Information on Russian interference during the 2016 US presidential election and European elections suggests that possibly there is a bigger political agenda is being implemented.

I believe that additional report on “Yes California” movement is another indication that the agenda may cover many angles.  It is possible that “Yes California” might not be the tool which is used to diminish or eliminate the influence of the United States on global politics and economy,

The growing number of evidence suggesting Trump-Putin ties leave little room to doubt that it is indeed true. I would also assume that Vladimir Putin understands that Donald Trump is unlikely to be re-elected. In fact, he might be impeached earlier. Putin also realizes that it would not be possible to have the same favorable conditions to secure a leading position for Russia by damaging or destroying the U.S.

Since the four years, presidential term is not enough to complete the task, it is logical to assume that triggering the process, that would start producing destructive consequences which nobody would be able to stop, is the core of the plan. And Donald Trump is the best candidate to assist Putin by implementing his tax reforms. 

It might not be the case, but the number are suggesting that it might be true.

CNBC reported that U.S. President Donald Trump planned to propose on Wednesday steep cuts in corporate taxes and repatriated offshore corporate profits as the administration seeks to regain momentum on economic policies.

  • Trump plans to propose on Wednesday steep cuts to corporate tax rates and on repatriated offshore earnings, media reports said.
  • Trump will propose cutting public companies’ income tax rate to 15 percent from 35 percent, Reuters reported.
  • Trump will propose cutting the tax rate on offshore earnings which are repatriated to 10 percent from the current 35 percent, reports said.

PBS highlights that Trump has yet to fill out many of the details of his administration’s budget plans, which are expected by mid-March, roughly in line with most new administrations. Funding for the current fiscal year expires on April 28.

But based on his campaign pledges, many analysts say Trump’s policies would be likely to significantly widen the budget deficit.

  • Trump has promised to not make any cuts to entitlements, welfare spending that includes Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Entitlements make up both the largest and fastest-growing chunk of the federal budget—nearly half of all spending—and economists project that failing to reduce their rate of growth will be the biggest contributor to the deficit in the coming decades.
  • Defense spending totaled $584 billion in 2016, and Trump has promised to “rebuild our military” by adding fifty thousand soldiers, expanding the Navy’s fleet, and adding planes to the Air Force. He has not released cost estimates.
  • Infrastructure is another area in which Trump has promised major spending, floating the idea of a $1 trillion plan. He has said that the vast majority of that would come from private investors, incentivized by tax breaks that could total $137 billion. Another administration priority is building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, which estimates put between $12 billion and $25 billion.
  • The tax reform plan Trump released during the campaign includes cuts to both corporate and individual taxes, and experts say it is likely to significantly increase the deficit. Trump, like some other Republicans, says that cutting taxes will boost growth and thus increase government revenue. Analysts including the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, however, estimate that even accounting for accelerated growth, Trump’s tax plan would increase the deficit by $2.6 trillion to $3.9 trillion over the next decade.

Rabobank indicates that Trump’s plans to increase spending on infrastructure, reduce tax rates, slash regulation, and liberalise the energy sector should boost the economy in the coming years. However, increased government spending and lower tax revenues may also push up the public debt trajectory. This could hurt the long-term outlook for the US economy. What’s more, Trump’s trade policies could backfire rapidly and undermine the positive impact of his fiscal policy initiatives. Finally, his micromanagement of business investment decisions may have a negative impact on the domestic business climate. On balance, it seems that financial markets have priced in most of the positives and perhaps not enough of the negatives.


TaxProfBlog explains that Trump’s plan would reduce federal revenues by $9.5 trillion over its first decade before accounting for added interest costs or considering macroeconomic feedback effects. The plan would improve incentives to work, save, and invest. However, unless it is accompanied by very large spending cuts, it could increase the national debt by nearly 80 percent of gross domestic product by 2036, offsetting some or all of the incentive effects of the tax cuts.




Fortune indicates that the cuts (plus the lack of commensurate budget reductions) would add $6 trillion more to the national debt relative to baseline projections.



The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget points out that Donald Trump has put forward seven major sets of initiatives on his campaign’s website in the areas of U.S.-China trade relations reform, protecting second amendment rights, immigration reform, Veterans Administration reform, tax reform, health care reform (including a proposal to block-grant Medicaid), and paying for a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico. By our very rough and initial estimates, these initiatives together would add anywhere from $10.7 trillion to $15.45 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years, with our central cost estimate being that they would add $12.1 trillion to the debt, including interest.

Under this central cost estimate, debt held by the public would increase from nearly $14 trillion today to $36 trillion by 2026 (compared to about $24 trillion under current law).1 This means debt would grow from 74 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at the end of last year (and headed to 86 percent by 2026) to 129 percent by 2026. Under our high cost estimate, debt could reach as high as 141 percent by 2026, or reach as low as 111 percent assuming his plans also lead to significant economic growth.2


No future president will be able to fix the problem related to out of control acceleration of the U.S. debt. There is no doubt that unsustainable level of the U.S. national debt would significantly damage investors confidence leading to the financial market collapse. As a result, the value of the U.S. Dollar will be vaporized causing a fatal damage to the entire U.S. economy.

Some people may argue that there is no evidence that it is, in fact, Vladimir Putin’s plan. I would agree that there is no evidence except an endless list of circumstantial evidence. Besides, why would Russia interfere the U.S. presidential elections (and European elections) if there is no significant political purpose? 

Considering the scale of this operation and potential risks in case of failure, it is unlikely that Russian intelligent agencies would decide to go through all these troubles just for the sake of lifting sanctions.

It is clear that failure would lead to a wide range of consequences including additional sanctions. Taking into account the current status of the Russian economy, to justify the risk, the anticipated impact supposed to be huge and sustainable.

It is clear that whatever Russia could gain out of Trump’s presidency would not guarantee sustainability. Because the next president is likely to eliminate any advantage that Russia managed to obtain by changing political directions.

Moreover, I have little doubt that psychological profile of Donald Trump was carefully studied. His obvious intellectual limitations made the task a lot easier.

At the same time, it looks like the Republican Party has completely lost focus because its representatives are too busy to play politics for the sake of politics.

Vladimir Putin is a highly experienced politician. This fact disqualifies an assumption that he didn’t notice what is going on in the United States. I would think that it is also clear to him that if Russia whats to get rid of the U.S., the presidency of Donald Trump is a perfect opportunity which will never be available again. 

Hopefully, American people could put their differences aside and do the right thing. Because the longer Trump remains in power, the fewer chances people would have to keep the country’s integrity intact.



Comments are closed.