Trumpcare (Not)

   As expected, the Trumpians had lots to complain about when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its preliminary cost estimate of the proposed revision of the health care law.
   "I disagree strenuously" with the CBO report, said Tom Price, head of the Health and Human Services department. "The CBO has it wrong," Price said, and the report "is not believable."
   The CBO said more than 14 million Americans would be uninsured by next year, and a total of 24 million over the next ten years would lose their health insurance coverage.
   At the same time, the legislation would reduce the federal budget by $337 through the year 2026, largely by cutting Medicaid and expenses and eliminating subsidies under the present Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
   The biggest costs, the CBO added, would come from repealing changes in the federal tax code that brought in revenue from high income earners  as well as fees imposed on health insurers.
   Instead of a government subsidy to low income citizens enabling them to buy health insurance, the new plan would provide a tax credit.
   The problem here is that there will be no mandate that everyone buy a health insurance policy, so those who cannot afford a policy will simply go without. If they then get sick, will likely go to a hospital emergency room, where they will be treated for free. The costs are then passed on to other patients and their insurors.
   In addition, a tax credit to help buy a health insurance policy is of little or no use to low income individuals and families, since they don't make enough money as to be taxable anyway.
   Democrats were quick to condemn the proposed act.
   "Trumpcare will be a nightmare," said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York. It will lead to 58 million Americans without health care coverage, he said, and will bring premium increases of as much as 25 percent. Moreover, the government would spend "twice as much on tax cuts for the wealthy as credits for others."
   As a candidate, Donald Trump promised that everyone will be covered and costs will go down, Schumer noted. But the Trumpcare plan would also cut $170 million from the Medicare budget, Schumer noted.
   House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California charged the proposed act as "immoral, indecent, and wrong," adding the hope that Republican sponsors pull the bill.
   Trump supporter Mick Mulvaney, the federal budget director known to be a fierce advocate of spending cuts,  in defending the plan, insisted that "competition lowers costs."
   But if potential buyers have little or no money to spare, they simply drop out of the market.
   Finally, it's important to note that the House of Representatives approved the Trumpcare bill last week during an all night session, before the CBO analysis of the proposal became available.
   Typically, important legislation is not voted on until after members of Congress have had input from the CBO.
   This time, they didn't wait.

Busy Week

   Journalists are eager for the week to begin, with a plethora of stories about to break about the American economy, its government and how they clash.
   Monday is the deadline for a Congressional demand for proof from the White House that Trump Tower was bugged on the orders of former President Barack Obama. The allegation was made by the current occupant of the White House, Donald Trump, but no evidence was offered and senior FBI officials have asked the Justice Department to refute the allegation.
   Also on Monday, the nonpartisan and independent Congressional Budget Office is to release its estimate of the costs of the proposed revision of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, to be replaced by something called the American Health Care Act, also known as Trumpcare. But it's not a good sign that criticism of the report has already been launched, even before its release.
   Later in the week, the Federal Reserve Board meets, and it's widely expected to increase its target range for its key interest rate, the Federal Funds rate. This rate has been near zero for a long time, and as the economy shows increasing signs of health, the Fed will likely nudge interest rates upward a bit to prevent overheating of the economy.
   And we can expect further repercussions from the firing of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, whose jurisdiction in New York includes Wall Street and Trump Tower. If there is any truth to the allegation that there was wiretapping of Trump Tower, it would be up the that office to investigate for any criminal acts.
   To bug the phones legally would require a court warrant. If there is one, that would mean there was something going on that would persuade a judge to issue the warrant. If the Trump Organization offices were wiretapped without a warrant, that would mean illegal activity by the government. And if there was no surveillance, legal or otherwise, that would mean President Trump made a serious allegation of criminal activity by his predecessor, without evidence or proof.
   Add that to the previous pile of unproven allegations, falsehoods, innuendoes, slurs and full-blown lies and you get an impending constitutional crisis.
   So is the president being investigated? The White House denies it, and the Justice Department and the FBI both have no comment. But that's standard. The FBI never comments on any investigation. They don't even acknowledge that there is one.
   Meanwhile, one wonders who's in charge at the White House?

Presidential Displeasure

Prez to U.S. Attorney:
"You're Fired!"

   Evidence is piling up that there were, in fact, improper relationships between Donald Trump, his staffers, and foreign political and business entities before and after Election Day.
   Several days ago, government monitors asked U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, whose jurisdiction in New York City includes Trump Tower and Wall Street, to investigate whether Trump violated the Constitution by accepting benefits from foreign powers.
   On Thursday, conservative talk show host Sean Hannity called on the president to "purge" holdovers from the previous administration and remove "saboteurs" from the Justice Department who were allegedly leaking documents intended to harm Trump.
   As if on cue, the next day Trump demanded resignations from 46 U.S. attorneys, effectively immediately. Bharara refused, and Trump's response was: "You're fired!"
   It's not uncommon for presidents to replace multiple appointees when a new administration takes office, but typically the replacements are spread out over time, especially when there are continuing investigations. But to demand that all leave immediately is an extraordinary move.
   Moreover, Trump had already asked Bharara, a Democrat, to stay on as U.S. attorney in Manhattan to continue working on important cases. Bharara has a reputation for being strong on prosecuting corruption no matter where found.
   All of this raises the key question of whether the president's many business interests in America and around the world may be running afoul of U.S. law and the constitutional ban on accepting benefits of any kind from any foreign power.
   Already, members of the Trump team have been accused of frequent contact with Russian officials before and after the election, and there are strong indications that the meetings were more than social or business calls.
   Meanwhile, the Irish Times in Dublin carried a report from its Beijing correspondent that the government of China has granted 38 new Trump trademarks, which will enable the U.S. president to expand his range of businesses using his name in that country.
   An attorney for the Trump Organization said the group has been "actively  enforcing its intellectual property rights in China for more than a decade," according to the Irish Times report, and these new trademarks are part of that effort.
   However, the newspaper also noted that the trademarks were granted by the Chinese government with unusual speed, which experts said raised the issue of conflict of interest between the president and business interests in China, as well as a violation of the U.S. Constitutional ban known as the emoluments clause.
   Having a conflict of interest -- potential or real -- is not in itself a bad thing. But acting on that conflict, to the detriment of others you supposedly represent, can easily fall into the trap of being illegal, unethical, or even treasonous.
   Now there are increasing questions from journalists, academics and government officials as to the propriety of using an official government position -- such as the presidency -- to tout the products and services of Trump-related businesses.
   Ignoring the questions, ejecting journalists who ask the questions, and even firing prosecutors charged with enforcing laws, does not make the questions go away.
   It does, however, heighten the curiosity of more citizens, voters, and lawyers who see more and more smoke and ask, where's the fire?
   So if there is collusion between the current administration and foreign powers with interests that conflict with American ideals and practices, it's time to investigate and stomp out the fire.

Pencil Sharpeners

   Refusing to answer a question and ejecting the questioner does not make the question go away.
   Yet that seems to be the policy of the Trump organization as it moves from campaign mode to governing mode.
   On Friday, aides escorted Andrea Mitchell of NBC News out of the room where a senior Mexican official was speaking to journalists after she asked several questions that supposedly were not permitted.
   Nevertheless, she persisted, and was soon ousted.

   Earlier, it was revealed that news media would not accompany Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on an official visit to Asia. This after the State Department finally began holding press briefings, the first since the change of administrations. Eventually, the department said it would reconsider, after major news organizations objected.
   Meanwhile, the State Department press spokesman admitted he was unaware that the senior Mexican government official was in Washington. All this as Tillerson seems to be boxed out of policy meetings with the president.
   During the election campaign, there were several instances of journalists being barred from political events featuring the candidate. Among these was the time Jorge Ramos of Univision was forcibly ejected from a meeting because the candidate supposedly did not like the way Ramos was covering the campaign.

   The moral of this collection of incidents is that you can't run a government the way you run a company. When a senior executive doesn't like the way an employee behaves, or objects to the kinds of questions the employee asks, he can fire the employee.
   But journalists assigned to cover the doings of the chief executive of the United States government do not work for that executive. They may be paid by the publisher of their news outlet, and in that sense they can be fired by the editor, but in a larger sense they work for the citizens of the country.
   They do not work for government officials, and any attempt to force them to cover a story the way the government wants it slanted is doomed to failure. Meanwhile, the question does not go away, but continues to be asked by other members of the media.
   And the more a politician rants, and the louder he protests about "fake news," the more reporters believe they are closer to the real story.

Make the White House Real Again

   What's all this about lost and stolen jobs being hijacked to other countries even as the U.S. economy totters on the brink of catastrophe?
   That was the campaign rant for months. Now, 50 days into the new administration, here's a reality check:
   Over the past three months, job gains have averaged 209,000 per month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In February, U.S. employers hired 235,000 workers, as the nationwide unemployment rate posted 4.7 percent, down from 4.9 percent a year ago.
   Coupled with other recent reports that overall economic growth has been steady, and Americans continue to buy more imported stuff than U.S. firms export, all signs point to a healthy and growing economy.
   All this also means the Federal Reserve is likely to raise its key interest rate when its Open Market Committee meets next week, as its way of preventing a too-strong economic surge.
   Ironically, these continuing signs of a healthy and growing economy put the Trump Administration in a bind. After months of campaigning on dire warnings of an economic apocalypse, the White House now can claim credit for rescuing America and making it great again, after just a few weeks in office.
   Press Secretary Sean Spicer led his daily press briefing with the news of healthy job growth and low unemployment, making the point that this was just 50 days since Donald Trump was inaugurated, on January 20.
   As if he was personally responsible for February's good news.
   But the reality is that this is part of a continuing economic recovery that goes back ten years, after the Great Recession that took place during the last Republican administration under President George W. Bush, and the recovery under a Democrat, President Barack Obama.
   But while correlation is not necessarily causation, it's also true that once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times or more is a pattern. A brief look at history shows that economic downturns occur more often during a Republican Administration than when a Democrat occupies the Oval Office.
   Not that this is a prediction, but if the current president succeeds in his announced plans to cut taxes and increase spending, it doesn't take a wizard to see a potential problem.

Crossing the Line

"If this be treason ... " -- Patrick Henry

"An it be so, it were a grievous fault." -- Shakespeare

And grievously shall we all pay for it.

   News media are finally having an attack of conscience, after realizing they were taken in by the shiny showman who played on the basic courtesy of interviewers to foist his alluring message on listeners eager for a promise of good news and increasing prosperity.
   The reality that good news and increasing prosperity were already on the way did not deter the salesman to pitch the benefits of his product and urge listeners to ignore potential risks.
   He honed his skills on the gossip sheets and tabloids, which helped build his reputation as "a good interview" who could always supply "good copy."
   And this skill at manipulating media helped propel him to bigger and bigger audiences, then to voters and eventually to the White House.
   But how far is too far? What does it matter when someone crosses the proverbial line and nothing happens, especially when the line keeps moving?
   How many times does the line have to move until the public, encouraged finally by an awake media, finally says, "Enough. No more. You've gone too far."
   Answer: When the public feels betrayed, and members of Congress believe their own positions are in danger of forfeit for tolerating outrageous behavior on the part of a president.
  Journalists are now pushing more aggressively for answers to questions that should have been asked forcefully long ago, and academics are joining in, posting their knowledge of constitutional law and giving examples of how the president may well have violated the law and should face impeachment, trial, conviction and removal from office.
   The latest scandal emanating from the Oval Office is the allegation the President Barack Obama was behind a scheme to wire tap communications at Trump Tower. The current president provided no evidence, and his charges were refuted by several leading present and former officials, who noted that such an action would be illegal.
   And whether the allegation were true or not, wiretapping someone without a warrant is a criminal offense. Either way, "False and defamatory speech isn't protected by the First Amendment," according to Noah Feldman, professor of constitutional and international law at Harvard University, writing on Bloomberg.com.
   Moreover, "the constitutional remedy for presidential misconduct is impeachment," Feldman added.
   Adding to that suggestion is George Lakoff, distinguished professor of cognitive science and linguistics (retired) at the University of California at Berkeley, who raises this question about Donald Trump's "Russian connections and his unwavering support" for that country. "Is treason the reason?" Lakoff asks.
   The president's tax returns "could show of Trump is deeply involved in debt to Russians or if he is involved in illegal financial activity," Lakoff writes on his blog, https://georgelakoff.com.
   More importantly, Trump has created a distraction from his own issues by accusing Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower. So, "faced with the biggest scandal in American history -- presidential treason -- Trump, with a tweet, accuses Obama of a scandal bigger than Watergate."
   Fortunately, an aroused news media will not be distracted by this diversion strategy, but will actively and forcefully cover both stories.
   Why? Because they are both related. Whether the story of unauthorized, illegal presidential wiretapping is true or not, the very allegation may be an impeachable offense.
   Who's making book on the odds of the current president leaving or being ousted by the end of this year?

Gaming Numbers

   The international trade deficit is rising, the federal budget deficit is rising, and the government will reach its borrowing limit on March 16.
   But does all this mean the U.S. is about to stumble into bankruptcy? No, because despite what some politicians warn of, "deficits don't matter," to quote Dick Cheney, the former vice president.
   The Commerce Department reported that the trade deficit in January stood at $48.5 billion, a 9.6 percent rise from December. Imports rose to $240.6 billion from $235.4, and exports increased to $192.1 billion from $191.0 billion.
   And the Census Bureau, part of the Commerce Department, pointed out that exports and imports were both at a three-year high. The top exports of goods were automotive parts and accessories, passenger cars, and pharmaceuticals.
   Top exports of services were for travel, business services, and charges for the use of intellectual property.
   Imports were led by passenger cars, crude oil, and cell phones and other household goods.
   Simply put, this happened because Americans buy more stuff than we sell, mostly because we have more money.
   The reverse, selling more stuff than we buy, would require that we make more stuff, in excess of what we need. But the beneficiaries of that arrangement would not be factory workers, who get paid the same hourly wage whether they produce enough for domestic consumption or for export, but senior management, who gain extra profit from increased overseas sales.
   This is not to say that a trade surplus is a bad thing. But it is to say that it benefits a few, not the many. Likewise, trade deficits harm that same few, not the factory floor many.
   Over time, moreover, international trade payments always balance. If they don't, that means somebody is cheating. In addition, closing borders and raising tariffs only closes markets, and both sides suffer.
   That doesn't stop the current administration from whining about the imbalance, since their emphasis on "America First" translates to a winner-take-all business.
   In announcing the trade figures, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the data shows "there is much work to be done." He added that "correcting this imbalance is an important step," and the government "will renegotiate bad trade deals" in defense of "all hard-working Americans."
   That, however, reflects the same conservative mercantile winner-take-all attitude, and tries to extend it to wage earners as well as senior management traders.
   Separately, the Congressional Budget Office noted that for the first time since 2009, the federal budget deficit rose in relation to total output. And over the next ten years, deficits will continue to rise, partly due to "increased spending for retirement and health care programs targeted to older people, as well as rising interest payments on the government's debt, accompanied by only modest growth in revenue."
   So the current administration wants to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, cut taxes, and spend lots more on the military.
   Meanwhile, the Treasury Department will top out on its ability to issue bonds as a way of raising money to fund government projects. Unless it uses "extraordinary measures" to continue raising cash. Even so, these measures could be exhausted by autumn.
   Does this mean the government will go bankrupt? Probably not, because Treasury bonds and notes are typically bought mostly by Americans, so in a sense we owe that money to ourselves.
   Nonetheless, all these negative numbers provide plenty of ammunition for conservatives to hammer the need for spending reductions, less regulation and fewer taxes, in the hope that all this freedom will encourage spectacular economic growth.
   But the CBO also forecast that growth over the next two years will stay close to the modest rate of about 2 percent since the end of the Great Recession in 2009.
   Nevertheless, the CBO noted, economic growth will be faster than growth in potential. Result: More jobs, higher wages and some upward pressure on inflation and interest rates.
   All in all, things look pretty good. Unless the new guy screws things up. Even so, the Federal Reserve will monitor everything to make sure things don't go wild. And Congress, which traditionally also cherishes its independence, may block some of the new guy's stranger plans.