President Trump's European trip earlier this month was nervously anticipated to be an improvement over the experience of last year's visit, but still expected to contain some surprises and awkward situations, some potentially consequential, and some relegated to fodder for the talk show circuit. Some controversies already preceded the flight from Washington D.C.. Mr. Trump's ongoing feud with London's mayor Sadiq Khan had been in the headlines for days, and his characterization of Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, as "nasty," during an interview, rankled more than some royal feathers.
Helicopters transported Mr. an Mrs. Trump from Stansted Airport to Buckingham Palace, where they were received by Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles and Camilla. Mr. Trump would later claim that they flew over thousands of cheering supporters in downtown London, not recognizing that these were actually protesters expressing their disapproval of his presence.
The pomp and ceremony at Buckingham Palace fit President Trump very well. He appeared coached and scripted, acting statesman-like. Trump, being Trump, was very pleased with himself. After the state dinner, he soon boasted about having had "automatic chemistry" with the queen. When asked during a Fox interview if he fist-bumbed the queen, he said: "I did not, but I had a great relationship, we had a really great time. There are those that say they have never seen the queen have a better time, a more animated time... We just had a great time together." (The Guardian, Jun. 7, 2019). Queen Elizabeth, who has met with 12 U.S. presidents since 1951, was predictably not asked for a comment.
After insulting Prime Minister Theresa May during their last visit, this year's face-to-face meeting was much more civil. Mr. Trump actually managed to compliment the outgoing P.M. on her negotiating efforts with he European Union. He did, however, all but encourage the U.K. to pursue a "no deal Brexit," a scenario British lawmakers adamantly oppose. He also strongly suggested that Nigel Farage, a supporter and leader of the recently formed "Brexit Party," should lead ongoing negotiations with the E.U.. And, while he continued providing unwelcome advise, he insinuated that former U.K. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, an old friend, should replace Theresa May as leader of the Conservative Party, and as Prime Minister. (To not hurt his chances of being elected, Mr. Johnson declined to meet with the president.) Finally, he proposed a post Brexit free trade agreement with the U.S., but stipulated that everything, including the popular British healthcare system, should be on the table. A deal breaker for anyone in the audience.
The interview with Piers Morgan for "Good Morning Britain" should probably never have happened. The president appeared very uncomfortable when Morgan asked him how he evaded the draft during the Vietnam war. Trump received four student deferments and two medical excuses for bone spurs. Trump's rambling explanation quickly made the news: "I was never a fan of that war, I'll be honest with you. I thought it was a terrible war; I thought it was very far away. You're talking about Vietnam. At that time nobody had ever heard of that country."
His televised pep-talk to Ireland's Prime Minister Leo Varadkar became another awkward moment. Referring to Brexit, a hot topic of significant concern in Ireland, Trump said: "I think it will all work out very well, and also for you with your wall, your border. I mean, we have a border situation in the United States, and you have one over here. But I hear it's going to work out very well here." Mr. Varadkar's retort that Ireland would like "to avoid a border or wall" did not seem to penetrate or resonate.
Aside from the state visit, the other featured objective of Trump's visit to Europe at this time of the year was to participate in the commemoration of the 75th Anniversary of D-Day at the "Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial" in Colleville-sur-Mer in France. President Trump managed to do a commendable job during the solemn and emotional ceremony. However, even here he managed to redirect attention onto himself. With the D-Day ceremony as a backdrop, and the 9,388 white crosses covering burial sites behind him, he inserted a sit-down interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, during which he blasted his political rivals at home. At some point he suggested that the officials attending probably did not recognize that he was the one holding up the entire ceremony just to do that interview. Even Ingraham admitted that that was fake news.
A final parting gift to the pundits surfaced during the family's trip home. Becoming aware that NASA planned to go back to the moon during he coming few years, something Trump actually proposed not too long ago, he flipped on his space objectives, tweeting: "For all the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the moon - we did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including MARS (of which the moon is a part). Defence (sic) and Science!" For some in the Trump entourage this may have counted as enlightenment. For many at home and abroad this tweet resembled pure nonsense.
Most controversial statements chronicled during Mr. Trump's European trip this time around are attributable to self-aggrandizement, and expressions of, mostly unwelcome, opinions fueled by narcissism and essential ignorance of the political facts and climate on the ground. I am certain that many in Europe anticipated much of this. If this was his objective, Mr. Trump did great job leaving much of the citizenry in host countries confused and bewildered.
Wednesday, June 12, 2019
Friday, May 17, 2019
TRUMP DEFIES SIMPLISTIC COMPARISON
"Tall trees catch a lot of wind." This traditional Dutch expression translates to something like: "people in high places catch a lot of flack." This is something we are all familiar with. No matter who runs our government, critics will quickly attach labels in an attempt to pigeonhole them, sometimes even well before they take power. These days many seem tempted to simplistically compare current political leaders to historical figures. Two of the more popular characterizations we have all become familiar with are: "Fascist" and "Machiavellian." Hitler's moustache has adorned George Bush as well as Barack Obama, while Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were often considered to be Machiavellian. No surprise therefore that Donald Trump is receiving the same treatment - be it probably more prevalent because he is currently more visible and more intensely controversial. However, none of this should imply that the characterizations being bantered about this time are somehow less simplistic or more appropriate.
Political antagonists from all sides of the political spectrum have made ignorant use of the term "Fascist" to describe their opposition to mean something or someone cruel, unscrupulous or arrogant. Political affiliation doesn't protect against this kind of assault. Back in 20017, Keith Oberman, political commentator for MSNBC, chastised then President George W. Bush for commuting Lewis Libby's prion sentence by exclaiming: "If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describe that toxic blend. You're a Fascist!" Ten years later, Seth Connell, writing for "The Federalist Papers," penned a piece headlined: "The Democratic Party Has Officially Gone Full Fascist." Any political leader in between has at some point become the focus of similar treatment. As former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright points out in her new book: "Fascism, a warning," "at this point, anybody who disagrees with us is a Fascist."
Many who use the term have often degraded it to the level of a swearword. It is usually not the "ideology" behind the term, such as it is, but the visual impression of Adolf Hitler that gets highlighted. As Secretary Albright explains, "Fascism is not an ideology, it is a process for taking and holding power." She continues: "A Fascist is someone who is willing to use whatever means are necessary - including violence - to achieve his or her goals. A Fascist will likely be a tyrant, but a tyrant need not be a Fascist." The adoption of violence to impose fascist authority is key to Fascism. Hitler's objective was cleansing his Aryan race. He was a sociopathic narcissist, delusional egomaniac, unfeeling and cruel. Whatever tendencies Donald Trump is perceived to have, they don't raise to that level. Those equating Trump's supposed fascism with that of Benito Mussolini, in many ways the father of fascism, are wrong as well. Mussolini was obsessed with power, a trait Trump also appears to possess, but he was more cerebral, resorting to extreme manipulation by writing interpretative entries on the definition of fascism for the Italian Encyclopedia, and composing multiple biographies and speeches. Trump does not have the mental capacity to do these without the use of a ghostwriter. "The Art of the Deal" does not qualify.
Those depicting Donald Trump as being Machiavellian generally focus on philosophical content rather than propagandistic imagery. Superficially, being Machiavellian refers to being sneaky, cunning, lacking a moral code, and the idea that the end justifies he means. Early on, before Trump was even inaugurated, David Ignatius, in a Washington Post column, proclaimed that: "Donald Trump is the American Machiavelli." (Washington Post, Nov. 10, 2016.) He explained that: "Rarely in the United States have we seen the embodiment of the traits Machiavelli admired quite like Donald Trump," while referring to Machiavelli's masterpiece "The Prince," a book Trump had listed as one of his favorites. Ignatius goes on to enumerate some of the character traits Machiavelli listed as an advantageous or even necessary part of leadership, including: occasionally lying, bullying, mocking political correctness, decisively exercising power, and the proclivity to rather be feared than loved. The prince's task was to create a "strong state," not necessarily a "good one."
Several months later, Ignatius reversed himself, and wrote: "Trump is not so Machiavellian after all." (Washington Post, March 23, 2017). He stated that Trump embodied some of the moral qualities Machiavelli had recommended in his book: "He is ruthless, he lies, deceives and manipulates where necessary." However, he did not believe that our president, among other qualities, really embodies the spirit of "virtue," something Machiavelli regarded as essential for political success. Multiple analysts and observers agreed, sometimes even referring to Trump as the "Anti-Machiavelli." (See for instance: Stefano Albertini, "La Voce di New York," Jan. 14, 2018.)
One might wonder whether the attempt to attach superficially defined labels to our political leaders represents an act of convenience, not intended to educate but to agitate, counting on the unquestioning acceptance of a receptive audience. Then again, some critics may use ill-defined, but recognizable labels in lieu of what could be called "Trumpism," something even more difficult to define, since it tends to refer to unpredictability, and is ever changing, without a philosophical or ideological underpinning.
Political antagonists from all sides of the political spectrum have made ignorant use of the term "Fascist" to describe their opposition to mean something or someone cruel, unscrupulous or arrogant. Political affiliation doesn't protect against this kind of assault. Back in 20017, Keith Oberman, political commentator for MSNBC, chastised then President George W. Bush for commuting Lewis Libby's prion sentence by exclaiming: "If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describe that toxic blend. You're a Fascist!" Ten years later, Seth Connell, writing for "The Federalist Papers," penned a piece headlined: "The Democratic Party Has Officially Gone Full Fascist." Any political leader in between has at some point become the focus of similar treatment. As former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright points out in her new book: "Fascism, a warning," "at this point, anybody who disagrees with us is a Fascist."
Many who use the term have often degraded it to the level of a swearword. It is usually not the "ideology" behind the term, such as it is, but the visual impression of Adolf Hitler that gets highlighted. As Secretary Albright explains, "Fascism is not an ideology, it is a process for taking and holding power." She continues: "A Fascist is someone who is willing to use whatever means are necessary - including violence - to achieve his or her goals. A Fascist will likely be a tyrant, but a tyrant need not be a Fascist." The adoption of violence to impose fascist authority is key to Fascism. Hitler's objective was cleansing his Aryan race. He was a sociopathic narcissist, delusional egomaniac, unfeeling and cruel. Whatever tendencies Donald Trump is perceived to have, they don't raise to that level. Those equating Trump's supposed fascism with that of Benito Mussolini, in many ways the father of fascism, are wrong as well. Mussolini was obsessed with power, a trait Trump also appears to possess, but he was more cerebral, resorting to extreme manipulation by writing interpretative entries on the definition of fascism for the Italian Encyclopedia, and composing multiple biographies and speeches. Trump does not have the mental capacity to do these without the use of a ghostwriter. "The Art of the Deal" does not qualify.
Those depicting Donald Trump as being Machiavellian generally focus on philosophical content rather than propagandistic imagery. Superficially, being Machiavellian refers to being sneaky, cunning, lacking a moral code, and the idea that the end justifies he means. Early on, before Trump was even inaugurated, David Ignatius, in a Washington Post column, proclaimed that: "Donald Trump is the American Machiavelli." (Washington Post, Nov. 10, 2016.) He explained that: "Rarely in the United States have we seen the embodiment of the traits Machiavelli admired quite like Donald Trump," while referring to Machiavelli's masterpiece "The Prince," a book Trump had listed as one of his favorites. Ignatius goes on to enumerate some of the character traits Machiavelli listed as an advantageous or even necessary part of leadership, including: occasionally lying, bullying, mocking political correctness, decisively exercising power, and the proclivity to rather be feared than loved. The prince's task was to create a "strong state," not necessarily a "good one."
Several months later, Ignatius reversed himself, and wrote: "Trump is not so Machiavellian after all." (Washington Post, March 23, 2017). He stated that Trump embodied some of the moral qualities Machiavelli had recommended in his book: "He is ruthless, he lies, deceives and manipulates where necessary." However, he did not believe that our president, among other qualities, really embodies the spirit of "virtue," something Machiavelli regarded as essential for political success. Multiple analysts and observers agreed, sometimes even referring to Trump as the "Anti-Machiavelli." (See for instance: Stefano Albertini, "La Voce di New York," Jan. 14, 2018.)
One might wonder whether the attempt to attach superficially defined labels to our political leaders represents an act of convenience, not intended to educate but to agitate, counting on the unquestioning acceptance of a receptive audience. Then again, some critics may use ill-defined, but recognizable labels in lieu of what could be called "Trumpism," something even more difficult to define, since it tends to refer to unpredictability, and is ever changing, without a philosophical or ideological underpinning.
Tuesday, May 7, 2019
DEMOCRATS PONDER THEIR "TREXIT" STRATEGY
The Democratic Party appears to be in turmoil over what strategy to pursue to affect President Trump's exit (Trexit) from the White House. While playing defense, the Republican Party is laser-focused on protecting their leader, who only garners a 39% approval rating, from electoral defeat in the rapidly approaching national election.
Democrats are in a quandary about whether to impeach or not impeach. With the election just 18 months away, how this dilemma is resolved would almost certainly have an effect on its outcome. National polls indicate that only 37% of respondents indicated they favor starting the impeachment process, while 56% oppose that idea. Moreover six in ten independents appear to be against impeachment now, a sign of potential electoral danger for Democrats.
Article II of our Constitution states that a president can be impeached for bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. The latter condition is not defined, and its application is purely political. Pro "impeachment now" Democratic members of Congress point out that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's heavily redacted but revealing report identified at least ten instances of potential obstruction of justice, impeachable offenses if proven, providing a blueprint for Congress to decide how to handle them.
Congresswoman Maxine Waters is clear in her conviction, proclaiming: "We're going to have to impeach. I just wish it was sooner rather than later." Presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren the first of few major candidates to immediately call for impeachment, saying that "there is no political inconvenience exception to the United States Constitution," and asserted that President Trump's actions would "inflict a great and lasting damage on this country." Other candidates like Sen. Kamala Harris and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro, publicly concurred. By contrast, mainstream Democrats warn about the political risks of an unsuccessful impeachment. While Democrats control the House, and could muster the simple majority it takes to adopt articles of impeachment, virtually every political observer concedes that the Republican Senate would never round up the 2/3 supermajority it takes to convict.
Party leaders fear that the impeachment process would work to President Trump's advantage, giving him the sympathy vote, especially while a significant segment of the public is growing tired of the ongoing Mueller probe. Sen. Cory Booker, another Democratic candidate for the presidency, said that "there is a lot more investigation that should go on before Congress comes to any conclusion like that," meaning the need to impeach. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand made clear that she feels that a meeting with Robert Mueller should precede any decision. Sen. Bernie Sanders reiterated as well that impeachment might distract from other important issues important to voters that "works to Trump's advantage."
Democratic congressional leaders cautiously remind their membership about what happened when Republicans impeached President Bill Clinton two decades ago. The House impeached Clinton in 1999. House Speaker Newt Gingrich intimate that they did "because we can." He predicted that, because of what they were doing, Republicans would gain 25-30 seats in the 2002 election. However, the Republican Senate failed to convict, Clinton became even more popular than his 72 percent approval rating at the start of the process, ostensibly because people saw his impeachment as Republican overreach. The Democrats ended up gaining five seats in the 2002 election, and Gingrich was forced to resign. Speaker Pelosi could direct Donald Trump's impeachment as well, "because she can." But party insiders fear that the fall-out could well mirror what happened in 2002.
Given this historical context, Republicans might actually prefer confronting impeachment proceedings over the drip, drip, drip of ongoing investigations into the multitude of instances Mueller identified as possibly bordering on obstruction of justice. Democrats run the risk of being branded one-trick ponies. Michigan Rep. Debbie Dingell argued that Americans expect more from Congress, and suggested they pursue a legislative agenda that includes "lowering prescription drug prices, creating 16 million good-paying jobs through a real infrastructure plan, and to make sure our government is working" instead. With the election around the corner, timing also becomes a factor. President Nixon's impeachment process took 14 months from the start of the Watergate hearings until he resigned. Given that timeframe, impeachment might still be debated when the election takes place. Many Democrats are unlikely to enjoy that prospect.
Even as they strategize to reclaim the White House, Democrats would benefit from showing they are able to walk and chew gum. This involves compartmentalizing their constitutional oversight responsibilities involving ongoing investigations, while simultaneously advancing legislative objectives. Republicans would benefit from signing on to these pursuits as well, and the country at large would be the better for it.
Democrats are in a quandary about whether to impeach or not impeach. With the election just 18 months away, how this dilemma is resolved would almost certainly have an effect on its outcome. National polls indicate that only 37% of respondents indicated they favor starting the impeachment process, while 56% oppose that idea. Moreover six in ten independents appear to be against impeachment now, a sign of potential electoral danger for Democrats.
Article II of our Constitution states that a president can be impeached for bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. The latter condition is not defined, and its application is purely political. Pro "impeachment now" Democratic members of Congress point out that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's heavily redacted but revealing report identified at least ten instances of potential obstruction of justice, impeachable offenses if proven, providing a blueprint for Congress to decide how to handle them.
Congresswoman Maxine Waters is clear in her conviction, proclaiming: "We're going to have to impeach. I just wish it was sooner rather than later." Presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren the first of few major candidates to immediately call for impeachment, saying that "there is no political inconvenience exception to the United States Constitution," and asserted that President Trump's actions would "inflict a great and lasting damage on this country." Other candidates like Sen. Kamala Harris and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro, publicly concurred. By contrast, mainstream Democrats warn about the political risks of an unsuccessful impeachment. While Democrats control the House, and could muster the simple majority it takes to adopt articles of impeachment, virtually every political observer concedes that the Republican Senate would never round up the 2/3 supermajority it takes to convict.
Party leaders fear that the impeachment process would work to President Trump's advantage, giving him the sympathy vote, especially while a significant segment of the public is growing tired of the ongoing Mueller probe. Sen. Cory Booker, another Democratic candidate for the presidency, said that "there is a lot more investigation that should go on before Congress comes to any conclusion like that," meaning the need to impeach. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand made clear that she feels that a meeting with Robert Mueller should precede any decision. Sen. Bernie Sanders reiterated as well that impeachment might distract from other important issues important to voters that "works to Trump's advantage."
Democratic congressional leaders cautiously remind their membership about what happened when Republicans impeached President Bill Clinton two decades ago. The House impeached Clinton in 1999. House Speaker Newt Gingrich intimate that they did "because we can." He predicted that, because of what they were doing, Republicans would gain 25-30 seats in the 2002 election. However, the Republican Senate failed to convict, Clinton became even more popular than his 72 percent approval rating at the start of the process, ostensibly because people saw his impeachment as Republican overreach. The Democrats ended up gaining five seats in the 2002 election, and Gingrich was forced to resign. Speaker Pelosi could direct Donald Trump's impeachment as well, "because she can." But party insiders fear that the fall-out could well mirror what happened in 2002.
Given this historical context, Republicans might actually prefer confronting impeachment proceedings over the drip, drip, drip of ongoing investigations into the multitude of instances Mueller identified as possibly bordering on obstruction of justice. Democrats run the risk of being branded one-trick ponies. Michigan Rep. Debbie Dingell argued that Americans expect more from Congress, and suggested they pursue a legislative agenda that includes "lowering prescription drug prices, creating 16 million good-paying jobs through a real infrastructure plan, and to make sure our government is working" instead. With the election around the corner, timing also becomes a factor. President Nixon's impeachment process took 14 months from the start of the Watergate hearings until he resigned. Given that timeframe, impeachment might still be debated when the election takes place. Many Democrats are unlikely to enjoy that prospect.
Even as they strategize to reclaim the White House, Democrats would benefit from showing they are able to walk and chew gum. This involves compartmentalizing their constitutional oversight responsibilities involving ongoing investigations, while simultaneously advancing legislative objectives. Republicans would benefit from signing on to these pursuits as well, and the country at large would be the better for it.
Thursday, April 18, 2019
EUROPE'S VEXING CHARISMA PROBLEM
The 2019 elections to the European Parliament will take place between May 23 and May 26. Many in the Union prepare for this election with trepidation. It threatens to be shaping up as a battle between the forces of integration an fragmentation. A Reuter poll, executed in June of last year, projected that Eurosceptic political parties could well expand their representative strength in the Parliament by more than 60%. These largely critical, sometimes entirely anti EU, movements operate outside of the traditional mainstream support structure within the 28 nation bloc. If Brexit does happen before the election, 19 members of the United Kingdom Independent Party, which openly opposes the EU, will leave. However, Italy's coalition of populist parties, "5-Star" and "The League," combined with the rise of "Alternative for Germany," the French "National Rally," the Dutch "Freedom Party," and the recently surging "Forum for the Democracy," as well as Poland's "Law and Justice Party" are anticipated to more than make up for the British absence, and increase their collective representation from the current 80 to a potentially consequential 122 seats.
To say the least, this situation is awkward. EU member states could end up with a governing body seating a very significant percentage of representatives ideologically opposed to its essential objective. Outsiders with suspect intentions also join the fray. Steve Bannon, Donald Trump's former White House Chief Strategist, even set up shop here, launching a project intended to coordinate and bolster the anti-EU vote across the continent. While a 2018 "Eurobarometer" survey commissioned by the Parliament indicated that 67% of EU citizens thought that membership had benefitted their country, and slightly more than half continue to express strong support for the Union - possibly stimulated by the Brexit vote - the Eurosceptic movement and its electoral success has exhibited steady growth. The question is: "why?" The temptation has been to blame the outcomes on populism fed by immigration. While this is important, it is only part of the answer.
EU leadership has become a haven for technocrats. The government in Brussels is filled with obscure bureaucrats few Europeans recognize or know by name. Post-war Europe was rebuilt on the strength and vision of charismatic leaders. German sociologist Max Weber referred to charisma as "a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities." After World War II Europeans looked up to leaders with these qualities, men like Charles De Gaulle, Konrad Adenauer, Winston Churchill and Alcide De Gasperi. Some of these inspired the development of the European Union project, aiming to end the frequent and bloody wars between neighbors.
Ultimately, the EU grew to what it has become today. However, it appears to be suffering some consequences of its success. Europe has not seen wars for decades. Its crises have become largely economic. Its technocratic leadership will solve economic issues, but it does not articulate these for popular consumption, and does not really inspire. Hence, ordinary citizens in membership countries are less inclined to develop an emotional connection with Brussels than with their native institutions.
Opposition parties competing in parliamentary elections are clearly taking advantage. Globalization, immigration, and the transfer of power to a source outside of their own country, gradually generated erosion of native cultures. This has often led to identity crises, a perceived loss of direction, and becoming a ripe environment for populist politicians. Political scientists have asserted that the charismatic bond between leader and follower is central to populist parties. Populism advocates the power of the people, yet relies on seduction by a charismatic leader. Populist politicians clearly articulate these identity crises, cast blame on the supranational government in Brussels, and justify their leadership by challenging its legitimacy and pontificating against it. By its nature, their messaging is more focused, and the messengers tend to be skillful and inspirational orators. By using fear and focus their messianic demeanor forges trust, a stable emotional connection with domestic citizenry, and develops a reliable electoral base. People understand what eurosceptics stand for.
Between Brussels and most of Europe, this connection is lacking. Many remain unclear about the direction mainstream parties want to take them. As far back as 2012, Frederico Castiglioni, an articulate member of the European Federalist Movement, warned that "Europe's technocrats might solve the economic conundrum, but they cannot restore trust between Europe and its citizens. We need a charismatic, democratic leader before illiberal and nationalistic forces gain ground." ("Europe's need for a charismatic leader," The European, Nov. 29, 2012). Others have issued similar warnings. Brussels continues to hope to convert dissatisfaction into democratic zeal rather than more political apathy. Thus far with little success.
Lacking major changes in campaign strategies, the upcoming election threatens to remain a confrontation between technocratic competence and charisma, a battle charisma very often wins. In the mean time, the pro EU centrist majority in the European Parliament hangs by a thread, lucky that eurosceptics thus far appear unable to unite under one political umbrella.
To say the least, this situation is awkward. EU member states could end up with a governing body seating a very significant percentage of representatives ideologically opposed to its essential objective. Outsiders with suspect intentions also join the fray. Steve Bannon, Donald Trump's former White House Chief Strategist, even set up shop here, launching a project intended to coordinate and bolster the anti-EU vote across the continent. While a 2018 "Eurobarometer" survey commissioned by the Parliament indicated that 67% of EU citizens thought that membership had benefitted their country, and slightly more than half continue to express strong support for the Union - possibly stimulated by the Brexit vote - the Eurosceptic movement and its electoral success has exhibited steady growth. The question is: "why?" The temptation has been to blame the outcomes on populism fed by immigration. While this is important, it is only part of the answer.
EU leadership has become a haven for technocrats. The government in Brussels is filled with obscure bureaucrats few Europeans recognize or know by name. Post-war Europe was rebuilt on the strength and vision of charismatic leaders. German sociologist Max Weber referred to charisma as "a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities." After World War II Europeans looked up to leaders with these qualities, men like Charles De Gaulle, Konrad Adenauer, Winston Churchill and Alcide De Gasperi. Some of these inspired the development of the European Union project, aiming to end the frequent and bloody wars between neighbors.
Ultimately, the EU grew to what it has become today. However, it appears to be suffering some consequences of its success. Europe has not seen wars for decades. Its crises have become largely economic. Its technocratic leadership will solve economic issues, but it does not articulate these for popular consumption, and does not really inspire. Hence, ordinary citizens in membership countries are less inclined to develop an emotional connection with Brussels than with their native institutions.
Opposition parties competing in parliamentary elections are clearly taking advantage. Globalization, immigration, and the transfer of power to a source outside of their own country, gradually generated erosion of native cultures. This has often led to identity crises, a perceived loss of direction, and becoming a ripe environment for populist politicians. Political scientists have asserted that the charismatic bond between leader and follower is central to populist parties. Populism advocates the power of the people, yet relies on seduction by a charismatic leader. Populist politicians clearly articulate these identity crises, cast blame on the supranational government in Brussels, and justify their leadership by challenging its legitimacy and pontificating against it. By its nature, their messaging is more focused, and the messengers tend to be skillful and inspirational orators. By using fear and focus their messianic demeanor forges trust, a stable emotional connection with domestic citizenry, and develops a reliable electoral base. People understand what eurosceptics stand for.
Between Brussels and most of Europe, this connection is lacking. Many remain unclear about the direction mainstream parties want to take them. As far back as 2012, Frederico Castiglioni, an articulate member of the European Federalist Movement, warned that "Europe's technocrats might solve the economic conundrum, but they cannot restore trust between Europe and its citizens. We need a charismatic, democratic leader before illiberal and nationalistic forces gain ground." ("Europe's need for a charismatic leader," The European, Nov. 29, 2012). Others have issued similar warnings. Brussels continues to hope to convert dissatisfaction into democratic zeal rather than more political apathy. Thus far with little success.
Lacking major changes in campaign strategies, the upcoming election threatens to remain a confrontation between technocratic competence and charisma, a battle charisma very often wins. In the mean time, the pro EU centrist majority in the European Parliament hangs by a thread, lucky that eurosceptics thus far appear unable to unite under one political umbrella.
Monday, April 8, 2019
OBAMACARE ON DEATH ROW - AGAIN?
Attorney General William Barr's cursory summation of the long awaited Mueller Report appears to have emboldened President Donald Trump.
During the immediate aftermath of the report's release to the Justice Department, Mr. Trump, among a number of ill-considered and counter-productive moves, decided to throw his administration's support behind the ruling of Texas District Court Judge Reed O'Connor, invalidating the entire Affordable Care Act.
By re-opening the "repeal and replace Obamacare" discussion, Trump blindsided most, if not all, of his supporters in Congress, who would rather not revisit a debate that effectively concluded when Senator John McCain famously killed the final attempt at repeal in the Senate by dramatically voting "thumbs down."
Perhaps by design, the administration's renewed effort stands in starks contrast to the political debate among many Democratic candidates contending to win the chance to compete with Mr. Trump in next year's election, promising "Medicare for all." This attempt at establishing universal healthcare, still a radical left-wing pipe dream in 2016, now appears to have moved into the mainstream.
The December ruling by Judge O'Connor is being appealed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, one of the most conservative appellate courts in the country, almost guaranteeing that it will eventually end up before the Supreme Court. In a new filing, signed by three Justice Department attorneys, the administration held that the decision of District Judge Reed O'Connor should be affirmed, and that the entirety of the ACA should be validated. While a court victory would fulfill one of the president's campaign promises, it would potentially eliminate healthcare for millions of people with preexisting conditions, and for people who get their health insurance on the exchanges or through Medicaid expansion.
"This lawsuit is as dangerous as it is reckless. it threatens the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans across the country," said California A.G. Xavier Becerra, one of 21 Attorneys General from Democratic states stepping in to oppose the administration's decision and defend the ACA law.
While the heated heathcare debate appears to be re-emerging after Mr. Trump's announcement, the confrontation between proponents of private health insurance and supporters of single payer, government-run healthcare has been going on for a hundred years or more.
U.S. efforts to achieve universal healthcare coverage began with progressive healthcare reformers who supported Theodore Roosevelt for president in 1912. This attempt did not go anywhere when Roosevelt was defeated. Franklin Roosevelt initially included a national healthcare program in the Social Security Act of 1935. He removed it when he encountered opposition from the AMA and others.Harry Truman tried in 1945 and again in 1947. However, the opposition quickly labeled his proposals "socialized medicine," which, given the sentiment of the time, killed it. Lyndon Johnson did manage to achieve incremental progress by passing Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. Bill Clinton made a failed attempt with "Hillarycare" in 1993. Subsequently, Barack Obama succeeded in passing the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the adoption of which has led to contentious partisan arguments ever since. Although not perfect, implementation of ACA led to a reduction of the number uninsured citizens to roughly 28 million.Nevertheless, political opponents in Congress voted more than 60 times to attempt to repeal this law, something President Trump apparently intends to pursue again.
Supporters of universal access to healthcare argue that healthcare is a right, and should not be run like a business. They point out that the U.S. is the only developed country in which the population needs to worry about the cost and coverage of healh insurance.Comparisons are made with countries like Denmark and the United Kingdom.
In Denmark the underlying principle of its healthcare law is a "government obligation to promote the health of its population and prevent and treat illness, suffering and functional limitations. This includes ensuring high quality care, easy and equal access to care, service integration, choice, transparency, access to information and short waiting times." (Karsten Vrangbaek, "The Danish Health Care System," University of Copenhagen).All Danish residents are automatically entitled to publicly financed healthcare, largely free. Its system is 84.2% publicly financed, supported by an 8% national health tax. Healthcare spending per capita - 2014 numbers - is $5012 per year, about half of what it is in theU.S.
The U.K. picture is very similar. Its National Health Service, a single-payer system paid for with payroll taxes, guarantees care for all, and includes everything from ambulance rides, emergency room visits to long hospital stays, complex surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. It also spends less than half of what Americans spend per person on healthare, yet, life expectncy in Britain is higher than in the U.S. The NHS remains the most popular institution in the U.K., more popular than the military or royal family. A 2014 report by the Commonwealth Fund concluded that the U.K. was ranked as having the best healthcare system in the world overall. ("Mirror, mirror on the wall, 2014 update: How the U.S. healthcare system compares internationally.")
The arguments in favor of universal healthcare are powerful. While an erstwhile pipe dream may have gone mainstream, articulating the pros and cons of adopting a Medicare for all system, and actually getting a law enacted may look easy compared to implementing it.Yet, many seem to think that we are collectively moving closer to a Medicare for all system, which would signify a seismic shift, affecting the lives of of millions, and nearly one-fifth of our economy.
Killing Obamacare without offering a suitable replacement won't get us there.
During the immediate aftermath of the report's release to the Justice Department, Mr. Trump, among a number of ill-considered and counter-productive moves, decided to throw his administration's support behind the ruling of Texas District Court Judge Reed O'Connor, invalidating the entire Affordable Care Act.
By re-opening the "repeal and replace Obamacare" discussion, Trump blindsided most, if not all, of his supporters in Congress, who would rather not revisit a debate that effectively concluded when Senator John McCain famously killed the final attempt at repeal in the Senate by dramatically voting "thumbs down."
Perhaps by design, the administration's renewed effort stands in starks contrast to the political debate among many Democratic candidates contending to win the chance to compete with Mr. Trump in next year's election, promising "Medicare for all." This attempt at establishing universal healthcare, still a radical left-wing pipe dream in 2016, now appears to have moved into the mainstream.
The December ruling by Judge O'Connor is being appealed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, one of the most conservative appellate courts in the country, almost guaranteeing that it will eventually end up before the Supreme Court. In a new filing, signed by three Justice Department attorneys, the administration held that the decision of District Judge Reed O'Connor should be affirmed, and that the entirety of the ACA should be validated. While a court victory would fulfill one of the president's campaign promises, it would potentially eliminate healthcare for millions of people with preexisting conditions, and for people who get their health insurance on the exchanges or through Medicaid expansion.
"This lawsuit is as dangerous as it is reckless. it threatens the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans across the country," said California A.G. Xavier Becerra, one of 21 Attorneys General from Democratic states stepping in to oppose the administration's decision and defend the ACA law.
While the heated heathcare debate appears to be re-emerging after Mr. Trump's announcement, the confrontation between proponents of private health insurance and supporters of single payer, government-run healthcare has been going on for a hundred years or more.
U.S. efforts to achieve universal healthcare coverage began with progressive healthcare reformers who supported Theodore Roosevelt for president in 1912. This attempt did not go anywhere when Roosevelt was defeated. Franklin Roosevelt initially included a national healthcare program in the Social Security Act of 1935. He removed it when he encountered opposition from the AMA and others.Harry Truman tried in 1945 and again in 1947. However, the opposition quickly labeled his proposals "socialized medicine," which, given the sentiment of the time, killed it. Lyndon Johnson did manage to achieve incremental progress by passing Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. Bill Clinton made a failed attempt with "Hillarycare" in 1993. Subsequently, Barack Obama succeeded in passing the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the adoption of which has led to contentious partisan arguments ever since. Although not perfect, implementation of ACA led to a reduction of the number uninsured citizens to roughly 28 million.Nevertheless, political opponents in Congress voted more than 60 times to attempt to repeal this law, something President Trump apparently intends to pursue again.
Supporters of universal access to healthcare argue that healthcare is a right, and should not be run like a business. They point out that the U.S. is the only developed country in which the population needs to worry about the cost and coverage of healh insurance.Comparisons are made with countries like Denmark and the United Kingdom.
In Denmark the underlying principle of its healthcare law is a "government obligation to promote the health of its population and prevent and treat illness, suffering and functional limitations. This includes ensuring high quality care, easy and equal access to care, service integration, choice, transparency, access to information and short waiting times." (Karsten Vrangbaek, "The Danish Health Care System," University of Copenhagen).All Danish residents are automatically entitled to publicly financed healthcare, largely free. Its system is 84.2% publicly financed, supported by an 8% national health tax. Healthcare spending per capita - 2014 numbers - is $5012 per year, about half of what it is in theU.S.
The U.K. picture is very similar. Its National Health Service, a single-payer system paid for with payroll taxes, guarantees care for all, and includes everything from ambulance rides, emergency room visits to long hospital stays, complex surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. It also spends less than half of what Americans spend per person on healthare, yet, life expectncy in Britain is higher than in the U.S. The NHS remains the most popular institution in the U.K., more popular than the military or royal family. A 2014 report by the Commonwealth Fund concluded that the U.K. was ranked as having the best healthcare system in the world overall. ("Mirror, mirror on the wall, 2014 update: How the U.S. healthcare system compares internationally.")
The arguments in favor of universal healthcare are powerful. While an erstwhile pipe dream may have gone mainstream, articulating the pros and cons of adopting a Medicare for all system, and actually getting a law enacted may look easy compared to implementing it.Yet, many seem to think that we are collectively moving closer to a Medicare for all system, which would signify a seismic shift, affecting the lives of of millions, and nearly one-fifth of our economy.
Killing Obamacare without offering a suitable replacement won't get us there.
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
BREXIT IS IN TROUBLE - SHOULD WE CARE?
Former British prime minister David Cameron probably did not recognize the can of worms he opened when he agreed to hold a referendum on U.K. membership in the European Union. Under pressure from Eurosceptic backbenchers and the threat of losing votes to the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) during he 2015 general election, Cameron made the promise, fully convinced that British voters would elect to remain in the E.U.. To most everyone's surprise, when the referendum was held June 23, 2016, more that 30 million citizens voted by a 51.9% to 48.1% margin to support Britain's exit (Brexit) from the Union. Consequently, Cameron resigned, and was replaced by current PM Theresa May, who accepted what she considered to be the will of the people, and formally notified the European Council of Britain's intention. By doing so she invoked Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, beginning the process of withdrawing the country from the E.U., and starting the clock on a two year negotiating period, slated to end March 29 of this year.
In addition to concerns over threatened British sovereignty, the emotional case for Brexit was always heavily influenced by immigration. In 2015 the U.K. absorbed 333,000 new people, many from Southern and Eastern Europe, argued to have depressed the wages of native-born British workers, and using scarce public services. (Although, according to 2017 estimates, 1.3 million people born in the U.K. live in other E.U. countries.) The intellectual case against leaving the E.U. focused on economics. More than 50% of exports go to E.U. countries. No tariffs are assessed on imports and exports between member states. Within the Union, Britain benefits from trade deals between the E.U. and other world powers. It was also feared that its status as one of the world's biggest financial centers would be diminished if it was no longer seen as a gateway to the E.U., especially if large companies were to decide to move their headquarters back onto the continent. "Remain" proponents estimated that about three million jobs related to trade with the E.U. would disappear if the country left he block.
Ms. May was tasked with the tedious process of negotiating an acceptable Brexit agreement, an agreement Parliament could endorse. The E.U. has a major say in how Britain is released from complex legal and economic bonds formed over more than forty years. Any agreement needs to be endorsed by all remaining 27 member states. One of these, the Republic of Ireland, shares a 310 mile border with Northern Ireland, which is part of the U.K.. As long as E.U. rules apply, billions of dollars worth of trade move unencumbered across this border. Under Brexit, border controls, involving tariffs and customs checks, would likely be reestablished, impeding the free flow of goods.
The agreement the prime minister negotiated was billed as the "best and last" offer the Europeans were willing to put on the table. British lawmakers considered it on December 11 of last year, and voted it down by a 432-202 margin. It included a backstop plan for Ireland, which provided a safety net to insure no hard border would reappear on the island. However, this "backstop" involved a temporary single customs territory, which would effectively keep all of the U.K. indefinitely in the E.U. customs union, forced to comply with E.U. rules and regulations. Brexiteers dislike the backstop for that specific reason. E.U. proponents hate it because it leaves Britain outside the E.U., but subject to its rules without a voice or a vote.
Thus far the prime minister has not been able to come up with an acceptable alternative. Options are few. If nothing else happens, the U.K. will leave the E.U. on Friday, March 29, without a deal. Hardcore Brexiteers alarmingly maintain that this "solution" is not only feasible, but perhaps desirable as a way for Britain to dramatically reaffirm its sovereignty. This group has voted against any attempt to take the option off the table. Theresa May could attempt to renegotiate the agreement, which may involve setting an end date to the backstop plan, most likely risking a veto from Irish premier Leo Varadkar, who opposes a hard border under any circumstances. Ms. May could also ask for an extension. European leaders might approve such a request until July1. The first session of the new European Parliament will be held in July. Britain would need to elect MEPs if it continued its membership for a prolonged period of time. To keep the pressure on her government, Theresa May appears to want to wait requesting an extension. A new referendum is opposed by many as being undemocratic and representing a betrayal of British popular will. And, finally, the U.K. could cancel the Article 50 Brexit process, which does not require permission of the other 27 E.U. members, and remain a member on its existing terms, provided the decision followed a "democratic process," requiring a vote in Parliament.
Brexit is important to the U.S., because, without a good outcome, one of our major trading partners could slip into significant economic instability. In 2016, our trade in goods and services with the E.U. totaled nearly $1.1 trillion. Britain's diminished influence would also be less able to support American interest on the international stage. Our hoped for trade deal with he E.U. may be less acceptable if Britain is left out to fend for its own. Besides, a volatile British economy risks the election of Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister, someone who openly prefers centrally planned economies over free markets.
The process appears to be stuck. Few options are palatable to all stakeholders. Nobody is promoting a plan on how to move forward. Unless resolved satisfactorily, all sides are looking forward to protracted economic instability. To quote Donald Tusk, president of the European Council: "I've been wondering what that special place in hell looks like for those who promoted Brexit without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it out safely."
In addition to concerns over threatened British sovereignty, the emotional case for Brexit was always heavily influenced by immigration. In 2015 the U.K. absorbed 333,000 new people, many from Southern and Eastern Europe, argued to have depressed the wages of native-born British workers, and using scarce public services. (Although, according to 2017 estimates, 1.3 million people born in the U.K. live in other E.U. countries.) The intellectual case against leaving the E.U. focused on economics. More than 50% of exports go to E.U. countries. No tariffs are assessed on imports and exports between member states. Within the Union, Britain benefits from trade deals between the E.U. and other world powers. It was also feared that its status as one of the world's biggest financial centers would be diminished if it was no longer seen as a gateway to the E.U., especially if large companies were to decide to move their headquarters back onto the continent. "Remain" proponents estimated that about three million jobs related to trade with the E.U. would disappear if the country left he block.
Ms. May was tasked with the tedious process of negotiating an acceptable Brexit agreement, an agreement Parliament could endorse. The E.U. has a major say in how Britain is released from complex legal and economic bonds formed over more than forty years. Any agreement needs to be endorsed by all remaining 27 member states. One of these, the Republic of Ireland, shares a 310 mile border with Northern Ireland, which is part of the U.K.. As long as E.U. rules apply, billions of dollars worth of trade move unencumbered across this border. Under Brexit, border controls, involving tariffs and customs checks, would likely be reestablished, impeding the free flow of goods.
The agreement the prime minister negotiated was billed as the "best and last" offer the Europeans were willing to put on the table. British lawmakers considered it on December 11 of last year, and voted it down by a 432-202 margin. It included a backstop plan for Ireland, which provided a safety net to insure no hard border would reappear on the island. However, this "backstop" involved a temporary single customs territory, which would effectively keep all of the U.K. indefinitely in the E.U. customs union, forced to comply with E.U. rules and regulations. Brexiteers dislike the backstop for that specific reason. E.U. proponents hate it because it leaves Britain outside the E.U., but subject to its rules without a voice or a vote.
Thus far the prime minister has not been able to come up with an acceptable alternative. Options are few. If nothing else happens, the U.K. will leave the E.U. on Friday, March 29, without a deal. Hardcore Brexiteers alarmingly maintain that this "solution" is not only feasible, but perhaps desirable as a way for Britain to dramatically reaffirm its sovereignty. This group has voted against any attempt to take the option off the table. Theresa May could attempt to renegotiate the agreement, which may involve setting an end date to the backstop plan, most likely risking a veto from Irish premier Leo Varadkar, who opposes a hard border under any circumstances. Ms. May could also ask for an extension. European leaders might approve such a request until July1. The first session of the new European Parliament will be held in July. Britain would need to elect MEPs if it continued its membership for a prolonged period of time. To keep the pressure on her government, Theresa May appears to want to wait requesting an extension. A new referendum is opposed by many as being undemocratic and representing a betrayal of British popular will. And, finally, the U.K. could cancel the Article 50 Brexit process, which does not require permission of the other 27 E.U. members, and remain a member on its existing terms, provided the decision followed a "democratic process," requiring a vote in Parliament.
Brexit is important to the U.S., because, without a good outcome, one of our major trading partners could slip into significant economic instability. In 2016, our trade in goods and services with the E.U. totaled nearly $1.1 trillion. Britain's diminished influence would also be less able to support American interest on the international stage. Our hoped for trade deal with he E.U. may be less acceptable if Britain is left out to fend for its own. Besides, a volatile British economy risks the election of Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister, someone who openly prefers centrally planned economies over free markets.
The process appears to be stuck. Few options are palatable to all stakeholders. Nobody is promoting a plan on how to move forward. Unless resolved satisfactorily, all sides are looking forward to protracted economic instability. To quote Donald Tusk, president of the European Council: "I've been wondering what that special place in hell looks like for those who promoted Brexit without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it out safely."
ARE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH TALKING ABOUT?
In 2017, 39.7 million Americans lived below the federally established poverty level of an annual income of $24,600 for a family or four. Of these, 19 million live in deep poverty, meaning that their total family income is less than one-half of the poverty threshold. These people don't have enough resources to secure basic life necessities. For most of them the inane discussion about the economics behind Donald Trump's $5.7 billion demand for support of his border wall, which forced 800,000 government employees to survive without a paycheck during the recent government shutdown, must have come across as incomprehensible and moronically insensitive.
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, a wannabe billionaire (a contested $200 million shy of that goal), responding to reports that some government workers were relying on charity, homeless shelters and food banks, said: "I know they are, and I don't understand why." He suggested that those affected should be able to take out a loan, entirely missing the point when he rambled on: "We've had shutdowns, albeit for not such a long period as we've been thus far, but put it in the perspective: You're talking about 800,000 workers, if they never got their pay - which is not the case, they will eventually get it - but if they never got it, you're talking about a third of a percent on our GDP." (Quoted in "Real Clear Politics," Jan. 24, 2019.) Not to be outdone, Donald Trump, referencing an unsubstantiated annual price tag for illegal immigration of $250 billion, chimed in: "The $5 billion dollars ... is such a small amount compared to the level of the problem. It is insignificant compared to what we are talking about."
For the many wage earners who transitioned from viewing our national pastime of political infighting from the sidelines to confronting significant bread and butter issues for themselves and their families, this incredulously insensitive interchange between our national leaders must have come off as incomprehensible. Discounting the dollar value of the disputed wall, and reducing it to an "insignificant" percentage of GDP, should have disturbed everyone impacted by the shutdown. A billion dollars is $1,000 million dollars. If you have one billion, and spend $1,000 per day, you would be spending 2,740 years before going broke. You would need to pend $40 million per year - more than $3 million per month - to spend it all in 25 years. Considering that President Trump is demanding $5.7 billion as a down payment for a wall which ultimately is estimated to cost close to $25 billion, these number become difficult to make sense of for most of us.
Another way to understand the magnitude of the $5.7 billion price tag is to correlate it with more digestible expenditures. For instance, it equates to $17 per U.S. citizen, $40. per U.S. tax payer, about $18,750. for each one of the 304,000 apprehended undocumented immigrants during fiscal 2017, or $57,555. for each person requesting asylum in 2018. (The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 26, 2019). The eventual total estimated expenditure for this wall would virtually cover the cost of two of the navy's newest and most expensive "Gerald R. Ford-class" aircraft carriers, at $12.9 billion a piece.
Journalist and political commentator Nicholas Kristoff calculated that for $5.7 billion we could: "Send 100,000 at risk kids to a high quality pre-school for a year, AND provide Pell grants for 100,000 students to attend college for a full four years, PLUS provide comprehensive treatment to 115,000 Americans struggling with opioid addiction." (N.Y. Times, Jan. 15, 2019).
Our leaders may downplay the amount requested to erect this controversial monument to our president, reducing it to 0.03% of GDP, or, alternatively, discounting it to "only" 0.13% of our projected 2019 federal budget of $4.5 trillion, this is still a huge amount of money. We could probably use it more productively elsewhere.
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, a wannabe billionaire (a contested $200 million shy of that goal), responding to reports that some government workers were relying on charity, homeless shelters and food banks, said: "I know they are, and I don't understand why." He suggested that those affected should be able to take out a loan, entirely missing the point when he rambled on: "We've had shutdowns, albeit for not such a long period as we've been thus far, but put it in the perspective: You're talking about 800,000 workers, if they never got their pay - which is not the case, they will eventually get it - but if they never got it, you're talking about a third of a percent on our GDP." (Quoted in "Real Clear Politics," Jan. 24, 2019.) Not to be outdone, Donald Trump, referencing an unsubstantiated annual price tag for illegal immigration of $250 billion, chimed in: "The $5 billion dollars ... is such a small amount compared to the level of the problem. It is insignificant compared to what we are talking about."
For the many wage earners who transitioned from viewing our national pastime of political infighting from the sidelines to confronting significant bread and butter issues for themselves and their families, this incredulously insensitive interchange between our national leaders must have come off as incomprehensible. Discounting the dollar value of the disputed wall, and reducing it to an "insignificant" percentage of GDP, should have disturbed everyone impacted by the shutdown. A billion dollars is $1,000 million dollars. If you have one billion, and spend $1,000 per day, you would be spending 2,740 years before going broke. You would need to pend $40 million per year - more than $3 million per month - to spend it all in 25 years. Considering that President Trump is demanding $5.7 billion as a down payment for a wall which ultimately is estimated to cost close to $25 billion, these number become difficult to make sense of for most of us.
Another way to understand the magnitude of the $5.7 billion price tag is to correlate it with more digestible expenditures. For instance, it equates to $17 per U.S. citizen, $40. per U.S. tax payer, about $18,750. for each one of the 304,000 apprehended undocumented immigrants during fiscal 2017, or $57,555. for each person requesting asylum in 2018. (The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 26, 2019). The eventual total estimated expenditure for this wall would virtually cover the cost of two of the navy's newest and most expensive "Gerald R. Ford-class" aircraft carriers, at $12.9 billion a piece.
Journalist and political commentator Nicholas Kristoff calculated that for $5.7 billion we could: "Send 100,000 at risk kids to a high quality pre-school for a year, AND provide Pell grants for 100,000 students to attend college for a full four years, PLUS provide comprehensive treatment to 115,000 Americans struggling with opioid addiction." (N.Y. Times, Jan. 15, 2019).
Our leaders may downplay the amount requested to erect this controversial monument to our president, reducing it to 0.03% of GDP, or, alternatively, discounting it to "only" 0.13% of our projected 2019 federal budget of $4.5 trillion, this is still a huge amount of money. We could probably use it more productively elsewhere.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)