The View from 2900 Miles Away

 

 

Four decades have passed since I last voted in Virginia but the Commonweath’s politics still have a hold on me. Virginia was just emerging from decades of political and racist oligarchy under the Byrd Organization (read: machine) as I became politically and socially aware in the late 60s and early 70s. Change was all around then, even in Virginia, and the political campaigns of that era left an indelible impression on me that has never worn off.

So it’s not surprising that I paid close attention to this year’s election for governor. And as in many previous elections, I was disappointed in the outcome. Glen Youngkin managed to excite the Trump base without frightening the suburbanites while Terry McAuliffe seemed to offer little more than “I was a not terrible governor during my previous term” and “Trump = BAD!” Although I preferred McAuliffe, it was largely a matter of keeping Trumpism at bay and my general dislike of wealthy investors parachuting into political office.

That plus McAuliffe has never been my idea of a good candidate. Like Youngkin, he’s a rich, white man, a corporate Democrat hard-wired into the status quo. I paid some attention to the Democratic primary this year and thought several other candidates seemed better aligned with my values. I probably would have voted for one of them if I voted in Virginia. But name recognition and big money gave McAuliffe the Democratic nomination and, for the longest time, a seemingly comfortable lead.

But Youngkin ran a smart campaign. He kept his distance from Trump while still dog whistling to the Trump base. He talked about local issues that seemed more consistent with the governor’s duties as the state’s chief executive. He presented himself as a completely nonthreatening suburban dad, not at all like Donald Trump. Meanwhile McAuliffe sounded petty and arrogant, seemingly entitled to another term in office. After the upheavals of the past four years, Youngkin is comfort food for a Virginia electorate that has seen the foundations of its mythology challenged.

The dust has settled and Virginia will have a Republican governor for the next four years. I can only hope that he will govern in the tradition of his predecessor Linwood Holton who became the first Republican elected governor of Virginia since Reconstruction. I think that will be unlikely in the Age of Trump but would be happy to find that I am wrong about that.

Missing the Bigger Picture

Saw some interesting observations about health insurance reform in the news this past weekend.  First off is James Davis:

James Davis, who runs communications for the Koch network, lamented that the conversation on health-care reform has focused too much on the number of people who have insurance — regardless of premiums or what kind of care those who have it will receive — and not enough on outcomes.

Hard to argue with looking at outcomes.  I spent my entire professional career evaluating the results of public programs and know that, in the end, public programs should produce the desired results.  I also know that identifying and measuring those results can be difficult, but health care has some definite outcomes for for society as a whole.  Mr. Davis is right to ask about results.  It would not take long for him to find that:

 The United States health care system is the most expensive in the world...[and]...underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance.

Mr. Davis did not say how he would define health outcomes but his statement suggests that he would encourage the Koch brothers to look for ways to promote improved performance at lower costs.  He may not need to do a great deal of research.

Perhaps a magic free market Koch brothers-approved system will change the trajectory of American heath outcomes but I doubt it.  So far, the most successful system the US has come with was the Republican-inspired Affordable Care Act and the Republicans HATED that.  It did reduce the number of uninsured but insurance does not guarantee actual health care.  On the other hand, the ACA did little to reduce costs.  It definitely needs work but I don't have much faith in the Koch's free market libertarian solutions. 

Also in the news is Pennsylvania Senator Patrick Toomey defending a change in the funding formula that will index Medicaid payments to the states to changes in the overall consumer price index rather the typically higher medical price index:

"The idea that there’s a sector of our economy that has to permanently have a higher inflation rate than the rest of our economy is ridiculous,” Toomey said Thursday. “I think that it’s absolutely essential to putting [Medicaid] on a sustainable path so that it will be there for future generations.”

Senator Toomey said the change was needed to “transition to a normal inflation rate” for a program in which he said costs were spiraling out of control.  Here, too, I can't argue with his underlying premise.  Program costs should not spiral out of control.  But he would simply refuse to address the causes of those spiraling costs.  Instead, he would fund Medicaid only to certain point regardless on the impact it will have on access to medical insurance (which may not guarantee health care but is a sine qua non for any hope of obtaining medical treatment).  When the funding runs out so will insurance coverage for many.

What neither of these men seem to wonder is why American health care costs are spiraling out of control even as the country spends far more per capita than any other nation.  This is a complex question that deserves considerable debate and discussion.  It is not a question that can be crammed into partisan legislation and voted on the quick-time.  Of course, in today's Congress, partisan legislation enacted in haste is exactly what we will get.

WASF.

Where I Agree with Republican Conservatives and Vladimir Putin

In thier biograpy of Vladimir Putin, Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy note that one of Putin's earliest objectives as Russia's president was to reduce Russia's national debt.  He viewed the debt in nationalistic terms and believed that Russia's indebtedness to western banks limited the nation's latitude in dealing with the west and forced it to capitulate to to the dissolution of the Soviet state in the early post-Comunist years.  Hill and Gaddy report that Russia's debt to has been reduced considerably under Putin.  I don't approve of the Putin's "New" Russia, with its oligarchs, corruption and political repression, but I reconize the value of limiting your exposure to outside forces that do not necessarily share your interests.  That makes sense to me.  A large and growing debt puts a nation, even the United States, at the mercies of the debt-holders. 

Also making sense to me are fiscal conservatives in America who question the wisdom of funding routine operations and programs with an ever-accumulating national debt.  I know governments, especially governments of rich, powerful nations like the United States, don't operate at the same level as my household or even a business but I don't see where an increasing level of debt is sustainable.  The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) doesn't think so either.  So when I hear Republicans talking about reducing the deficit, I can agree with the idea ensuring that the federal govenment is sustainable.

Where I disagree with the Republican fiscal conservatives is on the scope of government and how best to finance that government.  I support social welfare programs that protect the most vulnerable Americans and believe that the nation is wealthy enough to support those programs.  That's the socialist in me.  The socialist in me is more than willing to take from the rich and give to the poor and society at large. I'm not an economist but I do understand how markets work and how financial incentives drive innovation so I'm not talking about expropriation.

What I am talking about is asking those Americans who have profited handsomely during the past three decades of Reaganomics and neo-Regonomics to share a portion of their wealth with the rest of us.  Wealthy individuals and profitable corporations benefit greatly from organized government, often more than the mass of taxpayers.  It is reasonable for the nation ask a greater sacrifice from the wealthy and profitable corporations to support the nation as a whole.  I like to think Americans are smart enough to figure out how to make this work.  We are supposedly a practical nation.  At least, we used to be.

Non-economist that I am, I do not believe that America must pay off its entire national debt or even eliminate all deficit spending.  Debt can be used wisely for to build and aquire long-term assets like infrastructure that serves future generations as well as the present.  Deficit spending can be an effective tool for managing the economy.  I am by no means a deficit/debt hawk but it does seem like a good idea to keep the national debt at a manageaable level.  At this time in America

So while I agree with the Republican--and GAO--concerns about fiscal sustainability, I don't agree with their "trickle-down" tax cuts and consequent demands for program cuts.  Far better to tax the rich.  They can afford it and still continue to live well beyond the means available to the average American. 

A Battle Won. More to Come.

Donald Trump claims that the Democrats "own" healthcare now that the Republican has failed.  But like many of Donald's opinions, this is one is also wrong.  True that the Democrats are the architects of the system now in place but much of that system lies within his authority as president.  Obama handed him the keys on January 20.  His failure to craft a replacement means that he's in charge of administering the Affordable Care Act along with his minion, Health & Human Services Secretary Tom Price.

Donald Trump and the Republicans also claim that the Affordable Care Act will collapse of its own weight, that it's going into a death spiral, which like much information from Trump and the Republicans is not true. But Trump and his minions are positioned to monkeywrench the machinery.   We saw this when he canceled outreach efforts during the most recent enrollment period and his directive that IRS no longer enforce the individual mandate.  Plenty of opportunities exist for Trump to push the system into collapse.

If we let him.

The failure of Republican Repeal and Replace is a greater victory than I would have ever expected.  It came about because Paul Ryan offered a completely unacceptable alternative and people mobilized against it.  Now that we know the Affordable Care Act will continue in force for at least the forseeable future, we need to pay close attention to the administrative process to keep Trump's ideological minions from creating the death spiral they fervently wish upon the American people.

That goes for everything else, too.  Trump has seeded the federal government with ideologues who want to lead their agencies into the dustbin of history.  Scott Pruitt at EPA and Betsy DeVos at Education come to mind most readily but they are hardly alone.  They all will have plenty of opportunities for destructive mischief.  Legislative battles are dramatic but the administrative process carries great weight as well and is easily overlooked.  We can't afford not to pay attention.

Caveats aside, the defeat of  Repeal and Replace is worth celebrating.  For the moment, at least, one dreadful change is dead and the ideologues' plans are disrupted.  The trillion-dollar tax cut for the rich at the expense of health insurance for millions won't happen. 

Missing The Forest

Hilary Clinton blames her loss to Donald Trump on FBI Director James Comey's bombshell letter about new emails and Russian interference in Trump's favor.  She makes a valid point, along with other Democrats.  In a close election, which this one was in several key states, just about any unfavorable intervention is likely to affect the final result.  So Clinton's conclusion is not incorrect.

It is, however, beside the point.  With Donald Trump as a candidate, the election should have never been close.  That is where Democrats and all of the other "if only..." counterfactualists err in blaming Clinton's loss on outside interventions.  Those interventions may have made a difference at the margin but their impact was only possible due to Clinton's flaws as a candidate and a poorly run campaign.  Democrats chose to run an establishment candidate with a serious deficit of trustworthiness in a year where the electorate was clamoring for change.  Even so, Clinton won the popular vote but failed to win the vote according to America's baroque eletoral college system.

The point of all this is that blaming external factors for Clinton's loss is a sure path to continued irrelevance for the Democratic Party.  It will continue to be the only likely avenue for progressive social, economic and foreign policy to be presented to the American electorate.

One opportunity to steer the Democratic Party in a more effective direction is to encourage Democratic National Committee members to select a new Chair who will support organizing in all 50 states rather than relying on its "Blue Wall" and a few swing states for winning national elections.  Aside from abandoning no part of America to the Republicans, the 50 state strategy will ensure that Democrats reach out to the dispossed American workers who made Donald Trump president.  The band of incorrigible spitballers at Mock Paper Scissors have provided a set of resources for making your voice heard at this critical time.

Make your voice heard.  Our backs are against the wall.

It's Over?

Today's Washington Post pretty much calls the election for Clinton.  The lead story describes continuing divisiveness within the Repbulican Party and Trump's campaign.  This is followed by Senator Susan Collins refusting to endorse Trump and a serious discussion of Trump's non-existent get out the vote operation.  Finally, Stuart Rothenberg makes a convincing argument based that Trump is unlikely to halt his downward spiral.

All of which is music to my ears.  I can only hope that all this will prove true.  I know that Donald Trump has survived as a candidate against all expectations but I think that most Americans are begining to tire of his bluster, lies and ignorance.  Of the only two people who have a chance of serving as president beginning January 20, 2017 I prefer Hillary Clinton.  Seeing a blowhard bully like Donald Trump crash and burn in November would be a bonus. 

This all reminds me of the Goldwater-McGovern treatment.  Both candidates were regarded as hapless losers from the moment of their nomination.  Barry Goldwater was widely described as a dangerous (the infamous daisy ad) and was reported to be psychologically unfit to be president.  McGovern was derided as the candidate of "acid, amnesty and abortion".  He was ridiculed for dumping his VP candidate after backing him "1000 percent".  Both McGovern and Goldwater were written off by the press early on.  Neither succeeded in turning things around.

I hesitate to compareDonald Trump to either George McGovern or Barry Goldwater.  The latter both demonstrated a demonstrated a serious commitment to public service and were decent human beings.  Donald Trump shares none of these traits.  But one comparison is appropriate:  both McGovern and Goldwater lost their elections.  I look forward to Trump joining them in the loser column.

A follow up question for extra credit. 

If Trump is Goldwater/McGovern, is Hillary Clinton Lyndon Johnson (remember how that worked out) or Richard Nixon (even worse)?

An Observation

Mock Paper Scissors has a good take on Booman's thoughts about a NYT opinion piece about why Donald Trump will not break the Republican Party.  All are worth reading.

Booman concludes, "It’s simply not true that the Republicans can hold together indefinitely under this kind of pressure. I believe the proof of this is what we’re all witnessing right now."

We can hope.

Easter 2016

Easter 1916

I

I have met them at close of day
Coming with vivid faces
From counter or desk among grey
Eighteenth-century houses.
I have passed with a nod of the head
Or polite meaningless words,
Or have lingered awhile and said
Polite meaningless words,
And thought before I had done
Of a mocking tale or a gibe
To please a companion
Around the fire at the club,
Being certain that they and I
But lived where motley is worn:
All changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

II

That woman's days were spent
In ignorant good will,
Her nights in argument
Until her voice grew shrill.
What voice more sweet than hers
When young and beautiful,
She rode to harriers?
This man had kept a school
And rode our winged horse.
This other his helper and friend
Was coming into his force;
He might have won fame in the end,
So sensitive his nature seemed,
So daring and sweet his thought.
This other man I had dreamed
A drunken, vain-glorious lout.
He had done most bitter wrong
To some who are near my heart,
Yet I number him in the song;
He, too, has resigned his part
In the casual comedy;
He, too, has been changed in his turn,
Transformed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

III

Hearts with one purpose alone
Through summer and winter, seem
Enchanted to a stone
To trouble the living stream.
The horse that comes from the road,
The rider, the birds that range
From cloud to tumbling cloud,
Minute by minute change.
A shadow of cloud on the stream
Changes minute by minute;
A horse-hoof slides on the brim;
And a horse plashes within it
Where long-legged moor-hens dive
And hens to moor-cocks call.
Minute by minute they live:
The stone's in the midst of all.

IV

Too long a sacrifice
Can make a stone of the heart.
O when may it suffice?
That is heaven's part, our part
To murmur name upon name,
As a mother names her child
When sleep at last has come
On limbs that had run wild.
What is it but nightfall?
No, no, not night but death.
Was it needless death after all?
For England may keep faith
For all that is done and said.
We know their dream; enough
To know they dreamed and are dead.
And what if excess of love
Bewildered them till they died?
I write it out in a verse --
MacDonagh and MacBride
And Connolly and Pearse
Now and in time to be,
Wherever green is worn,
Are changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

To Caucus We Go

Today is caucus day in Washington. Not only do I get to participate but I need only walk across the street to do so. Can’t get much more democratic and local than that. And yet we will be declaring our choices for President of the US. Right in our own neighborhood.

I will go to support Bernie Sanders whom I have admired since I first learned of him as the socialist mayor of Burlington and followed his career as Vermont’s sole representative in the House of Representatives and US Senator. I liked him last summer when he declared to run for president as a Democrat. To me that is Bernie using the opportunity available to take his ideas to a wider audience. At that point, all I expected was a valiant attempt to include human values into a what has become corporate party. The resulting campaign has achieved that far beyond what I expected. 

Win or lose the nomination, Sanders has demonstrated strong support—over 40 percent of chosen (not super) delegates—for his ideas and has stirred the political consciousness of a new generation of voters, those who will live to see the future consequences of the decisions we make today. If Clinton comes to the convention with the enough delegates to secure the party’s nomination, she and the Democratic establishment would be wise not to ignore Sanders’ delegates and ideas.

The Knives Are Out

Republican presidential politics is turning bloody.  True conservatives distrust Donald Trump.  The Establishment loathes Ted Cruz (so does just about everyone).  Polling so far has all the pundits predicting a two-way fight. No third alternative has gained traction going into the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, leaving the GOP with a choice between "being shot or poisoned" according to Lindsey Graham.

These days the Republican establishment seems to be coming to terms with its binary choice, deciding that Trump is the lesser of its two evils.   They are making a logical choice.  Trump appears to be expanding the Republican electorate where Cruz is appealing to a base that is still likely to be Republican no matter who is the party's nominee.  And they genuinely loathe Cruz. 

All this is both amusing and satisfying since I care little for Republican ideology or policies.  I would like to think that either Trump or Cruz would lose to either Sanders or Clinton but I don't have any illusions.  Both Democratic possibilities have liabilities.  Sanders' liabilities are mostly tactical:  his limited connection to minority communities that are the Democratic base and lack of foreign policy experience.  Clinton's liabilities are strategic:  she's the ultimate insider in an anti-insider political year and has a serious credibility problem.  She has the experience and resources.  Sanders has the enthusiasm.

I don't make predictions but I do have preferences.  I'm a Democratic Socialist so Bernie Sanders is my first choice.  Clinton is acceptable as a second choice although if she were the nominee I would likely vote for Jill Stein in November, something I can do in reliably Democratic Washington.  Neither Trump nor Cruz is acceptable to me as president, although I will allow that Cruz is the more dangerous of the two.  For that matter, no Republican candidate offers reasonable policies for America's economic, social, environmental, and foreign challenges in the 21st Century.

Tea Leaves

A Bernie Sanders optimist could take comfort from the Washington Post over the past few days.  Today the paper reports that the Republican nomination is becoming a Trump-Cruz race.   Yesterday the Post headlined that Clinton's lead over Sanders is "evaporating".  Polling trends so far show that Sanders is a credible candidate against either Trump or Cruz.  The optimist could revel in the December Quinnipiac poll that showed Sanders 13 points ahead of Trump but would also have to take note that the same poll has Cruz ahead of Sanders by one point.  The optimist might also not want to pay too much attention to the favorable trend toward Cruz in recent weeks.

This early, any long-term prediction from these results are hardly definitive.  What I do see is that Bernie Sanders is currently credible candidate against any Republican.  That may change but in a year when everyone is angry and anti-establishment Democrats could do worse than to nominate a candidate who is challenging that establishment. 

Yesterday's headline is ironically apocalyptic:  "Clinton's lead is evaporating, and anxious Democrats see 2008 all over again".  If I were a Democrat reflecting on the 2008 election, I would recall that the my presidential candidate energized the electorate to win a convincing victory.   My party increased its majorities in the House and Senate, achieving a near filibuster-proof Senate majority.

If I were a Democrat these days, I would be more anxious if my candidate were an establishment figure that cannot energize the electorate.

A Most Eloquent Statement

Governor Jerry Brown of California commenting on Senator Ted Cruz:

"That man betokens such a level of ignorance and a direct falsification of the existing scientific data.  It's shocking, and I think that man has rendered himself absolutely unfit to be running for office."

The Chips Go Down in Maryland

Virginia State Senator Richard Saslaw addressing the futility of ethics legislation:

“Look at all the laws that Maryland has. Every three years, one of them goes off to prison. That doesn’t happen here. Do you know what it is? When you’re born, you’ve got a chip in your head, and it tells you what’s right and what’s wrong. And somewhere along the line, some of these chips go bad. That’s the problem.”

Virginians always think they have better chips than Maryland.

The Official New Line

From the BBC about Ukraine,

The website of the Russian state-run daily Izvestiya, which usually describes opposition activists in Ukraine as "armed extremists" and "militants", has now switched to calling them "people's patrols" and "self-defence groups".
[...]
The government's official Rossiyskaya Gazeta daily, normally supportive of Mr Yanukovych, now accuses him of "bringing Ukraine to bloodshed and division".

 Pretty quick accommodation to a changing environment.  A residual skill from Soviet times maybe.

A Star Shines on Falls Church

Virginia has changed a lot if associating with Hillary Clinton is good political strategy.  Until a few years ago it would have been the Kiss of Death and still is for many.  But not enough to sink McAuliffe who seems to be holding a steady lead against a truly dreadful Republican opponent.  Ken Cuccinelli's complete awfulness plus a lot of big political money can give a fast-talking bag man a good shot at governor of Virginia even if no one likes him.

One consolation regardless of who wins is that Virginia governors are allowed only one consecutive term.  Four years from now, he'll be gone.

More Virginia Shit

Growing up in Virginia I heard much about the "Virginia Way" and how this special gift made Virgina politics not only sublime, but genteel and gentlemanly.  Mills Godwin was the first Virginia politician I saw wrap himself in the Virginia Way, sniffing that a rabble-rouser like Henry Howell questioning the very cozy relationship between state government and big business was to question the foundations of the Commonwealth itself.  Godwin wasn't the last.  These days wanna-be governor Ken Cuccinelli bathers about Virginia's "very reserved traditions" even as he makes a mockery of them.

All of which makes Dahlia Lithwick's Slate column about Virginia's lax ethics laws a good read.  Not only does she see the legal absurdity of having, for all intends and purposes, no effective laws governing gifts to public officials, she also understands the deep psychology of Virginia politics.  True Virginians know that Virginia is near-perfect, a fantasy that renders all change dangerous and unwise.  Those few imperfections are preferable to the unknown danger posed by change.  Lithwick sums it up well, "given the opportunity to do something to hold [elected officials] to account, we’re somehow too romantic to try."

Dubious Propositions

Paying attention to Virginia news, especially Virgina politics, is ingrained in me even though I departed my home state long ago.  I've watched Virginia turn from a conservative Democratic (neo-Republican, in fact if not name) oligarchy into a somewhat competitive two party state.  In all those years, I never heard a candidate campaign on criminalizing consensual sexual behavior in adults.  Thanks to Ken Cuccinelli that deficit has been erased. 

Which would give me every reason to vote for his Democratic opponent, for whom I have no respect or trust.  I know Terry McAuliffe only as Clinton's bagman, a rich guy with minimal history in Virginia.  Not being Ken Cuccinelli, for whom crusading against oral and anal sex is fully in character, is more than enough to make Terry a reasonable choice.

A choice but not much of one.


Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of gray suited grafters
A choice of cancer or polio
--Salt of the Earth
   The Rolling Stones

Starving the Beast

Forget the votes to repeal Obama Care, the real power is the power of the purse, which is an exclusive Congressional authority.  Republicans control enough of Congress to make sure that nothing is spent to make a the Affordable Care Act a success.  This can't be good.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has gone, hat in hand, to health industry officials, asking them to make large financial donations to help with the effort to implement President Obama’s landmark health-care law, two people familiar with the outreach said.
Her unusual fundraising push comes after Congress repeatedly rejected the Obama administration’s requests for additional funds to set up the Affordable Care Act, leaving HHS to implement the president’s signature legislative accomplishment on what officials have described as a shoestring budget.

The bathtub is always full. 

A Hand Worth Playing

Don't negotiate the debt ceiling.

If Republicans want to force a choice between gutting popular entitlements and destroying the economy, let them sink under it. This is their problem.

Federal expenditures are based on appropriations authorized by Congress.  The time and place to argue about spending is when making the decision to spend, not after spending the money and the bills are due.

I hope Obama has the nerve to play this hand.  I will enjoy seeing Republican heads explode.

The Best Government Money Can Buy

Are you ready for 2014?  They are.