Archives par mot-clé : video

Trump to propose big cuts to safety-net in new budget, slashing Medicaid and opening door to other limits

President Trump’s first major budget proposal on Tuesday will include massive cuts to Medicaid and call for changes to anti-poverty programs that would give states new power to limit a range of benefits, people familiar with the planning said, despite growing unease in Congress about cutting the safety net.

For Medicaid, the state-federal program that provides health care to low-income Americans, Trump’s budget plan would follow through on a bill passed by House Republicans to cut more than $800 billion over 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this could cut off Medicaid benefits for about 10 million people over the next decade.

The White House also will call for giving states more flexibility to impose work requirements for people in different kinds of anti-poverty programs, people familiar with the budget plan said, potentially leading to a flood of changes in states led by conservative governors. Many anti-poverty programs have elements that are run by both the states and federal government, and a federal order allowing states to stiffen work requirements “for able-bodied Americans” could have a broad impact in terms of limiting who can access anti-poverty payments — and for how long.

Numerous social-welfare programs grew after the financial crisis, leading to complaints from many Republicans that more should be done to shift people out of these programs and back into the workforce. Shortly after he was sworn in, Trump said, “We want to get our people off welfare and back to work. . . . It’s out of control.”

Trump’s decision to include the Medicaid cuts is significant because it shows he is rejecting calls from a number of Senate Republicans not to reverse the expansion of Medicaid that President Barack Obama achieved as part of the Affordable Care Act. The House has voted to cut the Medicaid funding, but Senate Republicans have signaled they are likely to start from scratch.

The proposed changes will be a central feature of Trump’s first comprehensive budget plan, which will be the most detailed look at how he aims to change government spending and taxes over his presidency. Although Trump and his aides have discussed their vision in broad brushes, this will be the first time they attempt to put specific numbers on many aspects of those plans, shedding light on which proposals they see making the biggest difference in reshaping government. Congress must approve of most changes in the plan before it is enacted into law.

Trump offered a streamlined version of the budget plan in March, but it dealt only with the 30 percent of government spending that is appropriated each year. In that budget, he sought a big increase in military and border spending combined with major cuts to housing, environmental protection, foreign aid, research and development.

But Tuesday’s budget will be more significant, because it will seek changes to entitlements — programs that are essentially on auto­pilot and don’t need annual authorization from Congress. The people describing the proposals spoke on the condition of anonymity because the budget had not been released publicly and the White House is closely guarding details.

The proposed changes include the big cuts to Medicaid. The White House also is expected to propose changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, though precise details couldn’t be learned. SNAP is the modern version of food stamps, and it swelled following the financial crisis as the Obama administration eased policies to make it easier for people to qualify for benefits. As the economy has improved, enrollment in the program hasn’t changed as much as many had forecast.

An average of 44 million people received SNAP benefits in 2016, down from a peak of 47 million in 2013. Just 28 million people received the benefits in 2008.

SNAP could be one of numerous programs impacted by changes in work requirements.

Josh Archambault, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Government Accountability, a conservative think tank, said that giving states the flexibility to impose work requirements could lead to a raft of changes to programs ranging from Medicaid to public housing assistance.

“One of the encouraging things about putting this in the budget is that states will see if it works,” he said. “States will try it.”

SNAP already has a work requirement, which typically cuts benefits for most able-bodied adults who don’t have children. But states were given more flexibility during the recent economic downturn to extend the benefits for a longer period, something that split conservatives at the time.

Michael Tanner, a welfare expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, said the U.S. government spends between $680 billion and $800 billion a year on anti-poverty programs, and considering wholesale changes to many of these initiatives is worthwhile, given questions about the effectiveness of how the money is spent.

‘We’re not seeing the type of gains we should be seeing for all that spending, and that would suggest its time to reform the system,” he said.

Many critics have said work requirements can include blanket ultimatums that don’t take into account someone’s age, physical or cognitive ability, or limitations put in place by the local economy. Benefits from these programs are often low, and hardly replace the income someone would earn from a job. And critics of stricter work requirements also believe it could pave the way for states to pursue even stricter restrictions, such as drug tests, that courts have often rejected.

After The Washington Post reported some of the cuts Sunday evening, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Trump was pulling “the rug out from so many who need help.”

“This budget continues to reveal President Trump’s true colors: His populist campaign rhetoric was just a Trojan horse to execute long-held, hard-right policies that benefit the ultra wealthy at the expense of the middle class,” he said.

The proposed changes to Medicaid and SNAP will be just some of several anti-poverty programs that the White House will look to change. In March, the White House signaled that it wanted to eliminate money for a range of other programs that are funded each year by Congress. This included federal funding for Habitat for Humanity, subsidized school lunches and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, which coordinates the federal response to homelessness across 19 federal agencies.

Leaked budget documents, obtained by the think tank Third Way, suggested other ways the White House plans to change anti-poverty funding. These documents show a change in the funding for Social Security’s Supplemental Security Income program, which provide cash benefits for the poor and disabled. It’s unclear, though, what those changes might look like. A White House official said the Third Way document was out-of-date and would not comment on specifics in their files.

Medicaid, SNAP and the SSI program are now classified as “mandatory” spending because they are funded each year without congressional approval.

Trump has instructed his budget director, former South Carolina congressman Mick Mulvaney, that he does not want cuts to Medicare and Social Security’s retirement program in this budget, Mulvaney recently said, but the plan may call for changes to Social Security Disability Insurance, seeking ideas for ways to move people who are able out of this program and back into the workforce.

A key element of the budget plan will be the assumption that huge tax cuts will result in an unprecedented level of economic growth. Trump recently unveiled the broad principles of what he has said will be the biggest in U.S. history, and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told a Senate panel last week that these tax cuts would end up creating trillions of dollars in new revenue, something budget experts from both parties have disputed.

The tax cuts would particularly benefit the wealthiest Americans, as Trump has proposing cutting the estate tax, capital gains and business tax rates.

“The indications are strong this budget will feature Robin-Hood-in-reverse policies in an unprecedented scale,” said Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank.

The White House will use its presumed new revenue from the tax cuts combined with broad spending cuts to claim that its changes would eliminate the budget deficit over 10 years. The budget deficit is the gap between government spending and tax revenue, and there has been a deficit in the United States every year since the end of the Clinton administration.

But the Trump administration on Tuesday will say its plan to cut spending, roll back regulations and cut taxes will bring the United States back to economic growth levels that represent about 3 percent of gross domestic product.

Mulvaney told the Federalist Society last week that the economic growth is needed to balance the budget, because spending cuts alone would be seen as too draconian.

“I think we’ve trained people to be immune to the true costs of government,” Mulvaney said. “People think government is cheaper than it is because we’ve allowed ourselves to borrow money for a long period of time and not worry about paying it back.”

Combined, the tax cuts and spending cuts on anti-poverty programs would signal a sharp reversal of Obama’s legacy by pursuing big tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, a large increase in military spending and major changes to anti-poverty programs.

Its premise is that the creation of more wealth will help all Americans succeed, and the Trump administration believes that some anti-poverty programs have created a culture of dependency that prevents people from re-entering the workforce.

White House budget proposals are a way for an administration to spell out its priorities and goals, setting benchmarks for Congress to work with as they decide how much spending to authorize. Trump has an advantage working with two chambers of Congress controlled by his own party, but even many Republicans have said they won’t back the severity of some of the cuts he has proposed, particularly in the areas of foreign aid.

Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, who played a lead role in drafting the 1997 welfare changes in Congress, said Trump will need to find new support from Republicans in Congress if he is going to achieve the welfare-related overhauls he’s seeking.

“I don’t think the Republicans on the Hill are going to feel a strong compulsion to follow the president,” Haskins said. “They are not afraid of him.”

In addition to the myriad cuts, the budget will include some new spending.

Beyond an increase in the military budget and new money for border security, the White House is expected to call for $200 billion for infrastructure projects and an additional $25 billion over 10 years for a new program designed by Ivanka Trump that would create six weeks of parental leave benefits.

Trump avoids pointing to Saudis’ human rights failings

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — As President Donald Trump opened his keynote address in Saudi Arabia, he lavished praise on the “magnificent” kingdom and “the grandeur of this remarkable place.”

Then he made clear there would be no public lecture from America on Saudi Arabia’s abysmal human rights record.

“We are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship,” Trump declared Sunday.

Trump’s willingness to set aside human rights as a principal foreign policy has been one constant in his chaotic administration. Yet the absence of any public reference to the kingdom’s treatment of women and political opponents during his two-day visit was still jarring, particularly when contrasted with his affectionate embrace of the royal family.

The closest Trump came to acknowledging the human rights situation was a call for the region’s leaders to stand together against “the oppression of women.” A White House official later said the president did raise women’s rights in his private meetings with Saudi officials, and noted that administration officials broached the topic in their talks in the lead-up to the trip. The official insisted on anonymity in order to discuss the private meetings.

To be sure, Trump’s predecessors have also forged close ties with Saudi Arabia, an important U.S. partner in the Middle East, and other nations with questionable human rights records. But in their own ways, former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush each vouched for American values in their dealings with those nations, including the kingdom.

During a 2014 trip to Riyadh, Obama met with a Saudi woman who spread awareness of domestic violence in her country and presented her with the State Department’s International Women of Courage award. His opening address to the Muslim world in 2009 also made numerous references to democracy and human rights.

Human rights were a regular part of the dialogue with the Saudis under the Bush administration. In 2004, the State Department listed the kingdom as “a country of particular concern” in its annual report on International Religious Freedom.

Saudi Arabia adheres to an ultraconservative interpretation of Islamic Shariah law where unrelated men and women are segregated in most public places. Women are banned from driving, although rights advocates have campaigned to lift that ban. Guardianship laws also require a male relative’s consent before a woman can obtain a passport, travel or marry. Often that relative is a father or husband, but in the absence of both can be the woman’s own son.

Saudi Arabia also routinely carries out executions by beheading, including some in public.

Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter and senior adviser, was more direct during an entrepreneurship roundtable with Saudi women Sunday morning, telling the participants that in every country, “women and girls continue to face unique systematic, institutional, cultural barriers, which hinder us from fully engaging in and achieving true parody of opportunity within our communities.”

“Each of you know this to be true,” she said.

Kristine Beckerle, a Saudi Arabia researcher for Human Rights Watch, said the first daughter was missing the bigger picture.

“It’s not that entrepreneurship isn’t important, but you need serious political changes so that that the laws that restrict women from functioning in the work place are reversed,” Beckerle said. “Without that, any amount of money or investment won’t go very far.”

Some lawmakers in both parties raised concerns with Trump’s reluctance to publicly vouch for U.S. values in places where people are persecuted.

“I think that would be a terrible abdication of our global leadership when it comes to advocating for people who are the subject of persecution, or imprisoned, or journalists that are thrown in jail, or people not allowed to practice their faith,” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said on CNN. “I think it would be a historic mistake for us to walk away from that.”

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who challenged Trump for the Republican presidential nomination last year, said he wouldn’t have promised to avoid the topic of human rights with the Saudis.

“That would not have been a part of a speech that I would have delivered,” Rubio said in his own appearance on CNN. “I think it’s in our national security interest to advocate for democracy and freedom and human rights, now, with a recognition that you may not get it overnight.”

Human rights didn’t go completely unnoticed on Trump’s trip. During a press briefing Saturday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson hammered Iran’s newly re-elected president for his government’s oppressive policies.

However, when reporters shouted out questions regarding Saudi Arabia’s human rights record — namely, one question about when the kingdom intends to allow women to drive — Tillerson ignored it.

___

Salama reported from Washington.

___

Follow Julie Pace at http://twitter.com/jpaceDC and Vivian Salama at http://twitter.com/vmsalama

Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

DBS digital campaign strikes gold with ‘Tat Vinci’

DBS’ latest campaign, dubbed ‘The Art of Spending’, created in collaboration with Secret Tour Hong Kong, is solely distributed on YouTube and other social media channels. Within a week, the video generated 950k views and over 12.5k reactions on Facebook. According to Queenie Lam, senior vice president at DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Limited, acquisition has also increased by over 174% post-campaign.

Lam said using digital marketing to reach the younger generation had proven very effective.

“Now that we could no longer find youngsters staying in front of the television, we have to change our approaches to reach this target segment,” she said. “Traditionally we would create a TVC and formulate OOH or digital strategies around it; in this campaign, we go digital-first, while other channels serve as supplements.”

Lam added that the video’s song was intended to be an ‘ear-worm’.

“It has to be fun, young and impressive to go viral on the internet,” she explained.

The campaign was designed to introduce the travel benefits of its credit card, DBS Compass Visa.

For “The Art of Spending”, the bank worked with renowned local influencer Tat Gor, portrays him as “Mozartat” or “Tat Vinci” in the video, and asked him to mimic art legends and figures such as Mozart, Leonardo Da Vinci, and even Jesus in the art piece “Last Supper”, to quite literally sing praise for the card.

CV1

CV2

CV 9

 

Marketing in China: How to Connect with China’s Growing Tourist Population


Dirk Eschenbacher
Founding Partner and Chief Creative Officer
Zanadu

Dirk Eschenbacher is the founding partner and chief creative officer of Zanadu, a travel service that offers luxury experiences to outbound tourists from China. He spoke with eMarketer’s David Green about the interplay between digital and physical content in brand building, being ahead of the times with a virtual reality (VR) store and how the recent development of outbound travel in China has influenced the company’s approach.

eMarketer: Zanadu operates as both a luxury travel service and a media company. What was the reasoning behind that approach?

Dirk Eschenbacher: We always felt the need to educate and inform our clients, because the Chinese travel market is very young. It’s only 10 years old. We have a strong editorial department. We have our own video in-house production capabilities to manage all our social media accounts. We have content partnerships with Youku and Tencent. We have a magazine. We have a very popular WeChat account with about 500,000 followers.

eMarketer: Zanadu opened a virtual reality concept store last year. What do you think about physical vs. digital for consumers discovering travel experiences?

Eschenbacher: Last month, our lease expired on the VR store, and it sparked a very long debate here internally. We went into VR maybe a little bit early in mid-2015. We took a really hard look at what VR delivers for us. In terms of conversion or awareness, the store is really not a major driving force, and it was pretty much built on the back of VR.

On the other hand, we would have continued if it wasn’t for the cost. I think that kind of experiential travel store experience is coming. There was just not enough traffic in the area. So instead of paying for another year and waiting for traffic to come, we decided to just close the store. But we do have a lot of offline sales from events—I would say it is 20% offline and 80% online.

eMarketer: What’s the relative importance of digital vs. other media in terms of path to purchase?

Eschenbacher: The path to purchase is very long in travel. Most people book around two, even four months in advance. If you go on an Alaska journey, you may even book a year in advance. Any content effort that you have, be it a magazine, a video, a featured article, a discount—whatever it is—it always sits in a different phase within that purchase cycle. The online content really has to be original content that people really want to read, seek out and actively share. For us, our WeChat channel is definitely the most important—being able to grow our own media platform and drive conversation through WeChat.

After the WeChat channel, we produce a lot of video, about four to six pieces per week. We have up to a million video views per week now across different channels. In terms of conversion though, it’s difficult to prove conversions from video directly to booking. Video gives you reach and awareness. I think the magazine leads to more bookings than the video, at least that are trackable.

eMarketer: So the decision to go for a print magazine is proving worthwhile?

Eschenbacher: Definitely. I think when it comes to travel, a physical object says something substantial. For us, it works a bit like a catalog. It’s a fairly new thing to have a high-end premium magazine that also works as a travel catalogue, and you can reach more people.

eMarketer: How do you structure your customer relations management [CRM] and loyalty offerings?

Eschenbacher: We are in constant contact with customers, of course, through WeChat. We have our own WeChat CRM system that wasn’t developed in-house. Then we run events for our loyal customers, like VIP appreciation dinners. They get regular mailings through the magazines, vouchers and loyalty benefits.

STB called out by Mr Miyagi for not properly crediting content on Facebook

Singapore Tourism Board (STB) has been called out for not properly attributing a video created by luxury and lifestyle magazine SENATUS. The video was of a luxury car vending machine.

The board was called out by content creator Benjamin Lee, also famously known as Mr Miyagi. Lee called out the tourism board for simply lifting the video without attribution. In response STB apologised for messing up and said it had also apologised to the content owner.

Here’s the conversation between the two that followed soon after:

Benjamin Lee STB

 

Since then STB and its creative agency TBWA Group Singapore has given a joint statement to Marketing.  Terrence Voon, director, digital and content, Singapore Tourism Board and Ara Hampartsoumian, managing director, TBWA Group Singapore said  “STB and TBWA fully respect intellectual property rights, and it is part of our processes to seek permissions for re-posted content.”

” However on 19 May, we made a genuine mistake by not obtaining required permission to use the video titled The world’s largest luxury car “vending machine” from SENATUS on the VisitSingapore Facebook page. We contacted SENATUS immediately upon learning of our mistake to offer our personal apologies and resolve the issue. We are truly sorry for this oversight and will be reviewing our processes to prevent a recurrence.”

Marketing has also reached out to SENATUS for a statement.

Meanwhile content creator Lee, who is also a creative director of social media at DDB’s Tribal Worldwide Singapore, told Marketing that more people need to be educated on online intellectual property rights.

“You can’t just rip and reproduce other creators’ work, and claim you’ve attributed by just linking because the original work then doesn’t get the views it deserves. Additionally, the right thing to do when it was pointed out, was to have immediately taken down the offending, and illegal duplicated video. What made it worse was that the ripped video was of a very poor resolution,” he said.

He added that while his comments on STB’s page were personal, it is an issue he feels strongly about both privately and professionally.

The GOP’s biggest budget lies: Take these down, and progressives will start to win

In mid-March, President Donald Trump’s “skinny budget” proposal drew widespread criticism for its short-sightedness, senseless cruelty and betrayal of his base. It was bad for science, education, the environment and public health, and even for Norman Rockwell-style popular programs like Meals on Wheels. Congressional Republicans freely criticized it immediately, despite its red-meat military spending hikes. “These increases in defense come at the expense of national security,” said renowned hawk Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., referring to Trump’s proposed deep cuts to diplomatic and foreign aid programs. But in early May, the budget deal to keep the government open was a clear victory for Democrats, leading Trump to call for a government shutdown in frustration.

That’s hardly the end of the budget fight, though. Both Trump and congressional Republicans are preparing to do it all over again, despite how unpopular the first go-round was, and despite how damaged they are politically by the widening Trump-Russia scandal. Which is why it makes sense to take a step back and look at some of the big-picture lies shared by all Republicans — and far too many Democrats as well.

Three of these in particular completely disorient any attempt at sane, sensible budget discussions: First, the idea that the debt is a huge problem and should form a framework for budgetary decision-making. Second, that the debt is due to social spending, mostly on the welfare state. Third, that Republicans are “more responsible” and “better managers” than Democrats. For Democrats and progressives to win this fight — both short-term and long-term — they will have to take on these big lies. Let’s examine each of them in turn.

The idea of the federal debt as a huge problem has a very long history. Andrew Jackson was the only president to ever get rid of the debt — which he hated especially because of his own personal experience — but that lasted less than two years. The dominant rhetoric — echoed by President Barack Obama in 2011 — is to see national debt as household debt writ large, reflected in the title of his weekly radio address on Feb. 12 of that year, “It’s Time Washington Acted as Responsibly as Our Families Do.

Obama framed his address in terms of a story told to him in a letter from a woman named Brenda Breece, a special-ed teacher in Missouri whose husband had to take early retirement after nearly four decades working at a local Chrysler plant. They had to scrimp and save, but that’s not all. “Like so many families, they are sacrificing what they don’t need so they can afford what really matters,” putting their daughter through college, Obama said. Then he continued:

Families across this country understand what it takes to manage a budget. They understand what it takes to make ends meet without forgoing important investments like education. Well, it’s time Washington acted as responsibly as our families do. And on Monday, I’m proposing a new budget that will help us live within our means while investing in our future. 

My budget freezes annual domestic spending for the next five years — even on programs I care deeply about — which will reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade. 

At Washington Monthly’s blog, Steven Benen said it showed how to use the wrong comparison the right way,” since Republicans were bound to invoke that very same “family budget” metaphor, but without the emphasis on investing in the future. It was a valid point, of course, and surely reflected how Obama himself must have felt. But that’s really only a defensive parry, and fundamentally at odds with the sweeping promise of “hope and change” on which Obama was elected in 2008. Benen passed over that, but he did point out how fundamentally wrong this rhetoric was:

The line has a certain intuitive charm that much of the public likes, which masks how wrong it is — the government needs to step up even more to keep the economy going when families and businesses pull back. It’s how FDR and Democrats ended the Great Depression in the 1930s, and how Obama and Dems prevented a sequel in 2009.

The need for government to spend more when private spending falters is one of the most basic insights of macroeconomics. It goes to heart of why macroeconomics and microeconomics are different fields, each with its own logic. How whole economies work differs from how individual economic entities do, just as team performance differs from individual performance in any team sport.

The insight — long neglected — dates back to Bernard Mandeville’s controversial 1714 book, “The Fable of the Bees: or, Private Vices, Public Benefits.” Thrift might be individually virtuous, Mandeville argued, but general prosperity was increased by expenditure rather than by saving. It was actually a difficult struggle for Franklin D. Roosevelt to realize this. A brief summary page from the FDR library tells the tale: “FDR: From Budget Balancer to Keynesian.” Roosevelt started out as a conventional thinker, in basic economics:

Roosevelt believed that a balanced budget was important to instill confidence in consumers, business, and the markets, which would thus encourage investment and economic expansion. As the economy recovered, tax revenues would increase making budget balancing even easier. This traditional view that deficits were bad was also supported by public opinion polls.

But these beliefs simply didn’t match the dire conditions of the times. So for years Roosevelt maintained his fundamental belief, bracketing it with the recognition that he faced an extraordinary situation:

From 1933 to 1937, FDR maintained his belief in a balanced budget, but recognized the need for increased government expenditures to put people back to work. Each year, FDR submitted a budget for general expenditures that anticipated a balanced budget, with the exception of government expenditures for relief and work programs.

All through this time, Roosevelt assumed that once the emergency had passed, things would return to normal, the extraordinary measures would be put away and a balanced budget would return. He argued passionately for the basic human decency of the path he embarked on, in a speech during his 1936 re-election campaign:

To balance our budget in 1933 or 1934 or 1935 would have been a crime against the American people. To do so we should either have had to make a capital levy that would have been confiscatory, or we should have had to set our face against human suffering with callous indifference. When Americans suffered, we refused to pass by on the other side. Humanity came first.

It was only after that, however, that Roosevelt had his own rude awakening. In 1937, he did as he had always promised, based on how much things had improved:

From 1933 to 1937, unemployment had been reduced from 25% to 14% — still a large percentage, but a vast improvement. FDR’s reaction was to turn back to the fiscal orthodoxy of the time, and he began to reduce emergency relief and public works spending in an effort to truly balance the budget.

The result was a renewed economic plunge — the recession of 1937-8. It was only in response to this unexpected turn of events that FDR finally adjusted his fundamental frame of reference. Some of his advisers still pushed for the conventional balanced-budget approach, but others accepted the theories of John Maynard Keynes, who argued that “permanent budget deficits or other measures (such as redistribution of income away from the wealthy)” were necessary “to stimulate consumption of goods and to maintain full employment.” Consequently, it was “the reduction of federal spending that these advisers viewed as the cause of the recession,” and FDR came to agree. In is 1938 annual message to Congress, he defended his decision, noting how self-contradictory his critics were:

We have heard much about a balanced budget, and it is interesting to note that many of those who have pleaded for a balanced budget as the sole need now come to me to plead for additional government expenditures at the expense of unbalancing the budget. 

With the onset of World War II, opposition to deficit spending vanished, and full employment ensued. By the end of the war, public views had changed as a result:

The obvious connection between deficit spending and economic expansion was not lost on many Americans, including business leaders who much preferred large deficits to Keynes’s alternative of massive redistribution of wealth through taxation as a way to sustain America’s prosperity in peacetime.

Four decades later, Reaganomics would represent a perverse twist of this realization. Despite lip service to the contrary, Reagan produced record deficits to sustain prosperity while dramatically concentrating wealth. Although Reagan claimed he would magically balance the budget in four years, he actually did quite the opposite. From Harry Truman through Jimmy Carter, every presidential term but one — the Nixon/Ford term from 1973 to 1977 — had seen the debt shrink as a percentage of GDP. It fell from a peak of 117.5 percent during World War II to to 32.5 percent by the time Reagan took office, and has never been anywhere near that low since. It jumped more than 20 percent during Reagan’s two terms, and Bill Clinton has been the only subsequent president to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio.

But let’s not lose sight of what Roosevelt accomplished, in creating the foundations for America’s broad middle class, which had never existed before on such a scale:

FDR’s support for deficit spending was yet another shift in the relationship between the government and the people that took place during his Administration. President Roosevelt expressed his vision for a country where each citizen was guaranteed a basic level of economic security most eloquently in his Economic Bill of Rights speech on January 11, 1944:

“We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. ‘Necessitous men are not free men.’ People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”

These were the hard-won lessons of the Great Depression and World War II, but as so often happens in history, those who did not live through that suffering only learned the lessons second-hand, and never knew them in their bones. So we lost our way again, which is why we got Reagan in the 1980s and now have Donald Trump. We need to remember what made the American middle class great in the first place: a commitment to activist government spending money on public needs when the private sector fell short. Short-term debt-obsession was the enemy of everything Roosevelt accomplished — not a guide to sound economics.

Now for the second big lie, that the debt is primarily due to welfare-state social spending. Here I’d like to quote myself from 2011 (“Enshrining the lies of the US’ 1%“):

Indeed, as Thomas Ferguson and Robert Johnson explained just over a year ago, in their paper “A World Upside Down? Deficit Fantasies in the Great Recession”, all of the US long-term federal debt is due to just three oligopoly sectors: the military-industrial complex (the backbone of empire, with bases all around the world and almost half the world’s military spending), the medical-industrial complex (with twice the per capita costs of other systems), and the financial sector (which has recently cost trillions of dollars in lost wealth and economic activity).

All three of these are enormous cash cows for the one per cent, and equally enormous cost-centres for the 99 per cent. Without the costs imposed by lack of competition, regulation and accountability in these sectors, the US would have no long-term debt problem. We would be paying it down, rather than running it up.

In that paper’s abstract, the authors write:

In an era of unbridled money politics, concentrated interests in the military, financial, and medical industries pose much more significant dangers to U.S. public finances than concerns about overreach from broad based popular programs like Social Security, which is itself in good shape for as many years as one can make credible forecasts.

Concerns about Social Security are vastly overblown, they note, and uncertain worries about two decades from now should not dominate our attention. Medicare is another matter, only because the American health care system as a whole is so expensive. They drew on an analysis by Dean Baker, which compared projected health care costs in the U.S. with projections based on the cost structures of other countries.  

The U.S. spends a far higher percentage of its GDP on health care than any other country. It also gets less health for it than any other major country, in the sense other countries do just as well or better on most health indicators, though they spend much less.

Why is no mystery, despite all the sound and fury of the health care “debate.” The U.S. health care system is in no sense a competitive marketplace. Instead, it is a chain of private oligopolies connected to each other by streams of payments administered by a vast, non-competitive private insurance network and the federal government. Producers and insurers together dominate government policymaking, at both federal and most state levels.

The rate of cost increase has been reduced under the ACA since the paper was written, but we’re still far from universal coverage, and the problems of oligopoly remain — most notably in the way insurers have withdrawn from some marketplaces. The failure to even include a public option in the ACA left insurers in positions of tremendous coercive power. And GOP repeal plans could wipe out all the ACA gains and leave us facing a grim future.

The military-industrial complex, the authors note, is commonly taken to make up about 20 percent of the budget, but if we include all related functions — homeland security and intelligence agencies, plus significant parts of other departments, including Energy, Transportation and State — with the military share of the debt, that total nearly doubles: “One careful effort at a more comprehensive reckoning suggests that perhaps 39% of the proposed Fiscal Year 2011 budget goes toward defense.”

Finally, there’s the enormous costs inflicted by the financial meltdown of 2008, triggering the Great Recession, and the high probability of future such disasters. These costs are obviously more difficult to assess than the excessive costs of the U.S. health care system. But they are certainly much greater than the amounts involved in the Social Security system, much less Meals on Wheels.

This sort of realistic appraisal is not a popular perspective among political elites, who are largely funded by the oligopolies involved. But it is popular with the public — see Bernie Sanders’ approval ratings as one indication. Yet, these major sources of long-term debt pressure never seem to enter the deficit-cutting debate.

Now for the third big lie, the claim that Republicans are “more responsible” and “better managers” than Democrats are, an assumption that permeates the air whenever the economy is discussed. I’ve already referred to the fact that Republican presidents since Reagan have been terrible at managing debt reduction, but the point at issue is a broader, more fundamental one: There is no aspect of economic management where Republicans do as well as Democrats. None whatsoever. Here, the best single source is a slim volume, “They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 by Eric Zuesse. As explained in the publishers’ synopsis:

The Democratic and Republican Parties are virtual opposites of each other in their economic records, going back to the earliest period for which economic data were available, around 1910. More than a dozen studies have been done comparing economic growth, unemployment, average length of unemployment, stock market performance, inflation, federal debt, and other economic indicators, during Democratic and Republican presidencies and congresses, and they all show stunningly better performance when Democrats are in power, than when Republicans are. These studies are all available online, and they are all summarized and discussed in this path-breaking book, which settles, once and for all, the question of whether there’s any significant economic difference between the two Parties. Not only is there a difference, but — shockingly — it always runs in favor of Democrats in power.

Democrats are superior for the economy as a whole — GDP growth, unemployment rate, inflation — for the stock market, and for controlling government deficits too. One example Zuesse cites is from Kevin Drum, back in September 2002. Responding to a story in Slate reporting that since 1900, Democratic presidents have produced a 12.3 percent annual total return on the SP 500, but Republicans only an 8 percent return,” Drum wrote:

This is actually an old story, and Slate doesn’t know the half of it: Democratic administrations, it turns out, manage virtually every facet of the economy better than Republicans.

Drum analyzed the three main statistics cited above — GDP growth, unemployment and inflation — from 1948 to 2001, and included a time-lag. “In the same way that a pitcher is responsible for runners left on base even after he’s been replaced,” he wrote, “presidents should be responsible for a few years of economic performance after they leave office.” Choosing a variety of time-lags, the results were all the same:

No matter what time-lag you choose, Democrats post higher GDP growth, lower unemployment, and lower inflation.

This is just one of multiple examples, and the value of Zuesse’s book is that it brings them together. “The myth that conservatives are better for the economy than are progressives, is driven not by the masses but by the elite, the insiders who benefit from this deception,” he writes. But even that’s a dubious proposition sometimes, when — as under George W. Bush — things really go off the rails.

Whatever happens in the months ahead, whatever specific gambits the Republicans trot out, it will always serve us well to keep in mind these three big lies, and remind others why and how they are so wrong: Debt is not a dominant economic problem and should not frame our budgetary decision-making; debt is not primarily due to social spending; and Republicans are not “more responsible” or “better managers” of the economy than Democrats. Take down the big lies, and the little ones will fall apart much more easily.

 


Protesting Notre Dame students walk out of Pence’s commencement speech

Some graduating seniors at the University of Notre Dame walked out of their own graduation ceremony to protest Vice President Pence when he began to deliver the commencement speech on Sunday morning.

Pence was chosen to give the commencement address at the nation’s most prominent Catholic university — even though the school ordinarily invites newly inaugurated presidents to give the address in their first year of office.  Thousands of students and faculty members signed a petition asking Notre Dame’s president, the Rev. John Jenkins, not to invite President Trump, and the university chose instead to invite Pence, a former Indiana governor.

A coalition of student activist groups at Notre Dame called We StaND For planned a walkout to protest policies Pence pursued as governor that they say targeted the most vulnerable. Pence was planning to seek reelection as governor when Trump selected him to be his vice presidential running mate in the summer of 2016, but Pence was unpopular at the time in his own state and many thought he would lose his reelection bid.

School officials knew of the student walkout plans and did not try to stop them. The students — more than 100 — walked quietly out, and there were some cheers and boos sounded, though only briefly. Paul Browne, vice president for public affairs and communications, said Notre Dame has been the site of protests of presidents and vice presidents in the past, and as long as the students did not disrupt the ceremony, it would be allowed to take place.

Hundreds of antiabortion activists protested President Barack Obama when he spoke at the 2009 graduation ceremony, and there were smaller protests too for Vice President Joe Biden at the 2016 commencement.

On Saturday, Pence delivered the commencement speech at Grove City College, a Christian liberal arts school in Grove City, Pennsylvania, about 50 miles north of Pittsburgh. Grove City is one of a handful of religious schools that have refused federal funds so they do not have to comply with specific federal mandates, such as Title IX, which bans discrimination based on the sex of a student.

There were strong similarities — even identical language — in his speeches before the Grove City and Notre Dame audiences. For example, in both speeches, Pence urged the graduating students to become leaders in various walks of life, and he asked them to stand up, “catch the eye of a loved one’s in the crowd” and thank them for their support through college.

The Notre Dame protest was far smaller than that faced by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos when she recently delivered the commencement speech at Bethune-Cookman University, a historically black college in Florida. Some students stood up and turned their back, and the booing was so loud at different points in the speech that the school’s president stood up, interrupted DeVos, took to the microphone, and said to the students, “If this behavior continues, your degrees will be mailed to you. Choose which way you want to go.”

Trump summons Muslim nations to confront ‘Islamic terror of all kinds’

President Trump forcefully summoned the Muslim world to confront “the crisis of Islamic extremism” here Sunday on the eve of visits to Israel and the Vatican as he seeks to unite followers of disparate faiths against global terrorism.

Speaking from the birthplace of Islam, Trump implored the leaders of dozens of Muslim nations to take their destinies in hand and, together with the United States, eliminate the “wave of fanatical violence” committed in the name of religion.

“This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects or different civilizations,” Trump said in the first major foreign policy address of his presidency. “This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life, and decent people, all in the name of religion — people that want to protect life and want to protect their religion. This is a battle between good and evil.”

Trump implicitly rejected the aspirational goals and call for democracy and human rights of former president Barack Obama, who also delivered a major speech to the Islamic world early in his presidency. “We are adopting a principled realism,” Trump said.

“We are not here to lecture,” he said. “We are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be or how to worship. Instead, we are here to offer partnership, based on shared interests and values.”

Trump called for unity in confronting Iran over its funding of terrorists and promotion of a “craven ideology.” He called on the Muslim world to help isolate Iran and, just days after Iranians reelected a moderate president, Hassan Rouhani, to “pray for the day when the Iranian people have the just and righteous government they so richly deserve.”

Trump was addressing a rare gathering of leaders of about 50 Muslim nations at the Arab Islamic American Summit.

It was the second day of a marathon foreign trip that will take Trump to Israel on Monday, where he is scheduled to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Reuven Rivlin and visit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Western Wall. On Tuesday, Trump will deliver a speech at the Israel Museum and briefly visit Bethlehem for a meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Trump will then fly to Rome, where he will have a private audience with Pope Francis at the Vatican on Wednesday morning. He will attend a NATO summit in Brussels and a Group of Seven summit in Sicily, Italy, later in the week.

In the run-up to Trump’s visit here, there was speculation about whether he would utter the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” in his speech, the centerpiece of his Saudi trip. On the campaign trail, Trump loudly criticized Obama for refusing to describe the terrorism threat in those terms. But some of Trump’s top aides, including national security adviser H.R. McMaster, have been urging him to soften his language. Many Muslim leaders consider broad denunciations of their faith insulting.

In his Riyadh address, Trump decided to use a substitute phrase: “Islamist extremism.” But he slightly veered off the prepared excerpts released earlier by the White House, saying “Islamic” instead of “Islamist” on several occasions.

President Trump shakes hands with Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad Al-Thani, left, during a bilateral meeting on May 21, 2017, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Seated with them are, from center to right, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, White House senior adviser Jared Kushner and national security adviser H.R. McMaster. (Evan Vucci/AP)

Describing the fight against terrorism, Trump spoke of “honestly confronting the crisis of Islamic extremism and the Islamists and Islamic terror of all kinds.”

A senior White House official later said that Trump merely misspoke in using the word “Islamic” rather than “Islamist.”

“He’s just an exhausted guy,” said the official, who briefed reporters only on the condition of anonymity.

Lamenting the scourge of terrorism across the Middle East, Trump exhorted, “Drive them out! Drive them out of your places of worship. Drive them out of your communities. Drive them out of your holy land. And drive them out of this Earth.”

The Middle East, he said, had long been home to “Arabs and Christians and Jews living side by side” and could again be a place for “every person, no matter their faith.”

By preaching tolerance and calling Islam “one of the world’s great faiths,” Trump departed from his previously stated views on Muslims. Anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies were hallmarks of his nationalist presidential campaign; he proposed banning Muslims from entering the United States and proclaimed, “I think Islam hates us.”

Trump gave his remarks in an opulent hall of the King Abdul Aziz International Conference Center, where crystal chandeliers hung from the gilded ceiling and attendees sat in plush armchairs. The president was seated at the front of the room, behind an ornate wooden desk and alongside the summit’s host, King Salman, before taking the lectern.

No final list of the leaders in attendance was initially released. Seen chatting in the chamber and then listening intently were kings, presidents and prime ministers from Jordan, Pakistan and the Palestinian Authority, as well as Egypt and numerous other African states with Muslim majorities. Some, including Turkey and ­Sudan, sent lower-level officials.

Speaking before Trump, Salman appeared to be gently admonishing the United States for its strict visa policies, saying that all in the room rejected “profiling religions and countries on a religious or sectarian basis.”

But he was effusive in his praise of Trump and the president’s decision to make Saudi Arabia the first stop on his first overseas trip. Trump, he said, “has many hopes and aspirations with the Arab and Muslim worlds.”

Salman said that his kingdom is committed to “fighting all forms of terrorism” and that “one of the most important goals of Islamic sharia is protecting life, and there is no honor in committing murder.”

The king excoriated Iran, saying the Arab world had no problems with that country until its 1979 revolution brought a theocratic government that quickly turned to terrorism and regional ambitions. “These odious acts are the products of attempts to exploit Islam as a cover for political purposes to flame hatred, extremism, terrorism and religious and sectarian conflicts,” Salman said.

Trump was equally generous in his praise for Saudi Arabia, a Sunni Muslim state that considers Shiite Iran its principal rival for regional power.

He made proud reference to the $110 billion arms deal signed with the Saudis during his visit here and said the United States was willing to extend the same partnership to other nations that share its objectives.

Trump also highlighted, in terms reminiscent of his domestic boasting, what he said were the achievements of his first months in office, claiming the creation of nearly 1 million jobs.

The president wants to both profit from the sales and move partners in the Middle East to share more of what he has said is the unequal burden of defending against the Sunni terrorism of the Islamic State and al-Qaeda and against Iran.

“America is prepared to stand with you — in pursuit of shared interests and common security,” he said. “But the nations of the Middle East cannot wait for American power to crush this enemy for them. The nations of the Middle East will have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves, for their countries and, frankly, for their families and for their children.”

Overall, Trump delivered a dark decree to the leaders in attendance.

“Religious leaders must make this absolutely clear: Barbarism will deliver you no glory — piety to evil will bring you no dignity,” he said. “If you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and your soul will be condemned.”

A few hours before his remarks, Trump and the leaders of six Persian Gulf states reached an agreement to crack down on terrorism financing, including the prosecution of individuals who send money to militants.

The memorandum of understanding between the United States and the Gulf Cooperation Council, comprising Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, includes the creation of a center in Riyadh to fight extremism.

Dina Powell, Trump’s deputy national security adviser, called the agreement the “farthest-reaching commitment to not ­finance terrorist organizations” and said the Treasury Department would monitor it along with the gulf governments.

“The unique piece of it is that every single one of them are signatories on how they’re responsible and will actually prosecute the financing of terrorism, including individuals,” Powell told reporters.

Outside funding for the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and other groups has come primarily from the Persian Gulf. U.S. officials in recent years have said that the gulf states have cracked down and virtually eliminated money coming from governments in the region. But they believe certain wealthy individuals — primarily in Kuwait and, to a lesser degree, Qatar — remain funnels for money or are themselves financing the groups.

A Kuwaiti cabinet minister was forced to resign in 2014 after the United States complained about his activities, and regional governments have instituted legal crackdowns, with varying degrees of success, to stem the practice. All have signed agreements in the past to stop it.

The Islamic State, in particular, has largely funded itself through extortion and taxes in the areas it controls in Syria and Iraq and through revenue for oil it sells clandestinely. But those sources, along with kidnapping for ransom, have diminished as the militants have lost territory.

The warm embrace of Trump that was on festive display on his first day in Riyadh continued during a trio of bilateral meetings the president held Sunday at the Ritz-Carlton hotel.

Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi praised Trump and invited him to visit Egypt, which Trump said he intends to do. Through a translator, Sissi said, “You are a unique personality that is capable of doing the impossible.”

“I agree!” Trump replied, as his advisers and others looking on laughed.

Trump went on to compliment Sissi on his fashion, telling the Egyptian leader, “Love your shoes. Boy, those shoes. Man . . .”

Trump met with Sissi this spring in Washington, breaking an Obama-era ban on receiving the Egyptian leader in the White House because of his crackdowns on political and civil expression since taking power in a 2013 coup.

Trump called Sissi “my friend” and thanked him for his help with the release of American aid worker Aya Hijazi, 30, who had been imprisoned in Cairo.

Trump also met with the emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad al-Thani, and noted the long friendship between the two countries and the prospects of future trade.

“One of the things that we will discuss is the purchase of lots of beautiful military equipment, because nobody makes it like the United States,” Trump told reporters ahead of his talks with the Qatari leader. “And for us that means jobs, and it also means, frankly, great security back here, which we want.”

China crippled CIA by killing US sources, says New York Times

Three armed Chinese policemen guarding the US embassy in BeijingImage copyright
AFP

Image caption

Chinese police guard the US embassy in the capital, Beijing

Up to 20 CIA informants were killed or imprisoned by the Chinese government between 2010 and 2012, the New York Times reports, damaging US information-gathering in the country for years.

It is not clear whether the CIA was hacked or whether a mole helped the Chinese to identify the agents, officials told the paper.

They said one of the informants was shot in the courtyard of a government building as a warning to others.

The CIA did not comment on the report.

Four former CIA officials spoke to the paper, telling it that information from sources deep inside the Chinese government bureaucracy started to dry up in 2010. Informants began to disappear in early 2011.

The CIA and FBI teamed up to investigate the events in an operation one source said was codenamed Honey Badger.

The paper said this investigation had centred on one former CIA operative but there was not enough evidence to arrest him. He now lives in another Asian country.

In 2012, an official at China’s security ministry was arrested on suspicion of spying for the US. He was said to have been lured into the CIA. No other such arrests appear to have reached public attention during that time.

Obama questioned slow intelligence

Matt Apuzzo, a New York Times journalist who worked on the story, told the BBC: « One of the really troubling things about this is that we still don’t know what happened.

« There’s a divide within the American government over whether there was a mole inside the CIA or whether this was a tradecraft problem, that the CIA agents got sloppy and got discovered, or whether the Chinese managed to hack communications. »

A few years later in 2015, the CIA pulled staff out of the US embassy in Beijing, after a hack blamed on the Chinese state exposed information about millions of US federal employees. If the events of 2010-2012 were helped by a similar hack, it was not one that was made public.

The disappearance of so many spies damaged a network it had taken years to build up, the New York Times reports, and hampered operations for years afterwards, even prompting questions from within the Obama administration as to why intelligence had slowed.

Officials said it was one of the worst security breaches of recent years.

By 2013, the Chinese government seemed to have lost its ability to identify US agents and the CIA moved back to trying to rebuild its network.

Media captionLast year, China warned government officials to watch out for spies – and not fall in love with them

Mr Apuzzo continued: « For many years China and the US have been locked in this spy battle that’s been going on behind the scenes. While doing this story we uncovered that Chinese intelligence have been able to infiltrate an NSA outpost in Taiwan. It goes back and forth. »

The story was published during a temporary vacuum at the top of diplomatic relations between the two countries.

The Trump administration has named Terry Branstad, who is the governor of Iowa, as its ambassador to China but he has not yet moved to Beijing.

Cui Tiankai, China’s ambassador to the US, has not commented, but in a recent press release, he mentioned « the current positive momentum that the China-US relationship enjoys ».

From ‘Nut job’ to ‘Wacko,’ Trump’s history of using insulting words mocks mental health


President Trump delivers the commencement address at the commencement ceremony at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy on Wednesday in New London, Conn. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

An already tumultuous week of news for the White House was capped off by a New York Times report on Friday that said President Trump discussed his abrupt firing of James B. Comey as FBI director during an Oval Office meeting with Russian officials the day after the termination.

“I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Trump said, according to an account reported by the Times that was not disputed by the White House. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

The new report ignited afresh the possibility that Trump had committed obstruction of justice.

But it was also the reappearance of one of Trump’s preferred ways of insulting people: by suggesting that he is calling into question their mental stability. It’s unclear if Trump does this intentionally — is this an instance where we’re supposed to take him seriously, but not literally? — or if he uses such put-downs without giving a second thought to their association with mental health.

Nevertheless, Trump’s reported verbal attack on Comey sparked an immediate spike in lookups Friday for “nutjob” (defined as “a mentally unbalanced person; a crazy person), according to Merriam Webster.

In the world of Trumpian taunts, it’s safe to say “nut job” falls somewhere on the second tier. A search of his Twitter account reveals the president lobs it with far less frequency than, say, “loser” (which has appeared 72 times in his tweets), “crazy” (65 times) or “dumb” (95 times).

In fact, Trump has only once called someone a “nut job” on Twitter: Glenn Beck.

(Beck refused to engage. “It is beneath me to respond to this,” he told The Blaze.)

In person, Trump has labeled someone a “nut job” more often, from conservatives to liberals to dictators.

Last February, Trump called Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) the “dumbest human being” at an event in the senator’s home state after the one-time Republican nomination rival had described Trump as « crazy » and « unfit for office. »

“He went crazy,” Trump declared, according to ABC News. “The guy is a nut job.”

Graham returned the insults about a week later, going on “a seven-minute diatribe in the Capitol basement” before stating that he was “literally running out of adjectives” with which to blast Trump, The Washington Post’s Paul Kane reported.

“I think he’s going to lose, and he’s going to lose badly,” Graham said of Trump. “So don’t look at me to be the guy who stops him from being president of the United States. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t nominate a nut job and lose, and expect it doesn’t have consequences.”

A few months later, in June, Trump turned his ire on Bernie Sanders, whom he deemed “crazy Bernie” and “a total nut job.”

At the time, the Democratic presidential hopeful opted for the « I know you are but what am I » defense, laughing the insult off and telling a television reporter that Trump ought to look in the mirror.

Compared with his definitive assessments of Graham, Beck and Sanders, Trump was slightly more reserved when calling into question the mental state of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un last January.

“I think it’s a serious problem because he is probably on the wacky side,” Trump said of Kim on Fox News then. “I mean, you’ve got this mad man playing around with the nukes and it has got to end. He’s certainly — he could be a total nut job, frankly.”

Kim has not yet responded to Trump’s comments, though North Korea has “demonstrated” recently that it has nuclear missiles that would be capable of reaching U.S. territory.

On Friday, Merriam-Webster reported that look-ups for “nutjob” spiked 173,750 percent after the New York Times report published Trump’s alleged remarks about Comey. By Saturday, “nutjob” was the top trending word on the dictionary’s website.

« ‘Nutjob’ is derived from the word ‘nut’ (“a crazy person”) combined with the word ‘job,’  » Merriam-Webster stated in a blog post. “Yes, that’s really it.”

Though relatively rare, the insult emerges frequently enough from Trump that the quirk made its way to an SNL cold open last April, in which a Trump surrogate — played by Cecily Strong — refers to herself as a “nut job.”

It’s no secret that Trump loves to demean his critics with an array of put-downs. (In 2015 The Post found that Trump had publicly insulted at least 68 people or groups that year.)

But Trump seems to have a proclivity for insults that cast others as mentally unstable or mentally ill. In a few cases, he has said it outright.

But usually, Trump uses other words that are connected with mental health but have a negative connotation. He’s called people “wacko” (sometimes spelling it “whacko,” especially when referring to disgraced former New York congressman Anthony Weiner).

In a handful of instances, Trump has deemed someone — or something — to be a “basket case.” Then-Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush? “A basket case!” Former “Art of the Deal” ghostwriter Tony Schwartz?  » … now a hostile basket case who feels jilted!” The United States of America? An “economic basket case.”

As The Post’s Colby Itkowitz reported last February, Trump’s flippant usage of such insults reflected a broader, often dismissive attitude about mental health in society. People are so inured to such disparaging remarks insults that they often don’t immediately associate them with mental health at all — and even if they do, they don’t think twice about it.

Trump’s words only add to the “shame” and negative stigma surrounding people who are suffering from mental illness, experts told Itkowitz.

“Stigmatizing words, stereotypes and portrayals end up helping to shape society’s attitudes,” Bob Carolla, spokesman for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, said then. “You can’t say it’s harmless, because it isn’t.”

Trump has also been on the receiving end of these types of insults — most recently when Comey’s father, 86-year-old J. Brien Comey, came to his son’s defense.

“I never was crazy about Trump,” J. Brien Comey told the Bergen County Record. “I’m convinced that he’s nuts. I thought he belonged in an institution. He was crazy before he became president. Now he’s really crazy.”

Read more:

President Trump’s favorite so-called insult

James Comey: Out of a job, but still in the public eye

Recapping a stunningly bad two weeks for the Trump White House