An Update for Trump Democrats – Environment

Posted on February 14, 2017 by tonyj126

These short posts are part of a series to take stock of changes that may be coming during a Trump Administration.

Environment

  1. Both President Trump and his head of the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) Scott Pruitt have railed against the EPA and the environmental regulations they believe harm business. Scott Pruitt has sued the EPA and a rollback is expected under his watch. Trump has also signed an executive order that two regulations must be eliminated for each new regulation proposed.
  2. The EPA came into existance during the Nixon Administration following a highly newsworthy event – the Cuyahoga River in Northeast Ohio was so polluted that it caught fire in 1969. Environmental regulations have been instrumental in cleaning up the nation’s waters, air and soil, but at the same time, many manufacturers moved out of the country. One of the factors that a company will consider before making such a move is the cost of environmental regulations in the U.S. versus a different country. Clean manufacturing is more expensive than dumping the byproducts and waste on the ground next to the factory.
  3. The Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan made it costly to burn coal for electricity generation and many utilities have invested in renewable energy or converted power plants to natural gas. President Trump has promised to revive the coal mining industry by turning back that initiative, but there is a real health and financial benefit to reducing air pollution by moving away from coal. Struggling coal miners are easy to highlight while charts on asthma occurrences are not, but dirtier air does shorten and reduce the quality of life.
  4. It’s not likely that a Trump/Pruitt EPA will ever allow a river to become so polluted again that it will catch fire, but have no doubt that we are all experiencing the effects of manmade climate change. There is a lot more energy in the atmosphere than was the case a decade or two ago because of the current level of warming. That leads to more powerful storms and wider swings in temperatures. When do you remember tornados in December and January, or large snowstorms the day after shorts weather in the Northeast? The flooding in Louisiana last year and in North Carolina before that are the result of powerful storms kept in place by other powerful weather systems. It may have been an isolated incident a couple decades ago, but now it’s much more frequent.

President Trump says he wants to invest heavily in infrastructure and he better hurry. The thing that damages roads and bridges the most are freeze-thaw cycles, and we have been experiencing many more of those as the planet warms.

Posted in Trump Democrats Update, U.S. Politics, Uncategorized | 2 Comments

An Update for Trump Democrats – Taxes & Deficits

Posted on February 14, 2017 by tonyj126

These short posts are part of a series to take stock of changes that may be coming during a Trump Administration.

Taxes & Deficits

  1. The President’s proposed individual income tax cut would give an average tax break of about $122,400 to the top 1% and those who make $1 million and more would average a $317,000 tax cut. A middle-class family would see about a $500 reduction in federal income taxes while single-parent households would pay higher taxes due to the elimination of the Head of Household filing option.
  2. Many tax experts believe the deficit will balloon under such a plan, but supporters say increased growth will generate enough income to offset the lost tax revenue from the reduced rates. One way to look at this is to compare budget deficits as a percent of gross domestic product after removing Social Security and the Postal Service (called “On Budget”).
    1. Big tax cuts: beginning of the Reagan and G.W. Bush terms.
    2. Big tax increases: beginning of Clinton’s term and halfway through Obama’s term, but only on the wealthy for the latter.
    3. On Budget Deficit as % of GDP:
      1. 87% higher during Reagan’s term vs. Carter’s term.
      2. 64% lower during Clinton’s term than G.H.W. Bush’s term.
      3. 94% higher during G.W. Bush’s term vs. Clinton’s term.
      4. 47% lower during 2nd half of Obama term vs. 1st half (Great Recession makes this hard to evaluate – it occurred during a time with low taxes). Last 4 years under Obama matched G.W. Bush’s 8 years.
    1. How about federal revenue and spending growth?
      1. Carter (4 years): Revenue +74%, Spending +59%,
      2. Reagan (8 years): Revenue +76%, Spending +80%,
      3. G.H.W. Bush’s (4 years): Revenue +20%, Spending +30%,
      4. Clinton (8 years): Revenue +86%, Spending +30%,
      5. G.W. Bush’s (8 years): Revenue +25%, Spending +67%,
      6. Obama (8 years): Revenue +29.4%, Spending +29.2%, and
      7. Obama’s last 4 years: Revenue +33%, Spending +9%.
  1. At least since the Carter presidency:
    1. The deficit grew worse following tax cuts and improved following tax increases.
    2. Every Democratic president oversaw a period when federal revenue grew faster than federal spending.
    3. Every Republican president saw the opposite – federal spending growth outpaced federal revenue growth.
  2. Conclusion
    1. Based on the historic data, the deficit as a percent of GDP is likely to increase as a result of President Trump’s individual income tax cut plan.
Posted in Economics, Trump Democrats Update, U.S. Politics, Uncategorized | 2 Comments

An Update for Trump Democrats – Healthcare

Posted on February 14, 2017 by tonyj126

These short posts are part of a series to take stock of changes that may be coming during a Trump Administration.

Healthcare

  1. The Republican are very unlikely to keep their promises:
    1. Forcing insurers to cover preexisting conditions and to allow children to stay on their parents’ insurance policies through age 26 is very costly to the insurers, especially if the subsidy program to help people afford coverage is eliminated.
    2. Switching from subsidies which reduce a person’s monthly premiums to a tax credit a year later means that people who can barely afford to pay for insurance now have to find a whole lot more money each month to afford insurance coverage during the year. Many will go without.
    3. Even without insurance, everyone can get healthcare through emergency room visits which are hugely expensive and will eventually bankrupt both the patients and hospitals if too many people are without insurance coverage.
    4. Under the Republican proposals, you would end up with a system in which only the wealthiest 40% and those who must have insurance for a preexisting condition buy insurance in the individual market. Healthy people will take their chances.
  2. Many health insurers will pull out of most markets because the plans lose money.
    1. The individual market will likely collapse in rural areas because there is no incentive for the only hospital or the only radiology group to cut their fees and make deals with insurers when they have no fear of competition within fifty to three hundred miles.
    2. The same may be true for mid-size cities because of hospital consolidation. It is common for the financially stronger hospital in an area to buy the smaller, weaker ones, and once again, there is less incentive to negotiate with insurers.
  3. One Republican proposal which seems likely involves switching Medicaid to a block grant system. The federal government sends money to the states and they figure out what to do with it. In such a scenario, it’s likely that some, and possibly many people currently covered by Medicaid will lose benefits. They same block grant program could happen with Medicare and other programs in this ‘states rights’ leaning federal government.
  4. Over one-third of Americans have at least one preexisting medical condition.
  5. Whatever changes occur, they are more likely to benefit wealthier Americans and harm poorer ones. For example, the Affordable Care Act levied a 0.9% additional Medicare tax on income over $250,000 per year and Republicans have promised to get rid of that tax.
  6. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a clear stance against medical marijuana and it’s possible the federal government will crack down on its use.
  7. When the dust settles, it’s possible that we will have a slightly tweaked Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) or a big change to a single-payer system (“socialized medicine”) supplemented by pay-as-you-go options for those of means.
Posted in Healthcare, Trump Democrats Update, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

An Update for Trump Democrats

Posted on February 14, 2017 by tonyj126

Donald Trump has been in office for 3-1/2 weeks now and it’s a good time to step back and look at the big picture. Specifically, what do the President’s actions and cabinet appointees tell us about what will likely change for people in the United States, especially those changes that affect his voters who traditionally vote Democratic?

Who are Trump Democrats? They are the older, whiter, more rural and less educated citizens in the country. They are more likely to be blue collar than white collar workers and many belong to a union, or did at one time in their working past. They are also more likely to be men; fifty-three percent of men voted for Trump versus Clinton’s forty-one percent of the male vote. It is also probably safe to say that Trump’s older, male blue collar voter has more health issues than Clinton’s younger, female white collar voter, and Trump’s voter is more likely to smoke and suffer from addiction issues.

So, what will come out of President Trump’s administration for the Trump Democrat?

Healthcare

  1. The Republican are very unlikely to keep their promises:
    1. Forcing insurers to cover preexisting conditions and to allow children to stay on their parents’ insurance policies through age 26 is very costly to the insurers, especially if the subsidy program to help people afford coverage is eliminated.
    2. Switching from subsidies which reduce a person’s monthly premiums to a tax credit a year later means that people who can barely afford to pay for insurance now have to find a whole lot more money each month to afford insurance coverage during the year. Many will go without.
    3. Even without insurance, everyone can get healthcare through emergency room visits which are hugely expensive and will eventually bankrupt both the patients and hospitals if too many people are without insurance coverage.
    4. Under the Republican proposals, you would end up with a system in which only the wealthiest 40% and those who must have insurance for a preexisting condition buy insurance in the individual market. Healthy people will take their chances.
  2. Many health insurers will pull out of most markets because the plans lose money.
    1. The individual market will likely collapse in rural areas because there is no incentive for the only hospital or the only radiology group to cut their fees and make deals with insurers when they have no fear of competition within fifty to three hundred miles.
    2. The same may be true for mid-size cities because of hospital consolidation. It is common for the financially stronger hospital in an area to buy the smaller, weaker ones, and once again, there is less incentive to negotiate with insurers.
  3. One Republican proposal which seems likely involves switching Medicaid to a block grant system. The federal government sends money to the states and they figure out what to do with it. In such a scenario, it’s likely that some, and possibly many people currently covered by Medicaid will lose benefits. They same block grant program could happen with Medicare and other programs in this ‘states rights’ leaning federal government.
  4. Over one-third of Americans have at least one preexisting medical condition.
  5. Whatever changes occur, they are more likely to benefit wealthier Americans and harm poorer ones. For example, the Affordable Care Act levied a 0.9% additional Medicare tax on income over $250,000 per year and Republicans have promised to get rid of that tax.
  6. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a clear stance against medical marijuana and it’s possible the federal government will crack down on its use.
  7. When the dust settles, it’s possible that we will have a slightly tweaked Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) or a big change to a single-payer system (“socialized medicine”) supplemented by pay-as-you-go options for those of means.

Wall Street and Main Street

  1. The 2007-2009 Great Recession was caused by banks gambling with money they did not have because the potential profits were so high. We regular Americans share some of the blame because we did not use our ‘free money’ from the banks very well during the housing bubble and when the bubble burst, we discovered the money wasn’t free after all.
  2. Banks and major companies were bailed out under the Bush and Obama administrations because both believed that a collapse of the banking sector would lead to a second Great Depression.
  3. Regulations (Dodd-Frank) were passed to ensure that the big banks would keep more money in reserve so they would be better able to survive another shock to the system and no bank would be considered too big to fail.
  4. The President has promised to roll back the post-recession banking regulations and has stacked his cabinet with Wall Street insiders, some of whom reaped huge profits from the foreclosure crisis.

Education

  1. Betsy DeVos has no experience in public education as a student, teacher, administrator or parent of a student, but has been a huge proponent of school choice and voucher programs, and has campaigned against holding charter schools accountable based on poor results.
  2. While the majority of public education decisions are made on the state and local level, the Department of Education can set standards which help guide those state and local education decisions.
  3. DeVos may be able to direct federal funds in such a way that states which embrace voucher programs are rewarded with additional money.
  4. Voucher programs take money away from public schools and give it to religious and private schools as long as the students’ parents arrange transportation to and from classes. This will benefit children from wealthier families who have the means to make such arrangements, and disadvantage poorer families and their students who do not.
  5. The push toward states rights may mean that the Department of Education will no longer set minimum standards and each state will be allowed to decide their own criteria for graduation. Manufacturers are concerned the high skilled workforce is too small with our current education system and it seems unlikely that will improve with fifty different sets of graduation standards.

Environment

  1. Both President Trump and his head of the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) Scott Pruitt have railed against the EPA and the environmental regulations they believe harm business. Scott Pruitt has sued the EPA and a rollback is expected under his watch. Trump has also signed an executive order that two regulations must be eliminated for each new regulation proposed.
  2. The EPA came into existance during the Nixon Administration following a highly newsworthy event – the Cuyahoga River in Northeast Ohio was so polluted that it caught fire in 1969. Environmental regulations have been instrumental in cleaning up the nation’s waters, air and soil, but at the same time, many manufacturers moved out of the country. One of the factors that a company will consider before making such a move is the cost of environmental regulations in the U.S. versus a different country. Clean manufacturing is more expensive than dumping the byproducts and waste on the ground next to the factory.
  3. The Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan made it costly to burn coal for electricity generation and many utilities have invested in renewable energy or converted power plants to natural gas. President Trump has promised to revive the coal mining industry by turning back that initiative, but there is a real health and financial benefit to reducing air pollution by moving away from coal. Struggling coal miners are easy to highlight while charts on asthma occurrences are not, but dirtier air does shorten and reduce the quality of life.
  4. It’s not likely that a Trump/Pruitt EPA will ever allow a river to become so polluted again that it will catch fire, but have no doubt that we are all experiencing the effects of manmade climate change. There is a lot more energy in the atmosphere than was the case a decade or two ago because of the current level of warming. That leads to more powerful storms and wider swings in temperatures. When do you remember tornados in December and January, or large snowstorms the day after shorts weather in the Northeast? The flooding in Louisiana last year and in North Carolina before that are the result of powerful storms kept in place by other powerful weather systems. It may have been an isolated incident a couple decades ago, but now it’s much more frequent.
  5. President Trump says he wants to invest heavily in infrastructure and he better hurry. The thing that damages roads and bridges the most are freeze-thaw cycles, and we have been experiencing many more of those as the planet warms.

Taxes & Deficits

  1. The President’s proposed individual income tax cut would give an average tax break of about $122,400 to the top 1% and those who make $1 million and more would average a $317,000 tax cut. A middle-class family would see about a $500 reduction in federal income taxes while single-parent households would pay higher taxes due to the elimination of the Head of Household filing option.
    1. Many tax experts believe the deficit will balloon under such a plan, but supporters say increased growth will generate enough income to offset the lost tax revenue from the reduced rates. One way to look at this is to compare budget deficits as a percent of gross domestic product after removing Social Security and the Postal Service (called “On Budget”).
      1. Big tax cuts: beginning of the Reagan and G.W. Bush terms.
      2. Big tax increases: beginning of Clinton’s term and halfway through Obama’s term, but only on the wealthy for the latter.
      3. On Budget Deficit as % of GDP:
        1. 87% higher during Reagan’s term vs. Carter’s term.
        2. 64% lower during Clinton’s term than G.H.W. Bush’s term.
        3. 94% higher during G.W. Bush’s term vs. Clinton’s term.
        4. 47% lower during 2nd half of Obama term vs. 1st half (Great Recession makes this hard to evaluate – it occurred during a time with low taxes). Last 4 years under Obama matched G.W. Bush’s 8 years.
    1. How about federal revenue and spending growth?
      1. Carter (4 years): Revenue +74%, Spending +59%,
      2. Reagan (8 years): Revenue +76%, Spending +80%,
      3. G.H.W. Bush’s (4 years): Revenue +20%, Spending +30%,
      4. Clinton (8 years): Revenue +86%, Spending +30%,
      5. G.W. Bush’s (8 years): Revenue +25%, Spending +67%,
      6. Obama (8 years): Revenue +29.4%, Spending +29.2%, and
      7. Obama’s last 4 years: Revenue +33%, Spending +9%.
  1. At least since the Carter presidency:
    1. The deficit grew worse following tax cuts and improved following tax increases.
    2. Every Democratic president oversaw a period when federal revenue grew faster than federal spending.
    3. Every Republican president saw the opposite – federal spending growth outpaced federal revenue growth.
  2. Conclusion
    1. Based on the historic data, the deficit as a percent of GDP is likely to increase as a result of President Trump’s individual income tax cut plan.
Posted in Economics, Education, Healthcare, Trump Democrats Update, U.S. Politics, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Kellyanne Conway

Posted on February 10, 2017 by tonyj126

There’s an old joke. What do you call the guy who finished at the bottom of his medical school class? Doctor.

If they hadn’t known it ahead of time, my attorney friends are shocked when I tell them that Kellyanne Conway, Counselor to the President, is a lawyer. They just can’t imagine it – Ms. Conway doesn’t behave like a lawyer. Well, there is that whole “alternative facts” argument that seemed kind of lawyerly.

Ms. Conway received her Juris Doctor from George Washington University in 1992, and describes herself as a “fully recovered” attorney. She founded the Polling Company in 1995 and is president and CEO. The company often works with Republican candidates to appeal to women voters, but also contracts with Freedom Works, Americans for Prosperity, National Rifle Association, the Heritage Foundation, Family Research Council, and other conservative organizations. Conway is strongly anti-abortion and has provided commentary on more than 1,200 TV shows. Early in her career, she often attacked the Clintons on television programs.

All White House staffers receive an ethics briefing shortly after being sworn in. One would expect that an attorney from a prestigious law school would have an easy time comprehending the Dos and Don’ts of ethics laws. And yet, Ms. Conway broke a big one this week when she told viewers of Fox & Friends to buy Ivanka Trump’s clothing and accessories products after retailer Nordstrom announced they would be dropping the line due to low sales. The comment violated a federal code preventing government employees from using their public office for private gain – theirs or anyone else’s.

So Ms. Conway is in big trouble now. Or maybe not. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said on February 9, “Kellyanne has been counseled and that’s all were going to go with.” He also said, “She’s been counseled on that subject, and that’s it.”

Perhaps for a first offense, that could be it, but the White House may not have the last word on this. Utah Republican representative and chairman of the House Oversight Committee Jason Chaffett, said Conway’s actions were “wrong, wrong, wrong, clearly over the line, unacceptable.” Keep in mind that one of the first actions House Republicans did in January was to vote to eliminate independent ethical oversight of their actions, until a popular backlash made them cancel their plans.

Yes, the House Oversight Committee chairman of THIS House of Representatives called Conway’s actions unacceptable.

I find this all interesting, but Kellyanne’s comments are a symptom, not a disease. She will probably receive no punishment, and the incident will end with her “counseling.”

The disease is the black tone that flows from the White House, and before that, the Trump campaign. Through spokespeople, tweets, changes in executive branch websites, and the devaluing of scientific knowledge, this administration is attempting to blacken the hearts of the American people so we accept every action and every proclamation we hear from them.

When I was in middle school, we were taught about the Dark Ages. That term is not used anymore. Some will call that political correctness, but it was only “dark” for Western and perhaps Eastern Europe. Much of the rest of the world flourished during those centuries, including the Muslim world which became the center for scientific discovery.

The United States has been in an economic expansion for about ninety straight months, but you wouldn’t know it by listening to what comes out of the White House. The message from this administration is one of the dark ages. Everything is horrible – people are trying to kill us – if you disagree with the president, you are causing the downfall of civilization – if a company makes a business decision which may cost a family member money, it’s an attack on the country.

I’m getting rather tired with being lied to all the time.

Posted in U.S. Politics, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

An Analogy of Worth as Described by Playing Cards

Posted on February 8, 2017 by tonyj126

I enjoy playing the card game Spades. It’s a four-person game in which you work with a partner. All cards are dealt out and there are thirteen rounds – “tricks” – per deal. You and your partner attempt to win the number of tricks you predict you will take (bid); there are small penalties for bidding too low and big penalties for bidding too high. A single player can even generate 100 points for the team by going “nil” – a successful bid that he or she will win no tricks personally.

The highest card in the suit that is led wins the trick that round and the winner throws the first card for the next round. Unless a trump card is thrown, that is. Each player must follow the suit that is led as long as he or she has a card in that suit, but if not, any card in the person’s hand may be thrown. If a spade is thrown, the highest spade wins that trick.

It’s telling that President Trump’s family name was changed from Drumpf to Trump. It fits our current president. Trump cards are powerful and can wreak havoc on the strategies of others. If you have enough trump cards in your hand, you then have fewer cards in the other suits so you don’t have to play nice for very long. As soon as a suit is led in which you have no cards left, you can start destroying of the other side. In this ace high game, your 2 of spades – the lowest trump card – still beats the ace of any other suit. President Trump certainly seems to play by the rules of Spades. Well, that is as long as he can make sure he is dealt most of the trump cards in the deck.

With this analogy, I believe Mr. Trump thinks of himself as the unbeatable ace of spades, a guaranteed winner. I also think we can make analogies as to which cards he feels represent other people. He may feel that he gets to have all the trump cards and thus win every hand, but that would be a pretty boring analogy. Not only that, any player can call for a misdeal if he or she doesn’t receive a single spade in the hand, so let’s assume Mr. Trump doesn’t get them all.

His trusted advisors can have a spade or two, but probably nothing higher than a ten. Less trusted people get five or below to prevent a re-deal, but have no real power. It’s possible Steve Bannon may get a trump face card because he certainly does have a lot of influence with the President.

What about everyone else? The hands for most media outlets will be weak, but with one medium-strong card so they can’t go nil. If the rules include the provision that each team must bid at least three or four, the media will lose points on every hand. Fox News can have a better hand, of course, and if they play their hand well, they may even be invited to be the President’s partner in the game. In reality, Mr. Trump would probably like the media out of the game, looking pathetic and holding a single card from a mismatched deck which represents their worth. Most wouldn’t have anything over a four, and it wouldn’t be a trump card.

What about other people? Christian conservatives rate a king of hearts or even a 6 of spades. Trump Democrats are a little harder. As long as they continue to support him, they’re entitled to a couple medium trump cards, but if they start to bulk at tax cuts for the rich, loss of health care and reduced wages, they will soon find themselves with rather poor cards indeed. Liberals – a two of clubs. Complainers and Women’s Marchers – a three of diamonds. Inner-city blacks – maybe a five or six of hearts since Mr. Trump constructed a narrative on his interpretation of their lives that helped win the racist vote. Illegal immigrants –a ripped joker stained with grape jelly.

What about religion? Conservative Christians and Jews – ten of spades (remember that he has all the trump face cards). Liberal Christians and Jews – ten of clubs. Muslims (Sunni, Shiite, Conservative, Moderate, Liberal – it doesn’t matter in the President’s book) – a joker. Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus – nine of diamonds. Native American spirituality – six of spades. Wiccan – eight of spades (Perhaps he doesn’t understand it, but heard something about free-spirited women dancing in the moonlight, so it doesn’t sound too bad).

How about countries? United States – king of spades (He’s still keeping that ace for himself). Canada – eight of spades (they’re like us, but too liberal for his tastes). Mexico – three of clubs, but can go higher if they agree to pay for the wall. United Kingdom – jack of spades because they voted for Brexit. Russia – also a jack of spades; he likes their style. European Union countries – five of diamonds unless they vote to leave the EU, then a mid-spade. China – tough one. They treat their people in a way he respects, but they’re too good at “winning” against the United States. Perhaps a five of spades. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan – eight of spades. Most African and Asian countries – no cards; they should be worrying about their horrible lives, not playing cards. Australia, New Zealand and South America – ten of hearts.

Majority Muslim countries with Muslim leadership – another torn, stained joker if there are no Trump hotels, golf courses or other business deals, but a nine of spades if there are.

It doesn’t seem very fun to play cards with President Trump since the cards seem stacked against you. It could even be worse than playing against the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl.

Posted in Make America Great Series, U.S. Politics, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Wrong Businessman President?

Posted on February 3, 2017 by tonyj126

Fed up with Washington politics, many Americans wanted a successful business leader to have the job of president. This is not a new trend. For years, candidates for all levels of local, state and federal government have been touting their success in business to garner votes. In October 2012, Representative Tom Latham from Iowa’s 3rd district stated, “I’m a farmer, small business person, someone who’s actually had, you know, signed the front of a paycheck and tried to grow a business.” He was running for his tenth term in the House of Representatives and was hardly an outsider.

The American people do not have a high opinion of Congress. Gallup’s monthly polls following President Obama’s 2009 inauguration showed a congressional job approval spike into the mid to high thirties. There was hope that the federal government would work together to address the financial crisis, but that enthusiasm did not last long. Congress’ job approval ratings dropped to 25% by December 2009 and have spent the past seventy-three months below that level, bottoming out at 9% approval in November 2013.

As a candidate, Mr. Obama had promised hope and change. The Republicans in Congress helped fulfill that promise, just not the way the president had envisioned. On the night of Obama’s inauguration, political consultant Frank Luntz organized a gathering of Republican leaders at a steakhouse in Washington, DC, to plan a strategy for the next four years. Many who were in attendance are members of today’s House and Senate leadership. After three hours of discussion, they agreed to a plan of obstruction. They would fight the President on every one of his initiatives as a strategy to win back the White House in 2012. What began that night was a steep drop in cooperation. The American people certainly noticed the change, but they were no longer so hopeful.

Republicans intended to win back the presidency in 2012 because they believed the electorate would blame the president for inaction in Washington. The American people blamed both, but Congress’ job approval rating was much lower than the President’s 38-69% range. That was not a concern for many Republicans in the House and Senate because a low nationwide job approval rating often means a high approval rate among conservatives and libertarians. For most Republican members of the House of Representatives, the only threat to their reelections came from a more conservative candidate, so a “do nothing” Congress was a good thing. They could demonstrate how much money they saved the taxpayer by stopping Obama’s tax and spend agenda.

So forty-six percent of the voters distributed in all the right places wanted a businessman to be president on Election Day. They wanted change. Some wanted protectionist policies, and some wanted racist ones. A majority wanted changes in the healthcare system. It appears we have it all in President Trump, but it seems that we have chosen the wrong businessman. The head of a family business is only concerned about himself and his family, not the customers beyond their desire to purchase and ability to pay. It seems safe to assume based on Mr. Trump’s personality, cabinet picks, and Tweets since Election Day, that he considers the American people to be the customers, not the family.

If we are to be the beneficiaries of The Trump Presidency, Incorporated, President Trump would build up those institutions that make us stronger as a nation. One of the most important is the existence of an independent and unfettered press. In fact, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, reads, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” That basic human right does not appear to be endorsed by President Trump and members of his inner circle. Mr. Trump, Mr. Spicer and Ms. Conway have undermined the media, opinion polls and the truth, as evidenced by photographic, video and eyewitness accounts.

Another foundation of support for the American people is a functioning healthcare system. President Trump’s executive order on Friday is so vague and broad that most media outlets have little idea how to handle it. Some believe it was a noncommittal order so that Mr. Trump could keep his campaign promise to begin repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on Day 1. It appears to be much more dangerous to the country’s wellbeing than most people realize.

The order instructs all executive agencies and departments that oversee any part of the healthcare law’s implementation or operation to “waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the Act that would impose a fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.”

What other news organizations may be forgetting is that the Attorney General is an executive appointee. Stories have focused on the fact that many parts of the ACA cannot be changed by executive action, but what if the Attorney General decides not to enforce those parts. Because of its broadness, this executive order also means that we don’t know where to look for changes and a lot of damage to the healthcare system may occur before an investigative journalist discovers what has taken place.

Perhaps the Trump Administration will quietly tell insurers that they will not be prosecuted if they begin charging women more than men, or begin collecting co-pays on preventative tests and exams. Maybe they will again limit the total lifetime benefit, hidden in a 50-page PDF that the insured must accept in order to obtain insurance. There will be lawsuits, of course, when these “violations” are discovered, but with the Attorney General on the side of the insurers, the whole system could collapse before the legal battles are resolved.

Going back to the family business analogy, there is a major difference between being a customer at a Trump hotel and being “customers” of the United States. The latter don’t have another option – we have to “buy” the only product available, that offered by The Trump Presidency, Incorporated.

Consider, instead, a businessperson president who was the CEO of Boeing, General Electric or Microsoft. In that case, we the people are not only the customers of the United States, we are also the shareholders. These ex-CEO presidents are used to working on behalf of the shareholders and they will follow disclosure guidelines. These potential presidents would release their tax returns, divest their investments to avoid conflicts of interest, and inform the shareholder-public how the business of the United States is doing. It certainly isn’t unreasonable to have a president who has been successful in business, but that person should come from a publically traded company.

For now, we have President Trump. In line with his family business mode of operation, he is keeping his plans close to the vest. We, the customers, will not know which parts of the healthcare system are being undermined. We will not know if we are being lied to as a way of enriching the family business. We will not know if the long term stability of the United States is being damaged because our president makes bad decisions without oversight. We probably will not get accurate facts when President Trump justifies why he ordered the bombing of a building in Iran or North Korea, or a city in Syria. When the legal Counselor to the President, Kellyanne Conway, dismisses a recent poll that 74% of Americans want Mr. Trump to release his taxes by insisting that voters aren’t concerned about the issue, we are dealing with a business model in which the customers have no power because they have no choice.

Posted in Economics, Healthcare, U.S. Politics, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Merit-ocratic States of America

Posted on January 31, 2017 by tonyj126

The United States isn’t very united these days, and President Trump’s selections for his cabinet suggest he is a strong believer in meritocracies. Per the Cambridge English Dictionary, a meritocracy is “a social system, society, or organization in which people have power because of their abilities, not because of their money or social position.” Somewhat ironically, Mr. Trump appears to judge a person’s abilities primarily on whether he or she has a lot of money, but let’s stick with the abilities part of the definition.

President Trump values people whom he sees as having merit. Regardless of how he arrives at his conclusions, these people form the core of the executive branch’s leadership team. The American people voted for change and they are certainly going to get it with Mr. Trump and his cabinet. One of those likely changes will be an emphasis on states’ rights, including encourging (forcing?) states to take over responsibility in administering programs that are currently jointly controlled with the federal government. Medicaid is one example. Both the healthcare plan put out by the House of Representatives’ Republican Leadership last summer and the President’s executive order on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) indicate a plan to put states in control of Medicaid. Education, healthcare programs for working Americans not covered by employer-sponsored plans, and even Medicare could follow.

But just how far will this meritocracy go? If the President is used to judging people based on their abilities, might he also begin judging states in the same way? Does a state with a high per capita gross domestic product (GDP) have more merit than a state with a low one? Do the leaders of a state with a strong, diversified economy have better abilities than those in states with weak, heavily dependent economies? How about the ability to recover from manmade or natural disasters? Will those states with programs in place to clean up and rebuild quickly be valued more in the Trump Administration? If so, will those states judged to have more merit be given more power?

This is not an idle question. If this meritorious belief is important to President Trump, shouldn’t he reward those states who make the country stronger with their industry, management and insurance against disaster? With a push toward putting the states in charge of administering more programs, shouldn’t the states that have proven their worth be given more money and control in the process? Might the whole budget for a given program be divided up and distributed to the states based on gross domestic product? That way, every dollar that a state receives is directly proportional to their financial medit to the country. If a state feels cheated with such a system, all they have to do is increase their per capita GPD, and they’ll receive more funds the following year. Well, at least that’s one way to think about it in a meritocracy.

This, of course, would never happen, even if the President wanted such a system. For the most part, the states with the highest GPD vote Democratic, while those with the lowest vote Republican. Those Republican-leaning states also tend to have a higher percentage of their residents dependent on Medicaid and other social safety net programs. The House of Representatives would never go for such a merit-based system in which their Republican voters would receive less money per capital.

It is an interesting thought exercise for a President Trump Administration which is functioning as a dictatorship in its first week-and-a-half. When the brain is stressed out by the unknown possibilities that come from governance by executive order, it fills the gap with its own ideas.

Posted in Economics, Healthcare, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Insidious!

Posted on January 21, 2017 by tonyj126

That may one day be the title of the unauthorized account of the Trump presidency. And, of course, President Trump would likely sue the author.

As you may have guessed, I’m not feeling very “glass half-full” at the moment. The day started off fine with a decent night’s sleep, a relaxing morning and attendance at the peaceful and spirited Women’s March on Lansing (Michigan). I even had a good idea for a post shortly after I awoke and was eager to write it when I got the chance.

That post I started this morning is entitled, “Well, That’s Clear as Mud” and had to do with the vagueness of the President’s executive order entitled “MINIMIZING THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PENDING REPEAL.” The post was to touch on how I expected to finally know the President’s plans once he took office and began governing, but that first executive order told us nothing. Or so I thought – I now believes it tells us a lot and it is insidious.

Helping me reach this conclusion:

  1. I thoroughly read the executive order.
  2. White House Prests Secretary Sean Spicer berated the press for spreading fake news when it was accurate news and an error, later corrected, and he used fake facts in his attack. He also had previously accepted an apology for the error last night, but today, it was all vitriol from Spicer.
  3. President Trump grossly overestimated the crowd on inauguration day at 1 – 1.5 million.

You can read the executive order by clicking on the link in 1. above, but here are some portions that disturb me. The leaders of all executive departments and agencies which have control over any part of the healthcare law exercise all authority and discretion available to them:

  1. “to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the Act that would impose a fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.”
  2. “to provide greater flexibility to States and cooperate with them in implementing healthcare programs.”

This executive order is so vague and so broad that while we can guess at the possible actions, we really have no idea what will be done behind closed doors in the executive branch of government. They don’t have to tell us! Perhaps the IRS will no longer enforce the tax penalty for those without insurance. Maybe health insurers will again deny coverage to those with preexisting conditions because, while there’s still a law forbidding this, they have nothing to fear if the law will not be enforced. Many of those people covered by the Medicare expansion portion of the ACA may lose coverage if the 5-10% of the costs picked up by the states is deemed a fiscal burden, and the Attorney General will not pursue legal action against the states that drop people out of the program because of this executive order.

It is also so broad and vague that it the executive branches can pick the winners. Reducing regulation on business – i.e., “purchasers of insurance” – will almost certainly raise prices or reduce coverage for the insured – “recipients of healthcare service.” You can’t help one without hurting the other. There are plenty of other pairs of winners and losers in that list, but we simply don’t know and can’t know from this executive order what is going to happen.

The shorter section noted above about greater flexibility to States with respect to implementing healthcare programs is also worrisome. Some states make decisions based solely on monetary calculations. An excellent example is Texas. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) caps special education enrollment at 8.5%, which is the lowest in the country; the U.S. average is 13.0%. Since 2004, TEA has reportedly threatened to crack down on school districts that exceed 8.5% special education enrollment, and the state has reportedly saved billions of dollars by denying special education services to tens of thousands of children who meet the federal criteria. The Texas state average used to be 11 or 12% according to Mike Moses who ran the TEA from 1995-1999, and the number of low-birth-weight babies, teen pregnancies and kids in poverty has only grown.

Do we really want to give states total control over healthcare systems for their residents? I am certain that some states will make it very difficult for many of their residents to obtain health insurance, and potentially, healthcare. Texas prides itself on being a low tax environment for business, but it seems to be these kinds of restrictions on social safety net programs which help provide for that low tax system. We can debate the pros and cons, but for this post I feel confident in proclaiming that millions of people will lose coverage under exclusively state run healthcare systems.

So what can we do? We have this executive order which says that any portion of the Affordable Care Act may be subject to non-enforcement and that they don’t have to tell us what they are actually going to do. In popular books and movies, hackers evade detection by mapping a route full of dead ends called red herrings. When the hackees, or the white hats they hire, try to find out who hacked them, they hit these dead ends, take a step back and try another route. It makes for an exciting book or movie, but this executive order is full of red herrings and I find it much more troubling than exciting.

The American people need our own white hats. The only way we are going to find out which portions of the ACA are being enforced and which are not is through investigative journalism. These men and women will form relationships, probe systems, and ask the important questions on our behalf. They will ferret out the truth – hopefully before it is too late. This executive order allows the foundations of the healthcare system for tens of millions of Americans to be secretly undermined, and we need these investigative journalists to figure it out for us.

Our job:

  1. Subscribe to a news organization with a strong investigative journalism department (New York Times and Washington Post, for example, but also your local newspaper which may be the first to discover something fishy going on in your community), and
  2. When the news comes out of threats to healthcare coverage for tens of millions of Americans, be active. Contact the White House (whitehouse.gov), your Senators, and your Representative and tell them that you want it to stop.

There was a sign at the Lansing March today which read, “Your Silence = Your Consent.” I didn’t much care for the sign because of its unintended implication toward sexual assault, but with respect to news of executive branch wrongdoing, it’s spot on. Don’t be silent when the news comes out. Be active and stay active. Your country needs you.

Posted in Economics, Healthcare, Make America Great Series, U.S. Politics, Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Harnessing the Power of Negative Thinking

Posted on January 20, 2017 by tonyj126

I don’t want you to read more into this post because it was written on Inauguration Day. I am simply shining a light on how positive and negative thinking were used together to get Donald Trump elected. My only concern is for the country and the planet. If President Trump can actually achieve a strong & stable economy (no bubble), and respect the rights of people to believe and act as they do – without harming others, of course – I will probably vote for him in four years. I am skeptical of his promises, but he has certainly surprised us many times in the last year.

The Power of Positive Thinking was written by Norman Vincent Peale and first published in 1952. He was the longtime pastor at the Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan, the church Donald Trump’s family attended during his formative years. Rev. Peale’s message during sermons and in his famous book is that you can achieve incredible things if you harness the power of positive thinking. Today, it would be known as a prosperity gospel.

We can see this in the transcript from one of Rev. Peale’s radio shows in the late 1960s. “Once you’ve determined your goals, paint a mental picture of yourself achieving them. Hold that picture of success before you at all times. Concentrate on it, and it will materialize.” Or another example. “See yourself not failing, but succeeding. Believe in yourself, in your capacity, in your ability to get good results, and your supply of confidence will become equal to your responsibilities. Confident thinking gets positive results.” (Both of these examples come from a story on yesterday’s All Things Considered from NPR: http://www.npr.org/2017/01/19/510628862/how-positive-thinking-helped-propel-trump-to-the-presidency.)

There is no doubt that Mr. Trump follows this way of thinking. It wasn’t until I heard the NPR story, however, that I could make sense of some of his supporters’ beliefs. When I hear a Trump statement that I know to be untrue, or at least a gross exaggeration, I think, “How can anyone believe what he says when he tells such lies?” But his supporters are swayed by two things:

  1. Donald Trump speaks with such authority that many of his supporters accept his statements as fact and any information to the contrary is deemed fake news.
  2. The power of positive thinking and the power of negative thinking work together to solidify Mr. Trump’s image as savior.

By “the power of negative thinking” I mean that many Americans have been convinced things are horrible in the country. I look at the numbers and disagree. Here are some of the changes that took place during President Obama’s time in office:

  1. The unemployment rate dropped by 40% (from 7.8% in Jan. 2009 to 4.7% Dec. 2016).
  2. S&P 500 is up by 144% – that’s an average stock market return of 18% per year.
  3. Gross domestic product (GDP) is up from -3.5% in Q1 2009 to +1.7% in Q3 2016.
  4. Federal deficit as % of GDP down 23% (from 3.1% in 2008 to 2.4% in 2015).
  5. Hourly wage growth spent most of 2010 below 2% but it is now 2.9%.
  6. The percentage of Americans without health insurance dropped by 43% (from 15.1% in 2008 to 8.6% in Q1 2016).

So Donald Trump, the conservative media and most Republican leaders harnessed the power of negative thinking to convince the voters that the country is in worse shape than it appears to be. I know life can be very difficult in rural communities and that is a big reason why sparsely populated counties always vote overwhelmingly for Republicans (that, and for religious reasons).

People who live in rural areas may still owe more on their houses than they are worth because most real estate gains have happened in cities. The Affordable Care Act will offer fewer options in rural communities because health insurers are not very eager to compete for relatively few customers – they would rather beef up their efforts in cities. And rural communities have a higher percentage of white voters, and some of the other numbers from Obama’s term help explain the strong support for Mr. Trump.

  1. Women’s earnings as share of whites’: +3.6%.
  2. Black workers’ earnings as share of whites’: +0.8%.
  3. Hispanic workers’ earnings as share of whites’: +1.1%.
  4. Asian workers’ earnings as share of whites’: +3.6%.

So it is true that Mr. Trump’s staunchest supporters, white men, are losing ground. When every other demographics’ earnings are increasing versus your own, you are dropping behind. Well, not really. Only the average Asian worker makes more than the average white worker – everyone else makes considerably less, but the trend is there.

So, Donald Trump’s belief in the power of positive thinking convinced him that he could win the Republican nomination and the presidency. It certainly worked for him. The fact that the Russians intervened in the process, or that the Clinton campaign made mistakes in their execution isn’t important. Mr. Trump believed he could do it and it came true.

While Donald Trump used the power to positive thinking, one of his greatest tools toward his goal was the power of negative thinking. He convinced enough people that things are horrible in the country. He convinced them that free trade agreements and illegal immigration cost them the good jobs. He convinced them that the political establishment acted only in their own best interests, and didn’t care about the people at all. In other words, your life is horrible, it’s the politicians’ fault, and only I can fix things. True genius – and almost no one recognized what was happening.

Congratulations, President Trump. I’m eager to see what happens next because we are now in uncharted waters.

Posted in Economics, Make America Great Series, U.S. Politics, Uncategorized | 4 Comments