William Haupt III: A resolution Congress must make and keep in 2022
“Some friends ask about your new year’s resolutions. Good friends don’t say too much about them. Your best friends don’t mention them at all, since they know you will never keep them.” – Jay Leno Between December 26 and January 2, people make an existential U-turn. The season of goodwill, visiting, and gift-giving morphs into a neurotic self-improvement aeon as we confront our disquieting anxieties. Which of my habits to stop? Who do I want to be? What do I wish to look like and more? It’s a fact; many New Year’s resolutions are outlandish, unattainable, and even ridiculous. Most are frivolously made after over-imbibing on the “bubbly” during celebrations. It’s uncanny that few really expect to keep them. And some people don’t even remember resolutions they made the next day? While “great expectations” have plagued mankind for centuries, since most people are forgiving by nature, we do not normally burn anyone at the stake for not keeping the resolutions that they made on New Year’s. We even tend to forgive those that politicians always make and never plan to keep. “By God, I will govern for everyone in America; even for those who did not vote for me.” – Joe Biden It is daunting when our list of New Year’s resolutions is longer than our holiday shopping lists. And it’s even more frustrating not being able to keep even one resolution by late January. According to Lynn Bufka, Ph.D., “People have a habit of setting overwhelming goals instead of attainable goals.” Each year, every member of Congress and the White House promises to cut our trade deficit with China, yet it continues to grow each year faster than Pinocchio’s nose grows every time he fibs. Is our federal government telling us what they think we want to hear? Or are these half-truths just grandiose New Year’s resolutions? “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” – Vladimir Lenin If we learned anything from the pandemic, it is how vulnerable our supply chain is to the impulses of Red China. Although recently America has not been acting like a superpower, it is considered a dominant player in global affairs. Isn’t it also the world’s strongest nation with the most influence? If America is “too big to fail” and dictates policy to the world, then why did we allow Red China to maneuver our economy for four decades? Since the 1979 Accord signed by Jimmy Carter and Deng Xiaoping that legitimized Red China, we’ve become dependent on China for economic survival. The 1979 Accord opened the door for manufactures to recover lost profits due to union demands for egregious wages and benefits. Many had closed their doors. Others were merging to survive. Chinese cheap “labor” has fueled innovative product creation at the expense of U.S. engineering and development, utilizing U.S. resources. Since China has no respect for international intellectual property rights, they clone everything they make for us and compete against us in our own nation. “Communists must always put the interests of Communists first in order to survive.” – Mao Zedong A Federal Reserve report shows the U. S. is running a record trade deficit with China. Companies that used to make products in the U.S., from Levi’s to Master Locks, shut down their factories and moved to China. The report noted we buy more clothing and shoes from China than the U.S. A former Perry Ellis plant is now home to a Walmart plant that puts parts into TVs made in China. It’s time Joe Biden quits blaming our supply chain problems and high inflation on the pandemic! We are not only “overly dependent” on imports from countries that don’t share our political beliefs and policies; countries like Red China are competing with us using technology that they stole from us. “When it comes time to hang the capitalists, we will use the rope they sold us.” – Vladimir Lenin It’s scary the U.S. has placed its economic fate in Red China at the expense of democratic nations likes Mexico and India? Although Ford has a plant in Mexico, India’s Sun Pharmaceuticals is the largest generic drug supplier in the world. And India has the ability to do anything that China does. Economist Matt Slaughteg reminds us: for years, we had production contracts with Mexico, India, and Eastern Europe. But when China opened their free markets, American companies flocked to China because they had no unions, no labor laws, low taxes, and fewer government regulations. We are all aware of our dependence on rogue nations for energy and what they’ve done to us for years. Not only are we forced to turn to inferior, costly technology for energy, this threatens our national security. And it is a socioeconomic nightmare for every U.S. citizen and business as well. “Our supply chain is strained because we depend on so many critical imports.” – Jerome Powell Psychologists agree, when people set overwhelming goals on New Year’s, they seldom keep them. This is what Congress and the president vow to do every year with our trade deficit. This year we have an opportunity to hold their feet to the fire and make them do it with midterms coming soon. U.S. Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Chris Coons (D-DE) introduced a bill for government to invest $1 billion to mitigate future supply chain issues. It will identify manufacturing and distribution issues and will strengthen our supply chains, and reduce our reliance on imports, especially from China. The National Manufacturing Guard Act (NMGA) will help the Department of Commerce prepare us for future import crises. Most importantly, this bill will help the DOC identify supply chain problems and manufacturing issues. It also allows the DOC to partner with private industry and promotes the establishment of apprenticeship programs that will help increase US manufacturing and production. “The pandemic showed us how vulnerable our supply chains are; its time to fix them.” – Marco Rubio Ronald Reagan once said, “Capitalism is the most powerful weapon against
What to watch during the Donald Trump impeachment hearings
Exactly what is Gordon Sondland’s story? Certainly it’s full of international mystery, which House impeachment investigators are sorting through as they probe President Donald Trump’s pressure on Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. But the intrigue is largely due to other witnesses recalling conversations with Sondland that he did not mention to impeachment investigators. Trump’s ambassador to the European Union, an Oregon hotelier and million-dollar Trump donor, Sondland has said he cannot recall many of the episodes involving him that others have recounted in colorful detail. What he does recall he sometimes remembers differently. The discrepancies with other witnesses, and Sondland’s with himself, matter as he testifies Wednesday under oath and penalty of perjury. What to watch when the hearings open at 9 a.m. EST: AT ISSUE Listen for how Sondland describes his role in Trump’s Ukraine policy and whether that policy was to hold up military aid until Ukraine made a public announcement that it was investigating Biden’s son Hunter Biden. Former White House national security aide Fiona Hill testified in private that Sondland informed her that he was in charge of Ukraine policy because the Republican president said so. Asked about that conversation during a deposition, Sondland said: “I don’t recall. I may have; I may not have. Again, I don’t recall.” Besides, he says now that he viewed his role on Ukraine as one of support rather than leadership. JULY 10 MEETINGS Testimony from multiple witnesses have described a pair of pivotal, sometimes tense, meetings at the White House on July 10 involving combinations of U.S. and Ukrainian leaders. Several of those present say Sondland explicitly connected a coveted White House visit to a public announcement by Ukraine of corruption investigations. Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman remembers Sondland saying that day that the Ukrainians would have to deliver an investigation into the Bidens. Sondland tells a different version, saying he doesn’t recall mentioning Ukraine investigations or Burisma, the gas company on whose board Hunter Biden served. The only conflict he describes from that day is a disagreement on whether to promptly schedule a call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Sondland was in favor. EVERYTHING’ William Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador in Ukraine, told lawmakers that Sondland said that “everything” Ukraine wanted — a White House visit for its new leader and the release of military aid — was contingent on a public announcement of investigations into the 2016 election and into Burisma. Sondland tells a more complex story. In his closed-door testimony, Sondland stated that he wouldn’t have withheld military aid for any reason. Not only that, he said he didn’t recall any conversations with the White House about withholding military assistance in return for Ukraine helping with Trump’s political campaign. Even then, though, he left himself some wiggle room, saying a text message he sent to Taylor reassuring him that there was no quid pro was simply what he had heard from Trump. Weeks later, after testimony from Taylor and National Security Council official Tim Morrison placed him at the center of key discussions, Sondland revised his account in an extraordinary way, saying “I now recall” more details. He amended his testimony to confirm that Taylor’s account was correct. Among the conversations Sondland now recalled was telling an aide to Zelenskiy in September that military aid likely would not occur until Ukraine made public announcements about corruption investigations. HOW INVOLVED WAS MULVANEY? Multiple witnesses describe a cozy relationship between Sondland and Mick Mulvaney, the White House acting chief of staff. Vindman, a National Security Council official, says Sondland cited a discussion with Mulvaney when pushing Ukrainian officials to open the investigations that Trump wanted into the 2016 presidential election and Biden. Fiona Hill, another White House national security official, says the then-national security adviser, John Bolton, told her he didn’t want to be part of “whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up.” Sondland suggests he knows Mulvaney only well enough to wave and say hello. TRUMP, REPUBLICANS? Of the nine witnesses testifying over three days this week, White House officials are concerned most about Sondland — because they aren’t sure what he’s going to say. If Sondland’s name-dropping is accurate, he may have had direct conversations with Trump. It’ll be hard for the president to attack his own EU ambassador, or for Republicans aware of the president’s expectation of loyalty, to do so. HOW SONDLAND IS SEEN OVERSEAS He calls himself a “disruptive diplomat.” Sondland may not be missed on the Continent as he testifies in Washington. Even before he got involved in Ukraine, Sondland’s caustic style had already created problems in Brussels, where he is the U.S. ambassador to the 28-nation EU. He visited Ukraine twice, even though it is not part of the EU and not part of his formal responsibilities. He also gave an interview with Ukrainian television boasting of his closeness to Trump and laying out his views of Ukraine, almost like instructions: “They’re Western and they’re going to stay Western.” Sondland is known for the grand gesture. At a party for diplomats and journalists last month at the ornate Cercle Gaulois club between the Belgian parliament and royal palace, he highlighted his close links with Trump and the president’s confidants. He spoke of a three-hour “family dinner” in Manhattan with two incoming EU leaders, Trump’s daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner. There was also a special guest: comedian Jay Leno, who is said to be among Zelenskiy’s heroes. By Laurie Kellman Associated Press Follow Kellman on Twitter at https://www.twitter.com/APLaurieKellman Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
