Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Trump’s Cabinet Picks Are A Sorry Lot

Lifted from ataxingmatter from Jan 18:

by Linda Beale

Trump’s Cabinet Picks Are A Sorry Lot

As the Friday inauguration date draws near, most ordinary Americans who read, stay informed, pay attention to history and events, and engage in critical thinking are, understandably, aghast at the poor job Mr. Trump has done so far in putting together a workable Cabinet of high-level appointees with the expertise, experience and values that can lead the country.

We Americans share many values.  Among them has always been a view that those who are better off should help those who are less well off. We’ve done that in many ways, beginning with private charity (supported by our tax code) but going much beyond the soup kitchens and church support for a sick parishioner to include a progressive income tax, taxation of the estates of the wealthiest among us upon their deaths (since they were generally almost tax free in life), and the provision of many necessary services through public institutions.  The latter includes things that are important to the everyday life of all of us as well as the opportunities for better lives for those of us not born with a silver (or, in Trump’s case, golden) spoon:

  • a public right to decent health care, made real by the expectation that hospitals (whether for profit or nonprofit) will care for those who enter their emergency rooms in medical emergencies, even if the patients cannot afford to pay the going price for the service needed, and made more substantive by the passage of the Affordable Care Act which provided coverage for pre-existing conditions, allowed young people to remain on their parent’s insurance, and made market exchanges available to provide better to understand choices while providing a federal subsidy for those who otherwise couldn’t afford insurance;
  • public education from kindergarten through college, supported by federal and state funding, with reasonable rules that protect our children, such as not allowing private carrying of guns within protective zones around schools, and –in many states–rules that ensure that public support reaches poor districts as well as wealthy ones;
  • protection of the environment, from national monuments and parks to restrictions on dangerous fracking and oil drilling in sensitive areas (consider the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), from ensuring that communities have clean water to drink through regulation of corporate waste to ensuring that children have safe homes through regulation of lead paint, from protecting the nation’s waterways so that individual owners and polluters cannot hoard or harm nationally important resources to protecting creatures large and small that represent the genetic diversity of this Earth
  • regulation of commercial enterprises, to ensure that they do not exploit their workers, through fair labor laws and hiring laws and workplace rules that prevent employers from being able to force individuals to work in dangerous conditions or without appropriate rest and meal breaks
  • regulation of financial enterprises, to ensure that those sophisticated ‘quants’ don’t take advantage of less sophisticated customers, to prevent discriminatory practices that disadvantage people of color, to ensure open and fair reporting of financial positions
  • regulation of the foods and drugs that enter our marketplace, to protect Americans, our children and our pets from the kind of pollution of food products that occurred when China’s unregulated marketplace allowed melamine (plastic) to be substituted for protein in pet foods that were exported abroad or the indiscriminate use of toxic pesticides without informing consumers so that we can make good decisions about products that we buy; and on and on

Trump’s appointees for many of the important Cabinet positions seem to be primarily wealthy crony capitalists with radical ideologies that are in direct conflict with the agency missions. Consider just the following three:

Comments (5) | |

PPACA Repeal and How to Make Reconciliation Work for You.

In this post, I am going to expand upon the impact of the new House Rules H. RES. 5 upon the Repeal of the PPACA. As I explained here Paul Ryan deliberately changed the House Rules and the Republicans following party line approved them with the exception of 3 who voted with the Democrats. The House Rules went from just this:

“The Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall, to the extent practicable, prepare an estimate of whether a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee (other than the Committee on Appropriations), or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, would cause, relative to current law, a net increase in direct spending in excess of $5,000,000,000 in any of the 4 consecutive 10 fiscal year periods beginning with the first fiscal year that is 10 fiscal years after the current fiscal year.”

plus this additional statement:

“This subsection shall not apply to any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon—

(A) repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and title I and subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010;

(B) reforming the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010.”

neatly hidden away on pages 25 and 26 of 115th Congress House H. RES. 5.

Ok, so the Republicans are up to their old craftiness of slipping it to the Democrats when they want to block something the Democrats have done in the past. There is reason to why Congressman wants to block the CBO from reporting on this. It deals with making it more difficult 10 years down the road to change the repeal.

If you remember, Bush’s tax cuts were passed using Reconciliation and the CBO did a cost analysis showing it would create a deficit. Using Reconciliation to pass a bill, the legislation passed and creating a deficit must expire in 10 years. Bush’s tax cuts did create a deficit and a big one much of which was reversed by Obama.

For sure, Congressman Paul Ryan knows the repeal of the PPACA will create a deficit and Republicans know the repeal will create a large deficit. To make sure no one else knows, Mr. Ryan has blocked the CBO from analyzing it before repeal. Also unbeknownst to many, if the CBO does not do its typical independent analysis of the costs (if any) created by the PPACA repeal and how much it increases the deficit, there is no requirement for the legislation to expire after 10 years. Republicans would have repealed the PPACA as they have wanted to do since 2010, and would have blocked it from ever coming back after 10 years.

Crafty little weasel that Mr. Paul Ryan!. Then too Mr. Rand Paul is ready to sell you his healthcare policy (Obamacare Replacement Act) which does cover pre-existing conditions up to a guaranteed two years. After two years, and miss a payment or your healthcare insurance lapses and the healthcare insurance company can charge you the going rate just like the good-old-days. Also keep in mind, “Americans will never learn how devastating the PPACA repeal will be to Medicare’s long term solvency that was extended a couple of decades because of the Affordable Care Act’s execution.”

Where are the Democrats in all of this?

GOP Prohibits CBO From Reporting How Much ACA Repeal Blows Up the Deficit RMuse, Politicus usa January 11, 2017

Tags: Comments (9) | |

Constitutional Crisis ?

To Recap what everyone knows now (in case anyone reads this months from now)

On January 27th Donald Trump signed an executive order suspending the refugee admission program for 120 days and blocking US entry for citizens of 7 countries for 30 days.
The order was written without input from the Justice, Homeland Security, State and Defence departments. As written it banned entry for legal permanent residents (with green cards) who were travelling abroad when it was issued. It also banned entry for people who were on airplanes flying to the USA when it was signed.

On January 28th dozens (to hundreds ?) of people were detained in Airports. Tens of thousands of ordinary Americans went to the airports to protest the new policy (there is hope). Also hundreds of lawyers spontaneously went to airports to attempt to represent (pro bono) the people who were detained and at risk of being put on planes returning to the foreign point of departure.

Early January 29, some aspects of the execution of the executive order was temporarily stayed by a judge


Judge Ann Donnelly of the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn granted a request from the American Civil Liberties Union to stop the deportations after determining that the risk of injury to those detained by being returned to their home countries necessitated the decision.

3:00 AM January 29th, the Associated Press reported — something. It is not clear to me if the recent event is a constitutional crisis or just an absurd lie alternative fact.

The Ap reported

Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to the White House, said that nothing in the judge’s order “in anyway impedes or prevents the implementation of the president’s executive order which remains in full, complete and total effect.”

If Miller meant what he said, he has declared that the Trump administration will order the executive branch to ignore the stay (that is the only way the order could remain in “total effect”. If so, there would no longer be rule of law in the USA. There would only be Trump’s orders and the decision by people in uniforms whether to obey them.

I am fairly confident that the US is still a nation of laws. I think that Miller’s statement is a simple blatant lie not the declaration of a coup. I think he is sayign that the Judges order would have no effect even if it were obeyed. I am pretty sure Miller is insisting that Donnelly didn’t order what Donnelly ordered.

In contrast the more official response by the DHS noted that the stay applies only to people in the USA or in the air at the time it was granted.

Also the DHS didn’t mention legal permanent residents. It is very clear that the DHS can’t block their entry to the USA. In fact, it is known that the DHS argued this immediately and was over-ruled by White House staff. The application of the order to legal permanent residents is very clearly blatantly illegal. Arguably, the executive order is completely illegal, but to ignore green cards is very clearly illegal.

Comments (69) | |

Election Integrity

From the beginning of this election cycle President-Elect Trump claimed the system is rigged, millions of illegal voters voted, the dead have voted, etc. That is until he won and then it was I also won the popular vote as millions voted illegally for Clinton. Historically, voter fraud has hardly been an issue and it has been measured in the tens of thousands of 1%. What is claimed to be voter fraud is usually voting irregularities or issues with the procedures and process of voting. Even though there is no evidence of wide spread voter fraud, it has not stopped states from putting in place new laws to supposedly safe guard the vote and at the same time making it more difficult to vote. Amongst those states who have installed new requirements to vote or register are “9 of the 15 previously covered in whole or in part by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act because of a state’s history of preventing minorities from voting.

The Electoral Integrity Project is an independent academic project at Harvard University and the University of Sydney. It is directed by Harvard University Professor Pippa Norris and governed by an International Advisory Board. Using 726 political scientists based in local universities in each state, the EIP evaluated the process and procedures of voting in each state using 49 core indicators which were then grouped into 11 ranking categories. The highest attainable ranking in any one category is 100 points. The project reviews the entire electoral cycle from the pre-election stage, the campaign itself, the actual polling day, and the aftermath. The results of the 2016 election and the corresponding state rankings are in Figure 1 (click on the picture for a larger version).

invisible hand

In speaking for the SCOTUS majority vote of 5, Chief Justice John Roberts repealed Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act claiming things had changed dramatically since the 1960s. Congress could no longer require states and counties to get the approval of the Department of Justice to change plans or put in place requirements for minorities to vote. The thought was the additional approval and supervision by the DOJ was no longer needed as these jurisdictions could be trusted to treat minorities fairly going forward.

State wide voting restrictions directed at minorities were viewed as a problem of the past when discrimination was blatant. With the passing of decades it was felt these States had outgrown past biases with minorities and could be allowed to govern voting rules and regulation on their own by SCOTUS. Evidence of such was not so positive and recent reviews show the states in the South had the weakest electoral performance overall in 2016. The newly passed North Carolina GOP State House laws to restrict the power of Democrat Governor Roy Cooper before he takes office suggest such thoughts of fairness were optimistic. The Rust Belt ‘Blue Wall’ states of Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were also problematic. By contrast, the quality of elections in the Pacific West and New England were viewed positively.

Figure 2 shows the ranking of each state amongst the other states for “perceptions of Electoral Integrity” from the highest Election Integrity at 1 (Vermont) to the lowest Election Integrity (Arizona) at 51 (Click on the picture for a larger version).

invisible hand

Vote counting, the Voting Process, and the role of Electoral Authorities were shown to be less problematic than Congressional Voting District Boundary Delineation, State Electoral laws, Campaign Media, and Political Money in the Electoral process. North Carolina comes in at #1 followed by Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Texas, and South Carolina for Congressional Voting District Delineation. The aggregate for Congressional Voting District Delineation is 33 and is the lowest of the 11 categories with Electoral Laws (Voting IDs, Early Voting, Provisional Ballots, etc) being next.

It is no secret, delineation of state Congressional Districts has led to additional Congressional Representatives of a political party being sent to Congress. As an example, Michigan has had a greater than 50% Democrat majority vote since 1992 and its Congressional delegation to the House has been less than 50% Democrats. This is the result of Congressional redistricting after every Census by a Republican majority in the state. As it now stands, changes to Congressional Districts will not happen until 2022 and only if the Democrats can take back state legislatures or if courts overrule the Congressional District delineation in place now or created in 2022 after the next Census. There is a far greater issue with Republican drawn districts than Democrat.

Other issues which need sunlight and additional discussion are Campaign Media, the lack of substantive Policy Discussion during the campaign, the False Equivalency Standards of Journalism, and the overwhelmingly Negative Tone of news coverage.

If one were to compare states by political control using this data, Democrat – Controlled states showed greater “Electoral Integrity than Republican – controlled states. Figure 3 shows in the aggregate assessments of each of the eleven stages during the electoral cycle compared with which party controlled the State House. With the exception of “Reporting Results” across all the remaining stages, “the gap was substantial and statistically significant on the issues of gerrymandered district boundaries, voter registration, electoral laws, and the performance of electoral officials.” Democrat controlled states out performed Republican controlled states in Electoral Integrity.

invisible hand

Taking into consideration the substantial gap and statistically significance issues of gerrymandered congressional district boundaries, voter registration, electoral laws, and the performance of electoral officials” (Figure 3), there was a clear tendency for Trump to also win more states (Figure 4) exhibiting these weaknesses. The evidence is not so clear as to state Trump won these states solely due to these issues; however, the correlation and direction pointed is clear. Perhaps as Trump claimed the election was rigged; but, it was not rigged in the manner he claimed.

There is little or no evidence there was voter fraud or votes cast illegally in 2016 as President – Elect Trump has claimed before, during, and after the election. However taking a broader vision of Election Integrity and with a review of this study, “one could arrive at the conclusion US elections suffer from several systematic and persistent problems. Donald Trump and the Republican party appear to have done well in states with the most problems.”

invisible hand

It is not only the 2016 election which has had its issues. As EIP and Professor Norris have shown in other studies, there have been issues with the 2012 and 2014 elections as well. When compared to other countries, the United States has scored the worst in Election Integrity amongst similar Western Countries given the culture and history the US represents. “The US also ranks 52nd out of all 153 countries worldwide in a cross-national Electoral Integrity survey. The comparison is even worse when the issue of Congressional District boundaries ate considered as the U.S. score is the second lowest in the world.

References:

Why it’s Not About Election Fraud, Its Much Worse. Electoral Integrity Project; Pippa Norris, Holly Ann Garnett, Max Grömping

Study: Clinton-Trump Coverage was a Feast of False Equivalency, Erik Wemple

“North Carolina Is No Longer Classified as a Democracy”, Andrew Reynolds

The Truth About Voter Fraud”, Justin Levitt

Tags: Comments (9) | |

The Electoral College, White Supremacy and Full Employment as “Reign of Terror”

Published in September 1947, Whither Solid South? A Study in Politics and Race Relations, by Charles Wallace Collins, “became both manifesto and blueprint” for the 1948 “Dixiecrat” campaign of Strom Thurmond and — over the longer term — the strategy whereby Southern white supremacists engineered a balance of power “lock” on the electoral college and thus on the Presidency. Matthew M. Hoffman examined the political consequences of that strategy in “The Illegitimate President: Minority Vote Dilution and the Electoral College,” published 20 years ago in the Yale Law Journal. Joseph Lowndes discussed the broader influence of Collins’s book on the emergence of a “New Right” in From the New Deal to the New Right: Race and the Southern Origins of Modern Conservatism. Collin’s strategy can be summed up in a few paragraphs from chapter 17 “The South Need Not Surrender”:

Neither the Negroes nor any of the groups which support them can alone, or in conjunction with each other, give assurance of control of a single vote in the Electoral College. … In comparison with them, the South is a political giant. … The South, being a geographical minority with a one-party system, would know at all times its minimum strength and from that work toward its maximum.

The eleven former seceding Southern States possess 127 votes in the Electoral College. These States hold 22 seats in the Senate and 105 in the House. Additional support on many southern questions may be expected from the four border States which have 43 votes in the Electoral College, 8 Senators and 35 Members of the House.

The aggregate of votes of the southern region is 170 in the Electoral College, 30 in the Senate and 140 in the House — nearly one-third in each. On questions which peculiarly affect the southern region, on the Negro equality question and on radical labor questions, these States may be expected to stand with the South in the Congress.

I have emphasized two phrases in the above excerpt. Collins candidly described the “Solid South” concept as a one-party system. A segregationist South was to dominate national politics by eschewing popular choice. “States rights” were to prevail over the rights of the citizens of those states. Collins’s notion of a white-supremacist lock on the electoral college did not rely on winner-take-all popular elections. In a 1944 pamphlet, he upheld the constitutional propriety of an elector deciding “to vote in the Electoral College for a person whom he thinks will protect the interests of his state rather than for a person nominated at a national party convention whom he thinks would be hostile to them.”

Comments (5) | |

Trump Now Has His Joseph Goebbels. As Nominee for Attorney General.

I do not believe that this man will be confirmed.  Even despite this.

Things of this sort can change, bigly, once confirmation hearings begin.  And not just because of his brazen, lifelong white supremacism.  Also because, well, among other things, Florida voters just adopted an amendment to the state constitution legalizing medical marijuana.  Buy a yuge margin.

Read through the NYT editorial I’ve linked to.  No one—and I do mean no onewants this kind of thing.  Outside of Alabama and Mississippi, of course.

This choice is beyond-belief vile.  And by the end of his confirmation hearing, everyone will know the specifics. And that Donald Trump thought it would be fine to reward this man in this precise way for being the first member of Congress to endorse him.

So Jeff Flake, Joe Manchin and Susan Collins think he’s fine.   Then again, presumably they don’t plan to run for president.  Marco Rubio likely does, though.  And his own state, the largest swing state, just voted to legalize medical marijuana. And there’s also that large-Hispanic-population thing in his state.  Just one example.

Here’s betting that McCain won’t vote for him either.  He doesn’t plan to run for president, having already been there and done that, but there’s that little thing about Sessions’ support for torture of various kinds, including waterboarding.

____

UPDATED: Be sure to read this article published Friday at Yahoo News.  I didn’t see it until just now.

Updated 11/20 at 3:25 p.m.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , Comments (2) | |

Redefining Political Correctness to Include Criticism of Appointments of Wall Street, Banking and Fossil Fuel Insiders to Regulatory Bodies

And Extreme Pro-Corporate Lawyers and Judges to the Supreme Court and the Lower Federal Courts. Seriously.

So far, the Trump transition team does not seem particularly concerned, for instance, about a transition team staffed heavily with lobbyists from energy, agriculture, transportation, and banking.

“Frankly, one of the refreshing parts of it about the whole Trump style is that he does not care about political correctness. From a practical standpoint, I have heard lots of people say, ‘Why would we box ourselves out of the most knowledgeable policy people in the country?’” said one source close to the transition team.

Donald McGahn II, a partner at the firm Jones Day and Trump’s lawyer, is expected to play a central role in vetting nominees. So is Arthur Culvahouse, Jr., a partner at the firm O’Melveny & Myers, who helped vet vice presidential candidates and, according to a source, has been helping the campaign organize its White House picks.

Culvahouse declined a request for an interview. None of the lawyers in the political law practice at Jones Day returned POLITICO’S calls. Culvahouse has faced backlash from colleagues at his firm for working with Trump, according to people familiar with the situation, with one person saying the decision was “amazingly controversial” within the firm. Many top partners at O’Melveny, including Tom Donilon, were vocal Clinton backers.

Trump advisers steamroll Christie’s transition: The new, top-down approach is likened to how Dick Cheney ran the Bush transition., Andrew Restuccia and Nancy Cook, Politico, today

Just so you know, Culvahouse played a large role in turning the Supreme Court and lower federal courts into a proxy arm of the far-right Chamber of Commerce, including in Citizens United but also in ways most people have no idea about but would really care about.  These are not pro-union justices and judges, nor are they pro-employee, pro-consumer, pro small-business, anti-financial-industry-fraud, or ant-securities-fraud.  Nor anti-fossil-fuel-industry.  For starters.

So.  From a practical standpoint, who do you think are all those people who are saying to this source close to the transition team, “Why would we box ourselves out of the most knowledgeable policy people in the country?”  And might that source close to the transition team be Mike Pence, who is so close to the transition team that he heads it?

And how likely do you think it is that among the many people who are saying this to the source is, say, a blue-collar voter from Toledo or Youngstown?  Or any region of Michigan?  Or Erie, Pennsylvania?

Or anywhere?

We’re extremely close to down-the-rabbit-hole language of the Arbeit macht frei variety, folks—something I saw last Saturday and mentioned in the update to this post.

George Orwell and Lewis Carroll are laughing.  Really hard.

Good god.  This is the most successful Trojan Horse since the original one. And every bit as sinister.  But also funny, in that this is what’s now called a top-down approach. Always great to see a new euphemism for insider corruption.

They’re not gonna box themselves in, folks.  But massive, intensive publicity might.

Tags: , , , , , , Comments (36) | |

Donald and Deportations

This post is partly inspired by “The cracks are already starting to show between Donald Trump and Republicans” by Amber Phillips at The Washington Post. My general impression is that the article mainly shows that cracks are already starting to show between Donald Trump and Donald Trump. More generally, the fact that Trump and the other Republicans are lying a lot about what Obama has done makes it almost impossible to determine how they will change things.

A case can be made that there plan is to mainly stick to current policy (except by cutting taxes on rich people of course) and to rename the current policy and claim credit for what Obama has done and continue to claim he did something horrible. I wish I believed this is what will happen. I am sure they will make major changes. The point is that their statements are vague and often based on false factual premises, so it is impossible to figure out what they will actually do.

Consider deportation of undocumented aliens.

Trump: “What we are going to do is get the people that are criminals and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, a lot of these people, probably 2 million. It could even be 3 million,” he told CBS’s Lesley Stahl in a “60 Minutes” interview that aired Sunday. “After the border is secured and after everything gets normalized, we’re going to make a determination on the people that you’re talking about, who are terrific people.”

One plausible interpretation of this is “We are going to stick to current policy, and consider possible policy changes late in my second term”. Under current policy, people with criminal records are deported. Trump proposes sticking with that policy. He doesn’t explain how sticking with current policy will cause an increase in the rate of deportations. He doesn’t even claim that, under his policy, people will be deported at a higher rate than under Obama’s policies. He says 2 million people will be deported, but he doesn’t say when. According to ABC “President Barack Obama has often been referred to by immigration groups as the “Deporter in Chief.”Between 2009 and 2015 his administration has removed more than 2.5 million people through immigration orders, ” Trumps 2 maybe 3 million people claim is consistent with between two and three million in the next six years (with Trump assuming he will be re-elected).

The quoted statement is perfectly consistent with sticking to current policy including the conditions for deportation and the rate of deportations.

It is also possible that Trump proposing sticking with current policy but says the outcome will be bigly more winning, because Trump is a winner. He might argue that, because of his excellent management and winnerness, la migra will do things much more quickly.

It is fairly likely that Trump believes that applying the current policy will cause a large increase in the rate of deportations, because he doesn’t know what current policy is.

Finally, it is possible that he is just lying and plans to deport people who wouldn’t be deported under current policy.

Trump is so vague that it is not possible to prove that there is any “crack” separating Trump and Congressional Republicans. In fact, it is not possible to prove that there is any “crack” between Trump and Obama.

This also true of other policy issues. For example, Trump and the other Republicans agree that they will repeal Obamacare and replace it with something which protects people with pre-existing conditions and is based on consumer choice and markets. One reasonable interpretation of this is that they plan to replace Obamacare with Obamacare. This will come as no surprise to Obama who told us they would do this.

Also they continue to denounce the Obama stimulus and propose a big increase on infrastructure spending

McCarthy: McCarthy said on Fox News that “there is a place we could find common ground with Republicans and Democrats” on infrastructure. But he seemed unable to explain how Trump’s infrastructure spending plan differs from President Obama’s 2009 stimulus. “Obama never had infrastructure in his stimulus,” he said. (Infrastructure spending was a major part of Obama’s stimulus.)

So far this post has been wildly optimistic. Again, I don’t really hope that Republicans will mostly stick with Obama’s policies except for cutting taxes on the rich. I’m sure they will do horrible things. I am also sure that they haven’t told us what horrible things they will do, because they are still promising all things to all people. They haven’t switched from messaging to policy making yet. I hope wish they never make policy.

On the other hand, I think that the strategy of copying Obama while continuing to denounce him is likely to be politically successful. Republicans have managed to convince many Americans that Obamacare is horrible in some mysterious way. The hope was that people would notice that, for example, there aren’t any death panels. If Republicans stick with Obamacare but call it TrumpCare, there won’t be any new proof that Obamacare doesn’t have horrible provisions.

The public doesn’t know what current policy is. Many are convinced that Obama policy is extremly leftist and unsuccessful. This makes it easy for Republicans to convince them that the repealing Obama’s policies and replacing them with Obama’s policies is a huge improvement and that Republicans deserve credit for Obama’s gigantic accomplishments. The strangest thing is that I suspect that Obama is OK with that.

Comments (11) | |