Tag: trumpnation

For years, Republicans and Libertarians have campaigned on the platform of smaller government. Government is too big! It spends too much! It has too many needless regulations that hamper the freedom of business to innovate (and make profits, never forget the profits). This was a stated goal of the Tea Party: Reduce government. This has been the goal of the Norquist pledge: Reduce taxes, reduce government. But, of course, they all knew it would never happen so it made a safe campaign promise that suckered drew in the voters. Because, heaven forfend, if it ever happened the people would realize all the benefits that these hated government services provide. Further, they would come to realize that the states cannot afford to provide them through internal budgets alone; remember, the poorer (often “red” states) depend on funds from the richer (often “blue” states) to provide these services through the balance the Federal level provides.

Then along came Donald Trump. A wealthy businessman (successful is up for debate) invested heavily in real estate. A businessman trained to get what he wants, run businesses into the ground, and complain about federal regulations that impact his ability to do business and make money (never, ever, forget the make money part). A businessman who believes that he would be more successful if he didn’t have to ensure safe workplaces, provide medical care, ensure that his construction preserved the environment. A businessman with wealthy partners, often heavily invested in energy industry that depend on the raping of the environment to make money (never, ever, ever, forget the make money part). Further, a businessman with charisma and TV smarts, a businessman who knows how to make an audience believe he is talking to them, and looking out for their interests.

Donald Trump and the Republicans/Libertarians. A match made in heaven. I know. Jesus told me about it when I called his 1-900 number the other day. It’s just like a fairy tale.

Of course, those who have seen Into the Woods knows that fairy tales aren’t pretty. Often what you wish for has unforseen consequences.

The Republicans (at least the voters) wished for Donald Trump. They got him. Their wish came true. And along with Trump came his minions and advisors, publicly dedicated to the task of “deconstructing the administrative state”. Of course, that’s a “con” job, and when you remove the con, what do you get? Destruction of the administrative state.

This becomes clear when one sees the outlines of Trump’s proposed budget. CNN describes it thusly:

His first budget — expected to be unveiled later this week — will mark Trump’s most significant attempt yet to remold national life and the relationship between federal and state power.

It would codify an assault on regulatory regimes over the environment, business and education bequeathed by former President Barack Obama, and attempt to halt decades of steadily growing government reach.

[…]

Trump will highlight his priorities by upping military spending by $54 billion, and is also expected to boost funding for homeland security — money that may be used to toughen immigration enforcement and to build his wall on the southern border.

The President will cement his “America First” policy by slashing State Department funding, foreign aid spending and grants to the United Nations, officials have already made clear. And nowhere is his assault on government expected to be as dramatic as at the Environmental Protection Agency — which is bracing for a massive reduction of its budget.

[…]

Another key Trump campaign promise was his vow to his voters, especially those in blue collar Midwestern swing states that he would not touch entitlements like Social Security or Medicare — vast repositories of taxpayer dollars that with along with interests on the national debt make up two-thirds of the federal budget.

That means that discretionary spending is vulnerable, especially to an administration that wants to make a political point.

[…]

Such warnings are why agencies like the EPA and the Education Department that have long been in conservative crosshairs are particularly vulnerable in the Trump era. Federal funding for other Republican targets — like National Public Radio, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities may also be under threat — even though they account for a comparatively small area of overall spending.

Americans want clean water and clean air. They want all those cute cuddly animals they see in nature documentaries. They want to be able to go out to National Parks and see the beauty of nature. But the environmental regulations that give them all that? Those are what Trump is cutting.

Americans want their children to be educated, and to get a quality education so they can get good jobs. The desire for the best education possible is true whether they send their kids to public, private, parochial, or home school. I guess there is nary a parent that says, “I want my kid to grow up stupid, like me.” When they live in poor areas with substandard education — either public or private — they want money redistributed by the Federal government from richer areas to pay for it. Gutting the Education department and ceding this to the state? That cuts those funds.

Americans want peace. They don’t want to send their sons and daughters to fight (and die, never forget die) in foreign lands. War is averted through diplomacy, not military might. Cutting the State Department and Foreign Aid cuts diplomacy. It makes the world less safe.

But what about jobs. President Trump campaigned on the promise that he would create so many jobs. Job creation would be yuge. So yuge you wouldn’t believe it. So what is he doing? According to the Washington Post:

President Trump’s budget proposal this week would shake the federal government to its core if enacted, culling back numerous programs and expediting a historic contraction of the federal workforce.

This would be the first time the government has executed cuts of this magnitude — and all at once — since the drawdown following World War II, economists and budget analysts said.

[…]

The cuts Trump plans to propose this week are also expected to lead to layoffs among federal workers, changes that would be felt sharply in the Washington area. According to an economic analysis by Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics, the reductions outlined so far by Trump’s advisers would reduce employment in the region by 1.8 percent and personal income by 3.5 percent, and lower home prices by 1.9 percent.

Among Trump’s expected proposals are an increase in military spending of $54 billion, more money to start building a wall along the border between the United States and Mexico, and the creation of new initiatives that expand access to charter schools and other educational programs.

To offset that new money, Trump will propose steep cuts across numerous other agencies. Although final numbers remain in flux, his advisers have considered cutting the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s budget by $6 billion, or 14 percent, according to a preliminary budget document obtained by The Washington Post. That is a change that Trulia chief economist Ralph McLaughlin said could “put nearly 8 million Americans in both inner-city and suburban communities at risk of losing their public housing and nearly 4 million at risk of losing their rental subsidy.”

Preliminary budget documents have also shown that Trump advisers have also looked at cutting the Environmental Protection Agency’s staff by about 20 percent and tightening the Commerce Department’s budget by about 18 percent, which would impact climate change research and weather satellite programs, among other things.

Trump and his advisers have said that they believe the federal workforce is too big, and that the federal government spends — and wastes — too much money. They have said that Washington — the federal workers and contractors, among others — has benefited from government largesse while many other Americans have suffered. Federal spending, they have argued, crowds the private sector and piles regulations and bureaucracy onto companies.

Here’s something people don’t often think about: government employment is white-collar welfare, a gigantic jobs program. Cutting the Federal workforce sounds good, but at its heart it is a massive layoff by the world’s largest employer, causing people to lose their incomes, health benefits, and much more. When you are a dad or mom and your employer cuts your job, it doesn’t make a difference whether you are at GM or the EPA. It is a job — it is what pays your bills. So Trump, who promised to create American jobs, is destroying them.

But that’s not all he is destroying. To fund an ineffective wall, he is taking people’s homes. He is decimating the funding for public housing, and threatening the subsidies that enable people to have roofs over their heads. He will not only create more jobless, but more homeless people.

He is also making people less safe. Cutting climate and weather research cuts the very satellites that tell people when major weather events are happening, that tell farmers when to plant, that ensure our safety from natural disasters. All to build a wall.

And then there is healthcare. Trump promised a program that was better than Obamacare. He promised more would be covered for less cost. But what is he actually proposing? According to the CBO, via the Washington Post:

Twenty-four million fewer people would have coverage a decade from now than if the Affordable Care Act remains intact, nearly doubling the share of Americans who are uninsured. The number of uninsured people would jump 14 million after the first year.

The Republican legislation would lower the deficit by $337 billion during that time, primarily by decreasing Medicaid spending and government aid for people purchasing health plans on their own.

Premiums would be 15 to 20 percent higher in the first year compared with current Obamacare premiums, but 10 percent lower after 2026.

Older Americans would pay “substantially” more, and younger Americans less.

The plan to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding would leave many women without services to help them prevent pregnancy, resulting in “thousands” of additional births, which would in turn jack up Medicaid costs. Sandhya Somashekhar reports: “The analysts estimated that excluding the women’s health organization from the Medicaid program for one year, as congressional Republicans have proposed, would particularly affect low-income areas and communities without many health care options, leaving 15 percent of those people ‘without services that help women avert pregnancy.’ The reduction in services would reduce federal spending on Medicaid, the state-federal program for the poor, by $178 million during 2017, the analysts estimate. But they believe the savings would be partially offset by the fact that there would be ‘several thousand’ more births paid for under Medicaid, which already picks up the costs of about 45 percent of all U.S. births; many of those new babies likely would qualify for the Medicaid program.”

The mechanism for persuading healthy Americans to stay insured would be largely ineffective, and it would ultimately lead to about 2 million fewer Americans buying insurance each year. Juliet Eilperin explains: “GOP lawmakers are determined to repeal the individual mandate.… But by jettisoning what has grown over time to a hefty penalty, several experts said, lawmakers have crafted a financial incentive that many consumers are unlikely to find compelling. Under the House GOP proposal, any consumer who opts out of getting insurance would have to pay a 30 percent surcharge on one year’s premium upon re-enrolling.

The deficit would be cut, but at what price? Despite the promise, less people would be covered, more people would be uninsured, and often, the coverage would be worse. This would hurt the American people.

As I said at the beginning: Be careful what you wish for. The wish for a smaller government, lower taxes, and less regulation will make our nation worse off. People will lose jobs, homes, and lives. The quality of life, for the most vulnerable segments of our population, will be significantly worse. The rich, and possibly the upper middle class. They’ll make out great (unless they have government jobs). We’ll go back to the days of dirty air, polluted water, expensive medical bills, poor schools, and lack of enforcement of constitutional protections regarding the government supporting particular religions and preventing discrimination. Not a better world at all.

But government will be smaller and cheaper. Right. Perhaps this is: “better, faster, cheaper” — pick any two. Better is likely not true. So what about faster? Nope — all we get is cheaper. One way Trump is working to reduce government is by not filling lower tier positions. This is creating significant problems and slowing processes down.

As the New York Times chronicles at length in a new report, the Trump administration is having the slowest transition in decades, far behind where his predecessors usually were seven weeks into the job. Trump has filled most of his Cabinet, but he has not nominated anyone for more than 500 other vital posts.

That means that in department after department, countless operations are on standby or moving at a glacial pace because the president has failed to appoint the senior personnel required to keep the train rolling.

Further, the federal hiring freeze he instituted means that as people retire or leave for other positions, they aren’t replaced. What will that mean for getting your passport processed by when you need it? That farm report? That federal rebate?

So is Trump’s election a fairy tale? Will we live happily ever after having gotten the wish for a smaller, deconstructed government? Some will of course. The wealthy always find a way to win. But those of us who aren’t the top 1%? Will we live happily ever after?

Sure. Trump has promised it. We all know how well his promises work out.

P.S.: Your toaster oven is watching you.

The words we use are vitally important; I often say that 90% of everything is how we say things, not what we actually mean. I remember learning this ages ago when looking at the papers with respect to Israel and Vietnam: different impressions come from the use of “freedom-fighter” vs. “insurgent” vs. “guerilla”.

A recent article related to President Trump brought this back to mind. In a musing yesterday, Mark Evanier wrote:

I think though we sometimes devalue the word “lie” by applying it to anything your opponent says that you can possibly spin as untrue. Years ago, a gent who worked for the National Weather Service told me, “We’ll predict a 60% chance of rain for Los Angeles…and then even if it rains in the valley but not in the basin, we hear from people in the basin who accuse us of lying. Not even of being wrong, which we weren’t. They say we lied.”

As a staunch believer in the maxim, “Never attribute to deviousness, that which can be explained by incompetence,” I often think the “L” word is inapplicable. People — even people I don’t like — do make mistakes. They misspeak. Or they make logical assumptions which turn out to be wrong. A lot of people have jumped on Trump for spelling the word “tap” with two P’s in a recent, infamous tweet. These are apparently people who never made a typo themselves.

I, too, believe in the maxim (which I call an adage) of never ascribing to malice what one can ascribe to stupidity. There are kerfuffles I see every day that people jump on as malace — Spicer’s flag pin being upside down, Kellyanne Conway sitting on a sofa in the Oval Office informally. Folks — that stuff doesn’t manner. They are errors of stupidity, not intentional malice, signals, or disrespect.  They aren’t worth the time to discuss.

Mark’s article was triggered by an opinion piece in the Jewish Journal wondering whether Trump was worse than a liar. Here’s a quote from that article:

Midway through the annual Daniel Pearl Memorial Lecture at UCLA last week on “Maintaining Intellectual Integrity in the Age of Trump,” Wall Street Journal foreign affairs columnist and Pulitzer Prize winner Bret Stephens tried to summarize his in-depth analysis of President Trump’s dicey relationship with the truth.

“If I had to sum it up in a single sentence,” he said, “this would be it: Truth is what you can get away with.”

When I heard that, a light bulb went off. I thought of a book I read years ago, “On Bullshit,” by former Princeton professor and moral philosopher Harry Frankfurt.

One of the key insights in the book is that bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are. “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth,” Frankfurt writes. “Producing bullshit requires no such conviction.”

When we use the word “lie”, there is an implicit assumption of intent: the speaker knows the truth, and is intentionally telling you something other than the truth. But if one is truly incompetent, truly stupid, truly ignorant, truly lazy enough not to know, then is that false statement a lie or just evidence of stupidity. Do we believe that Trump knows the truth? Or is he just making it up as he goes, bullshitting us because that works in business, and most people are too stupid to do the research to find him wrong. In business, you pull values for things out of thin air, and if your buyer believes you, you win.

Believing the lie and getting wrapped around the wheel of bullshit brings me to my other point: When have we (and by “we”, I mean us liberals) fallen into the same tropes that other side used against Obama? I look at my news feed on Facebook, and I see people believing all sort of bullshit about Trump, and getting all worried about truly minor things. I see folks being Chicken Little running around. I’m not saying it may not be justified. However, to an observer, it looks like the same scare tactics that the Conservatives used against Obama. Calling him names. Thinking everything is a sign of dictatorship on the way (the latest is worrying about the administration firing 45 US attorneys at DOJ, when this happens with every change of adminsitration and party).

There are plenty of things this administration is doing that are highly problematic. Gutting science. Gutting health care. Gutting programs designed to protect the American people from all forms of fraud and abuse. Gutting social programs. Dr. Martin Luthur King Jr. once said, “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.”. Have we forgotten that?  But worrying about a flag pin? Feet on a sofa? The first lady’s tits? C’mon.

The change we need isn’t found in the sofa cushions. The change we need is found in fighting for the things that really matter.

I’ve been increasingly dismayed by the hatred I’m seeing in political arenas these days, especially from those who profess to be Christians. Now, admittedly I’m Jewish and not an expert on Christianity, but my understanding is that Christ preached love, understanding, and compassion for people, and rallied against the moneychangers and those who accumulated wealth for wealth’s sake.

What brought this to the fore of late was reading the proposed GOP replacement for the Affordable Care Act. The proposal, according to the LA Times summary, would ensure that no federal funding can be made, either directly or indirectly, by Medicaid to a healthcare organization that “provides for abortions,” other than those done in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother. That not only defunds Planned Parenthood, but any hospital that performs abortion. Further, According to a House Ways and Means Committee digest, the measure forbids spending federal tax subsidies on health plans that include coverage of abortion, even if the customer doesn’t get an abortion. This denies women the right to a safe abortion guaranteed under Roe v. Wade, under those timelines — and that in many cases has the government interfering with the practice of the mother’s religion (which might permit abortion). Further, you would think that a group so concerned with the life of a child would ensure it is born healthy, if they are going to prevent abortion. But no. According to the summary, as of Dec. 31, 2019, ACA rules that required qualified health plans to provide hospitalization, maternity care, mental health services and other benefits would be sunsetted at the federal level. So not only is abortion prohibited, but there would be no requirement to provide maternity care. This isn’t compassion, this is hatred towards women.

Further, studies are showing that the new proposal will cost 6 to 10 million people their health insurance. It will raise premiums on older people. It will cost Obamacare enrollees about $1500 more each year. It slashes funding for vaccines and public health. The plan will be really bad for the sickest Americans due to the continuous coverage requirement. Oh, and it encourages health insurers to pay their top executives more.

This is just an example. Hatred from the Conservative side is rampant, and has been for many years. I’ve had conservative friends wish all liberals dead. I’ve seen hatred towards immigrant groups. I’ve seen hatred towards the poor. Yet these are from people who profess to be Christian, who profess to want to have Christian values throughout society. They are using Christianity as an excuse for their hatred, and that’s wrong. I know that’s not what Christianity teaches, as I have seen numerous compassionate Christians who are living that compassion every day.

In a VCStar interview with Noel Paul Stookey of Peter, Paul, and Mary, he was asked about his passion and liberalism. I found his response quite interesting:

I also think for the liberal, it’s the willingness to take a chance, to share and to reach out and to find new ways to interact. I think the conservative mold is essentially to protect your resources or to protect what’s yours; and I don’t know if I should say this to a tape recorder because I don’t know when it’s gonna return to bite me in the ass, but I would say organized religion is very much the same way. When Luther nailed that note to the door complaining about the abuses of the church, he was also in a sense talking about the strict format that had to be obeyed, when really, his feeling was — and I think it’s gaining contemporary recognition — that spiritually, matters of the heart, are for us to decide individually, and that’s scary for the church because that means that essentially everyone is an angel. Everyone is essentially creating their own religion, and that’s scary for people who have put their faith in dogma and in routine. That’s not to say that I don’t have routines that I find comforting – and I’m sure that you do too – but when they exclude other people, create difficulties or lack of respect for other people, then I think we need to re-address obeying forms and start obeying the compassion in our hearts.

Compassion in our hearts. Our political system here in America is one that permits many spiritual paths, and explicitly recognizes that one group cannot impose a spiritual path on another. The Supreme Court recognized that when it found a compromise position on abortion: a point before which it was legal, and a point after which it was not. This is a clear middle ground between those who believe life starts at conception (a Christian view) and those who believe it starts when the infant takes its first breath (a Jewish view). Ultimately, however, it is not an outside party’s choice to make: it is the woman’s choice, in consultation with her spiritual advisors.

If our society is going to show compassion, it can’t be Dickensian, putting the poor in workhouses and letting people die if they can’t afford healthcare. That appears to be the goal of the GOP proposal — and this administration as a whole: benefit the wealthy, let those who have the privilege take advantage of everyone and everything that does not. That’s not Compassionate Conservatism — that’s “I’ve got mine, I’ll take yours”.

Some argue that compassion shouldn’t come from the government; it should come from the churches helping the people directly. Obviously, these people are not familiar with the teachings of the RamBam, Moses Maimonides, and his levels of charity:

1. The greatest level, above which there is no greater, is to support someone by endowing him with a gift or loan, or entering into a partnership with him, or finding employment for him, in order to strengthen his hand until he need no longer be dependent upon others . . .
2. A lesser level of charity than this is to give to the poor without knowing to whom one gives, and without the recipient knowing from who he received. For this is performing a mitzvah solely for the sake of Heaven. This is like the “anonymous fund” that was in the Holy Temple [in Jerusalem]. There the righteous gave in secret, and the good poor profited in secret. Giving to a charity fund is similar to this mode of charity, though one should not contribute to a charity fund unless one knows that the person appointed over the fund is trustworthy and wise and a proper administrator, like Rabbi Chananyah ben Teradyon.
3. A lesser level of charity than this is when one knows to whom one gives, but the recipient does not know his benefactor. The greatest sages used to walk about in secret and put coins in the doors of the poor. It is worthy and truly good to do this, if those who are responsible for distributing charity are not trustworthy.
4. A lesser level of charity than this is when one does not know to whom one gives, but the poor person does know his benefactor. The greatest sages used to tie coins into their robes and throw them behind their backs, and the poor would come up and pick the coins out of their robes, so that they would not be ashamed.
5. A lesser level than this is when one gives to the poor person directly into his hand, but gives before being asked.
6. A lesser level than this is when one gives to the poor person after being asked.
7. A lesser level than this is when one gives inadequately, but gives gladly and with a smile.
8. A lesser level than this is when one gives unwillingly.

Support from the government is at the first two: we know not to whom we give, and they do not know who gave it. Helping provide medical care and job training is above that — we help find them employment and strengthen their hands. The GOP proposal is at the bottom — inadequate giving and unwilling giving.

Our political leaders have a responsibility not only to represent their major donors — the people with the money. They have the responsibility to represent and protect the people with no voice, the people who don’t have the funds for PACs. When their compassion is only for the wealthy who look like them and who were raised like them, this isn’t a government of the people, by the people, and most importantly, for the people.

One of the big distractions in the news this week, other than how Kellyanne Conway sits on a sofa, has been the fiasco with Best Picture at the Oscars. I’ve already shared my thoughts on why this happened; instead, I’d like to look at what PWC did immediately afterwards: they accepted responsibility. That is the mark of a responsible CEO and business leader. When their business screws up, as the leader at the top of the food chain, they accept responsibility for the action, and clearly state they will find the cause and correct the system so it doesn’t happen again. I’m sure you can think of numerous examples (one of the best known). With respect to government this principle is clear, and it goes back to Harry S. Truman, who had the sign on his desk: “The Buck Stops Here.”

President Trump was supposedly elected because of his experience in business and as a CEO. One would think he would have learned this.

Obviously, one would be thinking wrong.

Just this week, there have been three egregious instances where President Trump has blamed anyone but himself or his administration for problems in the country:

• Yemen Raid. With respect to the raid in Yemen that President Obama declined to initiate, and President Trump authorized — a raid that yielded no useful intelligence and resulted in the death of a Navy Seal — Trump has blamed the Generals.
• Antisemitism. To date, there have been over 100 bomb threats against Jewish Community Centers. Two Jewish cemeteries have had headstones topped. In Rhode Island, a swastika was drawn in human excrement. What is President Trump’s response to the latest series of threats, after condemning them weakly just once, and refusing numerous times to address the issue? He claimed the threats were a false flag — attempts to make others — namely him — look bad. (another reference) This is beyond reprehensible: Hate Crimes — and there is no doubt these are hate crimes intended to create terror — must be rejected in the sharpest language possible, and immediately investigated. He needs to forcefully indicate that they are not acceptable in this country. Update: He did so at the start of his speech tonight, although he didn’t refer to his campaign’s role in encouraging antisemitism.
• White House Leaks. We all know how much information is leaking from the White House — much more than ever leaked from Hillary’s servers. It is people working for Trump who are obviously doing it, likely out of dissatisfaction from how the transition and the first month is going. Yet instead of taking responsibility for the chaos and leading, what does President Trump do? He blames the previous President, who has been out on vacation. He asserts that Obama is taking an active role in sabotaging him, for some unknown purpose (as the election won’t be overturned at this point, and he can’t come back into office).

The President is a leader — someone who leads in words and by example. Mr. Trump is failing to do that. Update: He started his speech tonight by condemning the antisemitic violence — which is good.