March 25, 2020

"Businesses controlled by President Trump and his children would be prohibited from receiving loans or investments from Treasury Department programs included in a $2 trillion stimulus plan..."

"... agreed to early Wednesday by White House and Senate leaders in response to the coronavirus crisis. The provision, which was touted by Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) in an early-morning letter to colleagues, would also apply to Vice President Pence, members of Congress and heads of federal departments, as well as their children, spouses and in-laws.
During a television interview Wednesday morning, Schumer stressed that the provision applies not only to Trump but to 'any major figure in government.' 'That makes sense. Those of us who write the law shouldn’t benefit from the law,' Schumer said on CNN."

WaPo reports.

110 comments:

Dave Begley said...

How petty.

What about all the people who work at the Trump properties.

I didn't think my disdain for Schumer could grow, but it has over the last few weeks.

MayBee said...

I hope people applaud Trump for this.
I'll be interested to see which politicians consider themselves "major figure(s) in government" to not benefit from this law.

MayBee said...

Why do I anticipate a write up about how Trump didn't support his employees during the COVID aftermath?

Sebastian said...

"Those of us who write the law shouldn’t benefit from the law"

So, Chuck, what about Biden, Inc.?

And, pray tell, why did foreigners shovel money at the Clintons?

rhhardin said...

If you help every other hotel, why not Trump hotels.

Mark said...

Applies to all, but by all means WP, use it to blast Trump as singularly corrupt.

BADuBois said...

Perhaps this should apply to Congress as well. Why not?

Equipment Maintenance said...

Now he'll be accused of hurrying the re-opening because he's desperate to save his business.

Nonapod said...

members of Congress

There's a small number of house members that actually own businesses, like Vern Buchanan who I guess owns a couple car dealerships in Florida. Kinda sucks for the employees of those businesses.

Ryan said...

Technically, Trump doesnt "write" the law. He's in the executive branch. But the gesture is a good one, given the veto power.

gspencer said...

The politics of personal destruction practiced as a Democrat high art form. Petty for certain.

If you cross Emmanuel Goldstein as a proxy for Democrats, then it's Hades for you.

Michael K said...

This explains why the Dims finally allowed this to pass.

OK, we won't fund the ballet but a stick poked at Trump got the TDSers in line.

Spiros said...

Trump should have put his business into an independent trust after he won the election.

DarkHelmet said...

What a stupid thing to worry about in an epidemic. This is even dumber than worrying about 'stock buybacks' -- as if how businesses manage their balance sheets is something the government should dictate during an epidemic.

The fact that people like Schumer play this stuff up tells me:

1) They know nothing about how businesses are actually managed
2) They are fundamentally crooked themselves, so they assume every CEO is constantly looking for an opportunity to rip off taxpayers

Iman said...

Chuck Schumer can take a flying fuck at a rolling donut. Same goes for the entire staff of the WaPo.

Nonapod said...

I justr noticed that the Wikipedia article that purports to rank the wealthiest congress critters is missing positions 8 - 11. Wonder why that is?

Rory said...

"...as well as their children, spouses and in-laws."

Is this legal? I can understand as a violation of ethics rules, but can't imagine it's enforceable under law. You can't strip people of their right to government benefits.

exhelodrvr1 said...

So Pelosi and Feinstein and families, too, correct?

Bay Area Guy said...

What is Schmuck Chumer yapping about> The man is an unctuous parasite on the body politic.

Howard said...

Another thing for Trump to brag about in every press conference every time he gets into a sticky wicket

Jim Gust said...

Good one, Iman, I haven't heard that line in years. So true.

Howard said...

Don't you people see that this is the Democrats continuing to hand Trump cards.

Ken B said...

Schumer's little joke is hilarious. Congress gets rich off insider trading and featherbedding and influence peddling.

David-2 said...

"Those of us who write the law shouldn’t benefit from the law,' Schumer said"

Preach it, brother!

Make sure Harry Reid, both Clintons, and Obama are in the pews when you shout it out!

Wince said...

Those of us who write the law shouldn’t benefit from the law,' Schumer said on CNN.

Care to make that universal, Chucky, which would mean we've got a unpaid, voluntary congress going forward?

Did they take-up Goetz's amendment blocking Chinese-controlled entities?

Unknown said...

Isn't this "Bill of Attainder" territory?

"A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial."

Ryan said...

"What a stupid thing to worry about in an epidemic."

I'm sorry, but society needs MORE stupid things to worry about right now. We need to keep people satisfied with staying home, glued to their monitors and TVs, not too anxious, but mentally stimulated and safe.

Ken B said...

Remember the repeal of STOCK, the law against insider trading by congress? It was by unanimous consent, quickly and with no debate. Signed by Obama.

Bill Peschel said...

So when are they going to put Congress under the same Obamacare rules as the rest of us? How about never? Is never good enough for you?

Freder Frederson said...

What about all the people who work at the Trump properties.

They are employees, not owners. They don't even have the option to buy stock in their employer because all Trump businesses are LLCs.

Big Mike said...

I’ll bet the law exemption does not apply to Mike Bloomberg, however.

Skipper said...

How much moolah has Pelosi made on the public dime? Puleeze.

Ken B said...

Today's assignment. Bloomberg spent half a billion to win delegates. Trump is willing to lose a billion to fight a plague. Compare and contrast. Be sure to explain why Bloomberg is better.

Tim Wolter said...

Nonapod

Just Wiki being sloppy. Here's the info found in their footnoted source.

https://www.rollcall.com/wealth-of-congress/

R and D in about the expected proportions.

TW

Char Char Binks said...

“Bill of Attainder?” The intent seems to be to taint Trump. Schumer is a taint.

narciso said...

seems like more than an oversigh

gspencer said...

I'm guessing Congress can do this, but we'll never know because Trump and family will not challenge the law (though equal protection arguments do seem to be in the mix).

narciso said...

all federal employees and their families, that would be an equitable read,

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

meanwhile, Biden, Hillary, Pelosi family+ - all still government whores.

Bay Area Guy said...

Do we even know what shitty little boondoggles, special favors and earmarks the Dems kept in the bill?

These folks are shameless weasels.

DarkHelmet said...

FF said:

'What about all the people who work at the Trump properties.'

"They are employees, not owners. They don't even have the option to buy stock in their employer because all Trump businesses are LLCs."

So what? They can be laid off regardless of the form of corporate ownership. If the purpose of the legislation is to help businesses during a public health crisis so that they don't have to do massive layoffs and/or go broke, who cares what the ownership structure is?

rcocean said...

So Trump's employees are supposed to be destroyed because Schumer hates him. Very few Congressmen and Senators employee large numbers of people. They're like Biden, they own "Foundations" sit on Boards, go to work on hedge funds, and make speeches at 100K a pop. Trump has resorts that have lost millions because of the shutdowns.

bagoh20 said...

""Those of us who write the law shouldn’t benefit from the law"

Now that there is funny. I don't care who you are.

He's lying, of course, but he's right, so it's lying, but accurate. I didn't realize that was possible, but it is.

It took Trump to make them see the what's wrong with feeding at the trough. What can't he do?

Fernandistein said...

Baby needs a new set of tires.

Freeman Hunt said...

Why would we do that? Why don't the jobs of the thousands of people working in those businesses matter?

narciso said...

Guess who did get a bailout, warren buffett, the sage of omaha.

bagoh20 said...

In a show of solidarity all Congress people should donate their pay until this is over. For the children.

n.n said...

Profits from operations, investments, regulatory exceptions, public smoothing functions, sanctuary cities, non-profits, bills with "benefits" (e.g. employment, speaking, advisory), etc.

M Jordan said...

I say let’s check all 100 senators and all 435 congresspersons to see if they’ve benefited from insider trading, etc.

narciso said...

Wasnt he donating his salary to various departments anyways.

bagoh20 said...

What some people fail to see about business and commerce is how interconnected it is. You shut down, and of course your employees don't have work, then in many instances a whole chain of other people who supply you, or who you supply get cut out too. It's the miracle of capitalism in reverse.

Rick said...

Sebastian said...
"Those of us who write the law shouldn’t benefit from the law"


In particular let's remember Obama granting the Pelosi family business a "waiver" from Obamacare - along with other businesses connected to prominent Democrats.

Interestingly no left wingers made a fuss over that. You know sometimes it seems their pose as defenders of the downtrodden is just PR rather than a principle.

LYNNDH said...

Shall we wait and see just how the Dems will get money, because you know they will.

Paul said...

What a crock. Gets this big anti-Trump screed and then in the footnotes mentions it's for everyone else in the gubberment....

Schumer and Pelosi are pitiful people.

hombre said...

Interesting. The hypocrisy is palpable. The provision should begin with: “Now that Feinstein, Pelosi, Biden and other Democrat grifters have gotten theirs, we can punish Trump who actually earned his money....”

The swamp strikes back!

narciso said...

Why i call them blank pages from 'they live'

Browndog said...

The House was in session for 115 seconds this morning.

I think they had more pressing "business" now that there's $2 Trillion floating around burning holes in the government's pocket.

Bruce Hayden said...

“ So Pelosi and Feinstein and families, too, correct?”

That is my thoughts exactly. Ten years ago, In the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Porkulus I fake stimulus package, they made out like bandits. Not Pelosi and Feinstein themselves, but their husbands and family members.

Rick said...

Freeman Hunt said... Why don't the jobs of the thousands of people working in those businesses matter?

It's good public policy for everyone to learn working for non-left wing organizations is financially risky. This overrides their welfare.

Todd said...

Those of us who write the law shouldn’t benefit from the law,' Schumer said on CNN."

What a novel fing idea! Lets run with that ball and make it reto-active back (what) 25 years?

Get rid of your "special" health insurance, your "special" retirement plan, your "special" fitness club, your "special" insider info, etc.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Laws do not apply to Colorado governor Jared Polis(D).

daskol said...

Guess who did get a bailout, warren buffett, the sage of omaha.

A piece of financial advice my grandfather advocated for many years: when things go bad, if you have cash by Berkshire (and hold a bunch of it even in good times as a hedge). Of course, when my grandfather was advocating it for himself and his clients in the 70s and 80s, it was because of his respect for Buffet as a disciplined and creative investor. But the advice applies now even more, because besides investment savvy and a massive pile of cash, Buffet is deeply connected to the power structure. He now practices the most profitable investment strategy of all, which is controlling the rules of the game.

grackle said...

Those of us who write the law shouldn’t benefit from the law,' Schumer said on CNN.

These assholes get elected, go to DC, and most of them end up becoming millionaires. Readers, do you ever wonder how that happens?

O the irony! The rank hypocrisy!

daskol said...

haha buffet

Kevin said...

"Those of us who write the law shouldn’t benefit from the law"

If only a reporter would ask him how far Pelosi's bill was from this standard.

Michael said...

What a dick. So the thousands of workers in Trump hotels may not have a place to work after this is over.

Michael said...

Freder
“They are employees, not owners. They don't even have the option to buy stock in their employer because all Trump businesses are LLCs.”

But the point, dear fellow, is that they won’t be employees for long if the hotels don’t survive. Just like all of the hundreds of thousands of hotel workers already laid off.

PB said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PB said...

I love that Kurt Vonnegut quote! "Go take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut."

Char Char Binks said...

EVERYONE should benefit from our laws. That’s the point of making laws. The trouble is that Dems are specifically writing laws to harm us.

Howard said...

It's perfect PR for Trump... this thread shows how you love to wallow with Donald in a warm bath of victimhood. The Dems would have been smart to offer relief to Trump specifically. Instead they handed him a cudgel to beat them with.

Temujin said...

Except that Nancy Pelosi has made millions upon millions for her family through government contracts. She doesn't need the loan. She's been paid up front.

Browndog said...

Those of us who write the law shouldn’t benefit from the law,' Schumer said on CNN."

'The truth is the exact opposite of what liberals say' remains undefeated.

Birkel said...

It makes perfect sense to punish Trump-owned businesses.
Isn't their a constitutional protection against passing a law that treats people differently in this way?

Michael K said...

this thread shows how you love to wallow with Donald in a warm bath of victimhood.

Howard, you would make some sense if your team was not in TDS level 11 of a scale of 10 every day.

Jeff Weimer said...

Let's screw over hotel workers because OrangeManBad, but we must plus-up Planned Parenthood.

Leland said...

I have no problem with this other than it singling out one business. I think it should have been expanded to include Bloomberg and Biden. I think Trump should make the point that Democrats made sure Bloomberg and Biden got part of this stimulus pork, while excluding him. And that's fine, because Trump hasn't been donating his salary all along, and he didn't go there to become rich like Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, or Nancy Pelosi.

Phidippus said...

Iman said: "Chuck Schumer can take a flying fuck at a rolling donut. Same goes for the entire staff of the WaPo."

Iman, this is supposed to be a family-friendly site (for some values of "family" at least). Could that not be stated as "Chuck Schumer is invited to attempt midair copulation with a perambulating pastry", and get the same point across?

Birkel said...

I have been told, variously, that Trump owned nothing and was merely a brand. Does this alleged law mean Trump owns a large company with physical assets and lots of employees?

Imagine my surprise!

Buckwheathikes said...

SO obviously unconstitutional. I'm sure the Supreme Court will overturn this provision.

Howard said...

Doc Mike's excuse is he must match up with Democrat nutjobs.

Leland said...

Trump hasn't been donating

Ack… Trump has...

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

"Those of us who write the law shouldn’t benefit from the law," Schumer said on CNN.

So as to "Those of us who write laws creating restrictions or obligations...." Should they not be exempted from compliance?

Owen said...

I am not Constitutional law scholar but didn't we prohibit bills of attainder? And if you pass a law that specifically denies Mr. X and his blood relations and in-laws a benefit, that is being offered to everybody else (or to an entire neutral class of people), isn't that like a bill of attainder punishing Mr. X and his people?

Francisco D said...

"Isn't their a constitutional protection against passing a law that treats people differently in this way?"

I don't know how the law is written, but you may be referring to a "Bill of Attainder".

Owen said...

Birkel and Buckwheathikes and maybe others have asked the same question. Sorry to be redundant but maybe there is some value in a consensus here.

What kind of precedents are out there that can enlighten us about other mean-spirited and stupidly punitive gestures like this? Ideally, which precedents show us a huge political backlash against the proponents?

Crazy Jane said...

Fine with me, but how about adding this: A no-federal-aid clause for Amazon and its founder's pet project, the Washington Post. The next time Amazon pays a dollar in federal income tax will be the first time.

DavidUW said...

Now can we apply that to all of Congress.
And I don't mean the easily evaded STOCK act.
No blind trusts, all your money goes into a target date fund. No changes allowed except to withdraw money for a personal expense like a house or car.

No sweetheart real estate deals. No deals for your spouses who get sweet government contracts.

victoria said...

Yay!!! I'm good with Amazon receiving no special treatment, pay your taxes, Amazon!!


Vicki from Pasadena

DavidUW said...

Also, i'm super happy this was clearly a huge priority for the democrats.

Josephbleau said...

""Those of us who write the law shouldn’t benefit from the law"

Good, no contributions from individuals or pacs whose contributors benefit from bills. No $3000 dinners paid for by Boeing or Planned Parenthood. I am sure this is what Shummer will do.

Cormac Kehoe said...

But not Senators, Congresspeople and their various relatives, I'm guessing.

Rory said...

"Except that Nancy Pelosi has made millions upon millions for her family through government contracts. She doesn't need the loan. She's been paid up front."

Somewhere in one of the Clinton email dumps was one where they said "all of the foreign money is in," just before publicly pledging not to take foreign money.

Michael said...

Birkel

The Trump organization owns some assets but licenses most. In any event the employees of both owned and licensed hotels are being relieved of their jobs. Occupancies in the teens for all hotels means a catastrophe to the millions of hourly employees who are being let go. But the main thing is to hurt Trump not that you ever gave a tiny shit about the workers.

madAsHell said...

Yeah.....The law prevents this from happening. In reality, this is the law they will stand behind when caught.

"I can't be corrupt because we laws against that."

n.n said...

but we must plus-up Planned Parenthood.

Reproductive rites are a religious imperative of the Church. Not the first choice, the second, the third, or even the fourth, but the fifth choice, Pro-Choice, for social progress, social justice, and medical progress, too. And they will not hesitate to indulge diversity (e.g. rape culture,color judgments), liberal license (e.g. divergent standards), conflation of issues (e.g. health, wealth, availability, revenue), and appeals to authorities (e.g. mortal gods and goddesses) in order to speak truth to facts. It's especially entertaining when thye resort to semantic games, including technical terms of art, in order to socially distance themselves while justifying their religious/ethical prescriptions. On one hand, on the other, always and forever.

Birkel said...

I am decidedly NOT talking about a Bill of Attainder, on which there is less precedent.

I phrased my offering the way I did because this violates the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.
This is so patently offensive to Equal Protection as to be laughable.

Birkel said...

Michael,
You must be new around here.
Fuck off.

Achilles said...

""Businesses controlled by President Trump and his children would be prohibited from receiving loans or investments from Treasury Department programs included in a $2 trillion stimulus plan...""


I aplaud this.

Now extend that to ANYONE who is elected to any statewide or nationwide office, everyone who works for the federal government, and anyone on or who has been on their staffs for the last 10 years.

Matah Hati said...

5 Bandar Togel Terpercaya

iowan2 said...

I know our host doesn't "do law" on demand, but I would appreciate some guidance about whether a law can single out, by name, persons exceptions to that law.

Not this law. Just any law. Can named individuals be granted/suffer exemptions?

YoungHegelian said...

"Those of us who write the law shouldn’t benefit from the law," Schumer said on CNN.

Oh, Schumer, you lying shit!

How many regulations has Congress placed on American businesses & citizens that the Congress exempts itself from? Yah ever hear about a Congress critter getting sued for hiring discrimination? No. You know why? Because Congress exempted itself from that law.

Why does Congress get to pay off victims in Congressional sexual abuse cases with OUR TAX MONEY, but yet these payments are kept secret from the tax payers?

I'm sorry, these people are just evil. They really are.

Birkel said...

iowan2,

This law would be facial unconstitutional if challenged.

narayanan said...

except through lobbyists' freebies of course

Ron Nelson said...

I thought the idea behind these loans is to keep the workers for the companies employed. When should you be laid off if you are working in a business in which one of these people hold an interest? You might want to figure out a way to offset some personal benefit, but wholesale denying access to these business threatens the jobs of many. Why is that a good idea?

narayanan said...

I would settle for removal of 5A protections for all government employees when they are being investigated for actions taken during their official capacity and time.

Unknown said...

I am so relieved to hear

our rulers

will no longer profit from their positions of power

Wince said...

The discrimination in this law need only show rational relation to a legitimate government purpose. The argument for it would be anti-corruption.

It appears this law only applies to government loans and cash for stock, things I’m not sure Trump would want or necessarily need.

It does not seem to apply to direct or indirect aid to workers.

Wince said...

The irony is this would require those government officials to seek private lenders where influence peddling could be an even greater factor than a sweetheart deal from the Treasury Dept.

Cato said...

Unconstitutional. Who could disagree?