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.
