bostonangler

'Mannix' star Mike Connors dies at 91 Published January 27, 2017 Jan. 15, 1997: Actor Mike Connors, right, appears with actor **** Van Dyke during an episode of the television show "Diagnosis Murder," (AP Photo/Chris Pizzello, File) LOS ANGELES – Mike Connors, who starred as a hard-hitting private eye on the long-running television series "Mannix," has died. He was 91. The actor died surrounded by family Thursday afternoon at a Los Angeles hospital from complications of leukemia that had been diagnosed a week earlier, said his son-in-law, Mike Condon. "Mannix" ran for eight years on CBS beginning in 1967. Viewers were intrigued by the tall, smartly dressed, well-spoken detective who could mix it up with the burliest of thugs and leap on the hood of a racing car to prevent an escape. Episodes normally climaxed with a brawl that left the culprits bruised and beaten. "Up until Mannix, most private investigators were hard-nosed, cynical guys who lived in a seedy area and had no emotions," Connors theorized in 1997. "Mannix got emotionally involved. He was not above being taken advantage of." In the first season, Joe Mannix was a self-employed Los Angeles private investigator hired by a firm that used computers and high-tech equipment to uncover crime. The ratings were lukewarm. Connors feared the series would be canceled but it was produced by Lucille Ball's Desilu studio, and CBS was reluctant to antagonize its biggest star. In the second season, Mannix opened his own office and combatted low-lifes by himself. The ratings zoomed. When "Mannix" was revised the office acquired a secretary, played by African-American actress Gail Fisher. The network was concerned that affiliates in the South might object to her character but "there wasn't any kind of backlash," Connors recalled. Another highlight was the theme music by legendary screen composer Lalo Schifrin. Connors also starred in the TV series "Tightrope!" and "Today's FBI." Each lasted one season. His movie and TV career stretched from the 1950s to 2007, when he had a guest role on "Two and a Half Men." Connors made his film debut in 1952's "Sudden Fear," which starred Joan Crawford. Other films included "Island in the Sky," ''The Ten Commandments," and a remake of "Stagecoach." Connors, born Krekor Ohanian in 1925, was from an Armenian community in Fresno. He served in the Air Force during World War II and played basketball at the University of California, Los Angeles. After graduation he studied law for two years but his good looks and imposing presence attracted him to acting. In an era when film actors were given names like Tab and Rock, he appeared as Touch Connors — "Touch" being his basketball nickname. He later changed it to Michael and finally, Mike. Connors and his wife, Mary Lou, were married in 1949 and had two children: a son, Matthew, and a daughter, Dana. Their son, beset by hallucinations starting in his teens, was diagnosed with schizophrenia and before his death lived in a small residential care facility. Connors and his wife championed efforts to erase the stigma of mental illness. In addition to his wife, daughter and son-in-law, Connors is survived by a granddaughter, Cooper Wills.

Best line of the day... If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... B/A

Okay, if the heads of America's largest investment firms and leading economists aren't good enough I don't know who is. David Kostin, Goldman Sachs’ chief US equity strategist Jim McCaughan, chief executive of Principal Global Investors Rosanne Altshuler, a Rutgers University economist who studies international taxation. ’ Maybe you should be working on Wall Street. B/A

Keep dreaming I just hope you don't wake up in a gutter. B/A

Here's what the experts say... Maybe it's Trump supporters who aren't listening... The great American corporate buyback party was expected to fizzle out next year, leaving a hangover of debt and remorse. Instead, the boom may soon find renewed succour if US companies bring their pile of foreign-based cash back home. By signing up you confirm that you have read and agree to the terms and conditions, cookie policy and privacy policy. A tax holiday for US companies looms under president-elect Donald Trump, with some seeing this wave of cash as the catalyst of an investment boom and faster US economic growth. However, analysts and investors caution that the likeliest result is companies putting the money into share buybacks, echoing what happened in 2004 when the last overseas tax holiday was announced. “It’s a big financial deal but I’m not sure it makes a difference economically,” Jim McCaughan, chief executive of Principal Global Investors’ asset management arm, says of the expected shift of the money. “I don’t think availability of funds has been a major issue for US capital investment.” David Kostin, Goldman Sachs’ chief US equity strategist, estimates that corporate America will repatriate about $200bn of its foreign cash stash, and plough $150bn of this into ramped-up stock buyback programmes. Such an outcome would lift next year’s buyback total by 30 per cent to a record-smashing $780bn. This would eclipse the $710bn Goldman forecasts that S&P 500 companies will spend on traditional investments, such as plants, shops and warehouses, for only the second time in two decades. That prospect, combined with Mr Trump’s pledge to cut corporation tax, is already prompting investors to anticipate earnings per share will be nicely polished next year. JPMorgan Asset Management, for example, expects operating EPS across S&P 500 companies to climb to $134, up from an estimated $105 this year. They predict EPS of $117 next year without changes to corporate taxes. Investors are beginning to price in the buyback party extending past midnight. PowerShares’ $1.4bn Buyback Achievers exchange traded funds, which tracks companies with generous buyouts, has gained more than 6 per cent since the US election, more than twice the broader market’s rally. https://www.ft.com/content/ee554c60-b6ed-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d U.S. Companies Are Stashing $2.1 Trillion Overseas to Avoid Taxes Eight of the biggest U.S. technology companies added a combined $69 billion to their stockpiled offshore profits over the past year, even as some corporations in other industries felt pressure to bring cash back home. Microsoft Corp., Apple Inc., Google Inc. and five other tech firms now account for more than a fifth of the $2.10 trillion in profits that U.S. companies are holding overseas, according to a Bloomberg News review of the securities filings of 304 corporations. The total amount held outside the U.S. by the companies was up 8 percent from the previous year, though 58 companies reported smaller stockpiles. The money pileup, reflecting companies’ incentives to park profits in low-tax countries, has drawn the attention of President Barack Obama and U.S. lawmakers, who see a chance to tap the funds for spending programs and to revamp the tax code. That effort is stalled in Washington, and there are few signs that tech companies will bring the profits back to the U.S. until Congress gives them an incentive or a mandate. “It just makes no sense to repatriate, pay a substantial tax on it,” said Joseph Kennedy, a senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a policy-research group whose board of directors includes executives from Microsoft and Oracle Corp. “Computing and IT companies especially have a lot of flexibility in where they declare their profits.” Apple, Google Microsoft, Apple and Google each boosted their accumulated foreign profits by more than 20 percent over the year, the largest increases by any of the 34 companies with at least $16 billion outside the U.S. International Business Machines Corp., Cisco Systems Inc., Oracle, Qualcomm Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Co. each added at least $4 billion. The profits added by the eight technology companies accounted for 45 percent of the net gain in overseas funds among the corporations surveyed. At the same time, firms in some other industries felt enough pressure to meet domestic needs that they chose to take the tax hit by bringing money home. Duke Energy Corp., based in Charlotte, North Carolina, took a $373 million tax charge against earnings in February as part of a plan to get access to $2.7 billion in accumulated foreign profits. Stryker Corp., a Kalamazoo, Michigan-based maker of medical devices, is planning to repatriate $2 billion this year. Apache Corp., a Houston-based oil and gas company, had $17 billion indefinitely reinvested overseas at the end of 2013. Now, it has none. “The company made the decision to utilize international cash to pay down U.S. debt and grow its North American operations,” Castlen Kennedy, a spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. GE Leads General Electric Co. topped the list for the fifth straight year. The company now has $119 billion outside the U.S., an increase of 8 percent from the end of 2013 and a 27 percent gain since 2010. By contrast, Microsoft has more than tripled its offshore holdings since 2010. Apple, which counts only part of its non-U.S. holdings as indefinitely held offshore, increased that portion to $69.7 billion from $12.3 billion in 2010. Cisco now has $52.7 billion outside the U.S., up 10 percent since 2013. Microsoft referred back to 2012 Senate testimony by Bill Sample, its vice president for worldwide tax. Sample said then that the Redmond, Washington-based company is “fundamentally a global business” and that U.S. law creates a disincentive for U.S. investment. Kristin Huguet, a spokeswoman for Cupertino, California-based Apple, declined an interview request. Google Needs Google referred to a December 2013 letter that the Mountain View, California, company sent to the Securities and Exchange Commission. It said Google needs $20 billion to $30 billion for future acquisitions outside the U.S., $12 billion to $14 billion for foreign subsidiaries’ share of developing intellectual property and $2 billion to $4 billion for capital expenditures. John Chambers, Cisco’s chief executive officer, said on Bloomberg TV on Feb. 20 that his company is investing in India, Israel and France in the absence of U.S. tax law changes. “I’d prefer to have the vast majority of my employees here,” Chambers said. “And our tax policy is causing me to make decisions that I don’t think is in the interest of our country, or even in our shareholders, long term.” The Bloomberg analysis covers 304 large U.S.-based companies that are required to report annually how much they hold outside the country in profits, which isn’t the same thing as cash. Won’t Repatriate It’s a measure of accumulated profits, including those reinvested in active businesses and factories. The companies say they won’t repatriate these profits, and they haven’t assumed that they will pay future U.S. taxes that would be owed if they did. “One of the reasons that they’re holding the hoards of cash abroad is they don’t want to pay the repatriation tax when they bring it back,” said Rosanne Altshuler, a Rutgers University economist who studies international taxation. The analysis starts with corporations in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index and excludes purely domestic firms, real estate investment trusts and companies with headquarters outside the U.S. It includes each company’s most recent annual report, many of which were filed over the past month. The companies owe taxes at the full U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 percent on profits they earn around the world. They get tax credits for payments to foreign governments and don’t have to pay the residual U.S. tax until they bring the money home. Offshore Incentive Keeping money overseas is particularly easy for technology and pharmaceutical companies whose profits stem from intellectual property that can swiftly be moved. “It’s very easy to place a patent in another country and accrue the income there,” Altshuler said. “They’re very sensitive to differentials in corporate tax rates.” Gilead Sciences Inc., for example, reported that it held $15.6 billion outside the U.S. as of Dec. 31, up from $8.6 billion a year earlier. That’s because the intellectual property for the company’s blockbuster drug -- Sovaldi -- was in Ireland before the Food and Drug Administration approved it in 2013. Corporations that rely on intellectual property -- trademarks, logos or patents -- have an advantage over heavy industrial companies and the financial industry, which relies on providing services to customers, said Jennifer Blouin, an associate professor of accounting at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “You can’t move an oil rig out of certain jurisdictions,” she said. “You can’t shift the service income without moving the people.” Shareholder Obligation Companies have a duty to their shareholders and they’re responding logically to the incentives in the system, Kennedy said. “Companies are strongly driven by the need to increase shareholder value, and especially any public company has to meet market expectations,” he said. Whatever the reasons, the potential tax revenue from offshore profits is tempting to U.S. lawmakers, who have been struggling to fund road projects and revamp the tax system. Obama and top Republicans on the tax-writing committees say they won’t repeat a 2004 law that gave companies a voluntary repatriation holiday with a 5.25 percent tax rate. Instead, Obama earlier this year proposed applying a 14 percent mandatory tax on the stockpiled profits and a 19 percent minimum tax on foreign earnings going forward. The one-time tax would generate $268 billion over six years, which Obama wants to use for infrastructure. Because the one-time transition tax is levied on past earnings, it doesn’t distort companies’ decisions, Altshuler said. The real questions are the rate and the details of the tax system for future earnings. Obama’s plan hasn’t advanced in Congress, amid Republican objections to some of the details and the idea of using one-time money for needs such as highway construction. The president met March 2 with the chief executive officers of Xerox Corp., Micron Technology Inc., Qualcomm, IBM and EMC Corp., which have a combined $114 billion in accumulated offshore profits. “The president and the executives also discussed a shared desire to work with Congress to enact pro-growth, business tax reform,” the White House said in a statement. That doesn’t mean it’s going to happen anytime soon. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-04/u-s-companies-are-stashing-2-1-trillion-overseas-to-avoid-taxes Big U.S. firms hold $2.1 trillion overseas to avoid taxes. The 500 largest American companies hold more than $2.1 trillion in accumulated profits offshore to avoid U.S. taxes and would collectively owe an estimated $620 billion in U.S. taxes if they repatriated the funds... Would you like some more??? B/A

He also said he was going to put Clinton in jail, but instead he gave her a standing ovation. His supporters are going to be very angry when they wake up from their dream of an elitist actually caring about America. Sadly, he is one of them... B/A

Sorry but you are absolutely wrong. Made in America does cost more. Workers cost more in America so prices will go up. Tax breaks to corporations (corporate welfare) will send money over seas to tax shelters. Maybe we should put a tariff on exporting money... Now that would be interesting. B/A

Sorry MD, but all the news outlets now have an agenda, in terms of political reporting. If you think FOXNEWS isn't spinning or if CNN isn't spinning, or if websites are not spinning then I wish you luck. The bias is so obvious within all the media that in the end they will all lose their credibility. Fox fans will figure it out. CNN fans will figure it out. And then some new entity will rise and cash in on their blunder. It happens in every business. Someone rises to the top. They figure out how to capitalize and then they start thinking they will never lose. It is then when someone new comes along and changes the game. Think of Blockbuster and Netflix. Blockbuster could have bought them out, or build something bigger and better, but they thought they were untouchable. You know the rest of that story. That is what will eventually happen to the media. Someone is going to take them down, and they will be standing saying what just happened. B/A

You guys need to lighten up. I don't think CNN reporters showed up in a clown car. This is a funny thread. As for real news. There isn't any. It is now info-tainment driven by focus groups and demographics. They have learned a certain part of the population is left and the other is right, and they all cater to a demographic. If you think one news outlet is more honest than another, then you are exactly the person they are feeding their dribble to... B/A

This is true, but you left out an important part... THERE IS NOTHING MADE IN MEXICO WE CANNOT MAKE HERE. AS CHEAPLY. There is the problem. American's are not going to like paying 20% more for their stuff. Companies will manufacture in America again, but they will automate and eliminate jobs. How does this help the middle class? I find it hard to understand how anyone doesn't realize that creating import taxes will simply be passed on to the consumer. If margins (the cost of making a product and selling it) go down, prices have to go up. Again, if margins go down, prices go up. B/A

That's irony at it's best!!! B/A

If companies pay a tariff we are going pay. Pure and simple. Get used to it. B/A

I've read several articles stating The Dow at 20,000 is good, but not a big deal. The big investment firms don't watch the Dow because it only track 30 companies and they track The S & P because it tracks 500 companies. They say The S & P breaking 3,000 is more important. So keep your eye on the ball. It's earnings season right now and we will find out a lot about the future of the markets. B/A

Americans Will Pay For Trump's Wall Even With A Mexican Import Tax President Donald Trump looks up after signing the final of three executive orders, Monday, Jan. 23, 2017, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci) Questions of immigration and Donald Trump's promises of a wall between the US and Mexico have been hot and heavy since the election campaign. Only, now it's time for action, not talk. Yesterday, Trump signed an executive order to begin construction of the wall. Forget immigration policy or how effectively the wall, which is more a continuation of the nearly 600 miles of fence already built, will slow entry. (Ladders are cheap and tall.) Instead, consider who's paying for the construction. It turns out that, no matter how it's phrased, American citizens will pay for the wall, probably through increased prices on goods that could be a burden to the economically disadvantaged. The question is important. Senate leader Mitch McConnell estimated that construction will cost between $12 billion and $15 billion. That's a drop in the bucket in one sense, given that the annual budget is several trillion dollars. But to put that into a different perspective, the 2016 budget the Department of Transportation requested for the Federal Highway Administration was $51.3 billion "to maintain and improve the safety, condition, and performance of our national highway system, and enable FHWA to provide effective stewardship and oversight of highway programs and funding." The wall is one expensive piece of construction, running perhaps as much as 29 percent of what the nation spends in one year on national highways. The amount the Department of Homeland Security requested for the fiscal year 2017 for the entire U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) organization is $13.9 billion. Ice would need a budget more than doubled in size to manage the project. During the election and even now, Trump promised that Mexico would absolutely pay for the wall. Mexican officials, including the country's president, have said that they absolutely won't. In the past, Trump said that there were two ways Mexico might pay. One would be a direct payment. The other would be imposition of a tax of some sort, although previously he offered no details. The latest details are that he is proposing a 20 percent tax on all imports from Mexico. Those who favor a wall may think this is a smart move. However, there's a catch. Taxes on imports, otherwise known as duties, aren't paid by the companies sending goods from other countries, as the U.S. Customs and Border Protection explains. he importer is ultimately responsible for paying any duty owed on an import. Determining duty can be very complicated, and while shipping services will often give an estimate for what the duty rate on an item might be, only CBP can make a final determination about what is owed. You should not be misled into thinking your purchase price includes duty because the seller cannot say with absolute certainty what the duty will be. As a rule, a purchase price that includes shipping and handling does not include duty or any costs associated with clearing the goods through CBP. First time importers are often surprised by bills they receive for duty, U.S. Customs and Border Protection merchandise processing fee, and something referred to as "customs fees," which are actually charges for the services of the broker who cleared your goods through CBP. The entities responsible for paying the tax are the companies in the U.S. that are importing the goods. They, in turn, pass the costs along to their customers, which eventually charge consumers. And even if somehow the U.S. could force Mexican companies to pay the duties, those companies would just raise their prices to cover the extra cost. Bend over The Rump Train is coming! B/A

This is where it gets dicey. While president-elect and now president, Donald Trump has threatened new “border taxes” on products from Mexico and China if other reforms don’t take place. Now he seems to be proposing a specific tax on imports from Mexico, to pay for the wall he wants to build along the Mexican border, which could cost between $10 billion and $30 billion. Trump says he wants Mexico to pay for the wall, but such a border tax would fall largely on American consumers and US companies. And it could hurt the overall US economy rather than helping. White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters on Thursday that a plan “taking shape” would put a 20% tariff on Mexican goods imported to the United States. There are no such taxes now, since both countries are part of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which eliminates tariffs. A new 20% tax would raise the cost of a $100 product to $120. The importer could bear some or all of the added cost, by keeping the price at $100 and paying the tax in full. But sellers always try to pass new costs onto consumers, and some or much of the cost increase would probably come from consumers’ wallets. Trump’s threat of tariffs are the part of his economic plan business leaders and economists hate the most. Trump’s goal is to make imports more expensive in order to spur more production in the United States, where costs are almost always higher than in other countries because workers get paid more. But many economists say tariffs are a misguided way to encourage more US manufacturing, and could end up doing more harm than good. The Smoot-Hawley tariffs in the early 1930s are a notorious example of a horrible economic policy that triggered damaging trade wars and made the Great Depression worse, not better. Trump can’t impose new tariffs on Mexico right away. He’d first have to officially inform Canada and Mexico of America’s intent to withdraw from NAFTA. If nothing changed, the United States would exit the treaty six months later. At that point, Trump could begin imposing tariffs—largely without any new legislation from Congress. Spicer indicated new tariffs might be part of a big tax-reform bill expected from Congress this year, but trade experts say Trump wouldn’t need a new law. He could largely impose tariffs on his own. [Related: How Trump can get his way on tariffs.] Whether that would be smart is another question. There is bound to be aggressive pushback to the whole idea from many industries, plus Republican members of Congress and even some of Trump’s incoming Cabinet members, who favor free trade and oppose tariffs. Trump’s negotiating style, as many are learning, is to threaten draconian consequences then settle for some compromise that’s less disruptive. On the other hand, the mere threat of tariffs might put business plans on hold at dozens of big companies, spook financial markets and wreak havoc with the value of the dollar and commodities dependent on future expectations of inflation. The United States imported roughly $300 billion worth of products from Mexico in 2016. Twenty percent of that would amount to a $60 billion tax on some combination of Mexican exporters and US consumers. Spicer suggested a lower number, saying the 20% tariff would only apply to the amount of the trade deficit and total $10 billion or so. But you can’t tax a trade deficit, you can only tax actual imports. Further clarifications by Spicer seem to indicate the whole idea needs to be developed more carefully. Keep in mind, many of the Mexican exporters are American companies such as General Motors (GM) and Ford (F). So higher taxes on them would lower profitability and perhaps dent their hiring plans in the United States. Here are the biggest categories of imports from Mexico, according to government data for 2015: Trucks and buses ~ $29 billion per year Passenger cars ~ $23 billion Computers ~ $15 billion Telecommunications equipment ~ $14 billion TVs and video equipment ~ $13 billion Crude oil ~ $12 billion Engines and engine parts ~ $9 billion Appliances ~ $7 billion Industrial machines ~ $7 billion Vegetables ~ $6 billion To ballpark a few things that might change if a 20% tax went into effect: The cost of a $600 dishwasher made in Mexico would rise to $720, a $1,000 computer would rise to $1,200 and a $20,000 automobile would rise to $24,000. Trump’s theory is that higher prices would quickly spur new investment in US factories, and the new jobs created here would somehow offset higher prices paid by consumers. But many economists don’t see it that way. Manufacturers might seek other low-cost countries instead of moving production to the United States, and if Trump taxed those imports too, some producers might just stop making goods they can’t earn a guaranteed profit on at America’s high labor costs. Or, they could relocate production to the United States but seek aggressive new ways to automate, so they’re less dependent on costly labor. Meanwhile, countries hit with new tariffs on imports to the United States are likely to impose their own tariffs on American imports, which would hurt Americans, too. Americans buy more Mexican products than vice versa, with an annual trade deficit of more than $60 billion during the last 12 months. But American producers still export about $230 billion worth of goods to Mexico, and at least some jobs involving those products would be imperiled. Or, maybe Trump is bluffing and he’ll settle for something far less onerous. And perhaps his promises to cut taxes and slash regulation would offset damage done by trade protection, if they get through Congress. Thing is, when things change, there are new winners and losers, and the losers often don’t see it coming. The losers under new tariffs won’t all be south of the border. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-just-proposed-a-60-billion-tax-hike-214631857.html B/A

Hmmmm. The world is watching. I think Trump may struggle due to the fact he has never had a boss... Now he has 320,000,000 bosses and a stage of world leaders who are his equal and not his employees. This reality star is going to need a reality check. JMHO B/A

Umbertino, I would be interested in the perspective or your friends and family in Italy to the results of our election and their thoughts going forward. I think it would be very educational to know what others think. Thanks B/A

The IRS has screwed us since it's inception. Period. B/A

They are all inbred... B/A

I love the Onion. They are so creative, but I think you should have disclaimed it as satire. There are people who actually believe fake news. JMHO B/A

What's the import tax on that? LOL Of course as a tax payer, I would hope he would buy American. I understand this is a marketing ploy by the company, but it would be sad if we actually bought one with our tax dollars. JMHO B/A

WASHINGTON (AP) — An electrical subcontractor who worked on the Trump International Hotel in Washington has sued a company owned by President Donald Trump for more than $2 million, alleging it was not fully paid. AES Electrical filed its lawsuit in the District of Columbia Superior Court, the latest in a string of lawsuits involving Trump's renovation of the historic Old Post Office building a few blocks from the White House. AES, a California company doing business locally under the name Freestate Electrical Construction Co., alleged that it bore increased expenses last year because of change orders and other demands from Trump's staff. AES said it was told to accelerate the pace of work so that the then-Republican presidential candidate could hold a televised media event to celebrate the "soft opening" of the luxury hotel prior to the November election. A statement issued by the Trump Organization said that such business disputes are not uncommon during the close-out phase of construction projects of the scale and complexity of the project. "The Trump Organization has invested over $200 million into the redevelopment of the historic Old Post Office and is incredibly proud of what is now considered to be one the most iconic hotels anywhere in the country," the statement said. AES said its workers were required to work overtime hours for 50 consecutive days to finish the electrical and fire alarm work at the building before the campaign event. Without the extra work, the company said the building would not have met fire codes and would not have been permitted to open. Trump's campaign orchestrated a lavish ribbon-cutting event at the hotel, which the candidate used to laud his own business acumen. Trump claimed the hotel was opening earlier than scheduled and under budget. The lawsuit alleged that Trump has saved money by refusing to pay his bills, instead offering to pay AES about one-third of the invoiced amount. "Trump's actions in refusing to pay for work performed, after a project has opened, is a repeated practice of the Trump organizations on various projects; evidencing a typical business practice meant to force subcontractors to accept 'pennies on the dollar' with respect to amounts owed for the cost of work performed," the lawsuit alleged. The complaint, filed last week, was first reported by Politico on Wednesday. AES is also suing two of Trump's primary construction contractors. Trump's long history of refusing to pay vendors and contractors was the subject of numerous news stories last year. Democratic nominee Hillarious Clinton sought to make it a campaign issue, including airing a television commercial that featured an architect who said his small business was nearly bankrupted when Trump refused to pay him for designing a club house at one of his golf courses. Trump's hotel in Washington served as a hub of inaugural activities and has proved controversial for what top Democrats and some ethics advisers see as the new president's conflicts of interest. Trump's lease with the federal government to develop and operate the hotel expressly prohibits any elected official from benefiting from the property. So far, Trump has not divested from the project. The government's General Services Administration has declined to comment on the apparent contract violation that occurred when Trump took office last week