President Trump tweeted this a couple of hours ago, one day before the Virginia election for governor:

The state of Virginia economy, under Democrat rule, has been terrible. If you vote Ed Gillespie tomorrow, it will come roaring back!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2017

Naturally, everyone is now arguing about how well Virginia has been doing since Terry McAuliffe took over in January 2014. Unemployment is down! But GDP is meh! What’s the real deal?

Let me save you all some trouble. The Philadelphia Fed maintains something called the “coincident economic activity index” that’s a blend of employment, hours worked, and wages. It’s designed to provide a wide-angle look at how the entire economy is doing in each state. Here it is for Virginia compared to the country as a whole:

Since McAuliffe took over, Virginia’s economic activity index has grown slightly faster than the rest of the country. It’s not enough to make much of a difference, and I doubt the governor really has much influence over it anyway, but there it is.

On our flight home from Ireland we passed over the eastern edge of Greenland—just as I have on every other flight home from Europe that I’ve been on. But this time was different. We passed over the Crown Prince Frederick Range (I think) and the view was much more striking than I’ve ever seen before. Partly it’s because the weather was clear and the sun was low in the sky, producing some nice shadows. Perhaps we were also flying lower than usual: 34,000 feet rather than 38,000 feet.

Whatever the reason, I’ve never gotten photos as good as the ones I got on this trip. Even through the scratched and blurry airplane window, this is a surprisingly sharp and dazzling view. Enjoy.

The Republican tax bill has lots and lots of odd provisions which I’m only now learning about. For example, did you know that it bans tax-free bonds for building sports stadiums? I like that one, actually, though I’m not quite sure what the justification is.

But whatever the reason, it’s small potatoes. How much money does Uncle Sam lose due to tax free stadium bonds? Or tax-free “employee achievement awards”? Or teachers writing off the cost of supplies? Practically nothing. But I can name one thing that costs the Treasury a ton of money: corporate profits held in offshore tax havens. This is from Gabriel Zucman, our reigning expert on such things:

I have taken the liberty of making Zucman’s chart more colorful in hopes that it will eventually attract a mate.¹ But even on its own, it shows that the percentage of corporate profits held in tax havens has steadily risen for decades and now stands at triple the amount of the mid-80s. This would be a great loophole to close as a companion to lowering the corporate tax rate. You know, broadening the base and all that.

But of course the Republican tax bill does nothing of the sort. In fact, the GOP would like to offer a lovely tax holiday that allows corporations to repatriate all this money at a tax rate of 10 percent. Normally they hate amnesties, but for some reason they like this one. I wonder why?

¹Sorry. This joke will become clearer later in the day. Or maybe tomorrow.

Danil Shamkin/NurPhoto via ZUMA

This should be pretty obvious by now, but apparently a lot of people are still skeptical that the Russian government was behind the email hacking that upended the 2016 campaign. So here’s an AP story about their own investigation:

An Associated Press investigation into the digital break-ins that disrupted the U.S. presidential contest has sketched out an anatomy of the hack that led to months of damaging disclosures about the Democratic Party’s nominee. It wasn’t just a few aides that the hackers went after; it was an all-out blitz across the Democratic Party. They tried to compromise Clinton’s inner circle and more than 130 party employees, supporters and contractors.

While U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia was behind the email thefts, the AP drew on forensic data to report Thursday that the hackers known as Fancy Bear were closely aligned with the interests of the Russian government….[This] helps explain how a Russian-linked intermediary could boast to a Trump policy adviser, a month later, that the Kremlin had “thousands of emails” worth of dirt on Clinton.

Russians were behind the email hacks. They were behind the social media agitprop. They were behind the attempts to compromise polling places. There’s really not any doubt about this anymore.

Did Donald Trump collude with the Russians? Did Wikileaks know they were acting as a Russian pawn? Did the Russian hacks do enough damage to steal the election from Hillary Clinton? Nobody knows. It’s possible we’ll never know. But we do know that Russian officials were behind all this, and that their goal was to weaponize a personal grudge and ensure that Clinton never became president of the United States. This should outrage you even if you support Trump. The fact that an awful lot of Republicans don’t seem to care is a grim harbinger of a decadent political system on the precipice of decline and collapse.

Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto/ZUMA

This is from the Wall Street Journal:

Kremlin-backed support for Donald Trump’s candidacy over social media began much earlier than previously known, a new analysis of Twitter data shows. Russian Twitter accounts posing as Americans began lavishing praise on Mr. Trump and attacking his rivals within weeks after he announced his bid for the presidency in June 2015, according to the analysis by The Wall Street Journal.

….In the three months after Mr. Trump announced his presidential candidacy on June 16, 2015, tweets from Russian accounts reviewed by the Journal offered far more praise for the real-estate businessman than criticism—by nearly a 10-to-1 margin. At the same time, the accounts generally were hostile to Mrs. Clinton and the early GOP front-runner, Jeb Bush, by equal or greater margins.

This is…odd. Once Trump was up in the polls and looked like a real contender, it makes sense that Russia might take a flyer and start stumping for him. But in the early days the conventional wisdom was that Trump was a joke. Why bother mounting a Twitter campaign in favor of a guy who was only slightly more credible than Herman Cain? Here are a few guesses:

• It was just a test. Social media manipulation was new to the Russians too, and they figured Trump might make an interesting test of how effective it could be.
• In the early days, you had to be very, very cynical about the United States to think that a race-baiting blowhard like Trump had a chance to win. Maybe Putin knew us better than we knew ourselves.
• The Russians never really thought Trump had a chance of winning. He just seemed like a good vehicle to sow a bit of random chaos.
• This whole thing started at a fairly low level by some guy who’d been pushing to “really try out this social media stuff.” His superiors finally got tired of him and told him to knock himself out. This low-level guy, it turns out, was a big Trump fan for personal reasons we’ll never know.

Any other guesses?

San Antonio Express-News via ZUMA

Atrios says that if lefties want to fire people up about gun control, they need to get more passionate about it:

To inspire hardcore single issue voters you have to take an absolutist stance on things. I’m not saying this is good politics….Still, there is literally no politician who goes on teevee and says, “the courts won’t allow it right now, but if it were up to me I’d put the well-regulated back in the 2nd amendment and make it extremely difficult for people to own most kinds of guns, and we should work long term to appoint judges who have a more reasonable view of what our constitution plainly says.” Is this good politics? Probably some places it is. Many places not. But lack of voter intensity on issues can be explained by lack of intensity on issues from politicians.

Actually, that still sounds too milquetoast to me. My campaign slogan is simple: Ban all automatic and semi-automatic weapons. That basically leaves revolvers, pump-action shotguns, and bolt-action rifles. I’d probably have a few regulations around those too, but not many.

Rolf Vennenbernd/DPA via ZUMA

Inside Higher Ed runs down the impact of the Republican tax bill on colleges and universities:

The plan would impose a 1.4 percent excise tax on college endowments at private universities….double the standard individual tax deduction, meaning much weaker incentives for charitable contributions to colleges….end student loan interest rate deductions….restructures the American Opportunity Tax Credit, eliminating tax benefits for students who take more than five years to graduate….repeals the Lifetime Learning Credit, which is used by grad students, workers who need retraining and part-time students and nontraditional undergrads who take more than four years to graduate.

….The legislation would kill another provision that is deeply important to college faculty members and administrators personally: Section 117(d) of the tax code allows employees of nonprofit universities and colleges to exclude from taxable income qualified undergraduate tuition reductions they, or their dependents, receive….Yet another provision targeted by Republicans would end a tax break for employers who cover up to several thousand dollars in educational costs for their workers.

This is my favorite:

The proposal would also eliminate a provision of the tax code used by many universities to waive the cost of tuition for graduate students filling positions like teaching assistantships. If the proposal were to go through, those institutions wouldn’t be able to waive tuition costs without imposing new taxable income on grad students, said Steven Bloom, director of government relations at the American Council on Education.

It is standard practice not to charge tuition to grad students. In fact, a pretty good rule of thumb is to avoid any grad program that actually does charge tuition. But if this passes, the waived tuition would count as a taxable benefit for grad students.

It is truly astounding how targeted this tax bill is. It favors rich investors, who mostly vote Republican. It punishes big, urban states that mostly vote Democratic. It hurts universities, which are also filled with Democrats. And it specifically harms students, who mostly wouldn’t be caught dead ever voting for a Republican. Has a big tax bill ever been this carefully constructed to reward and punish voters who support the right or wrong party?

Shealah Craighead/Planet Pix via ZUMA

In early 2015, the King of Saudi Arabia died and was succeeded by the 79-year-old Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud. King Salman immediately named his son, Prince Mohammed, Minister of Defense, where Mohammed gained effective control over the kingdom’s military. In 2016, apparently at Mohammed’s urging, Salman began a campaign to rein in Saudi Arabia’s powerful and extremist religious establishment. Then he appointed Mohammed as Minister of the Interior, where Mohammed gained further control of the security services. In June Salman deposed one of his nephews as heir apparent and installed Mohammed in his place.

Finally, this weekend, Prince Mohammed, who is chairman of an anti-corruption committee with sweeping powers, ordered the arrest of dozens of princes, ministers, and former ministers. With this, Salman’s branch of the family—now dominated by the crown prince—controls all three of Saudi Arabia’s security services, as well as its religious establishment and the royal family.

In other words, via a combination of brash policy changes and good old terror, Prince Mohammed has gained nearly total control of the kingdom, and it all happened in less than three years. It’s a real-life game of thrones. Some of this is probably good news:

For decades, Saudi Arabia’s religious establishment wielded tremendous power, with bearded enforcers policing public behavior, prominent sheikhs defining right and wrong, and religious associations using the kingdom’s oil wealth to promote their intolerant interpretation of Islam around the world.

Now, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is curbing their power as part of his drive to impose his control on the kingdom and press for a more open brand of Islam….Dozens of hard-line clerics have been detained, while others were designated to speak publicly about respect for other religions, a topic once anathema to the kingdom’s religious apparatus. If the changes take hold, they could mean a historic reordering of the Saudi state by diminishing the role of hard-line clerics in shaping policy. That shift could reverberate abroad by moderating the exportation of the kingdom’s uncompromising version of Islam, Wahhabism, which has been accused of fueling intolerance and terrorism.

On the other hand, Mohammed is considered both a hawk and a bit of a hothead. He’s responsible for the recent air and sea blockade of Qatar, and he’s also the one who started Saudi Arabia’s horrific war with Yemen. However, he might be turning over a new leaf if this scuttlebutt is accurate:

Mohammed bin Salman, the heir to the Saudi throne, confessed to two former US officials he “wants out” of the brutal two-year war he started in Yemen, and added that he was “okay” with Washington engaging with his arch-foe Iran, according to leaked emails obtained by Middle East Eye. The 31-year-old revealed his intentions to Martin Indyk, the former US ambassador to Israel, and Stephen Hadley, a former US national security adviser, at least one month before the kingdom accused Qatar of undermining its campaign in Yemen and colluding with Iran.

And then there’s some American intrigue to add to the pile. This happened a week ago:

President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner returned home Saturday from an unannounced visit to Saudi Arabia — his third trip to the country this year….The White House official would not say who Kushner met with in Saudi Arabia. But he has cultivated a relationship with the crown prince, Mohammad Bin Salman, who, like Kushner, is in his 30s.

Here’s some commentary from Bloomberg’s Liam Denning:

This wasn’t a night of the long knives; it was done in the bright glare of a state TV broadcast. This suggests the prince was sending a signal to at least two broad constituencies.

The first was to the Saudi Arabian establishment. If anyone in the old guard wasn’t aware that Prince Mohammed has effectively declared war on them, there should be no such illusions after this weekend.

The second constituency is more nebulous and intriguing….Prince Mohamed has adopted a notably populist approach in critical areas….Arresting wealthy, connected Saudi Arabians — and doing so very publicly — is straight from the drain-the-swamp playbook, or maybe drain-the-oasis in Riyadh’s case. But it follows other moves designed to appeal to ordinary citizens. Prince Mohamed stunned the audience at the country’s recent “Davos in the desert” finance conference by telling them he would return Saudi Arabia to “moderate Islam.”

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, but like all such, there have always been multiple power centers jostling for control. Now, though, it’s a little bit more of an absolute monarchy—and will likely become even more so when Mohammed succeeds to the throne. This could happen soon if rumors about King Salman’s health are true, or if Salman simply decides to abdicate.

So what’s next? If there’s a backlash, Saudi Arabia’s future could feature years of power struggles. It’s happened before. Or Mohammed could consolidate his control and fulfill his promise to make Saudi Arabia more transparent and moderate (though not more democratic). At this point, I don’t think anyone knows which is more likely.

John Angelillo/Avalon via ZUMA

Here are some things we already know about Wilbur Ross, Donald Trump’s secretary of commerce:

• He is a multi-billionaire.
• He has investments in lots of different things.
• One of his investments is in Navigator Holdings, a large shipping company listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
• During his confirmation hearings, he promised to divest himself of holdings in dozens of corporations that could pose a conflict of interest.

Over the weekend, multiple outlets reported on a huge trove of internal documents from Appleby, a Bermuda-based law firm, that was leaked to the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and then shared with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. These so-called “Paradise Papers” reveal that Ross continues to own a stake in Navigator via a dizzying array of offshore accounts. Here’s the New York Times:

After becoming commerce secretary, Wilbur L. Ross Jr. retained investments in a shipping firm he once controlled that has significant business ties to a Russian oligarch subject to American sanctions and President Vladimir V. Putin’s son-in-law, according to newly disclosed documents.

The shipper, Navigator Holdings, earns millions of dollars a year transporting gas for one of its top clients, a giant Russian energy company called Sibur, whose owners include the oligarch and Mr. Putin’s family member….Mr. Ross kept an investment in Navigator, which increased its business dealings with Sibur even as the West sought to punish Russia’s energy sector over Mr. Putin’s incursions into Ukraine.

How much of Navigator does Ross own? Here’s the LA Times:

ICIJ reported that Ross and other investors own four Cayman Island entities that in turn own 31.5% of Navigator, a stake worth $176 million at Friday’s closing stock price. Ross’ stake in Navigator is likely a small fraction of that. In financial disclosure forms he filed with the government this year, Ross valued his holdings in the Cayman Island entities, which include other companies besides Navigator, at no more than $10.1 million.

Why did Ross hold onto this particular investment? It’s not like he’s seen a big payoff from it:

And anyway, didn’t Ross promise to divest himself of anything that might pose a conflict of interest? Here’s NBC News:

The documents seen by NBC News…tell a different story than the one Ross told at his confirmation. Ross divested most of his holdings, but did not reveal to the government the full details of the holdings he kept.

….Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said members of Congress who were part of Ross’ confirmation hearings were under the impression that Ross had divested all of his interests in Navigator. Furthermore, he said, they were unaware of Navigator’s close ties to Russia. “I am astonished and appalled because I feel misled,” said Blumenthal. “Our committee was misled, the American people were misled by the concealment of those companies.” Blumenthal said he will call for the inspector general of the Commerce Department to launch an investigation.

And what does Ross have to say about this?

Ross, through a Commerce Department spokesperson, issued a statement saying that he recuses himself as secretary from any matters regarding transoceanic shipping, and said he works closely with ethics officials in the department “to ensure the highest ethical standards.”

The statement said Ross “has been generally supportive of the Administration’s sanctions of Russian” business entities. But the statement did not address the question of whether he informed Congress or the Commerce Department that he was retaining an interest in companies that have close Russian ties.

This is…peculiar. It doesn’t appear that Ross owns a huge stake in Navigator. For a man of his wealth, the actual amount of money involved is just breadcrumbs. And it hasn’t been a great investment anyway. So why would he bother holding onto it? And in particular, why would he hold onto it but mislead Congress into thinking he had sold his stake? Especially when ties to Russia and Russian officials were under such intense scrutiny at the time?

Needless to say, the suspicion is that he held onto it for reasons other than money. But so far we don’t know anything more than that.

Dennis Van Tine/UPPA via ZUMA

There are pros and cons to being a blogger. One of the cons is that when you ask a question that shows off your ignorance, the entire world gets to see it. Let’s do it anyway.

Question: What exactly do people mean when they say that the Democratic establishment “cleared the field” for Hillary Clinton in 2016? I can think of various definitions of this, ranked from least to most objectionable:

1. HRC had lots of money and lots of support, and that scared everyone else away.
2. Democratic bigwigs actively lobbied prospective candidates to stand down.
3. HRC made various promises to superdelegates, but only if they’d support her and make sure that everyone knew they wouldn’t switch.
4. The establishment threatened prospective candidates in concrete ways if they showed interest in running.

#1 is meaningless. Someone is always the frontrunner. #2 is more active, but also a nothingburger. #3 is worse, depending on what kind of promises were made. #4 would be clearly beyond the pale.

So what is it? I’m not plugged into the gossip circuit, but I was paying attention during 2015 when candidates were thinking about running. I don’t recall hearing about anything untoward during that time. In fact, what I mostly heard were laments about how thin the Democratic bench was. Anyone care to help out here? I especially want to hear from Bernie supporters who feel like the Democratic establishment screwed them.