Just Die- Or Stay Home

Everybody plays the fool, no exception to the rule....

Not all fools (almost all, though) are Trump voters and not all Trump voters are fools.

This applies even to the elderly, some of whom are very well off. But this is inapplicable to those elderly or near-elderly who voted for Donald Trump and are not unusually affluent or who don't have offspring willing and able to care for their parents for many years.

The graph below reflects the 2016 presidential election vote based on exit polls. While 18-29 year olds (19% of the electorate) voted 55%-37% for Clinton over Trump and the 30-44 year olds (25% of the electorate) went for Clinton 50%-42%, 45-64 year olds (40% of those voting) went for Trump, 53%-44% and and individuals 65 and older (15%) voted for Trump 53%-45%.

Overall, the relatively young (18 to 44, 44% of the voters) gave Clinton 53% of their vote and Trump only 39% while the relatively old (45 and up, 56% of those voting) opted for Trump by 52% to 44%.

That's a difference of 22%, which in all likelihood would have been even greater had Trump the opportunity to run against Barack Obama.  Yet, those folks in elder care facilities, who have parents in such facilities, or who are (or fairly soon will be) contemplating the possibility of relocation there, are promised a raw detail in the American Health Care Act as written. Jon Schwarz of The Intercept explains

Many middle-class Americans are unaware that the huge cost of nursing home care – which in some areas can run over $100,000 a year — is not covered by Medicare. Those who need it and cannot pay for it themselves can generally receive coverage from Medicaid, though they usually must spend down all their savings first.

When all is said and done, Medicaid pays the bills for over 60 percent of nursing home residents — people who cannot care for themselves and without Medicaid would have literally nowhere to go.

But the AHCA slashes $880 billion dollars from Medicaid spending over the next ten years, or about one-sixth of the $5 trillion it would otherwise cost the federal government. (While these seem like enormous numbers, the U.S. economy is so big that even $5 trillion will be just about two percent of the gross domestic product over the next decade.)

The bill accomplishes these cuts in part by changing Medicaid from an entitlement, in which the federal government automatically provides states with funding based on the needs of their population, to either a block grant or a per capita allocation (at the state’s choice).

The amount states will receive per capita will be set at the average cost for recipients in 2016. It then will increase at the Consumer Price Index’s rate of medical inflation until 2020, when it will begin going up at the CPI medical rate plus one percent. While this sounds reasonable, it will inevitably have serious consequences over the next 20 years due to the aging of the baby boom generation.

This year someone born in 1950 will turn 67 years old, and probably doesn’t need nursing home care. In 2037 they will turn 87, and will be far more likely to do so.

Nursing care is one big reason Medicaid recipients over 85 cost the program 2.5 times more than those who are between the ages of 65 and 74. If Medicaid were to remain an entitlement, states would automatically receive increased federal funds to cover these greater costs as baby boomers age. Under the AHCA, the per-capita payments to states will increase far too slowly to cover them.

There are many culprits in Trump's victory other than naivete of voters.  Moreover, oldish Americans probably will lead the grass-roots opposition to the AHCA, whether through the AARP or other like-minded organizations, or individually.  Still, this tax cut for the wealthy- uh, er, health care bill- tells us how prescient one ex-congressman was.












Share |

Bowing, Repeatedly

Say what you will about Barack Obama- and I've said "more about" him than almost any Democrat anywhere- he certainly has Donald Trump pegged. We learn

“He’s nothing but a bullsh–ter,” Obama told two friends early last November, describing an election night phone call with Trump, in which the businessman suddenly professed his “respect” and “admiration” for Obama—after years of hectoring.

Speaking to PEOPLE for its new cover story on Obama and his wife Michelle adjusting to life outside the White House, the two friends quoted Obama’s blunt assessment of President-elect Trump. And how has Obama’s opinion changed since Trump been in office? “Well,” said one of the sources, “it hasn’t gotten any better.”





Nothing but a bullsh-ter.  An interview conducted August, 2015 by Chris Cuomo of Donald Trump proceeds (at 5:19) as

Cuomo:  (If at a meeting you have with Pope Francis), the translator says to you "the Pope believes capitalism can be real avenue to greed, it can be really toxic and corrupt: and he's shaking his finger at you" and he says "what do you say to the Pope?

Trump: I say "ISIS wants to get you. do you know that ISIS wants to go in and take the Vatican," you knew that, you've heard that, that's a dream of  theirs to go, into Italy, you know that.

Cuomo: Talks to  you about capitalism, you scare the Pope?

Trump: Well, I'm going to have to scare the Pope because that's the only thing- 





In February, 2016 during the presidential primary campaign, Pope Francis was asked about Mr. Trump and responded “A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian." Understandably, the candidate was not amused.  Fifteen months after Trump thus was definitively criticized (albeit by implication) and nineteen months after he told Cuomo that he would give the Pope the what for 

The pope, by turns dour and smiling, welcomed a more effusive president to the seat of a religion that claims more than 70 million followers in the United States. The two stuck mainly to protocol, avoiding a public reprise of the barbs they aimed at each other during Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign or the pope’s thinly veiled critiques of Mr. Trump as a symbol of a dangerously reinvigorated nationalism.

But there appeared to be a message in the gifts the pope gave to his guest. They included a copy of his influential essay on the importance of saving the environment, a rebuke to the climate change skepticism espoused by Mr. Trump. Francis also presented him with a medallion engraved with the image of an olive tree — “a symbol of peace,” he explained.

Pope Francis would have had to use a 2X4 if he had been any more obvious. Nonetheless

“We can use peace,” Mr. Trump said.

Francis replied, “It is with all hope that you may become an olive tree to make peace.”

As he bade the pope farewell, Mr. Trump told him, “I won’t forget what you said.”

He won't- but may have to charge Francis with Atrocious Assault and Battery.   The message Tuesday also from Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s secretary of state, also was none too subtle when he "urged Mr. Trump not to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord."  The approach was especially notable because

There was a sense in the Vatican that Mr. Trump was easier to talk to than his tough language on the campaign trail and sharp words toward Francis had led them to believe. “Trump’s bark is worse than his bite,” said a senior Vatican official who was granted anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the meeting.

Trump's bark is worse than his bite, as President Nieto of Mexico, President Jinping of China, Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada, Saudi Arabia's King Salman, and lots of people ripped off by Trump the businessman have discoverd. Also: Barack Obama, who neatly summed up Donald Trump as "nothing but a bullsh-ter."













Share |

Retreat!

In the days since I last posted, the country has moved on: a presidential speech in the heart of Wahabbist Saudi Arabia, presumed terrorist attack in England, a lover's spat between the House Speaker and the President, and the President reportedly urging the DNI and the director of the NSA to deny collusion with Russia in the 2016 election. Additionally, Politico reports

Bloomberg’s Margaret Talev asked the prime minister whether he had any concerns about intelligence cooperation with the U.S., according to the White House press pool.

“The intelligence cooperation is terrific,” Netanyahu told reporters. Trump paused for a moment and halted the press from leaving the room. “Hey, folks,” he said. “Just so you understand, I never mentioned the word or the name ‘Israel.’ Never mentioned it during that conversation.

He looked toward Netanyahu as he gestured toward the pack of reporters. “They were all saying I did,” the president said. “So you had another story wrong. Never mentioned the word ‘Israel.’”

It wasn't much of a secret at that point and was largely an unnecessary whine from a guy who has almost raised whining to an art form. But it was yet another example of Donald Trump doing what the cowardly specialize in: playing to his audience.

The National Review's Andrew McCartthy laments that in Riyadh

As prepared, the text had the president calling for “honestly confronting the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamist terror groups it inspires” (emphasis added). But when he actually delivered his remarks, Trump departed from the script, speaking instead of “honestly confronting the crisis of Islamic extremism and the Islamists and Islamic terror of all kinds.”

Trump's aides later insisted that the President had confused the terms "Islamist"- favored by doves- and the more confrontational "Islamic" even though, as The Hill explains

The expression “radical Islamic terrorism" became a centerpiece for Trump’s presidential campaign, with the business magnate claiming the term was a pivotal point in addressing modern threats.

Trump repeatedly criticized the Obama administration and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent for president, for not using the phrase when talking about the fight against terrorist threats.

“I am going to keep radical Islamic terrorists the hell out of our country,” Trump said at a rally in Ocala, Fla., in October, adding that Clinton “won’t even use the term."

During the campaign, Trump gave his supportive, even rapturous, crowds the red meat they had come for.

But now his tune- at least in front of the Saudis- has changed.  "In addition to ancient wonders," the President commented, "the magnificent kingdom of Saudi Arabia "is also home to modern ones—including soaring achievements in architecture." He saluted the new Terrorist Financing Targeting Center "co-chaired by the United States and Saudi Arabia," and argued "Saudi Arabia’s Vision for 2030 is an important and encouraging statement of tolerance, respect, empowering women, and economic development."





The speech marked approval by the Administration of the sale of $110 billion in arms to Saudi Arabia, promulgated as Riyadh continues to slaughter civilians in Yemen.  An advocate of  "religious freedom" domestically, the President chose not to acknowledge that Islam is the official religion of Saudi Arabia and no other religion may be practiced publicly.  Those scimitars wielded by Saudis and Donald Trump demonstrating the traditional sword dance are the Kingdom's weapons of choice for execution for crimes ranging from blasphemy to murder.  Public  display of  crosses, Bibles, and other non-Islamic religious articles is banned and participants in religious worship outside of Islam may find themselves imprisoned. Freedom!

The speech in Riyadh displayed Donald J. Trump at his pandering best, the most inauthentic President ever revered for his authenticity.  Trump yearns for approval of his audience and bearing the strength of no convictions, backs down routinely.  It's why he choked before President Nieto of Mexico, why James Comey found out only from television that he had been fired, and why he touted the "shared interests and values" with the nation deeply involved in the greatest terrorist attack in American history.





Share |

The Tax Imperative

On Tuesday morning, Maine senator and intelligence committee member Susan Collins, responding to news of the President evidently giving beyond-classified information to a couple of Russian officials, issued a statement reading in part

The disclosure of highly classified information has the potential to jeopardize sources and to discourage our allies from sharing future information vital to our securityThere are conflicting reports about whether or not President Trump disclosed sensitive information to the Russians. Although the President has the legal authority to disclose classified information, it would be very troubling if he did share such sensitive reporting with the Russians.

As a.m. turned to p.m. and we learned that Trump apparently had suggested to FBI director Comey that he "go easy" on Mike Flynn, there were more Republicans willing to speak out, according to Politico.  Among them were Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina, who stated "It is important to get to the bottom of it. We've got one standard, and we need to make sure that applies to everybody." His North Carolinian colleague, Mark Walker, remarked "if this is legitimately something that there was some kind of influence or pressure from Comey doing his work, I'm going to be very disappointed." Philadelphia congressman Pat Meehan commented

This whole process is very difficult because we are seeing the central institution — the Justice Department, and the independence of the Justice Department — stretched. And people want to have confidence in the independence of [DOJ’s] activities. I’m hoping that throughout this long process, it can get back into a place where there could be confidence in the ability of the institutions to do their work.

And so go the wringing of hands and the gnashing of teeth.  The Politico reporters noted "Not since October’s “Access Hollywood” moment — when many Republicans believed Trump would have to drop out of the race over his hugely offensive comments about women — has the president faced such a serious political threat. "

But we remember what happened then, don't we? Expressions by Republicans of grave concern were emitted over a presidential candidate who was on tape making it clear he believed he was entitled to assault women sexually.  The outrage was sufficiently widespread that some pundits declared Trump dead in the water, that the only suspense was in determining whether he would be sufficiently pummeled that the GOP would lose control of the Senate.

Soon thereafter anger  of GOP politicians and Trump supporters, Republican or Independent, subsided and the Access Hollywood tape had no discernible effect on November's vote count. It turned out that among voters not already ant-Trump,  there was no problem with "I did try and fuck her. She was married" and "I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."

Republicans who distanced themselves from Trump because of the tape fared more poorly at the polls than Republicans who went back to Trump or never questioned him at all. The message for GOP politicians, unsure of how long to stick with Trump, is clear.

Democrats need not sit idly by, however.  Two weeks ago, Daniel Hemel of Vox explained

A bill pending in Albany leverages the Empire State’s unique position as the sitting president’s lifelong home. It would require the state’s tax authority to publish any New York state returns filed by the president, the vice president, and all statewide elected officials. That bill would apply to returns filed in the past five years as well as all New York state returns filed by those officeholders in future years.

In March, CNN senior congressional reporter Manu Raju had spoken to Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California and the Intelligence Committee, then found

Democrats “actually have the power” to subpoena Trump under committee rules despite being in the minority. But such a move could throw a wrench into the committee's bipartisan investigation into Russia's meddling in the election. And the White House would likely employ protections to keep Trump's tax returns under wraps, CNN reported.

That illustrated why Democrats must obtain the returns at almost any cost. The tax returns are sufficiently explosive that Donald Trump will do anything- legal, and probably beyond- to keep them secret. At the time, Senator Collins said that she wasn't ready to take that action, unsurprising because Susan Collins always is on the cusp of doing the right thing.

Senate Minority Leader Schumer purportedly is considerng the possibility of his caucus refusing to vote on any nominee of the President for FBI director until a special counsel is named to investigate the Trump/Russia/Comey affair. But Senate Democrats can do better.  As Vox's Jeff Stein notes

For instance, Senate Democrats could block McConnell on hundreds of decisions that are normally approved by unanimous consent without second thought — things like when the Senate will meet, minor and uncontroversial tweaks to legislation that doesn’t get written about in the press, and low-level presidential appointments that require Senate confirmation.

“All of the routine business of the Senate would stop,” said Huder, the Georgetown scholar. “Most of the things that happened in the Senate happen by unanimous consent, which is almost the exact opposite of the House.”

One key variable is that not every Senate Democrat needs to go along with the plan for it to work. “If a single senator objects to a consent agreement, McConnell, now majority leader, will be forced to resort to time-consuming procedural steps through the cloture process, which takes four days to confirm nominees and seven days to advance any piece of legislation,” Jentleson writes. “Since every Senate action requires the unanimous consent of members from all parties, everything it does is a leverage point for Democrats ... each of the 1,000-plus nominees requiring Senate confirmation — including President Trump’s Cabinet choices — can be delayed for four days each.”

A Special Counsel and an independent investigatory committee are both very important steps to take. But no investigation by anyone would be complete without the Donald Trump income tax returns of years past, and present. Get and analyze those returns, and Donald Trump is finished, not only as President, but possibly as a free man.











This blog is going on hiatus and will return on May 23.  Please return then, or I'll sic Jeff Sessions on you.





Share |

Ryan For The Defense

Amid reports which indicate that the President of the United States of America and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces probably is selling out his country,* Fox News has one simple message: it's the leakers, stupid. And it's quite clear they don't mean any appointees of President Trump, nor even holdovers from 44 sympathetic to 45.

Probably not coincidentally- especially given the love affair between the network and the President- the Speaker of the House is going that way, too.  Politico reports

House Speaker Paul Ryan urged lawmakers to be “sober” about swirling allegations that President Donald Trump asked FBI Director James Comey to call off an investigation into his national security adviser Mike Flynn.

“That is our job, to be sober, to be passionate … and to follow the facts wherever they may lead,” he said.






Being sober is inarguably a good thing, although some of the most passionate people I've known are quite clearly not sober. The article continues

“It is obvious – there are some people out there who want to harm the president,” he said. “We have an obligation to carry out our oversight, regardless of which party is in the White House. That means before rushing to judgment we get all the pertinent information.”

Here for Ryan is some pertinent information, albeit unconfirmed, about "some people."  Conservative blogger Erick Erickson, critical of Trump the candidate and President, evidently has a source(s) within the Administration who is skeptical of the boss' leadership style. Though fastidiously negative toward the left, Erickson on Tuesday morning wrote  "of these stories about the President"

What sets this story apart for me, at least, is that I know one of the sources. And the source is solidly supportive of President Trump, or at least has been and was during Campaign 2016. But the President will not take any internal criticism, no matter how politely it is given. He does not want advice, cannot be corrected, and is too insecure to see any constructive feedback as anything other than an attack.

So some of the sources are left with no other option but to go to the media, leak the story, and hope that the intense blowback gives the President a swift kick in the butt. Perhaps then he will recognize he screwed up. The President cares vastly more about what the press says than what his advisers say. That is a real problem and one his advisers are having to recognize and use, even if it causes messy stories to get outside the White House perimeter.

I am told that what the President did is actually far worse than what is being reported. The President does not seem to realize or appreciate that his bragging can undermine relationships with our allies and with human intelligence sources. He also does not seem to appreciate that his loose lips can get valuable assets in the field killed.

We read also in Politico that the Speaker "wants to know why the director 'didn’t take action at the time' Trump reportedly pressured him to halt the Flynn investigation."  When he's not battling the elderly and the middle class, the Speaker is an apologist for President Trump. When the story of these times is written, few people will be recognized as more villainous than Paul Davis Ryan Jr.

*in this case, not Russia.


Share |

Merely An Infant. Probably.

In a pair of tweets, Donald Trump claims "As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining...to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism."

As Chris Cillizza puts it, "riiiiiight."  There is an explanation far more likely for the disclosure to the Russian foreign minister and the Russian ambassador to the USA by Trump of highly classified information. With the help of a slightly profane December, 2015 comment by Mark Cuban (first paragraph below) about Trump, Steve M. explains

He’s like that guy who walks into the bar, and will say whatever it’ll take to get laid. Only in this case he’s not trying to fuck some girl. He’s trying to fuck the country,” he said to applause and laughter.

If I'm right, this was the same impulse in a non-sexual, non-electoral way: 

In Trump's mind, he was putting the moves on the Russians, and he knew something that would really impress them.

And this gets back to another preposterous thing about Trump: He's desperate to impress everyone, but his knowledge base is so deficient that he has no idea what's actually impressive. He gets amazing inside intelligence? Well, of course he does -- he's the president of the United States! But he seriously believes that top Russian officials won't realize that he's briefed on such details unless he tells them.

As pointed out by SM, that fits the President's modus operandi. As he does not point out, it also would be consistent with the law of parsimony.  Still, consider what Cillizza suggested as one (of three) possibilities:

Democrats have insisted for months that there are simply too many connections between Trumpworld and the Russians for moments like this to be coincidences. As in, where there's smoke and smoke and smoke and smoke, there has to be fire.

"As Yogi Berra said, 'It's too much of a coincidence to be a coincidence,'" House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told CNN's Chris Cuomo in an interview in Washington Monday night. Later, she added: "Every day I ask the question: What do the Russians have on Donald Trump? He's always catering to them."

That more radical, and extraordinarily serious, charge would have the President of the United States giving the middle finger to the nation for which he has contempt. (None dare call it "treason," or at least not I, for it is a term of art.)  Yet, consider that

When President Trump met with top Russian officials in the Oval Office on Wednesday, White House officials barred reporters from witnessing the moment. They apparently preferred to block coverage of the awkwardly timed visit as questions swirled about whether the president had dismissed his F.B.I. director in part to squelch the investigation into possible ties between his campaign and Moscow.

But the Russians, who have a largely state-run media, brought their own press contingent in the form of an official photographer. They quickly filled the vacuum with their own pictures of the meeting with Mr. Trump, Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, and Sergey I. Kislyak, Moscow’s ambassador to the United States.

The White House may have been strongly motivated to discourage coverage of  this lovely encounter, one in which plot details are so critical that The Washington Post assured its readers it "is withholding most plot details, including the name of the city, at the urging of officials who warned that revealing them would jeopardize important intelligence capabilities."

In the absence of further details, Steve M.'s argument, requiring the fewest assumptions, must be the default theory. However, it does seem there may have been method to the madness of barring American media from what now appears to have been an extraordinary meeting.











Share |

Next To Himself, God Is His Favorite

President Trump's commencement address at Liberty University on Saturday was not inconsequential because, as The Atlantic's Emma Green points out

Much hasn’t changed since Trump’s last visit to Lynchburg. His message is still about taking down Washington, the media, and “the cynics and the doubters.” He still seems most at ease out of the White House, among his people, facing adulation and approval rather than policy decisions and a critical press. But unlike those early days of biblical fumbling, Trump has learned how to smoothly connect his anti-establishment message with religious praise.

To be sure, Trump invoked God at every opportunity. To those past and present members of the military present, he was "profoundly grateful to every single one of you who sacrificed to keep us safe and protect God's precious gift of freedom." He maintained in the USA "we don't worship government we worship God." On behalf of all Americans were barred by government bureaucrats from worshipping the previous Sunday, he declared "We will always stand up for the right of all Americans to pray to God and to follow his teachings."

The President told the story of 98-year-old George Rogers, whom he implied took part in the Bataan death march but "kept his faith in God" and "discovered God's plan for him," later becoming an executive at Liberty.   The assembled graduates, Trump maintained, have been "equipped with the tools from your time right here on this campus to make the right decisions and to serve God, family and country."

The President added "We all salute the same great American flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God."  He promised "As long as you remember what you have learned here at Liberty, as long as you have pride in your beliefs, courage in your convictions and faith in your God, then you will not fail" (video immediately below from 9/15).






Those graudates may or may not have understood, as Dr.  James Emery White explains

But doesn't the Bible say to judge people by their fruit?  Yes, but not as defined by the world, such as money, success, numbers, buildings, publications, position, title, speaking engagements, notoriety, rankings, sales or press coverage.  That is the world's standard of success, not the Bible's.

Trump's failure to understand that neither God, nor faith in God, guarantees earthly success may be apropos for an individual  steeped in the prosperity gospel, a persistent thorn in the side of Christianity.  Still, Green maintains

In his first commencement speech as president, he said it was God who brought him to the White House. But in electoral terms, it was people like those at Liberty, and their president is finally speaking their language.

The President is speaking their language- opposition to abortion, repeated mentions of God,  and opposition to abortion.* He is doing it, however, by still crediting his election to God, to wit (emphasis mine):

It's been a little over a year since I've spoken on your beautiful campus and so much has changed. Right here, the class of 2017 dressed in cap and gown, graduating to a totally brilliant future. And here I am standing before you as President of the United States, so I'm guessing — there are some people here today who thought that either one of those things, either one, would really require major help from God. Do we agree? And we got it.

They may very well agree that Trump's election require(d) major help from God, a belief fully consistent with the President's view. "I alone can fix it," Trump has boasted.  Solomon reportedly noted "when pride comes, then comes disgrace but with humility comes wisdom." Jesus himself is reputed to have said "whomever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."






Donald Trump probably has won evangelicals over. Whether he has won over the entity they claim to adore is much more problematic.



*repetition intentional





Share |