This column is written with the intent of keeping 'tribal tendencies' out of the way and to simply take the information presented and comment accordingly. Who ever has the best idea for the most number of Americans gets support from this blog. But make no mistake, I am not in the 38% of Americans that support Donald Trump.
However, I do agree with Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) that $20 trillion in debt is not a good thing for America. There's a debt ticker on the page, as a matter of fact! (We're not quite to $20 trillion.) The senator's ideology on how we erase that debt is simply unrealistic and though healthcare plays a large part in the spending, it's not everything. If Congress really wanted to reduce spending and healthcare costs, both parties would have to take the hit. You reduce benefits for people over time and you keep the taxes exactly where they are. That's compromise, which really is politics.
The reality: not bloody likely.
There is no ignoring the fact pointed out by both perspectives, more conservative George Will and more liberal Helene Cooper, that the millions - majorities in many states that Republicans control - of Americans rely of Medicaid, and as Mr. Will also pointed the problem is that 'you're going to take something away from them.'
Whether you agree with Senator Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) starker description that 'people will die' because of the Republican healthcare bill or not, there is little doubt that the millions of people now on Medicaid will be affected. The reason people have Medicaid in the first place is because they don't make enough to afford private health insurance. This new healthcare bill drives people to the private market where there are enough price controls or where the coverage isn't enough for the amount you can afford, hence people/ families will be priced out.
Senator Sanders also said that he would like to have Medicare for all, which when the Affordable Care Act was first debated, it was called the public option, which didn't go anywhere because conservatives blocked it. The real reason why it was blocked was because the fear was that everyone would sign up for the public option and the private market would take an irreparable hit.
In terms of the process, it's easy to understand why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) wants to construct the bill in secret as to keep it as ideologically, as opposed to pragmatically, in tact as possible, which is to say reducing Medicaid and eventually eliminating it by eliminating government involvement in healthcare (how it's couched). As NBC's Haley Jackson noted, President Trump has been more hands-off the Senate bill and that's because it's how Mr. McConnell wants it - the president out of the way. There's no worry of Mr. Trump not signing the bill if presented to him. Democratic complaints about the process are a given, but there have been many complaints by Republicans as well who are going to have to take it on faith that their respective constituencies will like it.
Interestingly, Senator Johnson says he not a 'yes' yet because in his estimation the bill doesn't cut enough money, however, Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) is not in favor of the bill because it cuts too much. The political reality for Senator Heller is that over 600,000 Nevadans out of a population of 2.8 million (20%) rely on Medicaid (source: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/by-state/by-state.html). For the record, over 1 million people in Wisconsin rely on Medicaid out of a state population of 5.7 million (17%). Looking at the math, you can decide for yourself. The other reality at work is that Mr. Heller is up for reelected in 2018 whereas Mr. Johnson just won another 6-year term in 2016, so he can afford to be more ideological about the bill. To be fair to Mr. Johnson, he's always been this ideological so Wisconsinites know for what they voted.
As Mark Leibovich of The New York Times noted, Republicans are damned if you do and damned if you don't on this one. When a conservative like George Will says that the bill in a massive tax cut for the wealthy, that should make everyone stop and give pause at such an acknowledgement. But as it was also explained, Republicans politicians don't seem to be governing in today, but yesterday.
Panel: Haley Jackson, NBC News; Mark Leibovich, The New York Times; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; George Will, syndicated columnist
One More Thing...
Worst analogy of the day: Senator Johnson saying that insuring a preexisting condition is like insuring a crashed car. So if you're born with a birth defect that requires extra medical attention, a preexisting condition, you're just a crashed car and should be insured. Wow.
Sunday, June 25, 2017
Sunday, June 11, 2017
6.11.17: Another Weird Political Week That Was
"Meet The Press" is preempted today for the French Open, but I thought I'd comment on the weird political week that was.
If you're reading this then this column presumes that you're familiar enough with fmr. FBI Director Comey's testimony this week and most probably the president's counter statements as well.
Here's what stood out, to give you some perspective.
First, you have to ask the big question, which is was Mr. Comey's testimony enough to warrant impeachment of Mr. Trump? No, because obstruction can not be proven because Mr. Comey gave his impressions of what Mr. Trump meant in a 'he said-he said' setting, which can easily be refuted.
With that said, my first takeaway is that Mr. Comey's testimony showed what kind of sleazy player Donald Trump is. Ordering everyone out of the room to 'discuss' killing the investigation into Michael Flynn, the aforementioned one on one dinner with the 'loyalty ask,' and the fact that the president never once wanted to discuss national security or the effective Russian cyber attacks have had on our democracy. For this last point, refer to this Washington Post opinion by Karen J. Greenberg, Director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/09/president-trump-cares-more-about-himself-than-his-country/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f7e51d6f0ab2
Suffice to say that Mr. Trump puts his own self interests before the interests of the American people so judge that for yourself considering his position as President of the United States. And between Mr. Comey and Mr. Trump who do I think is telling the truth and who is lying. Please, the track records speak for themselves. There is no truth to the Mr. Trump's statements or intentions, which is a sad for all of us.
The other troubling piece I took away was the revelations about the interactions between Mr. Comey and fmr. Attorney General Loretta Lynch. That meeting on the tarmac between Ms. Lynch and Mr. Clinton definitely wasn't as innocent as explained. Ms. Lynch had asked Mr. Comey to call the investigation into Mrs. Clinton's emails a 'matter' instead of an investigation. The only explanation I can think of for this is that there is the rule that the FBI should not inject itself into an election, like Mr. Comey had done so maybe terming it a 'matter' blunts that, but that's thin. Ms. Lynch and the Clintons seemed to have an 'agreement' that Ms. Lynch would be looking out for them. As torturous as these first months of the Trump Administration have been, Democrats need to move beyond the Clintons and this leaves little doubt that they should.
Speaking of Attorneys General, current AG Jeff Sessions needs to go, by firing or resignation he has to be out. He's either incompetent, senile, dishonest or most probably all three. Another undisclosed meeting with Russian officials? Really? Turns out that Mr. Sessions will be testifying before a Senate committee on Tuesday. He has a lot to answer for, and then he should step down. He's already been deemed the worst AG in American history, which is impressive given that he's only been on the job for 5 months.
With the Comey testimony, Mr. Trump despite what he's said, is not completely vindicated and if anything this investigation is now just getting started.
As I've said all along, it comes down to money with President Trump. He has no interest in the Russian hacking into our election because he wants to keep hidden the embarrassing fact that Russians make up a huge part of his financial dealings. Not that that would be illegal in and of itself but would definitive be seen as a completely unacceptable conflict of interest that wouldn't go over well with the American people. That's why we haven't seen his tax returns. Special Counsel Robert Mueller will change all that - stay tuned.
If you're reading this then this column presumes that you're familiar enough with fmr. FBI Director Comey's testimony this week and most probably the president's counter statements as well.
Here's what stood out, to give you some perspective.
First, you have to ask the big question, which is was Mr. Comey's testimony enough to warrant impeachment of Mr. Trump? No, because obstruction can not be proven because Mr. Comey gave his impressions of what Mr. Trump meant in a 'he said-he said' setting, which can easily be refuted.
With that said, my first takeaway is that Mr. Comey's testimony showed what kind of sleazy player Donald Trump is. Ordering everyone out of the room to 'discuss' killing the investigation into Michael Flynn, the aforementioned one on one dinner with the 'loyalty ask,' and the fact that the president never once wanted to discuss national security or the effective Russian cyber attacks have had on our democracy. For this last point, refer to this Washington Post opinion by Karen J. Greenberg, Director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/09/president-trump-cares-more-about-himself-than-his-country/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f7e51d6f0ab2
Suffice to say that Mr. Trump puts his own self interests before the interests of the American people so judge that for yourself considering his position as President of the United States. And between Mr. Comey and Mr. Trump who do I think is telling the truth and who is lying. Please, the track records speak for themselves. There is no truth to the Mr. Trump's statements or intentions, which is a sad for all of us.
The other troubling piece I took away was the revelations about the interactions between Mr. Comey and fmr. Attorney General Loretta Lynch. That meeting on the tarmac between Ms. Lynch and Mr. Clinton definitely wasn't as innocent as explained. Ms. Lynch had asked Mr. Comey to call the investigation into Mrs. Clinton's emails a 'matter' instead of an investigation. The only explanation I can think of for this is that there is the rule that the FBI should not inject itself into an election, like Mr. Comey had done so maybe terming it a 'matter' blunts that, but that's thin. Ms. Lynch and the Clintons seemed to have an 'agreement' that Ms. Lynch would be looking out for them. As torturous as these first months of the Trump Administration have been, Democrats need to move beyond the Clintons and this leaves little doubt that they should.
Speaking of Attorneys General, current AG Jeff Sessions needs to go, by firing or resignation he has to be out. He's either incompetent, senile, dishonest or most probably all three. Another undisclosed meeting with Russian officials? Really? Turns out that Mr. Sessions will be testifying before a Senate committee on Tuesday. He has a lot to answer for, and then he should step down. He's already been deemed the worst AG in American history, which is impressive given that he's only been on the job for 5 months.
With the Comey testimony, Mr. Trump despite what he's said, is not completely vindicated and if anything this investigation is now just getting started.
As I've said all along, it comes down to money with President Trump. He has no interest in the Russian hacking into our election because he wants to keep hidden the embarrassing fact that Russians make up a huge part of his financial dealings. Not that that would be illegal in and of itself but would definitive be seen as a completely unacceptable conflict of interest that wouldn't go over well with the American people. That's why we haven't seen his tax returns. Special Counsel Robert Mueller will change all that - stay tuned.
6.4.17: The President's Behavior Toward London/ The Paris Agreement and Scott Pruitt Interview
NBC National Security Analyst Michael Leiter explained that because of demographic factors in the United States, we're less susceptible to attacks like that of Europe where an emigrant becomes radicalized and commits an act of terror. Geography also has something to do with it. But, people become more easily assimilated into American culture than they do in Europe.
When asked about British Prime Minister Theresa May's comment that "there has been too much tolerance of extremism," fmr. Secretary of State John Kerry gave the correct response emblematic of his last job by saying that the British has to make that determination about their own country. But also think of it as an answer from someone who understands facing a test of collective resolve in the midst of personal tragedy.
So why does our president have to politicize this terrorist attack. As the "leader of the free world" you could offer a show of strength, support and unity with Britain, but instead he sent a critical tweet, which was completely contextually incorrectly it must be added, that the London mayor said not to be alarmed by the attacks. This isn't what the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said, but instead explained that there is going to be an escalation of police presence on the streets of London for the next few days and that people should not be alarmed by the increased police presence. Our president went political and petty.
He also politicized it further by mentioning his travel ban executive order, in yet another tweet. There is simply no way at this point to explain why our president's first inclination toward any kind of sympathy.
The Paris Agreement and the Scott Pruitt Interview
First, it must be said that Mr. Pruitt was not appointed the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect that agency. He's there to oversee the repeal of as many environmental regulations as possible and then slashing the staff and funding to the extent that it renders the department unable to enforce the regulations that are left.
Director Pruitt stated the at Paris Agreement was a bad deal for The United States, and that it put us at an economic disadvantage. Because we're ahead of everyone else in cutting emissions already, why should we cut more, which in turn slows down our economy? The way he put it is that the cost to the United States has been front-loaded. And because of the economic drag, American ingenuity and innovation was being hampered.
With regard to Paris, we must again first say here that President Trump didn't make his decision based on the environment, but one based on politics. It's the president's prerogative to make decisions based on what ever he wants, but you need to understand that first.
But on that point, if it was a political call, the president got it wrong. The provisions in the Paris Agreement are voluntary and each country sets its own goals, with self-enforcement. Exiting the agreement that was signed by 195 countries cedes U.S. leadership and influence in the world. It makes the U.S. an outlier in the world. Even if you believe in President Trump's mantra of "America First," withdrawing from such an agreement is isolationist, not putting America first.
In the case of Director Pruitt's thinking, it is now in fact that ingenuity and innovation is being hampered in the United States. Our need for more and more efficient energy is ever growing and in terms of global business, the clean energy sector is the fastest growing area in need of constant innovation. The point is that Director Pruitt's reasoning is simply short sighted. The United States has the opportunity to lead the world in energy technology, which will move forward with or without us, but instead Mr. Pruitt touted more jobs in the coal industry.
Also, by repealing regulations, Mr. Pruitt also puts one of our other most precious resources in jeopardy - clean water. By relaxing regulations on waste dumping, for example, puts water supplies at risk. Protecting our clean water sources is part of the president's stated duty to protect Americans, no?
Panel: Hugh Hewlitt, Salem News Network; Heather McGhee, President of Demos; Stephanie Cutter, fmr. Obama campaign manager; Michael Gerson, The Washington Post
When asked about British Prime Minister Theresa May's comment that "there has been too much tolerance of extremism," fmr. Secretary of State John Kerry gave the correct response emblematic of his last job by saying that the British has to make that determination about their own country. But also think of it as an answer from someone who understands facing a test of collective resolve in the midst of personal tragedy.
So why does our president have to politicize this terrorist attack. As the "leader of the free world" you could offer a show of strength, support and unity with Britain, but instead he sent a critical tweet, which was completely contextually incorrectly it must be added, that the London mayor said not to be alarmed by the attacks. This isn't what the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said, but instead explained that there is going to be an escalation of police presence on the streets of London for the next few days and that people should not be alarmed by the increased police presence. Our president went political and petty.
He also politicized it further by mentioning his travel ban executive order, in yet another tweet. There is simply no way at this point to explain why our president's first inclination toward any kind of sympathy.
The Paris Agreement and the Scott Pruitt Interview
First, it must be said that Mr. Pruitt was not appointed the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect that agency. He's there to oversee the repeal of as many environmental regulations as possible and then slashing the staff and funding to the extent that it renders the department unable to enforce the regulations that are left.
Director Pruitt stated the at Paris Agreement was a bad deal for The United States, and that it put us at an economic disadvantage. Because we're ahead of everyone else in cutting emissions already, why should we cut more, which in turn slows down our economy? The way he put it is that the cost to the United States has been front-loaded. And because of the economic drag, American ingenuity and innovation was being hampered.
With regard to Paris, we must again first say here that President Trump didn't make his decision based on the environment, but one based on politics. It's the president's prerogative to make decisions based on what ever he wants, but you need to understand that first.
But on that point, if it was a political call, the president got it wrong. The provisions in the Paris Agreement are voluntary and each country sets its own goals, with self-enforcement. Exiting the agreement that was signed by 195 countries cedes U.S. leadership and influence in the world. It makes the U.S. an outlier in the world. Even if you believe in President Trump's mantra of "America First," withdrawing from such an agreement is isolationist, not putting America first.
In the case of Director Pruitt's thinking, it is now in fact that ingenuity and innovation is being hampered in the United States. Our need for more and more efficient energy is ever growing and in terms of global business, the clean energy sector is the fastest growing area in need of constant innovation. The point is that Director Pruitt's reasoning is simply short sighted. The United States has the opportunity to lead the world in energy technology, which will move forward with or without us, but instead Mr. Pruitt touted more jobs in the coal industry.
Also, by repealing regulations, Mr. Pruitt also puts one of our other most precious resources in jeopardy - clean water. By relaxing regulations on waste dumping, for example, puts water supplies at risk. Protecting our clean water sources is part of the president's stated duty to protect Americans, no?
Panel: Hugh Hewlitt, Salem News Network; Heather McGhee, President of Demos; Stephanie Cutter, fmr. Obama campaign manager; Michael Gerson, The Washington Post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)