Republican Split

I listen to all of these foolish (stupid!) people, often living in a bygone era, like the weak and frail RINO, Peggy Noonan, who did much less for Ronald Reagan than she claims, and who actually said bad things about him and his ability to speak, or Rich Lowry, who has destroyed the once wonderful and influential National Review, the pride and joy of the legendary William F. Buckley, or George Will, whose mind is decaying with hatred and envy before our very eyes, or Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes, two people who are finally out of the conversation and of no relevance whatsoever.

Donald Trump

This is sad but also true.  I followed each of these people for years, agreeing with them on most topics.  Now, they prefer the Democrats to the current Republican party.

I first read Peggy Noonan in the mid-90s when I was subscribed to the Wall Street Journal.  She is one of the best writers I have ever read.  I don't know how she does it, but there is a quality to her writing that imbues her words with great importance and significance.  There is a reason she was a great speechwriter and remains an excellent columnist.  Her opposition to Trump was more about personality than policy.  She even called for his censure in the wake of the Mueller Report.  It is now widely-accepted that the whole Russian Collusion story was nothing but a Democratic dirty trick with no basis in reality.

I was a huge fan of George Will from the early 1990s (when I was a regular watcher of This Week with David Brinkley) until the Trump Presidency.  If I didn't know what to think on a topic, George was usually a key source for me.  I never cared for his columns on Baseball, but he was otherwise the conservative's conservative.  When Trump became president, Will absolutely hated the man.  Trump was implementing more conservative policies than anyone since Reagan and Will was still furious.  Originalist judges?  Check.  Tax cuts?  Check.  Strong defense?  Check.  Muscular foreign policy?  Check.  Rollback of regulations?  Check.  Economic growth?  Check.  Fiscal responsibility?  No.  So much of what Trump accomplished was exactly what I had been reading from George Will for a quarter of a century and yet he hated the man so much as to leave the Republican party.  I still don't get it.

Jonah Goldberg was my favorite stand-in for Charles Krauthammer on Special Report.  He and I are about the same age, and it was nice to follow a pundit from my generation.  As with Will, he wrote and spoke about conservative policies while dismantling the Democrat plans.  As with Will, I almost always agreed with Jonah.  After Trump was elected, suddenly I find Jonah to be a constant scold to all things Trump and I'm often at odds with him.

Hayes and Lowry never really appealed to me though I've read a lot from each or seen them on Fox shows.  I had been a National Review subscriber and used to read online articles at NRO.  That the two of them also became anti-Trump was less of a disappointment than the three above.  Mostly, Will and Goldberg were the big letdowns.

During the Trump Presidency, I was often baffled what it was that I wasn't seeing.  How can these pundits who I have followed for years suddenly be on the opposite side from me when we were in concert for so long?  What am I missing?  With Noonan and Will, it seemed to be Trump's style rather than his policy.  He was inarguably a jerk, a loudmouth, an arrogant blusterer who was prone to hyperbole.  Indeed, I often had trouble watching one of his speeches.  However, his policies were closer to the conservative ideal than anyone since Reagan.  Was it really about personality?  That seems so shallow.

The other theory is that he was an outsider while all five of them are longtime insiders.  That would mean that the pundit class is just kabuki theater meant to keep the rubes in flyover country lulled by the idea that there is a give and take in the capitol, rather than a constant increase in insider wellbeing at the expense of outsider wellbeing.  That's kind of dystopian.

Welcome Wagon

Related to the previous post, Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit has long talked about a Welcome Wagon project to introduce blue state refugees to red state values.  Too often, blue staters leave the blue state that has become unlivable and relocate to a red state.  However, once established in the red state, they continue to vote for blue state policies.  If sufficient blue staters migrate to the state, it starts to resemble the state they left.  The goal is to explain the cause and effect of their voting patterns.

Tim Pool, who describes himself as a milquetoast fence sitter who leans left, recently moved to a more conservative state.  He had previously lived in such places as the Philadelphia metro area, New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago.  Though he rarely votes, he announced that he would not try to impose his values in his newly adopted state.  It was working well enough before he arrived.  This is exactly the mindset sought by the Welcome Wagon.

Voting with Your Feet

Many years ago, some pundit was saying great things about Cuba, espousing the healthcare and high literacy rate.  The opposing pundit replied that people vote with their feet (i.e., they leave or enter a country) and Cuba had net negative migration.  People were choosing to leave.  Though I cannot recall who said it, this idea has stuck with me ever since.  Often, when someone starts bashing America as a bad country, I ask why everyone wants to migrate here rather than all those superior countries?  A change in topic is the typical result.

With that in mind, there was a link on Instapundit to a page showing tax burdens by state.  The most burdensome states are New York, Connecticut, Hawaii, Vermont, and California.  The states with the lowest tax burden were Alaska, Wyoming, Tennessee, South Dakota, and Michigan.  Given that, where are people moving?  Let's take a look at U-Haul.

The highest inflow is to Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Ohio, and Arizona.  The highest outflow comes from Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Illinois, and California.  There are a couple of matches between the U-Haul chart and the tax burdens, but not much.  Let's see what northAmerican Moving Services moving shows.  Alaska and Hawaii are listed as undefined so there are only 48 states to consider.

Tennessee and Florida are again ranked in the top five for destinations while New Jersey, Illinois, and California are listed for departures.  The inflow states tend to have lower taxes than outflow states.  However, Texas and Michigan have about the same tax burden, just levied in different ways (Texas has no state income tax while Michigan does).  The departure states are generally colder than the destination states, but California, Ohio, and Idaho throw a wrench in that theory.

Let's go back and get the tax burden ratings for the states that appear in the two charts.  What does that look like?

Again, it is pretty clear that the inflow states have the lower tax burden but Michigan is an outflow state with a low tax burden.  Odd.  Idaho is an inflow state with an above median tax burden.  What gives?  Let's combine the three charts and sort:

I pasted them all together and then sorted by the total of Tax Burden + northAmerican Ranking + U-Haul Ranking.  I should have gone back to the various charts and filled in the missing numbers, but I've already spent enough time on this.  After a little more investigation, there was a pattern.

There is a clear migration away from Democrat-controlled states toward Republican-controlled states.  People are voting with their feet.

Uncle Tom

Here is a movie that explores right-leaning blacks in America.  Many of them have been called an Uncle Tom or worse for not siding with the Democratic Party.  These are their stories.  What struck me most was when it was noted that they all knew who Jay-Z was (a self-admitted drug dealer) but not Thomas Sowell, a Harvard graduate and noted cultural commentator.  The media highlights left-leaning blacks but attacks right-leaning ones.  When Kanye met with Trump, he was said to be off his meds.  Candace Owens has been linked to white supremacy despite being black.  The theme is that blacks who don't toe the liberal line will be ostracized and attacked by those who do.  Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and Larry Elder have spent decades countering the idea that blacks can't advance because of racism in America.  The most successful blacks in America today are Nigerians.  Why?  Because they haven't been told since birth that racism in America will never let them succeed.  It is not by chance that black Americans are marinated in the racist America myth.  Those who embrace the myth will vote Democrat and those who don't will be called Uncle Toms and race traitors.  Not an accident.  Herman Cain, an extremely successful business man and one-time presidential nominee, talks about his life and rise to success.  He says that hard work pays.  Ben Carson, a famous brain surgeon and also a presidential nominee, has been regularly mocked by late night comics.  If you are black and on the left, it is racist to mock you.  If you are black and on the right, you are fair game.

This is an excellent film that shines a light on the other side of this conversation, a side that is mostly hidden.  See this movie!

Virus Discriminates by Governor's Party?

Does Covid-19 impact Democrat-run states more harshly than Republican-run states?  I heard that comment and thought it weird.  However, it's easy to check.  Let's look at the latest numbers.

Of the 10 states with the highest death tolls, 8 have Democratic governors.  Massachusetts and Florida are the exceptions.  Of the 10 states with the lowest death tolls, 7 have Republican governors.  Interesting but hardly conclusive.  More rural states tend to vote Republican while more urban states tend to vote Democrat.  Contagious diseases are harder on urban centers.

26 states have Republican governors and 24 have a Democrat.  Of note, 178 million people live in the Democrat states while only 150 million live in Republican states.  Of the 1.2 million people infected with Covid-19, 72% live in Democrat states.  80% of the deaths have been in Democrat states.  Correcting for population differences, 1 in 3,112 citizens of Democratic states have died while only 1 in 10,200 citizens in Republican states have died.  Odds of death are tripled in Democratic states.

Is this just a reflection of urban vs. rural populations or does it show that one party is better at handling such crises?

Conservatives Against Trump

Max Boot - a long time Republican - has a piece in the Washington Post where he calls for the destruction of the Republican Party.  Comparing it to Germany and Japan in the wake of World War II, he says it must be destroyed before it can be rebuilt.  Gee, that's not just a little hyperbolic.

The straw that broke the camel's back is the separation of children from parents on the border.  Of course, the separation 'policy' dates back to the 90s and has been reconfirmed over the last 20 years.  This has been happening for years but a picture (taken during the Obama Administration!) was published with kids in cages and suddenly this blew sky high.  Boot should know this.  In fact, he probably does but this makes a good pretext for his continuing Trump hatred.  Basically, it boils down to criminals go to jail and their kids are put in protective services.  Should kids go to jail with their parents?  No.  Just like Americans, if you don't want to be separated from your kids, don't commit a crime that puts you in jail.  Duh!

 

I've long liked Max Boot - I own a couple of his books (Out of Order & War Made New) and definitely recommend them.  However, like George Will, he has somehow lost his way.  I don't know quite what it is about Trump that has driven so many staunch conservatives to support the increasingly socialist Democratic Party (e.g. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez).  Not resting his argument just on the child separation issue, Boot offers other reasons to vote Democrat:

"...a vote for the GOP in November is also a vote for egregious obstruction of justice

 

No example is provided; you just need to take his word on it.

 

...rampant conflicts of interest

 

No example is provided; you just need to take his word on it.

 

...the demonization of minorities

 

Trump has been hard on illegal immigration and that is often equated with anti-Hispanic because the vast majority of illegal immigrants are from Latin America.  Trump did indeed speak ill of MS-13 gang members, who deserve demonization.  Boot is embracing the Democrats tactic of conflating Trump's comments against MS-13 to all immigrants.

 

...the debasement of political discourse

 

Really?  How many times did Democrats accuse Republicans of being Nazis and racists?  Yes, Republicans have usually refrained from such talk even when Democrats accused them of being fascists, sexists, bigots, homophobes, etc.  I had a family member intimate that I might be racist because I opposed Obama.  Clearly, if Obama had been white, I would have been in favor of higher taxes, more regulation, and weak foreign policy.  The political discourse was debased decades ago but Trump is the first Republican President to punch back twice as hard.  Trump adopted the tactics of Democrats and none of the Washington Elite is going to forgive him for that.

 

...the alienation of America’s allies

 

Do you remember how Obama abandoned ally (Mubarak in Egypt) after ally (Poland & Czech Republic) after ally (Israel was always at fault and the Palestinians were blameless for 8 years) and tried to embrace enemy (Iran) after enemy (Russian Reset) after enemy (Cuba!), all to no avail?  Trump is trying to get NATO to pay their treaty obligations in defense; if that alienates them, they deserve it.  While Obama tossed allies overboard to the sharks, Trump insists allies do their part in swabbing the deck.

 

...the end of free trade

 

There is no free trade.  The US has trade deficits with most trade partners.  While the US moves toward free trade, our trade partners game the system to create a trade imbalance in their favor.  Trade with China is $375 billion in their favor, Mexico is $71 billion, Japan is $69 billion, Germany is $65 billion, and Canada is $18 billion.  He who pays the piper calls the tune.  The US is paying and if each of these deficits were cut in half, those nations would still be getting the better of the deal.  Trump is going to use his leverage (cf. The Art of the Deal).

 

...and the appeasement of dictators.

 

And you think the Democrats are the way to fix that?  The party that sided with the mullahs in Iran's 2009 Green Revolution and then gave billions in cash to the mullahs in the wake of the unenforceable and counter-productive Iran Deal?  The party that canceled a missile defense agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic to placate Russia?   The party that favored Hamas and the Fatah over Israel?

 

Like Will, Boot is a longtime insider who sees an outsider upsetting the apple cart.  Trump is like no president before.  Unlike most previous presidents, he has worked and thrived in the private sector.  The private sector will not long suffer detrimental policies and money-losing propositions.  If we are in deficit on trade, let's renegotiate.  If allies aren't paying their share (i.e. NATO dues), let's send a collector.  If regulations are choking economic growth, let's repeal them.  If conservatism is about limiting government, we haven't had it this good since Reagan.

 

If you think the boat is going the wrong direction, you try to correct course, you don't jump off the boat and yell "I hope you sink!"  This is what Will, Boot, and other Never Trumpers have done.

Political Tidal Wave?

With yesterday's victories in New Jersey and Virginia, there are claims that the political tide has shifted and now Democrats will start retaking power.  That was surely the case when Republican Bob McDonald won the gubernatorial race in 2009 in the wake of President Obama's 2008 victory.  Same thing, different parties.  Right?  Not entirely.

Donald Trump lost Virginia in the 2016 election, receiving 44% of the votes.  Ed Gillespie did slightly better than Trump, gaining 45% of the votes.  Virginia voted Democratic last year and it voted Democratic this year.  It went from one Democratic governor to another, which should not be taken as a sign of big political shift.

Let's consider when Bob McDonnell beat Creigh Deeds in 2009.  Barack Obama had won Virginia in 2008 by a 52 to 46 margin over John McCain.  The governor was Tim Kaine, Hillary's future VP nominee.  Despite having voted by 6 points for the Democrat in 2008, the state elected the Republican by an 18 point margin, 59 to 41.  That is a massive shift.  Gillespie actually picked up slightly more support than Trump had (45 Gillepsie vs 44 Trump) while Deeds lost a huge swath of Obama voters (41 Deeds vs 52 Obama).  Yesterday's election was a status quo, not an earthquake like 2009.

Donald Trump lost New Jersey, receiving 41% of the votes.  Kim Guadagno won 42% of the votes in her failed run for governor.  Therefore, she too did slightly better than Trump himself.  However, this election switched the governor from Republican to Democrat, which makes it more significant than Virginia.  Hillary won New Jersey 55 to 41.  Phil Murphy won New Jersey 56 to 42.  Hardly a sea change.

 

Again, let's go back to 2009 race.  Obama trounced McCain, 57 to 42.  The following year, Republican Chris Christie beat the incumbent, Democrat Jon Corzine, 49 to 45.  Corzine lost 12 points from Obama's support.  That's a tidal wave.

 

In 2009, the Virginia and New Jersey races were dire warnings to the Democrats that they mostly ignored.  In 2017, these represent little to no change from 2016.

 

These numbers are actually cause for concern regarding Democrat chances next year.  If results just match the presidential election - as these two do - then the Republicans are going to get a much bigger majority in the Senate and hold the House.  Therefore, it is important for the Democrats to frame this status quo election as a momentum shift while the victory is fresh in the votes' minds.

Republicans See Movies Too

Jennifer Lawrence recently intimated that the current spate of hurricanes may be mother nature's wrath at America's election from last year.  Silly but she is entitled to her opinion.  However, she is in entertainment.  Love him or hate him, 62 million potential movie ticket buyers voted for him.  Why antagonize them?  Do you think you are going to change their minds?  In J Law's defense, the interviewer asked the question.

A vast number of entertainers have joined this latest anti-Republican bandwagon.  Sure, they say that Trump is particularly bad but that is what they said about George W. Bush.  The current Republican is always the worst ever, with the possible exception of Nixon.  Although you will often hear that 'even Nixon didn't go this far' or the like.  Worse than Nixon!  While they constantly denigrate half the country, the entertainment industry is concerned at the reduced ticket sales, the lower ratings, the diminishing music profits, etc.

 

You can't attack half your audience and not expect some reaction.  Republicans see movies, watch TV, and listen to music too.  As a business decision, I am baffled.  Shut up about politics.

Republican Suicide

After years of promises to repeal Obamacare, cut taxes, and get the fiscal house in order, the Republicans are reneging on all of it.  With Democrats having no levers to prevent Republicans from doing just about anything they want, there are no excuses for not enacting at least some of their long-stated agenda.  Whether they like Trump or not (they don't), they can still make common cause with him on those items where they agree.  Nope.  Years of false promises - lies - have been exposed for all the voters to see.  The Republicans no more want to reduce government than do the Democrats.  It is just too much fun spending other people's money and tell them how to live their lives.  Power has corrupted.

Priebus, You're Fired

From the very start, it was clear that Trump selected Reince Preibus as his chief of staff as a sop to the Republican Party.  The idea was that Preibus - who hails from Wisconsin like Speaker Ryan - would be a liaison between the outsider Trump and the vast array of insiders.  With the latest legislative fumble and a continuing hostile relationship between insider and outsider, it is clear that choosing Preibus accomplished nothing.  In fact, it was probably counterproductive.  It is almost a certainty that Preibus counseled Trump to let Ryan and McConnell handle the legislative agenda.  Six months and squat.

 

Speaking of the do-nothing Congress, they have some gall to lecture Trump on the running of the executive when they are flailing in the legislature.  Again, where is that repeal bill that this same group of Senators and Representatives sent to Obama's desk in January 2016?  Current events show that they were counting on Obama to veto it so that they could convince the rubes back home that they were sincere when they promised to repeal Obamacare.  McCain and Murkowski voted for it then but against it now.  Too bad no one can fire them anytime soon.

Republican Suicide

The Obamacare Repeal has crashed and burned.  Again.  Despite controlling the Presidency, the House, and the Senate, the Republicans are too incompetent to accomplish what they have promised to accomplish for the last 7 years.  The Republicans took the House in 2010 on a promise to repeal Obamacare.  Oh, but we don't have the Senate.  Fine.  In 2014, the voters gave them the Senate on the promise to repeal Obamacare.  This is great and all but we don't have the Presidency.  So the voters gave the Republicans the Presidency, a man who promised to sign an Obamacare repeal as soon as it landed on his desk.  These same congressmen managed to get a bill on President Obama's desk in January of 2016 which Obama vetoed.  Where is that bill?  Dust it off, send it to Trump.  No, we can't do that because he'll sign it!

 

Politicians never want to give up power once it has been seized.  The Democrats crashed and burned in the wake of passing Obamacare, losing more than a thousand seats at all level of government across the country.  The Republicans haven't had it this good since the 1920s.  When Democrats have this kind of dominance, they legislate and seize more power!  The New Deal, the Great Society, Obamacare.  When Republicans have it, they form a circular firing squad.  They want to keep the power that the Democrats acquired.  After all, the other party suffered greatly to seize these added tax dollars and regulations, it would be a shame to retreat from this position.

 

The Republicans will richly deserve their electoral defeat in 2018.  It is a shame that the Democrats will benefit from it.  When you look at the wreckage the two parties have wrought, a viable third party has rarely been more needed.

Look into My Crystal Ball

Just over two months ago, I predicted that the Republican would win the 6th District of Georgia.  Tonight, Karen Handel defeated Jon Ossoff in the runoff.  In truth, it wasn't much of a prediction.  A heavily Republican district elected a Republican.  What a surprise.  Thanks to vast sums of money or the approval ratings of the president, it was closer than it might otherwise have been.  However, I was incorrect in saying that Reuters would only provide a colorless two sentence summation of the results.  Though Republicans have won four special elections since the Orange Overlord was inaugurated, the AP managed to paint the margins of victory as portending future doom for the Republicans:

Republicans are claiming momentum ahead of the 2018 midterms, but each race was much closer than expected for the four districts.

Next time, the Republicans are toast.  Be of good cheer, Democrats, this winning can't continue much longer.  Yes, the AP is a totally unbiased news organization.

 

With the pathetic legislative accomplishments, it is clear that the Republicans could be in serious trouble if they don't achieve something.  The only positive that the GOP currently has is that the alternative is the Democrats.

 

Why isn't everyone celebrating that the woman won?  I think she may be the first woman to win the 6th District in Georgia.  That's historic!  Of course, such 'firsts' are only important if accomplished by Democrats.  No one cares that Mia Love was the first Haitian American and first black female Republican elected to Congress, nor that she was the first Black American elected to Congress in Utah.  Only the achievements of Democratic women are worthy of note.

Celebrating Death

Roger Ailes, the media maven who built Fox News, died this week.  Today, I came across a Facebook post celebrating his death.  The comments on the post condemned Ailes to hell, cheered at his death, even said 'F**k Roger Ailes.'  To read the reactions, one would think Ailes was a murderous tyrant on the scale of Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.  Nope, he was just a Republican media consultant and Cable TV CEO.  This practice of celebrating the death or ruination of political opponents is something that happens almost exclusively on the left.  I have not seen celebratory postings of Anthony Weiner's fall from grace.  Even on the news, when Ailes death is mentioned, there is also the allegation of sexual harassment.  By contrast, when Ted Kennedy died, the media did not bring up Mary Jo Kopeckne.  No, he was the Lion of the Senate and his Republican colleagues spoke well of him in his passing.

 

Charles Krauthammer has noted that Republicans think Democrats are stupid and Democrats think Republicans are evil.  This is an interesting observation from a man who has been in both those camps, notably switching from stupid to evil.  However, one does not celebrate the death of an idiot in the same way one would celebrate the death of an evil person.  Clearly, the reaction of leftists to Ailes death vs. the reaction of conservatives to Kennedy's death shows how accurately this perception predicts.

 

Obviously, half the country is not evil though it is not obvious that half the country is not stupid.  If you are happy because a person with a different political philosophy has died, you need some serious introspection.

Placing Obstacles

In the right leaning media, there is a lot of astonishment at the Democrats going bat poop crazy, reading deep psychological trauma in President Trump having two scoops of ice cream when everyone else had one or believing that  the Russia collusion story is true despite a continued lack of evidence, which is untenable when one considers the waterfall of leaks on anything that is even mildly embarrassing to the president.  It has become standard for everything Trump does to be somehow compared with Nixon during Watergate.  Cries of impeachment are heard from Representatives and are a common meme on Facebook.  Has the left lost its mind?  No.

This is a strategy.  It is a somewhat desperate one but it is also an effective one.  Thanks to the ubiquitous panic, the travel moratorium - which was mostly going to last 90 days - would have been over in many cases by now but it has yet to be implemented.  Ground has not been broken on the wall, appointments have run at a glacial pace, healthcare reform has been slowed, and tax reform appears stalled.  Trump's 100 days saw lots of executive action but very little legislatively.  The 'craziness' is serving as an excellent holding action.  The longer the delay, the better the chance of Democrats recapturing the House and bringing any hope of Trump having a legislative legacy to an end.

 

The danger of the strategy is that it could alienate voters.  The Democrats have spent most of the last eight years describing Republicans as the Party of No and have now taken that mantle on themselves.  Of course, the Republicans are too inept to throw that label back in the Democrats' faces but a canny electorate will notice.  The Republicans are digging their own graves by repeatedly failing to get legislation to the president's desk.  A lack of successful legislation now that the House, Senate, and Presidency are all Republican will assure Nancy Pelosi's return to the Speakership in January 2019.  Many Congressional Republicans would probably be okay with that.

 

Draining the swamp is going to require legislation.  If Trump is serious about it, he needs to spend more time in the Capitol Building to sell a legislative agenda and use the bully pulpit to browbeat recalcitrant Republicans into passing it.

Obamacare 2.0

Back in 2009 and 2010, the Republicans managed to hold together and vote 100% in opposition to a government takeover of the healthcare sector.  When they took over the House in January 2011, the repeal bills began.  Once the Republicans captured the Senate, a repeal bill actually made it to Obama's desk where he - unsurprisingly - vetoed it.  Now, rather than just erase this disaster and have US law return to what it was in February 2010 (the month before the ACA was signed into law), they are having second thoughts.  The Democrats took the hit - having lost over one thousand elective offices across the country during Obama's Presidency - so the Republicans figure why give up the power that Democrats committed political suicide to acquire.  Really, let's not be hasty.  Is it any wonder I left the Republican Party?

Apparently, the free market is a foreign concept to the party that used to champion free markets.  Have they not noticed that goods and services provided by the free market see tremendous improvement over time and also drop in price?  Here is a great graph that shows how prices have changed over the last 20 years.  All those things government has sought to make more affordable (e.g. college, health care, housing, food) have seen massive cost increases.  Those items left to the private market (e.g. clothing, cars, furniture, cellphone plans, TVs) has seen prices flat or dramatically fall.  Maybe there is a correlation?

 

Among the crazy things the Republicans have decided to retain is the guarantee of coverage for those with a pre-existing condition.  That would be like allowing a homeowner to buy insurance while the house was on fire.  The fire is a pre-existing condition; how can the insurance company deny?  That isn't how insurance works.  Insurance is a hedge against disaster, not a payment plan for routine costs.  No one buys gas or gets their tires rotated through a copay.  Why doesn't health insurance work that way?

 

The best thing that Congress could do would be to repeal the whole enchilada.  And then just keep repealing until there are no national laws or regulations regarding health care.  Prices would plummet, insurance would transform to only paying for catastrophic care, and the states could setup modest programs to cover the poor.  The Constitution does not authorize the government to do anything with regard to health care.  Set the market free and it will do wonders.  The drawback is that government would have less power over the peasants and fewer dollars to spend.

Repeal Deceit

During the Obama Presidency, the Republican Congress managed to pass Obamacare repeal bills multiple times.  In January of last year, a bill made it through the House and the Senate.  It landed on Obama's desk where he vetoed it.  Where is that bill?  Why not brush that off and send it to the White House?  How difficult is that?  The fact that someone at the end of Pennsylvania Avenue will actually sign it is why they haven't done it.  They were fearless when Obama was sure to veto but now they balk.  Those previous bills were nothing but fodder for the rubes back home.  They were gaming their voters, calling for repeal when there was no hope but hesitating when victory is at hand.  In truth, they never wanted it repealed.  Their actions have exposed their words as hollow.  Distrust politicians always.

 

To provide cover to the exposed charlatans, Democratic operatives are flooding Republican townhalls and making a scene about Obamacare.  See, the voters don't want us a to repeal it.  Let's not be hasty in repealing it.  Maybe we can repair it.  Once government has seized power over a sector, it is loath to surrender it.

 

What is interesting is that the point of the ACA is to collapse.  Ideally, Hillary would be president and be able to proclaim that private insurance companies were too greedy and caused the collapse so now a complete government takeover would be required.  Maybe we can implement the Cuban healthcare system.  So, repeal or not, it is crumbling.  With Trump having ordered the IRS to relax enforcement of the 'tax' portion of the law, the individual mandate is at an end.  Perhaps the spineless Republicans want to wait for the collapse without having cast any votes.  It is one thing to watch as the Leaning Tower of Pisa falls over but something different if you gave it a push.

Undermining the Law

First Judge Robart and now the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal have ruled against President Trump's executive order that restricts travel from 7 terror hot-beds.  Arguments against the order rest on due process, equal protection, and First Amendment religious protections.  I did not realize that Constitutional rights extended into other countries.  We need to start toppling a lot of governments in order to make sure these rights are observed globally.  Or maybe these rights aren't conferred until the foreign national books a flight to the United States.  Interesting and diverting as these issues may be, judges are supposed to interpret the law.  What does the law say?

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate

Legalese is usually an ambiguous mess - the better to let unelected bureaucrats and judges to implement their policy preferences - but this is surprisingly clear.  Would a 90 day travel ban on aliens from 7 countries fit the above language?  Clearly.  More interesting, there is no check on his ability to make this proclamation.  If the president deems it appropriate, it fits within the law.  It doesn't take a law degree to interpret this.  If the Rule of Law was taken seriously, Robart would have dismissed the case.

Throughout the Obama administration, I was frustrated that the Republicans refused to oppose the president when he went beyond his Constitutional authority  (e.g. implementing the Dreamers Act despite the fact that Congress failed to pass the legislation, bailing out car companies even though Congress voted down the bill that would allow him to do so, rewriting the Affordable Care Act, etc.).  They offered anemic resistance, often leaving their best tools (e.g. power of the purse) unused.  With Trump, we have the opposite extreme.  So desperate to oppose him at every turn, the left is beclowning itself.  The media are jumping at shadows (e.g. Trump Dossier, Trump may assassinate Press like Putin) and shrieking with panic on a daily basis.  The career bureaucrats are leaking his every phone conversation, setting up secret societies to oppose the boss that the people elected, and stonewall fact-finding efforts by the administration.  The judiciary has now joined these crazy antics with rulings that are based not on a sober reading of the law but on a desire to oppose a president with whom they disagree.

Where the Republicans were spineless and timid in opposition, the Democrats are mindless berserkers, not unlike the rioters in Berkeley last week.  The Republicans would do well to emulate some of the fiery passion and steadfast determination of the Democrats (Democrats will resist tooth and nail) while the Democrats would benefit from the calm rationality of the Republicans (Republicans never riot).

Such obviously political rulings only serve to harm the judiciary.  The rulings have rewritten the limits of a clear statute.  In an effort to oppose, judges are undermining the rule of law.

Unopposed?

Throughout the campaign season, there was a steady and growing fear that Donald Trump was the American Hitler, a dictator who would be elected and then impose some form of fascist rule in which he was President for Life (kind of like the much mourned Fidel Castro).  Such fears came from those on the left and those on the right.  At each new claim, I rolled my eyes and sighed because Trump was going to have more opposition than any president in living memory.  The majority of the media were cheerleading for Hillary and hammering Trump.  The Democrats, who have always played hardball with Republicans, would ally with their friends in the media to pummel a President Trump.  Furthermore, elite conservative pundits were so opposed to Trump as to call for Hillary's election.  Even the Republican Party only offered support begrudgingly, often with codicils.  Fresh off a real Electoral Landslide, Obama had the media and both houses of Congress on his side and yet didn't get much done.  How would Trump get more done with considerably less support?  The growing panic, which continues today, perplexed me.  But now I see a potential flaw in my reasoning.

 

The media has spent a considerable amount of time since the election beclowning itself.  It's anti-Trump bias has overwhelmed their sense of solid reporting.  The Trump Dossier with the ludicrous golden shower story is only the most egregious.  The anti-Trump attitude is so strong that they jump at stupid stuff.  Trump yells squirrel and they run off like mindless dogs, giving him peace and quiet to consider the latest executive order.  Do they really think Trump cares about the crowd size at the inauguration?  Whether he does or doesn't, it provides an empty story that harms the prestige of the press more than it does Trump.  The media cannot currently influence Trump supporters and their ranting only makes Trump foes make fools of themselves (e.g. Madonna, Ashley Judd, Shia Lebouf).  Tired of the lapdog media that had nothing but praise for Obama, I was looking forward to the return of an attack dog media.  Instead, there is the stupid media that keeps chasing the squirrel.  Sigh.

 

Then there are the Democrats.  Thanks to strong support from the media, the Democrats have always been able to fight tooth and nail without a constant barrage of demands for bipartisanship.  Bipartisan has long meant Republicans agreeing to Democrat policies (e.g. John McCain) while partisanship is when Republicans actually try to implement their agenda.  With trust in the media at an all time low, the Democrats find themselves on a somewhat more even field.  Years of being trounced in midterm elections has convinced them to stick with the same stable of leaders who led them to this cul-de-sac.  Worse, they erased the power of the Senate minority party to resist the majority.  With the filibuster declawed, the Republicans can mostly pass their agenda with a simple majority vote, just like in the House.  Still worse, the Democrats face a difficult election map for the Senate in 2018, meaning they are in big trouble.  They are down to rhetoric as a means of opposition and they have only themselves to blame.  Well, Harry Reid can shoulder most of it.

 

The Republicans are still spineless.  While Democrats practice party loyalty and rarely have a 'maverick' who trashes fellow Democrats, the Republicans eagerly eat their own.  John McCain was a media star who appeared regularly on Hard Ball where he attacked the policies of his party.  Oh, the media loved him until he was the nominee vs. a Democrat.  Then he was the latest coming of Hitler.  With this history of attacking and opposing allies, Trump was an ideal target for such opposition from the beginning.  But the Republicans are still spineless.  It Trump can get enough voters (5 or so) to call Congress, the Republican will fold.  The history of the Republican party is to fold unless they have a strong leader (Reagan, Gingrich, etc.).  Trump may be an irresistible force to the backbone-impaired.

 

That leaves the Never Trump crowd who supported the embarrassing candidacy of Egg McMuffin or allied with Hillary.  They have hamstrung themselves with regard to anyone who voted for Trump.  One can admire the principles for which they stood while also recognizing that it was a political blunder.  If the guy you hate wins, you want to still be in the tent so your voice will be heard.  By leaving the tent, they abandoned much of the base that remained in the tent and lost much of the influence they had.

 

As time passes, all of these groups will - one hopes - adapt and prove to be effective bulwarks against authoritarian impulses from Trump.  Right now, they are all almost useless.  If Trump wants to prove his detractors right, now is the time.  The steamroller will never have a better opportunity.

Consequences of a Bad Bet

Here is an article bemoaning that Republican foreign policy experts who have served in previous Republican administrations are being overlooked for positions because they signed Never Trump letters during the primary and/or the campaign.  This was a predictable downside.  Of course, every signatory fully expected Trump to lose and they never really thought there would be jobs available in a Republican administration.  By signing the letter(s), they set themselves up as the reasonable people, members of the sane wing of the Republican Party as they saw it.  However, there was a small chance that Trump would win.  By openly opposing the nominee of their party, they assured that their 'experience' would not be able to keep a steady hand on US foreign policy with the very person that - from their view - would most need it.  Talk of a 'black list' is rich; you can't really expect to be hired by someone you so openly sought to undermine.

Those who signed the first letter issued during the primaries can potentially find their way into the fold.  During the primaries, the party is still deciding what will best appeal to the electorate and the conflicts are known to be among allies who happen to have somewhat different views.  Those who signed during the campaign - and presumably voted for Hillary - will need to eat a lot of crow to have any hope of a position.  Denouncing the Orange Overlord* has a cost.

 

* Credit to Andrew Klavan.  Awesome descriptor and I'm stealing it.

Juggling the Third Party Votes

What if all the Green voters had chosen Hillary instead?  What if the Never Trumpers hadn't supported the spoiler candidacy of Evan McMullin?  What would that look like?

Let's start with the Greens.  If all the Green votes had gone to Hillary, she would have won both Michigan and Wisconsin, getting her an additional 26 electoral votes.  However, that still leaves her short of 270 needed for the win.  In that case, a recount would surely have been called in the closet other state; Bush-Gore redux!

On the other hand, if all the Evan McMullin votes had gone to Trump, he would have picked up Minnesota and increased his electoral victory to 316 to 222.

 

Combining the two scenarios, it is mostly a wash though Hillary comes out better with 248 electoral votes to Trump's 290.  Of course, Jill Stein received 1.36 million votes while Evan McMullin only garnered 545K.

 

The Libertarian Party took votes from each candidate and it is hard to decide where they might have gone.  If they had gone to Hillary, she would have had a smashing victory, giving her Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, and the 2nd District of Nebraska.  In that scenario, she has 319 electoral votes to Trump's 219.  However, if they went to Trump, he would have picked up Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and Minnesota for a total of 36 more electoral votes, providing an electoral win of 342 to 196.

 

It is a certainty that both parties are looking at these scenarios to see if they can absorb these voters.  As the Republicans will have the benefit of incumbency, the Democrats should vigorously seek to reach these voters.