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.
Thomas Graham Jr. Security, Eurasia A new bill proposes that the United States would no longer be bound by the INF Treaty if Russia remains in violation. Congress, through a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, risks endangering American national security by threatening the integrity of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. The INF Treaty between the United States, Russia and twelve former Soviet republics prohibits the deployment of intermediate-range missiles, which have historically proven dangerously destabilizing. The original American goal of the treaty was to eliminate the Russian SS-20, a deadly ballistic missile; over time, treaty negotiations grew in scope to also include cruise missiles. Russia is currently in violation of the INF Treaty by testing and deploying intermediate-range cruise missiles. However, by threatening to destroy the entire INF Treaty in response, Congress risks making matters worse by opening the door to Russian deployment of intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Europe. The SS-20 was long regarded by the United States as a particularly dangerous threat. Negotiations over Intermediate Nuclear Forces with the Soviet Union, begun by President Ronald Reagan in the fall of 1981, had as the principal U.S. objective the limitation of the growing Soviet force of these modern, highly accurate, road-mobile, multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) missiles. The SS-20 replaced the older, less accurate, single-warhead ballistic-missile force deployed by the Soviet Union opposite Europe for many years. For the United States, the principal objection to the new deployment was that the Soviet Union appeared to replace essentially defensive deterrent weapons with offensive war-fighting weapons. As negotiations proceeded, the range of prohibited weapons was expanded to a lower limit of five hundred kilometers and an upper limit of 5,500 kilometers, the borderline of nuclear weapon systems covered by the strategic arms treaties. Cruise missiles were added as weapons to be banned, and the INF Treaty area of obligation was increased to cover the entire territory of the Soviet Union and the United States. Yet, the primary goal for American negotiators was always to limit the SS-20. Read full article
Человек из богатейшей семьи, который бросил школу, чтобы играть на клавишных в рок-группе и выучившего китайский еще в молодости, когда был мормонским миссионером на Тайване – пожалуй, у США еще никогда не было в России такого разностороннего посла. «БИЗНЕС Online» вместе с экспертами попытался понять, что представляет собой экс-губернатор штата Юта, бывший кандидат в президенты и совладелец крупной химической компании, работающей и в России.
Администрация президента США Дональда Трампа официально подтвердила выдвижение бывшего губернатора штата Юта Джона Хантсмана послом США в России. Хантсмана, ранее также занимавшего пост посла США в Китае и Сингапуте, СМИ называют сторонником жесткой линии. О том, что именно Хантсман может сменить Джона Теффа на посту главы американской дипломатической миссии в России, стало известно еще в марте 2017 года. Тогда СМИ много писали о том, что Хантсман происходит из семьи мормонов и в прошлом имел некие связи с Россией. В то же время они высказывали предположение, что новый посол будет проводить свою линию в России достаточно жестко. Тогда ему предрекали серьезные трудности, если он займет этот пост, поскольку у демократов и республиканцев согласия нет, и чьи именно интересы как интересы США ему представлять, как полагали СМИ, еще неясно. Сам Хантсман в то время на вопросы журналистов не отвечал. Позже знакомый с ним источник информационного агентства РБК подтвердил, что политик согласился возглавить дипмиссию США в России. Информагентство отмечает, что дипломатический опыт Хантсмана является значительным и не ограничивается работой в Китае с 2009 по 2011 годы. Причем в 1992 году, когда президент Джордж Буш-старший назначил Хантсмана послом в Сингапуре, тому было всего 32 года. По данным Национальной ассоциации губернаторов, Хантсман тогда стал самым молодым американским послом за последние сто лет. Рональд Рейган и Джон Хантсман Из личного архива Политикой Хантсман также интересовался и был сравнительно успешен: дважды, в 2004 и 2008 году, был избран губернатором штата Юта, называемого СМИ «обителью мормонов». Кстати сказать, во второй раз на выборах губернатора он получив 78 процентов голосов. В 2012 году Хатнсман был выдвинут кандидатом в президенты США от республиканцев. Однако проиграл партийные праймериз. Имя Хантсмана также назвалось среди других претендентов на пост государственного секретаря в администрации президента Трампа, напоминает «Российская газета». Известно также, что Джон Хантсман является сыном миллиардера-промышленника, чья компания Huntsman International LLC имеет несколько предприятий в России (в частности – заводы, производящие пигменты и полиуретаны). Как сообщает американская газета Salt Lake Tribune, состояние Хантсмана оценивается в миллиард долларов. Хатнсман женат и является отцом семерых детей, в том числе двух приемных дочерей из Китая и Индии. Прокомментировать для «Полит.ру» это назначение согласился Александр Гусев, руководитель Центра стратегического развития стран СНГ, доктор политических наук, главный научный сотрудник института Европы РАН. Он согласился с предположением, что Хатнсман будет отстаивать интересы США очень жестко и решительно. По оценке политолога, кандидатура Хантсмана пройдет и Палату представителей, и Сенат без проблем, а так как ее уже поддерживает Трамп, практически нет шансов, что Хантсман не получит этот пост. «Джон Хантсман – достаточно известная фигура в политическом истеблишменте Соединенных Штатов. Он является представителем очень крупного финансового клана – собственно, клада Ротшильдов, точно так же, как и Трамп – и входит в советы директоров целой плеяды крупных компаний, по крайней мере пяти – уж точно. Не буду называть их, они общеизвестны. Кроме того, он достаточно долгое время был послом в Китае и Сингапуре. Отличается он достаточно жестким и принципиальным характером. Нам будет очень непросто с этим человеком – он гораздо жестче, чем многие его предшественники. Но я абсолютно убежден, что его кандидатура пройдет и Палату представителей Конгресса США, и Сенат, и будет утверждена. Потому что там есть достаточно серьезное лобби, которое поддерживает Хантсмана. И команда, которая приедет с ним в Москву, конечно же, будет отличаться конструктивизмом, я бы сказал, и достаточно большой жесткостью по отношению к нашей стране. Просто потому, что первое лицо дипломатической миссии также будет вести себя достаточно жестко по отношению к России. Хантсмана нельзя заподозрить в особой любви к нашей стране, но нельзя сказать и того, что он – ярый русофоб. Он – достаточно взвешенный политик, но еще больше, чем политик, чем дипломат, он – бизнесмен. И все же, честно говоря, я ожидаю, что с его приходом на пост диалог между Россией и Соединенными Штатами станет достаточно жестким, и Хантсман, конечно, будет отстаивать жестко позицию своей страны – в том числе по ситуации в Сирии. Хантсман является абсолютным прагматиком в отношении Исламской Республики Иран, занимает принципиальную же позицию в отношении присутствия, как он говорит, России на Украине. Поэтому надо готовиться к очень жесткой линии поведения. Джон Хантсман и Петр Порошенко. 2014 ImageLink Photography / Dennis Kan Еще раз повторю: я не вижу никаких предпосылок для того, чтобы его кандидатура не была утверждена; она уже одобрена и Трампом. Кстати, об этом стало известно, если помните, еще в начале года, когда заговорили о том, что Теффт уйдет с должности посла. Ну, и если сравнивать их, то различия бросаются в глаза даже чисто внешние. Да и во всем сравнивать 130-килограммового Теффта, такого вальяжного, и этого сухопарого «волка», достаточно сложно. Теффт, напомню, считался специалистом по России и по «цветным революциям». Но Хантсман не только очень жесткий человек, но еще и человек ловкий. Он – такой хитрый лис, он вхож во многие структуры, пользуется поддержкой, авторитетом во многих сферах. Неслучайно же он входит в советы директоров крупнейших компаний! Ну, и сам, что называется, человек очень небедный. Хотя тут этот термин не подходит: Хантсман – человек очень богатый, даже супербогатый. И свои позиции он привык и будет отстаивать очень твердо, буквально с пеной у рта», – сказал Александр Гусев. Добавим, что еще после появления первой информации о том, что послом США в России может стать Джон Хантсман, пресс-секретарь президента России Дмитрий Песков по просьбе журналистов прокомментировал эти сообщения. Он подчеркнул, что выбор посла – внутреннее дело США, в которое Россия вмешиваться не собирается, и заверил, что Москва готова приветствовать любого посла США, который будет способствовать налаживанию диалога между странами.
Действующий американский посол в России Джон Теффт в начале осени покидает этот пост, который он занимал с 2014 года
Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill Washington, D.C. 10:35 A.M. EDT VICE PRESIDENT PENCE: Thank you, Matthew Shay. Thank you for that very kind introduction and your great leadership here. And I offer all of you a warm -- very warm -- welcome to our Nation’s Capital. Welcome to Washington, D.C. It’s an honor to be here with you today with so many great American success stories, cornerstones of American communities, large and small, the members of the National Retail Federation here at the 83rd annual Retail Advocates Summit. Great to see you all. (Applause.) And I bring greetings this morning from a friend of mine, who’s a businessman who knows just a little bit about retail, who’s fighting every single day to unleash a new era of American opportunity and prosperity, I bring greetings from the 45th President of the United States of America -- President Donald Trump. (Applause.) From the very first day of this administration, President Trump has been fighting to restore jobs and opportunity and prosperity all across this country. This President has signed more laws cutting through federal red tape than any President in American history and has already saved businesses and families up to $18 billion in red tape costs every year. In fact, the President early in our administration ordered every agency in Washington, D.C. to find two regulations to get rid of before issuing any new federal regulations on American businesses large and small. (Applause.) And with the support of our new Secretary of Labor, Secretary Alex Acosta, President Trump is striking the right balance in labor relations -- appointing two highly qualified experts to the National Labor Relations Board. And as we speak, our administration is rolling back the Joint-Employer Rule. (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 we have the best roads, best bridges, best airports and best harbors, and the best future that we’ve ever had. Plans are underway at the administration for a historic infrastructure bill, and it’s going to support a growing economy all across America. In fact, this week is Made in America Week for our administration, and the President has been fighting for American job creators and manufacturers and American farmers every single day so that your businesses -- American businesses -- can sell more American goods than ever before. And I’m here to report to you since day one of this administration, President Trump has been fighting tirelessly to repeal and replace Obamacare. (Applause.) Every day Obamacare survives is another day the American economy and American families struggle. We all remember the broken promises that made it possible for Obamacare to get passed. You remember them? They said if you like your doctor you could keep them -- not true. They said if you like your health insurance you could keep it -- not true. We were told that health insurance costs would go down. That one wasn’t true either. Our administration has actually shown that the average premium on the individual market has more than doubled since Obamacare went into effect less than four years ago. And in some states, it’s more than tripled. When Obamacare passed, we were 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. While premiums are soaring, choices are plummeting. Next year, nearly 40 percent of American counties, including nine entire states, will have only one choice of a health insurance provider -- meaning they’ll have essentially no choice at all. And even worse, dozens of counties will have no health insurance providers whatsoever on the Obamacare exchange in 2018. Men and women, behind these statistics are real people facing a real crisis. Behind every number is a name, and behind every name is a story. I’ve heard them as I’ve traveled across this country on our President’s behalf. I’ve heard firsthand from job creators just like all of you in this room and working families about the burden that Obamacare has placed upon them -- the burden of higher costs, fewer choices, and worse care for the most vulnerable. Obamacare has failed and Obamacare must go. (Applause.) Now President Trump and I are grateful for the efforts of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the vast majority of Republicans who have worked so hard in the House and Senate to keep their promise to repeal and replace Obamacare. As the President said just earlier today, most Republicans were loyal terrific and worked really hard. And there are no truer words. But last night we learned that the Senate still doesn't have consensus on a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare at the same time. President Trump and I fully support the Majority Leader’s decision to move forward with a bill that just repeals Obamacare and gives Congress time, as the President said, to work on a new healthcare plan that will start with a clean slate. The Senate actually passed the very same bill in 2015 and sent it to President Obama’s desk, and they should do it again. But to be clear: The Senate should vote to repeal now and replace later, or return to the legislation carefully crafted in the House and Senate. But either way, inaction is not an option. Congress needs to step up. Congress needs to do their job and Congress needs to do their job now. (Applause.) As the President said, with his inexhaustible optimism and determination, stay tuned, we will return We will rescue the American people from the disastrous consequences of Obamacare and restore a healthcare system based on personal responsibility, free-market competition, and state-based reform. That’s the American way to meet the healthcare needs of the American people in the 21st century, and we're not going to stop fighting until we get it done. (Applause.) But I’m here today on President Trump’s behalf to say thank you -- thanks to the National Retail Federation and all the members for what you do for America every single day. It’s amazing to think for 106 years, the National Retail Federation has given a voice to the corner stores, the mom-n-pop shops, the grocers, the department stores, the Internet retailers, and all the other retailers that are literally the backbone of every American community. And the businesses represented in this room make a remarkable difference in the life of our nation and the lives of the American people every day. As President Trump said when he met with retailers earlier this year, you’re “one of the great job producers” in America, and it’s true. Retailers are one of the largest employers in America today. In fact, a stunning one in four American jobs depend on the retail industry. The National Retail Federation’s slogan really sums it up best: “Retail Means Jobs.” And the best days for American retailers are up ahead. I promise you that. (Applause.) Now, I’d like to take a moment to recognize all the retail champions who with us here today, especially Danny Reynolds, from Stephenson’s, in Elkhart Indiana. Congratulations to the five finalists, one of whom will be the Champion of the Year announced later today. Let’s give all the champions a round of applause. (Applause.) It’s important to celebrate the difference that each one of you make in businesses large and small all across this country. Beyond the numbers, beyond the jobs is something I would say is even more important, and that is growing up in a small town in southern Indiana, I know that retailers like all of you gathered here are simply a fixture in the lives of literally every American family. We walk through your doors to get Christmas and birthday presents for our loved ones. We walk down your aisles and we browse your -- we browse those aisles to buy clothes and groceries and everyday necessities. We walk by your windows every single day. We pop in even if we didn’t plan on it -- because it doesn’t matter what we need, America’s retailers have it. In fact, one of the last things I did before I was sworn in as Vice President of the United States was stop by a retailer. It was during the transition here in our Nation’s Capital, and Mrs. Pence had sent me a text and told me to pick up some ice cream. (Laughter.) It’s the first time I’d done that with a large Secret Service detail. (Laughter.) But I did my job. Let me also say one more thing. Not only do you provide those great goods and great services to people all across this country, but on behalf of the President, I want to acknowledge the fact that America’s retailers are really model corporate citizens. The truth is you support every worthy cause in every community, large and small. You enrich not only our people, but our very way of life. You can't hardly go to a Little League baseball game, you can't hardly go to a local charity function without seeing your banners hanging, without hearing about your sponsorship on the brochure. Know that your President and I are truly grateful for everything that you do for the communities that you serve. Why don't you give yourselves a round of applause for the difference you make in the lives of every American community? (Applause.) And I want to assure you, our President knows as retail goes, so goes America. The President told retailers earlier this year that out administration is in his words “very focused on the issues that will encourage economic growth,” the growth that you’ll need to continue to grow and succeed. It’s remarkable to think about everything the President has accomplished so far, it’s only been six months. But President Trump is going to keep working every day to pass our agenda of less regulation, better infrastructure, more American energy, and affordable, high-quality health care. And rest assured, one more item I want to mention to you: This President is going to work with the Congress this year, and we're going to pass the largest tax cut since the days of Ronald Reagan. (Applause.) The truth is America’s tax code is one of the biggest barriers to success for working families and job creators like all of you. I love that old line that says that the Internal Revenue Code is twice as long as the Bible with none of the good news. (Laughter.) We’re going to change all that. We're going to cut taxes across the board for working families, small businesses, and family farms. We’re going to simplify the tax code by cutting seven brackets down to three. We’ll eliminate the alternative minimum tax. We’ll make the code flatter and fairer and simpler for everyone. And particularly important to retailers around America, particularly small-town, family retailers, under President Donald Trump, we’re going to repeal death taxes once and for all. Death will no longer be a taxable event. (Applause.) And when it comes to your businesses, our tax plan is going to put American companies, including our retailers, back on a path to jobs and growth and better competitiveness. Our corporate tax rate -- it’s remarkable to think -- is one of the highest in the developed world. Our outdated system of worldwide taxation literally penalizes companies for being headquartered in America. But not for long. President Trump’s plan is to slash the business tax rate to 15 percent. We’ll enact a territorial tax that’s in line with the rest of the world. We're going to cut taxes on the trillions of dollars that are locked away overseas so that American companies can invest those dollars in American workers, American jobs, and America’s future. (Applause.) President Trump’s tax-cut plan will empower your companies to compete on a level playing field with businesses anywhere in the world, and as we all know, when the field is level, American business always win. The truth is President Trump’s agenda is going to make the strongest economy in the world stronger still, and I believe that every business that's represented here will benefit from the historic accomplishments that lie ahead. But as I leave, I want to challenge each one of you leaders in this country, leaders in the communities that you represent to stand with this President as he advocates an agenda built on American principles that will generate a boundless American future. I encourage you during this time in our Nation’s Capital to let your voice be heard. As you reach out to our elected representatives, tell them you're counting on them supporting the President’s agenda -- less regulation, lower taxes, better infrastructure. And while you're at it, tell them the time is now to repeal and replace Obamacare. The truth is President Trump is fighting every single day for all of you and all of the people that you serve in all of your various outlets. He knows that your success is America’s success, and every community large and small is testament to this fact. We have an opportunity. The President and I believe we have a responsibility to usher in a new era of jobs, of growth, of opportunity, and prosperity built on American principles -- timeless American principles of growth. And we have a duty to bring about the best and brightest future for all who are blessed to call our nation home. And this we know we will do because we have faith -- faith in the boundless capacity of the American people to revive this nation’s economy and grow again. I have faith this President’s vision for America and his determination to drive forward an agenda for this country that will renew and revive the prosperity of our land. And I have faith that He who has ever had His hand on this nation from its very beginning will yet bless America. And so I say with confidence, together with all of you and with Donald Trump in the White House: We will make America safe again. We will make America prosperous again. And to borrow a phrase, we will Make America Great Again. Thank you very much. God bless you all and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) END 10:51 A.M. EDT
Washington Convention Center Washington, D.C. 8:48 P.M. EDT THE VICE PRESIDENT: Hello, CUFI! (Applause.) Thank you, Pastor John Hagee, Ambassador Dermer, distinguished members of Congress, honored guests, my fellow believers and friends, it is humbling for me to be before you today to join you at the 12th annual summit of the largest pro-Israel organization in the United States of America -- Christians United for Israel! (Applause.) It’s great to be back with so many friends. And to all of you -- I bring greetings from another friend. I just left him a few moments ago. He is a leader, a believer, and a tireless friend of the Jewish state of Israel -- the 45th President of the United States, President Donald Trump. (Applause.) Thanks to the support of so many in this room and your prayers, last November President Trump won a historic victory -- more counties than any President since Ronald Reagan, 30 of 50 states -- no Republican had carried in a generation. The truth is President Donald Trump turned the blue wall red, and you made it happen. (Applause.) Now as the Good Book says: If you owe debts, pay debts. If honor, then honor. If respect, then respect. And I’m really here on the President’s behalf and on our entire team’s behalf to pay a debt of gratitude to all of you who helped elect a President who is fighting every single day to defend faith, restore freedom, and strengthen America’s unbreakable bond with our most cherished ally, Israel. (Applause.) Just last month, President Trump made a historic visit to Israel. I know all of you were watching from afar. One of the very first countries our President visited since he took office, standing in Jerusalem, in that ancient and holy city, our President declared for all the world to hear that under his leadership, the United States of America “will always stand with Israel.” (Applause.) In Jerusalem, our President said that the bond between America and Israel in his words “is woven together in the hearts of our people” -- and Christians United for Israel proves this statement true every single day all across this country. You know, it was only 11 years ago that my friend Pastor John Hagee had the courage and the vision to unite American Christians to rally around those ancient words “for Zion’s sake, I will not keep silent.” And, Pastor John Hagee, I thank you for your leadership on behalf of this nation and the Jewish state of Israel. (Applause.) And today, through Christians United for Israel, more than 3.3 million believers have raised their voices, have not been silent in support of Israel, and you can be heard in every city and town across America and in every office on Capitol Hill. And rest assured, the man down the street at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue hears you, too. (Applause.) Now for my part, Karen and I have always treasured our relationship with Christians United for Israel. I had the honor to speak to this great group when I was a member of Congress. I worked hand-in-hand with CUFI when I was governor of the state of Indiana. And with the support and prayers of men and women gathered in this room, I’m proud to say in my last year as governor, it was my great privilege to sign one of the strongest anti-BDS laws in the America to ensure that our state never does business with those who seek to inflict financial damage on Israel. (Applause.) Because boycott, divestment, and sanctions have no place in my home state and no place in America. (Applause.) It’s humbling to stand before you today for another reason because it was just one year ago this past weekend that the phone rang at the governor’s residence, and there was a familiar voice on other line. And I remember when that call came and when the invitation came to join this national ticket, I couldn’t help but think of that ancient verses: Who am I and who is my family, that you’ve brought me this far? So tonight, let me just take a moment to thank all of you men and women of CUFI, and all those you represent around America, thank you for your friendship, your support, and your prayers every step of the way on the journey my little family has taken throughout my career. It’s hard for me to express before you friends of so many years the humility and gratitude I feel today to stand before you today as the 48th Vice President of the United States of America. From the bottom of my heart, thank you. (Applause.) My friends, to look at Israel is to see that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob keeps his promises, keeps the promises He makes to His people and to each one of us. Ezekiel prophesized: “Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live.” And the State of Israel and her people bear witness to God’s faithfulness, as well as their own. How unlikely was Israel’s birth, how more unlikely has been her survival, and how confounding, against the odds, has been her thriving. Since the moment of their independence, the Jewish people have awed the world with their strength of will and their strength of character. Indeed, anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear must acknowledge that Israel is a living testimony to the power of hope over hate and so will she always be. (Applause.) The Jewish people have turned the desert into a garden, sickness into health, scarcity into plenty, despair into hope, and slander into blessings -- rebuking all who condemn them; not for what they do wrong, but for what they do right. And under President Donald Trump, if the world knows nothing else, the world will know this: America stands with Israel. Now and always. (Applause.) President Trump and I stand with Israel for the same reason every freedom-loving American stands with Israel -- because her cause is our cause, her values are our values, and her fight is our fight. And President Trump is actually a lifelong friend of Israel. I’ve seen his passion firsthand in the President’s deep affection for Israel. The morning after the election, I was actually in the room when Prime Minister Netanyahu called to congratulate the President on his great victory. I heard President Trump express his unwavering support for Israel and the Jewish people that morning, support he reiterated when he welcomed the Prime Minister to the White House. And just last month, the world saw our President’s commitment to Israel during that visit to Jerusalem, when President Donald Trump declared that America’s “deep and lasting friendship” with Israel will only in his words “grow deeper and stronger as we work together in the days ahead.” (Applause.) For my part, like all of you, my passion for Israel springs from my Christian faith. The songs of the land and the people of Israel were the anthems of my youth. As for me and my house, we pray for the peace of Jerusalem and all who call her home. It’s really the greatest privilege of my life to serve as Vice President to a President who cares so deeply for our most cherished ally. And let me say with confidence to all gathered here and to all of the watching world, President Trump and I stand without apology for Israel today. We will stand without apology for Israel tomorrow, and President Donald Trump and I will stand with the Israel always -- of that you may be assured. (Applause.) You just need to look at the actions our President has taken since he took office. Like when he named Governor Nikki Haley to be America’s Ambassador to the United Nations. (Applause.) At the President’s direction, Ambassador Haley has been standing up for America and she’s been standing up for Israel. And as Ambassador Haley said just a short while ago, in her words, “The days of Israel-bashing at the United Nations are over.” (Applause.) And the President also named David Friedman to represent our country in Israel as our ambassador. David is an unabashed advocate for a stronger America-Israel relationship, and our friendship is already stronger with him in our embassy in Israel. And to the men and women of Christians United for Israel, this President hears you. This President stands with you. And I promise you that the day will come when President Donald Trump moves the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It is not a question of if, it is only when. (Applause.) President Trump is also personally committed to helping the parties resolve the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In addition to his own visit to Israel, the President has dispatched several of his top advisors to help guide negotiations. But our President I can assure knows any peace requires an end to the incitement of hatred, an end to any support whatsoever of terrorism. And above all else, a lasting peace requires true and complete Palestinian willingness to accept and recognize the Jewish state of Israel. (Applause.) And while there will undoubtedly have to be compromises, let me assure all of you gathered here today, President Donald Trump will never compromise the safety and security of the Jewish state of Israel -- not now, not ever. (Applause.) Since the moment of its birth, there has hardly been a day when Israelis have lived without war, or the fear of war, or the grim reality of terror. We were reminded of this just last Friday, when three gunmen ambushed a group of Israeli police officers in the very heart of Jerusalem. Two brave officers were murdered in this barbaric act of terrorism. We mourn with those who mourn and grieve with those who grieve. We grieve with the families of these fallen heroes of Israel, and the prayers of our President, our family, and all who cherish Israel are with these heroic law enforcement officers and their families. (Applause.) And so is our resolve. President Trump has made it clear: America stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel, as together we confront those enemies who threaten our people, our freedom, and our very way of life. America and Israel are united together as friends and allies in the West. Just a few weeks ago, in Warsaw, Poland -- home to so much Jewish history, and so much Jewish heartache, our President defined our struggle with moral clarity, courage, and vision more than any President since Ronald Reagan when President Trump declared in his words: “The West will never, ever be broken. Our values will prevail. Our people will thrive, and our civilization will triumph.” (Applause.) We will triumph because our courage and conviction cannot be matched, and for that matter, neither can our strength. Today, America’s support for Israel’s security is at record levels. And America now has a President who is fighting every day to rebuild our military. And under President Donald Trump I promise you we're going to rebuild this military. We're going to restore the arsenal of democracy. And we're once again going to give our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guard the resources and training they need and deserve to accomplish their mission and come home safe. (Applause.) In President Trump, America once again has a leader who will stand with our allies and stand up to our enemies. And this President calls our enemies by their name. And at this very moment I’m proud to report, the Armed Forces of the United States of America are taking the fight to ISIS terrorist on our terms and on their soil. And under this Commander-in-Chief, we will continue to fight ISIS until we wipe them off the face of the Earth. (Applause.) And under President Trump America will continue to stand strong, continue to stand strong in the face of the leading state sponsor of terrorism. President Trump has put Iran on notice: America will no longer tolerate Iran’s efforts to destabilize the region and jeopardize Israel’s security. And let me be clear on this point: Under President Donald Trump, the United States of America will not allow Iran to develop a useable nuclear weapon. This is our solemn promise to the American people, to the people of Israel, and to the world. (Applause.) So we stand with Israel. We stand with Israel today and every day, because the American people throughout our history have always cherished Israel. We stand with Israel because our bond was knit millennia ago in the finery of faith. And we stand with Israel because millions of Americans throughout the generations of this country have embraced that ancient truth and admonition that He will bless those who bless her, and he will curse those who curse her. Indeed, though Israel was built by human hands, it is impossible not to sense that just beneath its history, lies the hand of heaven. (Applause.) Over the mantle of our home, since the year I was first elected to Congress, are framed words that have long inspired my family. We had them over the fireplace in our home in a small town in southern Indiana. We had them over the fireplace at the governor’s residence in Indianapolis, and now they hang over the mantle of the home of the Vice President of the United States. They're words of confidence and faith. They're words to which my family has repaired to as generations of Americans have done so throughout our history, and the people of Israel through all their storied history have clung. They come from the Book of Jeremiah, and it simply reads: “For I know the plans I have for you, plans to prosper you, and not to harm you, plans to give you a hope, and a future.” These words are as true today for all people of faith as they were in millennia past. And so I encourage you to embrace them. I urge the men and women of Christians United for Israel to cling to that hope and that promise, and I urge you to do particularly what you’ve done exceedingly well these many years, to continue to bow the head, to bend the knee, and to pray. Pray for our most cherished ally. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem and pray that God will continue to bless America. And when you pray, pray with confidence because our God is a faithful God, and He will guide us, and He will guard us as we go forth and do His work. (Applause.) And so I thank you for the honor of joining you once again in this new capacity. And I close tonight saying simply from my heart as I look out on this shining crowd, and I see the support that you represent all across this country for our most cherished ally. And I have faith. I have faith that with God’s help and with the men and women gathered here, with all those who cherish Israel, and with President Donald Trump in the White House, the best days for Israel and for America together are yet to come. (Applause.) Thank you. God bless you. God bless the Jewish state of Israel and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) END 9:12 P.M. EDT
JOHN BOLTON: Trump must withdraw from Iran nuclear deal — now. President Trump has repeatedly made clear his view that the Iran deal was a diplomatic debacle. It is not renegotiable, as some argue, because there is no chance that Iran, designated by Ronald Reagan as a state sponsor of terrorism in January 1984, will […]
Во время учения Ѕеа Breeze в Одессе Порошенко снова вспомнил о Плане действий относительно членства Украины в НАТО.
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.