**Should-Read: Craig Garthwaite**: Why replacing Obamacare is so hard: It’s fundamentally conservative: "As a life-long Republican... I’ve come to an answer that will be hard for many conservatives to swallow... >...Passing an Obamacare replacement is difficult because the existing system is fundamentally a collection of moderately conservative policies.... There simply isn’t much room to the political right of Obamacare for a policy that covers as many people with high-quality insurance. Furthermore, many have realized that there isn’t much political will for a bill that covers meaningfully fewer people or that places low-income individuals in insurance plans with cost-sharing elements they can’t afford.... >Before I am drummed out of the party, it’s important that we consider our history.... Even Ronald Reagan saw a role for the government to provide quality health insurance for those who could not otherwise afford access.... The Republican Party was... a party that at its core supported a limited, well-run and efficient government. This fact can be seen in the structure of the social insurance policies we’ve historically supported... welfare reform and the earned-income tax credit... the expanded use of government contractors and outsourcing rather than an ever-growing leviathan... Medicare Part D, supporting Medicare Advantage and advocating...
Capitol Visitors Center Washington, D.C. 10:22 A.M. EDT THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you, Juanita. Give Juanita another round of applause, will you? She is a great, great champion of small business. (Applause.) And I want to thank her for that warm and overly generous introduction and for her leadership of this great organization. And to be here today to be able to welcome all of you, welcome you to Washington, D.C., it is an honor to be with all of you, with the NFIB, a pillar of American opportunity and prosperity. (Applause.) The National Federation of Independent Business has been such an extraordinary champion over the decades for small businesses and entrepreneurs across this country, and it’s great to be able to address you today. And it’s a particular honor for me to bring greetings from a friend of mine who himself is a businessman in an independent business who’s fighting every day for job creators just like all of you -- the 45th President of the United States of America, President Donald Trump. (Applause.) The President sent me here this morning to deliver a message but first and foremost to just to say thanks. With the strong support of small-business owners like you all across this country, President Trump last fall won a historic victory -- more counties than any President since Ronald Reagan; 30 of 50 states, states no Republican had actually carried in a generation. And the President and I could couldn’t be more grateful for the men and women of the NFIB who stood with this President all along the way. Thank you for your support. (Applause.) And before I go any further, let me give you a quick update on one of the President’s top promises and top priorities. As we speak, the President and I are pleased to report here in this building the United States Senate is moving forward on legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare. (Applause.) And in the coming days, with the leadership of our President, the American people and American small businesses I believe will witness the beginning of the end of the Obamacare nightmare. (Applause.) I’ll speak more about that -- I’ll speak more about healthcare in just a few moments. But first, let me again give my thanks and admiration to all the members of the National Federation of Independent Business. NFIB is a titan of American excellence and entrepreneurship. For nearly 75 years, the NFIB has brought together American small businesses and given them a voice in the halls of government. Today those of you gathered in this auditorium at the United States Capitol represent a staggering 325,000 small businesses from every state in this country, and it’s remarkable to think about the impact that each and every one of you have. You create jobs. You provide a pathway of opportunity for generations of Americans. And you are literally the cornerstone of American communities from the smallest towns to the largest cities. President Trump probably said it best when he said that small businesses in his words, embody the American pioneering spirit and remind us that determination can turn aspiration into achievement every single day. And he couldn’t be more right about small businesses in America. Give yourselves a round of applause for the difference that you make each and every day. (Applause.) I just had the joy of meeting with about 20 small businesses from my home state of Indiana, and it’s great to see so many good friends here who I know make a tremendous difference back in the Hoosier State. Now they know that I actually grew up in a small family business in a small town in southern Indiana. I went to work at my dad’s gas stations when I was only about 14 years of age. I know the sacrifices that small-business owners make, and I know that a small business is really all about family -- whether it’s your immediate family, your extended family, or the family of your employees. And so I understand and appreciate the sacrifices and the unique joys of being involved in a small business. And as the world knows, President Trump grew up in a family business, too -- although his ended up to be a little bit bigger than my family’s. (Laughter.) We both know the sacrifices that are required, though, to make a business work. And more than that, President Trump and I know that when small business is strong, America is strong. (Applause.) We both know small businesses are the engine of the American economy, and since day one of this administration, President Trump has been fighting to restart the engine of this economy and rev it up like never before. Our President has picked a world-class Cabinet full of entrepreneurs -- including the head of the Small Business Administration, Administrator Linda McMahon, who is an outstanding American success story. (Applause.) And with the support of his Cabinet and with the help of the Congress, President Trump has been busy rolling back the heavy hand of government on small business. I’m happy to report to you this President has actually signed more laws cutting through federal red tape than any President in American history. (Applause.) The legislation the President has already signed that Congress put on his desk is saving businesses like yours up to $18 billion a year in regulatory costs. In fact, the President also instructed every agency in Washington, D.C. to find two regulations to get rid of before issuing any new federal red tape on America’s job creators. (Applause.) And in case you didn't notice, the American people elected a builder to be President of the United States, and President Trump has already started to rebuild America. And we won’t stop until America once again has the best roads, the best bridges, the best airports, and the best harbors, and the best future we could ever have. (Applause.) President Trump’s leadership is already making a remarkable difference, too. Since Inauguration Day I’m pleased to report businesses like those gathered here today have created more than 850,000, new, good-paying jobs all across America. (Applause.) Company after company are responding to the President’s agenda with optimism and investment, like the historic investment that was made in an announcement yesterday at the White House alone by Foxconn, a company investing $10 billion in the heartland of America. And small businesses and manufacturers we're told haven’t been this confident in a decade or more, and they should be -- because our President is a man of his word. He’s a man of action. And under President Donald Trump, American small business is back and prosperity is here to stay! (Applause.) But it has been a busy six months, but the President likes to say in the Oval Office, that's what we call just a good start. The truth is we got a lot more work to do. And as I said at the outset, in the coming days, President Trump, working with this Congress, is absolutely committed to rescue the American people from the disaster of Obamacare. (Applause.) We all know the truth: Every day Obamacare survives is another day that American businesses and American families struggle. We all remember the broken promises they made to get Obamacare passed. They said if you like your doctor you could keep them -- not true. They said if you liked your health insurance you could keep it -- not true. We were told the cost of health insurance would go down if Obamacare passed seven years ago -- that one is absolutely not true. In fact, our administration has confirmed that the average premium on the individual market has more than doubled since Obamacare went into effect less than four years ago, and in many states, it’s more than tripled. When Obamacare passed, we were actually promised that families would save up to $2,500 in premiums every year, but the average Obamacare plan today costs nearly $3,000 more than a plan did in 2013. But I don't have to tell small-business owners about the struggle and the crisis in health insurance costs in America today. You all know also that, while premiums are soaring, choices are plummeting. Next year, about 40 percent of America's counties, including nine whole states, will have only one choice of a health insurance provider, which means they have no choice at all. Even worse, dozens of counties will have no health insurance providers whatsoever on the Obamacare exchange in 2018. It's important to remember that while we think of these statistics and we reflect on them as policymakers, we're talking about real people facing a real crisis. You all know each and every day that behind every one of these numbers is a name, and behind every name is a story. As I’ve traveled across the country on our President's behalf, I’ve heard firsthand from job creators and working families about the burden that Obamacare has placed -- the burden of higher costs, fewer choices, and worse care for people who need it. As Juanita has pointed out, in her words, “the high cost of healthcare has been the number one problem for small-business owners for 30 years.” But as she noted, “Obamacare turned that problem into a crisis.” But I want to tell you, Juanita, and to all those gathered here today: Help is on the way and it's coming soon. (Applause.) You know I have heard this same thing from businesses I have talked to -- small businesses seeing premiums skyrocket by 25 percent or more every single year. I’ve heard from entrepreneurs who had to actually drop their health insurance because it’s completely unaffordable. And that's a heartache for a small-business owner. You want to be able to provide health insurance and benefits for your employees, but you got to make ends meet. Sometimes you got to make those hard choices. Worst of all, I’ve heard from job creators who can’t grow, and some who are even struggling to keep their doors open. The men and women of the National Federation of Independent Business know the truth: Obamacare has failed and Obamacare must go. And let me be clear: This is the moment. Now is the time. Despite the opposition of literally every single Democrat in both chambers of Congress, on Tuesday, I'm pleased to report the Senate voted, and I cast the tie-breaker to begin the debate to repeal and replace Obamacare. And the NFIB was there, helping to make it happen. (Applause.) Let me assure you, President Trump and our entire administration are literally working around the clock with Senate Republicans to finish what they started earlier this week. Throughout the rest of today and, I'm told, late into the hours of tonight, the Senate will continue debating proposals from Republicans and Democrats. And when it's all said, the world’s greatest deliberative body, I believe, will vote on a bill to keep Republicans’ promise to the American people to repeal and replace Obamacare. President Trump made it clear, in his words, just a few short days ago: “Inaction is not an option.” And as the President said this morning to Senate Republicans, after seven years, this is their chance to shine. They can't let the American people down. The Senate has an opportunity and an obligation to rescue the American people from the consequences of this failed policy. And when the time comes, every single senator -- Republican and Democrat -- owes it to America to step up, to do the right thing. They owe it to the American people to repeal and replace Obamacare. (Applause.) And as is testament by your presence here today, the American people are watching. Because you all know what’s at stake. What happens in the coming days will determine the future of American healthcare, and whether our leaders in Congress can demonstrate the courage and determination to keep their word. But more than anything else, this will determine whether America still stands by principles that I believe are at the very heart of our experiment in self-government. You know, for the past seven years, we’ve had a healthcare system based on the flawed premise that the federal government should order every American to buy health insurance, whether they want it or need it or not; that bureaucrats and politicians know better than patients and doctors; and that, worst of all, that the American people can’t be trusted to run their own lives and make their own healthcare choices. Well, today -- literally today -- we have a chance to take a giant step toward restoring a healthcare system based on personal responsibility, free-market competition, and state-based reform. And I believe the Senate will take that step and will deliver for the American people on a foundation of freedom. (Applause.) The President and I believe that the Senate will do the right thing, that they will begin to dismantle the failed policy of Obamacare in the coming days. And President Trump will sign into law, when it's all said and done, a bill that puts our country on a path to better, more affordable healthcare for all the American people -- based on those timeless principles of freedom, free-market competition, and state-based reform. And after that, I'll make you one more promise: Before the end of this year, we're going to roll up our sleeves, and this President is going to work with the Congress, and we're going to pass one of the largest tax cuts in American history. (Applause.) I don’t have to tell small-business owners that the Americans' tax code is one of the biggest barriers to success for working families and small businesses like all of you gathered here today. You know, there's an old joke that says that the Internal Revenue Code is 10 times the length of the Bible, but with none of the good news. (Laughter.) Well, here’s some real good news: We’re going to cut taxes across the board for working families, small businesses, and family farms. (Applause.) And we're going to simplify the tax code by cutting seven brackets down to three; we’ll eliminate the alternative minimum tax. And under President Donald Trump, I'm proud to say to small-business owners, we're going to repeal death taxes once and for all. (Applause.) And when it comes to businesses, the President has made it clear that we're going to cut the business tax rate to 15 percent to make sure that businesses across this country can compete with businesses all across the world. And we're going to make sure small businesses can realize that benefit as well. (Applause.) Our administration is already working with the Congress to craft a historic tax-cut bill. In fact, later today, Congress and the White House will issue a statement laying out our guiding principles for tax reform. I'll make you a promise: Discussions and negotiations will continue, details will continue to be worked out. But rest assured, we're going to cut taxes -- and we're going to cut taxes this year. (Applause.) Men and women of the NFIB, this is the moment, now is the time. So today I want to offer you a challenge -- a challenge to continue to stand with our President as he fights for job creators all across this country and for a boundless American future. As you meet with your elected representatives in Congress this week, tell them -- tell them you’re counting on them to support the President’s agenda to move this country forward. Tell them you're counting on them repeal and replace Obamacare and cut taxes, and continue to roll back the heavy hand of government that stands in the way of our prosperity. And when you go and speak with them, speak with confidence. The truth is that small-business owners, I think -- and maybe I'm a little biased because I come from a small, family business -- you're really the heart of America. In so many ways, every single one of you has a story that springs straight out of the American Dream. You embody the American spirit. You never quit, you never back down, you never give up, no matter the odds. That's how you make it in a small business. And that's the attitude that you need to bring here to Washington, D.C. Tell them to bring the same determination and the same persistence to the cause of strengthening and reviving the American economy. And I just want to assure you that your voices will be heard, as they always have been throughout the 75-year history of the NFIB and your engagement. The truth of the matter is that our elected representatives know where the strength of this country lies, and it lies, I believe, in many places -- it lies in the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America. (Applause.) It lies in the hearts of men and women who put on the uniform of law enforcement at every level in the United States of America. (Applause.) Our teachers, our public servants. But I truly do believe that the strength of America also lies in the courage and in the hearts of men and women who get up every day, put their feet on the floor, and make a small business work. (Applause.) And so I want to encourage you on. Let your voice be heard, but also have faith. Have faith that there are better days ahead for America; that what we've begun to see in the recovery of the American spirit and the rebound of the American economy is really just the beginning. And under President Donald Trump, with your help, I know the best days for America and for American small business are yet to come. And, lastly, have that other kind of faith. This is a challenging time in the wider world, and it's been a challenging time for businesses. But help is on the way, and hope always springs eternal -- because for so many of you, like for me and my little family, our hope ultimately doesn’t come from our government or from our elected leaders, but our hope comes from someplace deeper. And so I encourage you to avail yourself of that faith in these times, and pray for the good leaders who serve in this building. Continue to pray for our President and all the families that serve around him. And pray with confidence that He who said: I know the plans I have for you, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and future -- says that as much to this generation of Americans as He's ever said it before. And so I say with faith today -- with boundless faith in the American people, so well represented here at the NFIB -- with faith in the determination of our President, and with faith in He who has ever been with those who first landed on the shores of this Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, that we will make America prosperous again. We will make America safe again. And to borrow a phrase, together we will Make America Great Again. Thank you very much. (Applause.) God bless you and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) END 10:44 A.M. EDT
Remarks by President Trump to the American Legion Boys Nation and the American Legion Auxiliary Girls Nation
Rose Garden 3:11 P.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. AUDIENCE: Hello, Mr. President. THE PRESIDENT: We actually just met, for the audience. We just met. (Laughter.) We took pictures, right? AUDIENCE: Yeah. THE PRESIDENT: That's right. Well, thank you very much. It’s my great honor to officially welcome Boys and Girls Nation to the White House. Really special place, isn’t it though? Isn’t it great? (Applause.) Great. And I want to congratulate you -- what a job you’ve all done -- basically on all you’ve achieved at a very young age. It’s incredible. For decades, the American Legion has brought the best and brightest to the White House. This has taken place for many years. Each of you were chosen out of the many thousands of people, that -- you know, they’re all calling in, they want to get into the White House. Is anybody upset that you’re here? AUDIENCE: No. THE PRESIDENT: Okay, but you’re all really happy that you’re here, right? (Applause.) But you represent your state, and that’s a very, very important element too. And a very important factor in getting here. You all share incredible talent and drive. Most importantly, you have each other to really work with and to help. And you help each other, you’re teammates, you love our country -- that’s something we all have in common, right? We love our country, right? (Applause.) While you come from all corners of our great landscape, you are all united by your devotion -- total devotion -- to our great American flag, our freedom, and the principles that bind us together as one people and one nation. For more than a century, the American Legion has taught young citizens about the importance of patriotism and loyalty to our country. And through it all, there’s nothing like what you’re doing today and what you’ve achieved over a very, very short period of time. We want to thank you, and we want to thank the national chapters and everybody else. We have to really give a special thanks to Commander Charles Schmidt. Where’s Charles? Where is Charles? (Applause.) Come here. Come here, Charles. Come on up here, Charles. What a great job. Come on. See, he wants to give you all the credit. (Laughter.) Who served in the Air Force for 28 years and now advances the Legion’s proud legacy. Thank you, Charles. (Applause.) Today, we are joined by President of the American Legion and Auxiliary Mary Davis. Where is Mary? Where is Mary? Hello, Mary. Want to come up here? Come on, Mary. (Applause.) And Executive Director -- who I know -- Verna Jones. Come on, Verna. Come on up. Come on up. (Applause.) Come on up, Mary. Be careful. I want to thank you for your commitment to these incredible students and to our country. Thank you. (Applause.) I also want to honor former National Commander Bob Turner, who everyone really knows. (Applause.) AUDIENCE: Bob! Bob! Bob! THE PRESIDENT: Wow. That’s pretty good, Bob. That’s as good as I’ve ever heard. (Laughter.) That’s fantastic. Come on over here, Bob. Be careful. We don’t want to see Bob go down. Do you agree with that? (Laughter.) Because he will never forget that. Come on, Bob. This year, Bob is celebrating his 35th year helping to lead Boys Nation -- all as a volunteer. Thank you very much, Bob. That’s so great. (Applause.) And, Bob, I know everyone here today agrees when I say thousands of young Americans are better patriots because of your incredible and steadfast service. Right, fellas? Right? (Applause.) Through this program, countless young people like you have been inspired to protect American interests and to promote American values. Right? Many of those who have been in your place have gone on to become governors, members of Congress, generals, and one even became a President. You know who that one was? AUDIENCE: Bill Clinton. THE PRESIDENT: That’s true. See? (Laughter.) The American Legion has held this meeting for seven decades. Just think of the history that has occurred during that time. When the first group of students met in 1946 -- oh, that’s an important day, you know why? That’s when I was born. (Laughter.) I hate to admit it. (Applause.) I hate to admit it. Oh, 1946. Oh wow. I shouldn’t have said that, Bob. (Laughter.) Our nation had just welcomed home our brave heroes whose spirit and courage achieved victory over tyranny in World War II. Just over twenty years later, young men and women like you watched a man land on the moon and dreamed of new frontiers in space. In 1987, Americans all across this nation joined their hearts with President Ronald Reagan in the hope, the prayer, and the conviction that the Berlin Wall would crumble in the face of truths, justice, and freedom. You know all about that. AUDIENCE: Yes, sir. THE PRESIDENT: In each of these moments, and so many others, America triumphed. We win. We know how to win, right? AUDIENCE: Yes! (Applause.) THE PRESIDENT: And we win because of the spirit of our people. Believe me, that's a big part of it. Just think of the amazing moments in history you will witness during your lifetime. Well, you saw one on November 8th, right? (Applause.) That was a pretty amazing moment we have -- and we're doing a good job. Our country is doing so well now. We're doing a good job. You all happy? AUDIENCE: Yes! (Applause.) THE PRESIDENT: Because you have what it takes to be the leaders that will shape this future. Some of you may want to come back to the capital -- someday, you're going to be back, many of you -- and help make the laws that will guide this nation and govern our land. Others may choose to answer the call of duty, put on the uniform, and risk everything for our nation and for our nation’s people. Still others may become business leaders, teachers, artists, and inventors. We have them all, and we have them all here today. And some of you don't even really know what it might be, but we have people that are going to be so successful, so incredible in their lives. And you're going to be happy. Do what you love. Do what you love. Follow what you love. So I want to just tell -- as you pour your whole heart into everything you do, really you're doing it for your family, you're doing it for your country, but you're also doing it for yourselves. Because ultimately you have to do it for yourself. It’s better for your country, and your country wants you to succeed so much. But there’s no country like the United States of America, and there’s no country that can give you the kind of opportunity that we give you in the United States. (Applause.) Being successful is about finding your purpose in life and never ever giving up. Do you ever give up? No. Does anybody here give up? AUDIENCE: No, sir! THE PRESIDENT: What about here? AUDIENCE: No, sir! THE PRESIDENT: You're right. (Laughter.) And I think they mean it. I think they mean it. A PARTICIPANT: Yes, sir, they mean it. THE PRESIDENT: You were chosen for this program because you believe in America’s future and because you have the ambition and the heart to ensure that America will always be victorious and will always prevail. Through Boys and Girls Nation, you are learning the values that are necessary for a nation to endure and for a nation to thrive -- pride in our history, loyalty to our citizens, and allegiance to our great American flag. In the decades to come you will help our nation reach new heights -- we’ll be so proud of you -- discover new frontiers, and strengthen the bonds of loyalty between our country and its people. It is my honor to meet with you all today, and it was my greater honor to come out here early before the press got here to take all of those pictures that we took, and I hope they send you the right pictures. (Laughter and applause.) And they will. As I look out at the audience, I see the next generation of American leaders. I see the promise of our future. I see the strength and love of the American spirit. And because of young people like you, I am more confident than ever in the future of the United States. Together, we will make America greater than ever before. I mean that. We're going to make America greater than ever before, and we're on our way. You see what’s going on. We're building up military. We're getting great job numbers -- best in 17 years. Best job numbers in 17 years. The enthusiasm for manufacturers and business is at just about the highest point since they started taking those tests. So I just want to tell you: Go out there. Go get them. I have no doubt you're going to -- every one of you -- be successful. Never quit. Never give up. Always do what you love. Take great care of your family and your parents because we love your parents. You probably wouldn’t be here without your parents, right? (Laughter and applause.) So thank you again to the American Legion, and congratulations to you all. God bless you, and God bless America. And thank you for being at the White House. (Applause.) (A song is performed.) AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA! THE PRESIDENT: You got the last word. (Applause.) Thank you, Bob. Thank you everybody. Have a great life and love your country and love your God. Okay? Bye everybody. Bye everybody. Thank you. (Applause.) END 3:26 P.M. EDT
Если российского пассажира сняли с рейса авиакомпании Delta Air Lines за его политическую позицию, а не нарушение правил безопасности, то это событие можно характеризовать, как результат антироссийской политики Соединенных Штатов Америки.
U.S. President Ronald Reagan (R) shakes hands at his first meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to sign an arms treaty in Geneva, on Nov. 19, 1985 / Reuters America's first dispute with Russia The first time when American politicians and journalists had a field day on the issue of Russia was in 1813, just after Napoleon’s defeat. The U.S. was at war with England, which had blockaded sea routes and was strangling American commerce. Powerful commercial interests in New England, who were most hit by the blockade, decided to make a public gesture showing their outrage over the war and pro-British sympathies. So, they organized several lavish banquets to celebrate Russia's victory over France. Some powerful newspapers, however, decided to take an opposite position and criticized Russia, saying Napoleon was defeated by winter, and not Russian military prowess. Some American politicians came to Russia's defense, praising its enlightened monarch, Alexander I, and the progress that the country had made since the time of Peter the Great. Drawing by Ekaterina Lobanova Basically, no one was really interested in Russia. Instead, this was just a way to settle domestic political scores. Since the U.S. and Russia weren’t neighbors they really had nothing to argue about. Democracy vs. Autocracy Great Britain eventually became a close friend of the U.S., while far away Russia remained distant from the American imagination and reality. As America increasingly identified itself as a democracy, Russia more intensely identified itself as an autocracy. American attitudes toward Russia took a turn for the worse in 1849 when Russia helped Austria crush the Hungarian uprising, and once again showed its support for absolute monarchies. Despite the antagonism, it's worth mentioning that during those 200 years of relations, Russia and U.S. never went to war with each other, except one episode when America sent troops to Russia during the country’s Civil War of 1917-19 and fought with the Red Army. What do Russians think about America? 1. A country of noble savages In the 18th century Russians were keen on Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s ideas about the "noble savage" not spoiled by civilization, and which is how Russia imagined the indigenous peoples in America. Russians had sympathy for the natives, who were oppressed by Europeans. Ronald Reagan (L) and Mikhail Gorbachev don cowboy hats while enjoying a moment at Reagan's Rancho del Cielo north of Santa Barbara, Calif, 1992 / AP In the 19th century, James Fenimore Cooper wrote much about indigenous Americans, and became the first popular American writer in Russia. Even Emperor Nicholas I would often ask American ambassadors if Mr. Cooper had written a new book. In the Soviet Union, children watched movies made by Germany's DEFA studio, and they also featured noble savages in the Wild West fighting bad white people. 2. A country of freedom Russians had another image of America during the War of Independence. The first Russian revolutionaries were inspired by that war and talked about America as an example of freedom and just governance. The Civil War years were probably the warmest period in relations, when Russia supported the North and then in 1867 sold Alaska as an act of friendship. That image of freedom didn’t disappear until the 1990s when Russians felt disappointment after having the chance to meet real Americans and visit the U.S. At this time, it became clear that America was not so free as people imagined. 3. A country of technical progress First Russian railway, 1862 / Archive image The United States was always a source of ingenuity for Russia. For example, during the reign of Nicholas I, Russian experts travelled across America, researching its railways and decided to build the country’s rail system on the American model, using a wider track gauge than the European one. Then, Nicholas I invited American engineers to help build the first railway between St. Petersburg and Moscow. Americans were invited to build telegraph lines as well, and American gunsmiths, particularly Samuel Colt, helped Russia during the Crimean war of 1853-56. American engineers helped in Russia’s industrialization, building hydroelectric stations and factories. The most famous American company in Russia was Singer Sewing Machine, which built a massive factory in Podolsk outside of Moscow. Singer sewing machines advertisement. Russia, 1900s / Russian State Library Soviet leaders also borrowed much from America. For example, during his visit to the U.S. Nikita Khrushchev became obsessed with corn and ordered it grown on thousands of Russian farms. 4. A mortal threat The 20th century Cold War image of America is of course strongest among Russians today. Cultural institutions were busy creating and supporting this image, especially in books and films. Despite the fact that America was the USSR’s ally in the fight against the Nazis, state-sponsored propaganda quickly succeeded to change the image of the country in the minds of the Soviet people. As the Soviet government tried to stabilize their country, America increasingly was perceived as a destabilizing threat. This article is based on materials first published in Russian by Arzamas. Read more: Why don’t Russians trust America?
Издание Politico назвало нынешнего президента США Дональда Трампа самым неспортивным среди предыдущих глав Белого дома: он не раз признавался в любви к фастфуду, а его занятия гольфом нельзя назвать активным времяпрепровождением. — В современной истории президентов США ни один человек из Овального кабинета не проявил меньшего интереса к своему здоровью. Он не курит и не пьёт, но любовь к фастфуду и красному мясу, отвращение к упражнениям и склонность к уединению у телевизора заставляют его контрастировать со своими предшественниками, — пишет издание. Politico отмечает, что Трамп нарушает негласные стандарты "активности и здоровой жизни" президентов, которые были сигналом того, что с "телом самого важного политика в мире" всё хорошо. — У некоторых из них (лидеров США) были свои пороки (Барак Обама курил), но они проводили часы свободного времени на свежем воздухе или на баскетбольной площадке, — говорится в материале. Теодор Рузвельт увлекался бегом, Джеральд Форд был звездой футбольной команды Мичиганского университета, Рональд Рейган занимался верховой ездой, Джон Кеннеди также старался проецировать образ молодости и активности, даже Билл Клинтон выбирался на регулярные пробежки, компенсируя свою любовь к бургерам. Издание считает занятия гольфом "недостаточными" и советует Дональду Трампу брать пример со своей дочери Иванки, которая ежедневно совершает пробежки по утрам. Медицинские эксперты утверждают, что нездоровый образ жизни может повлиять и на его работу на посту главы Белого дома.
Поразительная капитуляция Трампа перед Россией. The Washington Post. Истерика: «Сдали Сирию, а дальше что? Аляска?!»
При нормальном течении событий публикация информации о попытках вступить в сговор с Россией с целью повлиять на исход президентских выборов заставила бы администрацию приложить максимум усилий для корректировки своего курса. Президент нашел бы способы противостоять агрессии со стороны России, включая агрессию в киберпространстве, главным образом для того, чтобы не создалось впечатление, будто он находится на крючке у своего стратегического противника. Однако президент Трамп — после долгой личной беседы с Владимиром Путиным и полной капитуляции перед Россией в Сирии — ведет себя так, будто он действительно находится на крючке у своего стратегического противника. Позорное решение прекратить программу по оказанию помощи умеренной сирийской оппозиции означает, что «Путин выиграл в Сирии», как сказал один чиновник, чьи слова процитировало издание Washington Post. Уступки, не предполагающие никаких ответных действий и сделанные вопреки взвешенным рекомендациям внешнеполитических советников, свидетельствуют скорее о капитуляции, чем о расширении влияния. Если это и есть «победа» по версии Трампа, какими могут быть ее последствия? Восстановление Варшавского договора?
**Must-Read: Timothy Garton Ash** (2007): The Road from Danzig: "The offense is that [Guenter Grass] should for so many years have made it his stock-in-trade to denounce post-war West Germans’ failure to face up to the Nazi past... >...while himself so spectacularly failing to come clean about... his own Nazi past. One painfully disappointed reaction comes from his most recent biographer, Michael Jürgs.... This is not merely “keeping quiet”.... I’d say it counts as lying. What’s more, if a conservative German politician had behaved like this, Grass himself would surely have called it lying, adding a few earthy adjectives to boot. >Worse still, knowing full well his own biography, he nonetheless denounced the joint visit by Ronald Reagan and Helmut Kohl to a cemetery in Bitburg in 1985 where, among many war dead, forty-nine Waffen-SS soldiers were buried. Of the forty-nine, thirty-two were under twenty-five years old. The youngest among them may well have been drafted like Günter Grass. He could have been one of them. To denounce the Bitburg visit without acknowledging that he himself had served in the Waffen-SS was an act of breathtaking hypocrisy, doublethink, and recklessness. >Even more than outrage, there is sheer amazement.... When interviewers...
Половина американцев считают, что во внешней политике США должны следовать курсу, схожему с тем, что...
Половина граждан США считают, что во внешней политике страна должна придерживаться курса, схожего с тем, который был принят при 40-м президенте Рональде Рейгане. Об этом свидетельствуют результаты опроса, проведённого центром изучения общественного мнения Rasmussen Reports, с которыми ознакомился RT. Читать далее
Половина американцев считают, что во внешней политике США должны следовать курсу, схожему с тем, что был при Рональде Рейгане. Об этом свидетельствуют результаты опроса Rasmussen Reports, с которыми ознакомился RT. При Рейгане обострилась холодная война, и именно он назвал СССР «империей зла». Между тем американские СМИ уже не раз сравнивали 40-го президента США с нынешним хозяином Белого дома Дональдом Трампом. Читать далее
LAWRENCE, MA—Today, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) delivered remarks on the need for pro-growth tax reform to employees at New Balance’s factory in Lawrence, Massachusetts—one of the company’s five athletic shoe manufacturing facilities in New England. Below are Speaker Ryan’s full remarks as delivered. “Let me just say a few things. First, I’m thrilled to be here because I’m kind of a gym rat, and I’ve never seen what my shoes look like being made. So that’s actually a really cool thing to see. It’s just amazing—the skill and the craftsmanship that goes into each shoe, and the fact that you can now customize. Just amazing. So you should be really proud of the work that you put into this, and really proud of what you achieve right here in our country. So thank you for that. “Look, the reason that I think this is a special place is because what you have built here, this is the American idea, this is the American dream, this is what this country is built on. “This is a business founded by an immigrant more than a century ago that has been built into a multibillion-dollar leader in the industry worldwide. That is a great American story. “It’s a business that is headquartered right here in Lawrence, right here in the United States, that employs thousands of Americans. “It’s a business that proudly labels many of its products Made in America. I see the signs all over here. “Here’s the problem: Today, places like this, this is more the exception than the rule. That’s our problem. “Companies are not flocking to the United States—companies are fleeing this country and taking their good jobs with them. They are not storing up their profits and their capital here—they are keeping them offshore. They are not making any of their products in America—they are making them in China. They are making them in India. “In 1992, New Balance had an ad—I don’t know if you remember this—you had an ad that posed: ‘If we can make great athletic shoes in America, why can’t our competition?’ “Remember that ad? “Well, here is one big reason why: Because we have the worst business tax code in the industrialized world. We are doing it to ourselves. “The problem is we haven’t really done anything about it. It really is just what you said, Jim. It wasn’t since Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan. We haven’t addressed this issue since then. 1986. It’s the year I got my driver’s license. This is the last time we addressed our tax system, and whether or not it’s being competitive or not, and whether or not we are helping or hurting American businesses and American manufacturers. “Here’s how crazy this system is. Right now, big businesses like this one, they pay a tax of at least 35 percent. Successful small businesses—that’s 8 of out 10 businesses in America—file their taxes [as individuals]. Successful small businesses, their top tax rate is 44.6 percent. So we’re taxing businesses, jobs creators, between 35 and almost 45 percent. “Well, you know what overseas is like? Overseas, which were I come from means Lake Superior, I’m from Wisconsin. You know what they do overseas in Canada? They tax their businesses at 15 percent. Ireland is 12.5 percent. England is going down to 18 percent. China: 25 and going down. The rest of the world taxes their businesses at an average tax rate of 22.5 percent. We’re shooting ourselves in the foot. This is America saying we’re going to tax our job creators, our businesses, between like 35 and 45 percent. How can we possibly remain competitive with a tax code that actively works against us? And the answer is we can’t. “So our plan is really simple. It is to get businesses competitive again. “We are going to slash the corporate tax rate to level the playing field, and the businesses tax rate for all businesses, to level the playing field for companies like this. We’ve got to get these tax rates down. Because when we’re taxing our businesses at much, much higher tax rates than our foreign competitors are taxing theirs, we’re not going to win in that exchange. “So what we need to do is we need to throw out those complicated loopholes, those deductions, those special-interest loopholes. And then we are going to create a new, lower tax rate specifically for manufacturers, for small businesses, for companies like this, for businesses across America, so they can actually compete. “This will help bring good-paying jobs back from overseas and it’s going to increase our economic competitiveness. “We are going to get rid of the ridiculous system that we have that tells American companies: Keep your money overseas. I mean literally what happens is companies that sell products like New Balance shoes overseas, they’ve got to keep that money overseas. They can’t bring it back. It’s ridiculous. We are the only country in the industrialized world that does this now. “We literally have trillions of dollars parked overseas to avoid our tax system. This is money that could—and this is money that will—be reinvested in the American economy once our reform is in place. Let and encourage those companies to bring that money back home, reinvest in this country, reinvest in our people. Reinvest, pay taxes, build roads, get things done right here in America. That is so essential and so critical. “So that is the business side of tax reform. Get our rates down. Make us competitive. Encourage companies to come back from overseas. We’ve got to reform that code because it is costing us jobs. “Let’s talk about workers. Let’s talk about families. “Right now, we got tax code that basically no one truly understands enforced by an agency no one really likes: the Internal Revenue Service. “Think about that sense of dread that you have not knowing how much you are going to pay. That feeling you get thinking about navigating all those forms and all those deductions. That feeling you get from the mere thought of having to deal with the IRS. “We are going to simplify all of this. “First and foremost, we’re going to cut your taxes. “You work hard, you work long, and the government’s quite honestly not making the best of it. I think you can do a whole lot more with your own money, keeping more of it in your own pocket, doing what you will with it, investing in your life, investing in your family. That helps grow this economy. “Next, we need to eliminate harmful and burdensome taxes like the death tax that makes it harder for families to pass businesses on to the next generation. “And finally, we will consolidate these deductions and we need to double the standard deduction, just to make the whole thing simpler—so that you can save and make your life less stressful come tax season. “Imagine this. Imagine filling out your taxes on a form the size of a postcard. That’s what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about simplifying this thing so much that it’s so easy. You don’t have to go to a tax preparer, you don’t have to navigate all these rules and all these deductions, and all these loopholes, not knowing what it’s going to look like until you’re done with the process. Make it easy. Make it simple. Keep more of what you earn. And get the special interests out of it. And give people a postcard-type tax return. That’s what we’re talking about. “That makes it easier for families. That makes it easier for workers. That helps grow the economy. That helps people in small towns like Janesville, Wisconsin or Lawrence, Massachusetts. “So that is basically a quick overview of what we want to achieve. And the reason we want to achieve this is it’s high time to do it. “It’s ambitious. There are a lot of people who say oh gosh this can’t be done. I mean, not since 1986 has it been done. You’re going to see a lot of talk like that. That’s what the cynical talk in Washington is like these days and just about every day I’ve seen in Washington. Don’t fall for it. “We’re going to get this done in 2017. We’re going to get this done because we have to get this done. The competitiveness of our economy. The viability of our jobs. Making sure that we can be competitive. That we can grow. That we can create. That we can raise families and have faster growth, and not just the economy, but our wages, our standard of living. “We cannot miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. This is a once-in-a-generation moment. “It is time to cut taxes and simplify the code. “It is time to create jobs and grow our economy. “It is time to restore this nation to its full potential. “It is time to get this done for our fellow citizens, the American people. “And I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. You’ve been so fantastic. You’re working hard. You’re making a difference. You’re raising your families. You’re making us proud. You’re showing what a true American success story looks like. So thank you very much for having me. I really appreciate it.”
Press Gaggle by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Sanders and OMB Director Mick Mulvaney, 7/20/2017
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 2:27 P.M. EDT MR. SANDERS: Good afternoon. Before we get into the briefing today, I wanted to reiterate the President's statement from last night and say that the thoughts and prayers of the entire administration are with Senator John McCain, his wife Cindy, and their entire family. As the President said, throughout his life, a distinguished career in public service, Senator McCain has always been a fighter, and we know that he will bring that unflappable spirit to his latest challenge. This morning, the Office of Management and Budget released the first unified agenda update of the Trump administration, which shows that we are blowing away our initial one in and two out goal for regulatory reform. And with that, I'd like to bring out Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mick Mulvaney, to talk more about the administration's war on waste, and how it's helping our economy grow. Also, as a few of you may know, tomorrow is the Director's birthday. While I don’t want to insult him by getting into too many specifics, I can tell you that the CBO estimates that this will be his 75th birthday. But actually -- (laughter) -- took a couple of you a little longer to pick up on that. But actually, it's just the last day he can answer questions as a man in his forties. So please do a favor and speak really loudly so you can make sure that he can hear you. And with that, Director Mulvaney. MR. MULVANEY: Thank you. That's absolutely lovely. Thank you. Q Before you begin, Director, the visual aids, is it still off-camera given that you guys have this? I just had to ask. MS. SANDERS: Yes. MR. MULVANEY: Good. I'm glad we got that out of the way. Yes, happy birthday to me. This is a great way to spend my birthday. We actually started a Twitter account this morning for the sole purpose of getting into a Twitter war with my good friend, Congressman Gowdy, who tweeted out this morning that he thought I had turned 50 a long time ago. I tweeted back that he had two deep, dark secrets; one of which was that he's a lot older than I am -- which is true -- and also that he needs help counting to 50 -- which is also true. I'm going to talk a little bit about MAGAnomics, talk a little bit about what used to be called the unified agenda, which is a terrible name. And we'll talk about that in a second, and then take your questions. Thirty-five years ago, the situation the country was in had some similarities to where we were as we ended the Obama administration. Things were kind of rough. I was in the homebuilding business. My dad was; I was only 13 at the time. And I remember what it was like. We had stagflation, we had malaise, we had all these challenges that the country faced economically. And in response to that, Ronald Reagan came out with Reaganomics -- a term, by the way, that I'm not even sure he created. I think his opposition used that as a derogatory term to begin with, but it came to be associated with his presidency. And I think if we look back on it, we know what its basic, fundamental tenets were. It was a monetary policy to fix inflation, tax cuts, spending restraints, and a little bit of regulatory relief. Fast-forward to where we are today, here we are. It's been more than 10 years since our last year of a really healthy American economy, which we define as greater than 3 percent -- or 3 percent growth. And we think it's time for the next iteration of that, the next plan. And that is what we've put together as MAGAnomics. It's supposed to be this unifying theme of just about everything that we do. You all have seen me up here before, when we walk through the budget. You say, "Mulvaney, why are you doing this? Why are you doing that?" And I talked about the importance of getting back to 3 percent growth. I talked about the historical importance of that, the historical achievability of that -- about how if you're 30 years old in this country, you've never had a job during your adult lifetime, in a healthy American economy, and you think that 1.9 or 2.1 or 2.5 percent growth is typical, and it doesn’t have to be. It's not. I remember in the mid-1990s, when I had my first real job -- if I had been fired, it wouldn’t have been that big a deal because I knew I could go find something else, because you could do that in a healthy economy. I actually ended up quitting my job so that I could start my own business, because you know you can do that in a healthy economy. It's been a long time since we've been there. And our fear is that if we don’t get back there quickly, there will be people who never know what 3 percent means. There will be people who have forgotten what 3 percent can be like. And I don’t think it should come as a surprise that there are some people who don’t want you to remember what 3 percent growth would be like, because it would be a tremendous sort of damnation of what happened in the previous administration. So, what is MAGAnomics? It is tax reform. It is, what we're calling the "regulatory accountability project" -- regulatory accountability project. It's longer, but it's at least a little bit more descriptive than "unified agenda." Took me about six months here to figure out what the unified agenda was. And they told me, and I said, what is it really? And they said, well, it's a way to bring to some accountability to regulations. I said, great, it's now the regulatory accountability project. Energy dominance is part of this. Welfare reform is part of this. Infrastructure is part of this. Our trade policies is part of this. Even the spending restraint that we tried to introduce in the budget is part of this. All of those things are designed towards one common end, and that is 3 percent sustained economic growth in this country again. We've done it before. In fact, we've always done it. The last 10 years was the first time we have not been able to do it, I think, ever. We can do it again. We absolutely fully believe that. And I want to talk a little bit today about one piece of that, which is our deregulatory agenda. The regulatory accountability project -- used to be called the unified agenda -- released -- last night? Today? MR. CZWARTACKI: This morning. MR. MULVANEY: This morning. When the President came into office, he gave me some pretty specific instructions over the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs -- what we call OIRA -- O-I-R-A -- part of OMB. In fact, I still think OMB should be called OMBRA -- the Office of Management and Budget and Regulatory Affairs. That's how important it is to us. That's the priority that the President has set for it over at OMB. He said, look, get over there and tell everybody at all the agencies that we're on a two-for-one policy on new regs. You cannot put out a new reg until you get two old regs off the books. That was our two-for-one policy. He also said -- and no new burden. No new financial burden. If you come out with a new reg that raises the burdens on the private sector by a dollar, you got to go find me a reg you get rid of to reduce that burden by a dollar. So, zero net impact on the regulatory financial burden in this country. This is our first chance today to sort of get a temperature check on how we are doing on that. So the goal is two-for-one. When it comes to major actions -- we're at 16 to 1. Sixteen major deregulatory actions in the first six months of this administration. There's one new one. Is anybody going to guess what it is? Does somebody know? No dentists here? You know what it is? Yes. The dental amalgam rule. Apparently we're now regulating something to do with the stuff we put in our teeth when we get -- Q Mercury and waste water. MR. MULVANEY: There you go. All right? So that's the only significant new reg we put out in the first six months. We've gotten rid of 16. Twelve of those are CRAs you're probably familiar with, and four of them have gone through the agency process and so forth. But it doesn't -- it's not just those big ones, okay? The number that I use -- 860 regulatory actions removed or withdrawn -- 860. By the way, I asked for a list of them, and I got news for you: None of them are very sexy. None of them are very glamorous. None of them really rise to the level of getting national attention. But think about that -- 860 of them. I describe it as that -- sort of that slow accretion, that slow cancer that can come from regulatory burdens that we put on our people. Ryan Zinke, over at the Department of Interior, has already made some changes on how they streamline the paperwork for outdoorsmen and outdoorswomen -- people who want to go out in our national parks. That's really small. We know that. It's not going to change the world. But when you do that 860 times in the first six months, it can have a benefit. Plus, if you're a citizen and you're not out there and it's now easier for you to use the national parks, to use our public lands, that's got to have a positive impact on you. We think that it does. By the way, of the 860, and this is one that I think -- I don't think anybody knows about this because I didn't know about it until about 24 hours ago. The Obama administration had a secret list of regs. Back in 2011, they were doing their unified agenda. They had a bunch of things that they wanted to regulate. And what we're hearing is that they just didn't want to tell you about it. They thought it would be bad for their reelection prospects in 2012, so they created a secret list of regs that were not disclosed to you folks, and we are disclosing it. And by the way, when we threatened to disclose it, a lot of the agencies came up with those 860 things that we got rid of. So there will be no more of that, by the way. There will be none of that in this administration. We will not have a secret list. We will not have a hidden list of regulations that we're thinking about doing but we're not going to tell you about. That's going to end effective immediately. In fact, it has already ended. We're not going to do that anymore. By the way, where's my stack? So I'd love a little graphics. This is the last week of the Obama administration -- the regs put out by the Obama administration in their last week in office. This is ours from our first week in office. I can't lift both of those together, can I? I don’t think I can. In the last six months here, the Obama administration put on over $6 billion in new regulatory burden. The last six months, just over $6 billion. We had zero. In the first five months in their administration back in 2009, they had over $3 billion of new regs. We cleared the decks of $22 million of regs. So we actually went the other way. So I cannot express to you enough how much things have changed when it comes to the regulatory burden, the attitudes towards regulations in this country, and you're just going to see more of that for the next eight years. So I think that's everything I wanted to cover. Is it? I forget. So if I got any questions -- yes, sir. Right there. Q Thank you, Director. You talked about regulations in terms of the cost to business. Is there any other metric that you think is appropriate for measuring the effectiveness or necessity of regulations, such as whether they improve people's -- improve quality of life, improve safety in products, improve any sort of thing? Because it seems like all you talk about is how much this costs business. So is there any other metric that you look at? DIRECTOR MULVANEY: Yeah, in fact, we're required by law to do exactly that. We're required by law to do cost-benefit analyses before we put on new regs or take off old regs. It's what we're supposed to do. Our attitude has been, and our philosophy has been that the previous administration fudged the numbers, that they either overstated the benefits to people or understated the costs. And we're going to look at it in a much more pragmatic perspective. Q I mean, the reason I ask is because, you know, you just talked about the previous administration overstating the benefits. Are there benefits? I mean, talk about the regulations -- DIRECTOR MULVANEY: Were you healthy and safe before this came out? Yes, you were. And you'll be healthy and safe with this gone. Q I don't know what's in those, Director. What I'm asking you is -- and you just said it; you talked about benefits to people. Is there any other measure? Because all you do is talk about the cost. And you talked about what your first week in office -- you know, what the benefit to the ones that you held up for you all's first week? DIRECTOR MULVANEY: I think I answered that question. Yes, we are going through a cost-benefit analysis. We are obligated by law to do that and we continue to do that. Yes, ma'am. Q Can you tell us more about the secret list from the Obama administration? (Laughter.) What it was and what was in it? DIRECTOR MULVANEY: I don't know. John, have we got details on that? You want to push that? MR. CZWARTACKI: They called it a "pending list." DIRECTOR MULVANEY: They called it the "pending list" or something like that -- previously undisclosed. We can get you a list of the examples that came off of it. Q So it wasn't available anywhere? It was completely secret? DIRECTOR MULVANEY: 2011 -- I think they did a unified agenda in the spring of 2011? MR. CZWARTACKI: Yeah, in the fall, they did 2011. But the '12 spring agenda, they didn't do. DIRECTOR MULVANEY: They didn't do it. MR. CZWARTACKI: And instead, they put things they wanted to advance -- they kind of parked them on something they called the "pending agenda" and they kind of just went with that. And so when the fall full agenda came out, conveniently after the election, it was missing some things. So it was a trigger to a lot of academics who said, something's not right here, because there was this secret list being held back that was filled with all this. DIRECTOR MULVANEY: Fast forward to when we started this process and we started asking the agencies to send us their ideas about de-reg. Listen, it's been a challenge. Start to think about the last time that the federal government has engaged in a full board deregulatory type of action and attitude. There's a lot of folks who work for the federal government who have never been asked to do this. In fact, one of the anecdotes we've got is that -- I can't remember which agency it was -- but there was actually -- there was no box they could check on whether or not an action was deregulatory or regulatory. There was no column for deregulation. We're asking the federal government to use muscles it hasn't used in a long time, and it's hard to do. But I will tell you this, when we first started looking at this a couple months back, and we noticed there wasn't -- we had done a pretty good job at all the agencies of slowing new stuff, but we hadn't done a very good job of clearing the decks of the old stuff -- the stuff that was already in the pipeline -- getting rid of it until we found this secret list and threatened to go ahead and expose it. And then they said, well, you know what, maybe we’ll get rid of those. And that's how we ended up with our 860 here -- Q Can you assure us -- on one side of the ledger, then, you have secret lists from the Obama administration of potential new regulations. Can you assure us that there are no secret lists and will be no secret lists in this administration of regulations you want to do away with? Is all that public? MR. MULVANEY: Yes. Q You have no secret lists anywhere? MR. MULVANEY: I like questions like that. That’s an easy one. Q When you went back up on the Hill -- last time you were on the Hill -- some of your critics had said that 3 percent -- MR. MULVANEY: I have critics on the Hill? Really? Q Yeah, can you believe it? (Laughter.) They were saying that you had -- that it’s a pie-in-the-sky to believe that we can reach 3 percent. What is your response to those critics who say that you’ll never reach 3 percent? MR. MULVANEY: It’s outrageously pessimistic. You guys have heard my answer on that before. Q Specifically. MR. MULVANEY: Specifically is this -- is that, yeah, you can get there again. They say, oh well, there’s not enough people here anymore, all right. We’re a graying population. There’s almost 7 million people right now in between -- and I hate to get too technical -- U3 and U6. U3 is the general broad measure of unemployment. U6 are the folks who are working part-time or temporarily against the -- they want to work full-time but they can’t find it. Almost 7 million people in that gap between U3 and U6 who could move into the full-time workforce tomorrow if they had the opportunity to do that. They want to do that, we just haven’t given them the chance to do that. There’s a big part of your workforce base -- move to productivity, okay. We also need productivity to be higher than it has been in the past couple years. Look at our tax plan. That’s why the whole thing has worked together. That first answer, by the way, was welfare reform. How do you get people from U6 to U3? Economic opportunity plus welfare reform. Now we look at tax reform and its impact on productivity. We have to have the capital investment necessary to boost productivity, and we have to get that -- we can get that --through our tax reform. It’s why we focus so heavily on corporate tax reform. We need those businesses to invest in capital in order to increase their employees’ productivity because that’s how we get to 3 percent GDP. Q Just a quick follow up, though. Isn’t -- just real quick. Your critics say that what that will do is help further destroy the tax base and the middle class. How do you address that? MR. MULVANEY: The tax base is -- I wish they had asked me that -- how is the tax base eroded by having people go back to work? That’s absurd. So no, we are going to broaden the tax base by making sure there’s more folks working. Yes, ma’am. Q Two part question. First, in terms of the 3 percent growth, can you give us your latest target for when you think that might be possible? And then as the second part of that, you talked about tax reform. Without overhauling Obamacare, if you don’t get those tax cuts repealing the Obama-era tax cuts that you’re looking toward, can you actually achieve comprehensive tax reform or do you then go to a series of tax cuts? What’s your latest thinking in terms of what’s -- MR. MULVANEY: Okay, let me see if I can get this right. The first question is, what’s our sort of schedule, our plan, or how do to get to -- Q When you can achieve 3 percent -- MR. MULVANEY: I don’t think we’ve adjusted the -- we put out the midseason report or the midyear report, something like that, a couple weeks ago. That’s where you may have seen we changed sort of our -- we’ve measured actual receipts in the deficit and so forth. The deficit was a little bit higher than we expected. So we sort of go back in and say, well when we introduce our budget this is what we thought the world would look like. Here’s what it looks like today. That would have been an opportunity for us to change our economic projections from the budget. We didn’t do that. I think our projection for this year is still 2.3 percent and then 2.5 percent and then 2.7 percent or something like that. So the goal is to be at that 3 percent plateau in about three or four years. To your second question about the Obamacare taxes and so forth, let me answer it this way and see if I’ve answered your question. Yeah, I think we’re a little disappointed. The most recent proposed version of the Senate healthcare bill left some of those taxes in place, but I agree with many of my Republican colleagues on the Hill who say well, yeah, but you get another bite of that apple on tax reform. Is that your question? Q Do you think you can do comprehensive tax reform if you don’t repeal and replace Obamacare? Or do you then have to go to a series of tax cuts? MR. MULVANEY: I think it becomes easier to do comprehensive tax reform after healthcare for political reasons, for reasons of momentum and so forth, but I don’t -- Q The math -- MR. MULVANEY: Well, the math comes back to the issue of the deficit, so let’s talk about that for a second. What is OMB’s thoughts on this, right? You know that I've worked with Paul Ryan for many, many years. I believe that we should be willing to take on short-term increases on deficits if it’s what it takes to get an increase in our long-term sustained growth. By the way, that’s one of the big fiscal hawks in town saying that. Okay? That I’m okay with larger deficits in the short run if the tradeoff is 3 percent growth, and if we need more aggressive tax reform in order to get to 3 percent, then I’m more than willing to argue that despite the fact that it may increase the deficit. By the way, where did I learn this message about how important growth is in order to save the country long-term? Does anybody know? From Paul Ryan. So I can tell you, I think I’ve studied with some of the best, and I think I can make the case to him that while I appreciate and understand his position on deficit neutrality, when it comes to the tax reform, I think that growth needs to be paramount in that and that we’re willing to take on short-term deficit increases. We got one question here, and then I have to give it back to Sarah. Yes, sir. Q Okay. Two-parter, one on the regulation and one on tax reform. On tax reform, there’s a current-law baseline in the House budget that assumes that current tax cuts are going to expire, which means you’ll have to pay for them. Is that going to make it hard -- will that make tax reform harder? MR. MULVANEY: I’m sorry, there are no -- the current tax cuts that are proposed? Because there are no current tax cuts. Are you talking about like when the Bush tax cuts were going to expire a couple of years ago? Q Right. MR. MULVANEY: Those are all taken care of. I don’t think -- if there are tax cuts on the books right now that expire in the future, I’m sorry, I’m not aware of those. Maybe I don’t understand your question. Q Fair enough. Let me ask you one about the regulation then. Bigger picture here, does this make it cheaper to run your regulatory agencies, and will you have a cut following '18 or '19? MR. MULVANEY: Well, you saw some of our proposals in our budget and our budget blueprint about some of the reductions we made, for example at the EPA. And yes we do foresee a fundamental difference in the way that agency functions, and we think they should be able to function in the future with a much smaller workforce. That’s a reasonable conclusion from the proposals that we made in the budget, but I don’t think it’s fair to say we’re doing this in order to make it cheaper to run the government. What we’re doing is making it easier to run a country. That’s what’s driving the regulatory reform. Listen, I’d love to do this again, but I promised Sarah the last 10 minutes. Thanks very much, and thank you for not making a big deal about the fact that I’m getting old. MS. SANDERS: We’ll let you leave those there so you don’t throw your back out carrying those out of here. Thank you, Director Mulvaney. As the Director pointed out, today also marks six months since President Trump took office. On top of the historic results of our efforts to streamline regulation led by Director Mulvaney, the President has also made significant progress toward the rest of his top policy priorities. In part due to the deregulation, our economy is booming again, and Americans are going back to work in construction sites, mines, and factories across the country. And those workers can rest easy knowing that they have a staunch defender in the White House, as the President shows time and again that he is putting America first in trade negotiations, pursuing reciprocal agreements with our trading partners so that everyone benefits. He’s prioritized the enforcement of immigration laws to protect all Americans and ensure that our system treats everyone fairly. He’s opened up American energy after years of political opposition, putting us on track for energy dominance. Secretary Shulkin and his team at the VA are making sure our veterans get the care they deserve after the sacrifices they’ve made for our country by holding failing employees accountable. And in these first six months, President Trump has put America first in world affairs and national security, delivering historic speeches calling on our allies to come together in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism and calling out our enemies for the destructive behavior the previous administration neglected to address. As you can see, President Trump has taken serious action on everything from energy to defense to immigration, even as he faces historic obstruction from Senate Democrats, who are pulling every trick in the book to prevent him from putting his team in place. This week, we’ve seen even more evidence of Senate Democrats’ pattern of holding up this administration’s qualified nominees in unprecedented fashion. Here are some startling facts. To date, Senate Democrats have filibustered 34 of the 54 nominees that have eventually been confirmed. By contrast, in President Obama’s entire term, his nominees faced four filibusters in total. This President’s Cabinet nominees faced more Senate filibusters than all other Presidents combined. And as we’ve mentioned they’ve filibustered nominees that enjoyed unanimous support, including a judge that President Obama had previously nominated, and who was eventually confirmed by a vote of 100-0. They’ve filibustered key national security positions, like Patrick Shanahan to be the number two at the Department of Defense, who enjoyed bipartisan support and eventually received over 80 votes. And recent reports show that their refusal to hold votes on the President’s nominees for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which approves potential new pipelines, is preventing an estimated $14 billion in pipeline projects. These are projects like the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, which will create 17,000 new jobs and $2.7 billion in economic activity in Virginia and North Carolina, just through construction, while generating $377 million in annual energy cost savings. There are thousands more jobs like these that won’t happen, and the Democratic senators of states like Ohio, West Virginia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are standing by as party leadership puts politics over what’s best for their constituents. To be clear, they’re slow-walking because they can’t justify blocking these nominees who are both qualified and non-controversial, but this is part of a deliberate strategy to obstruct this President’s agenda and resist the will of the American people. Consider this fact: At this pace, it would take an astounding 11 years to confirm all of this President’s qualified nominees and finally have these important leadership positions fully staffed -- 11 years, clearly well after the President's two terms. We call on Senator Schumer and Senate Democrats to stop this reckless partisanship, which is undermining national security, undermining our judiciary, undermining health care, job creation, energy production, and our basic functions of government, and swiftly approve this President’s qualified nominees. And with that, I will take your questions. Q Sarah, thank you for the question. Does the President have confidence in his Attorney General? Does he want the Attorney General to stay in this post? MS. SANDERS: The President said -- as the President said yesterday, he was disappointed in the Attorney General Session's decision to recuse himself. But clearly he has confidence in him, or he would not be the Attorney General. Q Sarah, can I follow up on that one? You said the President has confidence in the Attorney General. Does the President believe that the Attorney General serves the President or the Constitution? MS. SANDERS: I believe that the President -- I think that's kind of a both. Obviously, the Attorney General's job is to follow and uphold the Constitution. But also, every member of the Cabinet and the administration serves at the pleasure of the President. Q Would the President prefer the Attorney General resign? MS. SANDERS: I believe I've answered that question. Q It's a little bit of a slightly different nuance, so that's why I'm asking it. You say he has confidence in him. Does that mean he does not want him to resign? MS. SANDERS: I think you know this President well enough to know that if he wanted small business to take an action, he would make that quite clear. Q But clearly there's a difference of opinion here because the President thinks what the Attorney General did was improper, yet the Attorney General, in recusing himself last spring, believes that he was taking the appropriate action, given the potential conflict of interest in him leading the Russia investigation. So how do you explain that split? And what -- MS. SANDERS: As I said, the President is disappointed in the decision and I think he's spoken about his feelings on this quite clearly. Matthew. Q Thanks, Sarah. A question about healthcare. The President has repeatedly said that 21-year-olds can pay $12 a year for health insurance under the Republican plan. He said it again yesterday to the New York Times. What does he mean by that? Is the White House aware of a health insurance plan that charges only $12 per year? And if not, why does the President keep making that claim? MS. SANDERS: I'll have to check on the specifics. Q Can you get back to me on that -- MS. SANDERS: Sure. Q -- because the CBO estimates that it would be about $1,100 dollars a year, even for the lowest income 21-year-olds. MS. SANDERS: Okay, I'll check on that. Q The President said that if Robert Mueller were to look at his finances or the family finances, it would constitute a red line. How is that not a threat to the special counsel? MS. SANDERS: I think that the President -- the point he's trying to make is that the clear purpose of the Russia investigation is to review Russia's meddling in the election, and that that should be the focus of the investigation. Nothing beyond that. Q That should not be viewed as a threat, as a warning to what the special counsel should or should not be looking at as it relates to the President’s and his family’s finances? MS. SANDERS: The President is making it clear that the special counsel should not move outside the scope of the investigation. Q Let me try to come at this one different way. MS. SANDERS: I have a feeling we might do this for a little while. Q Why does the President have confidence in his Attorney General? Maybe you can explain it that way. MS. SANDERS: I believe that the Attorney General has made significant progress in terms of things like MS13. They’ve taken great action on that front -- certainly on the front of immigration. He spoke today about some of the cybersecurity measures that they’re taking, and I think those are great examples of successes that they’ve had at the Department of Justice. Q It was reported last month that there was this rift between the President and the Attorney General and it ended up that the Attorney General had offered his resignation. Did that happen? How did that process play out? And why did the President at that time decide not to accept the resignation? MS. SANDERS: I’m not aware of that taking place so I can’t speak to that. Q One more question. From his sickbed, Senator McCain today issued a statement that questioned why, six months into the administration, there still is not an Afghanistan strategy. He said they’re still waiting. Why is there still not an Afghanistan strategy, and when can we expect it? MS. SANDERS: I believe that the President has empowered Secretary Mattis to make decisions on that front, and I would refer you to the Department of Defense for those specific questions. Kristen. Q Sarah, thanks. I want to go back to the President’s comments about Robert Mueller. He was asked if Mr. Mueller does, in fact, look into his finances as part of his special counsel, would he consider firing him. The President said, I can't answer that question because I don't think it’s going to happen. Does that mean that firing the special counsel is something that's on the table for this President? MS. SANDERS: I’ve answered this question several times before. Although the President has the authority to do so, he doesn't intend to do so. Q And, Sarah, if the President is not concerned about this probe, why does it matter? Why does he care if Robert Mueller looks into his finances? MS. SANDERS: I think it’s clear that the President is frustrated by the continued witch hunt of the Russia investigation, and he’d love for this to come to a full conclusion so that everyone can focus fully on the thing that he was elected to do. And that's what he’d like to be focused on. Q And just one more about Senator John McCain. The President, like so many others, sent out letters of prayers last night to the Senator. Has he had any time to reflect on some of his past comments about Senator McCain? Does he regret saying he likes people who weren’t captured? MS. SANDERS: I’m not sure about that. I do know that he certainly hopes that the Senator makes a full and speedy recovery. I don't have anything beyond that. Q Sarah, it’s been over a month since the President promised a press conference on discussing the administration’s ISIS strategy. The Daily Beast had an article about this ISIS strategy document, and so can we expect this press conference to take place soon? And if the strategy is completed, then what’s the delay about having this so far? MS. SANDERS: We’ll certainly make sure that there’s an announcement if there’s a press conference and that you are all invited. Roberta. Q Sarah, can you tell us a little bit more about the President’s meeting today at the Pentagon? What was discussed? What was sort of the main focus there? MS. SANDERS: Sure. Obviously, it’s important for the President to have continued conversations and dialogue. The President met with members -- key members of his Cabinet and national security team, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, primarily to discuss challenges and opportunities. They discussed how to integrate U.S. actions around the world to promote American prosperity, enhance American security, and extend American influence. Q So was it a certain part of the world? Or all parts of the world? MS. SANDERS: It was a broad discussion. Q Did North Korea come up? MS. SANDERS: I cannot get into the specifics of the detailed conversation. Q Sarah, a finer point on Mueller: The President said if he does investigate his or the family’s finances, that's crossing a red line. There’s a report today that Mueller is investigating a broad range of the family’s financial transactions. If that report is true, then he has crossed the red line. Does that mean he fires him? MS. SANDERS: Again, as I said earlier, the President has no intention to do so at this time. Q Even if he crosses the red line? So the red line doesn't mean anything? MS. SANDERS: That's not what I said. I don't believe everything I read in the paper. We’ll have to see as we get more details on that. Q But he said that. It’s on audio. He said, that's crossing a red line. That's not something you read in the paper. You can listen to the audio. MS. SANDERS: I’m talking about the investigation looking into the finances. Q But if it's true -- MS. SANDERS: The President has been clear many times before that he has no financial dealings whatsoever with Russia. The point the President is making is that the investigation should stay within the confines of meddling -- Russia meddling in the election and nothing beyond that. Q And if it doesn't, he fires him. MS. SANDERS: I’m not going to get into that. Q Why does the President expect loyalty from his aides, from members of his Cabinet when he’s constantly criticizing them and undercutting them and contradicting them in -- particularly in media outlets that he constantly tries to discredit? MS. SANDERS: I don't believe that the President is undermining them. I think he was being very candid about feelings that he had. But as I said, he has confidence in his ability. April. Q Sarah, how does the process play out when the President is very candid about what he thinks about his Attorney General, about what he thinks about Mueller? How does this process play out? MS. SANDERS: I’m sorry -- what? Q The investigation -- the investigation, the whole process of relationships between Sessions and the President; the process of this investigation by Mueller. How does this play out with the President being very upset over the process and openly criticizing everyone and people in fear? MS. SANDERS: I think it’s pretty clear how the process will turn out from our side is that this will be proven to be the witch hunt that it is, and that nothing further will happen. Trey. Q I have two more questions. MS. SANDERS: Two more? Q Yes, two more. There’s a belief that these conversations with the New York Times, with -- whatever reporters are pieces of intimidation to go to Mueller, to go to Sessions. What do you say to that? MS. SANDERS: I think that's ridiculous. Third question. Q And then lastly, Baltimore. Does the President regret what he said about Baltimore? He threw Rosenstein under the bus for the wrong city. He’s not from Baltimore, he’s from Philadelphia. And there are people in Baltimore saying there are a lot of Republicans there even though the city is led by a Democratic mayor. MS. SANDERS: I think he’s making a general statement. Trey. Q But it was wrong. The statement was wrong. MS. SANDERS: He’s spent a lot of time and has worked pretty extensively in Baltimore. Q Has President Trump spoken with the Attorney General in the past 24 hours? MS. SANDERS: No, not that I’m aware of. Q And a follow-up, does he regret appointing Jeff Sessions to be his Attorney General? MS. SANDERS: I don't believe so. I think if he did, then he probably wouldn’t be in that position. Q And a quick one on Afghanistan policy: Following his meeting this morning at the Pentagon, is the President any closer to unveiling a policy towards Afghanistan? And should the American people expect that we will be sending more troops to the region? MS. SANDERS: As I said earlier, the President has empowered Secretary Mattis in that front, and I would direct you to the Department of Defense. Q Sarah, can we just reconcile what you just said? You said the President does not regret appointing Jeff Sessions, yet he said in that interview with the New York Times that he does regret it because had he known what he was going to do before he appointed him, he would have said, sorry, Jeff, I’m going to get someone else. MS. SANDERS: I think -- Q So I just wondering, how do you come to those two thoughts? MS. SANDERS: Sorry. I may have misunderstood what Trey was asking. My understanding -- Q He asked, does the President regret appointing Jeff Sessions -- MS. SANDERS: I’m sorry. I thought you’d asked if he regretted not taking action to remove Jeff Sessions. Q So does he regret appointing Jeff Sessions? MS. SANDERS: The President has spoken very clearly on this in the interview yesterday. And as he said, he was disappointed that the Attorney General made the decision to recuse himself and certainly that he didn't tell him that before taking the job. Q But he also said had he told him that he wouldn’t have appointed him. So does he regret now in retrospect appointing Jeff Sessions? MS. SANDERS: I haven’t asked him specifically. Q When asked about Mueller today a couple of times you've used conditional language that he doesn't intend to -- it’s at this time. How can his independence be guaranteed if you're saying in conditional tense that he’s not going to try to have him removed? MS. SANDERS: Look, I can't predict everything that could possibly take place in the future and what Mueller could potentially do that might create an outrageous reason not to take action, so I’m not going to talk about hypotheticals. I can talk about where we are today, and that's the position of the President. Q Sarah, you've been asked multiple times today about the war in Afghanistan. Both times you referred us to the Defense Department. But President Trump is still the Commander-in-Chief. Does he take full responsibility for whatever happens on the conflict in Afghanistan? MS. SANDERS: I would think so. But again, he has empowered Secretary Mattis in terms -- I’ve been asked specifically about troop levels and decisions on specific instances, and in that regard, I would refer you to the Department of Defense. John. Q Thank you, Sarah. You spoke earlier about -- apparently about confidence in General Sessions staying there. Does the President have the same confidence and lack of regret in name Ron Brownstein [sic] deputy attorney general? Mr. Brownstein being -- MS. SANDERS: Rosenstein, Rosenstein. I don't know who that guy is, but -- (laughter). So I’m not going to speak about him. But Rod Rosenstein, as I stated, if the President didn't have confidence, he wouldn’t be in that position. Guys, I hate to cut us short today, but the President has -- hold on, I’m not finished. The President has an announcement that he’ll be making here shortly -- Q Here at the podium? MS. SANDERS: No. (Laughter.) Here at the White House, and so I’m going to cut it short today. Thanks, guys. END 3:06 P.M. EDT
“We are only one-half year into Donald Trump's presidency. In that very brief period, we have seen the nation's economy re-energized, illegal migration plummet, the NATO alliance revitalized, and the president order new measures to secure America from terrorists.” America is back with the first 6 months of Trump By Sebastian Gorka The Hill July 20, 2017 Donald Trump won the presidential election against Hillary Clinton with a very simple message: I will fix the economy, build the wall, and destroy ISIS. In this, he channeled the simplicity of Ronald Reagan's own election platform. Then-Gov. Reagan promised to restore Americans’ faith in our nation, to fix the economic “malaise” of the Carter years, and to defeat the Soviet Union once and for all. For the Trump campaign, and now the Trump administration, our approach is summarized under the “Make America Great Again” motto, or #MAGA. … The first principle of our administration is plain for all to see. America is back. And under President Trump, so is American leadership. American influence is a global good and this recognition is a first step toward advancing our leadership, which in turn can help set the conditions for the security and prosperity of the United States and its allies. The era of apologizing for America is over. We have openly rejected the passive and reactionary ideas central to the Obama years, especially “leading from behind” and “strategic patience.” It is our key assumption that a world without American leadership, in which the president does not forcefully stand up for the eternal truths upon which the Republic was founded, is a very dangerous world. … We are only one-half year into Donald Trump's presidency. In that very brief period, we have seen the nation's economy re-energized, illegal migration plummet, the NATO alliance revitalized, and the president order new measures to secure America from terrorists. Most striking of all is what President Trump has managed to achieve in just 25 weeks with regard to the totalitarian menace that is the Islamic State. Just as America was crucial to the defeat of the totalitarians of the Third Reich, and to the ideological defeat of the communist threat posed by the Soviet Union, we will defeat the newest totalitarian threat to the West, radical Islamic terrorism under the leadership of the current American president. This is but the beginning of translating MAGA onto the global stage. Read the full op-ed here.
Когда страну лихорадит, то необходимо лечение, и далеко не каждая болезнь фатальна. Был ли Советский Союз обречен на распад?На днях бывших генсек и президент СССР Михаил Горбачев снова попал «на первые полосы» крупных СМИ. Поводом стал его комментарий встречи Владимира Путина и Дональда Трампа, где Горбачев провел параллели между переговорами нынешних глав великих держав и своим диалогом с Рональдом Рейганом. В этой связи, мы считаем необходимым поднять тему политики самого Горбачева в период, когда он находился у руля государства.11 марта 1985 года Генеральным секретарем ЦК КПСС стал Михаил Горбачев. Именно этот человек инициировал коренные преобразования советской системы, закончившиеся гибелью СССР. Горбачевские реформы, вошедшие в историю под названием «Перестройка», подразумевали глубокие изменения в экономике, внешней и внутренней политике Советского Союза.Десятками лет характерными чертами советской экономической системы были директивное планирование развития хозяйства страны, с тенденцией к максимальному огосударствлению экономических объектов, запрету предпринимательской деятельности вплоть до соответствующей статьи в Уголовном кодексе и подавлению частной экономической инициативы.Даже колхозная собственность, формально не относящаяся к государственной, де-факто управлялась государством. Конечно, некие «вкрапления капитализма» все же существовали в СССР всегда, и попытки уподобить советскую экономику экономике тюремного барака просто несостоятельны и носят скорее эмоционально-пропагандистский окрас. Это безусловно крайность.Но крайностью, хотя и противоположного характера является утверждение некоторых апологетов советского строя о том, что западноевропейские страны, Япония, Южная Корея построили системы, во многом повторяющие советский опыт. В качестве доказательства порой приводится целый ряд «экономических чудес», которые были достигнуты за рубежом.Так, например, отмечается, что в Японии периода экономического рывка важную роль играли Национальный институт прогнозных исследований и правительственное Управление экономического планирования, в составе которого находилось Бюро планирования и Экономический совет. Экономическое чудо в Южной Корее неразрывно связано с Управлением экономического планирования, в составе которого основную роль играли Бюро генерального планирования, Бюджетное бюро, Статистическое бюро и Бюро мобилизации материальных ресурсов.Разработка программ развития страны осуществлялась в сотрудничестве с другими органами власти, в том числе с министерствами строительства, финансов, иностранных дел и внешней торговли. Планирование охватывало инфраструктуру, экономические показатели, ситуацию в финансовом секторе и социальные вопросы.Во Франции послевоенного периода государство контролировало цены, разрабатывало программы развития отраслей и даже занималось бизнесом. Широко применялось индикативное планирование (но не советское, не директивное), которое осуществлял специальный Генеральный комиссариат.Казалось бы, действительно, перед нами типичные черты советского планового подхода. Но такое впечатление обманчиво, поскольку во всех упомянутых случаях существовало принципиальное отличие от социалистической модели СССР.«Плановые органы» Японии, Франции, Южной Кореи работали в тесном сотрудничестве с частным бизнесом. Правительственные программы, разработанные для отраслей отнюдь не являлись жестко предписывающими для частного сектора. Просто бизнес заранее получал важную для себя информацию о том, как власть видит будущее страны, и это помогало предсказать конъюнктуру рынка, то есть ситуацию в экономике на многие годы вперед. Понятно, что таким образом снижаются риски банкротств, а инвесторов и других предпринимателей подталкивают работать именно в сферах, необходимых государству.Отсутствие в СССР легального, мощного бизнес-сообщества и директивно-командный характер установок нашего Госплана принципиально отличало ситуацию в советской экономике от французских, японских или южнокорейских реалий. Знаменитая теория конвергенции (сближения) двух систем, согласно которой капиталистические страны становятся все более социалистическими, а социалистические все более либеральными, не выдержала проверки временем. Капиталистический мир изменялся, не теряя при этом своей сути, а социалистический лагерь полностью обанкротился.Но означает ли это, что СССР был обречен на распад? Нет, и тому есть веское доказательство - реформы Дэн Сяопина. Руководство Китая выращивало предпринимательский слой под строгим контролем государства, и сейчас Китай - вторая экономика мира. С 1978 года, то есть за сорок лет, Китай прошел путь от нищей, полуголодной страны к статусу великой экономической державы. Причем успехи китайских реформ отчетливо проявились уже к 1985 году. Значит, перед глазами Горбачева был положительный пример, но он выбрал совсем иной путь, который неминуемо приводил страну на грань экономического и политического хаоса.Накануне Перестройки проблемы советской экономики, конечно, были налицо. Их видели и рядовые граждане, и люди, облеченные властью. В доказательство приведу характерное свидетельство Николая Паничева, который занимал пост министра станкостроительной промышленности Советского Союза:«К 1985 году мы все понимали, что дальнейшее развитие только командно-административным методом невозможно. …Мы отставали от развитых стран по конкурентоспособности, по надежности, по качеству изделий.Я скажу, почему: потому что система, которая была установлена после войны и существовала все эти годы: планирование от достигнутого, не побуждала и не заинтересовывала предприятия и также субъекты страны заниматься развитием техники так, чтобы держать ее на уровне конкурентоспособности.К сожалению, было так, что если мне спланировали такое-то количество единиц оборудования, значит уже спланировано, кому оно будет поставлено. И мы дошли до того, что к 1985 году по моей отрасли мы знали, что в промышленности установлено 6,5 млн единиц металлообрабатывающего оборудования, станков и прессов, в то время когда станочников по их обслуживанию насчитывалось всего 3,5 млн. Поэтому и производительность труда, и эффективность всей работы сдерживалась, тормозилась, и, конечно, требовались реформы.Я убежден, что ни одна экономика мира не может долго существовать в таком едином виде, как она когда-то была задумана, как ее сделали — будь то капиталистическая, социалистическая или смешанная, любая. Идет время, возникают новые задачи, новые требования, и все это требует, конечно, реформирования».И действительно, директивное планирование с его твердыми установками недостаточно гибко реагировало на изменения как внутреннего, так и внешнего рынков. В этой связи сама по себе идея добавить частной инициативы в экономику СССР была здравой. Но воплощение формально правильного принципа проводилось так, как будто речь шла о сознательном вредительстве с целью подорвать экономику Советского Союза.В ноябре 1986 года в СССР появился закон «Об индивидуальной трудовой деятельности». В тексте документа содержались весьма характерные пассажи, открывающие путь к рыночным отношениям. Например, «Индивидуальная трудовая деятельность осуществляется гражданами с использованием сырья, материалов, инструментов и иного имущества, принадлежащего им на праве личной собственности либо переданного заказчиком, а также имущества, полученного по договорам имущественного найма с предприятиями, учреждениями и организациями или с гражданами».Обратите внимание на разрешение индивиду использовать имущество предприятий, учреждений и организаций. А ведь предприятия в СССР принадлежали государству. Таким образом, открывалась лазейка для перетока государственных ресурсов в частные руки.В феврале 1987 года в этом направлении был сделан следующий, более радикальный шаг. Вышло Постановление Совета Министров о деятельности «кооперативов по производству товаров народного потребления». Читаем постановление и видим важную вещь:«Объем товаров, продукции, работ и услуг, произведенных (реализованных, оказанных) кооперативами по производству товаров народного потребления и другими кооперативами в сферах производства и услуг, включается в отчет о выполнении плана предприятия, организации и учреждения, на основе договоров с которыми кооперативы осуществляют свою деятельность или при которых они созданы».Смотрите, теперь власть официально разрешила открывать кооперативы, в том числе при предприятиях. Если в законе 1986 года индивидуальная деятельность подразумевала кустарное производство частником-индивидом, то теперь позволялось создавать фактически частную «кооперативную» структуру. А государственному предприятию предоставили право заключать с кооперативами договора на выполнение определенных работ.Вот и второй канал перекачки государственных ресурсов в частные руки. Причем через кооперативы осуществлялось и обналичивание государственных средств, то есть на потребительский рынок выплеснулась дополнительная денежная масса, а сами кооперативы все больше превращались в спекулятивные лавочки, взвинчивавшие цены в СССР.Но и это еще не все. Для советских теневиков кооперативы стали удобным способом легализации. Неслучайно в глазах общества кооперативное движение быстро приобрело сомнительный и даже криминальный душок. Кооператорство стали воспринимать как сферу, где крутились огромные по тем временам деньги, мягко говоря, серого происхождения.Примерно в это же время выходит еще одно «знаковое» Постановление Совета Министров СССР от 13 января 1987 г. № 49 «О порядке создания на территории СССР и деятельности совместных предприятий с участием советских организаций и фирм капиталистических и развивающихся стран».На бумаге все вроде бы выглядело пристойно, но на самом деле был подвох, и еще какой! В Советском Союзе действовала своя собственная, внутренняя система цен на продукцию и сырье, слабосвязанная с ценами мирового рынка. Таким образом, совместное предприятие превращалось в насос по выкачиванию из нашей страны сравнительно дешевых ресурсов. И вдобавок размывалась монополия государства на внешнюю торговлю.Напомним, что еще в 1985 году стартовала антиалкогольная компания, в короткий срок резко сократившая доходы бюджета от реализации алкогольной продукции. 26 апреля 1986 года случилась катастрофа на Чернобыльской АЭС. Ликвидация последствий потребовала огромных расходов, а к тому же на мировом рынке снизились нефтяные цены – важный источник поступления валюты в СССР. И не забываем, что Советский Союз продолжал участвовать в Афганской войне, которая съедала огромные ресурсы. Все это не могло не сказаться, на состоянии государственного бюджета, и статистика, которую приводит доктор исторических наук Александр Островский, в полной мере подтверждает данный тезис:«Если же взять только союзный бюджет (без местных бюджетов), картина будет более драматической: в 1985 г. бюджетный дефицит составлял 5,6 процента, 1986 г. - 16,6 процента, 1987 г. - 22,1 процента, 1988 г. - 31,9 процента, 1989 г. - 35,3 процента».Таким образом, целый ряд негативных факторов, сложившись воедино, дал эффект резонанса и резко обострил экономическое положение СССР. Что касается населения, то оно столкнулось с нарастающей проблемой дефицита товаров повседневного спроса. Массы склонны судить об уровне жизни по тем предметам и явлениям, с которыми чаще всего сталкиваются. И поэтому проблемы на потребительском рынке воспринимаются людьми особенно болезненно. Недовольство действиями центральной власти нарастало, что создавало благодатную почву для деструктивной антигосударственной пропаганды и сепаратистских поползновений.Опыт разных стран показывает, что в период кризиса нередко возникают политические организации шовинистического толка. С их подачи вспыхивают общественные споры на тему «кто кого кормит», вспоминаются исторические обиды, реальные, а чаще всего – выдуманные бойким пером пропагандистов.Когда страну лихорадит, то необходимо лечение, и далеко не каждая болезнь фатальна. Но когда часть руководства страны сознательно ведет дело к подрыву государства – то ситуация становится почти безнадежной.источник
When it comes to health care and entitlements, the party’s policies don't always align with its coalition’s beliefs.
Самая таинственная и труднодоступная заброшка находится на Чукотке - ядерная военная часть Анадырь-1 или, как называют её местные, Гудым. Появилась она в начале 60-х годов для размещения ядерных ракет поближе к возможному противнику, то есть США. База была супер-секретной, местные знали только что поблизости какая-то воинская часть.Сердце Гудыма - огромная бетонная "нора" со складами для хранения и обслуживания ядерных ракет. Как и каким образом её "грызли" в вечной мерзлоте для меня загадка. Кроме военного объекта, был ещё городок, где проживали служащие и их семьи.Впрочем, в традиционной попытке всех "жестко переиграть", мы переиграли, главным образом, самих себя. 8 декабря 1987 года в Вашингтоне состоялась советско-американская встреча на высшем уровне, в ходе которой Горбачёв и Рейган подписали бессрочный "Договор о ликвидации ракет средней и малой дальности", после чего с базы вывезли всё вооружение. Некоторое время подземные помещения использовать как базу хранения Анадырского военного гарнизона, но в 2002 году Гудым полностью забросили.Сегодня это город-призрак. Что было более-менее ценное разворовали. Тем не менее, несмотря на прогнившие станы домов и облупленную краску подземных тоннелей, можно увидеть грандиозные масштабы Гудыма...Склады по пути к базе. Кругом валяются крылатые ракеты. Судя по всему учебные. На панораме они слева у синей бочки:3. Их тут очень много. Не считал, но навскидку штук 20:4. 5. Закрылки на ракете:6. Внутри какие-то шары:7. 8. Итак, Гудым. Через 3 дня после меня в Анадырь приезжал Шойгу и должен был посещать эту заброшенную базу. Сейчас этот объект никем не охраняется и никому не нужен, но может скоро сюда повесят замок и тогда я стану последним блогером, кто побывал внутри:9. На подъезде к нему незаметный ДОТ:10. Крупнее:11. Вход в главный военный объект, где хранились ракеты:12. Туда прямо на машине заехали. Внутри длинный коридор с ответвлениями. В ответвления не совались, а по туннелю проехали:13. Тоннель закрывается массивной бронированной дверью, весом в 40 тонн (вес среднего танка). Время закрытия примерно 2 минуты:14. Пульт рядом с дверью:15. Объект имеет полную противоатомную защиту, рассчитан на бомбежки с воздуха:16. Интересно, конечно, куда ведут эти ответвления, но изучать не решились:17. Второй выход:18. Признаки бывшей охраны военного объекта:19. Но сейчас Гудым охраняют только евражки:20. 21. Зловещие инсталляции оставлены, по видимому, редкими путешественниками. Местным до этого точно нет дела, они выпиливают последние двери:22. Военный городок сейчас полностью разрушен и разворован. Не представляет интереса в качестве "заброшки", так как тут ничего не осталось:23. Местные приезжают сюда как на склад стройматериалов и тащат всё, что не приколочено. Я видел 3 машины с бригадами, которые отдирали доски и бревна от домов и грузили на прицепы:24. Какой-то интерес может вызвать бывший торговый центр:25. Для военного городка на крайнем севере он немаленький:26. Здания:27. 28. 29. Бывший штаб:30. Внутри полная разруха:31. 32. Надпись: "В карауле, как на войне - будь бдительным вдвойне". Это карцер:33. Помещение охранников:34. 35. Комната отдыха:36. Вход в тюрьму:37. Камеры:38. Мягко скажем, небольшие:39. Напоследок, короткая экспозиция неизвестного военного автора:40. В следующем посте я покажу более оптимистичное место - Анадырский поселок Угольные Копи. Stay Tuned!Подписаться на обновленияЯ в других социальных сетях:
К празднованию нашего 30-летнего юбилея редактор TNI Джейкоб Хеилбранн садится за один стол с бывшим госсекретарем. Джейкоб Хеилбранн (Jacob Heilbrunn) Редактор The National Interest Джейкоб Хеилбранн (Jacob Heilbrunn) побеседовал с Генри Киссинджером в начале июля в Нью-Йорке.