17 February 2017
President Trump’s New Clothes
President Trump’s February
16, 2017, impromptu press conference was notable for a great number of
things, including his statement, on being called out for exaggerating the size
of his 2016 Electoral College victory--“I was given that information .” Of course, he expected everybody to believe
his claim just because he said it.
“But he has no clothes on!” shouted the little boy in Hans
Christian Andersen’s fable. Donald
Trump has surrounded himself with sycophants (or Svengalis) in his “fine-tuned
machine” of an administration.
This country will not be able to look to its new President
for leadership. Rather he will smoothly
translate into convincing policy goals the schemes of friendly manipulators who
represent special interests. That’s his
expertise; that’s his art of a deal.
16 February 2017
Insurance Company
Pull-outs
The announcement on 15 February 2017 that Humana will pull
out of Obamacare’s insurance exchanges is only confirmation that insurance
companies think that under Trump the ACA will inevitably be ended. They are happy that there will be a return to
a free market for medical insurance, and higher profitability for their
business.
Many people will lose their newly –won medical coverage, the
economic cost of American health care will go up, and the country’s short
flirtation with something approaching universal medical insurance will fade
away. It was probably a pipe dream that
the vaunted U.S. ideal of private enterprise could be successfully rolled into
a government-subsidized healthcare system , anyway. Now we will know another consequence of the
2016 presidential election.
11 February 2017
Reality Elections
The recent decision by the D.C. U.S. District Court in Level the Playing
Field et al v Federal Election Commmission ordered the FEC to reconsider the
evidence presented by the plaintiffs that by keeping all presidential
candidates but the Democratic and Republican Party nominees out of the
Presidential Debates is discriminatory and vitiates the supposedly non-
partisan role of the Commission on Presidential Debates in the U.S. election
process. The plaintiffs state that this allows our Presidential Elections to
be dominated by two private organizations in violation of the objective of
the U.S. Constitution to establsh a free and neutral process of democratic
government.
Why wouldn’t a non-party-organized political system be any more immune to
manipulation than a two-party system? As shown by Donald Trump in 2016, it
is possible to manipulate the traditionally inactive electorate by mobilizing
unsophisticated voters who respond to the type of publicity techniques that
sell reality TV shows. Freeing the presidential election debates of control
by the two parties risks making them vehicles for demagogues.
The election of Donald Trump (or for that matter the Democratic nomination of
Hillary Clinton) was a failure of the Republican party adequately to vet its
candidates. The parties were supposed to be the screening tools for our
elections. Instead, they have become captives of the career ambitions of
their members. The money that buys the outcome of their nomination process
would also determine the outcome of a non-vetted competition. If we cannot
improve the evaluation procedures of the two parties and somehow remove the
monetary advantages of political careers then we have no choice but to
abdicate control of the political system to dome benevolent dictator—Big
Brother here we come.
The recent decision by the D.C. U.S. District Court in Level the Playing
Field et al v Federal Election Commmission ordered the FEC to reconsider the
evidence presented by the plaintiffs that by keeping all presidential
candidates but the Democratic and Republican Party nominees out of the
Presidential Debates is discriminatory and vitiates the supposedly non-
partisan role of the Commission on Presidential Debates in the U.S. election
process. The plaintiffs state that this allows our Presidential Elections to
be dominated by two private organizations in violation of the objective of
the U.S. Constitution to establsh a free and neutral process of democratic
government.
Why wouldn’t a non-party-organized political system be any more immune to
manipulation than a two-party system? As shown by Donald Trump in 2016, it
is possible to manipulate the traditionally inactive electorate by mobilizing
unsophisticated voters who respond to the type of publicity techniques that
sell reality TV shows. Freeing the presidential election debates of control
by the two parties risks making them vehicles for demagogues.
The election of Donald Trump (or for that matter the Democratic nomination of
Hillary Clinton) was a failure of the Republican party adequately to vet its
candidates. The parties were supposed to be the screening tools for our
elections. Instead, they have become captives of the career ambitions of
their members. The money that buys the outcome of their nomination process
would also determine the outcome of a non-vetted competition. If we cannot
improve the evaluation procedures of the two parties and somehow remove the
monetary advantages of political careers then we have no choice but to
abdicate control of the political system to dome benevolent dictator—Big
Brother here we come.
30 January 2017
Trump’s Best Deal Yet
I must confess that I haven’t read ‘The Art of the
Deal.” However, by observing Donald
Trump these last few months, I suspect that the secret to a good deal is to
convince the other party to it that he can live with it. It doesn’t make any difference what
principles have to be espoused in order to win the consent or allegiance of the
other deal maker, because the only important consideration is getting what you want.
It is important to avoid breaking the law so that enjoying
the fruits of your deal is not at risk.
Therefore, lying is ok, as long as it is not under oath. And a slew of other undesirable acts are also
allowable, as long as they are not illegal, including abortion, welching on
verbal agreements (like refusing to pay contractors whose work is not protected
in writing), etc. The key is to hire
good lawyers.
President Trump surely won the support of an electoral
majority with a campaign that made them believe that they would get a good deal
from his being in the White House. It
still doesn’t matter whether his justifications of the election victory or his claims
of enthusiasm for the coming Trump Presidency are based on objective
truth. Not to him. He has gotten what he wants—he has shown
everyone that he is better than they.
26 January 2017
Multiple Registrations Explain Low Voter Turnout
If, as has been pointed out, many of President Trump’s
entourage are registered to vote in more than one state, and they presumably
voted only in one place, their turnout was only 50% or less. Many others probably are registered in more
than one place, not to mention those who have died or otherwise lost their
eligibility to vote and failed to have their former registration cancelled.
It would be interesting to know how many of such cases exist. If it is significant, the low percentage of
American voter turnout for elections may be overstated.
25 January 2017
Treating Trump's Supporters with Dignity
Jonathan Capehart interviewed Arthur Brooke, head of the American Enteprise Institute, in the January 25, 2017 Washington Post. Brooke attributed some of Trump's victory to the new President's delivery of dignity to the segment of the population who gave him his winning margin in the key states.
It is admirable, indeed, to treat everyone with dignity. However, how deserving of dignity are people who rely on appeals to their prejudices against other ethnicities, other religions and other races for their consent to provide electoral support to a presidential candidate. For that matter, with how much dignity did President Trump treat his opponent, Secretary Hillary Clinton, during the campaign?
Jonathan Capehart interviewed Arthur Brooke, head of the American Enteprise Institute, in the January 25, 2017 Washington Post. Brooke attributed some of Trump's victory to the new President's delivery of dignity to the segment of the population who gave him his winning margin in the key states.
It is admirable, indeed, to treat everyone with dignity. However, how deserving of dignity are people who rely on appeals to their prejudices against other ethnicities, other religions and other races for their consent to provide electoral support to a presidential candidate. For that matter, with how much dignity did President Trump treat his opponent, Secretary Hillary Clinton, during the campaign?
22 January 2017
Trump’s Healthcare Bait and Switch
One of President Trump’s first executive orders was to order
a relaxation of the mandate on federal agencies to enforce non-participation
penalties on taxpayers eligible for coverage by the ACA. It is my understanding that that feature of
Obama Care was included in order to assure that enough funds would be available
to finance its benefits by forcing greater participation by healthier and
younger potential subscribers. The
result of elimination of this disincentive from the ACA would appear to be the
need to subsidize the Plan with general federal revenues in order to pay for
the healthcare of those who choose not to pay for their own private plans.
What it comes down to is that there is no silver
bullet. Somebody has to pay for ersatz
universal health care. Obama Care is an
attempt to disguise an expensive plan to cover everyone with healthcare
insurance by forcing those not covered through their employers or under costly
independent private plans to subscribe for a government-brokered private plan
whether they thought they needed it or not.
It modeled itself on Social Security, which has young wage-earners
financing retirees’ benefits through payroll deductions.
So who’s complaining that a champion of smaller government
is responding to disappointment that Obama Care cannot be a free ride by
allowing evasion of its primary mechanism for avoiding insolvency? The relaxation of penalty requirements on
those who refuse to participate will inevitably lead to relying on general
federal revenues in order to finance ACA’s benefits. Universal health insurance is too attractive now that we have it. The ultimate accomplishment of Obama Care may
then turn out to be acceptance of universal healthcare by conservative policy-makers. Was it “bait and switch?” Perhaps a deft use of that tactic.
