We’re about 200 days into Donald Trump's presidency and Trump is proving himself to be exactly who we expected him to be as president — and the poll numbers prove it. Here’s Jennifer Agiesta’s analysis at CNN:
Six months into his presidency, Donald Trump's overall approval rating stands at its lowest point in CNN polling, while three-quarters of Americans say they can't trust most of what they hear from the White House.
Overall, 38% say they approve of Trump's handling of the presidency, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, with 56% saying they disapprove. Just one other newly-elected president has held an approval rating below 50% at this point in his presidency since modern polling began: Bill Clinton, whose approval rating stood at 44% at this point in 1993.
Enthusiasm breaks against Trump by a 2-to-1 margin. Nearly half in the new poll say they strongly disapprove of Trump's handling of the job (47%), while just a quarter say they feel strongly positive about Trump's performance (24%).
Here’s what House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi had to say:
“Instead of improving the lives of hard-working Americans, President Trump has tried to force on the American people an immoral, ineffective and expensive border wall, discriminatory new barriers to the ballot box, a degrading and disgusting policy banning transgender Americans from serving in the military and a hateful, senseless anti-immigrant agenda that instills fear in our communities and weakens our nation,” Pelosi said.
The Democratic leader also tore into congressional Republicans for “wasting months trying to tear away families’ health coverage," referencing the GOP's unsuccessful attempts to repeal ObamaCare.
Tina Nguyen looks at how Trump has lost support on Capitol Hill:
With September’s debt-ceiling vote looming over Congress, things may get worse before they get better. But for the White House, the honeymoon is already over. Senate Republicans—many of whom are not up for reelection until 2020, or even 2022—are growing more defiant of the president with every passing week, with at least a half-dozen lawmakers actively thwarting his agenda. Last month, Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski both defied the administration’s numerous attempts to pass a health-care bill through Congress, citing the effect repealing Obamacare would have on their constituents. “I didn’t come here to represent the Republican Party. I am representing my constituents and the state of Alaska,” Murkowski reportedly said to Trump’s face. In the final minutes of Mitch McConnell’s dramatic, last-ditch attempt to pass a “skinny” repeal bill, Senator John McCain joined them, crushing the administration’s hopes with a simple thumbs-down sign.
The New York Times, meanwhile, looks ahead at tax reform:
After their protracted failure to repeal Obamacare, congressional Republicans have indicated that taxes will be next on their agenda. It’s a misnomer to call their plans “tax reform,” though, because they have proposed little more than the same deep cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals that they’ve always wanted.
Real reform would honestly confront the fact that in the next decade we will need roughly $4.5 trillion more revenue than currently projected to meet our existing commitments without increasing the federal debt as a share of the economy. Even more would be needed if the government were to make greater investments to lift productivity and living standards through education, infrastructure and scientific research. Real reform would do this by diversifying methods of taxation while targeting individuals and sectors best able to pay.
While the wages of most Americans have stagnated for years, incomes of the wealthiest have soared. So it would make sense to increase the top rates on them and eliminate a break on income from investments.
Bob Dreyfuss at Rolling Stone dives into Mueller’s investigation:
Since his appointment on May 17th, Mueller, a notoriously press-shy former FBI director, has been operating behind the scenes to put together a formidable army of prosecutors, Justice Department officials and investigators. Already, Mueller's team includes 16 attorneys, along with more than 20 staff members, and it's likely more will be added as the investigation moves forward. The work of the special counsel, which began in a nondescript, temporary facility in southwest Washington, D.C., recently moved to another, secure suite of offices to more easily handle top-secret and highly classified intelligence reports that will play a crucial role in informing Mueller's mission. [...]
From the start, Mueller had a broad mandate – and it isn't limited to the question of Russia. The statement appointing Mueller authorized him to investigate "any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Trump," along with "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation," plus "any other matters within the scope" of the law. That statement also gave Mueller the job of looking into efforts by Trump or others to impede or block the inquiry.
What that means, and what's scariest for the White House, is that Mueller isn't limited just to the question of collusion between Trump and Moscow. Mueller might suspect that the ties between the Trump organization and the allied financial and real estate empire run by his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to Russian banks and various Putin-linked oligarchs, even going back years, might help explain Trump's ties to Russia – making that fair game for the special counsel's office. In addition, should any evidence of other crimes emerge while looking into the Trump-Kushner businesses – such as financial misdeeds, involvement in money-laundering or improper real estate deals, for instance – well, that too could lead to indictments.
Jeffrey Frank at The New Yorker says a Trump-Agnew comparison may be appropriate:
On September 29, 1973, Agnew flew to Los Angeles, where he played golf with Frank Sinatra, and gave a speech to a cheering crowd—a sort of West Virginia moment. He didn’t use the term “witch hunt” but he complained about “malicious leaks” and “perjured” testimony, and said that the Justice Department was trying to frame him. “I will not resign if indicted,” he said—twice—to loud applause. Eleven days later, Agnew pleaded no contest to tax evasion, saying that he did so to avoid a “long, divisive, and debilitating struggle in the Congress and the courts.” In a plea deal worked out with the Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, Agnew resigned the Vice-Presidency; in return, all other charges were dropped, he was fined ten thousand dollars, he was given three years of probation—and he avoided jail. As for a successor, Nixon chose the popular House Minority Leader, Gerald Ford, of Michigan, described by the Journal as “pleasant but plodding party wheelhorse who often speaks and apparently thinks in clichés”—in other words, not anyone’s first choice as a potential President. The Watergate scandal, meanwhile, continued for ten more months, ending with Nixon’s resignation, under threat of impeachment, on August 9, 1974—forty-three years ago this week—a narrative that’s become the template for removing Presidents who behave badly. In the age of Trump, the Agnew case, with its history of lies, greed, kickbacks, and the self-regard of its central actor, might seem the better predictor of what could come next. But then, as now, the constitutional question of whether a President, or a Vice-President, can be indicted was asked; it has never been answered.
Tom Gjelten at The Atlantic takes on Trump’s immigration proposal:
most economists say immigration has a net economic benefit and is associated more with job creation than with job loss, even though there may be negative effects for the least skilled, least educated native-born workers.
The legislation introduced by Cotton and Perdue and enthusiastically supported by the White House would aim to cut legal immigration to the United States by half, mainly by severely restricting the allocation of legal permanent residence status (green cards) on the basis of family ties. [...] Ironically, the original version of the 1965 law had a similar goal, favoring immigrants with skills considered “especially advantageous” to the United States. The priorities were changed, because critics feared that a merit-based system would open the gates to a more diverse immigrant population and thus change the demographic character of the United States.
And on a final note, Joan Vennochi at The Boston Globe calls out Trump for his attacks on Senator Blumenthal:
Just about a year ago, Donald Trump — the presidential candidate who received a draft deferment for bone spurs and called avoiding sexually transmitted diseases his “personal Vietnam” — mocked Gold Star parents who questioned what he knew about sacrifice.
So it’s no surprise that as president, Trump would feel free to attack Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut for misrepresenting his military record. Compared with attacking the parents of an army captain killed in Iraq, that barely registers as outrageous. The news is that even Trump’s newly installed chief of staff, retired Marine General John Kelly, whose son was killed in Afghanistan, can’t keep the president from shamelessly lashing out on the topic of military service.