedent. Just get Dread Justice Roberts to declare it a fee and not a tax. Ta Dah!!!! No Congress needed. Just like Obamacare mandate not a tax....a penalty fee.

eric said...

Blogger Fen said...
"with enough incentive -"

Sure but that's already baked in. Note that the IRS still managed to collect millions last year, despite all the incentives to dodge taxes.


It probably is. Increase the fee just enough so as not to encourage a black market.

Something else to remember, the 1996 immigration act signed by Clinton demanded entry & exit checks. We never did get around to setting up those exit checks. But we do it sporadically. And if you're carrying cash south, what's it for? If it's more than $10,000, did you declare it? If you didn't, it gets seized. Say goodbye to 100% of your money.

So, it's risky business. Maybe it's better just to pay the fee.

rehajm said...

And do you really want the government monitoring every cash transfer from Western Union.

What's good for Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley,...is good for Western Union!

MountainMan said...

Freder said:

"And how exactly is a tax on remittances going to work? Congress, not the president, imposes taxes, so it will take a new law. It will be challenged immediately on equal protection grounds. And do you really want the government monitoring every cash transfer from Western Union."

I would not be surprised if the government already does monitor every transaction from Wester Union. Any monetary transaction of $10K or more must be reported to the government. And the government (IRS) monitors even smaller transactions in order to detect "structuring", a technique of breaking up and bundling large transfers into smaller transactions to get around government monitoring. Apparently you must have missed all the stories of the past few years of small businesses having their assets seized by an over zealous IRS thinking small businesses making daily sales deposits were drug dealers trying to launder money. You really should be better informed.

All businesses that export products from the US are already required to report to the US Dept of Commerce the export values (know as the "declaration value") of everything shipped out of the US. It has to be reported by a world-wide standard set of commodity codes. The data must be accurate and on-time and there can be serious penalties for failure to do so. I would not be surprised if Western Union and other financial institutions are not required to do the same for financial transactions (I can check with my daughter, she works for a major bank and used to move hundreds of millions of dollars around the world every day).

Most companies like WU and major manufacturers already use standard software products, like SAP or Oracle, that have standard capabilities for calculating and collecting required taxes - like sales tax or VAT - and duties on every business transaction. The configuration and implementation of a new fee on certain specified financial transactions in such systems is relatively straightforward once the requirements from the government are known. You simply accrue the amount from each transaction in a holding account and periodically remit the cash to the government according to schedule. I am quite familiar with this, as it is part of what I did for the last 15 years of my working career and I can assure you implementing an export fee on cash transactions for any of these companies would not be difficult. I could probably have it configured, tested, and implemented in a couple of days once it is approved by the auditors.

As for what the equal protection clause has to do with any of this I have no idea and I suspect you don't either.

Birkel said...

To be fair to Freder Frederson, he is arguing for an expansion of government which is consistent with every other word he has written.

As an advocate for dismantling Leviathan, I cannot support that plan.

Fen said...

"All persons born or naturalized within the United States..."

Interesting read of the equal protection clause... what xenophobes!

J. Farmer said...

Frankly, I'd be totally fine with the US footing the entire bill. It's peanuts in the grand scheme of things. The important thing is that it gets built. The Trump team should spend less time crafting ways to get Mexico to reimburse and more time getting prepared to defend it in the Federal court system, where I imagine the opposition to the wall is going to spend most of its energy.

Original Mike said...

"All persons born or naturalized within the United States..."

Should we be allowing illegals to send any money out of the country?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

"Freder Frederson said...And how exactly is a tax on remittances going to work? Congress, not the president, imposes taxes, so it will take a new law. It will be challenged immediately on equal protection grounds. And do you really want the government monitoring every cash transfer from Western Union."

It's a complex issue, Freder, and I'm afraid you and others are just getting a distorted view of what's actually being proposed--but don't worry, smart people in government are working it out. We'll just have to pass the prospective bill to see what's in it.

CWJ said...

Sorry to pile on Freder, but LOL. I just bought an airline ticket yesterday. The invoice itemized no less than 8 separate fees and taxes added to the base ticket price. Yeah, adding a fee/tax to a monetary transaction will be a real puzzlement.

Livermoron said...

Man o man, Fen....project much?

You're the guy who put the 'jerk' in 'knee-jerk'.

That you and GWash put your ignorance and hypocrisy on display here as proudly as you do is, in some ways, admirable. Certainly entertaining in a Harlem Globetrotters vs. Washington Generals kind of way.
You both would benefit a great deal by getting some education in Civics.
As if!
Ha ha ha.
Now to go grab the pussy by my wife.

Livermoron said...

OOps, sorry Fen....I meant Freder.

n.n said...

There needs to be emigration reform. And not just to address the progress of refugee crises.

Original Mike said...

I was watching Outnumbered this morning on FoxNews and Juan Williams was their "One Lucky Guy". Williams repeatedly insisted, evidence presented to him to the contrary, that Trump has said Mexico will pay for the Wall up front. Facts don't matter.

DanTheMan said...

>>As for what the equal protection clause has to do with any of this I have no idea and I suspect you don't either.

I think he's echoing Janet Napolitano, who said that if we built a wall on the southern border, we'd have to build one on the Canadian border as well.

"One of the things that I think we need to be sensitive to is the very real feeling among southern border states and in Mexico that if things are being done on the Mexican border, they should also be done on the Canadian border."

It's difficult to respond so that level of intelligence....


DanTheMan said...

>>Trump has said Mexico will pay for the Wall up front.

Obama promised me $2500 a year in savings on my health care. I was hoping I would get that up front, too, but apparently my check for 20 grand is still being processed...

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Now somebody on Legal Insurrection is freaking out because Trump is asking Congress to budget money for the wall.

Of course congress is going to have to budget money to build the wall. What did people on the left think was going to happen, Mexico was going to send Trump a check and he would personally pay the contractors?

If the government is paying contractors to do something, Congress has to allocate the money.

Original Mike said...

" Janet Napolitano, who said that if we built a wall on the southern border, we'd have to build one on the Canadian border."

Because Mexican and Canadian citizens have equal protection under our laws?

Alex said...

Does anyone doubt Trump will get Mexico to pay for the wall? Folks, it's gonna be a big beautiful wall. We're gonna get so tired of winning, I tell you. Bigly.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

If we build a wall on the southern border, but not on the northern one, then the Mexicans will feel the sadz, and we cannot have that.

Oh and the sub headline on Legal Insurrection is "Unless Trump can convince Mexico to reimburse the US Government."

If the Mexican government was going to directly pay for the wall, they would always have had to be convinced to reimburse us for it, regardless of whether the wall was built before the check arrived or after.

The thinking is all so one-dimensional it's no wonder the US has been handed its ass so badly in the last couple of decades.

The US is a much stronger economy than Mexico. Getting Mexico to make some concessions regarding trade and pointing to that as paying for the wall is trivial. Mexico is paying for the wall, one way or another.

walter said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...the duly-empowered US government passed a law in 2006 to do a thing--a thing members of the government said was important and included as selling points in campaigns for office. We went through the whole "I'm Just A Bill" process, made a law, and then...nothing.
That's the fucking problem!
--
Yes. That just jumped off the screen for me. Lotta splainin' due regarding that.

walter said...

The tack here might be. "The question is why isn't this already done?"

walter said...

Then..guest Tweet from Kate Steinle's parents...

BJM said...

I don't see the problem, our telecommunication billing contains multiple use & access fees. Bank wire transfers charge fees of $12-$15 domestic and as high as $35 for international wire transfers. A modest telecommunications fee on remittances of say, $20-$25, seems a bargain by comparison.

Remittances aren't peanuts, according to the Economist:

"In November remittances to Mexico totalled nearly $2.4bn, a 25% jump over the previous year. Total remittances for 2016 are expected to reach $27bn, $2bn more than in 2015."

This is money that does not return to the businesses, cities, counties and states in which the sender lives & works. One could reasonably argue that remittances are actually a wealth transfer tax on the commonweal.

DanTheMan said...

>>Because Mexican and Canadian citizens have equal protection under our laws?

Because if Jimmy gets a lollypop, then Susie gets one, too. That's the fairness she learned in kindergarten. And that's where her learning stopped, apparently.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@BJM

Mexico's GDP is $1.14 Trillion so $27 Billion isn't chicken feed. Mexico's economy relies on the remittances. Which is why the US is not taxing it.

The US and Mexican governments have a nice cozy relationship were Mexico sends us cheap labor and in turn the US does not interfere with the money that cheap labor sends back, thus keeping their economy afloat, and allowing Mexico's government to not have to enact needed reforms.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

You know, taking in all the hard working, intelligent people from third-world countries used to be a bad thing. Drained the country of origin of much needed human capital.

glenn said...

The 800lb gorilla in the remittances room is that a whole bunch of that money is earned off the books. Some estimates are that 40% of the economic activity in the LA basin is in the underground economy. Maybe it's time to arrest a few of the self appointed big shots who hire the Pedro's and Marias.

Seeing Red said...

Does anyone over a certain age remember Kiki Camereno?

Maybe the Mexican gov't needs a refresher course.

HT said...

He paid when it was in his interest to pay.

Are you really up to date on all of his contractual obligations? I’m impressed!

___________

Michael said...

I'm not sure anyone really cares who pays for the wall in the end. What people care about is doing (or not doing) something serious about illegal immigration. If the wall is built and works, Trump opponents will shriek in frustration "Mexico didn't pay for it!," but his supporters will shrug and move on.
1/6/17, 10:59 AM

By 'anyone,' I suppose you mean anyone not in your own little circle (the second half of your paragraph contradicts the first).

FWIW, I am not a Trump supporter but I support any and all efforts to enforce immigration laws.

wildswan said...

People who didn't support Trump have told me they intend to make a huge issue of whether he keeps his campaign promises (as interpreted by them). So, here - money has to be up front, President of Mexico has to carry check to Congress, before law passes money must be there, all must be done in the sequence the Democrats expect, blah, blah. Face it, Trump is going to build the wall starting very soon and Mexico is going to pay for it one way or another. They can negotiate with us now or negotiate later.

No one is doing Mexico a favor who urges that country to hold out. Even if Obama (from behind the wall he is building for himself) tells them not to let the US have a wall (like his), the Mexicans shouldn't listen. They should recognize change and work on a deal. The change Mexico should recognize is how futile the Democrats have become when, having just lost election, they go to work systematically to lose another. Why would Mexico kisten to them?