Trump Voters Want to Retaliate Against Enemies
"Like many parts of America that strongly supported Trump. Grand Junction, [Colorado] is a rural place with problems that have traditionally been associated with urban areas." "Far from Denver and Boulder, there are many places where an atmosphere of decline has lasted for two or more generations, leaving a profound impact on the outlook of young people."
"Trump's negative qualities, which once had been described as a means to an end, now had value of their own. The point wasn't necessarily to get things done; it was to retaliate against the media and other enemies." The reporter, Peter Hessler, said that in eight months he had never heard anyone express regret for voting for Donald Trump. [1]
The Trump Family Ethical Delinquencies
"The Republicans, the self-proclaimed party of family values, remain squarely behind a family and a Presidency whose most salient features are amorality, greed, demogoguery, deception, vulgarity, race-baiting, misogyny, and potentially -- only time and further investigation will tell -- a murky relationship with a hostile foreign government." "Meanwhile, as the Trump family consumes the nation's attention with its colossal self-absorption and ethical delinquencies, the temperature keeps rising." [2]
Voter Suppression
Ari Berman, a noted researcher of voter suppression, writes that "even though 36 states use paper ballots or electronic machines with paper backups, that paper is rarely checked thoroughly enough to ensure the returns are accurate (only a little more than half the states require even basic post election audits)." [3]
According to a new study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, twelve percent of the electorate in 2016 -- 16 million Americans -- encountered a problem voting, including long lines at polls, difficulty registering, or faulty voting machines. And as Berman points out, the November 2016 election for president was decided by just 80,000 votes in three states.
According to the Brennan Center, 99 bills to limit access to the ballot have been introduced in 31 states this year, and more than in 2015 and 2016 combined.
The Fallacy of Tax Credits
During the campaign for president, Donald Trump proposed $550 billion for rebuilding America's infrastructure, which was exactly double what Hillary Clinton was proposing. After Trump was elected, the conventional wisdom was that Trump was proposing $1 trillion in infrastructure spending. What Trump is proposing now is to provide $200 billion in tax credits, which would then leverage $1 trillion in investment over a decade.
Two regular contributors to The Nation magazine demolish the argument that the Trump scheme would work. "First, the federal government would offer tax credits to private firms like investment banks, private-equity investors, and private electric and water companies. Then these firms would use the credits to raise the rest of the money they needed to fund the upkeep of roads or the creation of new bridges. But for a private firm to have any interest in a project, it will need some way to turn a profit when the project is completed." Covert and Konczal also point out that those in remote or low-income areas, where there aren't enough people to squeeze money from, won't attract private investors. [4]
Is there any evidence to support the article's title of "Soaring Prices?" Tolls for a privatized road in Indiana more than doubled. Water rates for a New Jersey town's privatized system have climbed almost 28 percent.
As an apt illustration of how President Trump takes actions or makes proposals that directly contradict each other, Trump's FY 2018 budget cuts $206 billion from federal programs that directly fund infrastructure projects.
Cutting Payments to Insurers
If President Trump cuts payments to insurers, the Kaiser Family Foundation's Larry Levitt has said the government would need to increase tax credits for those with cost-sharing reduction policies to offset the increase in premium prices. The Foundation also forecasts an immediate premium increase of about 20 percent for those who need premium assistance. Levitt says it could cost the government about $2.3 billion more than if it had paid the insurers at the outset. It's a case of pay me now or pay me later.
Members of the National Governors Association have warned that ending the payments to insurers would destabilize the individual health insurance marketplace.
SPECIAL NOTE: Please God, if you want me to support the impeachment of President Trump, give me a sign. Blot out the sun sometime during the next week.
Footnotes
[1] Peter Hessler, "Follow the Leader," The New Yorker, July 24, 2017.
[2] David Remnick, "Things Fall Apart," The New Yorker, July 24, 2017.
[3] Ari Berman, "American Democracy Besieged," The Nation, July 31/August 7, 2017.
[4] Bryce Covert + Mike Konczal, "Soaring Prices," The Nation, July 17/24, 2017.
No comments:
Post a Comment