Comment of the day from Scott Lemieux over at the American Prospect in a discussion of the indefensible Electoral College:
"There is a certain dark irony to the fact that a system designed to prevent the people from choosing an unqualified demagogue has resulted in the election of an unqualified demagogue not chosen by the people."
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Simply The Best? I'm Not So Sure
Trump continually promised he would be able to bring the "best" people to work for him. But so far his cabinet is shaping up to be an amalgam of career politicians and technocrats, Fox News contributors, and, most importantly, plutocrats. I'm pretty sure this was not the kind of shake-up the people who voted for him had in mind. The appointment of Steve Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary will, I'm sure, put fear into the hearts of Wall Street as he will be sure to crack down on all the abuses in the financial industry. Just kidding. Besides his own checkered history, he is a second generation alumnus of Goldman Sachs. No, I don't mean he is a second generation American - his father was a Goldman Banker, too. I wonder if that helped him get the job...
In any case, Kevin Drum put together a handy little chart yesterday to show how much of Trump's cabinet is made up of career insiders, crazies, and plutocrats:
I guess we should also note that about half of these appointees have had little or no experience running large government organization. It's going to be a long four years.
In any case, Kevin Drum put together a handy little chart yesterday to show how much of Trump's cabinet is made up of career insiders, crazies, and plutocrats:
I guess we should also note that about half of these appointees have had little or no experience running large government organization. It's going to be a long four years.
An Existential Threat To Healthcare
I have tried to avoid speculating about what Trump will or will not try to do during his term as President, because it is almost impossible to know. Of course, I fear the worst and I take him at his word on most of the things he ran on during the campaign. But I don't think anyone has a clue what he really wants to do, except for reducing taxes on the rich and regulations on business. On everything else, it is impossible to know if Trump really wants follow through. That doesn't mean that the Republicans in Congress will not be pushing a hard right agenda that will include restricting voting rights and gutting the safety net that has been built since the presidency of FDR, in addition to joining Trump in cutting taxes on the rich and business regulations.
So, rather than obsessing about his latest irrational tweets or speculating about who he is going to appoint, I've been pushing people to focus on what he actually does. But it is hard not to be worried by his appointment of Tom Price as Secretary for Health and Human Services and what that could actually mean for the healthcare of all Americans. In yesterday's NY Times in the Upshot section, there was an article that pointed out that both Clinton and Trump both decried the high out-of-pocket costs for many insured under Obamacare. Clinton proposed a tax credit of up to $5,000 per family or $2500 per individual for those whose out-of-pocket costs exceeded 5% of their income. This proposal was paid for by new taxes and fees. According to the article, "Mr. Trump offered no specific plans for reducing out-of-pocket spending". Instead, he simply proposed repealing Obamacare altogether but never provided any coherent plan about how those 20 million people who had received insurance would actually stay insured. Now, of course, it would have been nice if the Times and the rest of the mainstream media had spent an inordinate amount of time exposing the country to this particular problem that would effect millions of Americans. Instead, we got lots of stories about the Clinton Foundation and EMAILS!
Tom Price, however, does have a plan for reducing out-of-pocket costs and, to be crude, it relies on a strategy that making healthcare unaffordable will, by definition, reduce out-of-pocket costs. If you can't pay for it, you will forgo it. The details of Price's plan are as follows. Insurers will still be required to accept patients with prior medical conditions AS LONG AS THEY MAINTAIN CONTINUOUS COVERAGE. This, he hopes, will force younger, healthier people to buy insurance because they fear they would not be able to get it if something terrible were to happen. I'm pretty sure that is a huge misread of human nature, especially for those who do not have a lot of money to begin with. The second part of his plan is subsidies, just like Obamacare. The difference is his subsidies are based on age and they are truly pitiful amounts. Price's subsidies range between $100 for younger people and $250 for older ones. This comes nowhere near covering the cost of a real health insurance policy. However it will pay for a typical junk plan, which will actually increase out-of-pocket costs if the insured really has a health emergency. And as Drum points out, "Since Price offers credits based on age, it means that the well-off all get tax credits. Many of the poor, who can't afford insurance even with the tax credits, will go uninsured and therefore get nothing. In other words, his plan is basically a way of subsidizing the rich and screwing the poor." But it will certainly reduce the cost of healthcare that the federal government is now carrying.
Price has a similar approach to Medicare and it dovetails with Paul Ryan's plan. The idea is to force Medicare recipients into private healthcare plans and then provide subsidies, in this case vouchers, to help defray the cost of that insurance. Under Ryan's proposal and just like in Price's Obamacare plan, the vouchers will probably be woefully insufficient, especially when you consider what private insurance would charge an ailing elderly patient. And Ryan's plan specifically increases the voucher over time at a rate that is LESS than healthcare inflation in an attempt to reduce that rate of inflation. But all it will really mean is that the voucher will buy less and less coverage over time.
Both of these proposals will actually increase out-of-pocket expenses for most Americans. But that is by design. Republicans claim that health consumers having a greater "skin in the game" will reduce the rising cost of healthcare because they will be more particular about what procedures they use. This is, of course, ridiculous because most of us have no ability to decide whether a specific procedure is "worth" it or not. I believe that is why doctors go to medical school. And poorer patients will obviously forgo procedures that they truly need simply to save money or because they can not afford it.
Bending the cost-curve of healthcare may be the Republicans' stated reason for their plans. But the real reason is that these plans will vastly reduce the amount of money that the federal government will have to pay for healthcare. And all those saving can go into massive tax breaks for the rich and business without totally busting the budget.
As I said at the top, the Trump administration has not yet put forward any proposals on either Obamacare or Medicare, so we will have to wait and see what actually is proposed. But it is clear that Republicans in Congress are putting on a full court press to reduce the federal costs of healthcare by passing the costs onto the consumer. And all those federal dollars saved will go back to the rich in massive tax breaks. And, for Trump, the tax breaks are probably the only thing he really cares about. With Price's appointment, Trump seems willing to go along with Congress' plans.
From a personal point of view, I wonder what all those people who voted for Trump with the belief that he shouldn't be taken literally on some of his promises are thinking now. Like the woman in Florida who is on Obamacare now but qualifies for Medicare next year. What will she think when her core Medicare coverage isn't free. Or the thousands in Kentucky coal country who have been insured under Kynect. What will they think when the subsidies don't even cover a quarter of their monthly premium. As a person who currently relies on Obamacare and hopes to be able to move on to Medicare when I qualify, I know that it will be very hard for me to forgive any Trump voter when those benefits are stripped away.
So, rather than obsessing about his latest irrational tweets or speculating about who he is going to appoint, I've been pushing people to focus on what he actually does. But it is hard not to be worried by his appointment of Tom Price as Secretary for Health and Human Services and what that could actually mean for the healthcare of all Americans. In yesterday's NY Times in the Upshot section, there was an article that pointed out that both Clinton and Trump both decried the high out-of-pocket costs for many insured under Obamacare. Clinton proposed a tax credit of up to $5,000 per family or $2500 per individual for those whose out-of-pocket costs exceeded 5% of their income. This proposal was paid for by new taxes and fees. According to the article, "Mr. Trump offered no specific plans for reducing out-of-pocket spending". Instead, he simply proposed repealing Obamacare altogether but never provided any coherent plan about how those 20 million people who had received insurance would actually stay insured. Now, of course, it would have been nice if the Times and the rest of the mainstream media had spent an inordinate amount of time exposing the country to this particular problem that would effect millions of Americans. Instead, we got lots of stories about the Clinton Foundation and EMAILS!
Tom Price, however, does have a plan for reducing out-of-pocket costs and, to be crude, it relies on a strategy that making healthcare unaffordable will, by definition, reduce out-of-pocket costs. If you can't pay for it, you will forgo it. The details of Price's plan are as follows. Insurers will still be required to accept patients with prior medical conditions AS LONG AS THEY MAINTAIN CONTINUOUS COVERAGE. This, he hopes, will force younger, healthier people to buy insurance because they fear they would not be able to get it if something terrible were to happen. I'm pretty sure that is a huge misread of human nature, especially for those who do not have a lot of money to begin with. The second part of his plan is subsidies, just like Obamacare. The difference is his subsidies are based on age and they are truly pitiful amounts. Price's subsidies range between $100 for younger people and $250 for older ones. This comes nowhere near covering the cost of a real health insurance policy. However it will pay for a typical junk plan, which will actually increase out-of-pocket costs if the insured really has a health emergency. And as Drum points out, "Since Price offers credits based on age, it means that the well-off all get tax credits. Many of the poor, who can't afford insurance even with the tax credits, will go uninsured and therefore get nothing. In other words, his plan is basically a way of subsidizing the rich and screwing the poor." But it will certainly reduce the cost of healthcare that the federal government is now carrying.
Price has a similar approach to Medicare and it dovetails with Paul Ryan's plan. The idea is to force Medicare recipients into private healthcare plans and then provide subsidies, in this case vouchers, to help defray the cost of that insurance. Under Ryan's proposal and just like in Price's Obamacare plan, the vouchers will probably be woefully insufficient, especially when you consider what private insurance would charge an ailing elderly patient. And Ryan's plan specifically increases the voucher over time at a rate that is LESS than healthcare inflation in an attempt to reduce that rate of inflation. But all it will really mean is that the voucher will buy less and less coverage over time.
Both of these proposals will actually increase out-of-pocket expenses for most Americans. But that is by design. Republicans claim that health consumers having a greater "skin in the game" will reduce the rising cost of healthcare because they will be more particular about what procedures they use. This is, of course, ridiculous because most of us have no ability to decide whether a specific procedure is "worth" it or not. I believe that is why doctors go to medical school. And poorer patients will obviously forgo procedures that they truly need simply to save money or because they can not afford it.
Bending the cost-curve of healthcare may be the Republicans' stated reason for their plans. But the real reason is that these plans will vastly reduce the amount of money that the federal government will have to pay for healthcare. And all those saving can go into massive tax breaks for the rich and business without totally busting the budget.
As I said at the top, the Trump administration has not yet put forward any proposals on either Obamacare or Medicare, so we will have to wait and see what actually is proposed. But it is clear that Republicans in Congress are putting on a full court press to reduce the federal costs of healthcare by passing the costs onto the consumer. And all those federal dollars saved will go back to the rich in massive tax breaks. And, for Trump, the tax breaks are probably the only thing he really cares about. With Price's appointment, Trump seems willing to go along with Congress' plans.
From a personal point of view, I wonder what all those people who voted for Trump with the belief that he shouldn't be taken literally on some of his promises are thinking now. Like the woman in Florida who is on Obamacare now but qualifies for Medicare next year. What will she think when her core Medicare coverage isn't free. Or the thousands in Kentucky coal country who have been insured under Kynect. What will they think when the subsidies don't even cover a quarter of their monthly premium. As a person who currently relies on Obamacare and hopes to be able to move on to Medicare when I qualify, I know that it will be very hard for me to forgive any Trump voter when those benefits are stripped away.
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Wal-Mart Convicted Of Wage Theft, Again
Here is another item that people might have missed over the Thanksgiving holiday and this time it is actually good news for a few hundred workers. A federal jury in California has ruled that Wal-Mart intentionally failed to pay around 800 truck drivers the minimum wage for inspecting and washing the vehicles. In addition, Wal-Mart did not pay the drivers for layovers, claiming they were not working during those hours. The jury awarded the drivers $54 million in damages, which also opens up Wal-Mart to additional penalties. Of course, Wal-Mart will appeal the ruling.
Wage theft, especially from unpaid overtime, costs workers in this country billions of dollars in earnings. That is why the ruling from the Texas judge striking down the Labor Department's new rules on overtime is so devastating. And this is yet another example of corporate criminal behavior which will largely go unpunished. I'm sure Wal-Mart just considers a fine like this the cost of doing business. It won't stop until the thieving executives at these serial-offending companies spend a little time in a real jail.
Wage theft, especially from unpaid overtime, costs workers in this country billions of dollars in earnings. That is why the ruling from the Texas judge striking down the Labor Department's new rules on overtime is so devastating. And this is yet another example of corporate criminal behavior which will largely go unpunished. I'm sure Wal-Mart just considers a fine like this the cost of doing business. It won't stop until the thieving executives at these serial-offending companies spend a little time in a real jail.
Trump Makes More Distressing Appointments As Media Obsesses About Tweets
In an earlier post, I mentioned that Trump's outrageous lies and tweets are often used to deflect media attention away from other, more important stories. So perhaps his tweet about the 3 million illegals who voted for Hillary was meant to deflect from his appointment of Donald McGahn as White House Counsel. McGahn is a rabid libertarian who previously served on the Federal Election Commission where he helped make that agency even more dysfunctional than it already is and loosened enforcement of campaign spending laws. In addition, he helped block the Commission's top lawyer from sharing information with federal prosecutors without the express approval from the Commission, something that was rarely forthcoming. His libertarian leanings probably mean he will not be that diligent in reining in some of Trump's wilder ideas, which is probably why he was chosen. In addition, Trump has also chosen KT McFarland as Deputy National Security Adviser. McFarland's national security experience came during the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan presidencies which should prepare her well for the threats of today. More recently she has been a contributor to Fox News. The biggest joke in the Washington Post story on her appointment is labelling support for McFarland as bipartisan, citing Joe Lieberman as the Democratic enthusiast. The Republican support came from Bud McFarlane who we last saw during the Iran-Contra scandal in the Reagan administration. You really have to laugh at that.
In addition, Trump also added to the area of his transition team that is focusing on the Treasury Department and the Fed. The lineup of four additions that were announced is impressive in a unique Trumpian way. One is a senior fellow a the Discovery Institute, which espouses the theory of "intelligent design". Another is a big believer in dynamic scoring. The third believes the Fed is politically biased and wants to return to the gold standard. The fourth supports trade sanctions against Cuba. Poor Janet Yellen must seriously be rethinking her announced intention to serve out her full term.
Update: This morning, the Trump team announced that Tom Price would be the nominee for HHS Secretary. Price is a big supporter of Paul Ryan's plan to privatize Medicare, suggesting the Senate should ram that change through via reconciliation which would only take 50 votes. He is also a fierce critic of Obamacare. This is probably the worst of all possible choices.
We should also notice that Trump put out another crazy tweet this morning calling for jail time and/or loss of citizenship for those who burn the American flag. This is another classic Trump deflection from the extreme choice of Tom Price. Which issue do you think will consume the media...
In addition, Trump also added to the area of his transition team that is focusing on the Treasury Department and the Fed. The lineup of four additions that were announced is impressive in a unique Trumpian way. One is a senior fellow a the Discovery Institute, which espouses the theory of "intelligent design". Another is a big believer in dynamic scoring. The third believes the Fed is politically biased and wants to return to the gold standard. The fourth supports trade sanctions against Cuba. Poor Janet Yellen must seriously be rethinking her announced intention to serve out her full term.
Update: This morning, the Trump team announced that Tom Price would be the nominee for HHS Secretary. Price is a big supporter of Paul Ryan's plan to privatize Medicare, suggesting the Senate should ram that change through via reconciliation which would only take 50 votes. He is also a fierce critic of Obamacare. This is probably the worst of all possible choices.
We should also notice that Trump put out another crazy tweet this morning calling for jail time and/or loss of citizenship for those who burn the American flag. This is another classic Trump deflection from the extreme choice of Tom Price. Which issue do you think will consume the media...
Texas Reports Its First Locally Transmitted Zika Case
Texas just reported its first case of locally transmitted Zika virus. Cameron County, which includes the border city of Brownsville, reported the case. This adds to the nearly 240 cases that have been reported in Florida, 170 of which involved pregnant women. The case in Brownsville did involve a woman but she was not pregnant. It is pretty apparent that Zika will soon spread all along the Gulf Coast, endangering the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of pregnant women. And we all should remember that the Republican Congress spent all summer refusing to provide any emergency funds to fight the virus, leaving the states to largely on their own to deal with the problem, until they finally agreed to help in the fall budget deal. Under a Republican Congress and a Trump administration, I would expect that the states will have to continue to deal with the virus without much help from the federal government - unless there is an outbreak near Mar-a-Lago.
Trump's Conflicts Of Interest Will Be Continual But, As President, He Will Violate One Contract
The Trump presidency will be a constant conflict of interest, especially with his myriad of overseas "investments", more properly called licensing deals. But it is especially galling to think that taxpayers will actually be paying Trump in order to protect him. Trump has already announced that Melania and Barron will be staying in New York until the school year ends. Trump has also said that he will be returning to Trump Tower frequently during his term. With that in mind, the Secret Service is looking to rent a couple of floors in Trump Tower in order to protect Trump and his family. The price tag for such a rental could come to $3 million per year. In essence, the Secret Service would be paying Trump in order to provide the protection he needs. As the article says, Trump could be absolutely correct in saying he "could become the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it", as he did all the way back in 2000.
On the other hand, someone in the federal or Washington DC government was on the ball when they leased the Post Office which is now the home to another deluxe Trump hotel. Apparently, the lease was written so that no elected official could benefit from the lease. Specifically the lease says, "No ... elected official of the Government of the United States ... shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom". On January 20th, Donald Trump will be in violation of this lease. It will be interesting to see what unique theory Trump and his lawyers come up with in order to escape this particular clause in the contract.
On the other hand, someone in the federal or Washington DC government was on the ball when they leased the Post Office which is now the home to another deluxe Trump hotel. Apparently, the lease was written so that no elected official could benefit from the lease. Specifically the lease says, "No ... elected official of the Government of the United States ... shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom". On January 20th, Donald Trump will be in violation of this lease. It will be interesting to see what unique theory Trump and his lawyers come up with in order to escape this particular clause in the contract.
Monday, November 28, 2016
Fillon To Face Le Pen In Upcoming French Presidential Election
As expected, Francois Fillon won the runoff election in France to become the candidate of the center-right in the presidential elections next year. Fillon's main opposition in that election will come from Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far right, xenophobic National Front party. Fillon will run a campaign that mirrors the National Front on the issues of immigration and Islam but also promises to cut half a million public sector jobs and cut the budget by over $100 billion. In addition, he wants to get rid of the 35 hour work week, raise the retirement age, and cut taxes on businesses and the rich. He is also, like Trump, an admirer of Putin and promises an alliance with Russia to crush radical Islam. Le Pen, on the other hand, has promised to safeguard France's robust safety net and protect government spending. Nothing in Fillon's economic proposals actually addresses job creation or any kind of investment in the future, both of which France desperately needs. The usual advocates of that kind of economic view would be the Socialists but Francois Hollande has seemingly permanently damaged the brand. It seems inevitable that the Socialists will have to throw him overboard, perhaps for Manuel Valls or even bring back Segolene Royal. But no one believes the Socialists will survive the initial round of voting. Right now, polls show a tight race between Fillon and Le Pen. But with Le Pen able to almost run from the left on the economy while at the same time having no space between herself and Fillon on the policy issues that brought the National Front to prominence, immigration and Islam, it is not difficult to foresee a Le Pen victory. In many ways, she will be running a similar campaign as Trump, espousing xenophobia while promising to protect French workers. It has already been shown to be a winning formula.
Forget Trump's Provocations, Focus On What He Actually Does
Yesterday's news was dominated by Kellyanne Conway's statement that the appointment of Mitt Romney as Secretary of State would be a betrayal of Trump voters. That was followed by Trump's rant against the Jill Stein recount and his outrageous lie that he would have won the popular vote except for those three million illegals who voted for Clinton. This is typical Trump. He is a narcissistic and abusive bully who knows how to play the media like a fiddle. Besides feeding his insatiable ego, Trump's outrageous and inexcusable statements are often used to deflect the media from other issues, something he successfully and continually did during the campaign.
Last week, Beppe Severgnini, an Italian journalist, was on the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC discussing the similarities between Donald Trump and Silvio Berlusconi. One important point that he made was that the behavior is sometimes so inappropriate that our own modesty, for lack of a better word, forces us to downplay the abusive behavior and his perfect example of that was the difficulty the media had with Trump's "pussy" comment. It is important that we not allow that to happen. An equally important point he made was that the opposition in Italy continually overreacted to what Berlusconi said or his inexcusable, inappropriate behavior. And because of that, not only did people somewhat sympathize with Berlusconi but, because of their obsession with Berlusconi, the opposition never put together a proper policy alternative with which to confront him. His advice was to not to focus on what Trump says, although it will be important to point out his continual lies, but rather keep your eye on exactly what he does.
The media will of course be the most obsessive about Trump's provocations. And, like yesterday, it will be key for all of us to force them to provide the proper context. Initial media reports were virtually stenographic saying that "Trump claims millions voted illegally". After outrage from the blogosphere, today's headlines at least state that Trump's claims were false or baseless, although they somehow could not bring themselves to use the appropriate word, "lie". More likely, all this weekend was diversion from the Stein recount or some overseas deal that Trump made that has only showed up in the overseas press somewhere.
But, as Severignini said, it is important for Democrats not to get caught up in every Trump provocation and focus on what Trump actually does. The appointments of Bannon, Sessions, and Flynn are far more important than ranting about Conway's diss of Mitt Romney. The fact that Betsy Devos is Secretary of Education, a woman whose polices have failed students in Detroit, Louisiana, and Ohio, is far more important than Trump's lies about the popular vote.
Bernie Sanders tried to do this on a related subject on CNN's "State of the Union" yesterday when he finally had enough of Dana Bash continually pressing him on the Stein recount. Having already stated that Stein was entirely within her rights to demand the recount, Bernie eventually exclaimed, "Dana, this is exactly the issue. Nobody cares!" And he's right. What we should care about is what Trump does and will do. There have been plenty of rules about how to deal with life under Trump, but doing our best to not overreact to what he says and focus on the terrible things he does and will do is far more important.
Last week, Beppe Severgnini, an Italian journalist, was on the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC discussing the similarities between Donald Trump and Silvio Berlusconi. One important point that he made was that the behavior is sometimes so inappropriate that our own modesty, for lack of a better word, forces us to downplay the abusive behavior and his perfect example of that was the difficulty the media had with Trump's "pussy" comment. It is important that we not allow that to happen. An equally important point he made was that the opposition in Italy continually overreacted to what Berlusconi said or his inexcusable, inappropriate behavior. And because of that, not only did people somewhat sympathize with Berlusconi but, because of their obsession with Berlusconi, the opposition never put together a proper policy alternative with which to confront him. His advice was to not to focus on what Trump says, although it will be important to point out his continual lies, but rather keep your eye on exactly what he does.
The media will of course be the most obsessive about Trump's provocations. And, like yesterday, it will be key for all of us to force them to provide the proper context. Initial media reports were virtually stenographic saying that "Trump claims millions voted illegally". After outrage from the blogosphere, today's headlines at least state that Trump's claims were false or baseless, although they somehow could not bring themselves to use the appropriate word, "lie". More likely, all this weekend was diversion from the Stein recount or some overseas deal that Trump made that has only showed up in the overseas press somewhere.
But, as Severignini said, it is important for Democrats not to get caught up in every Trump provocation and focus on what Trump actually does. The appointments of Bannon, Sessions, and Flynn are far more important than ranting about Conway's diss of Mitt Romney. The fact that Betsy Devos is Secretary of Education, a woman whose polices have failed students in Detroit, Louisiana, and Ohio, is far more important than Trump's lies about the popular vote.
Bernie Sanders tried to do this on a related subject on CNN's "State of the Union" yesterday when he finally had enough of Dana Bash continually pressing him on the Stein recount. Having already stated that Stein was entirely within her rights to demand the recount, Bernie eventually exclaimed, "Dana, this is exactly the issue. Nobody cares!" And he's right. What we should care about is what Trump does and will do. There have been plenty of rules about how to deal with life under Trump, but doing our best to not overreact to what he says and focus on the terrible things he does and will do is far more important.
It Will Be A Small Scandal That Will Be Trump's Undoing
The daily outrages from Donald Trump make it so easy for so many things to slide under the radar. And with the holiday week last week, I just want to highlight a few things that might have been missed as people prepared and enjoyed their Thanksgiving holiday.
Megyn Kelly, in her just-released book, accused the Trump campaign of trying to bribe her with offers a free stays at his hotels including free trips to his Mar-a-Lago complex in Florida. More importantly, Kelly alleges that Trump tried to bribe other reporters as well in order to influence coverage. She claims that some reporters were "clearly in the tank" for Trump and that certain TV hosts actually coordinated mild criticisms of Trump with Trump himself so they could protect themselves from claims of bias. Kelly did not name names but it seems to have been a pretty open secret in the media world about just who these people might have been, But I have yet to see any media organization launch an internal investigation to discover if any of their employees might have been involved. Perhaps it was not a coincidence that "With All Due Respect", hosted by Mark Halperin who even Joe Scarborough claimed was clearly pro-Trump, got canceled in the wake of the election. And it's not like Scarborough himself did not endlessly promote Trump especially in the primaries. Now, I doubt we are going to see any serious self-analysis by the media but this is surely an area where intrepid reporters from outside the mainstream media might find worth looking at.
Next, the Trump Foundation admitted in its latest IRS filings to self-dealing. The admission covers 2015 and the filing indicates that the self-dealing occurred in prior years as well. The Foundation admitted to transferring "income or assets to a disqualified person". In this instance, a disqualified person would either mean Trump himself or a member of his family. The filing provided no details on what was involved in the admitted self-dealing, although it probably related to the extensive investigation and revelations of Washington Post reporter David Farenthold. According to the Washington Post, "[s]uch violations can carry penalties including excise taxes, and the charity leaders can be required to repay money that the charity spent on their behalf." It will be interesting to see how this admission effects NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's ongoing investigation of the Trump Foundation, especially as Trump himself signed off on the now admittedly false IRS filings in prior years.
Finally, we should not forget some of the campaign finance scandals that also surround the Trump campaign. The Democratic Coalition Against Trump filed a complaint with the FBI accusing the Super Pac Make America Number 1 of illegally coordinating with the Trump campaign by paying Steve Bannon's salary when he was working as Trump's campaign CEO. This followed on an earlier complaint by the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) to the FEC accusing the same PAC of illegally coordinating with the Trump campaign by making payments to both Bannon and Kellyanne Conway while they were members of Trump's team. Kellyanne Conway was formerly the president of that same Make America Number 1 Super PAC before she joined the Trump campaign. The CLC also accused the PAC Rebuilding America Now of illegally coordinating with the Trump campaign by hiring two Trump campaign staffers within the 120 day limit prescribed by law. A PAC hiring campaign staff within 120 days is considered to be illegally coordinating with a campaign. It should also be noted that CLC also filed a similar claim of coordination against Correct The Record, a Super PAC that supported Clinton. In that case, the PAC does not necessarily dispute the facts that the CLC presents but says what they are doing is legal based on a prior FEC ruling. It is also another indication of the failure of the media in this election that a Google search of "campaign legal center accuses PAC of illegal coordination with campaign" returns with articles only associated with the complaint against Clinton and not the one about Trump, despite both complaints being filed on the same day.
Lastly, an undercover investigation by the British newspaper the Telegraph showed the co-chairman of the Great America PAC discussing with a reporter who was posing as a representative of a Chinese national about how he could donate $2 million to the Trump campaign. The PAC was supported by Rudy Giuliani and Trump's son Eric. Political donations by foreign nationals are clearly illegal. The co-chairman discussed the ability to use a 501(c)4 in order to disguise the donation while assuring the "donor" that he would make sure he would "credit" for the donation from Trump. In essence, the donor would give to a 501(c)4 which would then pass the donation on the PAC. Read the whole story as it even more sordid and intricate than the basics I have covered here. It should also be noted that the Telegraph approached PACs backing Clinton and were consistently rebuffed.
None of the above scandals are earth shattering. But that will be the pattern throughout the Trump administration. It will be a continual barrage of small scandals and corruption. But it is important that, like Trump himself, the situation does not become normalized. I don't expect the mainstream media to investigate itself to find out which of their reporters are in the tank for Trump. Nor do I expect the FBI or FEC to follow up on these complaints. What I do expect is that independent media should and will pursue these investigations vigorously. It is no coincidence that it was a UK paper that uncovered the willingness of the Trump-supporting PAC to essentially accept foreign money. In addition, Democrats will need to press those agencies responsible for these investigations to actually do their job. That may take inordinate courage from certain individuals within those agencies but we have seen that strength of character many times in the past. And it will be necessary because it will probably not be a big scandal that brings Trump down. A usual, it will be a relatively small issue that suddenly gets blown out of all proportion. In a Trump administration, there will be plenty of opportunities for that to happen.
Lastly, an undercover investigation by the British newspaper the Telegraph showed the co-chairman of the Great America PAC discussing with a reporter who was posing as a representative of a Chinese national about how he could donate $2 million to the Trump campaign. The PAC was supported by Rudy Giuliani and Trump's son Eric. Political donations by foreign nationals are clearly illegal. The co-chairman discussed the ability to use a 501(c)4 in order to disguise the donation while assuring the "donor" that he would make sure he would "credit" for the donation from Trump. In essence, the donor would give to a 501(c)4 which would then pass the donation on the PAC. Read the whole story as it even more sordid and intricate than the basics I have covered here. It should also be noted that the Telegraph approached PACs backing Clinton and were consistently rebuffed.
None of the above scandals are earth shattering. But that will be the pattern throughout the Trump administration. It will be a continual barrage of small scandals and corruption. But it is important that, like Trump himself, the situation does not become normalized. I don't expect the mainstream media to investigate itself to find out which of their reporters are in the tank for Trump. Nor do I expect the FBI or FEC to follow up on these complaints. What I do expect is that independent media should and will pursue these investigations vigorously. It is no coincidence that it was a UK paper that uncovered the willingness of the Trump-supporting PAC to essentially accept foreign money. In addition, Democrats will need to press those agencies responsible for these investigations to actually do their job. That may take inordinate courage from certain individuals within those agencies but we have seen that strength of character many times in the past. And it will be necessary because it will probably not be a big scandal that brings Trump down. A usual, it will be a relatively small issue that suddenly gets blown out of all proportion. In a Trump administration, there will be plenty of opportunities for that to happen.
Sunday, November 27, 2016
More Corporate Crime, This Time In The Time Share Industry
The NY Times has an article today outlining the four year fight of a whistleblower against Wyndham Vacation Ownership, finally resulting in a $20 million award against the company. Needless to say, the company immediately announced its intention to appeal. Patricia Williams was a seasoned worker in the time-share industry, having worked in it for over a decade. In 2010, she was fired when she complained about unethical sales tactics at a time-share in San Francisco. Sales tactics at the property included opening unauthorized credit card accounts without buyers' knowledge and flat-out lying to prospective buyers that Wyndham would buy the property back if, at some point, the buyers needed or wished to sell. Another sales representatives testified that the sales goals assigned by the company were virtually impossible to meet and pressured sales agents engaged in "TAFT days" which stood for "tell them any frigging thing". When customers complained, the sales rep would dispute those claims and the case would get filed as unsubstantiated. A senior sales executive testified that he saw tens of thousands of customer complaints in his time at the firm, so it was pretty clear that senior executives had to know what was going on or were willfully blind to it. It sounds remarkably like what was also occurring at Wells Fargo at the same time.
Williams, of course, was fired for reporting these abuses through the process that most companies have to encourage whistleblowers to report abuses. But, like most of those processes, there is no promise of anonymity, despite what employees might be told. Williams was let go for essentially not being a team player. Williams then sued the company and even offered to settle if the company changes its sales policies, recording all sales encounters and providing a simplified form that described the contracts buyers were agreeing to sign. The company refused. As the case went on, Williams was essentially blackballed from the industry and found work difficult to come by. Finally, six years after being terminated and four years after she brought her suit, Williams won the $20 million judgement for lost earnings and damages. My expectation is that the amount will be substantially reduced on appeal.
It shouldn't take six years out of a person's life to stop such egregious and unethical behavior by a company. More importantly, is their any regulation of this kind of company and, if so, where are the regulators. I don't believe that the CFPB has jurisdiction on this, but it will hardly matter as Trump and the Republicans gut that agency and reduce regulation across the board. I'm pretty sure that Wyndham looks at this lawsuit as merely the cost of doing business. In fact, during the case, they settled with other employees who had initially joined Williams in the suit. As I've said time and time again, the only way this kind of illegal and unethical activity will stop is when senior executives actually end up in jail for the criminality they oversee. It is well past time that happened.
Williams, of course, was fired for reporting these abuses through the process that most companies have to encourage whistleblowers to report abuses. But, like most of those processes, there is no promise of anonymity, despite what employees might be told. Williams was let go for essentially not being a team player. Williams then sued the company and even offered to settle if the company changes its sales policies, recording all sales encounters and providing a simplified form that described the contracts buyers were agreeing to sign. The company refused. As the case went on, Williams was essentially blackballed from the industry and found work difficult to come by. Finally, six years after being terminated and four years after she brought her suit, Williams won the $20 million judgement for lost earnings and damages. My expectation is that the amount will be substantially reduced on appeal.
It shouldn't take six years out of a person's life to stop such egregious and unethical behavior by a company. More importantly, is their any regulation of this kind of company and, if so, where are the regulators. I don't believe that the CFPB has jurisdiction on this, but it will hardly matter as Trump and the Republicans gut that agency and reduce regulation across the board. I'm pretty sure that Wyndham looks at this lawsuit as merely the cost of doing business. In fact, during the case, they settled with other employees who had initially joined Williams in the suit. As I've said time and time again, the only way this kind of illegal and unethical activity will stop is when senior executives actually end up in jail for the criminality they oversee. It is well past time that happened.
College Football Roundup - Is The Big 10 Vastly Overrated Again
The big game of the week was, of course, the traditional Ohio State-Michigan showdown which actually meant something this year as the teams were ranked #2 and #3 respectively. Ohio State pulled that game out 30-27 in double overtime. Maybe these teams have two of the best defenses, or at least defensive lines, in the country, but it was hard not to notice how poor their offenses really are. J.T. Barrett looked like a deer in the headlights virtually every time he had to go back to pass. Wilton Speight had three brutal turnovers as the Michigan quarterback which essentially cost the Wolverines the game. Of course, when Speight wasn't throwing interceptions or fumbling, he was making the Ohio State defensive backfield look more like a Big 12 team as receivers were wide open for much of the game. Ohio State has scored just 17 points in regulation in its last two games. Michigan, admittedly playing without Speight, has scored just 13, 20, and 17 regulation points in its last three. Hardly the kind of offensive output that will win the national championship.
For some reason, many people think Ohio State has had a tough schedule but it looks like their biggest wins were against Michigan and Oklahoma, hardly a win to brag about. On the other hand, Michigan has significant wins over Colorado, Wisconsin, and Penn State. So three of the five biggest wins for Ohio State and Michigan are actually other Big 10 teams. And the other two are against teams for the two conferences deemed the weakest, the Pac12 and the Big 12. If you don't think the Big 10 might be overrated, that should be a little disconcerting. Of course, neither Ohio State nor Michigan will even be in the Big 10 championship game. That game will be between Wisconsin and Penn State. A quick review of their schedules shows Penn State with its only significant win being over Ohio State while the best Wisconsin show is just two close losses to Ohio State and Michigan.
In last week's rankings, the bowl committee had Ohio State at #2, Michigan at #3, Wisconsin at #6, and Penn State at #7. Clemson was #4 and Washington came in at #5. Assuming that Clemson and Washington win their games next week, it is hard to see how Michigan can get into the playoff. And it is also hard to see how Wisconsin and/or Penn State can move up in front of Washington and get into the playoff, despite the weakness in the PAC 12 and Washington's weak schedule. And Ohio State will be in, despite not even playing in their conference's championship game.
That should really tick off the Big 12 who saw their teams kept out of the playoffs in prior years simply because the conference did not have a championship game and the committee implied that it preferred conference champions. And like the PAC 12, the committee has dissed the Big 12 all year long. But with the Big 12, that lack of respect is entirely deserved as the conference apparently does not believe in defense. Like a bad penny, Oklahoma has reappeared by winning nine straight after two early losses and Oklahoma State is ranked all the way back at #10 with two losses as well. However, one of those losses was early in the season to Central Michigan when the referees misapplied the rules and give Central Michigan an extra play to throw a successful Hail Mary and win the game.
We haven't even mentioned Alabama who continues to just roll along at #1. The continue to just dominate their opponents and show no sign of weakness. They face a less than formidable Florida in the SEC championship game.
Finally, let's talk about a couple of coaches. First, poor Charlie Strong was fired at Texas so that Houston's Tom Herman could take over. Strong took over for Mack Brown, a god in Texas for bringing home a national championship. But Mack left the cupboard absolutely bare for Strong when he came in This was Strong's third season and his last two recruiting classes were top-notch. Most colleges give the coach at least four years to build the program, but not in this case. From the very start, there were rumors that some of the big boosters were not happy with the choice of Strong and had been itching to get rid of him. It being Texas, you have to wonder if the color of Strong's skin added to some of that impatience.
And then there is Brian Kelly at Notre Dame. Earlier this week, the NCAA notified Notre Dame that is would have to forfeit its wins in 2012 and 2013 due to improper academic benefits given to eight football players. The school has vowed to appeal that ruling, calling it unprecedented for what was essentially a self-report. Brain Kelly responded to the ruling by saying, "If doing the right thing means you've got to put an asterisk next to these games, that's fine by me. We still beat Oklahoma. We still beat Wake Forest. We still beat all those teams, so you can put an asterisk next to it. If that makes you feel better, then that's fine with me." That just doesn't seem like the right attitude for a program that has always prided itself on at least the appearance of being squeaky clean. In addition, the Irish were supposed to be real contenders this year but a porous defense and critical offensive turnovers have led to a poor 4-8 record. It also doesn't help that Kelly actually called out players individually for certain losses this season, which is hardly a way to bring a team together. It seems that Kelly has the support of the university right now but you have to think he will be skating on very thin ice if things don't improve significantly next year.
For some reason, many people think Ohio State has had a tough schedule but it looks like their biggest wins were against Michigan and Oklahoma, hardly a win to brag about. On the other hand, Michigan has significant wins over Colorado, Wisconsin, and Penn State. So three of the five biggest wins for Ohio State and Michigan are actually other Big 10 teams. And the other two are against teams for the two conferences deemed the weakest, the Pac12 and the Big 12. If you don't think the Big 10 might be overrated, that should be a little disconcerting. Of course, neither Ohio State nor Michigan will even be in the Big 10 championship game. That game will be between Wisconsin and Penn State. A quick review of their schedules shows Penn State with its only significant win being over Ohio State while the best Wisconsin show is just two close losses to Ohio State and Michigan.
In last week's rankings, the bowl committee had Ohio State at #2, Michigan at #3, Wisconsin at #6, and Penn State at #7. Clemson was #4 and Washington came in at #5. Assuming that Clemson and Washington win their games next week, it is hard to see how Michigan can get into the playoff. And it is also hard to see how Wisconsin and/or Penn State can move up in front of Washington and get into the playoff, despite the weakness in the PAC 12 and Washington's weak schedule. And Ohio State will be in, despite not even playing in their conference's championship game.
That should really tick off the Big 12 who saw their teams kept out of the playoffs in prior years simply because the conference did not have a championship game and the committee implied that it preferred conference champions. And like the PAC 12, the committee has dissed the Big 12 all year long. But with the Big 12, that lack of respect is entirely deserved as the conference apparently does not believe in defense. Like a bad penny, Oklahoma has reappeared by winning nine straight after two early losses and Oklahoma State is ranked all the way back at #10 with two losses as well. However, one of those losses was early in the season to Central Michigan when the referees misapplied the rules and give Central Michigan an extra play to throw a successful Hail Mary and win the game.
We haven't even mentioned Alabama who continues to just roll along at #1. The continue to just dominate their opponents and show no sign of weakness. They face a less than formidable Florida in the SEC championship game.
Finally, let's talk about a couple of coaches. First, poor Charlie Strong was fired at Texas so that Houston's Tom Herman could take over. Strong took over for Mack Brown, a god in Texas for bringing home a national championship. But Mack left the cupboard absolutely bare for Strong when he came in This was Strong's third season and his last two recruiting classes were top-notch. Most colleges give the coach at least four years to build the program, but not in this case. From the very start, there were rumors that some of the big boosters were not happy with the choice of Strong and had been itching to get rid of him. It being Texas, you have to wonder if the color of Strong's skin added to some of that impatience.
And then there is Brian Kelly at Notre Dame. Earlier this week, the NCAA notified Notre Dame that is would have to forfeit its wins in 2012 and 2013 due to improper academic benefits given to eight football players. The school has vowed to appeal that ruling, calling it unprecedented for what was essentially a self-report. Brain Kelly responded to the ruling by saying, "If doing the right thing means you've got to put an asterisk next to these games, that's fine by me. We still beat Oklahoma. We still beat Wake Forest. We still beat all those teams, so you can put an asterisk next to it. If that makes you feel better, then that's fine with me." That just doesn't seem like the right attitude for a program that has always prided itself on at least the appearance of being squeaky clean. In addition, the Irish were supposed to be real contenders this year but a porous defense and critical offensive turnovers have led to a poor 4-8 record. It also doesn't help that Kelly actually called out players individually for certain losses this season, which is hardly a way to bring a team together. It seems that Kelly has the support of the university right now but you have to think he will be skating on very thin ice if things don't improve significantly next year.
Saturday, November 26, 2016
Would Focus On Working Class Issues Really Have Made A Difference
The NY Times has an article today about Trump voters in Florida who count on Obamacare for their health insurance and now hope that it won't be taken away. One woman who is currently on Obamacare and who voted for Trump did not believe he would take it away, saying, "Trump is going to keep it for a while, at least the part where if you have a disease you can still get coverage." She seems to think that would work for herself, despite probably hefty rate hikes and elimination of her subsidies under a Trump plan, as she will be eligible for Medicare next year. But she probably didn't contemplate that she could well be paying a lot more out-of-pocket for Medicare if Paul Ryan's proposals goes through. Florida Governor Rick Scott and the Republicans in the legislature have blocked Medicaid expansion in the state and they will be just as stingy with Medicare dollars. Another Floridian who is on Obamacare but is having problems with the out of pocket costs and high deductible said, " I think it was rammed down our throats. I’m taking advantage of it because I’d be silly not to. But it needs to be changed." He actually supports repeal of the law despite his own admission that it would be silly to live without it. Another voter who does not receive any subsidies at all felt that the law was unfair because so many did receives subsidies while he did not. He said, "Maybe Mr. Trump can make it better by making it more equal."
It is hard not to hear what these people are saying and not focus on the fact that Hillary Clinton addressed every single one of their concerns with her plans for Obamacare. Donald Trump promised only "repeal and replace" without really defining what that replacement would be, a problem Republicans have had since the law was enacted. Virtually all of those mentioned above were purely relying on what they hoped Trump would do, which was totally contradicted by what Trump actually said he would do during the campaign. Now, admittedly, this is purely anecdotal evidence, but, along with other similar reports on different subjects, it seems to be a constant refrain from the Trump voter. They did not take his statements at all literally and never really believed that he would do all the things he said he would do. And I think you can also say that about the Republican party. A large segment of Republican voters do not really think that the GOP will actually privatize Medicare and/or Social Security despite repeated statements from party leaders that that is exactly what they would like to do. When seen in this light, it adds to the belief that these voters acted purely out of tribalism and it is highly doubtful that a laser-like focus on proposals to help the working class would have really made any difference. For these voters, Clinton had proposals that directly addressed the issues they cared about. They just didn't care to listen and preferred to rely purely on hope.
It is hard not to hear what these people are saying and not focus on the fact that Hillary Clinton addressed every single one of their concerns with her plans for Obamacare. Donald Trump promised only "repeal and replace" without really defining what that replacement would be, a problem Republicans have had since the law was enacted. Virtually all of those mentioned above were purely relying on what they hoped Trump would do, which was totally contradicted by what Trump actually said he would do during the campaign. Now, admittedly, this is purely anecdotal evidence, but, along with other similar reports on different subjects, it seems to be a constant refrain from the Trump voter. They did not take his statements at all literally and never really believed that he would do all the things he said he would do. And I think you can also say that about the Republican party. A large segment of Republican voters do not really think that the GOP will actually privatize Medicare and/or Social Security despite repeated statements from party leaders that that is exactly what they would like to do. When seen in this light, it adds to the belief that these voters acted purely out of tribalism and it is highly doubtful that a laser-like focus on proposals to help the working class would have really made any difference. For these voters, Clinton had proposals that directly addressed the issues they cared about. They just didn't care to listen and preferred to rely purely on hope.
Natural Weekends - Progression Of Fall In Four Days - Part 1
Friday, November 25, 2016
Jill Stein Plays Us For Fools Again
Jill Stein managed to pull enough votes from Hillary Clinton and arguably allow Donald Trump to win Michigan and Wisconsin. The final totals are in in Michigan and Trump beat Clinton there by a little under 11,000 votes. Jill Stein won over 51,000 votes in that state. In Wisconsin, Trump's margin of victory was just over 27,000 votes and Stein received nearly 31,000. With a Trump presidency, there is a good chance that the US will withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement, making Stein's presidential run one of the greatest own-goals in environmental and political history. So, having essentially played the 2016 version of Ralph Nader, Stein is now raising money to contest the election results in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. This is based on a study by some cyber experts who pointed out that counties with electronic voting machines showed about a 7% drop off in votes for Clinton compared to counties that used optical scanners and similar methods that actually produce a paper trail. Nate Silver pretty much debunked that analysis but it is certainly Stein's prerogative to challenge the vote totals if she wishes. Realistically, her challenge will accomplish nothing and is a total waste of time and money because, even if the voting machines were hacked, it would be almost impossible to prove it.
Originally, Stein had asked to raise $2.5 million in order to challenge the results in those three states. She managed to raise that money and more in very short order. But, as Josh Marshall points out, once the original threshold had been reached, Stein raised the goal to $4.5 million and then to $7 million. With these donations, Stein is adding to her own voter/donor list and is probably raising far more money than the challenges will actually cost. In fact, it looks like the Stein campaign will keep any residual monies and use them "for election integrity efforts and to promote systemic voting system reform", although that has not yet been confirmed.
Stein has already played many environmentalists and progressives for fools in this campaign and, in doing so, probably set back the US and global environmental movement back for years and perhaps provided millions of creatures on this planet with a death sentence as global warming remains unaddressed. It looks like she is continuing to play us for fools with this ill-fated election challenge that will, once again, probably only benefit Jill Stein.
Originally, Stein had asked to raise $2.5 million in order to challenge the results in those three states. She managed to raise that money and more in very short order. But, as Josh Marshall points out, once the original threshold had been reached, Stein raised the goal to $4.5 million and then to $7 million. With these donations, Stein is adding to her own voter/donor list and is probably raising far more money than the challenges will actually cost. In fact, it looks like the Stein campaign will keep any residual monies and use them "for election integrity efforts and to promote systemic voting system reform", although that has not yet been confirmed.
Stein has already played many environmentalists and progressives for fools in this campaign and, in doing so, probably set back the US and global environmental movement back for years and perhaps provided millions of creatures on this planet with a death sentence as global warming remains unaddressed. It looks like she is continuing to play us for fools with this ill-fated election challenge that will, once again, probably only benefit Jill Stein.
Connecticut's Incentives To Keep Jobs Makes Sense But Won't Really Create Any New Ones
Connecticut has suffered financially in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Fairfield County, the driver of much of Connecticut's revenue, has lost a number of financial industry jobs. In another huge blow, General Electric, a company that has been headquartered in the state since 1974, decided to move out and up to Boston. Although GE claimed that two recent tax hikes drove their decision, the real explanation is that the company, having largely divested its financial services divisions, is transforming from a manufacturing firm to a technology firm and felt it needed a vibrant city environment to attract the talent it will need in the future.
So, Connecticut is under pressure to keep the businesses it already has in the state. This summer, it offered $22 million in loans and grants to Bridgewater Asset Management, one of the largest hedge funds in the world, in return for the firm's agreement to stay in the state and add another 750 jobs. Massachusetts apparently gave GE upwards of $150 million to move 800 jobs to the state while Connecticut is promised 750 probably higher paying jobs from Bridgewater for about one-seventh the amount. Earlier this week, the state offered another financial firm, AQR Capital Management, $35 million in incentives similar to Bridgewater in order to keep the company in Connecticut as well as adding 600 new jobs in the next decade.
You can understand why Connecticut would be so eager to provide these incentives in order to keep these jobs in state and add new jobs. These will, in general, be higher paying jobs that will generate revenue. On the other hand, it does seem counterintuitive to have to offer such incentives to such already-profitable firms. And, at over $27,000 per new job, it seems like a pretty expensive method to add new jobs, no matter whether it proves to be a profitable investment. You have to wonder if those $37 million in loans and grants had been spread out among a larger number of younger, smaller, and slightly less profitable firms whether it would end up providing a bigger bang for the buck. Studies have shown that these types of incentives do not end up really adding any new jobs per se. Rather, they keep existing jobs and jobs that would be created anyway from moving from one state to another as the states essentially engage in a race to the bottom.
So what Connecticut is doing with these loans and grants is perfectly understandable. But from a federal perspective, this really is lunacy. States are wasting precious tax dollars in an effort that apparently does nothing to create new jobs for the country, while at the same time just creating even more profits for companies that are already profitable. A rational federal jobs policy would actually do something to alleviate this situation. I'm afraid we are a long way from seeing that happen.
So, Connecticut is under pressure to keep the businesses it already has in the state. This summer, it offered $22 million in loans and grants to Bridgewater Asset Management, one of the largest hedge funds in the world, in return for the firm's agreement to stay in the state and add another 750 jobs. Massachusetts apparently gave GE upwards of $150 million to move 800 jobs to the state while Connecticut is promised 750 probably higher paying jobs from Bridgewater for about one-seventh the amount. Earlier this week, the state offered another financial firm, AQR Capital Management, $35 million in incentives similar to Bridgewater in order to keep the company in Connecticut as well as adding 600 new jobs in the next decade.
You can understand why Connecticut would be so eager to provide these incentives in order to keep these jobs in state and add new jobs. These will, in general, be higher paying jobs that will generate revenue. On the other hand, it does seem counterintuitive to have to offer such incentives to such already-profitable firms. And, at over $27,000 per new job, it seems like a pretty expensive method to add new jobs, no matter whether it proves to be a profitable investment. You have to wonder if those $37 million in loans and grants had been spread out among a larger number of younger, smaller, and slightly less profitable firms whether it would end up providing a bigger bang for the buck. Studies have shown that these types of incentives do not end up really adding any new jobs per se. Rather, they keep existing jobs and jobs that would be created anyway from moving from one state to another as the states essentially engage in a race to the bottom.
So what Connecticut is doing with these loans and grants is perfectly understandable. But from a federal perspective, this really is lunacy. States are wasting precious tax dollars in an effort that apparently does nothing to create new jobs for the country, while at the same time just creating even more profits for companies that are already profitable. A rational federal jobs policy would actually do something to alleviate this situation. I'm afraid we are a long way from seeing that happen.
End Of Austerity And The Adoption Of Liberal Economic Policies
Britain's Conservative government of Theresa May has apparently adopted the economic platform of the Democratic party in the United States in what amounts to the end of the failed austerity policies of David Cameron and George Osborne. Philip Hammond, May's Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced the government's new spending plans on Wednesday and the important features included a rise in the minimum wage and welfare payments, providing additional aid for child care, and a significant investment in infrastructure and new housing. At the same time, Hammond also officially abandoned the prior government's oft-adjusted pledge to balance the budget by 2020, simply saying that it would happen as soon as practical. Hammond admitted that the national debt would actually rise to over 90% of GDP in the next year. Despite these immediate stimulus measures, Hammond stated, "real earnings growth will consequently fall close to zero next year", primarily because the falling pound due to Brexit will actually add 2% to consumer prices over the next two years.
Hammond's proposals could have virtually been lifted word-for-word from Hillary Clinton's campaign site, despite now being proposed by a Conservative government. As opposed to Osborne, Hammond seems to understand the need for traditional Keynesian stimulus in the face of a contracting economy. But, as he even he admits, this will allow those who are "just about managing", as the government calls them, to simply tread water in the next year.
In the US election, Trump managed to co-opt some traditional Democratic positions, specifically protecting American workers from the effects of globalization and investment in infrastructure. In many ways, May and her government are now effectively co-opting some traditional positions taken by Labor. That this has happened speaks to how weak both Labour and Democrats have been at protecting what should be part of their core constituencies. Part of this is simply that structural issues in the global economy have helped decimate manufacturing in both the US and the UK. But both Labour and the Democrats were far too lax about the devastating effects of globalization and became too enamored and enmeshed with the financial industry. In particular, Labour and Miliband's decision to essentially run their last election campaign as Conservative-lite created the opening that May is now exploiting. In the US, Trump and the Republicans are only too willing to take credit for the improvements in the economy that Democrats had to fight tooth and nail to achieve. To be clear, there are still vast areas of disagreement between liberals and conservatives in both the US and UK, especially in the area of the privatization of the public, as demonstrated by the Conservatives desire to privatize the NHS and even the BBC and the Republicans' proposal to privatize Medicare. But, in certain areas of economic policy, conservatives seem only too happy to finally adopt some economically sound liberal positions. Too bad neither the Democrats nor Labour will actually get the credit they deserve.
Hammond's proposals could have virtually been lifted word-for-word from Hillary Clinton's campaign site, despite now being proposed by a Conservative government. As opposed to Osborne, Hammond seems to understand the need for traditional Keynesian stimulus in the face of a contracting economy. But, as he even he admits, this will allow those who are "just about managing", as the government calls them, to simply tread water in the next year.
In the US election, Trump managed to co-opt some traditional Democratic positions, specifically protecting American workers from the effects of globalization and investment in infrastructure. In many ways, May and her government are now effectively co-opting some traditional positions taken by Labor. That this has happened speaks to how weak both Labour and Democrats have been at protecting what should be part of their core constituencies. Part of this is simply that structural issues in the global economy have helped decimate manufacturing in both the US and the UK. But both Labour and the Democrats were far too lax about the devastating effects of globalization and became too enamored and enmeshed with the financial industry. In particular, Labour and Miliband's decision to essentially run their last election campaign as Conservative-lite created the opening that May is now exploiting. In the US, Trump and the Republicans are only too willing to take credit for the improvements in the economy that Democrats had to fight tooth and nail to achieve. To be clear, there are still vast areas of disagreement between liberals and conservatives in both the US and UK, especially in the area of the privatization of the public, as demonstrated by the Conservatives desire to privatize the NHS and even the BBC and the Republicans' proposal to privatize Medicare. But, in certain areas of economic policy, conservatives seem only too happy to finally adopt some economically sound liberal positions. Too bad neither the Democrats nor Labour will actually get the credit they deserve.
The Potentially Chilling Effect Of The Professor Watchlist
In a nice follow-up to the white supremacists' victory celebration hosted by alt-right leader Richard Spencer a few days ago, the super-PAC Turning Point USA has begun a "Professor Watchlist" that attempts to catalogue university professors who exhibit "liberal bias". Specifically, the mission of this watchlist is to "expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students, promote anti-American values, and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom." Appropriately, the list is being effectively trolled by liberals with Indiana Jones and Jesus being added. But the fact that it includes names, institutions, and photos is disturbing. At the meeting of white supremacists, Richard Spencer declared, "America was until this past generation a white country designed for ourselves and our posterity. It is our creation, it is our inheritance, and it belongs to us." To follow that rhetoric with something called a "watchlist" just adds to the fear that pervades much of the country at this time. Any censorship of the watchlist would be probably be a violation of free speech, unless, of course, Trump decides to restrict free speech by "opening up" the current libel laws as he had threatened to do in the campaign. But I know the chilling and, yes, deadly effects a prior list like this has had. In the 1990s, the American Coalition of Life Activists began to compile a list of abortion doctors, accusing them of "crimes against humanity", and offered a monetary reward for any information that would lead to an "arrest, conviction, and revocation of license to practice medicine". The group then would cross out the names of those abortion providers who were subsequently wounded or killed. Seven people were subsequently murdered in attacks on abortion doctors and/or clinics in the next few years. The amount of fear and intimidation created by these attacks is impossible to underestimate. I know, because a close relative appeared on one of those lists. Eventually, the list was ruled an incitement to violence by the courts in 2002. This new Professor Watchlist is, for now, not directly inciting violence. But it is just a small step to get there.
Thursday, November 24, 2016
A Thought On Thanksgiving
Happy Thanksgiving! No matter how grim things may look these days, we all have something to be thankful for, some far more so than others. The holiday of Thanksgiving is very much tied up in the ancient tradition of a harvest festival. Here in the US, the current holiday is directly associated with the harvest festival celebrated by the Pilgrims in 1621. While the legend of that particular Thanksgiving is a bit more fiction than fact, it is true that the Pilgrims were warily joined by Native Americans at that first festival. The Pilgrims, representing England, had actually signed a peace treaty with the Wampanoag Nation in the spring of 1621 which basically said that both groups would watch out for each other. Despite the current myth around that first Thanksgiving, it was not nearly the "kumbaya" kind of gathering that has been passed down to us. The Pilgrims and the Native Americans largely lived separate lives with their paths occasionally crossing, as would be expected from peoples with a different language, different customs, and different traditions. But it was mainly the Native Americans who were looking out for the Pilgrims, not vice versa. And at that first Thanksgiving both groups celebrated the bounty that they had received in their own way, with their own customs.
We need to carry that spirit of Thanksgiving forward to today and in the days ahead. In many ways, with the split between urban and rural in this country, we are like the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag. We live largely separate lives, speaking an almost separate language and, in many ways, have different customs. But just like that brief time in 1621, we will need to warily come together and look out for each other. Some of the lucky ones will need to care for others who may be less fortunate while others may have to rely on people they barely know or even trust to care for them. If we can all remember to do that, we will all be better off for it. And if we can do that, perhaps we can avoid the disaster that befell both the Pilgrims and especially the Native Americans subsequently.
We need to carry that spirit of Thanksgiving forward to today and in the days ahead. In many ways, with the split between urban and rural in this country, we are like the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag. We live largely separate lives, speaking an almost separate language and, in many ways, have different customs. But just like that brief time in 1621, we will need to warily come together and look out for each other. Some of the lucky ones will need to care for others who may be less fortunate while others may have to rely on people they barely know or even trust to care for them. If we can all remember to do that, we will all be better off for it. And if we can do that, perhaps we can avoid the disaster that befell both the Pilgrims and especially the Native Americans subsequently.
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Koch Brothers Even Win In Madoff's Ponzi Scheme
How many honest people were bankrupted in Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme. I knew a few of them and they lost everything they had. But not the Koch brothers. A Bankruptcy Court judge has ruled that proceeds from Madoff's Ponzi scheme that are held overseas cannot be "clawed back" in order to pay restitution to Madoff's victims. So far, the trustee appointed to recover money for the victims has obtained nearly $12 billion of the nearly $18 billion in outstanding claims. Apparently, there are now close to $2 billion held overseas by approximately 90 entities that are now out of the trustee's reach. One of those entities is controlled by the Koch brothers. According to the NY Times article, "Koch Industries began investing in the Madoff fund well before its collapse and pulled its $21.5 million out in 2005. The money withdrawn from the Madoff fund went to a fund registered in the British Virgin Islands and then to a Koch entity in Britain." Because of that, the profits the Koch brothers made from Madoff's Ponzi scheme will not be available to Madoff's real victims. Too bad the single mom who lost all her savings to Madoff didn't really have that option to move her profits overseas.
Court Strikes Down Overtime Rule
On December 1, the Labor Department's new overtime rules were supposed to kick in. The new rules moved the salary limit on paying overtime from $23,660 to $47,476, allowing around 4 million more workers to actually get paid for the overtime they work. The last time the salary limit had been raised by the Labor Department was in the mid-1970s and inflation has eaten away at that limit substantially over time. In 1975, 60% of workers were eligible for overtime pay. Today that number is 7%. Even more importantly, the new rule requires that the limit be adjusted for inflation every three years going forward. The salary limit is just one of three elements to determining whether an employee will not be eligible for overtime. The other two are whether they are salaried, as opposed to hourly, employees and the actual duties, such as supervisory, that they perform.
Yesterday, a judge in Texas put a nationwide stay on the implementation of those rules. This is the fourth time in less than two years that a Texas judge has put a nationwide injunction on a change implemented by the Obama administration. In his ruling the judge declared, "The salary level was purposefully set low to 'screen out the obviously nonexempt employees making an analysis of duties in such cases unnecessary.'…But this significant increase to the salary level creates essentially a de facto salary-only test." In other words, the salary limit must be kept low in order to prioritize the analysis of the actual duties the worker performs. This is what allows fast-food places to force "managers" to work 60 or 70 hours a week, with the majority of that time just cooking fries or flipping burgers, and still not get paid overtime. The judge, however, ruled that "high" salary limit in the new rules essentially negates the other two elements of determining who receives overtime. In fact, his opinion suggested that any salary limit may not be legal although he seemingly backed away from that later in his ruling by stating that that opinion only applied in this case, similar to the Bush v. Gore ruling. Perhaps we can call this type of ruling an invocation of the "Democratic precedent", in that it only applies in just the one specific instance to the detriment of Democrats.
The Labor Department, however, had done extensive research in order to come up with the new $47,476 level. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) regularly publishes data on supervisory workers and the Labor Department used that data in order to come up with its new limit, a level that is actually below the median BLS level for supervisory workers. Needless to say, that did not sway the judge.
This ruling, in effect, kills the implementation of the overtime rule, unless, of course, the Trump Administration wants to appeal this judge's ruling further in the courts. Perhaps moving the jurisdiction out of Texas might help just a little. If Trump is intent on helping the working class, here is a way to help four million of those workers. Democrats in Congress should hold his feet to the fire on this one, putting pressure on Trump to keep his campaign promise to American workers. And if, as expected, he does nothing, Democrats need to make sure the public knows exactly where he stood the very first time he had a chance to increase the wages of working Americans. Democrats will have lots of fights in the years ahead in order to defend the progress since the New Deal. Here is a fight where Democrats can actually play a little offense. They need to do so.
Yesterday, a judge in Texas put a nationwide stay on the implementation of those rules. This is the fourth time in less than two years that a Texas judge has put a nationwide injunction on a change implemented by the Obama administration. In his ruling the judge declared, "The salary level was purposefully set low to 'screen out the obviously nonexempt employees making an analysis of duties in such cases unnecessary.'…But this significant increase to the salary level creates essentially a de facto salary-only test." In other words, the salary limit must be kept low in order to prioritize the analysis of the actual duties the worker performs. This is what allows fast-food places to force "managers" to work 60 or 70 hours a week, with the majority of that time just cooking fries or flipping burgers, and still not get paid overtime. The judge, however, ruled that "high" salary limit in the new rules essentially negates the other two elements of determining who receives overtime. In fact, his opinion suggested that any salary limit may not be legal although he seemingly backed away from that later in his ruling by stating that that opinion only applied in this case, similar to the Bush v. Gore ruling. Perhaps we can call this type of ruling an invocation of the "Democratic precedent", in that it only applies in just the one specific instance to the detriment of Democrats.
The Labor Department, however, had done extensive research in order to come up with the new $47,476 level. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) regularly publishes data on supervisory workers and the Labor Department used that data in order to come up with its new limit, a level that is actually below the median BLS level for supervisory workers. Needless to say, that did not sway the judge.
This ruling, in effect, kills the implementation of the overtime rule, unless, of course, the Trump Administration wants to appeal this judge's ruling further in the courts. Perhaps moving the jurisdiction out of Texas might help just a little. If Trump is intent on helping the working class, here is a way to help four million of those workers. Democrats in Congress should hold his feet to the fire on this one, putting pressure on Trump to keep his campaign promise to American workers. And if, as expected, he does nothing, Democrats need to make sure the public knows exactly where he stood the very first time he had a chance to increase the wages of working Americans. Democrats will have lots of fights in the years ahead in order to defend the progress since the New Deal. Here is a fight where Democrats can actually play a little offense. They need to do so.
A Not So Happy Thanksgiving...
As we head into the Thanksgiving holiday and weekend, I'm expecting to see some seriously bad appointments being made by the Trump campaign. Most people will not be paying attention and these appointments will pretty much slide under the radar. We've already seen Betsy DeVos, a school voucher champion, named as Education Secretary today. I would expect to see more appointments like her later this afternoon or over the weekend when press coverage will be minimal.
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
A New JFK Assassination Theory
In my younger days, I always ate up those books on conspiracy theories and I guess I still enjoy them now but perhaps with a healthier dos of skepticism. And, of course, the biggest ones in my day revolved around the JFK assassination and Watergate. So I was interested to see a post from Kevin Drum about a three-year old book from James Reston, Jr. that claims that John Connally was actually Lee Harvey Oswald's target of that fateful afternoon in Dallas 53 years ago today. Reston argues that Oswald had it in for Connally because, as head of the Navy Department, he had denied Oswald's request to have his honorable discharge reinstated. According to Reston's book, "A Secret Service officer named Mike Howard was dispatched to Oswald’s apartment. Howard found a little green address book, and on its 17th page under the heading 'I WILL KILL' Oswald listed four men: an FBI agent named James Hosty; a right-wing general, Edwin Walker; and Vice President Richard Nixon. At the top of the list was the governor of Texas, John Connally. Through Connally’s name, Oswald had drawn a dagger, with blood drops dripping downward." Of course, this doesn't necessarily negate so many of the other Oswald conspiracy theories that say he was a CIA spy sent to Russia but then turned or perhaps not turned but continued to work for the CIA and colluded with the Mafia in JFK's assassination, as well as many others. He could have been furious at Connally specifically because he believed he was still working for the US Government and deserved to have his honorable discharge reinstated. But Reston's theory is one I've not heard before and the fact that another new theory about JFK's death has only recently been formed shows just how searing that tragic day in Dallas still is.
Another Day In Trump World
Here is today's probably incomplete wrapup of Donald Trump's continued destruction of our democracy. The Washington Post reports that filings from the Trump Foundation with the IRS show that it is admitting that it was self-dealing in violation of the law. The admission covers 2015 and some prior years as well. According to the Post, "[s]uch violations can carry penalties including excise taxes, and the charity leaders can be required to repay money that the charity spent on their behalf." I'm guessing that this self-reporting of self-dealing might have something to do with David Farenthold's relentless reporting and NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's ongoing investigation of the Trump Foundation. As the article also points out, Trump had signed prior year's submissions which have now proven to be incorrect and that could present other issues for him. Of course, it might have helped if the media had actually stressed Trump's illegal behavior rather than focusing on the "clouds" hanging over the Clinton Foundation and EMAILS!
Earlier Trump apparently indicated to the NY Times that he did not want to pursue a criminal prosecution against Hillary Clinton saying, "My inclination would be for whatever power I have on the matter is to say let's go forward. This has been looked at for so long, ad nauseum." KellyAnn Conway followed that up on Morning Joe with, "I think when the President-elect, who's also the head of your party, tells you before he's even inaugurated that he doesn't wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message, tone and content." But, as Josh Marshall points out, this is just a total misapplication of how our criminal justice system actually works. It is not up to Trump to decide whether of not to prosecute Hillary Clinton. It is up to the prosecutors who may or may not decide to investigate her. Of course, the media will blow this off (although I'm not sure whether the Trump diehards will) because they always believed that it was an empty threat all along. But they played along with it all the same rather than pointing out how dangerous and unacceptable the rhetoric was.
The NY Times also passed along this gem from Trump in response to a question about his conflicts of interest, "The law's totally on my side, the president can't have a conflict of interest." Trump also implied that he had spoken to Nigel Farage about eliminating the wind farms off the coast of his golf club in the UK. He also recommended that Theresa May appoint Farage as UK Ambassador to the US. There are still open questions about whether Trump discussed permits for his hotel in Buenos Aries with the Argentine President. I've already posted about the solicitation of foreign delegations for his hotel in DC and the talks with his Indian business partners about his hotels there.
And let's not forget his settlement of the Trump University class action suit. So, in just the last few days, Trump has basically admitted to defrauding thousands of fellow Americans, lying to the IRS about his Foundation, and aggressively using his position as President-elect to promote his business interests. It's going to be a long four years if he even makes it that far.
Earlier Trump apparently indicated to the NY Times that he did not want to pursue a criminal prosecution against Hillary Clinton saying, "My inclination would be for whatever power I have on the matter is to say let's go forward. This has been looked at for so long, ad nauseum." KellyAnn Conway followed that up on Morning Joe with, "I think when the President-elect, who's also the head of your party, tells you before he's even inaugurated that he doesn't wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message, tone and content." But, as Josh Marshall points out, this is just a total misapplication of how our criminal justice system actually works. It is not up to Trump to decide whether of not to prosecute Hillary Clinton. It is up to the prosecutors who may or may not decide to investigate her. Of course, the media will blow this off (although I'm not sure whether the Trump diehards will) because they always believed that it was an empty threat all along. But they played along with it all the same rather than pointing out how dangerous and unacceptable the rhetoric was.
The NY Times also passed along this gem from Trump in response to a question about his conflicts of interest, "The law's totally on my side, the president can't have a conflict of interest." Trump also implied that he had spoken to Nigel Farage about eliminating the wind farms off the coast of his golf club in the UK. He also recommended that Theresa May appoint Farage as UK Ambassador to the US. There are still open questions about whether Trump discussed permits for his hotel in Buenos Aries with the Argentine President. I've already posted about the solicitation of foreign delegations for his hotel in DC and the talks with his Indian business partners about his hotels there.
And let's not forget his settlement of the Trump University class action suit. So, in just the last few days, Trump has basically admitted to defrauding thousands of fellow Americans, lying to the IRS about his Foundation, and aggressively using his position as President-elect to promote his business interests. It's going to be a long four years if he even makes it that far.
Race, Democracy, And The Power Of Rural States
Yesterday, the NY Times ran an article entitled, "As American as Apple Pie? The Rural Vote’s Disproportionate Slice of Power". The piece talks about the fact that, as this election has shown, "we still live with political institutions that have baked in a distinctly pro-rural bias, by design". It attributes this rural bias to our founders' firm belief in an agrarian society and our continued romanticism of rural life and the family farm. Of course, the urban population passed the rural all the way back in 1920 and the gap between the two has been growing ever since. And the disproportionate power of rural areas is now quite shocking. I've already posted about the absurd rural bias of the Electoral College where California should have nearly 4 times more votes than it actually has compared to Wyoming. But by far the most undemocratic institution that reflects enormous rural bias is the US Senate. California has 80 times more population than Wyoming but the exact same number of votes in the Senate. Today, it is possible for just 17% of the population to elect a majority in the US Senate. Aggressive gerrymandering not only in Congressional districts but also in state legislative districts have created the situation where a party, usually Democrats these days, can win over 50% of the vote in each of this areas and still end up as a minority. This bias obviously then extends to the kinds of legislation that gets passed and how and where government spending is apportioned.
Incredibly, the article neglects to even discuss two important corollaries to this rural bias. First, it blows the mind that race is not even mentioned in the article. The piece mentions the Connecticut Compromise which created the bias for smaller states in the Senate. But that compromise was not the end of the discussion, especially with regard to the structure of the House. It needed to be and was followed by the Three-Fifths Compromise which determined that slaves would count as three-fifths of a person in order to create Congressional districts. Slave states feared that they would be overwhelmed in the House if slaves did not count for Congressional apportionment despite the fact they were not allowed to vote. This compromise also accounts for the structure of the Electoral College. In fact, the tension over how to deal with slaves factored in virtually everything about the structure of Congress. Similarly, the article implies that the rural bias was expanded by whichever party was in power as a means to maintaining that power. They mention the Homestead Act of 1862 and the division of the Dakota Territory into two states as examples of Republicans attempting to expand their power at the expense of Democrats. The article might have noted that the Homestead Act of 1862 was right smack in the middle of the Civil War and much of the point of the Act was to expand the number of free states. Similarly, the Dakota Territory was split into two states in 1869 because Democrats were forced to that compromise in order to ensure that a probably Democratic Montana would also be given statehood. The existence of South Dakota as a state was problematic, however, because most of the land was held by the Sioux. That resulted in nearly half the Sioux land being taken from them in an underhanded deal by General George Crook. We still see the legacy of that action today with the protests by the Standing Rock Sioux in North Dakota to protect the integrity of their land.
The second amazing thing about this article is the inability to reach any conclusion about what this rural bias will mean for the future of our democracy. And this blind spot seems to be widespread. Even Chris Hayes talked about Hillary Clinton's growing popular vote lead and the fact that Democrats have won the popular vote in six out of the last seven elections but managed to only gain the presidency in four without extending that discussion to a logical conclusion. The concept of one man, one vote is the bedrock of our democracy for most people. But our governmental institutions are not designed that way. How long do we think that Democrats will continue to stand for a result where they get a large majority of votes and end up with minority representation, both at the national and state level. Eventually, there will be a backlash and a refusal to accept such a result any longer. If we believe in a real democracy, then the rules regulating our elections are going to have to change. Right now, Republicans have no reason to make those changes so Democrats must begin to make the case. Without a more fair electoral system, a time may come when our democracy may cease to exist.
Incredibly, the article neglects to even discuss two important corollaries to this rural bias. First, it blows the mind that race is not even mentioned in the article. The piece mentions the Connecticut Compromise which created the bias for smaller states in the Senate. But that compromise was not the end of the discussion, especially with regard to the structure of the House. It needed to be and was followed by the Three-Fifths Compromise which determined that slaves would count as three-fifths of a person in order to create Congressional districts. Slave states feared that they would be overwhelmed in the House if slaves did not count for Congressional apportionment despite the fact they were not allowed to vote. This compromise also accounts for the structure of the Electoral College. In fact, the tension over how to deal with slaves factored in virtually everything about the structure of Congress. Similarly, the article implies that the rural bias was expanded by whichever party was in power as a means to maintaining that power. They mention the Homestead Act of 1862 and the division of the Dakota Territory into two states as examples of Republicans attempting to expand their power at the expense of Democrats. The article might have noted that the Homestead Act of 1862 was right smack in the middle of the Civil War and much of the point of the Act was to expand the number of free states. Similarly, the Dakota Territory was split into two states in 1869 because Democrats were forced to that compromise in order to ensure that a probably Democratic Montana would also be given statehood. The existence of South Dakota as a state was problematic, however, because most of the land was held by the Sioux. That resulted in nearly half the Sioux land being taken from them in an underhanded deal by General George Crook. We still see the legacy of that action today with the protests by the Standing Rock Sioux in North Dakota to protect the integrity of their land.
The second amazing thing about this article is the inability to reach any conclusion about what this rural bias will mean for the future of our democracy. And this blind spot seems to be widespread. Even Chris Hayes talked about Hillary Clinton's growing popular vote lead and the fact that Democrats have won the popular vote in six out of the last seven elections but managed to only gain the presidency in four without extending that discussion to a logical conclusion. The concept of one man, one vote is the bedrock of our democracy for most people. But our governmental institutions are not designed that way. How long do we think that Democrats will continue to stand for a result where they get a large majority of votes and end up with minority representation, both at the national and state level. Eventually, there will be a backlash and a refusal to accept such a result any longer. If we believe in a real democracy, then the rules regulating our elections are going to have to change. Right now, Republicans have no reason to make those changes so Democrats must begin to make the case. Without a more fair electoral system, a time may come when our democracy may cease to exist.
Identity Politics And The Working Class
Maybe I'm just naïve or just missing it entirely, but I just don't get this enormous push for Democrats to choose between identity politics and the working class. Mark Lilla wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times over that weekend that got a lot of attention with its declaration that "the age of identity liberalism must be brought to an end." Lilla's piece starts with a condemnation of Hillary for focusing on identity politics and assumption that this emphasis cost her the election. It proceeds with a few platitudes about the positive effects of affirmative action, the Black Lives Matter movement, and homosexual rights. But it then launches into a tirade about how "the fixation on diversity in our schools and in the press has produced a generation of liberals and progressives narcissistically unaware of conditions outside their self-defined groups, and indifferent to the task of reaching out to Americans in every walk of life." Lilla's prime examples for this fixation is apparently the fact that gender choice is now being made earlier in childhood, that everything kids learn today in high school and college is focused on identity so that they lack the understanding of citizenship and miss the importance of how our founding fathers' granted us the many rights we have, and an anecdotal observation based on what he read in the European media versus the American. He then brings up the old criticism that is heaped on every losing campaign, that it did not have an overarching message that captured "Americans’ imaginations about our shared destiny". He then ends the piece by saying that the "whitelash" theory on the election "absolves liberals of not recognizing how their own obsession with diversity has encouraged white, rural, religious Americans to think of themselves as a disadvantaged group whose identity is being threatened or ignored. Such people are not actually reacting against the reality of our diverse America (they tend, after all, to live in homogeneous areas of the country). But they are reacting against the omnipresent rhetoric of identity, which is what they mean by 'political correctness'."
Then yesterday, the media pushed this meme even further in implying that Bernie Sanders reiterated this thinking when he responded to a Latina's question by saying, "One of the struggles that you’re going to be seeing in the Democratic Party is whether we go beyond identity politics." That sounds like Bernie is on board with Lilla's approach. Of course, what was left out was what he said before he got around to that part of his answer, namely, "It goes without saying that as we fight to end all forms of discrimination, as we fight to bring more and more women into the political process—Latinas, African-Americans, Native Americans—all of that is enormously important, and count me in as somebody who wants to see that happen. But it is not good enough for somebody to say, “Hey, I’m a Latina. Vote for me.” That is not good enough. I have to know whether that Latina is going to stand up with the working class of this country and is going to take on big-money interests." I'm not sure there is any progressive out there who doesn't agree with that.
Then yesterday, the media pushed this meme even further in implying that Bernie Sanders reiterated this thinking when he responded to a Latina's question by saying, "One of the struggles that you’re going to be seeing in the Democratic Party is whether we go beyond identity politics." That sounds like Bernie is on board with Lilla's approach. Of course, what was left out was what he said before he got around to that part of his answer, namely, "It goes without saying that as we fight to end all forms of discrimination, as we fight to bring more and more women into the political process—Latinas, African-Americans, Native Americans—all of that is enormously important, and count me in as somebody who wants to see that happen. But it is not good enough for somebody to say, “Hey, I’m a Latina. Vote for me.” That is not good enough. I have to know whether that Latina is going to stand up with the working class of this country and is going to take on big-money interests." I'm not sure there is any progressive out there who doesn't agree with that.
To my mind, identity politics and concern with the working and middle class is two sides of the same coin. First of all, most of the groups that are subsumed in identity politics are members of the working class, in particular. One side of the coin is focused on the civil rights of all Americans and fighting the continued discrimination at all levels in this country. When women get equal pay for equal work, that helps the working class. When minorities can get equal access to loans and capital, that helps the working class. When the LGBTQ community is accepted into the mainstream of our society, that helps the working class. Perhaps not all of these changes will specifically help the white working class, but certainly most of them will. Lilla seems particularly blind to this reality. On the flip side of the coin is an economic message that is almost blind to identity politics. Obamacare, even with the flaws inflicted by the GOP, helps the working class. Providing free public education through college will help the working class. Raising taxes on the 1% to pay for improved infrastructure will help the working class. Providing high speed broadband across the country will help the working and middle class. Paid family and medical leave helps the working and middle class. Increasing the overtime cutoff to $46,000 helps the working class. I could go on and on. But you get the idea. These were all issues that Hillary ran on and they all would have had a positive impact for the working and middle class. You can argue that her economic message was not strong enough or didn't get through, but that has nothing to do with identity politics. In fact, Hillary's closing argument to the country by saying, "This is about more than winning an election; it's about the kind of country we want for our kids and grandkids." That certainly sounds like the uplifting theme that Lilla was looking for. And then came the Comey letter.
Lilla's piece, in particular, is so frustrating and annoying. I'm not sure what the Democratic party can do about the curriculum in high school and college. Does he propose that part of the party platform is to abandon Women's Studies or African American History departments in universities? I hope not. And Hillary's campaign slogan of "Stronger Together" seems like a repudiation of everything he says about her in the piece. As Lilla himself point out, "the first identity movement in American politics was the Ku Klux Klan, which still exists." For him, this example shows that liberals must give up identity politics. Somehow, I think this proves just the opposite. Ever since the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act in the mid-1960s, the Republican party has been trying to cleave the white working class away from the rest of the working class. They have been playing identity politics for decades. Despite what Lilla may believe, the Trump campaign's open support of white nationalism seems to have had a greatest effect in the areas that were least diverse. Lilla may be correct in interpreting that fact as meaning the people in those areas "think of themselves as a disadvantaged group whose identity is being threatened or ignored." But, again, I reach the opposite conclusion from Lilla who states, "[s]uch people are not actually reacting against the reality of our diverse America (they tend, after all, to live in homogeneous areas of the country)." I rather happen to thing they are.
The structure of American "democracy" gives enormous power to small and rural states and, because of that, it is easy to reach certain conclusions based on a result that is basically undemocratic. The Democratic message will have received more than 2 million more votes that its opponents. But, in order to win elections in the current structure, Democrats will have to become more forceful with the economic message that appeals to all the working class. And there will certainly be opportunity to do that as the GOP is already abandoning many of its promises to the working class in order to cater to their business interest and the 1%. But there is no reason to abandon civil rights and strictly focus on economic populism. The two actually go hand in hand.
Monday, November 21, 2016
France Will Fall To Right Wing Populists And Germany May Not Be Far Behind
Way back in May, even before the vote on Brexit, I posted that this seemed like a year where revolutionary change driven by an almost global sea of discontent would sweep the world. And, with Brexit and the election of the charlatan Donald Trump, it appears that is so. And now it looks like France will be the next country that will fall to xenophobic, right-wing nationalism. Over the weekend in France, the first round for the election of the center-right candidate produced another surprise winner, Francois Fillon. Fillon, who had long been languishing in third place behind the second place finisher Alain Juppe and Nicolas Sarkozy, pulled off a surprisingly strong victory. Fillon finished with 44%, Juppe at 28%, and Sarkozy at 21%. Sarkozy has now been eliminated and Juppe and Fillon will battle in a second round to determine who will represent the center-right in France's Presidential election next year. The disastrous administration of Francois Hollande has thoroughly discredited the Socialists and, as a result, the left will not even be a factor in the upcoming election. That will leave the winner of the runoff to face Marine Le Pen, the leader of the xenophobic, anti-EU, nationalist National Front party for France's President.
Juppe represents more of an establishment candidate, with a centrist, inclusive, and integrationist message. Fillon, on the other hand, wooed the same more right-wing voters as Sarkozy. Fillon promised to expand the number of prisons, create an anti-terrorism judicial unit, and strip French citizenship from those participating in jihad. Considering that France is already working under a state of emergency that is still in place from the attacks in Paris, Fillon is promising an even more aggressive and repressive approach. On the economic front, Fillon promises to eliminate over half a million public sector jobs, eliminate the 35 hour work week, and introduce the ever popular "structural reforms" that will reduce the burdens on business. Internationally, he also is looking to improve relations with Russia and Vladimir Putin.
Sarkozy has already thrown his support behind Fillon whose policies largely resembled his own, making Fillon the prohibitive favorite in the runoff. Assuming Fillon prevails, the choice for France would then be between Fillon and Le Pen. As Le Pen has already pointed out, Fillon's won largely on the themes that have driven the popularity of the National Front - French identity, a crackdown on immigration, law and order, and a reset of France's role in Europe. The election would then seem to come down between a choice between the National Front and Fillon's version of almost a National Front lite. Along with Fillon's distinct lack of charisma, it is hard to see how Marine Le Pen will not become the next President of France.
Meanwhile, in Germany, Angela Merkel has agreed to run for a fourth term as Chancellor in national elections later next year. Merkel, who is now regarded as one of the last bastions of traditional Western liberalism, will have a real challenge to win another term. There will be the usual challenge from the left but Merkel's most powerful opposition will come from the right wing Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) party. AfD has pulled off a number of surprisingly strong results in recent regional and local elections, putting into doubt whether Merkel would even run for re-election. AfD is another populist, anti-immigrant party and it now has seats in 10 of Germany's 16 regional parliaments. Merkel has been Chancellor for the last 11 years and leads the current centrist, coalition government. But that government has no natural successors. As one member of Merkel's CDU party pointed out, the upcoming elections will be very difficult to win but virtually impossible if Merkel was not running. It is clear that AfD will gain even more seats and will become a force in shaping whatever governing coalition emerges from the upcoming elections.
European leaders are finally coming to grips with the fact that the European experiment is in danger of collapsing. Last week, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared, "Europe is in danger of falling apart." But the current European leaders have only themselves to blame for the current situation. Not only do they have to deal with the rising wave of nationalism that is apparently sweeping the world but they have also been unable to confront the problems confronting the structural problems that have long plagued the European Union. The straight-jacket of the Euro and the continued emphasis on self-destructive austerity has just fed into the rise of xenophobia and right-wing nationalism. Just as in the US and Britain, the failure of the economic elites to deal with the fallout of globalization, technological disruption, and the declining standard of living for the have-nots has created the perfect breeding ground for the rise of populist nationalism. It represents the complete failure of the neo-liberal order of the last 25 or 30 years. And we will all suffer terribly for their total failure.
Juppe represents more of an establishment candidate, with a centrist, inclusive, and integrationist message. Fillon, on the other hand, wooed the same more right-wing voters as Sarkozy. Fillon promised to expand the number of prisons, create an anti-terrorism judicial unit, and strip French citizenship from those participating in jihad. Considering that France is already working under a state of emergency that is still in place from the attacks in Paris, Fillon is promising an even more aggressive and repressive approach. On the economic front, Fillon promises to eliminate over half a million public sector jobs, eliminate the 35 hour work week, and introduce the ever popular "structural reforms" that will reduce the burdens on business. Internationally, he also is looking to improve relations with Russia and Vladimir Putin.
Sarkozy has already thrown his support behind Fillon whose policies largely resembled his own, making Fillon the prohibitive favorite in the runoff. Assuming Fillon prevails, the choice for France would then be between Fillon and Le Pen. As Le Pen has already pointed out, Fillon's won largely on the themes that have driven the popularity of the National Front - French identity, a crackdown on immigration, law and order, and a reset of France's role in Europe. The election would then seem to come down between a choice between the National Front and Fillon's version of almost a National Front lite. Along with Fillon's distinct lack of charisma, it is hard to see how Marine Le Pen will not become the next President of France.
Meanwhile, in Germany, Angela Merkel has agreed to run for a fourth term as Chancellor in national elections later next year. Merkel, who is now regarded as one of the last bastions of traditional Western liberalism, will have a real challenge to win another term. There will be the usual challenge from the left but Merkel's most powerful opposition will come from the right wing Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) party. AfD has pulled off a number of surprisingly strong results in recent regional and local elections, putting into doubt whether Merkel would even run for re-election. AfD is another populist, anti-immigrant party and it now has seats in 10 of Germany's 16 regional parliaments. Merkel has been Chancellor for the last 11 years and leads the current centrist, coalition government. But that government has no natural successors. As one member of Merkel's CDU party pointed out, the upcoming elections will be very difficult to win but virtually impossible if Merkel was not running. It is clear that AfD will gain even more seats and will become a force in shaping whatever governing coalition emerges from the upcoming elections.
European leaders are finally coming to grips with the fact that the European experiment is in danger of collapsing. Last week, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared, "Europe is in danger of falling apart." But the current European leaders have only themselves to blame for the current situation. Not only do they have to deal with the rising wave of nationalism that is apparently sweeping the world but they have also been unable to confront the problems confronting the structural problems that have long plagued the European Union. The straight-jacket of the Euro and the continued emphasis on self-destructive austerity has just fed into the rise of xenophobia and right-wing nationalism. Just as in the US and Britain, the failure of the economic elites to deal with the fallout of globalization, technological disruption, and the declining standard of living for the have-nots has created the perfect breeding ground for the rise of populist nationalism. It represents the complete failure of the neo-liberal order of the last 25 or 30 years. And we will all suffer terribly for their total failure.
Democrats Must Learn How To Be A True Opposition Party - And Quick
It really has not been an auspicious start for the Democrats since the election. Somehow, they must learn to become a real opposition party, united against the extremism and corruption presented by a Trump administration and Republican control of Congress. That means that Senate and House Democrats must, with few exceptions, speak as one voice and focus on the negative aspects of a Trump administration and their determination to obstruct those policies in every possible way, even at the expense of minimizing their own positive message. Of course, the press will lambaste Democrats for going negative but that strategy worked quite well for Republicans and it will work quite well for Democrats if, and this is the big if, they can frame these questions in the right way and stay on message.
So far, the indications have not been encouraging. It is certainly understandable that Democrats' initial responses to the election focused on perhaps building unity and finding potential common ground with a President Trump. Even Elizabeth Warren went there, saying, "We’re going to stand up and say there’s a lot we’ll try to work with you on, there are a lot of places where there are going to have to be compromises,” At least she qualified that remark by continuing, "But on those core issues about treating every single human being in this country with dignity, on that we stand up and we fight back. We do not back down. We do not compromise, not today, not tomorrow, not ever." Some Democrats were less equivocal with that kind of qualification. Part of that was just the mistaken belief, for the umpteenth time in this election, that Trump might "pivot" to the center now that he had to actually govern.
I certainly have no love for Frank Luntz but he has taught Republicans how to frame an issue and build a narrative. Phrases like the "death tax" and even "climate change" may be Orwellian but they have been effective. And Republicans have marched in lockstep to his message for years. Democrats have never paid enough attention to framing and they constantly neglect to speak with one voice. Sure, we can always expect a guy like Joe Manchin to go off the reservation. But Schumer, Pelosi, Warren, Sanders, and most of the remaining members of the Democratic caucus need to get and stay on the same message. The default position must be that it is up to Trump to prove he has serious, positive proposals because his campaign and his business life has shown otherwise, that he is a liar and a swindler. And, on every issue, they must stick to that position. That will take discipline that has long been lacking from the Democratic party.
So far, the indications have not been encouraging. It is certainly understandable that Democrats' initial responses to the election focused on perhaps building unity and finding potential common ground with a President Trump. Even Elizabeth Warren went there, saying, "We’re going to stand up and say there’s a lot we’ll try to work with you on, there are a lot of places where there are going to have to be compromises,” At least she qualified that remark by continuing, "But on those core issues about treating every single human being in this country with dignity, on that we stand up and we fight back. We do not back down. We do not compromise, not today, not tomorrow, not ever." Some Democrats were less equivocal with that kind of qualification. Part of that was just the mistaken belief, for the umpteenth time in this election, that Trump might "pivot" to the center now that he had to actually govern.
But if Democrats didn't realize Trump would govern as he campaigned (and history shows that virtually every President has) when he appointed white nationalist Steve Bannon as his senior adviser, they should be in no doubt after the appointments of Flynn, Session, and Pompeo. The response of senior Democrats to these appointment was unnecessarily weak. Charles Schumer, asked about Jeff Sessions, stated, "It's premature to make any decisions but, except to say a very thorough and tough vetting for a Senate colleague, as well as for anybody else." It is hard to say how wrong this answer is. The default position for Schumer and the Democrats should be that Sessions is clearly unqualified for Attorney General based on his past racist comments and views, especially considering the parlous state of racial relations that the Trump campaign has further inflamed, and it will be up to Sessions to show us otherwise in his confirmation hearings. And never mention the words "Senate colleague" about a Republican - it just feeds the narrative of the old boys club. Warren came closest to a proper response when she said, "Instead of embracing the bigotry that fueled his campaign rallies, I urge President-elect Trump to reverse his apparent decision to nominate Senator Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States. If he refuses, then it will fall to the Senate to exercise fundamental moral leadership for our nation and all of its people...Thirty years ago, a different Republican Senate rejected Senator Sessions’ nomination to a federal judgeship. In doing so, that Senate affirmed that there can be no compromise with racism; no negotiation with hate. Today, a new Republican Senate must decide whether self-interest and political cowardice will prevent them from once again doing what is right." The only thing I might have changed in that statement would be to say that Democrats will not compromise with racism and hate and expect Republicans to join them.
A second area where Democrats are also playing a weak game is in this idea of embracing the progressive ideas that Trump was able to essentially "steal" from the Democrats in this campaign. Schumer, now one of the principal voices for Democrats, showed that poor approach in comments today, saying, "Surprisingly, on certain issues, candidate Trump voiced very progressive and populist opinions. For instance, getting rid of the carried interest loophole, changing our trade laws dramatically, a large infrastructure bill...I hope on the promises he's made to blue collar America on trade, on carried interest, on infrastructure, that he'll stick with them and work with us, even if it means breaking with the Republicans who have always opposed these things." He is not the first Democrat to talk about working with Trump on an infrastructure bill. Pelosi, Warren, and Sanders have all mentioned it. But you have to wonder if any of them have actually read Trump's infrastructure plan, which he only introduced days before the election. It is less of a plan to rebuild than it is just another give-away of tax dollars and the public commons to private enterprise. It is in no way an infrastructure plan as most people define it. At its core is the development of public-private partnerships (PPP). These "partnerships" essentially provide tax credits for private companies to invest in mostly already planned infrastructure projects. With that government backing, the private companies would be able to lower their cost of borrowing, a tax credit of 82% of the equity they put in, and will get paid primarily through higher usage and end-user fees such as bridge and highway tolls or higher water rates, etc. It is basically a plan to privatize our public infrastructure. As Jordan Weissmann points out in the above linked article, this will actually encourage even more investment in high wealth areas where private companies believe customers can afford the higher usage fees. And it would do nothing for poorer areas that need infrastructure development more than ever or for those kinds of infrastructure where there is little or no return, such as infrastructure to improve more isolated and less populated areas. It is just another con-job on Americans just like Trump University. Why any Democrat would be for this is beyond me. So it is beyond me why we would already be agreeing to work with Trump on his infrastructure plan. But Democratic leaders are now already on record as supporting a Trump infrastructure plan. And those words will come back to haunt them.
Democrats could be in similar bad situation with Schumer's comments on the carried interest loophole and trade laws. Trump could easily eliminate the carried interest loophole as part of a horrible tax bill that will be a give away to the 1%. And who knows what kind of rewrite Trump can and will make to existing trade deals. But Democrats are now already on record as perhaps being interested in helping Trump accomplish those unknown objectives and now may be partially responsible for any negative outcomes.
The Democratic message since day one should have more in line with the tone that Harry Reid took in the aftermath of the election. He was right on point when he stated, "If this is going to be a time of healing, we must first put the responsibility for healing where it belongs: at the feet of Donald Trump, a sexual predator who lost the popular vote and fueled his campaign with bigotry and hate. Winning the electoral college does not absolve Trump of the grave sins he committed against millions of Americans." The default position for every Democrat should be that he is a racist, xenophobic, sexual predator and swindler whose limited and sometimes vague policy proposals never added up. He has continually lied to the American people. We will not allow Trump to destroy our civil rights, sell our foreign policy to the Russians, break his promises on Medicare and Social Security or give massive tax breaks to the rich. We expect Trump's proposals will not, in fact, help the middle class but will certainly consider any of his proposals that actually do. He does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. He will have to show us he really means to help the middle class and be a President for all Americans.
A second area where Democrats are also playing a weak game is in this idea of embracing the progressive ideas that Trump was able to essentially "steal" from the Democrats in this campaign. Schumer, now one of the principal voices for Democrats, showed that poor approach in comments today, saying, "Surprisingly, on certain issues, candidate Trump voiced very progressive and populist opinions. For instance, getting rid of the carried interest loophole, changing our trade laws dramatically, a large infrastructure bill...I hope on the promises he's made to blue collar America on trade, on carried interest, on infrastructure, that he'll stick with them and work with us, even if it means breaking with the Republicans who have always opposed these things." He is not the first Democrat to talk about working with Trump on an infrastructure bill. Pelosi, Warren, and Sanders have all mentioned it. But you have to wonder if any of them have actually read Trump's infrastructure plan, which he only introduced days before the election. It is less of a plan to rebuild than it is just another give-away of tax dollars and the public commons to private enterprise. It is in no way an infrastructure plan as most people define it. At its core is the development of public-private partnerships (PPP). These "partnerships" essentially provide tax credits for private companies to invest in mostly already planned infrastructure projects. With that government backing, the private companies would be able to lower their cost of borrowing, a tax credit of 82% of the equity they put in, and will get paid primarily through higher usage and end-user fees such as bridge and highway tolls or higher water rates, etc. It is basically a plan to privatize our public infrastructure. As Jordan Weissmann points out in the above linked article, this will actually encourage even more investment in high wealth areas where private companies believe customers can afford the higher usage fees. And it would do nothing for poorer areas that need infrastructure development more than ever or for those kinds of infrastructure where there is little or no return, such as infrastructure to improve more isolated and less populated areas. It is just another con-job on Americans just like Trump University. Why any Democrat would be for this is beyond me. So it is beyond me why we would already be agreeing to work with Trump on his infrastructure plan. But Democratic leaders are now already on record as supporting a Trump infrastructure plan. And those words will come back to haunt them.
Democrats could be in similar bad situation with Schumer's comments on the carried interest loophole and trade laws. Trump could easily eliminate the carried interest loophole as part of a horrible tax bill that will be a give away to the 1%. And who knows what kind of rewrite Trump can and will make to existing trade deals. But Democrats are now already on record as perhaps being interested in helping Trump accomplish those unknown objectives and now may be partially responsible for any negative outcomes.
The Democratic message since day one should have more in line with the tone that Harry Reid took in the aftermath of the election. He was right on point when he stated, "If this is going to be a time of healing, we must first put the responsibility for healing where it belongs: at the feet of Donald Trump, a sexual predator who lost the popular vote and fueled his campaign with bigotry and hate. Winning the electoral college does not absolve Trump of the grave sins he committed against millions of Americans." The default position for every Democrat should be that he is a racist, xenophobic, sexual predator and swindler whose limited and sometimes vague policy proposals never added up. He has continually lied to the American people. We will not allow Trump to destroy our civil rights, sell our foreign policy to the Russians, break his promises on Medicare and Social Security or give massive tax breaks to the rich. We expect Trump's proposals will not, in fact, help the middle class but will certainly consider any of his proposals that actually do. He does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. He will have to show us he really means to help the middle class and be a President for all Americans.
I certainly have no love for Frank Luntz but he has taught Republicans how to frame an issue and build a narrative. Phrases like the "death tax" and even "climate change" may be Orwellian but they have been effective. And Republicans have marched in lockstep to his message for years. Democrats have never paid enough attention to framing and they constantly neglect to speak with one voice. Sure, we can always expect a guy like Joe Manchin to go off the reservation. But Schumer, Pelosi, Warren, Sanders, and most of the remaining members of the Democratic caucus need to get and stay on the same message. The default position must be that it is up to Trump to prove he has serious, positive proposals because his campaign and his business life has shown otherwise, that he is a liar and a swindler. And, on every issue, they must stick to that position. That will take discipline that has long been lacking from the Democratic party.