Political Healthcarre

“Who knew that healthcare could be so hard?” mused President Trump a few weeks back. Who knew? Probably anyone who has paid attention to this topic the last eight years. Apparently the President has not paid attention, and had to get his education crammed into three weeks.

People talk about healthcare a lot. But in actuality what they are usually talking about has little to do with the actual provision and receiving of good health practices. Rather, what they are really talking about is political advantage and power, and using healthcare as the hostage issue. The political arguing continues unendingly, and the fiasco of the recent House “repeal and replace” effort shows how badly the politics are souring the discussion.

In 2009-2010, the Democrats controlled the House, Senate and Presidency. They still needed a full year to fulfill Obama’s campaign promise to expand and improve healthcare delivery. It took intense bargaining to get something agreeable even to one Party in political control. In the end, it passed without a single affirmative Republican vote, and cost more than a few Democrats their Congressional seat. Those Republicans on the sideline then took up the chant of “Repeal Obamacare” as part of their “anti-everything-Obama” strategy for the next six years, with the House voting over 60 times for repeal. It was always a safe vote to score points with their base, knowing that each resolution would be vetoed by Obama. But during all of those votes, not once was a credible alternative offered for Obamacare. It is easy to just vote NO when you do not have to come up with a solution.

But a funny thing happened. In November 2016 Republicans won the House and Senate, and brought in a President who said on the campaign trail he would repeal Obamacare and replace it with “something better” so that “everyone would get healthcare.” It was all going to happen on “Day 1,” given that Republicans had had six years to come up with this replacement. Six weeks after Inauguration Day, House leaders finally unveiled their legislative masterpiece. Drafted in secret, devoid of advance consensus support, nobody – except Trump and the leaders – liked it. Democrats sat on their hands, uninvited to the discussion, with memories of the Republicans in 2010 still fresh, and said, “show us what you’ve got.” What Republicans had got was not much. For some, the Repeal side didn’t go far enough. For others, it took away too much. Ditto the Replacement side. Every major health organization came out against it: doctors, hospitals, pharmaceuticals, patient groups, AARP, etc. Even the Senate said the bill was dead-on-arrival. When the Congressional Budget Office said 24M people would lose insurance, and federal spending would be reduced only modestly over ten years, the oxygen went out of the Capitol.

Along the way, another funny thing happened. The politicians found out that, over time, much of the public had become quite fond of the new health services they were getting – as long as it was not called “Obamacare.” A large number of uninsured people now had coverage. People with preexisting conditions could no longer be denied and did not need to stay tethered to unsatisfying jobs. Expanded services were welcomed; poor people were getting medical care. The destruction of American life and the healthcare industry did not occur. Tellingly, only 17% of the public supported the Republican Repeal and Replace bill, and a newfound majority actually expressed approval of the dreaded Obamacare. Times had changed.

Nevertheless, House leaders and Trump soldiered on. What took Democrats 12 months of contentious debate to do, Republicans thought they could do in only 17 days. In the beginning, Speaker Ryan said, “This is what we’ve got,” and Trump the Dealmaker tried the schmooze approach to get it passed. When that did not work, Ryan negotiated away the heart of his bill, and Trump resorted to the usual threats and insults toward the intra-Party opposition. None of it worked, and the bill never came to a vote. Everyone just gave up and walked away. The Art of the Deal folded.

The Republican bill was always driven more by a goal to quickly fulfill a six-year campaign pledge to their base than actually improving healthcare delivery. Reducing such an important issue to political theatrics deservedly died in infancy. Repeal is easy. Just revoke the laws of the last eight years and take everyone back to the “good old days” – which were not very good. But Replace gets very hard, because it begs the still unanswered question: what should a common baseline of healthcare services and delivery look like across America?

Trump and Republicans have long proclaimed Obamacare to be a “disaster,” without proof. Setting aside the “Chicken Littles,” in fact it works just fine in many parts of America. Around half of the states (including Republican strongholds) have adopted Medicaid expansion – but not all. Most Americans have multiple insurance programs to choose from – but not all. Premiums have gone down for many Americans – but not all. Coverage is now available to many who did not have it – but not all. Insuree rights have been strengthened – for all. But the prices of drugs and hospital stays are still too costly, affecting costs for everyone.

Some politicians look to private enterprise for a solution. Lest we forget, insurance companies and medical professionals have had at least 60 years to meet the public’s needs, and failed. Why would we assume they will achieve it now? If we really want to relieve corporations and businesses of their Obamacare problem, we should just eliminate company-provided health insurance all-together. Employer-provided health insurance is a stupid system in the first place, effectively requiring the public to have a job in order to have insurance coverage, provided by businesspeople who know nothing about the subject and which has nothing to do with their core business. Get corporate America out of a middleman role and we will immediately start off with a simpler system. Create a standardized administrative system for processing healthcare; we are drowning under the costs of multiple unique yet redundant systems/forms/regulations. Make all medical charges public so people can see ahead of time what services will cost; the whole system still operates under a veil of secrecy.

If you do not want to “force” people to buy health insurance, then are you willing to let health providers turn sick people away when the uninsured get sick or have an accident? Emergency Rooms are still the most expensive and inefficient providers of primary care. Would you rather tax me to underwrite their insurance premiums, or make me pay higher costs for my services to underwrite the Emergency Room costs? Either way, I pay. Should I? Debate the question.

If one is really serious about healthcare in America, these are the kind of discussions we should be having. Discussions about getting and keeping Americans healthy, not political slogans, campaign rhetoric, and ill-thought out plans. Otherwise, just move on to something easier. Like tax reform (right!). Who knew it could be so hard?

©   2017   Randy Bell               www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

 

Where Is The Outrage?

“Father, I cannot tell a lie. I chopped down the cherry tree.” (George Washington)

“Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! … How low has President Obama gone … This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!” (Donald Trump)

George Washington was our greatest President of the United States. My assessment is not only due to the long list of the accomplishments by which we usually measure presidential success, though he certainly had many. Successful businessman (perhaps our richest); a commanding general achieving victory against overwhelming odds; respected governmental leader.

But Washington’s biggest contribution was in being the first president, a job without precedence or model anywhere in the then-known world. In a world that had known only kings, he instead made the head-of-state into a people’s job, a role cast in ceremony without being regal, elected by the will of the people, serving for a limited time, turning it over to the next duly-elected person, and then going home. His high personal character would also define the character of the office: honest, above moral reproach, tolerant of dissent in spite of how exasperating, protective of the personal liberty that had fueled the Revolution and broken from the throne. He was the epitome of the aspirations of the American ideal, but also decided on being called “Mr. President” (versus John Adams’ recommendation of “Your Highness”). Ultimate respect for the office balanced with the (un-)common man. A mythic persona creating a mythic office, he and his service have been the precedent, and set the bar, for all Presidents since.

Fast forward 228 years from the First to the Forty-fifth President. To a President with a factually documented track record of outright lies on almost a daily basis. Lies about the trivial (crowd sizes; people and that are supposed “failures”; television shows). Lies about objective data (trends in murder rates; unemployment rates; voter fraud). Lies about the important (terrorist threat levels; fake news; terror events in Sweden). A continuing penchant for exaggeration and “alternative facts” until the day finally arrived when his knee-jerk obsession with Twitter sent him far beyond the boundaries of rationality acceptability.

March 4^th was the day a sitting President Trump accused his predecessor, former President Obama, of the criminal act of illegally wire-tapping his phones. It was an accusation made with no proof offered whatsoever. An accusation that, if shown to be untrue, would constitute a criminal act of defamation of character and libel against Trump himself. The President of the United States commands a legion of agencies and professionals dedicated to obtaining information for decision-makers. Yet it was acknowledged weeks later that Trump’s accusations were based upon several unsubstantiated “news” reports that Trump made no effort to investigate and confirm/deny. He just made his charge without making a verifiable case. Any law-school student could have adequately counseled his client of the probable consequences and predictable outcomes of such a foolhardy move; apparently Trump chose not to seek any such counsel.

After distracting the country and the Congress for two wasted weeks of chasing our tails in circles, the truth is in. According to the House Speaker, the Senate Majority Leader, the co-chairs of both the House and the Senate Intelligence Committees, Trump’s own Department of Justice and the FBI, there has been no evidence found anywhere of wiretapping. There is not even an ability for a sitting President to order such a wiretap. Yet the lie from Trump continues unabated with legalistic wordsmithing by his frustrated and exhausted communications team. Instead of dealing with many pressing and divisive issues of critical substance (e.g. healthcare; national budget; jobs; security), energy is being wasted on a President who has been caught in a lie of his own making and who is unwilling to face up to the Truth, admit his error, and accept the consequences for the damage he has done to people’s reputations (including President Obama and members of the intelligence community).

This lie, and the other lies, are consistent with conduct we have watched from this individual all of his life. Except now this is happening on a much larger scale, performed on a bigger stage, with far greater consequences. As a mediocre television reality show performer, this pattern of exaggeration, outrageous claims, and lies could perhaps be laughed at as passing entertainment. As President, this conduct is damaging to the whole of what America has tried to represent, and deserves to be denounced – even by politicians currently afraid to take a moral stand. I do not say that as exaggerated hyperbole and overstatement. I say that because for 228 years the Presidency of the United States has always been charged to set the example of, and the standard for, our collective values and moral compass. Values and a moral compass that transcend and frame the details of coming and going government programs, legislation and political squabbles. And the greatest of these values is Trust. Lies, and continually acting without calm thoughtfulness, erodes Trust, at some point beyond repair.

This current outrage is no longer just “Trump being Trump.” Even if you supported his campaign promises, even if you think our government is due some kind of comeuppance, this is not how it is done. This is dangerous stuff from a man who has so many levers of governmental power at his disposal; will he choose to use them as Richard Nixon did? The day will come when a true emergency shows up at our collective doorstep (e.g. 9-11; invasion of Iraq; financial breakdown) and Trump will need the people to truly support him. Whether he gets that support in a time of crisis will depend upon our Trust in him as an individual. Trust his explanation of the facts, and trust why we need to react as he proposes. It is in the first 100 days that Presidents create the people’s trust or not – a decision that is carried throughout their presidency. What will we decide about this President?

In the end, every presidency comes down to Character. Given a good heart and moral character, plus a reasonable level of competency, mostly good things stand a chance to flow. Conversely, bad things will generally flow from bad character – as it is with all of us. Yet today it seems our collective desire for political power, lower taxes, and personal and economic security trump our expectations for decency and honesty. As parents, we try very hard to instill good character into our children. Telling the truth, and taking responsibility for our words and actions, are fundamental components of building that character. Can we honestly say that any of us can point our children to Donald Trump and say, “This is your role model. This is what, and who, I hope you will aspire to be?” Where is our outrage when we see the occupant of the highest leadership position in the country, in the world, act contrary to everything we are trying to teach to, or expect of, our own children? Regardless of the side of the political fence on which we live, where is our condemnation of unethical conduct?

The Presidency of the United States is a position defined by law, by the historical precedents of the forty-four people who have served in that role, by ceremony and tradition, and by being the embodiment of the highest aspirations of Americans – aspirations that have inspired people across the globe. Donald Trump was right in raising the specter of Nixon & Watergate and of Joseph McCarthy. But what he does not see is that he is the Nixon wiretapping his own phones, and defending his claim with a McCarthy-style series of compounding “big lies.” For that he has violated our Trust and our aspirations. Where is our outrage?

©   2017   Randy Bell               www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

 

Immigration Chaos

Within the onslaught of presidential Executive Orders (EO) recently issued, the one captivating the most attention established new restrictions on immigration into America. This immigration order generated much action, within great confusion, further subdividing us into opposing camps. It has not been America’s best foot forward.

What the EO Says: The EO contains many provisions and directives. In short, it affirms “the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals … [committing] terrorist attacks in the United States,” and “to prevent the admission of foreign nationals” entering the United States for “malevolent purposes.” Since “the visa-issuance process plays a crucial role … in stopping [terrorists] from entering the United States,” a 30-day review will be done to reevaluate the information needed to determine that an individual is not a threat. To enable this review, entry into the U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries is suspended for 90 days. If the applicant’s home government is able to provide the new vetting information required, approved applicants can resume entry. If not, applicants will continue to be excluded.

The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program is suspended world-wide for 120 days while additional security procedures are developed. Refugees already in the process can still be admitted. After 120 days, refugee admissions from countries deemed to have adequate security procedures can be resumed. Applicants claiming religious-based persecution will have priority, provided that their religion is a minority in that county. Further, any refugee applications from Syria, as well as admission of more than 50,000 refugees from any circumstance or country, are suspended indefinitely until “I have determined that … such admissions [are consistent with] the national interest.”  State and local jurisdictions are newly given “a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement” of refugees.

The Bungled Rollout: On their face, many of these EO provisions might be very reasonable for enhancing our national security. Yet they provoked an immediate outcry of protest from much of the public as a result of the bungled rollout of the EO itself. The EO called for immediate action. Yet there was no coordination among government agencies in drafting the EO, no advance communication among the agencies charged with its implementation, no detailed plan for how to do it. Hence confusion at the ports-of-entry and in the overseas embassies was rampant. Green Card holders were not exempted by the EO, yet administration officials claimed they were. Valid visa holders, including people previously resident in the U.S., were turned back without warning. Families were split up; children detained. Iraqi citizens working side-by-side with Americans at great personal risk were deemed unwelcome in an America that has depended upon their service. Trump said no notice was given so “bad guys” would not sneak in during the transition, ignoring that current visa processes have so far excluded terrorists very well. However noble the intention, the administration came off looking unprepared if not incompetent, unfeeling regarding innocent people and families caught up in the politics, and shallow in its planning and thinking. Whatever positive publicity Trump sought regarding “extreme vetting of terrorists” disappeared under the extreme chaos that could have been avoided.

The Factual Arguments: People come to the United States within several categories: diplomats; political and war refugees seeking asylum; immigrants seeking a better life by becoming a U.S. citizen; guest workers (e.g. green cards) with skills needed by employers; and “visitors” (tourists; students, special events / ceremonies). Trump’s order affected all of these without distinctions except for diplomats. TIME magazine reported that 3+million refugees have entered the U.S. “since instituting rigorous screening in 1980; not one has killed anyone in a terrorist attack.” Most of the governments of the seven countries banned are, in fact, in a state of chaos, making the assessment of local credentials difficult. On that basis, a suspension of approvals could be a reasonable action if handled in a sensible manner. But there have been no terrorist attacks committed by immigrants from these banned countries; previous terrorists have all come from countries NOT included in the ban (e.g. Saudi Arabia; Pakistan). The current vetting program for immigrants requires a two-year wait before admittance – hardly a smart vehicle of choice for a terrorist to sneak into the country. The ban was said to be needed because “the threat is increasing” and new “extreme vetting procedures” are needed. But no basis for this increased threat, and no examples of what “extreme vetting” means, was offered to justify a need for new procedures nor the rush to implementation. Given Trump’s penchant for exaggeration and his increasing loss of personal credibility, accepting these actions on trust is not warranted.

The Constitutional and Legal Issues: A Facebook friend rightly pointed out that no foreign citizen has an inherent legal right to enter the United States. All do so only by the permission of the U.S. government. These permissions follow established rules and processes, and in 1993 the Supreme Court granted some legal protections to immigrants once they are resident. Given the haphazard manner in which this ban was formulated, announced and implemented, it was destined to wind up in court –where it sits now working its way through the hierarchal judicial system. What has gotten lost in the judicial posturing is NOT whether the President has the power to restrict immigration. What has been upheld three times is simply an injunction to put the order on hold while the legal rights of the President and his EO are clarified. All of the bluster and arguing about whether the President has the immigration power  are misplaced at the moment; that decision is still to come, and will likely find the President does.

However, what may trip up Trump’s case is 1) if the ban is deemed unjustified and over-reactive given no demonstrated new threat; 2) that the EO and its implementation was so ill-done, erratic and ambiguous that it in itself is unconstitutional; 3) that it is a discriminatory ban based upon religious bias against Islam/Muslims or preferential treatment to non-Muslims; 4) that it treated all classes of visa holders the same even though their circumstances are different and each class has different rules that apply. Undermining Trump’s court review are numerous statements during the campaign for a comprehensive ban of all Muslims. There is every suspicion that what is being called “temporary” is in fact an intentional step towards “permanent” and all-inclusive. Trump’s case is not helped by his (once-again) full-frontal assault on the integrity and independence of the Judiciary branch. “Equal branches of government” does not mean that the President’s power is unassailable and is “not to be questioned” (as one of his ignorant junior aides stated). It means each branch has its own sphere of Constitutionally divided and assigned powers, and within those defined powers each is supreme over the other. The Judiciary’s right to review Congress and Executive actions has been well established and ingrained in the American fabric for over 200 years (see Richard Nixon and Watergate tapes.)

The Fallout: It is shameful that this immigration ban was done as it was, further fueling the great neighbor-versus-neighbor divide that exists among us today. I have been shown nothing that shows our current vetting to be inadequate, nor more of a reason to fear for my safety from foreign-born arrivals than existed three months ago. There was no need to rush to judgment or to not do it right. “Doing it right” could have meant building the case for specific countries where vetting has  recently been made more difficult; writing a well-researched Executive Order with a reasonable scope considering all affected parties; properly coordinating this action among all the affected agencies; training that would yield consistent explanations and procedures. We need to communicate our intention in positive terms instead of the usual “anti-/agin-er” terminology we are so continually inundated  with – stressing getting the right people IN rather than banning everyone to keep the bad guys out. Words and tone still matter.

The fierce kickback against Trump is not a legal one. It is a reaction to his track record of stoking the fires of hate and prejudice to benefit his election. Hatred and prejudice against “foreigners” have plagued this country since its founding. Only the targeted class of people has changed – Africans, Irish, Chinese, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Japanese, now Arabs/Middle Easterners, and Jews, Catholics and now Muslims – even though we are all sons and daughters of immigrants. We have a long litany of mistreatment to each other. That collective weight competes with our tradition of welcoming the stranger – which we all once were – into our land. Welcoming the sufferer looking for a chance at the still-existing American Dream. Protect us against the threat of harm, yes. But do so in a reasonable way that protects us from our unreasonable fears. The Statue of Liberty, with her welcoming message to those who come here, is the most visible and definitive symbol of the American promise. She is our better self. She is who we truly are. Block the gate to the one with a gun in his hand. But make sure we shake the empty hand of the one who comes in peace. That is the message we must be sure does not get lost.

©   2017   Randy Bell             www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain,blogspot.com

 

Expectations Of A Trump Presidency

He has been in the public eye for 40 years. When he announced his candidacy for President of the United States, he was viewed as a clown jokester that got continually less funny over time. When the first votes were counted, he leapt to the head of the large pack behind him and never looked back. He surprised everyone by winning a major party’s nomination built upon a wrecking-ball campaign against the political status quo. His personality-driven campaign continued into the general election, which he was given no chance of winning. But a last-minute surge of disaffected and disenfranchised voters –mainly white, lower middle-income,  conservative voters fearful over the loss of jobs and the “traditional” social order – came together to give him the unexpected win. On January 20th, 2017, Donald J. Trump became our President.

By all traditional measures, he is the most ill-prepared President in our history. He ran as the advocate of the average citizen and working man/woman. Yet he has never spent a single day in public service (much less governance), never worked as anything but the absolute-control CEO of a closely-held family business, never suffered the difficulty of losing a job or being unemployed, never wondered where his next meal or dollar would come from. So what are we likely to expect from a minimum of four years of a Trump presidency? Speculating upon future political outcomes is always a risky sport, but there are a few framing themes we can perhaps see in the haze of the crystal ball.

1. No Core Principles. The bad news is that Trump has few, if any, core philosophical or political principles that guide him. The good news is that is that Trump has few, if any, core philosophical or political principles that guide him. Which means that almost any political/social position is theoretically possible to come out of a Trump presidency. Trump is guided by end results, not philosophy or process. Get his ear, convince him of a worthwhile financial or self-glorifying outcome, and that can drive his version of policy. He will most certainly (and intentionally) surprise us, frustrate both political friends and enemies, confirm opponents’ suspicions, and inevitably disappoint his supporters’ high expectations of him.

2. Rules Are For Others. Trump has never answered to a boss/supervisor. He has never been accountable to a Board or to stockholders. He has made his own rules, done what he has wanted how he has wanted. But a Presidency is borne and bred within the nursery of tradition and imagery, and Americans take their role expectations of “the President” very seriously. So far Trump has delighted in flouting these expectations. His ridiculing comments about people, his refusal to divest himself of conflicts of interest, his decision not to release his tax returns, his push to confirm his Cabinet appointments before being fully vetted, his personal attacks on the intelligence community and other government employees, all fly in the face of presidential tradition. It is a pattern that will permeate downward, and continually create unending crises of moral compromises and ethical complaints for him and his administration.

3. Beyond Criticism. The President is the most criticized individual in the world. Almost everyone thinks they know better than the President, and is free and willing to say so no matter how inappropriate their ideas may be. Trump has shown no ability to let such criticism slide off his back or to pick only worthwhile battles to fight. Instead, we are treated to an unending series of petty fights not worthy of presidential attention. Trump has shown no ability to debate criticism in substantive terms. The argument never goes beyond highly personal insults that seek to discredit the criticizer rather than disprove the criticism. People who praise him are “great” and “beautiful”; people who disagree with him are “losers” and their career accomplishments and organizations are “failures.” Credit is taken for achievements not of his doing; responsibility is never taken for failures; it is all “the media’s” fault. Trump lives in a self-made bubble designed to insulate him from admitting the slightest shortcoming; “facts” are invented out of nowhere without regard for truth or consistency to protect that bubble. The credibility of the White House will progressively take a huge hit; such erosion will do significant damage to the ability to lead the country. A person who takes him-/herself  this seriously does not warrant being taken seriously. While a Trump supporter may enjoy reading such insults in the moment, one should never forget that they could well be the next target for Trump’s angry words.

4. Presidents Are Not That Powerful. The presidency of the United States is the most powerful office in the world. But each ex-president has acknowledged how limited that power actually is. There are the Constitutional limitations on the president’s powers. There are the strong egos and career experience of Cabinet appointees. There is the intentional distribution of balanced power among the House, Senate, and Judiciary and the egos of these officials. There is “the bureaucracy” that was there before you came and will be there after you leave, the president being just “temporary.” There are 50 governors and state legislatures intent on going their own way. There are other countries and their leaders. Regardless of their smaller size and military prowess, they are sovereign nations able to make their own decisions independent of American desires. And then there are “events” over which you have no control (e.g. 9-11; school shootings; North Korean atomic weapons) but which nevertheless dictate the agenda. Trump has been used to giving orders and watching things automatically get done. The deliberateness of government and international diplomacy will frustrate him and create adversaries everywhere.

5. No Pivot. During the early campaigning, pundits said Trump would “pivot” and tone down the harsh and outlandish statements when the primary voting started. Same after he won sufficient votes to ensure the nomination. After the Republican Convention conferred the nomination, he would then pivot and “act presidential” for the general election. After he became president-elect, the weight of the impending office would sober him to leave the campaign mode behind. It never happened. His transition as President-elect has been a continuation of his campaign. He continually stepped on the toes of the one sitting President, inappropriately trying to act as a “second president” by commenting on national and international issues before his time. He conducted a rerun of “The Apprentice” by publically parading potential cabinet choices through Trump Tower in a disrespectful spectacle that demeaned their status while trying to enhance his own image of authority. All while the ugly Twitter words and criticisms continued to come. There was no Pivot. There will be no future Pivot. Trump will be stuck in campaign mode for the next four years. He will not act “presidential” as we have known it; he will act “Trumpial” as he defines it. What we have seen is what we will continue to see. Americans are noted for having a pretty short-term attention span; “Campaign Trump” will wear pretty thin for everyone over a four year span.

6. Yardstick for Presidential Success. Trump’s whole history is built around financial success. A large profit on one’s Income Statement may be a satisfactory measure of business success; it is not a sole measure of government service success. There are too many agendas, too many diverse “stockholders,” and – in spite of all the campaign rhetoric and economic statistics – too many financially successful citizens for economic success to be solely sufficient. There are many other issues that will drive the public’s response to Trump’s presidency. Unfortunately, it appears that Trump is setting up a bifurcated presidency going forward. He seems very interested in foreign affairs, defeating ISIS, negotiating trade deals and creating more domestic jobs. So he will be very engaged with those Cabinet departments. But domestic affairs / social issues will prove to be less interesting, so he will pay only cursory interest there. This will leave Vice President Mike Pence – the darling of social Conservatives – in de facto leadership over the domestic agenda and those Cabinet departments, several of which have truly reactionary Cabinet-level leaders. They will run amuck for a while in their moment in the sun. It will last until the negative reaction sets in as the public realizes that cutting budgets means cutting services, American jobs means higher costs at Walmart, tariffs on imports means reciprocal tariffs on exports, eliminating support for the Arts means no more Sesame Street for parents, restricting voting rights hurts everyone, not just minorities. Trump will cut heads when the blowback becomes personal against him.

Such is the framework for the next four years. Lacking both a popular vote mandate and high approval ratings, the upcoming political landscape will be an unending series of contentious adversarial encounters. We will each find much to disagree with, whatever is our political positioning. But some stuff will get done that we can agree with due to differing alliances on one issue to the next. We need to pick our battles, select the Tweets worth reading, conserve our energy, not get on the roller coaster. It is going to be quite the ride, regardless of our politics and for whom we voted. A unified America is not just around the corner.

©   2017   Randy Bell               www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

Trump's Team

After a presidential election is completed, the singular job of a President-elect is to create “the Team” of people who will be sources of advice and/or managers of Executive Branch departments. (It is not his/her job to try to run or speak for the country until after the inauguration.) So what are we to surmise of Donald Trump’s appointments to date?

Of the 16 cabinet-level positons appointed thus far, 3 nominees are retired generals – a concern given our tradition of civilian control of government. 5 have no government experience; 4 have no expertise in their department’s mission – a potentially steep learning curve. More of a concern is that 6 appear openly hostile to the Mission of their department – expect many contentious intradepartmental and public battles to be fought. (The Environmental Protection Agency, and the environment itself, are bracing for a full frontal attack, including from its nominated Director.) 5 have previous federal/state government or military leadership experience – which should help provide some balance to the inexperience.

5 nominees are successful mega-rich business people, including 3 with background at Goldman Sachs – which Trump criticized heavily, and faulted Hillary about. 5 were active campaigners for Trump – suggesting Trump does pay his political IOUs. 3 are female (19%); 1 is African-American (6%); 1 is Indian-American (6%); 1 is Asian-American (6%). 4 are generally considered downright scary by a cross-section of politicians and commentators (Bannon; Flynn; Price; Pompeo).

It is certainly a mixed group, with some glaring inexperience. It also includes some “anti-government” individuals more dedicated to crippling their departments rather than enhancing them, with just as much a disturbing propensity for “making up truths” that Trump evidences. For a campaign directed to “the working people,” the Cabinet seems awash in dollar signs. The CEO community is well-represented; the worker community is conspicuously absent. There are many unknowns as to what to expect from this group. Much will depend on whether they will be left to run freely on their own. A key question is how much Trump – a non-detail and delegate-oriented manager – will give them more specific directions and expectations as to their targeted outcomes, and in what direction he specifies. Trump ran on changing the political and diplomatic status quo; this Team seems aligned with a change agenda. A fresh look at old ideas and programs is always worthwhile to do, but unthoughtful change for its own sake ultimately benefits no one. The next four years will be all about arguing over the specifics of those changes.

It is always dangerous to predict how someone will respond once they find themselves in a powerful government position. I will not do so here, regardless of some very real concerns. Except for “the four scaries” noted above, it seems a futile waste of time and energy to fight battles that have not (yet) presented themselves in substance, especially given a Republican majority Senate set to confirm most nominees pro forma. We can encourage the asking of substantive and revealing confirmation questions, remain vigilant and informed about new policy proposals, be objective and supportive of worthwhile and reasonable changes as they arise, and react responsibly where and when needed.

Meanwhile, you might want to note the following: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York NY 10004; www.aclu.org. I suspect that our state and federal court systems are going to be very busy during the next four years trying to rebalance an unbalanced political structure. I am sure the ACLU would appreciate your assistance.

*****

OPTION: For some of you interested in reading more details on these nominees, short bios follow.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS:

State: Rex Tillerson, retiring ExxonMobil CEO. No government experience. No diplomatic experience. Extensive business dealings internationally; has close ties with Russian government. Reportedly holds conservative political views, but not an ideologue.

United Nations Ambassador: Nikki Haley, Governor, South Carolina.  No diplomatic experience. A strong critic of Trump during the primary, especially his call to ban Muslims from the U.S. Indian-American.

Defense: James Mattis, Marine General (Ret.). “A Marine’s marine.” Very thoughtful and well read, slow to push for warfare, but once in goes all in. Independently minded on international issues, not a knee-jerk hawk. Appears highly respected by Pentagon, State Department and Intelligence personnel.

CIA Director: Mike Pompeo, Representative, Kansas. On House Intelligence Committee, which oversees the CIA. Committee investigated Benghazi, "found no new evidence of wrongdoing by the Obama administration or Clinton"; Pompeo was convinced there was a cover-up. Favors use of torture and surveillance programs.

National Security Adviser: Michael Flynn, Army General (Ret.) Ardent Trump supporter. Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Fired in 2014; began campaign against Washington elite and dangers of radical Islam. Accused of being loose with his facts. Very connected to alt-right movement and conspiracy theorists. Senate approval not required.

Veterans Affairs: no selection yet.

DOMESTIC SECURITY:

Homeland Security: John Kelly (Ret.). Oversaw American military operations in South America and Central America; commanded American forces in Iraq; was aide to defense secretaries Leon Panetta and Robert Gates.

Attorney General: Jeff Sessions, Senator, Alabama. Early Trump supporter. Will play a critical role regarding civil/voting rights issues, policing, and prison reform. Has been accused of “Old South”-styled past racial comments and insensitivities, opposition to civil rights groups, and is an ardent foe of illegal immigration. Former federal prosecutor; Senate rejected him for federal judgeship in 1980s.

ECONOMIC TEAM:

Treasury: Steven Mnuchin. No government experience. Billionaire. National finance chairman for Trump campaign. Former partner at Goldman Sachs. During 2008 financial crisis, chair of a mortgage company accused of improperly foreclosing on homeowners.

Commerce: Wilbur Ross. No government experience. Private-equity investor with estimated wealth of $2.9 billion. Business niche has been buying troubled companies cheap, restructuring them, and then selling them for billions in profit. Some of those businesses had a poor track record of treatment of workers, particularly with coal companies.

Labor: Andy Puzder. No government experience. Millionaire. Trump supporter. Chief executive of CKE Restaurants Inc, operates Carl's Jr. and Hardee's fast-food chains. Critic of government intervention in labor markets and increasing minimum wage.

Agriculture: No selection yet.

DOMESTIC AFFAIRS:

Health and Human Services: Tom Price, Representative, Georgia. Formerly orthopedic surgeon. Leading proponent for repealing the Obamacare, deeply pro-life. Opposes funding for Planned Parenthood, free birth control, and same-sex marriage. Wants to privatize Medicare.

Housing and Urban Development: Ben Carson, pediatric neurosurgeon. No government administrative experience. No experience in housing and urban development. Former Trump rival for nomination. Previously opted out for any cabinet position because he said he was not qualified. Has said "It's not the government's job" to take care of the indigent in our society"; has opposed Obama’s effort to improve housing integration. 

Education: Betsy DeVos, billionaire businesswoman. No government administrative experience. No experience in public education, which neither she nor her children have attended. Extensive nonprofit work in education; big supporter of moving money from public schools to charter, private and parochial schools. High-profile Republican fundraiser.

Interior: Ryan Zinke, Montana Rep. Priorities include increasing coal mining and oil and gas exploration, protecting public lands, providing more resources for American Indian tribes. Raised doubts about climate change as "unsettled science," but said that "something's going on" and an energy strategy including renewable sources such as wind and solar would be prudent.

INFRASTRUCTURE:

Energy: Rick Perry, former Governor, Texas. No experience in energy other than governor of “big oil” state. A previous dance contestant on DWTS; his two predecessors were scientists in physics. As 2012 presidential candidate, sought to eliminate Energy Department he will now head (“Oops”). Director, Energy Transfer Partners, developing Dakota Access Pipeline.

Transportation: Elaine Chao. Secretary of Labor under George W. Bush; deputy transportation secretary under George H.W. Bush. Born in Taiwan, married to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Little controversy regarding her appointment.

EXECUTIVE STAFF (non-Cabinet level):

Chief of Staff: Reince Priebus, Chairman, Republican National Committee.  Stood by Trump when other party officials criticized him. Experienced with “staff role”; lack of experience running government could limit effectiveness of counsel to inexperienced Trump. Has strong ties to Speaker Ryan and Vice-President Pence. Senate approval not required.

Chief Strategist and Senior Adviser: Steve Bannon. No government experience. CEO of the Trump campaign in later stages. Former Goldman Sachs employee. Former chairman of Breitbart News, far-right-wing website appealing to extreme views such as white supremacy, anti-immigration, and anti-feminism. Has promoted conspiracy theories, his own questionable “facts,” and National Inquirer-style sensationalist headlines. Has vowed to bring down the Republican political establishment. Senate approval not required.

©   2017   Randy Bell             www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

 

The Fat Lady Has Sung

Donald Trump was not my preference to be the next President of the United States. Nor did I vote for him. I cannot make these two statements strongly enough. I am still trying to get my head around how someone that angry, thin-skinned, disrespectful, and ill-prepared could be elected President after such a divisive and untruthful campaign.

That said, Donald Trump will be my President come January 20th. That decision has been made, because that is how our American democracy works. Candidates present themselves; an election is held; a winner is determined. Sometimes our preference wins; sometimes our preference loses. My track record for results over my adult life is mixed, as should be expected. This time, by rules well-known in advance, my choice between the two major-party candidates lost.

Hillary Clinton was an imperfect campaigner at best, regardless of what kind of president she would have made. Given much of the public’s negative opinion of her – for whatever nonsensical or justifiable reasons – she needed to be the best. Hilary did not lose because of FBI Director James Comey’s atrocious handling of her email investigation concurrently with the campaign. Nor did she lose because of Russian hacking into the DNC and Clinton campaign’s computers, and their interference on behalf of Trump – which clearly happened and is a significant intrusion into our sovereignty demanding a response. Nor did she lose because the Electoral College is an antiquated device that supposedly thwarts the will of the people. (See the 11/30/2016 posting to this blog site – “Defending the Electoral College.”) She lost because the American electorate demanded a substantial change in the status quo. It was a revolt by a powerless middle-class America against being left out and behind a changing global economy and social landscape that has favored a few insiders. A manifestation of years of less-than-20% approval ratings of ineffective Congresses and their self-interested leaders more focused on gaining power for themselves rather than serving the people’s needs. A two-party political system that provides no home and no candidates for the majority political demographic of Independent voters. Hillary was not seen as the needed response to that dissatisfaction.

Early in 2016, in response to questions then being asked about the Trump phenomenon, I said that the real story was not about Trump himself, but about the Trump voter – and why they were so willing to overlook his outrageous (and untruthful) statements and actions. It was a story Clinton never read, lulled into the faith that traditional voters would show up, even though Bernie Sanders showed that story to her within the Democratic Party itself. Clinton, the ultimate and best-prepared policy wonk, had all the papers prepared for a message not enough voters were looking to hear. Papers that she was never able to reduce to simple, comprehensible themes about what she would do to respond to these voters. She was the wrong person at the wrong time, in spite of all her years of commendable public service.

It was a hard loss, yes. And a missed opportunity to show that even the presidency is finally now gender-neutral. But when you are worried about holding onto your job (with few alternatives in view), providing for your family’s well-being and security, and maintaining a way of life you have firmly believed in, then you are able to make some choices that may look questionable on their face (e.g. Evangelical support for a faux-religious Trump). Instead of reaching out to that discouraged and disaffected audience, Clinton wrote them off as racist and deplorables. Some Trump voters no doubt are, just as some Clinton supporters have behaved inexcusably to their fellow Americans. Writing off those Trump supporters was the biggest blunder of her campaign. The “Trump voter” was not only Republican, but also Democrat and Independent. The Democratic base progressively shrunk; Republicans won votes but no new party loyalists.

So Clinton won the votes but lost the country. Trump lost the vote but won the country. He won fairly, even if perhaps not so square, and in spite of his claims that the election was “rigged” – which it most certainly was not. When you lose, you lose. Among America’s many problems, we have been suffering nationally from an inability to accept defeat graciously, whether it is Obama’s wins in 2008 and 2012, or the passing of Obamacare, or judicial decisions on gay marriage, or continuing wars overseas. We demand our way or not at all; we accept no defeat, but keep fighting rear-guard battles unendingly. As a consequence, we have had few new ideas put forth on our political agenda, and made little progress on many unresolved problems. We are too busy refighting old issues over and over again – a political equivalent of “Groundhog Day.”

It is time to quit litigating and replaying this election, however unhappy one may be. Al Gore had a legitimate basis for challenging the Florida election results in 2000. Jill Stein’s Green Party has wasted millions of good dollars asking for multiple recounts with no reasonable basis for doing so. The Clinton campaign team’s support in those efforts was not helpful, if not unseemly. Ditto the efforts to change the Electoral College vote, which was destined to fail, just as was Ted Cruise’s efforts to undo Trump’s nomination victory after-the fact at the Republican Convention.

It is past time to close the book on this 2016 election, as painful and legitimately frightening as it may feel. Starting on January 21^st, changes of direction and issues of real substance will begin arising very quickly. In some instances, people may be surprised to find some unexpected agreement with these new directions. In other instances, not. I certainly have concerns about where Donald Trump’s character, personality, and thinking may try to take this country. When it is what we may consider a “wrong” direction, he and his Team should be resisted. Not by name-calling, or speculation, or knee-jerk negative responses such as we saw misdirected at Obama for eight years. But rather by arguments of reason that seek accommodation and mutual benefit. Regardless of the side of the aisle on which our beliefs sit, there will be many battles to be fought over our country’s future. Battles with surprising alternating winners and losers on each side. Right now everyone needs to take a holiday break, conserve their energies, prepare to pick high-value battles worthy of fighting, and substantiate their arguments in the ensuing debates.

We can choose once again to divide up and yell at each hunkered down in our separate end zones, or we can try to march upfield and meet one another at the 50-yarrd line and find some mutual accommodation. The choice is up to us. But the election is over. “The fat lady has sung.” It is not about what was or could have been. It is all about what comes next.

©   2016   Randy Bell               www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

Defending The Electoral College

In my book “The Myths of the Founding Fathers and Their Constitution” (www.MckeeLearningFoundation.com) I describe six key issues that those Founders struggled with in pursuit of a new form of government for the United States. Among them were the questions of the basis of representation, and the manner in which power should be shared and distributed. How the power of thirteen individual, unique, and here-to-fore autonomous and equal states should be subsumed to a new central government proved contentious from the outset of the Constitutional Convention. Should representation be based on geographic size, wealth, or population? How should the mighty Commonwealth of Virginia sit next to the small state of Delaware and pretend “fairness” to each other? The wealthy powerhouse states sought recognition of their strength; the small states fought to protect their viability from being overrun and swallowed up. The division over this issue threatened to sabotage the entire Constitutional effort before it barely got underway. Yet the unity of all thirteen was the understood targeted outcome.

In the end, after hours of deliberation, many written drafts, and seemingly unending changes of mind, the conflicting positions were finally reconciled. The result was the creation of two separate bodies within the Congress: a House of Representatives based upon population (a concession to the large states); a Senate based upon equal two votes for each state (a concession to the small states). It was a compromise balancing size with maintaining the integrity of each unique state.

When the discussion subsequently moved to the question of the President, the same issue of “who gets to decide” arose. It was the “big states / little states” yet again, combined with a broad distrust among the convention’s Delegates as to the capability of the general population to make such a critical choice. (It was already presupposed that such capability could only be entrusted to a select subgroup within white adult males.) To get out of this philosophical bind, the Delegates ultimately returned to the solution that they had used to resolve the representation argument regarding the Congress. That is, voters in each state would elect representatives to a similar body, but one with the sole and temporary charge to elect a president. Representation to that electoral body would be equal to each state’s combined representation to the Congress – i.e. two Senators plus their number of apportioned Representatives – a combination of an equal vote yet weighted by population. Those electors would thereby vote on the people’s behalf for the person they felt to be most qualified for President, with a majority rule. Having fulfilled this singular Charge, the electors would then adjourn and go home, their business completed with no subsequent role to potentially complicate their decision. It was a solution the Founders loved – a compromise, with something for everyone.

And thusly was born the Electoral College. A compromise mechanism for: effecting the delicate balance between the powerful versus the weak; confirming majority rule while protecting the important role of the minority; ensuring that a stampede of the masses does not overwhelm the concerns of the few, while conversely preventing the few from unduly blocking the national will. It is an imperfect system because we are an imperfect, diverse country of competing interests and divergent beliefs that we attempt to accommodate, not ignore or defeat.

Given this objective of balance, over the years the Electoral College has worked pretty well for us overall. It failed to choose a winner in 1800 between Jefferson and Burr, and forced the election into the House of Representatives. It failed in 1876 when disputes in three states over the voting results resulted in Hayes defeating Tilden is spite of Hayes losing both the original Electoral College vote AND the popular vote. In the last sixteen years, we have now had two occurrences of the Electoral College winner losing the national popular vote – “a losing-winner.” These two losing-winner elections have raised voices calling for the end of the Electoral College system in favor of one nationwide direct popular vote – such voices perhaps understandably coming from the losing side of the decision. It is a call with which I could not disagree more.

We need to remind ourselves that we are a federal system of governments. A national government that reflects shared values and principles applicable to all Americans, and able to act on their collective behalf. We are also a collection of individual, dissimilar states with little in common, thereby providing opportunities to do some things differently that reflect local needs and more appropriate solutions. The federal government is our commonality; the state governments are our separateness and individuality. Both are good ideals engaged in an always difficult and evolving dance to jointly serve the citizenry.

The reality is that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has very little in common with the State of Texas. As Florida has little in common with Idaho. As California has with South Carolina. Meanwhile, Hawaii sits alone in the Pacific no doubt very happy to have its distance from the mainland. These are differences – sometimes extreme ones – of geography, weather, culture, heritage, immigrant background, population, wealth, education, recreation, and natural wonders. Differences not at all unlike those among the original thirteen states that formed this Union, differences as true today as then. Respecting these differences, not steamrolling over them, is the challenge to the federal government vis-à-vis the states.

Actually, the same arguments over power sharing happen within individual state boundaries, among state, county and local governments. Major population centers frequently claim the “weighted right” of population that risks overwhelming their more scattered, rural neighbors. There is sprawling Atlanta and the whole rest of Georgia. Northern and western New York constantly fight to not be overwhelmed by New York City. Northern California and southern California regularly threaten to secede from each other. In North Carolina, we have the rural and coastal economies of the east, the high-tech Triangle and the high-population areas of the Triad in the center, and the Appalachian heritage of the western mountains. Balancing all of these varied needs, goals and perspectives means exercising due diligence while proceeding cautiously. (Clearly, we in North Carolina are not doing this well at all!)

The President is elected to serve all Americans, as varied as we are. The Electoral College ensures that candidates for that office campaign in most, if not all, of America. S/he is obligated to connect with, and be cognizant of, the vast diversity of this nation s/he seeks to lead. One cannot, and should not, just concentrate on the big population states/centers to win an election. A candidate needs to eat county fair food in Iowa, barnstorm the back roads of New Hampshire, conduct town meetings in New Mexico, and fill stadiums in California. That was made imminently clear in this most recent election when rural/small-town voters demanded to be heard, not ignored.

In this high-tech 21^st Century, the Electoral College can seem like an old, unnecessary throwback to an earlier, simpler time. But electorally, we are only slightly different now than in those simpler times. This system was designed from the beginning to remind us of the diverse complexity of our country and its citizenry. We are more than just one aggregate number; we are more than just the loudest voice. Rather, we are many versions of shifting pluralities deeply interconnected to, and dependent upon, each other for our overall well-being. Our political representatives need to understand and navigate among these pluralities to build coalitions for action while also respecting those who stand outside those coalitions. We are all the dairy farmer in Vermont, the factory worker in Michigan, the struggling single parent in Baltimore, the cubicle worker in Silicon Valley, the aging fixed-income grandparent in Oklahoma, the forgotten Native-American on the North Dakota reservation. All of these voices need to be heard and responded to. The value of the Electoral College is not measured by whether our choice wins or loses. Rather, it exists to help ensure that each of our voices matters.

©   2016   Randy Bell               www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com