Earlier today President Donald Trump signed HR244 into law.  The provisional spending bill that funds government through September 30th, the end of fiscal year 2017.

There has been a great deal of anxiety amid punditry about the spending outline itself, and the spending priorities as determined by both houses of congress.  Some of the criticism is warranted, most is not.

The basic principle the entire professional political class seem to overlook is the reasoning for the CR itself.  Congress has been unable to fulfill its budgetary obligation since 2007.

In fact, the last federal budget (fiscal year ’08) was signed into law in September of 2007.  By the conclusion of this CR it will have been an entire decade without a federal budget.

Perspective: ♦ Over half of all elected federal politicians have never held elected office in any year with a federal budget in place.  ♦ Almost two-thirds of Republicans in congress have never known a federal budget for a single day in office.

THAT FACT should be the target of the ire from all Americans, particularly conservatives.  However, hypocritically, it is not.

For some reason ankle-biters, antagonists, and crony constitutional punditry amid the various CONservative outlets, choose instead to focus their criticism toward the first president in our lifetime to actually deliver on conservative policy, conservative values and expressed policy objectives/outcomes that benefit all common sense Americans.

A pox belongs on the hypocritical houses, columns, shows, radio broadcasts and panel segments of current critics who watched it all unfold.  My cold anger does not provide room for me to give any f**ks toward such inane and disingenuously hypocritical positions.  Sorry for cussing, but sheeesh.

In short, stuff it – there’s actual work to be done.

Having said that, My President rightly qualifies his signature today and delivers congressional notification of how the 2,000 page omnibus spending bill will be interpreted:

Today I have signed into law H.R. 244, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, which authorizes appropriations that fund the operation of the Federal Government through September 30, 2017.

Certain provisions of this bill (e.g., Division C, sections 8049, 8058, 8077, 8081, and 8116; Division J, under the heading “Contribution for International Peacekeeping Activities”) would, in certain circumstances, unconstitutionally limit my ability to modify the command and control of military personnel and materiel or unconstitutionally vest final decision-making authority in my military advisers.  Further, Division B, section 527; Division C, section 8101; and Division F, section 517 each restrict the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States; Division C, section 8103 restricts the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to foreign countries and does not include an exception for when a court might order the release of a detainee to certain countries.  I will treat these, and similar provisions, consistently with my constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.

Certain provisions (e.g., Division C, sections 8040, 8075, 8114, 9005, 9011, 9014, and under the headings “Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide,” “Afghanistan Security Forces Fund,” “Counter-ISIL Train and Equip Fund,” and “Joint Improvised Threat Defeat Fund”) require advance notice to the Congress before the President may direct certain military actions or provide certain forms of military assistance.  In approving this bill, I wish to reiterate the longstanding understanding of the executive branch that these types of provisions encompass only military actions for which providing advance notice is feasible and consistent with my constitutional authority and duty as Commander in Chief to protect national security.

Numerous provisions could, in certain circumstances, interfere with the exercise of my constitutional authorities to negotiate international agreements (e.g., Division B, sections 509, 519, 530; Division J, sections 7010(c), 7013(a), 7025(c), 7029, 7031(e)(2), 7037, 7042, 7043, 7044, 7045, 7048, 7060, 7070, and 7071), to receive ambassadors (e.g., Division J, section 7031(c)), and to recognize foreign governments (e.g., Division J, section 7070(b)(2)(A)).  My Administration will treat each of these provisions consistently with my constitutional authorities in the area of foreign relations.

Division E, section 622 prohibits the use of funds to pay the salaries and expenses for several advisory positions in the White House.  The President has well-established authority to supervise and oversee the executive branch and to obtain advice in furtherance of this supervisory authority.  The President also has the prerogative to obtain advice that will assist him in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, not only from executive branch officials and employees outside the White House, but also from advisers within it.  Legislation that significantly impedes my ability to supervise or obtain the views of appropriate senior advisers violates the separation of powers by undermining my ability to exercise my constitutional responsibilities, including to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.  My Administration will, therefore, construe section 622 consistently with these Presidential prerogatives.

Division B, section 537 provides that the Department of Justice may not use any funds to prevent implementation of medical marijuana laws by various States and territories.  I will treat this provision consistently with my constitutional responsibility to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Several provisions (e.g., Division C, section 10006(b); Division D, section 401; Division J, section 7041(b)(3); Division N, sections 310, 311, 402, 502(d), and 503) mandate or regulate the submission of certain executive branch information to the Congress.  I will treat these provisions in a manner consistent with my constitutional authority to withhold information that could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the executive branch, or the performance of my constitutional duties.  In particular, Division E, section 713(1) and (2) prohibits the use of appropriations to pay the salary of any Federal officer or employee who interferes with or prohibits certain official communications between Federal employees and Members of Congress or who takes adverse action against an officer or employee because of such communications.  I will construe these provisions not to apply to any circumstances that would detract from my authority to supervise, control, and correct employees’ communications with the Congress related to their official duties, including in cases where such communications would be unlawful or could reveal confidential information protected by executive privilege.

Division C, section 8009 prohibits the use of funds to initiate a special access program unless the congressional defense committees receive 30 days’ advance notice.  The President’s authority to classify and control access to information bearing on the national security flows from the Constitution and does not depend upon a legislative grant of authority.  Although I expect to be able to provide the advance notice contemplated by section 8009 in most situations as a matter of comity, situations may arise in which I must act promptly while protecting certain extraordinarily sensitive national security information.  In these situations, I will treat these sections in a manner consistent with my constitutional authorities, including as Commander in Chief.

Several provisions (e.g., Division C, section 8134; Division J, section 7063; and Division K, section 418) prohibit the use of funds to deny an Inspector General access to agency records or documents.  I will construe these, and similar provisions, consistently with my authority to control the dissemination of information protected by executive privilege.

Several provisions prohibit the use of funds to recommend legislation to the Congress (e.g., Division A, section 716; Division C, sections 8005, 8014, 8070(a)(2), 8076; and Division H, section 210), or require recommendations of legislation to the Congress (e.g., Division C, section 8012(b), 8035(b); Division F, section 532; Division G, sections 101, 102, and a proviso under the heading “Administrative Provisions—Forest Service”; Division N, sections 605(c) and 610).  Because the Constitution gives the President the authority to recommend “such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient” (Article II, section 3), my Administration will continue to treat these, and similar provisions, as advisory and non-binding.

Numerous provisions authorize congressional committees to veto a particular use of appropriated funds (e.g., Division C, section 8058), or condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees (e.g., Division A, sections 702, 706, and 717; Division D, sections 101(a) and 201(a); Division G, sections 403 and 409; Division K, sections 188, 222, 405 and 406).  These are impermissible forms of congressional aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by enactment of statutes.  My Administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, but it will not treat spending decisions as dependent on the approval of congressional committees.

My Administration shall treat provisions that allocate benefits on the basis of race, ethnicity, and gender (e.g., Division B, under the heading “Minority Business Development”; Division C, sections 8016, 8021, 8038, and 8042; Division H, under the headings “Departmental Management Salaries and Expenses,” “School Improvement Programs,” and “Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Program Account”; Division K, under the heading “Native American Housing Block Grants”; and Division K, section 213) in a manner consistent with the requirement to afford equal protection of the laws under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.

DONALD J. TRUMP –  THE WHITE HOUSE,  May 5, 2017.

Allow me to clarify for the annoying gnats with an apt methaphor.

President Trump arrived at the White House as it was burning down from the prior 15 years of inherently corrupt, and in many cases absent, fiscal policy.

The national debt doubled in one single administration as hoards of special interests raided the national treasury.  Congress did squat to prevent the theft; and in many cases a solid argument can be made that they actually participated in the raiding.

Simultaneous to this arrival, the most dangerous nuclear military threat since the Cuban missile crisis was laid directly at the feet of the incoming administration, North Korea.

Through the prior four administrations (Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama, Obama) no concrete policy to stop the nuclear threat from growing was at the forefront of national security policy.

However, worse than not doing anything to stop it, the prior administrations’ did nothing to prepare the nation for the possibility of the worst case scenario: their inability to stop it.

The reality of this landscape is what President Trump addressed upon arrival.

With this North Korea crisis stark and looming, the first priority of President Trump has been to immediately build-up a military force so that we at least have a preventative option in the event diplomacy fails, and a worst case scenario evidences itself.

As a direct and real consequence, the military spending WAS/IS the top short-term budgetary priority for a long-term survival need.   President Trump let everyone know  national security via the military investment need was priority number one; because the reality is: the threat from North Korea is national security issue number one.

That urgent financial objective, to fund the restoration of a strong military, was met.

The rest, all other priorities, can and will be addressed in an actual budget for fiscal year 2018 that has been put forth by President Trump.

And, I’m sure, our president will go to the mattresses if needed to fight for the next level priorities to complete the policy objectives of his administration.

Remember these words: “either we have a country or we don’t”…

….Everything else, as important as each “else” might be, is details.

The federal April jobs report shows a gain of 211,000 new jobs amid a 2.5% year-over-year growth in wages, bringing the latest national unemployment rate to 4.4% or what the federal economists call the ‘cusp’ of full employment.  They are, well, ‘positioning’ an advanced narrative.

DATA – •Construction payrolls rose by 5,000; •manufacturing payrolls increased by 6,000; •leisure and hospitality payrolls jumped by 55,000; •professional and business services payrolls rose by 39,000; •healthcare and social assistance employment increased by 36,800; •retail payrolls gained 6,300.

That’s the official interpretation of what the jobs gains mean.  However, to reconcile the “slacking” the quantifying economists are now halving the customary growth figure used for inbound newly economically matriculated workers.

Historically it takes 150k new monthly jobs to retain employment rates as static; therefore any job growth beyond 150k must lower the unemployment rate. The fed is now using 70-100k as the new labor market number to retain stasis.

Bloomberg – […] Removed from the weather-related distortions of the previous three months, the April figures indicate solid trends in employment, while measures of those left behind in the recovery — favored by Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen and President Donald Trump alike — are at or near pre-recession levels.

While the tighter labor market failed to translate to a breakout in wages in April, analysts are penciling in bigger paychecks in the months to come.

“Labor-market slack is getting absorbed pretty quickly,” said Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Amherst Pierpont Securities LLC. “As long as the labor market is tightening as it has been recently, it’s a very safe bet that we’re going to see wages accelerate.”  (link)

Overall, the economy is doing what we anticipated it would do.  But it is also important to remember we are in the space between two economies which are impacted by a change in policy.  Prior fiscal policy was driven to the benefit of ‘Wall Street’s’ economic engine. Trump policy is driven to the benefit of ‘Main Street’s’ economic engine.  We are in the space created during the shift in fiscal emphasis.

Politically speaking the fed is positioning on behalf of ‘the big club’.  Remember, behind all of the expressed data, policies, impacts and outcomes, are people – connected people.  They run in the same circles, attend the same meetings, host the same cocktail class circuit etc.  There are influential people, mostly globalists, behind federal economic policy.  This is the economic influencing group we call ‘the big club’.

You can see the agenda in its formative stage being constructing within media excerpts, usually buried.  If you know how to spot the catch phrases, and you know the general disposition of the club, you can see the narrative form.  That economic narrative will eventually translate into legislative action.

Watch closely, emphasis mine:

(Via AP) […] The labor force participation rate, or the share of working-age Americans who are employed or at least looking for a job, fell to 62.9 percent from an 11-month high of 63 percent in March. It has rebounded from a multi-decade low of 62.4 percent in September 2015, and economists see limited room for further improvement as the pool of discouraged workers shrinks.

[…] there are signs wage growth is accelerating as labor market slack diminishes. A government report last week showed private-sector wages recorded their biggest gain in 10 years in the first quarter.

With the labor market expected to hit a level consistent with full employment this year, payroll gains could slow amid growing anecdotal evidence that firms are struggling to find qualified workers. That could also boost wages. (read more)

We shared two years ago, right after candidate Trump announced, that his economic policy objectives -if instituted- would necessarily drive middle-class wages higher, Bigly.

The Trumponomic formula is a long-term strategic policy, with quick results; because he immediately flips the beneficial emphasis on the two economic engines.

Wall Street becomes “less than”, and Main Street becomes “more than”.   Drive main-street policy and you necessarily drive middle-class wage rates.

[…]  As the wage rate increases, and as the economy expands, the governmental dependency model is reshaped and simultaneously receipts to the U.S. treasury improve.   More money into the U.S Treasury and less dependence on welfare programs have a combined exponential impact.  You gain a dollar, and have no need to spend a dollar.  That is how the SSI and safety net programs are saved under President Trump. (more)

The Big Club are not inherently favorable to growth in wage-rates, it’s against their interests.  Free market profit margins are squeezed when productivity is strong and wage-rates (payrolls) increase.

For three decades U.S. productivity measures have skyrocketed, jaw-droppingly so.   The production value (output) of a single U.S. worker, in comparison to the cost of that worker (wages) is at historic highs.

Now we see the big club positioning to try and keep wage rates from growing.  This is the basis for their ‘open-border’ ‘global-worker’ outlook.  The tell-tale indicators are surfacing where they will begin demanding high levels of low to moderate skill immigration, ergo comprehensive immigration reform.  [This Make Sense Now]

The “full employment” measure, is false.  There are millions of workers within the U.S. who can/will upgrade their own employment if the market price for their employment increases (wages). However, this process is antithetical to the best interests of the big club.

Their arguments are easy to deconstruct.  If “full employment” was accurate, then why are there historic numbers of people on welfare programs?

The “full employment” measure/narrative  is how the big club positions their legislative sales pitch.  It’s a political game; the politicians are the paid performance artists who create the legislative policy of the people who pay for it.

.

The House of Representative have passed the ObamaCare Repeal/Replacement bill by a final vote of 217-213.

Over the next few weeks/months the bill will work through the Senate and then return to the House to reconcile any differences.  The House bill takes the increasing, costly IRS tax/penalties on ObamaCare down to $0 – effectively crippling the individual mandate and the employer mandate.

President Trump will hold a 3:30pm EDT celebratory news conference at the White House, and GOP lawmakers are expected to take buses from Capitol Hill to attend. Mitch McConnell and 52 republican senators now have the challenge of passage.

WH Live Stream Link – Alternate Live Stream

The various media pundits and news stories are calling H.R. 1180 a “new overtime bill”.  However, in reality the ‘take pay or take time off’ concept is more than 50 years old; we used to call it “compensatory time” or “comp time”.

WASHINGTON – […] Voting along party lines, the House of Representatives passed a bill Tuesday that would allow private-sector employers to compensate their overtime-working employees with paid time off instead of paying them time-and-a-half as currently required.

The bill, H.R. 1180, would tweak the Fair Labor Standards Act, which mandates employers that require hourly-paid employees to work more than 40 hours a week to pay time-and-a-half, or 1.5 times their usual hourly rate. The bill also prohibits employers from coercing or intimidating employees to choose time off instead of overtime pay.

House Republicans passed the bill, sponsored by Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala.), with no Democrats voting in favor. The bill will now go to the Senate, where it will require 60 votes to avoid a filibuster by Democrats. (read more)

The professionally Democrat hate the concept, but most Democrat politicians have zero experience in understanding how incredibly beneficial compensatory time can be.

Many of us came from an era when “compensatory time” was a fantastic way for people to utilize it to make their lives much easier.

The basic principle can be awesome for employees for a variety of reasons.  However, few young workers today have an understanding of how it works.

Say you work 60 hours in a week.  If ‘compensatory time’ options are available you can take your standard 40 hour paycheck and defer the 20 overtime hours to future time off at the OT rate of time-and-a-half (20 x 1.5), gaining you 30 hours of comp time.

Historically this was an excellent way for middle-class young people to attend college and still get a consistent paycheck.   You work five weeks at 70 hours per week and the 150 overtime hours convert to 225 paid comp time hours.  That’s six weeks off and you are still getting a paycheck.

I know dozens of people who worked long hours in the summer, and Thanksgiving/Christmas holiday breaks, building up enough comp-time so they received a paycheck throughout their entire college terms when they were not working.

Even more people used comp-time as a bank to save up time off for childbirth or other family plans where they could take big chunks of time off work and still get paid consistently.

Additionally, even more people used partial ‘comp-time’ as way to work periods of only part-time (2 days a week etc.) but still be paid for the entire week filling in the other 3 days with comp-time.  This was the preferred practice for working students during college semesters; there was never a downside.

Nothing was ever forced it was simply an option.  Take the overtime pay, or bank the overtime as paid time off.  It was a great system and provided numerous benefits while simultaneously allowing the business to control payroll and labor cost efficiencies.

Season businesses really liked comp-time because it meant they could ramp up hours worked during peak business periods, and not have to lay-off workers in the slower periods because the workers converted the previous work hours into time-off with pay.  It really was a win/win.

Against the backdrop of an anticipated exploding Trump economy hopefully this bill will pass the Senate and a new generation of young people and middle-class workers will be able to see the benefits such a system of pay options can provide.

Senator Elizabeth Warren is absolutely clueless on this issue.  I’ll bet she doesn’t even know a single person in her life who ever used “compensatory time” because she’s surrounded by limo-liberals who are detached from common sense workers.