Nice Try, Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Really?

Bryan Crabtree
|
Posted: Jan 14, 2017 12:01 AM
Nice Try, Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Really?

During cabinet confirmation hearings this week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) asked Dr. Ben Carson (Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary nominee) if he could assure the American people that the Trump Organization would receive no benefits from HUD during President-elect Trump’s term. Awkwardly, Dr. Carson avoided answering the question with a ‘yes’ or ‘no.’

Dr. Carson said that he wouldn’t deny the American people a valuable offering from the Trump organization (or any company) if it presented itself.

Warren clearly knew that there was no possible way to answer that question with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ when she asked it. With the vast size of Trump’s company, there is always the possibility that some development will have to flirt with HUD on a land or development project. Frankly, the word ‘benefit’ could be interpreted in a number of ways and is overly broad (on purpose). Simply obtaining an approval for a project could be conceived as a ‘benefit’ even if no taxpayer money was involved.

The intent of the question by Warren wasn’t to receive a direct answer. It was to make a tired point we’ve heard many times: Trump needs to sell his assets.

The media and the left (one and the same) want Trump to suffer immense financial pain in order to serve as president. Likely, they hope his first term is so costly in terms of taxes, losses and missed opportunities he will choose not to run for a second term. They are equally as delusional regarding this hope as they were in their analysis of the impossibility of his victory.

What Warren missed with her smug and arrogant question is that Trump doesn’t develop residential properties that fall into the purview of HUD’s efforts, price-range and oversight. Trump develops high-end residential properties that soar far above HUD’s wheelhouse (most of their developments are hotels and office buildings).

In fact, most of the recent residential development projects (named “Trump”) are not owned by Trump. They are license-deals where a developer partners with the Trump organization for branding and name-rights.

Warren clearly thinks the American people are too stupid to discover that fact.

There is no disagreement that Trump would face far less criticism if he sold all of his assets. That is simply not possible. Aside from the massive tax penalties he would have to pay, it would take the majority of his first term to accomplish that task.

Selling a $200,000,000 high-rise takes months if not years (re: marketing, escrow and closing). Moreover, during that process you can be sure that leftists would scrutinize even the sales-process accusing him of conflicts. The claim would be that he is selling his assets to entities for far too much money (padded as bribes) in exchange for special-benefits from the U.S. government.

The other option is to place the assets in a blind trust. However, the ‘blowback’ on this approach is that Trump will still be able to benefit from these assets once his term ends - meaning he can show favoritism to regimes or companies during his presidency that will pay off at the end of his term when he resumes control of his company.

Frankly, I’m happy we have this problem. What it really means is that we finally have a business professional running our government instead of a community organizer or career politician with no practical economic-experience.

“Yes we can” run the government like we run a family business. We can hire the smartest and most competent people who can apply good judgment to lift our economy and our people to greater prosperity.

The other argument forged this week against Trump’s retention of his assets is that its inappropriate to have buildings bearing the name of a sitting U.S. president in foreign countries (like in Turkey, Indonesia et al.). The supporting argument is that such a situation creates a security risk. In addition, many of Trump’s domestic assets also bear his name and present a cost-burden to cities and states for added security.

Who’s going to pay for the added security? I chuckle as I listen to these ignorant (and emotional) basket-cases erratically attempt to convince America to turn against Trump even before the honeymoon. It won’t work.

As to security, commercial buildings pay far more in taxes than they consume in services. Our personal residences typically consume more services from the government (trash, fire, school, police, etc.) than we pay in taxes. Therefore, if local municipalities have to provide additional external security, so be it. The government wastes exponential amounts of money on far less important matters. I’m reminded of the $1000 toilets at the Pentagon.

Of course, Trump’s company (now managed by Don Trump Jr. and Eric Trump) would be wise to spend the money necessary to adequately increase security and personnel worldwide in their buildings. I’m confident they will. They don’t need government hacks to instruct them on how to protect their assets.

Trump is not going to sell his assets. No law requires it.

To the liberals: Get over it! Take a seat and learn something from the businessman. You’re making yourselves look like ignorant fools.