Shameful
Posted: August 13, 2017 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Alt-right, Divisiveness, Donald Trump, Human Rights, Neo-Nazis, Politics, Terrorism, United States, White Supremacists Leave a commentIt was a sad day for our country in Charlottesville Virginia yesterday when white supremacists, including self-avowed Ku Klux Klansmen, Neo-Nazis, Anti-Semites and others demonstrated, resulting in the loss of three lives — one woman killed in a white supremacist terror attack and two Virginia State Police Troopers helping to protect the citizens of Charlottesville died when their helicopter crashed.
I could hardly believe that this was happening in our country. Not so much that such people exist — it is a sad but true fact that they do — but that so many of them came from around the country to impose their twisted vision of America on the good citizens of Charlottesville.
More unbelievable, and vastly more disappointing and troublesome to me, our president refused to denounce the white supremacists and refused to call it an act of terror when a car deliberately plowed into a crowd of peaceful protesters denouncing the white supremacists .
Shameful.
I just happened to see the president’s remarks live, as they happened. Many of you probably saw them replayed on various news stations. The clip most played is the president saying:
“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides. On many sides.”
Watching it closely, and paying attention to the body language, it was clear to me that President Trump was ad libbing the “many sides” phrase. Which he repeated with his characteristic hand gestures usually utilized in conjunction with “believe me.” What is not shown, and astounded me in the moment, was during his prepared remarks, he deviated from the script several times, including a long riff in the middle of his remarks about the unfolding tragedy in Charlottesville to assure us, as a nation, that he was doing a great job.
“Our country is doing very well in so many ways. We have record — just absolute record employment. We have unemployment, the lowest it’s been in almost 17 years. We have companies pouring into our country. Foxconn and car companies, and so many others, they’re coming back to our country. We’re renegotiating trade deals to make them great for our country and great for the American worker. We have so many incredible things happening in our country. So when I watch Charlottesville, to me it’s very, very sad.”
It always has to be about him.
Not only did he fail his course on Presidency 101 and what to say and do when faced with a tragic event, he totally failed in calling out the white supremacists and in making clear that there was no place for them in our United States. On “many sides” indeed. He doesn’t have the guts to call out Nazis? The KKK? He has the guts to call out the immigrant parents of a United States Army officer killed in action defending our country but not these yahoos? What the heck? My father and father-in-law were World War II veterans, what did they fight for if professed Nazis can carry swastikas in the streets and the president refuses to call them out?
The only answer I can come up with is that he doesn’t want to upset his “base.” One would hope that he doesn’t want white supremacists in his base, but apparently that isn’t the case. Am I hyperventilating? Perhaps. But I am not making this up from thin air. Look at the comments from the former Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan David Duke on the eve of the demonstration.
“This represents a turning point for the people of this country. We are determined to take our country back. We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in, that’s why we voted for Donald Trump. Because he said he’s going to take our country back. That’s what we gotta do.”
Was that a one-off? Let’s take another sample from a white supremacist who said the following after the president’s remarks.
“Trump’s comments were good. He didn’t attack us. He just said the nation should come together. Nothing specific against us. He said that we need to study why people are so angry, and implied that there was hate… on both sides! So he implied the antifa [I looked this up — it is short for antifascists] are haters.”
“There was virtually no counter-signaling of us at all. He said he loves us all. Also refused to answer a question about white nationalists supporting him. No condemnation at all. When asked to condemn, he just walked out of the room. Really, really good. God bless him.”
You get the picture. That’s why words matter and especially from the president. He knows that and if he doesn’t then his staff sorely let him down. But having watched his remarks live, he appeared to deviate from his prepared remarks on several occasions so as not to be specific about the groups behind the hate. I guess he just cannot bring himself to separate from his so called supporters.
As I write, the White House staff is in full damage control mode saying essentially that of course the president denounces all hate groups. Why would they go into damage control mode if the president’s remarks were not in fact totally inadequate? Because he didn’t and he hasn’t actually rebuked these far right-wing extremists and terrorists. How hard is it to say that driving a car into a peaceful crowd to purposely maim and kill is an act of terrorism? He certainly is not shy. Except in these cases. Where is Mr. I’m-not-politically-correct?
Thankfully politicians of every stripe from Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex) to former Vice President Joe Biden came out in full-throated condemnation of the white supremacists and also chastised the president for his missed hand slap to the violent white supremacists. There is hope that all of us will stand up for what we believe actually makes America great and not let this behavior continue unchallenged. And we should voice our opinions to President Trump to let him know how badly he let us all down, both as president and as a person.
Clearly these far right-wing nuts think that the president is on their side. With so called alt-right (a nice name for white supremacists) supporters on his personal staff in the White House — Mr. Steve Bannon and alleged doctor Sebastian Gorka to name two — they have good reason to think so. The only way that he can disabuse them of that notion is to clearly, forcefully and unambiguously tell them to climb back into their holes and that he refuses their support in any way, shape, or form. Otherwise, he is not the president of the United States that I know and love.
Really? I Mean, Really…
Posted: August 12, 2017 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Deep State, Donald Trump, Russia, Sanctions, United States, Vladimir Putin Leave a commentQUESTION: Mr. President, do you have any response to the Russian president expelling 755 workers from our embassy in Russia?
TRUMP: No, I want to thank [Putin], because we’re trying to cut down on payroll. And as far as I’m concerned, I’m very thankful that he let go of a large number of people because now we have a smaller payroll. There’s no real reason for them to go back. So, I greatly appreciate the fact that they’ve been able to cut our payroll for the United States. We’ll save a lot of money.
President Trump made these comments during an impromptu press conference on Thursday at his golf resort in Bedminster, New Jersey. He doubled down on them on Friday.
His press secretary related that the president was “joking” and being “sarcastic” — seemingly the go-to response for every comment he makes that receives significant push back for its outrageous nature. But let’s assume that, in fact, he is joking. It is still an outrageous comment coming from a president and it shows no respect for his diplomats and the important work that they do, including at times putting their own well-being at risk. Perhaps a little context will help to bring this home.
At the end of July Russian President Putin gave the United States until 1 September to remove 755 diplomatic and technical support personnel from our embassy in Moscow. In addition, he seized two properties used by the U.S. embassy. All of this was in retaliation for the sanctions bill passed by the U.S. Congress a few days earlier.
Until last Thursday, the president made no comment about the Russian actions. None. Eleven days without comment on that situation despite having lots to say about stories on “Fox and Friends” and a significant number of insignificant matters. He had time to Tweet numerous attacks on his own Senate Majority Leader, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), but has yet to utter one negative word about Russia, or Mr. Putin. He still has not done so. His first comment on a long-standing dispute with Russia was to “thank” Mr. Putin. Ha. Ha.
His remarks also reveal a lack of understanding of how these things work. It is also possible that he thinks of the diplomats as “employees” — perhaps the same way he thinks of the workers that make his shirts in Bangladesh. Obviously, Mr. Putin did not “let go” U.S. diplomats. He can’t, they are American citizens working for the U.S. government. And Mr. Putin did not “cut the payroll” or “save a lot of money” because those impacted people still receive pay checks. They will return to the U.S. or posted elsewhere overseas. Mr. Putin’s actions will have some impact on his own citizens’ pay checks, as there are some Russian nationals that work in our embassy and consulates in supporting roles that will lose their jobs.
The reported response from the career diplomats, current and past, was predictably swift. And they were not pleased. Coupled with what appears to be a secondary role for Secretary of State Tillerson and the fact that countless senior positions in the State Department critical to shaping and implementing U.S. foreign policy have yet to be nominated, much less in position to help — including an ambassador to South Korea, which might be useful about now — it appears that President Trump has little use for, and certainly no regard for, the role our professional diplomats play in keeping our nation safe. I expect many to start voting with their feet and leaving the foreign service, further debilitating our ability to meet our national goals. Of course, to some presidential advisers, those that work in the Department of State are the worst of the “deep state.” They will be happy to see these professional diplomats resign. Apparently, President Trump agrees with that view.
He also apparently does not understand that far more U.S. government departments work in our overseas embassies than just from the Department of State. In an embassy such as ours in Moscow (the largest we currently have) there are personnel from the CIA, FBI, Agriculture, Commerce, Treasury and just about every agency in between. Losing these positions inhibits our ability to maintain some programs (remember, for example, that our NASA astronauts ride Russian rockets into space) but also inhibits our ability to gather valuable intelligence on every facet of life in Russia. The reduction will also have a significant impact on services provided to Americans in Russia as well as on Russians that may need visas or other assistance in travelling to the U.S.
President Trump’s cavalier attitude about nearly everything that does not benefit him directly is not only short-sighted in ensuring an effectively functioning government, it also shows his disdain for patriotic Americans that are at the front lines in keeping our nation safe.
In a week of events that were mind-boggling, one more reckless statement from the president was probably lost in the news of so many outrageous statements and careless Tweets. To me, however, his Russian statement represented all of the things that I worry about concerning our president. His lack of knowledge, his lack of intellectual curiosity about anything that has to do with basic civics, his lack of concern over anything that does not involve him personally, and the cavalier way that he treats people trying hard to serve him and the American public. I could go on.
Really Mr. President? I mean, really. As my grandmother would have said, “for goodness sake…”
A Real Crisis
Posted: August 8, 2017 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Ballistic Missile Defense, Deterrence, Donald Trump, Kim Jong Un, North Korea, Nuclear Weapons, Sanctions, United States 4 CommentsWith the president on vacation — or “working vacation” as he prefers — and many of us likewise enjoying some time off and therefore not paying much attention to world events, it is possible to overlook the quickly unfolding events surrounding North Korea. It appears that what was possible “five to ten years” from now may have already happened, or is about to happen.
North Korea has or is very close to having Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) with a range to reach the U.S. mainland, carrying nuclear weapons.
Kim Jong Un with nuclear weapons. That should give us all pause.
Given that North Korea is the toughest place on earth to penetrate for accurate information, no one really knows what they do or do not have. However, at the end of July they tested an ICBM that credible experts say has the potential to reach at least to Chicago. This afternoon, the Washington Post has a breaking story that reports that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessed in late July that the North Koreans have the ability to miniaturize nuclear weapons to fit on an ICBM. This is no small technical accomplishment and one that only earlier this summer analysts did not think was within their capability. Giving more weight to the assessment, the Japanese Ministry of Defense concluded that there is evidence to suggest that North Korea has indeed achieved miniaturization. It is still unclear whether they have reached the ability to keep the re-entry vehicle (the bomb) from burning up upon re-entry, but they will achieve that feat as well in due order.
To add to our degree of safety, according to the report, the North Koreans may also have as many as 60 nuclear weapons. Other analysts think the number is much lower, somewhere around 20 to 25. A comforting thought.
This past weekend a step in the right direction occurred when the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) voted unanimously to significantly increase the world-wide sanctions on North Korea. This is a noteworthy event as both Russia and China voted for the measure. Most times they veto almost anything proposed by the U.S. involving North Korea. It remains to be seen whether they enforce those sanctions, but it is a positive step.
History indicates however, that Kim Jong Un cares little for sanctions, no matter how debilitating they may be to his nation’s population. In the past, he allowed his population to starve by the thousands under previous sanctions. He just doesn’t care.
All this is not to say that we in the U.S., or anywhere else in the world, is in immediate danger. It does say that the equation changed. As I have written in this space before, such as on 27 May this year, I do not believe that there is anything currently on the table that will cause Kim to give up his nuclear arsenal. In his mind, those weapons are the key to his survival. Period. He gives them up, the regime will be destroyed. As I’ve written, all he has to do is look at Saddam Hussein and Moahmar Qadhafi, both of whom gave up their Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) programs and ended up dead.
Likewise I do not subscribe to the theory that Kim is “crazy” or a “madman” or any other such characterizations of him. That is not the danger. The danger is that he is young, relatively unsophisticated and with little practical experience in world affairs. The possibility of a miscalculation is high. Unfortunately, it is even higher as President Trump talks about North Korea in belligerent terms. This afternoon at his golf course in Bedminster New Jersey, the president said that “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury the likes of which the world has never seen.” While deterrence is based on making a clear and credible threat of retaliation, and certainly we need to be clear about the fact that we will retaliate, this type of language increases the possibility of Kim miscalculating the threat from the U.S. It also is not clear as to what exactly the president means by that. However, again, Kim is all about survival, he does not have a death wish. The danger comes in him believing a presidential statement or Tweet and calculating that the U.S. and/or our allies are about to attack and therefore he decides to strike first. Cool heads must prevail and look to the long-term to solve this problem.
There is one other little discussed element of this problem. The North Koreans are all about being anti-American. A quick look at their history, and especially their terrible losses in the Korean War, help to explain their position. They may find it convenient to use a proxy, such as a terrorist group or other bad actor, to use one of these weapons. They could sell a weapon or the knowledge of how to build one in order to achieve two goals, hard currency and an attack on the United States.
When the dust settles, the U.S. basically has three options. Conduct a preemptive military strike, negotiate a freeze on further development of North Korean nuclear weapons and missiles or accept the fact that they already have them. All three should be pursued in their own way, but we need to be realistic as to their impact on the situation and understand that there may be no one answer.
Despite the president’s rhetoric, and rightly saying that all options remain on the table, the likelihood of the U.S. precipitating military action is small. Or it should be. As I wrote in May, the costs of a military conflagration on the Korean peninsula, that will surely spread to Japan and elsewhere in the Pacific, are just too high. Not that it could not happen, just that it is very unlikely in a rationale calculus. The one exception I might put out there is an attack to decapitate the North Korean leadership — Kim Jung Un and his cronies — but that is a very risky undertaking. If we miss, Kim will unleash his forces. Even if we succeed, there is no guarantee his successors will not retaliate. Complicating the issue is neither Russia or China desire regime change in North Korea and greatly fear its collapse. They will have a vote — real or in projected reaction — on how things play out. It is nearly impossible to expect a U.S. military preemptive attack to take out the missiles and weapons. They are in hardened locations and are nearly impossible to reach, even if we are sure where they are, which we are not.
The second option is to negotiate. The Russians and Chinese are trying to facilitate those negotiations even as we sit here today. Their proposal is to have the U.S. and South Korea pledge to never again hold military exercises on or near the Korean peninsula in exchange for the North Koreans freezing their nuclear and missile programs. This is a non-starter on two levels. The U.S. will not (or should not) abandon its allies. Secondly, over several decades, the North Koreans have never seriously sat down at the table for negotiations. Negotiations were held in the past, but it quickly became apparent that the North Koreans had no intention of acquiescing to anything. If Kim believes his survival means keeping his programs then there is no reason to believe he will negotiate them away.
The third option, accept the new development as we did when the Soviet Union and later China developed nuclear weapons, is not “giving up.” We have a credible deterrent in both nuclear and conventional weapons that can do great harm to Kim and his regime. He knows this. Additionally, the U.S. has Ballistic Missile Defense Systems (BMD) in California and Alaska that have been successfully tested. They were built with a regime like North Korea in mind. Additionally the U.S. Navy and U.S. Army have BMD systems. There are additional diplomatic and economic measures that can be taken to continue to contain the North Korean threat. It is not a hopeless cause and a North Korean attack is not inevitable in any respect.
Unfortunately, the world just became more dangerous. As a result, the U.S. and our allies must negotiate this new terrain very carefully. We should not take the threat lightly and it does change how we deal in the Pacific Theater. At the same time, never make a threat that will not be carried out. It results in a loss of credibility, which impacts deterrence, and may end up causing the very act that one is trying to deter.
Our national security team has its work cut out for it. Let’s hope they make the right choices.
It Just Will Not Stop
Posted: July 31, 2017 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Congress, Donald Trump, Obamacare, Partisan, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Politics, Sanctions, Transgender, Trumpcare, United States, Vladimir Putin Leave a commentJust when one thinks that just about everything that could happen under the Trump Administration has already occurred — it can’t possibly get any crazier, but it does. Last week was chock full of newsworthy items, any one of which would have been worthy of discussion but they just kept coming and coming. Over the last week or so, we’ve seen proof that President Trump still does not understand the dignity and impact of the presidency.
To quickly cover a few of the highlights before getting to the main event — health care bills — let’s do a tour d’ horizon. Two venerable institutions, the Boy Scouts of America and Police Departments across the country, had to issue apologies and “clarifications” following President Trump’s speeches to the annual Boy Scout Jamboree in West Virginia and to a Long Island New York police department.
In the former he gave a political speech that was short on inspiration to America’s youth and long on past grievances, politics, and a reminder of how personally great everything Trump is and will be. Some parents threatened to pull their kids from the Scouts. President Trump supporters opined that the “kids loved it” forgetting that they are boys and teens and that when you get 40,000 kids together in one place, especially mostly boys, they will laugh and cheer at just about anything, especially if flatulence is involved. On Long Island the president seemed to say that police brutality when arresting suspects was okay. As usual, whenever called out on similar pronouncements, it was proposed that it was a “joke.” Police departments around the country could only cringe and issue statements that such statements were no joking matter and that their (fill in the city) police department does not condone such action.
Within days of President Trump announcing the new White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci, aka “The Mooch”, aka “Mini-me” Mr. Scaramucci went on a rant to a New Yorker Magazine reporter that disparaged key senior members of the White House staff and included numerous references, in full graphic detail, to acts of biology that to my knowledge are impossible. No comment from the president at the time. Others in the Administration opined that he’s just a “New Yorker” and apparently that’s how New Yorkers talk about co-workers. Having lived for a number of years in New York state I don’t recall anyone talking that way and certainly not in the name of the President of the United States.
In Tweets (Tweets!) the president continues to disparage his own Attorney General and his first and for a very long time, only official supporter for president. According to some accounts this is a prelude to cleaning out the senior levels of the Department of Justice including the Attorney General, his deputy, the Acting FBI Director, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller. No problem there. In another Tweet the president arbitrarily told all active duty transgender military personnel that their services were no longer required “in any capacity” because they are a burden and “disruptive.” Suddenly somewhere around 7,000 soldiers, Marines, Sailors and airmen are in limbo and told that somehow their patriotism and willingness to defend the nation does not count.
In yet another Tweet, the president fired his chief of staff Reince Priebus. The Tweet announced that retired Marine general and serving Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly would be the new chief.
Whew! A full week.
On the upside for those of us rooting for a successful and appropriate presidency there were several positive developments. As I write this, reports are that Anthony Scaramucci was removed from his job of ten days as the Communications Director. I have no inside information but I suspect that the new chief of staff had something to do with that as Mr. Scaramucci bragged last week that he only reported directly to the president and did not have to answer to anyone else on the staff. My knowledge of General Kelly, although limited, would indicate that he would absolutely not tolerate antics such as those of Mr. Scaramucci. Perhaps the General can bring order to the White House staff. We’ll see, but a good first step.
Also positive, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford, USMC let it be known that the military does not act on Tweets or any other form of informal communications when a policy decision is to be made, even a Tweet by the president concerning transgender policy. Hurrah. It remains to be seen what actual policy evolves, but it is good to know that spontaneous utterances by the president will not precipitate military action.
Further good news came out of the Congress that overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan bill strengthening sanctions primarily against Russia, but with some additional provisions against Iran and North Korea. The Congress felt it necessary after listening to, and observing the actions of, President Trump with regards to Russian President Putin and our president’s apparent fascination with him. The White House staff had worked hard behind the scenes to stop the passage of the bill but both houses of the Congress got up on their hind legs and said “no” to the president on this issue. A positive sign that they may increasingly exercise their role in governing as an equal branch of the government.
Many Republican Senators and Representatives also went on the record along with their Democrat colleagues to oppose President Trump’s Tweet policy on transgender individuals in the military and the treatment of Attorney General Sessions. Clear signs that the president will not get blanket support from them. As an aside, the president now taunts Republicans as well as Democrats via Twitter seeming to make it clear that he does not consider himself a Republican. But to most of us, that is no surprise.
And of course let’s not forget that North Korea tested new Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) that experts think can reach targets on the U.S. mainland as far as Chicago.
Arguably the biggest news of the week was the failure to repeal or repeal and replace or otherwise get rid of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) lovingly known as Obamacare. Most of us followed the news and at least heard of the ins and outs of the entire suspense filled week of “will they or won’t they?” They did not. One could ask why after seven years of clamoring for (and voting over 50 times for) the repeal of Obamacare the Republicans were not ready to put forward their own coherent health plan. One could also ask why the only argument put forward by most Republicans, and especially by the president, had nothing to do with the merits of the proposed replacement plan(s) but rather the only argument was that Obamacare was “bad” — nothing about why the new plan would be better. SAD!
But be careful.
I do not think the health care battle is finished, only in a strategic pause. There will be further efforts to repeal or repeal and replace. For supporters of Obamacare, or supporters of a bipartisan effort to repair Obamacare and to make it better, do not relax. The fat lady has yet to sing.
Over the weekend President Trump tweeted out (how else?) that Obamacare was going to implode and implicitly that he would make it happen. On Sunday the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Mick Mulvaney went on television to be explicit about the president’s threats/promises. As I have written in this space before, the president can do grave harm to the current Obamacare system, primarily through non-enforcement of the mandate and by withholding funds to subsidize premiums. He also made news by threatening the Congress and Congressional staffers with actions to increase their premiums. I am no expert in this area, but this is what I understand is the issue.
Is it possible for the president to make Obamacare “implode” as he promises? As with most things, the answer is “it depends” on what part of Obamacare one refers to during the discussion. Since Obamacare remains the law of the land, the president cannot make it go away at once. He can, however, create enough chaos in the system that it can degrade over time. Remember that most Americans get their health insurance through their employers or through the government (military, VA, military retirees, Medicare, etc.). For middle to low-income working adults and for children that do not have employer or government health insurance they mostly get their insurance through Medicaid or in a market place created by the ACA. Although a major factor in the latest debates, Medicaid is provided by law and cannot be legally changed without a change to the law. What is really under discussion are the ACA market places. Since the ACA was fully implemented, about 10 million Americans get their coverage via the government market place. These are the people you most hear about on the news and in political rallies, be it how bad the system is or how wonderful the system is.
The administration has a number of ways to degrade the ACA. In a slow motion effort, they could stop advertising and marketing the exchanges so that people either don’t know that the markets still exist (a lot of Americans are unsure as to what is available after all the latest hubbub) or miss deadlines to sign up because there was no public advertising as to how or when to get on board. Additionally, if the administration follows through by not enforcing the mandate (either get insurance or pay a fine) healthy people will get out of the market which causes costs to rise for the insurers which is then passed on to those still in the market — their premiums rise — or the insurer gets out of the market because it isn’t profitable for them if they have to eat the added costs. (Remember the three legs from my 23 June post. To work, if we want to cover pre-existing conditions, the system needs a mandate to keep the pool costs low by balancing healthy folks with those that we already know have problems, but then to be fair, we subsidize those that have to have insurance but cannot afford it. Get anything out of whack, and the system starts to wobble — the promised “death spiral.”)
President Trump is threatening/promising to speed up the process by withholding cost sharing payments. As I write, they are only released through the end of July — today. (The next deadline is in late August.) The ACA requires insurance companies to hold down the deductibles, co-pays and premiums for those in the individual market place. However, the insurance companies are not charitable organizations and they are in business to make money. To make up the loss of revenue to those companies every month the government makes up the difference on the costs — currently about $600 million a month. Should the Trump administration stop paying those subsidies, premiums for those on the market place would sky-rocket or the insurers would just pull out of the market. This is a lot of what you hear about when those that oppose the ACA say it is “collapsing.” Health care and health insurance is not “collapsing” for most Americans, but it could for those middle to low-income Americans that are on the individual markets should the president follow through and try to cause the ACA to “implode”.
He claims the Democrats will “own it” and he will take no blame. I think he is fooling himself if he takes deliberate action to make it tough on the citizens he swore to protect.
There is one more esoteric wrinkle in the president’s threats that you may hear more about this week. Mr. Mulvaney explained the issue and says that the president is serious about implementing it. This involves the health insurance for members of Congress and their staffs. Despite rumors to the contrary, by law the entire Congress and their staffs are on the ACA — they get their insurance from Obamacare. But with a wrinkle. President Obama’s administration put out a policy that allowed them to treat each individual office of each Senator and Representative each as a small business. This means that they are eligible for the subsidies just talked about above, saving them lots of money out of their own pockets. Before setting our hair on fire, take a minute to think about it. Certainly the individual Senators and Representatives could afford to pay full price in an employer plan, but most staffers, interns, administrative personnel, etc. working in their offices are young folks not making much money. It would have a huge impact on them should President Trump change the policy to exclude them from the subsidy program.
Today is the start of a new week. Let’s hope it is a dull one. We need to take a collective deep breath and take a few minutes to enjoy the summer. And summers in official Washington D.C. are supposed to be dull. Nothing going on. If so, hold on to your hats come September.
That Was The Week That Was
Posted: July 21, 2017 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Congress, Divisiveness, Donald Trump, Partisan, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Politics, Russia, Syria, United States Constitution 2 CommentsSome of us of a certain age can remember the 60’s political satire show “That Was The Week That Was”, or TWTWTW, or simply TW3. The show launched the American career of the British television host David Frost who went on to do many serious interviews including the definitive series of interviews with former president Richard Nixon. But in the beginning, think of TW3 as an early, ensemble cast version of the “Daily Show.” I can only imagine what fun they would have had with this week’s news out of Washington D.C. Actually, it is hard to keep up with the news from the last 72 hours, but I will try to hit some of the highlights.
First, on the Russian front. No, not that news, but rather the news that President Trump decided to withdraw the U.S. from a CIA program to provide training and equipment to Anti-Assad forces in Syria. One could argue whether that secret program — different from the American involvement in Syria fighting ISIS — was effective or not, but it was relatively low-cost and showed U.S. support for freedom fighters in Syria. By pulling the rug out from under them, it seriously undermines confidence in U.S. commitments in the Middle East. Oh, by the way, the Russians’ number one request from the U.S. was to withdraw support from those forces. They have been demanding it for years. And now the U.S. has given in to the demand in exchange for, for, well apparently for nothing. A significant bargaining chip for the U.S. in its relations with Russia (and a symbol of our desire for Bashar al-Assad to go away) is now off the table. Not sure how or why because the Trump administration doesn’t want to talk about it.
In an extraordinary (in every sense of the word) interview with the New York Times President Trump talked about everything from the healthcare bill, to the French Bastille Day celebration, to Napoleon, to Hitler to NATO and many more topics (you can’t make this stuff up). In total, a bit disconcerting when it is all put together. Reading the transcript is actually frightening as it shows that the president thinks that the entire federal government is his personal staff — that they owe allegiance to him first, foremost and only, rather than to the American people and the Constitution. It cements in my mind that he has no real understanding of what it actually means to be president of the entire United States. It is particularly disconcerting when he speaks about the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the senior leaders in both. By name and with apparent malice of forethought he disparaged Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller. For one example, how would you interpret what he said about Attorney General Sessions?
TRUMP: Well, Sessions should have never recused himself, and if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job, and I would have picked somebody else.
HABERMAN {NY Times}: He gave you no heads up at all, in any sense?
TRUMP: Zero. So Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself. I then have — which, frankly, I think is very unfair to the president. How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, I would have said, “Thanks, Jeff, but I can’t, you know, I’m not going to take you.” It’s extremely unfair, and that’s a mild word, to the president. So he recuses himself. I then end up with a second man, who’s a deputy.
To me two things jump out. First, in the best case scenario, the president does not understand the role of the DOJ and that those attorneys do not work for him as Mr. Trump. They work for the American people and need to have a loyalty to the Constitution rather than to an individual in the White House. Mr. Trump always insisted on loyalty from employees and so it appears President Trump insists on loyalty to him from his “employees.” A second more sinister interpretation would be that President Trump would not have nominated Mr. Sessions if he knew that the Attorney General was not going to keep any investigation into the Russian interference in the election and possible Trump campaign involvement in it from gaining any traction. Apparently, he expected the Attorney General to keep things under control and away from the president and his family. Otherwise, why appoint him? Read it for yourself, but if you look closely, you will see that he is castigating Mr. Sessions for doing the right and honorable thing. There are now reports from multiple sources revealing that President Trump is reviewing his options on pardoning friends, family, and himself. Very Nixonian. Take a look at these three quotes and guess which are which from President Trump and President Nixon.
“When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”
“When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”
“The law’s totally on my side. The president can’t have a conflict of interest.”
The first one is from President Nixon, the other two from President Trump.
The biggest issue of the last few days is healthcare. What the House and the Senate decide, or don’t, in the coming days and weeks will have an impact on millions of people and on billions of dollars in our economy. It should not be something that is just pushed through for the sake of “getting something done” alone. I agree that the Congress should get something done — so far not much of substance has gained escape velocity from Capital Hill — but something this big should be carefully considered. Kudos to Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and other Republican Senators that examined the proposed bill and found it woefully wanting.
Claims that Trumpcare is dead are, however, exceedingly premature. Likewise reports of the death of Obamacare are premature. But the president can murder Obamacare if he wants to, and there is some indication that he wants to do so. By withholding subsidies for insurance premiums, which he says he may do, and by not enforcing the mandate, which is already the case, the president can make portions of Obamacare collapse — not the whole thing, but parts. Claims that he “doesn’t own it” will not hold. If he actively undermines the law, people that lose it will notice. Bad policy. Hopefully some of his advisers and others in Congress will convince him not to take that path.
The Senate will vote on something next week, but even the Senators themselves do not know what that will be. Not good news. Currently there are at least two basic versions of “repeal and replace” legislation, with the possibility that those two bills will change before voting occurs, and one version of “repeal and replace later” with the possibility that one will also change. It is surprising and disconcerting that a vote will be held early next week, with wide-ranging consequences on real people’s lives, not just in theory, and no one yet knows what will be up for a vote.
Dare I hope?
Here is what I hope for. There are definite signs that moderate Republicans and Democrats are making the early moves to work for a bipartisan bill to “repair” the flaws in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), aka Obamacare. Flaws do exist. But there is no reason to get rid of the entire program — assuming one believes that health care should be affordable and available to all as I wrote about in my 23 June post. To be realistic, no Democrat will budge until the word “repeal” gets buried. They also won’t support anything called Trumpcare. Conservative Republicans such as Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) won’t support anything that does not completely repeal the ACA “root and limb.” But I hope that enough good folks, willing to put country above party, still exist in the Senate in both parties and that cooler heads will prevail. If that happens, it could be the beginning of a wonderful relationship. Getting something as tough as health care tackled on a bi-partisan basis would go a long way in having Republicans and Democrats getting back together to tackle other long-standing problems. What a concept. I am always told how naive I am, but I hope that we have a break through on this issue and that it leads to accomplishments in many more areas.
Finally, and I leave it here despite many more developments of the last 72 hours, speaking of putting country above party I have always had the deepest respect for Senator John McCain (R-Ariz). That doesn’t mean I always agreed with him but I always thought he was trying to do what he thought best for the nation and its people. As you know, he is battling a particularly nasty form of brain cancer. I hope that he is back on his feet and back to the Senate before too long. There are not many like him left in today’s Senate chamber.
“Fake News” No More
Posted: July 14, 2017 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Divisiveness, Donald Trump, Fake News, Partisan, Russia, United States, United States Constitution, Vladimir Putin 1 CommentWith the daily evolution of the story of Mr. Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting in June 2016 with a Russian lawyer that offered to help the Trump campaign work against Secretary Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president, one can no longer claim that reports of Russian efforts to impact the election is “fake news.” I have always believed that the Russians clearly worked to influence the election, taking as accurate the consensus of the American intelligence community that they stole emails from the Democratic National Committee and from the Clinton campaign manager Mr. John Podesta. Other evidence of Russian influence, especially in the realm of social media, is beginning to emerge. It is fact. I was not at all certain that senior members of the Trump campaign would have actively worked to aid and abet the Russian effort. One way or the other I figured that the ongoing investigation led by former FBI Director Robert Mueller would conclusively resolve that part of the issue. Let the chips fall where they may. Well now we know a lot more.
If you are not familiar with the story, you can read Mr. Trump Jr.’s emails for yourself. In sum, a friend of the Trumps named Mr. Rob Goldstone with close Russian ties offered to arrange a meeting with a Russian national in order to give damaging information about Secretary Clinton to the Trump campaign. In the email exchange Mr. Trump Jr. responded enthusiastically and set up a meeting with the Russian emissary to hear her out. The key passages of the email that jump out at me follow. Mr. Goldstone wrote that the Russians “offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump….” To which Mr. Trump Jr. replied in part “if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”
At the subsequent meeting were Mr. Jared Kushner, the President’s son-in-law and current Senior Adviser in the White House, and Mr. Paul Manafort, then the Trump campaign manager. And others, which I will get to momentarily.
End of discussion. After months and months of denying vehemently that they ever had any meeting with the Russians where cooperation or coordination with the Russians was ever discussed, it turns out that there was one. At least. Additionally, since the story broke last Saturday, nearly every day a different story as to what was discussed and who was present came out. Can you spell “cover up”?
To be honest, I am exhausted by all things Trumpian. It is very difficult to keep track of all the misleading statements, innuendo and out right lies that come out of the White House or from others associated with President Trump. The tangled webs of who knows who, or more importantly has significant business ties to the Trump Organization is hard to follow as well, or as they say at the ballpark, “you can’t tell the players without a score card.” But we need to try.
Today’s events caused me to say “that’s it” — I cannot ignore the outrageous carrying on any longer. I planned to write about other issues, but when it came out today that at least one other previously undisclosed person (as I write, some news outlets are reporting that it may actually be two other people) with Russian ties (the new attendee was born there, served in the Russian Army and may be a lobbyist or may be a former intelligence officer or both as this unfolding story develops) was in the room.
After days of Mr. Trump Jr.’s denials and obfuscation about everything, until it is uncovered by reporters at which point his story changes — despite his claims of total transparency — this takes the cake. Appearing on the Sean Hannity Show on Fox News, Mr. Trump Jr. was asked multiple times by the very friendly to the Trumps interlocutor Mr. Hannity if there was anything else that would come out or if any other people with Russian ties had met with him. He gave a vigorous and straight forward “no” answer. Check it out. And yet… there was more to the story. It seems there is always more to the story with the Trumps.
Mr. Trump Jr. claims that “nothing” came of the meeting and that it was a waste of time. Given the events of the last week, and many more before that, I am unwilling to take the word of Mr. Trump Jr. I am sure that Special Counsel Mueller will be very interested in following up on this story.
It is indeed a weak defense of these actions to claim that nothing came of the meeting and that they did not get any “dirt” on Secretary Clinton. To them this means that it was a “nothingburger” of a meeting. Very troubling. Read the emails. The Trump campaign was eager to get negative information on Secretary Clinton. Fine. That happens in many, many campaigns. But not from the Russian government! Or any foreign government. End of story. Just because they got nothing — as if we can believe anything Mr. Trump Jr. says about this situation — they clearly were willing to take this information and to use any ties to the Russian government that they thought would help them win. Nice. Strong ethics. Look, I know that politics is a full contact sport and that it can be really nasty. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, it doesn’t matter. It gets personal. But really? The Russians? C’mon man! It only shows that with this outfit, there are no boundaries. Mr. Michael Gerson, a conservative columnist and former chief speech writer for President George W. Bush has an excellent piece today. Basically he argues that the Trumps are clueless about all the fuss because they have no concept of right and wrong, they have a set of values “in which victory matters more than character and real men write their own rules.” Mr. Gerson explains that “it is the banality of this corruption that makes it so appalling. The president and his men are incapable of feeling shame about shameful things.”
Most troubling to me in terms of national security is the portion of the email train that says, emphasis mine, that this “is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Part. What else was going on? What else is going on? Coupled with all that we know so far, and the inability of Mr. Trump Jr. and the White House to accurately and correctly deal in facts, I would read that section to mean that the Russians were actively interfering in the election, and that quite plausibly, the Trump campaign knew about it in other ways. Just because they may or may not have walked out of this particular meeting with dirt in hand, it clearly implies that they were ready and willing to work with the Russians and may in fact have other sources and methods where they were doing so.
I have no idea what will come of this. I have no idea if anything illegal occurred or if any of the attendees can be held accountable under the law. I do have an idea, however, that this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. I am sure more and more will slowly be uncovered as the Senate, House, and Special Counsel’s office continue to investigate the Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
I also know that for the President to continue to deny that it happened is unhelpful to our country. For him to continue, as recently as two days ago, to continue to call this the “greatest WITCH HUNT in political history” (his emphasis) is also unhelpful. In every way, President Trump is actively working to undermine every U.S. institution that may stand in his way. Fake news, indeed.
What is clear, is that it is becoming impossible to breathe with all the smoke rising out of the Russian election interference issue. It is only a matter of time before the conflagration flares up. I pray that we don’t all get burned by the resulting fire and that we are not left with only the smoldering ruins of our great democracy.
Whither Healthcare?
Posted: June 23, 2017 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: American Health Care Act, Congress, Divisiveness, Donald Trump, Obamacare, Partisan, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Politics, Trumpcare Leave a comment“Now, I have to tell you, it’s an unbelievably complex subject. Nobody knew health care could be so complicated.” — President Donald Trump 27 February 2017
And you know what? He is correct.
As the Senate debates and votes on Trumpcare to repeal and replace Obamacare over the coming days, much will be written and talked about regarding its impact and efficacy. Some will think it is great and others will think it a travesty. It all depends on what the goal for the program might be and how one thinks that goal should be attained. Is Trumpcare, or the American Health Care Act (AHCA) (as it is called in the House of Representatives while the Senate Bill is called the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017) designed to help Americans and keep them healthy or is it an attempt to do the bare minimum while saving the government, and ultimately tax payers, money? One’s view of Trumpcare also depends on whether or not Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act (ACA), is working for you.
Put more succinctly, is healthcare in the greatest country on earth a right or a privilege? Should it be open to a free market — those that can afford to pay do, those that can’t need to earn more money — or something that every citizen deserves? If you happen to think that healthcare is a privilege, you get what you pay for, then you may as well stop reading here because you basically think that the government should have nothing to do with healthcare. If you think that access to healthcare should be a right, then read on. Be forewarned however, that this is, as the president says, complex. Politicians of every stripe also parse and obfuscate elements of healthcare to their own advantage. It can be difficult to determine where the truth lies — especially since many times two people can both be technically correct while interpreting the meaning in totally different ways. As I like to say, it is the difference between what things are and what things mean.
Here is the crux of the problem. The United States does not suffer from poor medical care. People come from all over the world to have their health problems resolved here in the U.S. — if they can afford it. That is the problem. It is not the quality of care, but rather having access to good care and being able to afford it. Access and affordability are the reason we need insurance plans which is what both Trumpcare and Obamacare are really about.
The U.S. does not really have a health system. It has a series of health systems depending on whether the individual is on Medicaid or Medicare (the dreaded by conservatives single payer system), or on the VA or Tricare (military) system (basically socialized medicine), or gets insurance through an employer (where most people get their insurance), or buys it on the open market (usually very expensive).
A pervasive goal in the U.S. should be that no one goes bankrupt due to an unexpected illness or injury. Likewise no one should have to forgo medical treatment because they cannot afford it. Both happen in the U.S., although by most accounts, Obamacare went a long way in reducing the numbers of people in either situation.
So let’s design a system that helps people get care without using their every last dollar. Let’s assume we want a system where no one can be turned down — or charged unattainable amounts of money — for a pre-existing condition. This seems to be one area that most politicians can agree upon and one of the most popular aspects of Obamacare. How to do that? It does not take a genius to see that maybe I won’t buy any insurance until I get sick or injured and I will save a lot of money in the meantime. That leaves only those with pre-existing conditions on the insurance rolls — a situation which will either leave the premiums so high as to be unaffordable, or leave the insurance companies holding the bag and going bankrupt. To even out the costs and make them more affordable to all, we would then require everyone to have insurance — the dreaded mandate. However, it may not be fair or even affordable for everyone to buy insurance, especially for people that do not receive insurance through their employer, so if we are going to require it, then we should come up with a system to help people pay for it — the other debated aspect, subsidies. Those three elements are the basis for every proposed health care plan concocted by politicians. If you play around with one of the three, it impacts the other two. It becomes a very complicated game. How one plays the game depends on my opening statement — what is the goal for the plan?
On top of that throw in hot button issues such as who can do what (Planned Parenthood anyone?), whether in our proposed system we “punish” young healthy citizens by making them subsidize the old “sick” citizens, should the government have the power to tell people that they “have” to have insurance, and who pays for all this, the wealthy or the poor who are most likely to benefit from a plan like this. It does indeed get complicated in a hurry, and also very emotional for a lot of people.
In evaluating a planned system, lots of politicians focus on premiums and deductibles — and not always together. It is possible to devise a plan with very low premiums, lower than Obamacare, but does it cover everything? Does it have a high deductible? Does it have annual or lifetime caps? What pre-existing conditions are covered? Those and other details mute any discussion about premiums. To coin a phrase, we cannot compare apples with oranges. Premiums are certainly relevant when discussing the cost of a particular plan, but it is not sufficient to get a true picture of the impact or value of that plan.
To muddy the issue, the president makes unfounded claims about Obamacare. He says “it is dead.” Except it isn’t. But the president and the Republican leadership are trying hard to kill it, partly to force through Trumpcare. Insurance exchanges are drying up and companies are pulling out because of the biggest fear they have — uncertainty. The Congress has yet to decide if they will provide the money for the aforementioned subsidies to help people afford the mandated insurance. And they have announced that they will not enforce the mandate. Two of the legs of our three-legged plan are being distorted, that means the third leg is terribly out of balance which makes it appear the system is not working. If insurance companies don’t think they are going to get paid — or that they will be left holding the bag for high cost pre-existing conditions which they are required to cover — then there are two choices. They can raise premiums or leave the market. Most experts assert that without the uncertainty coming from the White House and Capital Hill, the health insurance system in the U.S. would be stable and hold down costs for most (most — not all) Americans seeking health care. Many people now have insurance that would not otherwise have it. The result is “wellness checks” and other preventive health measures now sought out by people that did not seek it before. Therefore they are healthier and the over all expenditures for larger, more catastrophic care comes down because they are less necessary. Like it or not, the states that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare generally have more small hospitals and clinics serving the poor or rural areas of their states because those hospitals have a known source of income for the care they provide. Many of those small hospitals and clinics closed in states that did not expand Medicaid and there is significant concern over the reduction of those Medicaid funds under Trumpcare. In mostly rural states such as Alaska and Maine, even their Republican Senators are concerned and may vote against the proposed Senate bill. Senators Murkowski and Collins both realize what the proposed reductions in Medicaid mean to their states and are worried, as are others.
Whatever your own views on healthcare in the U.S. take a good hard look at any plan floated to solve the problem. I am no expert on this subject. Not at all. I recognize that we do not have a bottomless purse to pay increasing costs for social programs. I get it. Personally, I think we leave a lot of possible solutions (such as a single payer system which prevails in many modern nations, such as Canada) on the table because of emotional political arguments rather than a factual airing of the pros and cons to different solutions.
It boils down to one’s personal views. Do you get what you pay for and if you can’t pay you don’t get it? Or should the greatest nation on earth also provide the best healthcare available to its citizens? If so, how is it paid for? There are no easy answers, but I think we are making it harder on ourselves than needed. Democrats and Republicans state that they both have the same goal — to make healthcare available to our citizens and at a cost that is sustainable. If that is the case, then everything else is politics.
To me, we have a system for providing affordable care through an insurance program called the ACA — Obamacare. No one thinks that system is perfect. Democrats affirm that they are willing to work with Republicans to fix what needs to be fixed. Republicans shout that Democrats are obstructionists while jamming through a bill that even most Republicans did not get a chance to look at.
You can look it up, you don’t have to take my word for it, but in putting together Obamacare the Democrats took nearly a year, held countless hearings, folded Republican amendments into the final bill, and tried to put together a bipartisan bill. Politics interfered at the end of that process and one could argue that Democrats jammed it through at the end. But contrary to what you now hear, it was not a secret process and it wasn’t a slap dash final product. I am not sure what the rush is in the Republican held Congress at this point. This is major legislation that will impact many Americans and a large chunk of our economy. There is no need to play hurry up ball at this point. Every piece of legislation has some perverse and unintended consequences. Obamacare has some. Trumpcare certainly will if it has not been properly vetted and reviewed. It is too important to just slam through, whether or not you support the fundamental political and social theories behind it.
This process is not in the best interests of our country. I hope that cooler heads prevail and that everyone takes a step back. Take a deep breath. Let’s regroup and come forward with a bipartisan approach to helping every citizen find effective and affordable healthcare.
I’m not holding my breath.
We’ll Always Have Pittsburgh
Posted: June 3, 2017 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Coal, Donald Trump, Environment, Paris Climate Accord, Politics, Pollution, United States Leave a commentI was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.
— President Donald J. Trump on 1 June 2017
As most of you know, President Trump announced his intention to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord during a speech in the Rose Garden at the White House. This announcement fulfills a campaign promise that he continually made in the run-up to the November election. His base, and several close advisers clearly think that putting the United States in the same company as Syria and Nicaragua (the only other nations not in the agreement), instead of in the company of the other 195 nations that agreed to the Accord in December 2015, is a positive development. Other advisers, including Secretary of State (and former Exxon-Mobil CEO) Rex Tillerson reportedly did not and advised the president to stay within the boundaries of the agreement. As a consequence, many misstatements were made about what was or was not in the Accord. Somehow, it got caught up in an argument over whether or not climate change is a hoax, as the president continually claimed on the campaign trail, or is it backed up by a preponderance of evidence that human beings are contributing to the changing climate on Earth.
The main effort of the Accord was to reduce green house gas emissions. These emissions are the root cause of rising global temperatures, which in turn are melting the polar ice cap, shrinking the ice shelves in Antarctica, and eliminating glaciers around the world. As the world’s ice melts, sea levels increase putting coastal land, and many island nations, in danger of being covered by water. Will this happen tomorrow or even next year? No. However, 196 nations (until the U.S. announced its withdrawal) agreed that it was a real and present danger to life as we know it on this planet. Long-term problems need long-term solutions, and that was the aim of the Accord.
In my view we can restate it another way. Forget about arguments for or against climate change. Put it in terms of being pro or anti pollution. Who is for more pollution? Apparently, the president and his key advisers such as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Edward Scott Pruitt and White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon who reportedly convinced President Trump to leave the Accord.
Rather than looking at the Accord as a positive thing for the citizens of the United States and all living things around the world, the president put his opposition to the agreement in economic terms. To me, this is a short-sighted vision that provides misleading hope for the future for those struggling in the economy with mining and manufacturing jobs that are disappearing whether or not the U.S. remains in the Paris Accord. The president also claims his decision is a matter of sovereignty and a chance to keep “others” from telling us what to do in our own country. Or as the president said, “As of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.” Apparently no one told him what “non-binding” means and also forgot to inform him that the agreement does not set any burdens on any country outside those that the individual countries voluntarily agree to for themselves.
This is what makes the president’s announcement extremely puzzling. Under the Accord, each country sets its own commitments with the common goal of “holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels” which is intended to begin to reduce the long-term warming trend rather than stop it, but more on that in a minute. The point is that if President Trump did not agree with the goals laid out by the Obama administration, under the terms of the Accord, he could change them. He did not have to leave the agreement. This makes his statement that “we’re getting out, but we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair” even more preposterous. He is not going to get 195 nations to renegotiate. And it isn’t necessary, just adjust the commitment under the terms of the existing agreement. I cannot decide if he is being purposely misleading or if he does not understand what he is talking about.
This is a central point for understanding why it is bad policy for the United States to withdraw and makes me believe that the move was intended as an “in your face” insult to the Europeans (thus the reference to the citizens of Paris) and a purely political decision to appeal to the hard-core base that voted for him in 2016, rather than truly thinking about the long-term needs and welfare of our citizens.
This is also reflected in his claim that the United States could not build new coal plants but China and India can, and will, thus somehow depriving the U.S. of the coal-burning market. Wrong again. As has been repeated, the agreement is non-binding, and also has nothing in it that prohibits the United States from building coal-burning plants and it has nothing in it that “allows” China and India to do so. To so state is purely political demagoguery, or ignorance. In the United States, coal plants are being replaced not because of EPA regulations or because of the Paris Accord, but because of market forces — mainly, because of the abundance of natural gas at cheaper prices.
Coal jobs currently number about 50,000 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Nearly universally, economic analysts say that the combination of natural gas and technological advances in mining mean that number will not grow, and is likely to decrease. As pointed out in an article by Christopher Ingraham that number of coal miners compares to about 80,000 employees at Arby’s restaurants or the approximately 150,00 employed in the car wash industry. 50,000 is a drop in the bucket for our entire economy and not at all near the catastrophic impact that the president implies.
Clearly coal mining jobs are important to the 50,000 so employed, but dropping out of the Paris Accord is not going to help them in the future. When the Pony Express went out of business because of the telegraph and railroads, those people found new jobs. And so it goes throughout history — innovation and technological progress cause people to lose jobs, but new jobs are created. For example, the energy efficiency industry had about 2,700,000 jobs in 2016 of which about 677,000 jobs were in the renewable energy sector (solar, wind, hydro, etc.). President Trump should be putting effort into retraining and educating miners and others in dying industries to allow them to help themselves and the economy in the future rather than promising them a past in which they cannot long survive.
At the same time, those that find environmental issues important, and a threat to our survival, need to do a much better job at making the case. When asked to choose between the environment and jobs as our president states it, many Americans will choose jobs every time. It is important to educate voters and all our citizens about the importance of working towards improving our environment. It is also important to explain and educate voters that a clean environment and jobs are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, environmentally related jobs are a growth industry and go a long way in reducing unemployment. Railing and ranting will not convince others. Education and reasoned arguments as to why we are better off under an agreement such as this one, including how it creates jobs (and not in the government bureaucracy), is important to our long-term goals and well-being. Use this as a wake up call.
Without going through every portion of President Trump’s speech on departing from the agreement and comparing it with the actual Accord, there is one thing he got right — sort of — although it did not appear that he understood what he was saying. He said, “Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a 2/10 of one degree – think of that. This much [held his fingers nearly close together] Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Tiny tiny amount.” The size of the reduction is unknown and several experts contend that it will be more significant than the president intimated. But here’s the point, the signatories of the Accord acknowledge that the limits pledged thus far will not meet the 2 degrees Celsius goal, but the efforts to reach that goal will be better than just letting the pollution continue and allow temperatures to continue to rise unabated. In other words, the signatories were working on the premise that something is better than nothing and that as technology and developments continue evolving in the coming years, new ways of reaching those goals will become apparent. Time will not stand still and the world and its technology will not always be the same as it was in 2015 or now. The president seems to miss that point. He seems to think that the world won’t reach the goal anyway so screw it.
Since the president’s speech really did not discuss the issue of global climate change, how to deal with it best, or point out misguided practices, it can only be seen in this light. It was instead one more example of his belief that some kind of conspiracy — primarily by our closest and most important allies — is holding the United States back and dictating what we do or cannot do. His belief appears to be that by putting “America First” that he can do, or not do, whatever he feels like, the rest of the world be damned. This is extremely dangerous to the future of the United States and its place on the world stage.
A Soup Sandwich
Posted: May 17, 2017 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Constitution, Divisiveness, Donald Trump, Partisan, Politics, United States Constitution 1 CommentWith increasing frequency, nearly daily, we as a nation wake up to yet another incredible self-created crisis in the Trump Administration. People that care that our nation’s leader is becoming something of a punch line around the world debate whether President Trump’s actions, statements, and yes, tweets are part of a larger plan or simply the reflection of a man with little to no intellectual curiosity, the attention span of a young child, and who is in way over his head. I am increasingly falling into the latter category.
In my day the military term for his administration would be that it is a soup sandwich. The term means exactly what the imagery suggests, something so confused and messy that it cannot be salvaged.
The litany of recent events are well-known. Whether it is his casual revelations to the Russians of highly critical intelligence, his thinly veiled threats to former FBI Director Comey, his stated reason for firing Mr. Comey because of the “Russian thing”, or the possibility that he tried to stop the FBI investigation of the Russian meddling and specifically Lt General Michael Flynn’s possible involvement with the Russians, his actions have shown a president and an administration that have lost their way. Put more bluntly, look in the dictionary for “soup sandwich” and you will see a picture of the president.
Note again that all of the crises that the White House staff have dealt with thus far are all self-created by the president. This does not bode well for handling the inevitable national security crisis or domestic tragedy on the horizon that will test our ability as a nation to deal with all that comes our way.
Most legal scholars and Constitutional law experts point out that nothing that we know about thus far concerning the president’s actions is illegal. Unethical and/or immoral, perhaps, but not illegal. This is very troubling. As Dana Milbank ably points out in a recent opinion piece, just because it is legal, does not mean that it is right. Or as we used to say, just because you can do something, it doesn’t mean that it is a good idea. The basic point is that President Trump knows no boundaries, has no self-control and therefore has the ability to do great damage to our nation, whether deliberate or out of ignorance. As Mr. Milbank points out in his troubling piece, the president is within his rights — legally — to do all of the things that we know about. But the assumption for all modern presidents is that a president would not do all of those things without the proper justifications and explanations. In crafting the Constitution, the Founding Fathers assumed that the chief executive would be virtuous , guided by honor, and exhibit self-restraint. Scholars point out that the Constitution gives many powers to the president, specifically and inherently. The checks and balances that we rely upon cannot stop the president from wreaking havoc in the short-term. Although the ultimate power rests with the Congress — impeachment — and the courts — ruling certain presidential actions unconstitutional — it takes time and political capital to bring those counter balancing powers to bear. In the meantime, significant and even irreparable damage can be done to our nation. With President Trump we have a chief executive that seems to be lacking the knowledge to understand the limits and responsibilities of the presidency combined with unchecked impulsivity that can easily lead to damaging actions and decisions.
Look at President Trump’s background. His success as a businessman by most accounts was not so much because of his personal knowledge and ability. It was more about branding. He sold the Trump Brand to investors and let others actually build the real property. Recently, few of his Trump buildings were actually Trump projects, he merely sold his name and promotional abilities for use by those doing the work. He became famous due to his time as a television reality star. Even today he talks about “ratings” for press conferences and speeches. The pop psychoanalysis could go on and on, but in every instance, it appears that his personality is ill-suited to lead the greatest nation on earth. To me, for example, he related the very highly classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister (information that will probably result in lives lost, and certainly the loss of an important avenue of intelligence) not because he wanted to help the Russians. I think he did it because he was showing off and wanted to impress his visitors. Remember this is the guy that in the midst of the ceremony “celebrating” the House passing Trumpcare, stopped his speech to turn around and ask “How am I doing? Am I doing OK? Hey, I’m president. I’m president. Can you believe it?” Well, no, I can’t believe it. But it is true.
I hear the “I word” — impeachment — bandied about a lot recently. From what we know now, we are not there yet. I also worry that under the current divisive political atmosphere in our country that an impeachment act and subsequent trial would be very bad for our nation. We might not recover from that trauma for many years. Therefore any impeachment proceedings must be based on clear violations of the law, should there be any.
The other proposal that floats around from time to time is that the 25th Amendment can be used to remove him from office. This amendment pertains to the succession to the presidency should the president be unable to fulfill his duties. The relevant section of the amendment in this case is Section Four which provides a procedure for the Vice President and such other “principal officers of the executive departments” (meaning the Cabinet) to declare the president unfit for duty. Should the president contest that declaration, it goes to a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. This too would be a long drawn out procedure that could seriously divide our country should the president resist the take-over attempt. It seems unlikely in any event that Vice-president Pence and the Trump appointed Cabinet would invoke this avenue of removal, barring some obvious and unassailable problem with the president.
Finally, President Trump could resign. Many pundits and others think this is the most likely scenario for the current president to leave office. President Trump himself said that
“I loved my previous life. I had so many things going. This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier. I like to work, so that’s not a problem, but this is actually more work and while I had very little privacy in my old life because, you know, I’ve been famous for a long time, I really, this is – this is much less privacy than I’ve ever seen before.”
None-the-less, I doubt very much that the president has any intention of resigning. He likes the attention and being on the “inside” — people have to pay attention to him and he likes that.
Potentially compounding President Trump’s negative impact on the nation is the dilemma many of his top advisers are facing. It is a classic scenario. The president continually throws good, hard-working and upright people under the bus. They go out and defend his actions in, I hope, good faith only to have him personally provide a completely different rationale for his actions. This can only go on for so long before people start to ponder resigning. This is the dilemma such good people face — resign and save my reputation and integrity or stay and try to change things because they could really be a lot worse if no one of significant knowledge and competence is left to try to hold him in check?
I fear that most people consider the recent events as “typical” Washington politics. That’s too bad. This is not typical and it is not normal. And it isn’t “sour grapes” that the Democrats lost the presidency.
Many continue to state that as a nation we should give the guy a chance. He’s only been in office about four months. Give him time. I tried. Sorry, but I do not think that anything is going to cause President Trump to change.
For the Republican majority on Capital Hill I can only say, “Clean up on aisle seven. Soup sandwich in progress.” The Republican agenda depends on a functioning presidency. The deal with the devil is almost gone as more and more of the president’s actions take away from the legislature’s ability to legislate. Clean up the soup sandwich through comprehensive and bipartisan investigations. Find out what actually happened, or did not happen, and get it into the public domain. Use a little Clorox on the clean up of the soup sandwich.
If it turns out there is nothing there involving the Russians or other problems then so much the better. If there is something, hold all involved accountable. The good news/bad news may be that there is nothing there. The good news is that people will not go to jail and the integrity of the system may be restored. The bad news is that we will still be left with a soup sandwich.
Incompetent or Dangerous?
Posted: May 10, 2017 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Constitution, Donald Trump, Partisan, Politics, Russia, United States Constitution, Vladimir Putin 3 CommentsYesterday, President Donald J. Trump fired James B. Comey Jr., the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This came in the midst of an ever-increasing FBI investigation into known Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and the increasing number of revelations of ties between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Those are actually two different issues, which our president apparently cannot understand.
There is wide-spread consensus based on the truth and, you know, actual facts that the Russians interfered with the election. Most likely they interfered because, as former Bush Administration Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice explained, Russian President Vladimir Putin is a pay-back kind of guy. He hated Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, primarily because she called his election a sham, and sought the opportunity to work against her campaign. According to Secretary Rice’s theory, he relished disrupting the election in and of itself, but to have Secretary Clinton as the recipient only made it sweeter.
Every American should be gravely concerned that a foreign power aggressively and with malice of forethought worked hard to disrupt the very foundation of our Republic. Every American. This is not a political issue. Consequently both the Senate and the House of Representatives are conducting bi-partisan inquiries into what happened and how we can protect against it in the future.
However, President Trump seems to believe this is unnecessary. If one pays only the mildest of attention to the news, you know that he is constantly calling the fact of the interference a “hoax” and the investigations “a waste of taxpayer money.” He won and that’s all he cares about. In his mind, end of story.
Secondarily, as the investigation of the Russian interference deepened, it became apparent that there may have been some interaction between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. The who, why and what questions remain unanswered. This also is considered “fake news” by the president and he constantly tweets about issues he thinks are “ridiculous” in connection with the investigation.
He does so even though his first National Security Adviser Lt. General Michael Flynn USA (ret.) was fired by the president for working with the Russians, being paid by them, and lying about it. I suppose we should just let that go. Nothing to see here, folks, just move along.
This is the short version of the context surrounding the firing of Director Comey. The president showed real class by not notifying Director Comey of his dismissal, rather the Director learned about it on television while giving a speech in Los Angeles.
So the president whose staff members and campaign members are under investigation by the FBI and the Attorney General of the United States who was forced to recuse himself from the Russian investigation because of his own role in the campaign and “forgetting” to reveal his own Russian contacts, are the folks that fired the Director. It most definitely does not pass the smell test.
Thus the question, is the president incompetent of trying to cover up misdeeds in his administration? Does he not know what he is doing or is he deliberately undermining our Constitutional balance? I do not know, but either one is dangerous.
The alleged reason for the firing was the mishandling of the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s emails back in July. Of 2016. The investigation that then Candidate Trump applauded. Hmmm. The timing is also suspicious. Remember the Trumpian tactic of changing the headlines whenever something critical of him makes the news? On Monday former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates testified before a Senate sub-committee looking into the Russian connections. Their testimony was less than flattering to the Trump Administration and in some cases directly contradicted statements made by the president and his spokespeople. On Tuesday, Director Comey is fired, thus changing the headlines. I’m just sayin’….
From the time Attorney General Yates notified the White House that General Flynn was compromised and a potential agent of the Russians until he was fired — only after it all became public in the Washington Post — was 18 days.
From the time that the current Deputy Attorney General and Attorney General recommended the dismissal to the president and the FBI director was fired — for something that happened in July 2016 — was minutes.
Also remember that the FBI Director is appointed for a 10 year term. This is to keep politics and partisanship out of law enforcement in the most critical areas of our national security. Only one other active Director was fired, and that was William Sessions in 1993 by President Bill Clinton for ethics violations, not for investigating anything to do with the administration.
Many people were upset by the way that Director Comey handled the email investigation of Secretary Clinton. Some even argue that the way he handled it (a news conference about a lack of evidence to prosecute) was unprecedented and unprofessional and effectively handicapped the campaign of Secretary Clinton. In a larger context, even as one may have no love for Director Comey, his firing is very troubling at this particular point. It seems that as the investigation gets closer to the truth, the resistance from the White House increases. Director Comey must have been very close to finding damaging information. It only takes a cursory look at any newspaper or other news source to see that this has raised significant bi-partisan concern in the Congress as to the meaning, appropriateness and impact of the firing. Most Republicans and Democrats have expressed serious concern. It is not right.
Alarm bells should be going off when taken in connection with this quote from White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders during an interview last night with Tucker Carlson on Fox News. In the same vein as the president and other spokespeople in the White House, she spoke about the Russian investigations and said:
I think the bigger point on that is, “My gosh, Tucker, when are they gonna let that go?” It’s been going on for nearly a year. Frankly, it’s kinda getting absurd. There’s nothing there. We’ve heard that time and time again. We’ve heard it in the testimonies earlier this week. We’ve heard it for the last 11 months. There is no there there. It’s time to move on.
President Trump wants the investigation to go away. Countless efforts by the president and his spokespeople to undermine the investigations have not worked. They pretend, as does Ms. Sanders, that the American people do not care. We won. End of story. Yet, the investigations continue and it does not go away. Next step — fire the Director of the FBI.
One can only conclude that the president must really be trying to hide something big. Maybe yuuge. Reporting today indicates that last week Director Comey quietly asked Congress for a significant increase in funding for the Russian investigation. Another coincidence?
President Trump undoubtedly thought that by making Director Comey go away, his troubles would go away as well. They are just beginning. Reportedly, the president has little interest in history or understanding exactly how the government works. Fine. But someone should tell him that time and time again the cover-up is what brings folks to their knees, doing more damage than the “crime” ever would have. Maybe he should read up on it. He may learn something about it when he appoints his next Director of the FBI and the Senate holds confirmation hearings. If you think there is a fire in the Senate during the current hearings, you haven’t seen anything yet.
A civics lesson might help as well. Trying to run the United States as a family business operation does not work so well. Unless his aim is to make a lot of money, which that part so far is working. But that’s a piece for another day.
The investigations will not go away. They will be slowed down dramatically in the near term. The FBI is extremely unlikely to report the results of their investigations without a Director in place. That will take weeks or more likely, months. James Comey was a Republican appointed by President Obama. President Trump should appoint a Democrat with an impeccable reputation as the next Director. I am not holding my breath. His appointment will tell us a lot about the future integrity of anything that comes out of the Department of Justice.
The investigations will continue in the interim. However, the integrity of those investigations is now compromised. Only by appointing a special prosecutor — which the White House and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are mightily resisting — will there be some assurance to the American people that an independent investigation, unencumbered by political and partisan elements, reports believable results.
This is fundamental to our national security. Stay awake and keep the pressure on. Silence and “getting tired of it all” will erode our freedom.
Tom
Into The Fray 
Recent Comments