Archive for the ‘Democratic Party’ category

Governing Part II

November 2, 2017

The Republican Party now holds the reigns of government with control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress. Despite this apparent political control, Republicans have been relatively impotent. Governing Part I offers the thought that the Republican Party is a collection of disparate factions whose inherent policy goals are in conflict externally with a majority of voters’ interests, or conflict internally with other Republican factions’ policy demands, or both.

Implementing the Republican majorities has become surprisingly difficult and fraught with potential unwelcome blow back at the next elections.

Does this imply that Democrats would govern better?

Maybe… but at the very least, the Republican dysfunction speaks to the outsized influence mean spirited conservative big money (“dark money” per Jane Mayer) plays.

Democrat governance would speak to different financial interests. IMO, progressive views, characterized as “center, slightly left”, would be far more pragmatic and directionally sensitive than the current regressive Republican policies.

Contrary to Republicans’s notion that America’s future is destined to look like its past, “Make America Great Again” is on the wrong side of history.

  • Globalization is a fact from which retreat is not possible… and still have America grow in economic terms. Low cost manufacture will chase low cost, high quality labor. High cost manufacturing will reduce Americans’ standard of living. Free and fair trade are a must.
  • Growing income inequality is not a sign of globalization, but rather a greedy, thoughtless, and selfish product of wealthy Americans. Labor regulations and a creative tax code are needed to share the fruits of capitalism more productively.
  • Global warming is real and will drive dislocations in energy supplies. Attempts to favor oil and coal over natural gas or renewable energies denies the science behind global warming, increases the atmospheric carbon, and brings on the destruction associated with rising seas.
  • Digitalization (computers, internet, wifi, artifice intelligence and automation) has changed labor’s definition of “good jobs”, basic skill requirements, and the training and education needed.
  • Population growth rates in developed countries has slowed to below replacement rates and has placed a new value on immigration. Comprehensive US immigration reforms is a far wiser approach than building a wall.
  • Most of the developed world see basic healthcare as a citizen’s right and a necessary government/private sector service. Often over looked is that basic healthcare as a right helps center a person’s thinking around the value of government.
  • Retirement protection is an emerging need. With most companies no longer offering defined benefit retirement plans, and 401k savings plans subject to changes in the tax code, a national retirement pension fund would seem wise. The general notion is that retirement with dignity should be a right for everyone but how to fund such a program must be identified.

So, how does the Democrat Party stack up against these realities of our changing world?

  • Dark Money – Democrats have accepted campaign donations from a wide range of sources, dark money conservative sources excepted.  Reasonable limits and full transparency has been a Democrat position.
  • Globalization – Democrats have reluctantly embraced free trade including NAFTA and the TTP despite the objections from organized labor.
  • Global Warming – Democrats have openly embraced the science behind global warming theory and have endorsed policies which restrict carbon dioxide emissions. Democrats have given only lip service to dislocated labor (like coal miners).
  • Digitalization – Democrats have proposed a wide range of training and education programs but as in many other programs, have not told Americans what it will cost to implement their ideas nor what it will cost the Country if these ideas are not implemented.
  • Immigration and a diverse work force are solid Democrat principles, again if these positions can be sold to the Unions.
  • Basic healthcare – Democrats supported the Affordable Care Act but only a few Democrats strongly spoke out for single payer, universal healthcare for all (like that found in Europe).
  • Retirement Support – Democrats support the government’s role in assuring workers the dignity of a social security-like payment which makes retirement “livable”.

Are you ready to sign up for the Democrat Party?

Remember how Democrats acted after the majority Democrat Party passed the Affordable Care Act.   When election time rolled around, however, many Democrat candidates were silent and tried to change the subject when their Republican opponents criticized Obamacare. Democrats did not campaign on the idea of repealing Obamacare, as did Republican candidates, nor did Democrats vigorously defend Obamacare.

Lukewarm, would you call it?

Great leaders come along every so often. FDR, JFK, LBJ, and to a lesser extent, Bill Clinton were effective in passing important legislation. Barack Obama, when Democrats controlled Congress did get through healthcare reform but not much else (except by Executive Order). Obama will be more remembered for what he urged Congress to do as well thwarting what a mean spirited Republican Congress tried to do.

In this age of sound bites and tweets, will Democrats portray themselves in proactive terms? If Republicans are the Party of small government, low taxes, and individual initiative, what are Democrats?

Party of Opportunity, Security, and Leadership (for all Americans) in the 21st Century might be a place to start.

Hmmm.

Advertisements

Rocket Man Versus Gutter Man

September 20, 2017

President Trump addressed the UN yesterday and disappointed no one. In Trumpian style, President Trump displayed the crudest take on the “ugly American” displaying an unprecedented lack of historical knowledge for a US leader.  The President neither showed he knew how America became a wealthy country nor even a clue of the important symbiotic relationships that have maintained our Country’s living standard since World War II.

For his supporters, President Trump once again “said it like it is”. For his detractors, the President again was the embarrassment many have thought he was.

The red meat crowd (Trump populist supporters) stood up and cheered when the President called the North Korean leader “Rocket Man” and threatened North Korea with total destruction. What are they (the red meaters and the President) thinking? Does the President now endorse other Countries settling for total destruction as the preferred means of settling their differences with their adversaries?

The President also put on display his simpleminded world view. Every country for themselves, or as the President put it, world leaders should act according to their countries best interest. The “Selfish Gene” and the general theory of evolution have long established this as man’s basic motivation. Everyone acts in a way they believe in their personal best interest. But, is that the route to peace?

Does the President think, on a broader view, that the US can continue to prosper if the rest of the world decides not to trade (without heavy tariffs and duties) with the US and for good measure, ignores intellectual property rights of US companies?

A reality of today’s world is that globalization is a fact. If the US or any other country tried go it alone, that country would experience loss of customers and higher costs (due to higher raw material costs and higher labor costs). Whether the country is the US, China, or Russia, without foreign trade, the domestic economy simply can’t keep supporting its current standard of living.

The Trumpian sector may say, “so what, the US can do better than anyone else and eventually the other countries give in to our terms”. Even if this were true, history has painfully shown that those who feel they have been dealt a poor deal will brood until they find a way to get even.

The United Nations is a direct result of a world community tired of turning to war to settle grievances which had marked the world’s history. For the chief executive of arguable the greatest beneficiary of globalization to threaten another country so crudely and to trash a cooperative world community can only reflect a profound misunderstanding of history or a bully more at home in the gutter.

What say Gutter Man?

He Likes Us

September 16, 2017

Chuck Schumer was overhead telling Senate colleagues that President Trump likes Democrats.  Senator Schumer said, “he likes us, or at least he likes me”. Does this sound like junior high school?

If there was a thread of evidence to believe President Trump likes anyone or if he momentarily does, that he will like you in the morning, I would like to see it. From that perspective, Schumer’s judgement is misplaced. If, on the other hand, the President’s encouraging comments towards Schumer reflect his dissatisfaction with Senate Leader Mitch McConnell or House Speaker Paul Ryan, then the President’s words make more sense.

Presumably the Presidents affectionate words flowed from a tit for tat offer Senate Minority Leader Schumer made offering help on passing certain legislation the President wanted in return for a favorable outcome on a DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) bill. For President Trump a deal is a deal and his Schumer agreement represented something Ryan and McConnell have been impotent upon.

DACA immigrants represents some of the best of the best. These are fully assimilated  young Mexican Americans who know far more about the States than about a country they left as a child. Many of these DACA immigrants are in college or in training programs and are working hard to make something of themselves. So why would anyone think that deporting these Mexicans was in America’s best interest?

“They jumped the line”, we hear some say. “They are here illegally” the righteous pronounce. “They are taking American jobs” still others claim. And the really cynical say, “DACA is a route to citizenship, and that’s amnesty”.

One does not need to be an economist or a business person to recognize how misplaced these xenophobic claims are. And that is partly why Schumer’s claims are so surprising.
President Trump was elected with a large assist from xenophobic immigrant haters.

Schumer’s claim strikes fear into this block of Trump supporters. Is Donald Trump just another politician who is now abandoning this loyal group once again?

Senator McConnell is shrewd politician who carries few moral or ethical crosses.  He ia crafty and can be persuasive on key issues. McConnell’s majority, however, is thin (two votes on a good day), and when McConnell needs to get 50 votes for a dubious bill such as Healthcare, he finds it impossible to push water up hill.

House Speaker Ryan is new to his role and possibly lacks the shrewdness and questionable ethics of McConnell.  Ryan does, however, own about a 50 seat plurality over Democrats.  Unfortunately for Ryan, his House majority is an ideologically split group with little hope of finding a common position on most issues.

As a consequence, President Trump has become disheartened with his Republican Congress leadership and may be thinking there might be another way.

Some speculate that President Trump’s real interest is tax reform and the Schumer kind words are a gambit to soften up Schumer.  Senator Schumer is also a shrewd politician and should be able to take care of himself.

Lets hope that the loyal opposition remembers the voters who gave Hillary a majority of the popular vote and in his joy of being “liked”, does not agree to legislation which hurts the country.

Buyer’s Remorse

August 19, 2017

What a week.

If someone voted for Donald Trump, holding their nose or not, that person most likely did so because they detested Hillary.  Well, this past week must have felt like a cold shower. It was Trump in the raw, all 250 or more pounds, pink faced and teeth gritted saying what “President 101” tells one not to say.

For those who did not vote for Trump, it was either another infuriating moment, or a “I told you so” one. For still others, the past week was a two out of three win, Trump unplugged twice, Trump sanitized (using a teleprompter and for these voters disappointing) once.

Here’s a news flash.  There should be no expectation that President Trump, regardless of changes in his cabinet, will emerge differently in the future. At his core, he is a selfish, narcissistic, unethical, and immoral person, a composite of each of us but with a high concentration of these four traits.

Donald Trump is, however, President for all of us, and all Americans need to accept responsibility.

It is not sufficient or acceptable for anyone to say, “I did not vote” for him, he is not my President”. Wrong! Donald Trump is, to be sure, a black sheep of the American family, but never the less, he is one of us and won the election.

It is also worthwhile remembering that his anti-Muslim, anti-Mexican, anti-free trade, and pro-white supremacy rhetoric are simply his flawed personality shining through. His domestic policy views such as anti-global warming, anti-women’s rights, anti-regulatory, anti-healthcare, and pro-tax cuts for the wealthy are paper thin positions which he could alter in a heart beat, a heart beat which was advantageous for him personally.

And let us not forget, these domestic policies are largely held by Congress’ Republican majority.  Remember “repeal and replace”?

On foreign policies, like the US relationship with Russia, China, and NATO countries flow from incompetence. Trump’s ADHD-like focus is well demonstrated with global hotspots like Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, India, and North Korea… where Trump posits no over arching policy or consistency of action.   Whack-a-mole time, anyone?

So crying or lashing out at what an embarrassment President Trump might be, those dissatisfied ought to focus on what can be done. How about

  • Sharing your dissatisfaction with your Congress members, especially if they are Republicans
  • Gear up for the midterm elections and get out the vote – goal to take away control of the House or the Senate, or both from Republicans
  • Come to grips with a “center, slightly left” agenda.  Defer a highly progressive platform until 2024
  • In 2020, get out the vote and pick anyone but Donald Trump.

Complaining about the person our system elected won’t fly. Everyone deserves a portion of the blame. And, the only way to find relief (and consolation) is through the ballot box.

The Wheel Goes ‘Round

August 16, 2017

A useful exercise for any person, 8 months into the Trump Presidency, might be to recall or read recounts of George W Bush’s 8 years. While there is little similarity between “W” and the Trumpster, as individuals, there are all sorts of signals that the Trump Administration is stumbling down a similar, risk infested path. Time will tell if the outcomes repeat those of “W”.

George W Bush was elected in a contested race with a minority of the popular vote and a generous assist from the Supreme Court to garner a small majority in the Electoral College. Despite this modest victory, the Bush team treated his win as a mandate.

The Bush White House asserted the country demanded change and “W” would bring it.
The Bush White House began its term with a positive Federal Budget, but that did not last long. Lock step with his Republican controlled Congress, “W” sought and received Congressional OK for tax reductions (actually 2). The tax reductions were intended to “pay for themselves” but as surely as supply side economics does not work, “W” cuts drove the Budget negative and the Federal Deficit began to grow.

Then world events entered the picture. Terrorists hijacked four airliners and crashed three of them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The fourth aircraft was intentionally crashed just east of Pittsburg when passengers attempted to take back control.

But 9/11 set off a series of inexplicable events fully unforced White House errors.
With most of the world’s countries acting as allies, the US undertook a police action in Afghanistan and in short order, decapitated the Taliban government which had allowed Osama ben Laden and al Qaeda to operate openly. Then without notice or debate, the police action morphed into regime change and nation building. Oh, and by the way, more spending without any budgetary method of paying, hence the deficit grew even faster.

Bush and his Congressional colleagues were also certain there was over regulation from previous administrations and simply too much government. “W’s” approach was department budget cuts and even better, to appoint department leaders who would look the other way on their Departments administrative duties. Hubris took on new meaning.

Unfortunately, nature sent its own message in the form of Hurricane Katrina.

With the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) headed by an inexperienced Michael Brown, the nation got to see a leader more concerned about his appearance than possessing the competence necessary for “managing” a response to a natural devastation.

On a different matter, to this day, there exists no credible explanation for why “W” allowed the US to invade and occupy Iraq. For sure there are attempts to attach the Iraq War to faulty intelligence but strategically there has never been a credible explanation.

The War cost the US the better part of a trillion dollars, resulted in thousands and thousands of severe casualties and deaths, and most glaring, unleashed the Islamic schism, Shiite versus Sunni, on the world. (Talk about opening Pandora’s box). Had President Bush not stacked the Defense and State Department key advisors with “yes men”, one would hope cooler minds could have steered the US clear of this foreign policy and humanitarian disaster.

But “W” saved its most ignominious transgression of commonsense for his unbridled encouragement of free enterprise, particularly in areas of banking and Wall Street. The notion that decisions made by chief executives and boards of directors had both the Country’s and their personal well being in mind turned out to be naive and without merit. Without clear sensible rules, corporations and Wall Street were ships without rudders.

The emerging culprit was a red hot housing mortgage market put on steroids by Wall Street securitization. Incredibly, everyone (administration and Wall Street) believed that said buying and selling “security packages” with contained a “piece” of hundreds of individual mortgages (combined into one security) was guaranteed to minimize, no dare I say, eliminate the risk mortgage failure. With no government set of rules, and no government authority watching the foxes in the hen house, the recession of 2007/8 soon grew to the near depression of 2008/9.

Now fast forward to 2017. The US has another Republican President elected with a minority of the popular vote and who thinks his policies flow from a national mandate. “The American People” spoke and President Trump is here to put those demands into action. Hmmm.

Similarly to 2000 when former President Bush took office, a set of domestic policies which favor the already wealthy and pander to the conservative minorities has emerged from both the White House and Congress.

The President and his Cabinet secretaries have reverse dozens of former President Obama’s domestic policies. From National Parks and Monuments to oil and gas exploration to Wall Street risk reduction regulations to FDA heath and safety controls.

But not satisfied with this list of high risk, low return policies changes, out are also the Trans Pacific Trade Pact, the Paris Global Warming Agreement, and NAFTA. Hmmm.

The inescapable teaching from the Bush years was that “no regulations” was extremely dangerous in the complex global world we live in. Society and corporations need clear rules with bright lines that cannot be crossed. The absence of rules and the reinforcement of the notion that government or the private sector can be trusted leads to the worst kind of outcomes… where the average person suffers while the wealthy thrive.

The answer to this quandary is not necessarily a Democrat Administration. Over regulation comes with its own set of problems. The country, instead, needs pragmatic, fact and science based policies. Polcies which blindly please one set of constituents such as labor unions, environmentalists, or anti-war groups could have as devastating consequences as those favoring Wall Street, Corporations, religious zealots, and xenophobes.

What is needed is a President and a Congress that values measured responses, recognizes social changes, and follows policies which allow American businesses to thrive in a global economy.

Take A Breath, And Think This Time

July 29, 2017

“Pause and reflect” might be good advice for Republican Congress members. But it is possible pause and reflect may still miss the foolishness of yesterday’s vote on Obamacare “skinny” repeal. The vote confirmed, with little room for argument, Congress is not fully under the control of the Republican Party. There is no Republican Party and Americans had better wake up to that fact.

Those who claim membership in the party in power are not of one mind other than wanting to get reelected. In other words, GOP membership is about winning elections and profiting personally from those elections as best one can. And with the amount of money floating around Capitol Hill, it would take a pretty dumb Congress Member to not increase their personal worth while in office.

For Congress members, unfortunately, there are strings tied to getting elected. Congress members must surrender their right to vote their conscience and instead march to the drum of the big money that financed their campaign. Besides the Congress members’ integrity, the main casualty is the absence of a functioning body invested in the 21st century problems facing America.

Healthcare is a perfect poster child.

Republicans have called out against the rising costs (premiums and deductables) of the individual market. Instead of offering solutions to this problem, Republicans, in essence, have said, if you think the price is too high for a whole loaf, we will offer you a half a loaf at a lower price. Shameful.

The skinny repeal bill took the Republican position even further into the absurd. Republican Senators were asked to vote for a bill which over turned the Obamacare requirements for individual mandate, employer mandated coverage, and certain taxes on makers of medical devices. The bill makes no sense as it would have destabilized the individual insurance market even more and posed the risk of significantly more Americans losing coverage.

Possibly even worse, the skinny bill was never intended to become law. Imagine, grown up elected officials seeking to pass a bill they believed would never become law. Why would that be necessary? Why not try to pass any bill, regardless of how flawed, that was Republicans true intent?

The Republican mysterious behavior has its roots in what basic principles underfoot healthcare. Is healthcare a right or is it a privilege?

Given the opinion polls and most of the nation’s Governors, Americans are trending towards healthcare is a right. (Now be careful and do not confuse, a right and being free.) Healthcare is expensive and the method of paying for it is not straight forward.
The inevitable end point will be a universal, single payer system, as most modern countries have already adopted.

Like most large social changes, US healthcare may still require more baby steps. But other than disgust with the GOP efforts, the defeat of the skinny bill has not brought us closer to any improvement. That work remains.

IMO, there were many Republican Senators who did see healthcare as a government benefit akin to meeting an individual’s right. Regretably, these Senators caved to special interests pressure. There are other Republicans who deny anyone’s right to healthcare unless they can afford it. They seek the best healthcare money can buy. Hence the fundamental schism.

The brightest face one can attach to the failed GOP effort is “some” Republicans working with Democrats could pass modifications to Obamacare which would stabilize the individual nsurance market and return premium costs to real world levels. A necessary fix, but a fix far short of what’s possible and what is ultimately the goal.

“Skinny” option. Hmmm. What will they think of next?

The Big Fat Lie

July 25, 2017

Exaggeration and Hyperbole are staples of public speaking and popular literature. President Trump, since day one of his Presidency, has added these speech forms to his Presidential Addresses. It appears the possibility of being tagged with multiple Pinocchio’s is not a deterrent for America’s “communicator in chief”.

Yesterday, in a staged photo op, President Trump spoke out over the Senate “repeal and replace” stalemate. Pointing to the gathered group (J Crew looking group), the President asserted that they were Americans who had incurred the injurious nature of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The implication was that here, in flesh and blood, were Americans who were harmed by ACA and wasn’t that proof positive that repeal and replace was necessary?

Maybe, but what about the 22 million Americans who the Congressional Budget Office say will lose healthcare coverage should either the Republican House or the Senate legislation pass. Is that Exaggeration or Hyperbole?

No, Deception or Misdirection would better describe the President’s statements. For someone who appears to have no regard for any statement’s accuracy, President Trump is more complex than just a “truth stretcher”, the President is purposeful and says what ever is necessary, no limits considered, to achieve his goals.

So, as if to say the misdirection statements about how many Americans would benefit from Obamacare were not enough, the President stood before this group and into the camera said, Democrats lied about the Affordable Care Act in order to get it passed, “every single thing they said was a lie, a big fat lie”. Hmmm.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

The Presidency appears in a race for the bottom. What more outrageous mistruth or magician’s misdirection will President Trump put forth? The larger question might be, how much more exaggerations and hyperboles will Americans accept before deciding to dismiss all statements from our communicator in chief?