Right in San Francisco

Reflections Upon Leaving California

    This will be the last blog at Right in San Francisco for a time, as I am consumed by the efforts of selling a home in San Francisco, moving, and buying a home in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The move will leave behind a political understanding of California derived from 20 years of engagement with the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury, the San Francisco GOP, the California GOP, the Sacramento Seminar (a weekly bi-partisan discussion group with knowledgeable members and insightful speakers), the Lincoln Club of Northern California (an impactful Silicon Valley-based Republican support group), the Oakland Military Institute (which has involved many discussions about education with its founder, Mayor and Governor Jerry Brown, as well as an introduction to Oakland politics), the Log Cabin Republicans, the Republican Women of San Francisco Federated, and many others. These are organizations - it is the people who have made it fun. 

    On the plus side:

        - California is welcoming to outsiders. The Bay Area retains something of a Gold Rush mentality, with people coming from all over the world to find riches. Hollywood is similar for Southern California. I have been welcomed to leadership positions with the Civil Grand Jury, the Presidio Golf Club, and OMI - something much less likely to happen in New England. 

        - California is multi-cultural. Neither idealists nor xenophobes can understand the reality of living with others - what works and what doesn't - unless they have swum in the waters. Asia and Latin America are as real to Californians as is Europe to New Englanders. 

        - San Francisco has a Goldilocks climate - never too hot; never too cold; a bit of moisture in the winter, but generally dry. People spend time outdoors and respect the environment. 

        - The University of San Francisco men's basketball team is finally succeeding. After 20 years as disappointed ticket holders, the Dons are now the highest rated Division I team in California at 17-3 on the season and likely on their way to their first NCAA tournament berth in ages.  

    On the minus side - and this is different than it was in 1998, at least in our perception as we have aged: 

        - There are too many people. In an arid climate California is home to 40 million people, and there is not enough water to go around; the politicians rank residents, fish, and agriculture in that order; and the environmentalists can prevent the addition of reservoir capacity. Housing construction is  constrained by environmental laws, building code requirements, and neighborhood opposition. Companies are adding jobs at a multiple of the pace of housing growth - in Bay Area cities, and in the state at large. Commutes lengthen, roads clog, and civility wanes. 

        - No elected politician advocates for people like us. The unchallenged Democratic Party is driven by advocates of aggrieved "minorities", who actually make up the majority. As one in the fray, I have to admire the political skills of San Francisco politicians such as Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, and Kamila Harris, and the Democratic Party which controls the local and state executive and legislative branches, as well as the rules by which the game is played.  

        - Selling a house in San Francisco serves as a good metaphor for the relation between middle class citizens and the government. There are four separate inspectors (pest, conformance to water conservation requirements, construction, and Underground Storage Tanks) who inspect and offer to repair problems which they have found. There is a $20,000 real estate transfer tax. Any capital gain is taxed at ordinary income rates, which are the highest in the nation. One is compelled to admit to any non-permitted property improvements. Lawyers lurk. 

        - The middle class is leaving at a net rate of over 100,000 per year.  The Boy Scout oath and Norman Rockwell are so last century. California is increasingly becoming a state of haves and have nots, with the highest poverty rate in the nation along with the largest number of new billionaires.  

        - The attraction of libertarian ideals becomes overwhelming in a nanny state where plastic bags and straws are outlawed, a charge for paper bags is mandated, trash is examined to ensure conformance to recycling mandates, and arbitrary goals are set for the elimination of fossil fuels.  Unlike the successful "personal responsibility" credo of the Salvation Army or Alcoholics Anonymous, California's approach to drug addiction and homelessness is based on compassion, societal guilt, and and atonement with unlimited services.  

    It's been a good run, but John Galt left on the last flight to the "Live Free or Die" state. 

                                                                                                    -----

  And for a finale, a Beach Boys tribute to the California that was in a diffrent era. 

bill bowen - 1/25/19 

          

Trump's Half Term: An Assessment

    'Tis the season for looking back and looking forward; for assessing accomplishments and opportunities unfulfilled; for thinking what was, what might have been, and what might yet be. In Trump-world this exercise is best done in two year increments - since the last election and to the next. 

The easy part: What was and what might have been. 

    - Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the presidency - all was possible, but never in recent history has a president faced such constant, vitriolic opposition from the opposing party, most of the media, and a significant slice of his own party. In the House, the Freedom Caucus prevented compromise; in the Senate the 60 vote threshold for most matters and the few Never Trumpers among the 51 seat Republican majority proved too liberal for the more conservative House. And that's before Robert Mueller's relentless probes to find anything to bring the president down. 

    - With that setting, Donald Trump delivered peace and prosperity, with the working class and minorities sharing the bounty for the first time in decades. 

        -- Despite the Fed returning monetary policy toward normalcy after 8 years of stimulus, the Obama era "new normal" of 2% GDP growth was bettered by 1 to 2 %, and unemployment of 4.5 % was reduced below the 4% often considered "full employment". Deregulation (deleting two old for every new regulation; freeing smaller banks from Dodd-Frank), tax cuts (benefitting 85% of payers), energy expansion (offshore; Alaska; fracking; pipelines) , and tariffs (particularly on steel and aluminum) all contributed. The results are undeniable, and they belong to Trump.   

         -- The ISIS caliphate was defeated in short order, and the promise to cut back on being the world's policeman is being fulfilled despite a messy world full of fanatics and despots. 

        --  First important steps were taken to force China to conform to World Trade Organization norms - reducing state support for favored exporters, and stopping industrial espionage - and to engage North Korea in denuclearization talks. Leaders with long term contracts in both countries will try to wait out the Americans. 

        --  The Republicans whiffed on "Repeal and Replace" of Obamacare, but the individual mandate was repealed, it was made easier for small businesses to group together to buy health insurance, and stripped down short term plans were made more available. 

        --  An early offer to Democratic Congressional leaders to trade DACA for a wall was rejected and remains an elusive goal as the Democrats prefer to stoke their voter base.   

        --  The more partisan accomplishments were also myraid: cancellation of President Obama's Iranian nuclear giveaway; withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement; moving our embassy to Jerusalem; appointment of two Supreme court justices and 83 lower court judges.   

And the hard part: what the next two years might hold. With Trump's high energy, unconventional style, and broad agenda in the wake of President Obama's globalist, liberal, ineffective legacy, it has been possible to make progress across a broad front. With a Democratic House (and an effective leader), it will be necessary to significantly advance a few key initiatives.   

    - Strategic confrontation of China's trade practices is broadly popular, but will take time and a coalition. When Trump withdrew from the Transpacific Partnership in January 2017, most of the other participants went ahead with a set of trade agreements which do not include China. Whether a formal participant or an interested partner, this coalition is ready-made for a more favorable realignment of East Asia trade relationships. 

    -  North Korea's nuclear program must be dismantled.  Mike Pompeo's performance review in 2020 should be heavily weighted on how well he works with South Korea and Japan to accomplish this goal.

    - We cannot go on with porous borders, millions of largely assimilated young illegal immigrants in the shadows, and a demographic which shows an aging native population in need of young workers to support Social Security, Medicare, and the general economy. Real border secutrity in exchange for DACA is so obvious that only cynical politicians can refuse to find the equation.  Unfortunately we have plenty of them. 

    -  Personality flaws aside, the biggest risk of a President Trump working with a Democratic House is the ballooning budget deficit.  With interest rates rising and current deficits coming out of Paul Ryan's House exceeding $1 trillion, one shudders to think of what Pelosi and Trump might concoct. Someone somewhere in the federal government needs to take notice. 

        One can hope that Mueller will get out of the way, and that the next two years are as productive as the last two. 

                                                                                                        -----

    This week's video is a shocker -  Van Jones on CNN praising Donald Trump and Jared Kushner for their role in assembling a coalition to pass major prison reform which will greatly reduce incarceration for nonviolent offenses, and should be a big plus in the African American community.  

bill bowen - 12/28/18 

 

     

    

 

 

 

 

 

Brexit: An American Perspective

    What Trump and Mueller are to American political discourse, Brexit is to the British. Both provide arcane lessons in the technical structure and operation of government; both provide the generally disinterested public with reason to pick up a newspaper or watch a pundit; both reveal the ugliness of politicians who place personal ambition above the national good; both will still be discussed mid-century.  

    The setting

        - The muddled result of Conservative leader David Cameron's bungling in 2016 is that the British and European Union negotiators have until March 29 to define the terms by which Britain will leave, and the nature of their subsequent relationship. The date could be delayed by mutual agreement, but all parties want the pressure of a deadline to force negotiations. 

        - There are three potential outcomes:

            -- The British Parliament could accept (perhaps with minor modifications or "clarifications") the 528 page withdrawal agreement and the 26 page political declaration of future relationships which Theresa May has negotiated, envisioning a transition period through 2020 in which Britain would remain in a "customs union" (accepting EU rules, specifications, and court judgments), without the ability to independently negotiate trade agreements until both parties agree on how to solve the Ireland problem. (The issue: how to  be totally independent on trade without re-establishing a hard border between Northern Ireland (part of the UK) and the Republic of Ireland.) May would defer this problem for later solution; the EU insists that the UK would be prohibited from agreeing to trade deals with other countries until it is solved by mutual agreement - perhaps forever.          

           -- Lacking agreement with the European Union, there could be a "Hard Brexit", with major disruptions of commerce and personal movement. Free movement of people and goods would end; British payments to the EU would end; trade agreements with Britain's largest trading partner would end without immediate replacement British agreements; Britain's critical financial services sector would suffer a major shock. Prudent government and business officials on both sides of the channel are making contingency plans, but are fearful of making this seem a viable option. 

    -- There could be a second vote on leaving. Prime Minister Theresa May (who originally opposed exit) takes the view that Parliament once asked the voters what they wanted, and she is committed to serving their will. Others among the former "Remainers" claim that the downside of Brexit was not understood, but now is, and that some two million new voters, who will be mostly affected, have come of age in the interim. This seems the least likely outcome - in part because it is hard to determine whether the question would be "remain", leave under the provisions that Theresa May and the EU have negotiated, leave under renegotiated terms, or leave without a negotiated agreement. There is no majority opinion. 

    An American's observations

        - It was naively irresponsible of former Prime Minister David Cameron to call for a snap election to be won by a simple majority to define the status of the country as fully independent or part of a larger polity. Our founders did not so much trust direct democracy, making constitutional amendment difficult, and inserting the Electoral College between the voters and the presidency. On the other hand, the EU procedures which call for agreement among all 27 member countries cry for reform.    

         - For at least a few years a "Hard Brexit" would be bad for the United States as it would disrupt the economies and politics of major trading partners and allies. With Angela Merkel losing power in Germany, Emmanuel Macron's popularity in France approaching 20% , Italy defying Eurozone requirements for budget constraint, and Russia pushing back against decades of eastward encroachment, Europe is in no position to absorb a chaotic, adversarial withdrawal by its second largest member. A united West is needed to engage China. 

        -  Raw political self interest will carry the day, and Theresa May understands nose counting. The 317 Conservative MPs and their 10 allied Democratic Unionist Party MPs from Northern Ireland have as a first objective retaining their thin majority in the 650 member Parliament. Jeremy Corbyn's Labor Party (257 MPs) would try to defeat any Conservative proposal if that would lead to a successful vote of no confidence in the government and new Parliamentary elections which Labor may win. That cannot be allowed to play out. Many Hard Brexit Conservatives (such as Boris Johnson) would be happy for the government to fall to be replaced by one of their own, but do not have a majority within their party and cannot risk new elections. The Democratic Unionist Party cannot allow a Labor victory which would put them out of power or a Hard Brexit which would re-create a hard border within Ireland. Politically, for the decision makers, May's deal is the least bad option. 

    - Theresa May has been heroic in her effort to identify the small sweet spot which meets the initial Brexit objectives of controlling immigration to Britain, limiting regulations from Brussels, and preserving a unified England / Scotland / Northern Ireland / Channel Islands. By putting off the parliamentary vote until mid-January while continuing talks with the EU leaders, she is taking away the space for any alternative. 

                                                                            -----

  This week's bonus video is a compelling Tucker Carlson/Praeger U commentary on illegal immigration.

bill bowen - 12/21/2018 

The Nationalist President - Season Two

    Season One of The Nationalist President is about to end. The allusion is less to Trump's Apprentice than to dramas such as House of Cards, The Goodwife, or Game of Thrones where the central characters grow more powerful from season to season amidst an evolving cast of supporting characters and crises. The degree of cynicism can be left to the reader, but the merger of politics and entertainment is clear, as is Trump's desire to shape his supporting cast. 

    Season One was electifying, playing to exceptional ratings if not universal acclaim. The protagonist burst on the stage defying all odds. The Mueller investigation has served as a backstory, itself having innumerable twists and turns - including the irony that the only proven collaboration with the Russians was in the form of the Clinton campaign's financing of the Steele dossier. Trump quickly dispatched his predecesor's Junior Varsity ISIS opposition which had terrorized the Middle East and flooded Europe with refugees. He confronted friend and foe alike in an effort to rebalance the kingdom's financial in's and out's, finding common ground with our closest partners in the USMCA (nee NAFTA), leaving others to Season Two.  He inflicted a severe wound on the fearful dragon of Obamacare, removing the individual mandate and making cheaper, less extensive plans available. He slew regulations left and right - environmental, financial, and labor. He turned the federal courts away from acting like a legislative body. And despite prosperity returning to the fair chosen land, his enemies remained steadfast. 

    Several sub-plots carry over to Season Two. Chief Investigator Mueller promises to continue his work, extending in whatever direction suggests an opportunity to damage the protagonist. We will see whether the cunning North Korean dictator has changed his ways, and chooses peace and prosperity over isolation and military confrontation. Early in the season we will find whether the evil Saudi prince survives, and whether he is forced to end the humanitarian disaster in Yemen and the isolation of Qatar. Latino caravans will dissipate shortly after the beginning of Season Two, but supporters of our hero and his antagonists will find ways to keep the broader sub-plot alive. Several episodes will relate to wrangling with China which, it becomes clear, is the major threat to Trump's nation; expect more on trade, intellectual property, territorial claims, and growing awareness that one million Muslims in western China are being held in forced indoctrination camps. 

    No good series is sustainable if there is not something new in each season, and The Nationalist President has experienced, creative writers. We are nine years into economic expansion, and a recession is likely before the end of Season Two; that will bring a whole new line of discussion as the auditions begin for Season Three. After a decade of worrying about the Middle East, China, and Central America, Europe will emerge with episodes featuring Brexit and political instability in Germany as Chancellor Merkel leaves the stage, built around the general theme of the shape of the continent and what it means for us. There will be an episode or two on privacy in the age of the Internet, optical surveillance, artificial intelligence, and big data - perhaps with a libertarian hero. 

    Keeping the series fresh also requires some drama around the supporting cast. Mainstays will remain - Mueller; Sean Hannity and CNN; Mitch McConnell; the protagonist's family. Some close supporters will be replaced - Nikki Haley at the United Nations; perhaps Jeff Sessions at Justice; undoubtedly a few unexpected surprises. While there are many domestic sycophants, our protagonist is still looking for a personal foreign ally. 

    The big surprise at the beginning of Season Two will be whether Nancy Pelosi or Kevin McCarthy replaces Paul Ryan. On the one hand Ryan hasn't been able to do much - constrained by the Freedom Caucus, he has not been able to advance legislation on healthcare or immigration, and he is leaving a legacy of trillion dollar budget deficits. With an enlarged Freedom Caucus, it looks as if McCarthy would do no better. On the other hand, Pelosi promises a season of investigations, obstruction, and socialist legislation which will go nowhere. But maybe, just maybe, the Nationalist President writers would be able to provide a plot twist with some common ground on immigration. The next few episodes will tell. 

    In this great drama the audience has an opportunity to participate. Vote. 

                                                                                                        ----- 

    This week's video with Andrew Klavan provides a much-needed moment of levity in the waning moments of Season One. 

bill bowen - 11/2/18

     

Of Democrats and Star Chambers

    Most of the political and legal underpinning of the United States came about as a response by the Founding Fathers to the injustices which they had seen in the British political system. The division of authority between the federal government and the states and between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches was intended to prevent the consolidation of power by which the monarch could oppress the citizens. Abuses by the British Star Chamber - a superior court originally intended to keep the aristocracy in line, but later used to arbitrarily mete out punishments for the king's enemies - led to protections for defendants such as the fifth amendment to the American constitution, guaranteeing protection against self-incrimination. The Founders were also conscious of the risk of mob rule with democracy run amok as in the French Revolution and the Salem witch trials of the 1690's. The presumption of innocense and the rules of evidence evolved as protections for the individual against both the establishment and the mob. They form the cornerstone of our individual liberty, and for centuries have been a key part of our national concept of justice. 

    Fast forward to 2018 with Trump Derangement Syndrome and the Democrats' obsession with preventing the establishment of a conservative Supreme Court. There are many downsides to the circus which Diane Feinstein unleashed by bypassing the Senate Judiciary Committee's process for investigating nominees and withholding sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Kavanaugh - the damaged reputation of an exemplary person; the emotional stress on the judge's wife and daughters; the emotional stress on Dr. Ford and her family; the further cheapening of civil discourse in the country; the heightening of animosity between men and women of good will; and the public's continuing low esteem for politicians and Congress. 

    The reality of the events described by Dr. Ford are unknowable. She says he did it; he says he didn't. The potential corroborating witnesses - including her female friend who was allegedly at the party - have no memory of the event, and she told nobody until decades later. She seems to have come forward in good faith, but fell afoul of the national political system in which the Democrats, particularly Senator Feinstein, held her story for maximum political effect, leaking it without permission at the last minute in an attempt to delay or derail Judge Kavanaugh's appointment. Seeing an opportunity to drive up their standing with women prior to the November elections, they seized it. Driven by political deadlines the Republicans refused to delay to allow further investigation which would have been marginally helpful, but which would have kept the window open for other unsubstantiated claims to come forward. Little in the handling will encourage other victims of sexual abuse to subject themselves to public inquiry.   

    The real damage to the nation is the abandonment of the presumption of innocence in the absence of credible evidence - at least in the case of conservatives. (Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Keith Ellison are a different story.) Prior to hearing either side of the case, Senator Chris Coons proudly placed the "burden of proof" on Judge Kavanaugh, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declared that there was no "presumption of innocense." In the heat of the political moment that may garner support from the women of the #MeToo movement, but it represents a repudiation of the rule of law as it has been practiced in the United States since our inception. Thoughtful Democrats - as well as Republicans and independents - should reflect on whether that is too high a price to pay for the rejection of a superbly qualified Supreme Court justice. 

                                                                                                            -----

  This week's bonuses are Judge Kavanaugh's lengthy opening statement and Lindsey Graham's emotional response to the Democrats' attacks. 

bill bowen - 9/28/18

 

 

The Judicial Long Game

    The reporting on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to fill the Anthony Kennedy seat on the Supreme Court will revolve around tactics and trivia - efforts to sway undeclared senators; nuances of 300 written opinions; details of an apparently exemplary life. The Kavanaugh appointment is not about abortion, impeachment, healthcare, or the vote of one or two senators. It is not really about "liberal" or "conservative" in the sense that the justices have personal views on social issues, religion, security, or the economy.  It is about Alexander Hamilton's belief in the Constitution as a guarantee of liberty against the appetites of a democratic mob, and the Supreme Court's fealty to limitations of legislative and executive power in the Constitution as the ultimate protector against democracy run amok. Brett Kavanaugh represents the ascendency of Hamilton's federalist majority on the Supreme Court - the product of quiet, tedious work in the fields - which has been gaining ground for 36 years. 

    Major shifts in governmental philosophy occur in long cycles. What is happening today can best be understood in relation to the "Warren Court" of 1953-1969.  Chief Justice Earl Warren, three times elected governor of California, vice-presidential nominee with Thomas Dewey in 1948, and arch-enemy of Richard Nixon, was a politician rather than a jurist. He saw the courts as an alternative path for political objectives which could not be achieved by legislation. Prominent members of the Court during the Warren era included Justices William Brennan, William O. Douglas, Hugo Black, and Felix Frankfurter, who shared his activist and liberal orientations. In a large sense, the Warren Court represented a philosophical continuation of FDR's New Deal with expansion of equal educational opportunity for minorities, application of the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the Federal government, and the eliminatioin of prayer in public schools. By today's standards, much of the output of the Warren Court would seem mainstream, and for the intervening 49 years the role of the courts as arbiters of social norms has largely continued. For most justices, this is decided law. 

    So it was in 1982 when a handful of law students in Chicago, Cambridge, and New Haven supported by leading conservative thinkers such as Ronald Reagan's Attorney General Ed Meese and Solicitor General Robert Bork began to organize the movement which sought to return the courts to their limited role of applying the law, rather than extending it to match their social or political objectives.  Today the Federalist Society is organized into a faculty division, a student division with 10,000 members on 200 campuses and a practicing lawyers division with 60,000 members. Prime funders include the Chamber of Commerce and the Koch Brothers. Rather than advocate for specific issues,  the Federalist Society  is based on the clear principle that "the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be." 

    These are serious thinkers. They want less power for their profession as judges, rather than more.  Bork and Antonin Scalia were original Federalist Society faculty advisors. Current members Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch are proud members. Chief Justice John Roberts is more circumspect, but has been identified as an advisor earlier in his career. Justices Clarence Thomas has been a headline speaker at a Federalist Society event. Assuming Kavanaugh's Senate approval, the court will undoubtedly have differences in applying precedents or interpreting the original intent of the drafters, but they will be united in their belief that it is not their job to expand the constitution or the Congress' written laws. There will be no more mistakes such as  Sandra Day O'Connor and  David Souter who, after being appointed by President Reagan and George HW Bush migrated toward the center.  

    When George W. Bush became president in 2001, he abandoned the long standing practice of seeking ratings - Unqualified; Qualified; Highly Qualified - for judicial appointments from the American Bar Association, whose increasingly liberal leaning had led to obvious bias in their ratings. That left the door open for President Trump to promise during the 2016 campaign that he would rely on a list recommended by the Federalist Society, knowing that he would get candidates of great intellect, strong character, and consistent opinions that would be trusted to limit the role of the court to applying the law as written, rather than deciding that the president should not have the power to limit imigration from Muslim majority countries, or that illegal immigrants are entitled to all of the protections of the Bill of Rights. If the consensus is wrong and Kavanaugh does not get confirmed, there will be a similar resume for the next Senate which will probably have more Republicans. And if Justices Ginsberg and Breyer cannnot continue will into their 80's, or if Trump gets re-elected, there will be three or four of these Trump appointments to what was already a conservative-leaning court. 

    Much has been made of Establishment Republicans becoming "Never Trumpers". That is true of some in the business branch who are concerned about trade, but not $700 billion deficits, and the internationalist branch who are concerned about relations with traditioinal allies, but not burden sharing in light of our $20 trillion national debt. Not so the legal system Establishment branch, which is enjoying a sweet spot which will last decades, regardless of congressional or presidential politics. 

                                                                                                            -----   

  This week's video is the Number Two Democrat in the Senate calling for at least three of his party colleagues to commit political suicide by voting against any Trump appointee, despite the president's popularity in their states. Go for it! 

bill bowen - 7/13/18 

    

    

 

    

     

    

Deep State 2016: Chasing Shadows

 

    One should be disappointed if the leaders of the CIA and the FBI were not skilled enough in their craft to make investigation of their engagement in the 2016 presidential election look like something from Alice in Wonderland. An illusion here; a feint there; a bureaucratic impasse; a legal conundrum; loud braying from allies on the Democratic side of the aisle; knee-jerk responses from conservative commentators.  And all of this takes place as a counter-story to the Democratic media's obsession of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Lewis Carroll at his peak could not have done better. 

    What do we know (largely due to the courageous persistence of House Intelligence Committee chair Devin Nunes, and over the shrieks of committee minority leader Adam Schiff)?

        Prior to this week:

            - The Trump campaign was full of dodgy characters. Paul Manafort; Steve Bannon; Michael Flynn; Anthony Scaramucci - each had their own agenda and client list. High on the compendium of Trump's management deficiencies is the vetting of senior managers.   

            - The Obama administration politicized government agencies to attack opponents. The lowlight was the use of Lois Lerner's IRS to target conservative tax-exempt organizations as part of a broader pattern of executive overreach. 

            -  Senior Obama administration officials (UN ambassador Stephanie Powers; CIA Director John Brennan; and National Security Advisor Susan Rice), oversaw a program to bypass American privacy laws by wiretapping hundreds of foreign officials, identifying (unmasking) Americans with whom they were talking, and leaking the contents of the discussions to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other friendly outlets. 

            -  The FBI used the "Steele dossier", paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign, as a justification for a FISA Court warrant to wiretap Trump aide, Carter Paige. 

            - FBI leadership, particularly James Comey,  factored politics into investigatory decison making - the decision to not prosecute Hillary Clinton for her "extreme carelessness" which fell short of "intentional or gross negligence"; the  "last minute" resurection of the Clinton investigation, which might actually have cost her the election. Attorney General Loretta Lynch was totally compromised by her tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, so Comey filled the gap, rather than deferring to the Deputy Attorney General.  

            - A number of Comey's subordinates - Andy McCabe, Peter Strzock, Lisa Page - were ardent anti-Trumpers, loose in their communications, and (in the case of McCabe) prone to false testimony under oath. 

            - Trump's responses have often been right on the substance, but wrong on the facts, giving the Left ample room for distractions. The FBI did not wiretap Trump Tower, but it did wiretap calls of foreign persons with campaign aides, then unmasked the campaign aides. 

        And the new news - Stefan Halper:

            - Halper, a former American professor at Cambridge University in the UK, has a long history of working between the intelligence community and academia to provide information to political parties about the likely policies and activities of their adversaries. In 1980, he worked for the Reagan/HW Bush campaign to gather information on President Jimmy Carter's foreign policy direction. (HW had been director of the CIA.)  The activity was unearthed in 1983, and after a brief kerfullfe, was forgotten. 

            - He was paid some $1,000,000 through a shadowy Department of Defense account between 2012 and 2017. 

            - In mid-2016, he reached out as part of an FBI investigation to befriend three Trump campaign aides - Papadopolous (who he paid $3000, and introduced to a Turkish woman associate - and who has subsequently been indicted by Mueller's team for lying under oath); Carter Page (who was the subject of the FISA warrant controversy), and campaign co-chair Sam Clovis. 

            - Halper has been mis-characterized as a plant in the Trump campaign. He was actually employed by the FBI to investigate selected campaign members who might have Russian connections. It is not clear that he found anything, but the FBI has refused to disclose to the administration or to the House Intelligence Committee either the circumstances surrounding his hiring, or any results of his investigations. 

            - The next week will dampen emotions, as Trump has appointed Chief of Staff Kelly to oversee a sharing of documents between the FBI, the CIA, and the House Intelligence Committee. The burden of proof lies with the FBI to show that their surveillance of the Trump campaign was not for political purposes, a test which they can most likely pass. In any case,m this should be central to the oversight role of the House Intelligence Committee - making sure that the spooks are not interfering in our elections.  

    The two investigations - Mueller's and that of FBI Inspector General Michael Horowitz - should be viewed as a pair: Mueller investigating whether candidate Trump colluded with the Russians to influence the outocome of the election (excluding Stormy Daniels and other tangents); and Horowitz investigating whether the Obama administration used the FBI and the CIA to tilt the election in the favor of Hillary and undermine the incoming Trump administration.  Niether will ever be proven to the satisfaction of both Republicans and Democrats. In the short run, we will be consumed by the Mueller report, but in a 100 year perspective, abuse of the FBI and the CIA by a sitting administration for partisan political purposes is far more important to the health of the Republic. 

                                                                                                                -----

    This week's video is an introduction to John Cox, the candidate for California governor who won the support of 55% of the delegates at the recent GOP state convention, and who has been endorsed by President Trump and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. The immediate priority is to come in among the "top two" in the June 5, primary. 

bill bowen - 5/25/18

 

    

Impeach? Let's Get Serious

    The Democrats have two prominent approaches to impeachment: the Tom Steyer approach of spending tens of millions of dollars to make impeachment the central issue of the 2018 midterm elections, and the Nancy Pelosi approach of refusing to entertain the subject. The Republican approach is generally to ignore the Democratic base's rants, relying on  on the premise that there is no impeachable offense. For Republicans, it is generally not a good idea to accept that Pelosi's goals and logic align with the GOP's. 

    Premise: what Pelosi is really saying to her base is that they should wait until Mueller has given them the club that they need - a finding of collusion, obstruction of justice, or at least lying under oath. There is no way that there will be no charges after a year's wide-ranging investigation by an aggressive group of seasoned prosecutors, and any conclusion will be enough to serve as a centerpiece for the 2018 Congressional elections. After a year of false New York Times headlines claiming that the smoking gun has finally been found, Republicans have largely become inured to the reality that Mueller will eventually do something, anything, giving the Democrats a peg to hang their impeachment promise on. The prospect of President Pence gives some pause, but he is not the politician that Trump is, without a following allowing him to continue the Trump agenda.    

    The Republicans can use a refresher. 

    The House brings charges by a simple majority; the Senate convicts by a two-thirds majority. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution:  The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The latter phrase is not defined, and opinions vary with the politics of the observer, but most would agree that it includes "obstruction of justice", which in the federal code is defined as "Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress". The Democrats would claim that Trump's expression to James Comey that he hoped Michael Flynn would not be prosecuted opens the door. Likewise, Trump's firing of Comey. Tweets don't help. In any case, there is enough rationale for what is essentially a political process.  

    There are three precedents. 

        - President Andrew Johnson was impeached by the House in 1868, but survived a vote in the Senate by one vote. In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, the issue was who was to oversee Reconstruction in the old Confederacy. Johnson, a native of Tennessee and president by dint of Abraham Lincoln's assasination, wanted the military to report to him through a sympathetic Secretary of War. The northern Republicans wanted a more assertive military governance reporting to Congress. Congress passed a law saying that he could not fire the Secretary; he did anyway. Whatever one's sensibilities, it was a clear case of the president disobeying a direct Congressional law, and surviving the aftermath (until the end of his term in 1869.)  

        - Fast forward 106 years to 1974, when President Nixon resigned after a bipartisan vote in the House Judiciary Committee to bring charges of Obstruction of Justice, Abuse of Power, and Contempt of Congress as the details of the Watergate break-in became known. Public support had collapsed, and there were clear grounds for the charges. 

        - President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House in December of 1998  for perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice in the case of Paula Jones who had sued for sexual harassment when Clinton was governor of Arkansas. A few Democrats voted against Clinton; a few Republicans voted for him. In the Democratic Senate one charge received 50 of the 67 votes needed; the other received 45. With a booming economy and his popularity at 70%, Clinton served until 2001.   

    Republicans take faith in that the House brings charges, but the Senate then tries the case, with a two-thirds majority necessary for removal. Under any scenario, Republicans will have about half of the Senate votes, and there are not enough elected NeverTrump Republicans to side with the Democrats. But that is not the game outside of the delusional left wing.  The objective - like the endless Mueller investigation, and the slow-walking of voting on nominees for executive and judicial nominees - is to make it impossible for Trump to govern. At some point things grind down; Trump runs out of energy; reelection in 2020 becomes impossible; there is a revolt within the Republican party. What is required is maximum pressure, through every means, all of the time. 

    With a strong economy and potential international success, Pelosi's ultimate goal is a Nixon scenario. In the apparent absence of prosecutable evidence, the greatest Republican risk lies in a "forced error" by the President. 

                                                                                             -----

This week's video is a brief, mind-numbing presentation on immigration.

www.RightinSanFrancisco.com 

The Decline of American Democracy

    It is hard to get an objective assessment of how American democracy is doing. The daily media frenzy contributes to 80% "wrong track" public opinion polling and sub-50% approval ratings for everybody but kindergarten teachers, but it would be good to have an evaluation of our democratic processes trending over time and in comparison to other countries. We can discard any effort by think tanks funded by George Soros or the Koch brothers, but there is one source worth a look - the Democracy Index prepared by the British Economist Intelligence Unit. As to political bias, the Economist editors seek the "extreme center", having supported Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, the Vietnam War, Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, decolonization, gun control, and gay marriage. Their coverage is truly global.   

    The EIU bi-annually rates about 165 countries on electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation, and political culture. Much of the input is based on surveys and "panels of experts". Country rankings are divided into four categories:

    - Full democracies where civil liberties and basic political freedoms are not only respected, but also reinforced by a political culture conducive to the thriving of democratic principles. These nations have a valid system of governmental checks and balances, independent judiciary whose decisions are enforced, governments that function adequately, and media that is diverse and independent. These nations have only limited problems in democratic functioning.  Most of the 19 countries in this cohort are North European, with Norway at the pole position.  

    - Flawed democracies where elections are fair and free and basic civil liberties are honored but may have issues (e.g. media freedom infringement). Nonetheless, these nations have significant faults in other democratic aspects, including underdeveloped political culture, low levels of participation in politics, and issues in the functioning of governance. South Korea, the United States, and Italy lead this cohort, along with Japan, France, and Israel and another 51 countries. 

    - Hybrid regimes where consequential irregularities exist in elections regularly preventing them from being fair and free. These nations commonly have governments that apply pressure on political opponents, non independent judiciaries, and have widespread corruption, harassment and pressure placed on the media, anemic rule of law, and more pronounced faults than flawed democracies in the realms of underdeveloped political culture, low levels of participation in politics, and issues in the functioning of governance. This cohort of 39 includes Turkey, Ukraine, Thailand, Nigeria, and Iraq. 

     - Authoritarian regimes where political pluralism has vanished or is extremely limited. These nations are often absolute monarchies or dictatorships, may have some conventional institutions of democracy but with meager significance, infringements and abuses of civil liberties are commonplace, elections (if they take place) are not fair and free, the media is often state-owned or controlled by groups associated with the ruling regime, the judiciary is not independent, and the presence of omnipresent censorship and suppression of governmental criticism. This cohort of 52 includes most of the Middle East and Africa, Russia, China, Cuba, and Vietnam, with Syria and North Korea on the bottom. 

    Of particular interest, the ratings released in January 2017, dropped the United States from the "full democracies" category to the "flawed democracies" category. The accompanying explaination stressed the steady decline since the 1950's in Americans' confidence in governmental institutions as reflected in Pew Research, and a level of income inequality significantly higher than most developed economies. Rather than blaming the drop on the election of Donald Trump, Trump's election was attributed in part to a broad disaffection with government institutions - a result rather than a cause.  

    Next year's survey may drop off of the cliff. 

        - Whether or not there is ever a fair accounting for the corruption of the Clinton Foundation, the public can connect the dots between the hundreds of millions of contributions, the access to the state department decision making, the reasons for Hillary's illegal e-mail system, and the meeting of Bill Clinton with the Attorney General on the tarmac in Phoenix.   As exposed in the Nunes memo, the Justice Department and the FBI were engaged to spy on the Trump campaign during an election where the Democratic National Committee gave debate questions to one of their competitors. The use of the IRS to target conservative groups is old news. 

        - The un-ending Mueller search for collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians keeps expanding to include unsubstantiated claims of obstruction, decade-old wrongdoing by Manafort and his colleages, episodes with porn stars, raids to seize client-lawyer communications, and anything else that the full power of the politicized FBI and Justice Department can bring against the President. 

        - Many Democrats have abandoned any pretext of respect for our electoral system, with a Silicon Valley billionaire spending tens of millions on a campaign for impeachment, and some 65 House members signing on. 

        - The public's view of government effectiveness must include some measure of looming trillion dollar annual deficits.  

        - And then there is the much flawed Donald Trump, holding up fairly well under the pressure of a nuclear stand-off with North Korea, a trade dispute with China, and an escalating crisis in Syria while the FBI searches his lawyer's house and office. This is not the conventional poster boy for the leader of the Free World. 

     In assessing the trajectory of America's democracy, it is normal for the presidential election to have the results challenged through the final recount. It is improper, but perhaps understandable that agents of the outgoing administration would try to influence the selection of their successors.  What is wrong, and a sharp divergence from America's democratic principles, is the refusal of the losing party to accept the legitimacy of the president who won the election. 

                                                                                                            ----- 

    This week's video is an interview with Diamond and Silk, two black women Trump supporters whose Facebook page with 1,200,000 followers was blocked as "unsafe to the community." Most of the discussion on the Zuckerberg testimony has been about protection of users' privacy; this reflects a concern about politically biased censorship. 

bill bowen - 4/13/18 

The State of State

    Rex Tillerson arrived as Secretary of State in 2017 with deep experience in the oil politics of the Middle East and Russia and a successful 42 year career at Exxon Mobil. The hope was that the responsible adult would bring gravitas to the cabinet as well as understanding and personal relationships which could help in the post-Iraq, post-Syria, post-Ukraine world of American foreign policy. The generals could handle the military clean-up work; Tillerson would handle the soft side. What went wrong?

    The complexity of foreign policy is reflected in the core membership of the President's National Security Council - the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the the Secretary of the Treasury, and the President's Assistant for National Security, advised by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence. The three dimensions of foreign policy - diplomatic, military, and economic - are all represented; each needs a champion who has the confidence of the President and a who can draw upon an experienced and motivated staff which prepares the briefing papers and implements the decisions. This assumes competent staff down several levels, and NSC members who are aligned with the president. Both requirements proved to be missing in the case of Rex Tillerson's State Department. 

    To be fair, the fixation about Russian meddling in the 2016 election has made it very difficult to engage with what Mitt Romney had rightly called our number one national security threat. Tillerson knew Putin, at least peripherally, understood the importance of energy in Russia's economy and foreign policy, and had direct experience dealing with Russian negotiators. Before the Democrats settled on the "Russia cost Hillary the election" meme and Mueller subpoened anyone who had ever talked to a Russian, there was a chance to sort out the interests of Russia and NATO in the former Soviet republics and to agree on a plan to stabilize the Muslim nations lying to Russia's south. Tillerson could have been central, but the Trump administration was denied the opportunity, and Tillerson's resume became less relevant.      

  Tillerson, Trump, and the Senate all deserve blame for the mis-management of the State Department. Trump has had an overall problem nominating people for positions requiring Senate approval, with no nominee yet proposed for one third of the 640 such positions. State, which is facing a 30% budget reduction, is at the forefront with no nominee yet recommended for 54 positions, 61 confirmed and 28 pending before the Senate. As happened to George W Bush, but not Obama, Clinton, or HW Bush, the Senate required resubmission of nominations after the end of the year - a sign that Mitch Mcconnell is as much of a problem as is Chuck Schumer.  At State, a majority of the senior positions remain unfilled, and no ambassadors have been nominated for Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Qatar, Yemen, or South Korea - all hot spots requiring expertise and personal contacts.  If Tillerson has been complaining about White House interference, it has not made the media. 

    On broad policy, former Exxon CEO Tillerson would have agreed with the establishment, globalist wing of the Republican party in the Make America Great Again debate about free trade and the ability of American companies to prosper amid global competition. His experienced voice will be missed in the foreign trade debates which will follow the replacement of Gary Cohn by (choke) Larry Kudlow as President Trump's chief economic advisor, and the administration turns away from multinational agreements toward individual country negotiations. Down with the influence of the embassy staffs and the Foggy Bottom experts; up with their counterparts at the Commerce Department and the office of the Trade Representative.  

    The turn from Tillerson to Mike Pompeo - US Military Academy; Harvard Law; House Intelligence Committee; CIA Director - suggests closer alignment than with Tillerson for a hawkish approach to the remaining two members of George W Bush's "Axis of Evil" - North Korea and Iran. Each has a story, but Tillerson was apparently not in the loop with Mike Pence and Ivanka on North Korea, and would have cautioned against scrapping President Obama and John Kerry's Iran nuclear agreement which does not include inspection of Iranian military sites or cover missile development. The first may be an opportunity; the second a risk. 

    Tillerson left Exxon a little better than he found it when he became CEO in 2006 - up about 25%; he won't be able to say that about the State Department, but he will have his XOM stock to cushion the blow, unlike many others who have given up good careers to join the administration and found that they cound not navigate the Senate or the top CEO.  

                                                                                                        -----  

      This week's bonus video is for those who couldn't get enough of the curling competition at the recent Olympics. 

  bill bowen - 3/16/2018

Trump: Challenging the Established Order

    Silicon Valley venture capitalists love companies that disrupt industries - Tesla in cars; AirBnB in hotels; Uber in local transportation; Amazon in anything. Information technology is usually a key element, but what they are really looking of is a way of transforming an industry which does not effectively meet customer needs. It is ironic that they hate the great political disrupter, President Donald Trump. Whatever his personal shortcomings and his inability to coalesce a Washington majority around his proposals, he deserves credit for challenging the established order where lesser leaders have lacked vision or feared to tread.  

    The big ones - where he has broken with Republican Party orthodoxy and found a Democratic party thus far totally unwilling to give him the handful of votes which he would need in the Senate to pass common sense legislation favored by a strong majority of Americans. 

        - Immigration. Eleven million illegal immigrants; no effective border control; a predecessor who was clear that he did not have authority to exempt categories of "undocumented immigrants" from enforcement, then did so with millions of children.  Trump had a strategy: apply pressure by terminating President Obama's illegal program with enough lead time to allow Congress to act. He had a balanced proposal which went well beyond the "heels dug in" on either side: a path to citizenship for 1.8 million; enforcement of the border (including a wall); limits on the scope of family members who come as sponsored relatives, and instead focus on immigrants who bring benefit to America; elimination of the lottery designed to allocate immigration slots to people from random countries. We wait for Congress.  

        - Gun control. After years of inaction, we have a president who is willing to take on the NRA and the "Second Amendment" wing of his party. He will eliminate "bump stocks" which make assault rifles out of semi-automatics - by executive order if necessary; he will agree to increasing the purchase age for rifles, expanding background checks, and aggressively using mental health exclusions. We wait for Congress. 

    And the third element of the trifecta which will be a signature success (or failure) of his presidency - foreign trade. The first portion of the problem has been fixed - a disadvantageous tax code which made American companies less competitive and encouraged capital to be kept offshore. As a testament to the #Resist movement, no Democratrs in the House or Senate voted for the tax code changes. On trade, the Democrats in opposition will be joined by most of the Republican establishment which believes in multilateral "free trade" agreements adjudicated by the World Trade Organization, rather than the Trump approach of direct negotiations between the United States and individual other countries. Some themes to watch: 

        - We are losing the current game, have been for decades, and neither party has effectively questioned the status quo since the 1980s when the Japanese car makers were pressured into producing cars in the United States as the price of market access. The 2017 deficit in Goods and Services of $566 billion was up 12% from 2016, and increased from 2.7% to 2.9% of GDP. (The Goods deficit was $810 billion; the Services - travel; education; trade-related; professional and management - surplus was $244 billion.)  Domestically, the winners have been more politically powerful than the losers, particularly as the Democrats have abandoned the white working middle class. 

        -  The primary target is China. China represents almost half of our deficit in goods - $375 billion in 2017. They were invited to join the World Trade Organization in 2001, but have retained their system of state-sponsored industries targeting global markets, demanding transfer of technology in exchange for permission of foreign companies to do business in China, and exclusion of foreign products through tariffs and other barriers. From their perspective the game is working - growth remains above 6%; Xi Jinping is set up as "ruler for life"; basic industries continue to grow (they make half of the world's steel) as they subsidize development in central and southwest Asia. With a detailed Trade Representative  assessment in hand, Trump has asked the Chinese government for a plan to reduce the deficit by $100 billion with the premise that if they do not make real progress, he will find a way. 

        - Trump is playing multi-dimensional chess. He starts with tariffs on steel and aluminum because they are symbolic, but also because a 1972 law and WTO regulations give the President latitude on industries related to national security. This provides leverage for renegotiation of NAFTA, which has primarily benefited Mexico. From there, the theme is that each country is different. He will eventually address the fact that Value Added Taxes - used by most developed countries, but not the United States - are unfavorable to American exports. 

        -   Trump is poor at building coalitions. With former Goldman Sachs president Gary Cohn's exit from the Council of Economic Advisors, Trump loses a strong connection to the top levels of Wall Street as well as to the "free traders" in Congress. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, and  National Trade Council Director Peter Navarro are capable lieutenants, but a broader coalition is needed to turn policy into effective action. Likewise, there are not a lot of foreign leaders signing up to help restore balance to global trade. 

    Some of this will get done; much won't. The Democratic #Resisters and the Republican NeverTrumpers remain hopeful that the Senate's dilatory confirmation process and Mueller's meandering search for Trump malfeasance will prevail over the President's willingness to challenge the established order on the major issues  confronting the country. This writer hopes not.  

                                                                                                -----

        This week's bonus is a sample of the five-minute videos developed by Praeger U to articulate conservative positions. This discussion by Dave Rubin, "Why I Left the Left", has received some 17 million views. 

bill bowen - 3/9/18

        

The Nunes Memo in Perspective

     For 15 months the Democrats - and a fair number of Establishment Republicans - have been attempting to de-legitimize the presidency of Donald Trump by connecting members of his campaign to Russian efforts to influence the election. Thus far they have much less than one would expect with a cast of characters made up of inexperienced family members (Don Junior; Jared Kushner), re-worked international intelligence consultants (Paul Manafort; Carter Page; General Flynn), and naive kids (George Papadopoulos) playing in the major leagues for the first time. There has been a constant drumbeat of new outrages which will secure the case against Trump, until they melt away to be followed by the next outrage. 

    A different perspective, lurking in the background, is that the Democrats and ambitious functionaries in the outgoing administration took it as a certainty that Hillary Clinton would win the election, that they were free to use their positions to boost her prospects, and there would be no consequences (and in fact some likely career benefit) for cutting corners. That attitude persisted from at least the time that her e-mail problems emerged in March of 2015, and included bad actors in the State Department, the Obama White House, the Justice Department, and the FBI. With Trump's surprise election, it was better to play offense, in the anticipation that there really was collusion, rather than to play defense.   

     The Nunes memo is a breakthrough. True, it is only one piece of a much larger mosaic - it does not address whether anybody was colluding with the Russians or whether there was obstruction of justice by the president; it doesn't even address what, if anything, was found by wiretapping Mr. Page. What it does, however, is incontrovertibly demonstrate that people in the senior levels of the Justice Department (Bruce Ohr) and the FBI (Andrew McCabe) knowingly asked the FISA court for approval to wiretap a member of the Trump campaign, relying on highly questionable information, without telling the court that it was developed by agents of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. That the FBI official's wife received a $700,000 campaign contribution from a member of the Clinton machine, and that the Justice Department official's wife worked for the opposition research firm digging up the fake dirt pushes the reality beyond a John Grisham novel. 

    Thanks to the voluminous e-mails and text messages between senior FBI agent Peter Strzok  and his FBI attorney lover,  we have extensive context. The animus extended below the ranks of political appointees. FBI Management assigned the same biased person to lead the Clinton e-mail investigation (where he wrote the language preventing indictment for abuse of secret information), to participate in the interrogation of General Flynn about his Russian contacts, and to manage the Steele dossier investigation. That FBI and Justice Department management allowed such an overtly anti-Trump agent to play a central role in each of these cases speaks volumes about a broader problem. Perhaps some will come out in the ongoing Justice Department Inspector General investigation; perhaps not.   

    What we don't have - at least yet - is an aggressive Justice Department taking a look back at subjects which were not addressed properly by the corrupted FBI of James Comey. One would be a special prosecutor to revisit the Clinton handling of confidential information and all of its surrounding subterfuge. A second would reach back to the corruption of the Clinton State Department in the Clinton Foundation - lubricated sale of Uranium One to a member of Putin's inner circle.  A third would be the White House led scheme to monitor conversations of foreign nationals with members of the Trump campaign,  ask the NSA to "unmask" the American participant in the conversation, and leak insinuating information to the press.   

    And it is worth thinking through the "worst case" outcome of the Mueller investigation - a fulfillment of the dreams of Nancy Pelosi and the Washington Post.  For mechanics, Mueller brings an indictment for some as yet unknown discussion that somebody in the Trump entourage had with someone in the Putin circle; the House (after a surprising Democratic November take-over) votes on articles of impeachment; the Senate (probably still in Republican hands) needs a two-thirds majority to find Trump guilty and remove him from office. No chance. For those hoping to just throw sand into the gears of the Trump presidency, it is worth noting that the Bill Clinton impeachment occurred in December of 1999, he was acquitted two months later, and he served the remaining year of his second term. This is a ultimately political question, not a legal one.  

    At some point the question will be "what is best for the country" - how can we reestablish confidence in our essential governmental institutioins -  not "how can we re-litigate the 2016 election", or "how can we punish people for abuses in the Obama administratioin?"  Absent the vitriol of the #Resist movement and the animosity (and ratings) of much of the media, we would probably be moving on. Hopefully the Nunes memo will be a nudge in that direction - after a brief cleansing. 

                                                                                                                    ------

    There are two video bonuses this week:

        - For the policy wonks, a glaringly clear 30 minute explanation by former federal prosecutor Joe diGenova about the relation between Clinton's e-mail crimes and the effort to fabricate a story about the Trump campaign's Russia collusion. 

       - A striking set of exerpts from speeches on immigration by President Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, which demonstrate how far to the Left the political discussion has lurched. 

bill bowen - 2/9/18

The Obama Administration's Election Interference: The Real Scandal

    Back in the day George Washington was most acclaimed for his leadership of the colonial army which defeated the greatest military force of its time. An argument can be made that Washington deserves to be remembered as the guy who made the governmental ideas of Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Ben Franklin, and John Adams come to life. Perhaps the best perspective is that he set the example, followed by presidents for the next 215 years, of accepting the election of his successor and graciously returning to his private life. He willingly turned over power to John Adams who reflected the industrial North, returning himself to his agrarian Southern roots. He didn't try to stay; he accepted the electorate's preferred successor. 

      Over the past couple of centuries there were undoubtedly circumstances where an outgoing president believed that his successor would do great harm to the nation. Perhaps the establishment Federalist John Quincy Adams before the populist Andrew Jackson; perhaps the compromising James Buchanan before the great emancipator, Abraham Lincoln; perhaps capitalist Herbert Hoover before the socialist Franklin Delano Roosevelt. They didn't have today's CIA and NSA. They didn't have Facebook or Twitter.  They also didn't - as nearly as we can understand the history books - go to the lengths that Barack Obama did to use federal power to subvert the election of a successor they deemed unworthy.  

    We may never have a full, objective picture of the 2016 presidential election. Unless Robert Mueller does an exceptional job of pulling a rabbit out of the hat, the Republicans will have their version and the Democrats will have theirs. Mueller is giving the "nail Trump" team a full effort - selection of a prosecutorial team who saw Trump as an unacceptable presidential candidate; indictments of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates; plea agreements with Michael Flynn and George Popadopoulos designed for leverage to elicit damaging testimony against Trump; and a willingness to go far beyond the question of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. If they cannot find collusion or real obstruction of justice, there will be little room for the Democrats to complain.  

    The second perspective, the Justice Department's failure to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for the corruption of the Clinton Foundation, or her cavalier exposure of classified information, is important, but in the sweep of history it will be just a failure of the Obama administration to enforce the laws against a powerful member of the president's party. Maybe Trump's Justice Department will go there, but it seems unlikely. 

    A greater transgression, and a higher priority for Mueller or for a separate investigation, is the apparent unprecedented use of the Obama administration's national security apparatus to move the election for Clinton and against Trump. Some of this is still seen through foggy glass, but the questioning of Deputy  Attorney General Rod Rosenstein by Trey Gowdy and Jim Jordan on December 13, and of FBI Director Christopher Wray by Jim Jordan on December 7, is based on the following set of apparent facts: 

        - In April 2016, the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign hired a law firm, Perkins Coie, which hired a political consulting firm, Fusion GPS, which hired a former British intelligence agent, Christopher Steele, to develop opposition research on Donald Trump - a later discredited "dossier" demonstrating that Trump would be subject to Russian blackmail for outlandish conduct. Some of the content was provided to the author by Russian intelligence services. The dossier itself was published in January 2017 by BuzzFeed. 

        - For months House Intelligence Chair Deven Nunes and Paul Ryan have been trying to get Fusion GPS or the FBI to reveal how the dossier got to the FBI, and what the FBI did with it. The assumed backstory is that the FBI made some of the payments to Fusion GPS. Discredited senior FBI agent Peter Strzok was apparently an intermediary.  

        - In December 7 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee,  FBI Director Cristopher Wray seemed to confirm that the line of thinking of Committee member Jim Jordan was correct, and that the FBI used the dossier in their application to the FISA court for warrants to tap the phone of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.  

        -  Concurrently, there was an intense effort, involving National Security adviser Susan Rice and UN Ambassador Samantha Powers before and after the election to monitor the conversations of Trump advisers. Technically, they monitored the conversations of foreign officials who might be talking to the Trump team, then "unmasked" the Americans by asking the NSA for the identity of the Americans. Powers did this several hundred times.    

        - To complete the plan, the Obama administration changed the rules to allow the dissemination of raw intelligence to 17 agencies, rather than the former restriction of the NSA. The conversations of Team Trump were then also confidentially provided to Congress, and from that broad assembly, to the New York Times and the Washington Post, who used the leaked conversations for innumerable articles before and after the election.  

         Thus was born and fostered the story of Trump's collusion with the Russians which rolled through the 2016 election campaign, and has formed the base of the subsequent effort to de-legitimize his presidency. Despite all of the effort to find collusion, none has been reported to date. What is being clearly revealed is a broad effort by senior leadership of the Obama administration to use the national security apparatus to publicize information intended to help the Clinton campaign, and a surprising difficulty of the Republican House, Senate, and President to provide a clear picture of what happened. 

                                                                                            -----

    This week's video is of Congressman Jim Jordan's connecting the above dots. 

bill bowen - 12/15/17  

     

 

Government Reform: Two Approaches

    Had Mitt Romney been elected in 2011, we would have seen a Bain-style of strategic federal government reform: departmental missions; evaluation of processes; assessment of skills and tools; alignment of internal and external interactions; pursuit of efficiency and effectiveness; institution of performance measures. Alas, we will never know if a professional approach would have been able to overcome the entrenched bureaucracy defending both its ideological ground and its self-interest. What we can observe is the Trump approach. 

    The middle ranks of the executive branch are filled with analysts and managers who believe in what they are doing. For most it is a job - the pay is good; the hours are reasonable; one can be proud telling family and friends what you do for a living. There is an overlay of political appointees who come from the political class - party and campaign organizations, universities, and think tanks. The political appointees come, make policy, and go when the administration changes; the mass of the bureaucracy advise and implement. It was that way when I worked at the Pentagon in the Nixon administration; it is true today. Aside from complaints about "the Deep State", it is not apparent that President Trump and his transition team understood the need to replace the thousands of political appointees if they want to change direction. Perhaps that was because Chris Cristie got fired mid-course as leader of the transition team and his lists of potential appointees went with him; perhaps it was because Team Trump was so far outside of the Establishment that they couldn't trust people from within the system that they didn't personally know; perhaps Trump's business experience did not prepare him for leading such a large organization.  Whatever the reason, the road is unnecessarily bumpy. 

    Exhibit number one is the State Department - perhaps the most difficult transformation because of the large number of well-connected policy makers and ambassadors and the access of senior staff to the media. In the case of the Trump administration, State faces a couple of extra hurdles - the appointment of former generals to the Secretary of Defense, National Security Adviser, and White House Chief of Staff positions normally filled by civilians, and the selection of a Secretary of State who had no government experience or constituency in Congress. To date, the restructuring has included a large element of encouraging Obama appointees and others opposed to the populist "America First" agenda to leave without replacement. The FY2018 budget for State and foreign aid is $37.6 billion, a 31% reduction from FY2017. Full time American department employment of 25,000 will be reduced by 8%. Of the six under secretary positions, only one has been filled.  Of the 24 assistant secretary positions, only three are filled, with four additional names having been sent to the Senate for confirmation. Less than a third of the 190 ambassador-level positions have been filled with noted vacancies in such places as Mexico, Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Ukraine, Syria, South Korea, the Philippines, and the European Union. Small wonder that the foreign policy establishment is calling for Rex Tillerson's head. 

    Other agencies are led by people who share a radically different view of the role of the department than do most of the employees who joined during the Obama years: the Environmental Protection Agency (Scott Pruitt); the Department of Education (Betsy Voss) ; the Department of Energy (Rick Perry); and now the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Mick Mulvaney, acting). "Reform" will take the form of different policy direction, key personnel changes, and budget cuts. In the case of the CFPB there may be a Congressional effort to undo the creation of Barack Obama and Pocahontas Warren, folding the function back into other financial industry overseers. In each case the department head position description leads with intestinal fortitude and ideological alignment with the president. 

    Some of the restructuring fight is down in the weeds. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, with eleven active judges, has the responsibility of directly reviewing the decisions and rule-making of many federal agencies. Jeff Sessions gets it. In the week when a Trump-appointed DC Circuit judge affirmed that the President, rather than the outgoing Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director, gets to appoint the new acting director,  the Senate approved Greg Katsas for the "second most important court in the nation" by a 50-48 margin.   

    The last resort of the resisting bureaucrats is political. While national Democrats have tried to claim that the November 7 election of Ralph Northam as governor of Virginia over Republican Ed Gillespie reflected a national anti-Trump tide, the reality is that the DC suburbs - among the wealthiest zip codes in the country - voted for their own self interest. State-wide Gillespie did as well as the Republican in the prior governor election, but the suburbs (where the Washington Post is the home town newspaper and the locals are denizens of the "swamp") turned out in droves. What played so well in Arlington didn't particularly resonate in Richmond, nor will it in Indianapolis.  

    Romney might have gotten this done without breaking as much furniture, but Trump will get it done. 

                                                                                                        -----

    This week's video reports the firing of Lake Wobegon's Garrison Keillor, allegedly for putting his hand on a friend's bare back. Next: Kermit the Frog.  

bill bowen - 12/1/17

 

 

 

 

 

   

      

Tax Reform: Counting Noses

    American taxpayers can give thanks this holiday for being on the cusp of once-in-a-generation tax reform which will lower taxes for most middle class taxpayers while making American companies more competitive globally. As the Senate prepares to vote on their version this coming week, Republican leaders see the following:

    The shape of the box

        - The large negative of increased budget deficits was largely agreed upon with the FY 2018 budget resolution which set a $1.5 trillion limit for tax reductions over the next ten years. That bill was passed 216 to 212 in the House, and 51 to 49 in the Senate. The potentially disruptive House Freedom Caucus is on board; among Republicans only Rand Paul in the Senate disagreed. 

       - By adding the repeal of the Obamacare individual mandate, the Senate has created a pool of about $338 billion over 10 years- which can be used to offset the cost of other desired changes. 

        - The House passed their version of tax reform on November 16, with a surprising margin of 227 to 205, leaving Paul Ryan some room to protect vulnerable members and accommodate some Senate-demanded changes in the reconciliation process.

        -  The Senate's 52 to 48 majority leaves room for only two defections (with the likely unanimous Democratic opposition). If Democrat Doug Jones beats Republican Roy Moore in the December 12, Alabama election, the margin will shrink to one vote by December 26. Passage before Christmas - including reconciliation with the House - is essential. 

        - The Congressional calendar is full - including renewal of the Continuing Resolution to allow spending without approval of specific authorization bills and an increase in the debt limit by December 8. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer agreed to an extension in September; this time the Republicans may need to navigate alone. 

    The "at risk" Senate votes 

        - In the Obamacare "Repeal and Replace" saga, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and John McCain of Arizona were willing to sink the long term Republican agenda. 

            -- Murkowski is chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, an important position for her to retain for her Alaskan constituents. Inclusion of approval of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been enough to make her declare her support despite some concern about repealing the individual mandate. A Yes.  

            -- John McCain, whose criticism of the ObamaCare effort was partly about the one-sided process, has praised the Republican leadership for their handling of the bill which passed out of Committee, and earlier tied his vote on the budget together with the need for tax reform. A Yes.  

            -- Susan Collins has several misgivings - the elimination of the Obamacare mandate, the elimination of deductions for state taxes, and the "too low" 20% corporate tax rate. She did support the enabling budget resolution, and is considered a "not yet" rather than a "no". A maybe. 

        - With much media fanfare, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin has declared that he would not vote for the House or Senate version of the current bill since they do not provide enough relief for small business owners who pass through their company's earnings to be taxed as personal income. On Wisconsin media he has expressed confidence that the problem can be fixed, he supports the overall bill, and he considers passage an "imperative" for Republicans. A probable yes. 

        - Conservatives Bob Corker of Tennessee and Jeff Flake of Arizona who are not running for reelection have expressed concern about the deficit and drawn the public scorn of President Trump. Both claim to be unaffected by Trump; moderate ally Rob Portman affirms that both will be "all in" - with the fig leaf that lower taxes will stimulate the economy enough to offset the lower rates. Two probable yeses. 

        - Despite being the only Republican to vote against the budget, Rand Paul  tweeted on October 20, “I’m all in for tax cuts @realDonaldTrump. The biggest, boldest cuts possible - and soon!” A yes. 

    House Reconciliation

      Threading the needle will require some modifications to the bill which the House passed on November 16. 

        - The Senate needs to accept the House's elimination of deductions for state and local taxes - on the surface simple because there are no Republican Senators from the high tax states of California, New York, New Jersey, or Massachusetts. The calculation in the House is less obvious, but most of the Republicans from these states represent rural districts and know that most of their constituents will benefit from the larger standard deduction. (The Democrat dominance really is limited to a few rich coastal enclaves.) 

        - The House needs to accept the Senate's addition of the provision eliminating the Obamacare mandate. Back in May, the House was willing to eliminate Obamacare entirely by a 217 to 213 vote - eliminating the mandate should not be a problem with Republicans.  There is even a potential softener of a bill by Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee) and  Patty Murray (D- Washington) which would subsidize insurance companies for two years if the elimination of the mandate drives down their profit margins. Some form may be necessary to assuage Senators like Susan Collins, and perhaps to peel off a few Democrats. 

    Net, net ... the months-long effort by the Congressional leaders and the White House to craft a manageable version is on the cusp of success unless John McCain's brain cancer flares, another Republican gets tackled while mowing his lawn, or President Trump can find more responsive Republican Senators to insult. 

                                                                                                    -----

    This week's video is a favorite, Johnny Cash's "Thanksgiving Prayer". 

bill bowen - 11/24/17

Grading Trump

     To the core Trump voters and most Democrats, there isn't much point in trying to grade the performance of President Trump. He is the first president to speak for them in a long, long time or he is a tyrannical, corrupt pig.  For the rest of us, who make the difference in elections and who are hoping for solutions to the nations ills, there has been enough time for emotions to calm and for hard evidence to surface. Let's look at three dimensions: is he working on the right things; does he frame solutions well; and can he get things done?

    I. The Right Things: A

    First, there are a few things that afforded little choice: the Mueller investigation of Russian campaign meddling; the rapidly emerging North Korean nuclear threat; an unusual spate of disasters - Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria; the Las Vegas shootings; the California wild fires. 

    Immigration has been a growing national issue for decades, with discontent on both the Left and the Right. He is addressing it directly. 

    Radical Islamic terrorism, and turmoil in the Middle East in general, was a major unsolved feature of the Obama presidency. He is addressing it directly. 

    The economy has been growing at a sub-optimal 1-2% per year since the financial crisis of 2007. He is aggressive on trade policy, regulatory relief, and tax policy, and will soon appoint a new Federal Reserve Board Chair. 

    Reform of the healthcare system remains on the agenda despite the inability of the Republican Congress to pass any legislation. 

    Trump and the Republican Senate have an opportunity to re-shape the federal judiciary for a decade or more.  

    II. Framing of Solutions: B+

        - Although upset about his Attorney General recusing himself from the Russia investigation, Trump has let the system work, ignoring suggestions that he fire Mueller and making the White House staff available for interrogations. What will be will be - and it is unlikely to impact him directly. Excellent. 

        - With Kim Jong Un on the brink of a nuclear missile capability, Trump does not have the luxury of past presidents in adopting varying levels of accommodation. All options are on the table; enforcement of harsh sanctions has been advanced; and China has been pushed into the forefront.  Excellent. 

        - The appropriate local, state, and federal disaster recovery agencies have taken center stage, with the President - in the case of the hurricanes- appearing to provide moral support and asking Congress for billions in reconstruction funding. Good, except for Puerto Rico. 

        - Unlike President Obama, Trump has attempted to address immigration through legislation rather than simply through executive edicts. His proposals are comprehensive - legal status for children; greater resources for border security and the related court system; a shift from "family relationship" priorities to "American needs" priorities; enforcement of e-verify for employers; reduced visas for foreigners displacing American workers. Excellent. 

        - Trump has taken a Realpolitik approach to the Middle East, aligning with Sunni Saudi Arabia against Shia Iran, seeking de facto partition of Syria in concert with the Russians, and allowing the generals to determine tactics and (to a modest extent) troop levels. Excellent.

        - To help the economy, Trump blew up the Trans Pacific Partnership, is renegotiating NAFTA, has the EPA - and to a lesser extent the Department of Labor - significantly reducing regulatory constraints. He has proposed comprehensive tax reform with globally competitive corporate rates, reductions for the middle class (but probably not the upper earners), and significant streamlining - but perhaps fiscal irresponsibility.  Good scope. 

        - Absent legislation, Trump has eliminated the Obamacare provision which required employers with ethical reservations to provide birth control and will allow insurers to sell inexpensive, stripped down policies to the millions who want them. He has not dealt with disparity between states which expanded Medicaid under Obamacare and those that did not. Fair. 

        - Trump's team put forward an excellent, conservative jurist to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. He has put forward some 57 nominees for federal District and Appeals courts. An additional 100 seats are unfilled. Good on quality; fair on numbers. 

    III. Getting Things Done: C

    Two themes dominate the discussion of results. 

        - Given the Democrats scorched earth #Resist reaction to the election of Trump, the Republicans adopted a "Republicans only" approach to legislating without adequate majorities to tolerate many defections or leadership capable of maintaining order.  Much of the administration's energy went into the three failed efforts to Repeal and Replace Obamacare. While the Senate did change the rules to approve Justice Gorsuch with 51 votes, they are still arguing about the right of opposition party home state senators to veto court nominees, and only 7 have been approved to date. House Republicans could not be counted on to pass a budget or raise the debt ceiling, driving Trump to seek help from the Democrats. 

        -  While, unlike President Obama, Trump is good at framing legislation and allowing  Congress to engage in the necessary sausage making, he is terrible - no, worse than terrible - at developing relationships with key allies and persuadable opponents. With a paper thin majority in the Senate he seeks battle with Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski over Planned Parenthood, and with John McCain and Bob Corker over nothing in particular, while not courting Democrats from red States.  Add Attorney General Jeff Sessions; Secretary of State Rex Tillerson; chief economic adviser Gary Cohen; San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz; and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. 

    That said,   

        - ISIS is on the verge of destruction in Iraq and Syria.

        - The S&P 500 US market index is up 21 % since the election, while the GDP growth rate is pushing 3 %.   

        - Illegal immigration has been reduced by double digits.  

        - Every day's Washington Post has howls about some new travesty - withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement; withdrawal from UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, for its history of anti-Israel bias; review of an Obama administration rule which would expand overtime pay to millions of additional workers. 

        - And the ball is clearly in Congress' court on immigration and tax reform. 

                                                                                                    ----- 

   This week's video is The Donald's "First 100 Days" plan in the halcyon days just after the election

bill bowen - 10/13/17    

Local Politics in the Land of Nancy Pelosi

    When a group of San Francisco activists recently disrupted a Nancy Pelosi news conference where she was advocating for amnesty for the "Dreamers", she was shouted down because she is not using her place in Congress to demanding amnesty for all of their families and friends.  Those out there in the rest of the country might have asked "What were they smoking?"  Good question.  

    When 56% of California voters  agreed in November to legalize recreational marijuana it seemed like an easy deal. January 1, 2018, no problem. Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsome had made it a plank of his nascent campaign to replace Jerry Brown as governor. A former staffer at the state Alcoholic Beverage Commission has been hired to run the new California Bureau of Cannabis Control, filling in the holes in state legislation governing cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and retailing. There are no standards or testing methodology for "driving while stoned", it will take a number of court cases to define the boundaries for workplace discipline, and there is not enough time for adequate background checks before licenses are granted, but the $1 billion in tax revenue will start rolling in.  The real task for the new Commission is to get the big growers in northern California - including the Mexican cartels - to come out of the shadows, but production in the state serves demand well beyond California, and the underground economy will retain much of its vigor.   

    That's the big picture.  Taking it down to the local level in San Francisco  the regulators will not be ready for the New Years Eve Party. Not because they don't understand marijuana - there are already 38 medical marijuana dispensaries in the City. Not because they do not know how to regulate the details of the lives of fragile citizens - plastic bags are banned, flavored cigarettes are about to be, and soft drinks are prohibitively taxed. No, the problem is that some of the City Supervisors need to keep up with Oakland where 50 percent of cannabis business licenses must go to former marijuana felons and to residents of several neighborhoods considered especially damaged by the war on drugs. In densely packed San Francisco, that leads to clusters of dispensaries in lesser neighborhoods where the $240 million homeless industry is centered. So much for fixing urban blight.   

    Finding the equation for marijuana is not the only drug opportunity for San Francisco's progressive Supervisors who compete to demonstrate "out of the box" thinking.  Earlier this year Board President London Breed began serious study of City-provided drug injection sites for the estimated 22,500 heroine and meth addicts in the City.  Caught between an intractable population of 7500 homeless folks and a citizenry who are becoming less tolerant of the sidewalk sleepers and the used needles which litter some of the best tourist spots, the probable outcome will be clean, City-staffed cubicles with showers and social workers. Visions of 19th century Chinese opium dens.   Back in the day, groups like Alcoholics Anonymous and The Salvation Army held the central tenet that addicts need to accept responsibility for their actions and commit to a program involving self discipline. In San Francisco, it is "whatever". Unfortunately, when the sites are built, "they will come" from close and afar.  

    And how does the underclass pay for its drug habits?  One factor - car burglaries which have grown dramatically to a reported 30,000 per year in San Francisco in the three years since California reduced the penalty for theft under $950 to a slap on the wrist. That followed a 2013 decision by the state to respond to overcrowding in the state penitentiary system by transferring less serious offenders to the county jails, which in turn made the local district attorneys virtually stop prosecuting "smash and grab" burglaries even when the offenders were caught. 

    San Francisco is increasingly becoming a Tale of Two Cities. A $10 billion budget with 14,000 city employees (including bus drivers) making over $100,000 per year, and an exodus of the private sector working class. Virtually no middle class housing growth while the population has grown by 50,000 in the last seven years.  The home of Uber, Twitter, Lyft, Wells Fargo, and Sales Force, and an army of drug users sleeping under bridges. By measures large and small, the government of San Francisco has moved beyond the traditional liberal solutions offered by Nancy Pelosi's generation, and, despite all of its financial resources,  has not yet found common sense solutions to basic requirements for the middle and lower classes. 

                                                                                                -----  

    As an aside: One might ask why a conservative would remain behind enemy lines. The climate is perfect; the topography is stunning; entertainment is diverse and top notch; and when it comes to politics, it is easy to be the smartest guy in the room. 

                                                                                                -----

    This week's bonus video is The Star Spangled Banner as performed by Whitney Houston at the 1991 Super Bowl. A different time. 

 

bill bowen - 10/6/17

    

Robert Mueller's Scope

   When former FBI Director Robert Mueller was appointed "special counsel" by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May, he was empowered to "investigate any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump,” as well as "other matters that may arise directly from the investigation.”  While the politicians in the House and Senate continue their grandstanding, the hope was that an experienced, objective prosecutor could quickly sort through the leaks, the conspiracy theories, and the political and media bacchanalia, identify the facts, perhaps initiate a few prosecutions, and restore the public's faith in the American political system.  Four months later we are like ancient Greek fortune-tellers reading chicken entrails or listening to oracles - requests for White House staff records, warrants for early morning home searches, leaks about FISA warrants.

    Like the oracles, what one hears depends in large part on what one wants to hear.  In order of importance for the health of the Republic: 

    1.  Did the Obama administration break the law in their surveillance of the Trump campaign?   The use of the vast intelligence and security resources of the federal government to intrude in partisan political activities strikes at the heart of our democracy. In order to get around the legal prohibition of spying on Americans, Susan Rice apparently led the campaign to conduct surveillance of foreign officials who might be communicating with Trump associates, asking the intelligence community to "unmask" the Americans who were involved in conversations, and leaking the results to the media. UN Ambassador Samantha Power was used in this scheme more than 200 times. Director of National Security Eric Clapper directly lied on CNN about whether there had been wiretapping in Trump Tower. (In a different context, he had previously lied under oath to Congress about the presence of an NSA database of wiretapped American conversations.)  If Mueller does not go there, Congress should. 

    2. Was there collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians? Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager from June to August 2016 was an international political consultant who had worked for the Russian-leaning president of Ukraine in 2014.  Lieutenant General Mike Flynn, a campaign stalwart and Trump's National Security Advisor for a month, was an international security consultant with a particularly close relation to Turkish clients. Neither was properly registered, nor vetted by Trump. There were many conversations with many people, including Manafort, the Russian ambassador, and members of Trump's family. What Obama was looking for, and what the Democrats are praying to find, is something that fits clearly within the definition of collusion -“…an arrangement between two or more parties designed to achieve an improper purpose, including to influence improperly the actions of another party.”  Expect at least a loose fit with Manafort, who had been under FBI surveillance since 2014. 

      3. Did Hillary Clinton enable Russian intervention in the election by her illegal use of her private, insecure communications system? At the extreme there is the question of her 30,000 deleted e-mails. Closer in are the questions of the top secret e-mails which were later uncovered, the role of her assistant Huma Abedin who had illegal e-mails on her lap top, any number of false statements and testimony, and the exposure to blackmail resulting from Clinton Foundation corruption.  Mueller will have to get into some of these weeds to understand Russia's role in the election and Comey's behavior, but he is unlikely to move from "here is what they did with this information" to "why were they able to get it in the first place." 

     4. Did Trump obstruct justice when he fired James Comey? The facts are known - Trump did tell Comey that he hoped that Flynn would not be prosecuted. On the other hand, Comey was a monumentally bad FBI director. When Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton during the height of Hillary's e-mail investigation, Comey usurped the Justice Department's role in deciding not to prosecute anybody in Hillary's retinue. He resurfaced and then dropped the e-mail issue a week before the election. He told Congress under oath that he had leaked classified information to the New York Times with the hope of getting a special counsel appointed to investigate the potential Trump/Russia connection.  Democrats are hoping that Mueller - who was appointed FBI Director by George W Bush and extended by Barack Obama - will turn a generous comment into an impeachable offense. Unlikely. 

    5. Do Trump's business dealings with the Russians (and others) violate federal law?  While it would have been prudent for Trump to separate himself more completely from the family business, few objective observers think that having foreign nationals as paying guests in his hotels violates the Constitution's provision that no federal official “shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.” Mueller won't either. 

    American politics have veered far off the rails in the past year or two. If Mueller lives up to his billing, and delivers an objective view of the Russian connection with the 2016 election, he will be doing the country a major service by muting the speculation of the media and the politicians, and offering some direction for future elections.  For the Democrats and Team Hillary, the recount didn't work; the subversion of the Electoral College didn't work; and #Resist may be weakening with Trump, Pelosi, and Schumer working together. Mueller may bag a lower level supporter or two, but he will not provide the fodder for Maxine Waters' "Impeach" micro-movement. 

                                                                                            -----

    This week's video is an "Animal Farm" moment in which a group of San Francisco immigrant advocates shouts down Nancy Pelosi for not insisting on amnesty for all illegals and open borders. 

bill bowen - 9/22/17

   

 

   

The Republican Agenda: A Brief Scorecard

   The Dems and much of the media would convey the image that the White House is in chaos, that the Obamacare fiasco shows that the Republicans cannot pass legislation, and that all will change with the 2018 Congressional elections. Let's take a closer look at what is being done. 

    For his last six years Barack Obama ruled by executive order rather than by compromise and legislation. That has given Trump the opportunity to uniltaterally reverse policies which he didn't like. On the Trans Pacific Partnership trade pact and the Paris Climate Agreement (which should have required Senate ratification as a treaty) Trump has simply reversed Obama's decisions. To his credit, he has also shown a commendable willingness to take a broader view than did candidate Trump, agreeing to marginally expand our presence in Afghanistan, and possibly scrapping  the deportation of young undocumented immigrants.

    As expected with Greg Pruitt leading the EPA and Rick Perry leading the Energy Department, the Keystone XL Pipeline and the Dakota Access Pipeline have been approved, approval has been given for drilling off the Alaska and Atlantic coasts, restrictions on mining and drilling on federal governmnet land are being reduced, an Obama administration directive to greatly increase auto fuel standards will be scaled back, coal is accepable, and numerous regulations on wastwater, emissions, and record keeping are being relaxed. Energy in a cornerstone of Trump's jobs agenda.  

   The department of Labor is rolling back Obama's significant expansion of workers entitled to overtime pay, and a Trump-appointed National Labor Relations Board will likely change rules to make elections to form unions more difficult. Obama-era regulations preventing states from applying drug testing for welfare beneficiaries are being repealed. Reversing an 11th hour Obama regulation, Trump has signed legislation allowing states and localities to deny funding to Planned Parenthood. The Education Department is reversing federal rules on the evaluation of schools and teacher preparation programs, returning that authority to the states. 

    Preparations for the upcoming overhaul of the tax code suggest that some lessons have been learned from the Repeal and Replace healthcare defeat. Top Republican leaders from the White House, the Senate, and the House have been meeting for months to frame legislation to make corporate rates more globally competitive, to repatriate a trillion dollars of American corporate profits currently sequestered overseas, to simplify individual tax returns, and to eliminate many of the more egregious lobbyist-advocated loopholes in the current system. The marketing campaign has begun; A second failure is not an option. 

    Most of this is fairly small stuff, adequate to keep the base happy and to marginally help the economy which has increased its growth rate to 3% after years in the 1 to 2 % range. But, it is worth taking a macro view of the few big things which are really necessary to truly Make America Great Again:

        1. Reestablish our borders for legal, economic, and security reasons. While the Congress has not supported building a wall, many locales have refused to cooperate with immigration authorities, and the courts have temporarily limited the president's power to exclude immigrants from potential terrorist havens, Trump has actually had some success.  "Catch and release" has been ended; illegal immigration on the southwest border is down some 50 %; a zero tolerance policy has been adopted for criminal aliens; and legal immigration is being restructured to prioritize the needs of the country rather than the needs of the immigrants. (B+)

        2. ISIS is being crushed and there is reasonable hope for a Russian - Iranian - American partition agreement to end the Syrian civil war. Enough presence will be retained in Afghanistan to prevent the resurfacing of al Queda and to limit a Taliban threat to the nuclear facilities in Pakistan. (A)

        3. Nuclear proliferation remains a problem.  Bush ended the risk in Iraq. Obama made limited progress with Russia on the number of deployed warheads, and at least delayed the Iranian risk. Nobody has found the key to stopping North Korea, but Trump's rhetoric has probably made success less likely. (C-)

        4. During Trump's first term the federal judiciary will be remade. Neil Gorsuch has nicely replaced Antonin Scalia; a second conservative Supreme Court appointment is likely at some point. Trump and the Senate have been slow with circuit and appeals court judges, but more than 100 "conservative acceptable" judges will be seated in the first Trump term. (B+) 

        5. The unsustainable $500 billion annual trade deficit is the central focus of Trump's foreign policy - renegotiation of  NAFTA;  strong challenges to  China, South Korea, and Germany;  high profile "American jobs"  agreements with Foxconn (a Taiwanese Apple supplier), Carrier air conditioners, Ford, Bayer, Amazon, and many others. (A)

        6. The federal deficit of some $600 billion represents  over 3% of of GDP. Trump laid down a marker witha a FY 2018 budget plan that cuts just about everything except defense; the House Budget Committee has opened their discussion with a similar objective. We can look forward to another civics lesson as Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and the White House maneuver around Senate rules, "reconciliation" requirements, and the bleats of thousands of special interest groups. (B) 

     On policy, an A+ would require a solution on Healthcare, disarming of North Korea, and a real plan to get to balanced budgets (including Social Security and Medicare reform) at some point.  And then there are style points. 

                                                                                                -----

  This week's video is an extract from President Trump's opening salvo in the campaign to reform the American tax code. 

                                                      

bill bowen - 9/1/17                                                    

Replacing Obamacare - The Necessary Republican Plan

    Few would deny that the passage and ugly implementation of Obamacare was the signature achievement of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi's time in power. Few would also deny that the failure to repeal and replace Obamacare is, thus far, the signature failure of Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan. But that is not the end of the story - nobody except the pharmaceutical companies likes the current set-up with its soaring costs and spotty insurance coverage. Bernie Sanders has started the call for "Medicare for all"; the left wing loons in California are calling for a $400 billion state run program; conservative states which did not accept Medicaid expansion under Obama are left out from the federal trough under Trump; everybody on the Right agreed with the "Repeal" part of "Repeal and Replace." This is not the end of the national discussion.  How and when it resumes is up to the Republican leadership which has great risk, but also great opportunity. 

    The greatest mind-numbing, political malpractice disappointment of a generatioin is that after seven years of complaining and sloganeering, the Republican Congress did not have a replacement ready for a Republican president's signature. Maybe they didn't believe that they would actually have a Republican president. Maybe getting together would have bruised too many egos. Maybe agreeing on general principles and filling in the tactical details was beyond the capabilities of the leaders. Maybe things are more difficult than in the old days when earmarks could be used to buy votes. Maybe Trump is too big a negative. Whatever, that was then. If the Republicans do not present a conservative alternative before the 2020 election, the lure of a simple alternative from the Left will be unstoppable, and the Republicans will have earned their demise. 

    The premise: 

        - In 2018 the Republicans will marginally increase their majority in the Senate under almost any circumstance, with the Democrats defending 23 seats and the Republicans 10. In the House the marginal likelihood of giving up the 24 seats necessary to give the chamber back to Nancy Pelosi would be much less if there were a Republican healthcare plan. 

        - On the substance, it is good that the efforts to slap together a Senate version did not succeed. There is now time to put together a proposition which works, based on conservative principles. 

    The process:

        - Take a deep breath. 

        - Organize a small team of White House, Senate, and House leaders to devise the plan. Draw on the experience of the past six months to define what is possible. Forget the Democrats - unless Joe Manchin or Angus King will change parties.  

        -  Start discussions in the House and Senate from the same simple blueprint.  

        -  Politics is the art of the possible. Forget ideology. Fire McConnell or Ryan if they cannot design a proposal based on conservative principles that can pass their chamber. 

        -  Ideally, have it done by early 2018. If not, use the outline as a campaign theme, implementing in 2019.

        - Hire a good public relations agency.  

    And the content:

        - First, it is important to recognize what is not on the table: we generally do not have state-run hospitals; doctors do not work for the government; individuals can have supplemental insurance plans; we use co-pays and deductibles to minimize frivilous use of the system; we do not have price controls; the government generally does not cover vision, dental, or long term care. (Progressives would love much of this, and inserted many elements in their bill which recently passed the California senate.) 

        - There are several easily-agreed (at least among conservatives) components: allowing insurance companies to sell "bare bones" catastrophic coverage policies; selling insurance across state lines; subsidized high risk pools; greater transparency in hospital pricing; allowing the states to design elements of their own programs as in Medicaid. 

        - Beyond insurance, there are a number of ways to reduce overall costs: constraints on medical malpractice lawsuits; greater use of clinics and nurse practitioners; faster FDA approval of generics; shortened periods for patent protection.

    Things like stock market bubbles that cannot go on forever frequently end badly. But not always - sometimes there are wise and prudent central bankers, legislative leaders, and executives who understand the levers to pull to safely deflate the bubble. That opportunity is at hand for Obamacare. The need to replace Obamacare is understood. The alternatives are known. The politics have been deeply and painfully plumbed. It is not much of a stretch to say that if the Republican leaders cannot present the plan well before the 2018 election, they deserve to be replaced. 

                                                                                        -----

    This week's video is from President Trump's initial press conference in which he condemned the violence in Charlottsville which erupted when left wing Antifa thugs attacked white nationalists among a crowd protesting the taking down of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Despite the president's perfect content and tone, the Left has been able  generate a totally "fake news" narrative. 

bill bowen - 8/18/2017

         

   

 

    

    

Mitch McConnell's Hapless Senate

    Back in the euphoric days of January, all good things were possible. The Republican House and Senate would promptly repeal and replace Obamacare, soon to be followed by tax reform. A parade of jurists acceptable to the Heritage Foundation lay in wait for quick appointment and approval to district and appellate courts across the land. The optimists on the fiscal conservative Right even saw the possibility of making Social Security and Medicare sustainable, and returning to the days of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich when budgets were balanced. Harry Reid had given the gift of simple majorities empowered to approve all appointees below the Supreme Court. "Reconciliation" could whisk most bills through the legislature without a blocking requirement of 60 votes in the Senate. President Trump would have many signing pens to give as mementos. Success depended only on Paul Ryan's ability to keep the Freedom Caucus from demanding ideological purity. That was then.

    Who would have thought that the problem would be the Senate? Wiley old Mitch McConnell had won his gamble of not allowing a vote on Merrick Garland for Antonin Scalia's Supreme Court seat ultimately taken by conservative darling Neil Gorsuch. The Republicans who had to defend 24 seats to the Democrats 10 in the 2016 election had surprisingly held all but two. Certainly a few Democrats like Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Jon Tester of Montana, and Joe Donnelly of Indiana  could be relied on when needed. What went wrong?

    - First, the failure of Repeal and Replace, or Repeal then Replace, or just Repeal is not a repudiation of President Trump. Trump-haters in both parties will try to pin it on him, but Healthcare is not his issue; he would have taken anything. 

    - Most importantly,  Mitch McConnell has not been able to turn from being an effective opposition leader, capable of impeding the Obama agenda by a masterful use of Senate procedures and encouragement of unified opposition. It was easy to get Rand Paul to shout "NO" when that was the Republican game plan. It is more difficult to get him to stop shouting "NO" when the Republican agenda is on the table.  McConnell agreed to the overall strategy of putting Obamacare - a frontal assault on the cornerstone of the Obama presidency - ahead of tax reform or an infrastructure bill, either of which might have drawn some Democratic support. With 30 years in the Senate before becoming Majority Leader in 2015, he knows the pecadillos of all of the players in the 100 member club. He was central to drafting the Senate version. He was responsible for the necessary sausage making. He was shown to be wanting. 

    - When faced with the choice between party, constituents, and their own vision of a perfect world, a disappointing group demonstrated that they could not make the transition from opposition to governing by supporting the party on the most momentous vote of this presidential cycle  - Susan Collins of Maine, Mike Lee of Utah, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Rand Paul of Kentucky. Several with reservations understood the importance of supporting the party  and would likely have voted for the last gasp - Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, John McCain of Arizona. Ted Cruz earned his stripes with his amendment to allow sale of low cost/low benefit insurance policies. The rest of the party leadership were AWOL - Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas and Health Committee Chair Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. New leadership is needed - preferably somebody who has not burned all of their bridges to the Democratic side of the aisle. 

    - Obama and Pelosi were right: With seven years to take root, it is nearly impossible to take back an entitlement. Unless it falls of its own weight. 

    So, where do the Republicans go from here?

    - There should be a recognition that the work of the Senate goes deeper than Obamacare. McConnell did manage to get all of President Trump's cabinet nominees approved - six by margins of three to five votes - but the pace was agonizingly slow in the White House and the Senate, and many secondary positions are yet unfilled. Fortunately, Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley of Iowa is committed to aggressively filling the hundred plus district and appeals court vacancies which Trump inherited - with qualified conservative justices; with or without timely recommendations by the liberal American Bar Association; limiting the traditional "blue slip" veto power of home state senators; and requiring only 51 votes, thanks to the rules which Harry Reid established in 2013.

    - There must be a recognition that comprehensive legislation which changes the direction of society requires an element of bipartisan agreement. Part of the failure of Obamacare stems from an unwillingness of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid to compromise with Republicans, creating both unworkable features, and a bitterly hostile opposition. Likewise Repeal and Replace. Some like governor John Kasich have proposals which could garner bipartisan support, and might actually help people.   

   - Some accomplishments are necessary before attention turns to the 2018 elections.  (Actually, potential candidates are making their judgments based on what they see today.) The math in the Senate remains overwhelmingly favorable for the Republicans - of the 33 seats up for election, 23 are Democrats; 10 of the Democrats are in states carried by Trump; virtually all of the Republicans are expected to run for re-election. It would be nice to have a new leader for the class of '18.  

      - And in the shorter term the Republicans will have their margin trimmed to 51-48 until John McCain returns or Republican Arizona Governor Doug Ducey names a replacement. Pray for the best; plan for the worst. 

        Optimists would say that strength and wisdom come from adversity. This is a learning moment.   

                                                                                         -----

This week's video dealing with the burgeoning Trump "meme wars"  was submitted by an alert reader in San Francisco. 

The Illinois Canary

    One of the many advantages of federalism is that states are given broad latitude to do their own thing on taxing, providing services, and compensating the army of government employees and vendors who sit in between. At the national level, Republicans have difficulty dealing with repealing Obamacare, fixing the tax code, and putting Social Security and Medicare on secure footings because of the $20 trillion national debt - believing that eventually the piper will have to be paid, but probably not during this term of office. For the more somber, at the state level, we have 50 laboratories where politics and social policies meet economic realities, and the politicians have the ability to test the premise that deficit spending can go on forever. The formerly Great State of Illinois is volunteering to serve as the canary in the coal mine.

Where Illinois stands

     - Illinois has not had a budget for three years. The state has $13 billion in unpaid bills. 100% of state receipts go to court-mandated payments - to the point that the state lottery will not be able to make payouts after June 30.  The bond rating agencies have lowered Illinois' credit ratings to one level above junk, with an unfavorable outlook. 

    - Republican Governor Rauner has proposed significant tax increases and fundamental reforms - increased top income tax rates from 3.75 % to 4.95% coupled with a hard spending cap, a four year property tax freeze, workers compensation reform, and pension reform. The Democratic legislative leadership wants the tax increases to be retroactive, and opposes any serious structural reforms. 

     - The state has $130 billion in unfunded liabilities for public employees, and the highest tax burden in the Midwest. Industry and high wage earners are leaving for surrounding states in droves. 

How they got here

    - Illinois is among the most corrupt states in the nation. Four of the last seven governors - Rod Blagojevich (D), George Ryan (R), Dan Walker (D), Otto Kerner (D) - have gone to jail. Much money which should have gone to public purposes wound up in the portfolios of elected officials and a vast network of (largely Democratic) party loyalists. 

    - Michael Madigan, the Speaker of the Illinois Assembly, has been the most powerful politician in Illinois for decades. His style derives from the worst of ward boss politics, emanating from his South Side Chicago base where he began as a lieutenant in the Daley machine. Party discipline prevails over any other concern. 

    -  In 2011, the top individual income tax rate was "temporarily"  increased from 3% to 5%, and the top corporate rate was raised from 4.8% to 7% in order to pay off debt and reduce borrowing. The promised "return to normal" came in 2015 with the individual rate dropping to 3.75%, and the corporate rate dropping to 5.25%. While this represented a true 25% increase in the personal rate and 9% increase in the corporate rate from 2010, nothing had changed on pensions, spending, or borrowing.  

What can be done

    - One whimsical Chicago Tribune editorialist has suggested that Illinois dissolve itself, with the pieces being incorporated into surrounding states, and remaining pockets of "Rahmonia", "Taxwinkletopia", and "Madiganistan" being left for Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, and the Assembly speaker. That probably won't work. 

    - Federal law prevents states from declaring bankruptcy. It is unlikely that the Illinois Congressional delegation could convince their peers to step in for a "one time exception" to allow defaults on bonds, renegotiation of contracts, and layoff of government workers. This is closer to home than the recent Puerto Rico restructuring of $70 billion in debt; Illinois' debt exceeds $200 billion, public employee unions would be massively impacted, funding of programs like Medicaid and education would come into play.  

    - More likely, the Republican governor and the Democratic legislature will find a way for the stew to continue to simmer. Income, property, and gas taxes will be raised again. New state employees will have less generous pensions and medical coverage. There will be fewer teachers and clerks at the Department of Motor Vehicles. There will be more pot-holes and no new initiative to reduce the soaring murder rate in Chicago.

    - If all else fails, the rest of us could build a wall.  

Lessons for the other 49

    - Corruption matters. 

    - It is very, very, very hard to ever reduce taxes once they have gone up. The Leviathan will consume all that is available. 

    - Capitalism and free markets work. Illinois' failure is a boon to Scott Walker's Wisconsin, Eric Holcomb's Indiana, Rick Snyder's Michigan, Eric Greitens' Missouri, and Matt Bevin's Kentucky. All Republicans. All benefiting from the outflow of capital and skilled labor.

   - And perhaps the largest unreported effect: the voters of the Midwest understand Chicago and Illinois. The failure of Democratic machine politics is on center stage for all to see.    

                                                                                                        -----

This week's video is a brief statement by the House Minority leader as to why she should not be replaced after her party has lost four special elections to replace Republican congressmen who have joined the Trump administration. As all of us Republican San Franciscans know, Nancy is a wonderful leader for the Democratic Party, represents the ideals which should be bestowed on the nation, and deserves be re-elected by her caucus until there are 434 Republican House members. 

Intelligence: Back to the Shadows

    There was a time not too long ago when intelligence - the covert gathering and synthesis of information on the nation's enemies and potential enemies - was conducted in the shadows. The public didn't want to know. The intelligence community liked anonymity. Senior political leaders talked about what they were doing with the information, not how it was collected. The Good Old Days. 

     Several things changed to get to the point where President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper gave the "least untruthful" answer that he could think of when asked in a Senate hearing whether the NSA was collecting information on millions of Americans, and where Obama's Director of Central Intelligence John Brennan and National Security Director Susan Rice orchestrated a program of NSA spying on the Trump team by targeting selected foreigners for wiretaps, "unmasking" the Americans in intercepted conversations, and encouraging wide dissemination and leaks of their identities. Some milestones on the downward journey: 

    1. The intelligence community - with it's conclusion that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction" - became a convenient politicized target for opponents of the Iraq War. The broader expansion of the intelligence component is clearly explained in Gen. Michael Hayden's "Playing to the Edge", which pridefully explains the most extensive legal rationalizations of data collection on foreigners and Americans, rendition of prisoners to Black Sites overseas, and the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. 

    2. Massive breaches of electronic data became commonplace. Edward Snowden "outed" the NSA's extensive global eavesdropping network in 2013 before seeking sanctuary in Russia. Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning provided over 700,000 Department of Defense and State Department memoranda to Wikileaks' Julian Assange who published them all in 2010. Snowden remains in Moscow, the frequent subject of laudatory articles in publications such as Vanity Fair.   Manning, after a sex change operation, was popular enough on the Left to have his sentence commuted by President Obama.   

    3. Hillary Clinton's e-mail scandal became as famous for its blatant disregard for the protection of classified information as for the substance of her advocacy of "open borders", or the corruption of the Clinton Foundation. Half of the political establishment spent 2015 and 2016 minimizing the importance of keeping secret stuff secret. 

    But there is hope. While James Comey has spent the past two years giving press conferences to explain the status of FBI investigations and his perspective on leading politicians, and Clapper and Brennan have become regulars on the Sunday talk shows to talk about the mis-deeds of the Trump administration, the new Director of National Intelligence and the new Director of the Central Intelligence Agency have chosen to retreat back into the shadows, doing the mundane, detailed work of rebuilding the strongest intelligence capabilities in the world. Little has been heard from DNI Dan Coates, a highly respected former member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, or CIA Director Mike Pompeo, a former Tea Party Congressman from Kansas. And that is good. 

    Hobbes was right - life in the state of nature is "solitary, nasty, brutish and short".  It is important that our leaders know if Iran is violating the terms of their nuclear development program. It is important that our leaders know whether there is any hope of political change in North Korea. It is important that our leaders know how ISIS will evolve after it has lost the territory of the caliphate in Syria and Iraq. It is important that our leaders understand the operations of the cartels which reach from Central America into the United States. It is important that our leaders understand global military, political, economic, and ideological trends. Getting the leadership of the intelligence community out of the Washington's political quagmire and back to their oath to "defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic" would be one of the major achievements of the early Trump years.  

                                                                                                    -----

    This week's video offers clarity for those who have been confused by the Washington investigations. For those seeking a new voice in political comedy, Andrew Klavan certainly belongs on the short list. 

bill bowen - 6/1/17 

Is America Governable?

    In a world where "politics is the art of the possible", it would seem that both the Democrats and the Republicans are being driven to self-destruct by their bases. 

For the Democrats

    Chuck Shumer's announcement that the Democrats in the Senate would filibuster Neil Gorsuch's appointment to the Supreme Court reflects what Karl Rove calls the "Empty Rage" of the Left. As a response to their #Resist supporters it is perhaps necessary; as a political strategy it will be a decade long disaster for the Democrats - and a long term defeat for centrist government.   

    For expediency, in 2013 Harry Reid got the Senate rules changed to allow confirmation of lower level judges by a simple majority, leaving the Supreme Court subject to a requirement of 60 votes to override a filibuster. By most accounts this is good - it makes it more difficult for jurists with extreme records to be confirmed. Both parties have managed with this constraint - with virtually all of the current court having received only modest partisan opposition.

   Mitch McConnell upped the ante in 2016, refusing to have hearings on President Obama's nomination of center-left Merrick Garland to replace conservative icon Antonin Scalia and tilt the court from 5-4 conservative to 5-4 liberal. Shumer's decision to force McConnell to change the rules to a simple majority to get Gorsuch approved represents payback.

    For Shumer this is a forced error. There will likely be several openings in the next few years - at least the conservative Kennedy, and liberals Breyer and Ginsberg. With a 52 to 48 majority for the next two years Trump will be constrained by the need to hold the votes of moderates like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. However, in the 2018 elections there will be 8 Republicans and 25 Democrat/Independent incumbents - in all likelyhood the Republican Senate will be able to move the Court significantly to the right if only 50 votes are required. 

For the Republicans

      What can be said about the Freedom Caucus?  The big question since the 2016 election has been whether the ideologues who were so strong in opposition to everything Obama could shift to a governing role. For more than a few of the House Republicans, the answer is a clear "NO". Shutting down the government is one thing when the President ofthe opposite party refuses to negotiate on ballooning deficits. Deposing the party leader is one thing when you have a president who will veto any of your legislation anyway. The language, and the result through March 23, has not changed. Rather than make any compromise, many members would rather vote with Nancy Pelosi  and against Paul Ryan and Donald Trump, with the understanding that they would be taking down the signature legislation of the new administration. 

    Next? Can the Republicans recover with a transformational budget? Can they manage corporate tax reform? Personal tax reform?  Maybe they can do better with small focused legislation. The key - it is not enough for Representatives to love the president; they need to fear him. 

For The Intelligence Community

    Third world. Senior campaign officials have histories of consulting with foreign adversaries. In time the truth will out relative to Russian hacking and the role of the Obama administration in surveillance of the Trump campaign and transition team. The neutrality of the FBI has been compromised. The NSA has been compromised by exposing Americans caught in apparently politically motivated wiretaps. The presidency has been diminished by Obama's  decision to spread NSA data across multiple intelligence agencies with the intent that it would hbe leaked.  

    The legitimate debate about the tension between personal privacy and government intrusion has suffered a major blow as the Obama administration has used the NSA to de-legitimize the Trump administration. This will undoubtedly play out when legislation is needed to re-authorize the FISA court, as well as in budget de;liberations. We will be less safe. 

    The republic is resilient. The Constitution will survive. But, some visible Republican victories in the next month or so would go a long way. 

                                                                                                                       -----

This week's video is a clip (starting at 6:07) of Ted Cruz' testimony in favor of the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch. While Trump has an ability to articulate what most people feel but is unsaid, Cruz has an ability to be more logically eloquent.  

bill bowen - 3/24/17

Healthcare: The Ultimate Republican Test

        Nothing will be so important for the success of the Trump administration - save perhaps a war with North Korea - as the passage of comprehensive healthcare legislation. The national rise of conservatives to political power since 2010 has been energized by the promise to repeal Obamacare. The Trump, Ryan, McConnell braintrust has determined that healthcare must come before tax reform and the transformational FY2018 budget. A significant part of the appeal of Trump is his reputation as a deal maker. Failure is not an option. 

    The setting:

        - The American Healthcare Act which was introduced on March 6 and would be phased in through 2020, replaces the Obamacare subsidies with age-adjusted tax credits; stops the federally funded expansion of Medicaid after 2020; expands Health Saving Accounts; eliminates individual and corporate mandates; eliminates most Obamacare taxes; retains the "pre-existing conditions" and "age 26 parent policy" requirements; and provides more decision making to the states.

        - The Congressional Budget Office - which missed by a wide margin in scoring Obamacare - estimates that the change would save $337 billion over 10 years, those uninsured would increase by 24 million by 2026 (about half due to opting out with the removal of the individual mandate), and long term rates would be about 10% lower. 

        - Public opinion has been shifting, with a slight majority now approving of Obamacare according to Pew Research. With some popular provisions retained, the Republican version has 46% approval versus 35% disapproval. 

        - Passage will require fewer than 21 net defections in the House and 2 net defections in the Senate. The plan is to limit content to what would qualify for the Reconciliation process which will require only 51 votes in the Senate. 

    Reasons for caution:

        - It is not nearly enough to demonstrate that Obamacare is collapsing. The Democrats also have an alternative - single payer Medicare for all. 

        - There is a fundamental difference of opinion between the more ideologically conservative House Republicans who primarily want the federal government out of the game, and the more moderate Senate Republicans who are concerned about insurance for the poor. 

        - Back in the day of earmarks, legislative leaders were able to buy votes with dams and new hospital wings in the district or state. Now it is much more about ideology and pragmatic political leverage. 

        - Trump can generate enthusiasm with mass rallies, but the combination of #Resist, and a hostile media provides a drumbeat of opposition to anything. 

    Reasons for optimism: 

        - Republicans know that they have to do this. 

        - There are a lot of negotiable provisions: amount and structure of tax credits; structure and timing of Medicaid changes; the inclusion of a Planned Parenthood defunding requirement in the current draft; the amount of money for state-administered high risk pools. Representatives and Senators will be able to tell their constituents that they made a difference. 

        - The upcoming budget battle provides the legislative equivalent of earmarks. A vote for the American Healthcare Act can be traded for a changed provision on funding of foreign aid or medical research in the budget. Representatives and Senators will be able to tell their constituents that they made a difference.

        - While there are numerous Representatives and Senators expressing concerns, Trump, Ryan, and McConnell have a number of sticks as well as carrots. Ryan seems to have control of his caucus - at least for this version of the Plan. McConnell has been occupied with Cabinet and Supreme Court appointments, but requires only a half dozen one-on-one conversations in his own somnolent style.

    All said, this will provide good theater for the next month or two, but it would be shocking if the Republicans were not able to get it across the finish line by the end of April. If not, it would be clear evidence of an inability to govern.

                                                                ----- 

This week's video is an astonishing, clear, and inspirational depiction of the advance of civilization over the past 200 years, forwarded by an alert reader in South Carolina.  

bill bowen - 3/17/2017

President Trump Comes of Age

   Leftists of the #Resist stripe should not be too excited and conservatives of the populist stripe should not be too concerned about the ebb and flow of Washington politics. The change of policy direction from Barack Obama to Donald Trump has been broad and stark; the determination of the Democratic leadership to follow their angry base has denied any vestige of cooperation; the conservative optimism created by the Republican control of the White House, the House, and the Senate has gotten ahead of reality; and Trump's desire to carry every issue directly from the campaign into his yet-to-form government has led to more difficulty than was necessary. It is time for a deep breath. 

    A few realities that he has (hopefully) learned:

        1.  He has to be very careful in delegating in a management structure where there are so many egos fighting for power, and so many power centers looking for ways to attack the administration. The order temporarily halting immigration from war zone countries where vetting is inadequate was poorly handled, apparently with the direction of Steve Bannon - done while a hostile Obama holdover was still running the Justice Department; done with little involvement of the Secretary of Homeland Security; sloppily including "green card" holders; done without a clear implementation plan, a public relations plan, or coordination with Congress. Trump cannot be everywhere, but he quickly needs to figure out who he can trust.

        2. As part of delegating and trusting subordinates, he needs to allow his key advisers to select their own staffs. He is better off without Michael Flynn as National Security Adviser, but - if reports are accurate - he has publicly botched the opportunity to replace Flynn with Vice Admiral Robert Harward, by insisting that Harward keep Flynn's chief deputy KT McFarland. With Mattis at Defense, Kelly at Homeland Security, Tilleson  at State, and Pompeo at the CIA he does have strong, competent, sympatico leaders, but he needs a strong leader in the White House - in part to keep Bannon in check. 

        3. There is an unholy alliance between the Democratic leadership who are incensed by Russia's release of hacked Clinton and Podesta e-mails during the election, rogue Republicans who see Russia as a Cold War adversary, those who are legitimately offended by Vladimir Putin's KGB management style, and much of the media who are looking for a Watergate-type story to take Trump down. He cannot be sucked in. Roosevelt worked with Stalin. Reagan "trusted, but verified". Trump's geopolitical priorities - crushing ISIS, rebalancing our trade relationships with China and others, stopping nuclear proliferation - require a pragmatic working relationship with Russia. An early firing of campaign director Paul Manafort and the recent firing of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn suggest that Trump understands the political poison of an apparent cozy relationship with the Kremlin, but his inclination to develop a good "eyes wide open"  relation with Putin is on target. 

        4. We will be challenged internationally - Iranian missile tests; North Korean missile and nuclear tests; Russian missiles threatening the Baltics and intelligence gathering off of the East Coast; Chinese bases and aggressive patrols in the South China Sea. With nary a supportive word from the Democrats or the media, Trump is showing much patience, not letting words outpace actions. His team needs to provide options to demonstrate that provocations will bring consequences.    

        5. It is very difficult to control information in the digital age - Snowden; Manning; hackers. It is doubly difficult with a large portion of the bureaucracy - Obama appointees and others further down the food chain - opposed to the Trump agenda. The first manifestation has been in the national security arena where laws have clearly been violated, but it will be worse on domestic subjects - EPA; Education; Obamacare; Energy; HUD - where internal deliberations stand to regularly appear in the Washington Post and the New York Times.

        6. The Trump public relations team needs to up its game. It is a tough job with the boss Tweeting, the media viewed as the enemy, and KellyAnne Conway being asked to continue the magic that she brought to the campaign. Strategic messaging is needed. 

    And a sanity check on where we stand after Month 1:

        1. Mitch McConnell is proceeding slower than his predecessors getting Senate approval of Cabinet appointees, and the Democrats are presenting more consistent opposition than is usual, but the one loss to date - Andrew Pudzer at Labor - is about normal, and replacement Alexander Acosta is clearly superior. 

        2. Trump is establishing candid, if not warm, working relationships with world leaders - Mexico, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Israel, Japan, China. He does not have Obama's gift for oratory, but he does have a direct personal style and immense capacity. NATO leaders understand that they must start paying their agreed share. He is digesting longstanding policies, accepting some (One China), and rejecting others (there must be an independent Palestinian state.) 

        3. With the confirmation of Stephen Mnuchin at Treasury and Tom Price at Health and Human Services, discussions with Paul Ryan's House can begin in earnest on tax reform and Obamacare replacement. There are many paper and electronic pages being filled opinions and insights about both, but the players are just now taking the field.

        4. A stellar Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch,  is making his way toward installation about April 1 - with Chuck Schumer to decide whether to force Mitch McConnell to change Senate rules to allow acceptance with 51 votes. 

        5. We have an Attorney General who will support law enforcement.

        6. And a Secretary of Homeland Security who will secure the border. 

      The road is bumpy, but it has been less than a month.

                                                            -----

    This week's video is an interview with crazy Left Dennis Kucinich, in which he expresses a largely accurate and disquieting interpretation of the firing of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. 

bill bowen - 2/17/17 

     

Trump: Right on Policy

    So much noise. To supporters, nearly every day is Christmas; to opponents, every day is another chance to resist. Sleep-ins in the Senate; riots in Berkeley; open war with the media; Soros-sponsored demonstrations; orchestrated legal challenges; endless phone calls, meetings, and pronouncements. The man may be badly flawed. The process may be chaotic and the pace unsustainable. Priorities may be unclear. The Democrats may be succeeding in delaying the formation of his team. But, the man is fearless, right on policy, and getting results. As the kids in Silicon Valley are wont to say, "Trump is a disrupter".  Consider:  

    1. Trade policy. Republicans and Democrats had both accepted the premise of a debilitating and unsustainable $730 billion per year trade deficit in goods and services - $350 billion with China; $60 billion with Mexico; $65 billion with Germany; $69 billion with Japan; $28 billion with South Korea. 

    There are advantages of the status quo: cheap stuff for American consumers produced with cheap labor; profits for American companies who import cheap stuff and operate in foreign countries; willingness of foreign governments to use the American dollar as the "global reserve currency"; conformance with "comparative advantage" economic theory in which all are best off if each country focuses on what it does best; the good feeling of globalists as hundreds of millions in China and elsewhere rise from poverty.  

        But the real result is levelling - reducing America to raise others. $730 billion is 4% of our $18 trillion Gross Domestic Product. Ample attention is given to the five million manufacturing jobs which have been lost since 2000, as thousands of factories have been closed, but the problem is even deeper. With GDP growing at 2%, each year we are selling companies, real estate, or cash to make up the difference.  

        Even without his Commerce Secretary and Treasurer, Trump has cancelled the Trans Pacific Partnership, started the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and convinced several manufacturers to shift production to the United States. Critics note that jobs are also lost to technology, but Trump will move mountains to accomplish what can be done.   

        2. Immigration. "America First" changes the discussion toward the Canadian model of accepting immigrants who bring needed skills or resources to Canada, and away from the US model of focusing on what is good for the immigrants. It is a difficult shift, with the Democrats long term strategy of maximizing their voter base, and only Trump had the courage to face it head on. 

        Even without his Attorney General, Trump has issued an executive order to: secure the southern border, detain individuals suspected of violating immigration laws, expedite claims of eligibility to remain, and remove those whose claims have been lawfully rejected. Ever the Marine, Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly told Congress "“I work for one man. His name is Donald Trump. He has told me one thing: ‘Secure the border.’”  There are details of border patrol staffing, expansion of detention facilities, expediting of legal proceedings, and specifications of a physical barrier, but the ball is rolling.

        The liberal 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco has temporarily stopped Trump's effort to halt immigration from war zones where adequate vetting is not possible - substituting it's judgement for the President's - but the defeat is temporary, to be overturned by the Supreme Court, or followed by a revised order which is better drafted. The ruling also highlights the desirability of appointing federal judges such as Neil Gorsuch who apply the constitution and the law rather than overturning politivcal decisions. There will be "extreme vetting". 

      3. Free riders. The domestic press has made much of Trump's call to eliminate or update the "obsolete" North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Of the 28 NATO countries, only the US (3.1%), Greece (2.4%), Poland (2.2%), the UK (2.1%), and Estonia (2.0%) meet the agreed military spending requirement of 2.0% of GDP, despite the threats posed to Europe by Islamic terrorists and by Russia. As part of her conversation with Trump, Angela Merkel (1.2%) has acknowledged that this must change.

    Globally, we have 150,000 of our 1,300,000 military personnel stationed overseas in a posture which hasn't changed much since 1946 - 49,000 in Japan, 38,000 in Germany, 35,000 in the Middle East, 27,000 in South Korea, 11,000 in Italy, and 10,000 in Afghanistan.  In his waning days, Barack Obama agreed to establish a permanent US military presence in Poland. Trump has called for 30 day "readiness review", as part of a broader plan to upgrade the military. Real action will await the appointment of his Director of Office of Management and Budget and his Treasury Secretary in addition to his Defense Secretary. Expect not only an increase in military spending, but also a reconfiguration for the 21st century.  

     The media pushes for detailed proposals on taxes (lower; simpler) and healthcare (repeal and replace) before Trump's Secretaries of the Treasury and Health and Human Services are approved. Thankfully he is waiting, while he deals with simple things like the Supreme Court nomination, chipping away at Dodd-Frank's financial regulations, approving pipelines, and just generally serving as Santa Clause for those who had (almost) learned to accept the premise of the last decade that America's best days were behind us.

                                                                    -----  

     This week's video is a snippet of the "Free Speech" demonstration in Berkeley against Milo Yiannopoulos before the anarchist "Black Bloc" arrived to make it really violent. Some introspection is required. 

bill bowen - 2/10/17

Neil Gorsuch - The Rest Is Noise

     Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's decision in March 2016, to sit on President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to replace Antonin Scalia was the most consequential political act of the year. The tangible promise of a judicially and socially conservative Supreme Court justice was a critical factor in Donald Trump garnering an 80% share of white Evangelicals and 60% of white Catholics despite his substantial moral shortcomings. It also gave the conservatives an opportunity to hold their majority on the Supreme Court for at least a decade.   

 

First, some impartial thoughts:

  - By any objective standard, Judge Neil Gorsuch is an outstanding nominee for the Supreme Court. Columbia, Harvard, Oxford; young successful partner in a top law firm; clerked for Justices Byron "Whizzer" White and Anthony Kennedy; rated "Highly Qualified" by the American Bar Association; approved in 2006 without opposition by the Senate for the Federal Appeals Court in Denver.  

  - With the progressive Left in full revolt over the November election, and the Republicans able to confirm virtually all of Trump's cabinet cabinet appointments with no Democratic votes, Democratic Senate leadership is compelled to attempt to block the only position which requires 60 votes under current rules. After what McConnell did to Garland, they at least have a talking point for voting "no".   

  - It is best if the 60 vote threshold survives as it helps ensure that Supreme Court justices are not too far away from the mainstream. In the abstract, members of both parties like the 60 vote filibuster rule because it increases the leverage of each Senator. 

  - The Republic is best served if the Supreme Court contains at least one brilliant, articulate advocate from the judicial Left and one from the judicial Right. Gorsuch replaces Scalia, without the flair; the four judges on the Left - Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan - do not have a match.

   - Nothing is forever. Republicans are riding high now and have a favorable slate in 2018, but in 2020 Trump would have to be re-elected and two-thirds of the contested Senate seats will be Republican. There is a reasonable path, however, to a conservative court for decades.   

 

And, some partisan thoughts:

  - Bring it on !!! After a week of protest marches and media hysteria it is good to have a paramount issue where the angels will win. 

  - Let the pundits and Senate vote counters opine, but Mitch McConnell has vowed that Gorsuch will be confirmed, hopefully with Democratic defectors.  Not surprisingly, Trump has advocated the "nuclear option", changing Senate rules to extend Harry Reid's "51 is enough" to include the Supreme Court. It is the Democrats choice whether it is 51 or 60, but it is not their choice whether Gorsuch will be approved.

  - With 23 Democratic senators and two Independents running for reelection in 2018 - 10 in states carried by Trump, and with Judicial Crisis Network spending millions to pressure exposed Democrats - they would pay a heavy price for symbolic opposition. It is conceivable that Republicans could gain a filibuster-proof Senate majority, opening the door for far less attractive nominees than Gorsuch or some others considered in this cycle. Mitch McConnell apparently does not believe that, whatever Chuck Schumer or George Soros wants, the party will be able to commit suicide. The "nuclear option" will not be needed. 

    - The Gorsuch confirmation will not change the Court which has long been 4 conservatives, 4 liberals, and Anthony Kennedy who votes with the conservatives much of the time. With the 49 year old Gorsuch, it does extend the time horizon, and if Kennedy (age 80) chooses to retire, the team of Roberts (age 62), Alito, (age 66), and Thomas (age 68) could gain a fifth vote to carry it for a decade. While Kagan (age 56), and Sotomayor (age 62) will be around, the Ginsberg (age 83), and Breyer (age 78) seats could make it as much as a 7-2 conservative majority before Trump leaves office.    

 

     The other issues of the day are transitory: how long it takes Cabinet secretaries to be approved; perhaps one or two defeats (DeVos?); the poorly handled roll out of temporary immigration procedures; the official membership of the National Security Council. Even the details of the Obamacare replacement legislation and the tax code revisions will have less lasting importance than a Supreme Court which believes that our liberty is best protected by the simple premise that the oath "to support and defend the Constitution" means the document as intended by the authors. 

    

                                                                            -----

  This week's video of Betsy DeVos' Senate testimony with Senator Tim Kaine reflects the type of answers which caused Republican Senators Murkowski and Collins to declare against confirmation.  

 

bill bowen - 2/3/17 

 

  

The Democratic SWOT

    With all of the attention being focused on the ascendant Trump administration, it is worth briefly getting away from the daily torrent of new announcements and negotiating positions, and following Sun Tsu's admonition to profoundly understand your enemy. For simplicity, let's use the Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) format to analyze the Democrats.  

Strengths

     1. As a baseline calculation, Democrats have carried the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections, by an average of 3.5%. That's an average of about four million folks who seem to prefer the generic Democrat to the generic Republican for the leader of the country. 

    2. While Trump may be able to slow down the pace, the demographic direction of the country is set. Given rates of birth and a little immigration, Hispanics, Asians, and African Americans will form a majority of the voting population by 2044.   

    3. With the current alignment of the parties, the Democrats have more money than the Republicans. Much of the corporate money will follow whoever is in power, but the liberal billionaires (Soros; Steyer) at least match the conservative billionaires (the Koch network). Hillary and related organizations spent $700 million to Trump's $325 million. 

    4. Trump's attack on the traditional media will only reinforce the liberal bias, with outlets like CNN and the Washington Post reveling in open warfare.  (The shifts within the newspapers, broadcast and cable TV, talk radio, and social media is a topic for another day.)  

    5. The Democrats possess an extensive network of activist groups - notably the many organizations funded in part by George Soros' Open Society Foundations - Move On.org; The American Federation of Teachers; American Bridge (which provides opposition research); American Family Voices (which coordinates anti-Republican media campaigns); the Center for American Progress (which organizes leftist activists on college campuses); and many others. Black Lives Matter protests and last week's Women's March and are reflections of the Open Society Foundations' organizational effectiveness. 

Weaknesses

    1. The Democrats bet on minorities - particularly the Obama presidency and the pandering to Hispanics - has lost the traditional white middle class Democratic demographic, particularly male, but a large portion of women as well.  To Hillary, they were the "deplorables"; in the common refrain, they are racist, homophobic, and misogynist. Trump gets them. They first came to the Republicans with the Tea Party. Smart Party leadership may be able to fully incorporate them. 

    2. The Democratic party and its advocates have no ability for introspection. The common refrain is that Hillary lost because of Russian hacking, the FBI's investigation of her e-mails, and poor campaign tactics. Unlike the Republicans "autopsy" after the Romney loss in 2012, there has been no objective analysis of what actually happened - nor any plan to do so.  

  3. The Democrats have a dearth of leadership. At age 66 and 67, Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren are kids compared to Nancy Pelosi (76) and Bernie Sanders (75). They have relatively few governors to choose from, and a shrinking number of Congressional members. Hillary and Bill are presumably done; Barack Obama may remain engaged, but has shown no inclination to mentoring or succession planning. They also have a structural problem, with recent leadership of the Democratic National Committee treated as an "extra job" for a Congressman or woman, as opposed to the Republican model of professional full-time management. 

    4. The normal split between the "progressives" and the moderates was exacerbated by the revelations of DNC efforts to subvert the Sanders candidacy. Common anti-Trump objectives will eventually foster cooperation, but for the moment the blown opportunity by the "centrists" provides grist for the left wing progressives much as the conservative Republicans have often complained about the failure of moderate candidates like Romney or McCain.  

Opportunities

    1. At some point the Trump shtick will get old. New York doesn't really play well in Kansas or South Carolina and he is a boor, even by New York standards. All forecasts have been proven wrong, but there will come a time. 

    2. Like the Democratic Party, there is a real, fundamental split in the Republican Party which will eventually reach an impasse. Lower taxes and stimulative spending appeal to Trump's populist base; the $20 trillion national debt is an existential threat in the eyes of real conservatives. If Democrats go with the populists, they can break the alliance between the Republican Congress and the Republican president. This fault line appears in the "replace" portion of Obamacare, reform of Social Security or Medicare, and a strengthened military. 

    3. We are overdue for a recession and a stock market decline, perhaps as the Federal Reserve starts to raise interest rates. 

Threats

    1.  The contest to chair the DNC between early front-runner Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Clinton supporter Labor Secretary Tom Perez, and five other lesser candidates will play out before a late-February election. Republicans are definitely hoping for ultra liberal, Black Muslim Ellison who had a long, well-documented relationship with anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.  

    2. Trump's plans may succeed. There is a lot of low hanging fruit from the Obama years - pipelines; enforcement of immigration rules; reduced regulation and the size/cost of the federal government; replacement of the worst aspects of Obamacare; energy independence; tax reform; respect for law enforcement. Generals Mattis and Flynn may be able to work out a strategy to destroy ISIS. 

    3. The promise of a large Democratic Hispanic voting bloc may turn out to be a mirage if assimilation to the American Dream is more important than ethnicity, and if a future Republican like Marco Rubio can put out the welcome mat. 

    For the next few months the best that the Democrats can do is subscribe to the vague "Resist" mantra of the far left. For Republicans every day is Christmas - without the time to open all of the presents. How long this will last is up to Trump and the Congressional Republicans. But, it will pass. There is a real chance that the Democrats will not be prepared to take advantage. 

                                                                -----

    This week's video is Theresa May's inspirational speech to the GOP retreat in Philadelphia on January 26. Hopefully she can provide a philosophical underpinning for the Trump renewal. 

bill bowen - 1/27/17 

 

 

Assessing Trump's Cabinet - Part III (Conclusions)

   The last two weeks' blogs have covered appointments in National Security and Economics. This week will briefly address the remaining appointments, and highlight some key themes.  

    Doctor David Shulkin for Secretary of the Veterans Administration. Prior to being appointed as Undersecretary by President Obama, Shulkin was very successful in turning around major hospitals in New York and New Jersey. This position is highly sensitive to a major Trump constituency - a non-partisan, "get it right" imperative.  Shulkin, a practicing doctor, but not a veteran, favors preserving the essence of the VA, but allowing use of "out of network" providers where the VA falls short. Dr. Ben Carson might have liked this gig, but Shulkin has immensely more demonstrated executive experience.  

    Linda McMahon for the Small Business Administration. McMahon (former Chairman of World Wrestling Entertainment, and failed Senate candidate from Connecticut) and her billionaire husband have been business friends of Trump for decades and early major contributors to his campaign. The SBA guarantees some $7 billion in loans, provides counselling, and advocates for minorities, women, disabled, veterans, and general inclusion of small businesses in government contracting. McMahon will do no harm.  

    Betsy DeVos for Education. Like the Environmental Protection Agency (Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt), and the Department of Energy (Governor Rick Perry), the appointee to run the federal Department of Education is intended to take direct aim at the mission of the department. Another billionaire, DeVos has been a substantial and successful advocate for charter schools and vouchers (which can be used in private schools), has supported numerous "school choice" candidates around the country, and will be a strong advocate for decisions being made at the state and local level. The teachers union and the liberal media hate her. Jeb Bush - a strong advocate for K-12 school reform - endorses her. In her Senate hearing she showed little understanding of special education laws, the student debt crisis, or how success should be measured. An unnecessarily combative selection.  

   Former agribusiness-owner and Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue for Agriculture. This is a key appointment for rural America which has endured four years of depressed grain and meat prices brought on by over-production. The department oversees food safety, food stamps, and the Forest Service, and advocates for exports. Perdue is an experienced expert in agriculture and politics, and will be a player in Trump's foreign trade deliberations.  

And some overall themes:

           - Trump has chosen what he considers to be the strongest candidates, with little concern for the "political correctness" of diversity. He does like successful generals and business people, but has done little to cater to political subsets. Among the "top 50", there are one African American (Dr Ben Carson), two Asian Americans (Elaine Chao; Nikki Haley), no Hispanics, and a smattering of high powered women (Betsy DeVos; Linda McMahon; Elaine Chao; Nikki Haley). Some Hispanics have been considered for Agriculture, the Veterans Administration, and other secondary posts, but the leading minority Republicans have not been part of the process - Senator Ted Cruz of Texas; Senator Marco Rubio of Florida; Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina; Governor Brian Sandoval of Nevada; Governor Susana Martinez of New Mexico. Trump's claim of having the smartest cabinet ever may be true. 

         - As a corollary to favoring competence, he accepts disagreement from his key lieutenants. Much of this is because Senate questioners are trying to engage nominees in criticism of the President-elect on statements which he may or may not have meant at the time. But, to the credit of Trump and the nominees, there are disagreements to be worked out on a broad array of subjects: tariffs, the corporate tax code, interrogation techniques, "reform" of NATO, nuances of Russia and China policy. He obviously likes to be able to take extreme positions, then back off as appropriate.

     - There is a low standard for personal financial transparency - reflective of Trump's own approach. DeVos did not submit the traditional "Conflict of Interest" forms before her hearing. As House Budget Chair, Price maintained a diverse stock portfolio with at least the appearance of trading on inside information. The federal Office of Government Ethics has complained about the fast pace of review, particularly with so many wealthy appointees having complicated financial dealings - but the complaint sounds more partisan than substantive.    

  -  Russia has emerged as the bete noire - for the Democrats because Putin can be used to de-legitimize Trump's election; for the liberal media because Trump may succeed where Hillary and Obama failed miserably; for the Establishment Republicans because the Russians have been the arch-villains since the beginning of the Cold War. Trump and his national security team have come across as worldly wise, seeking an accommodation which would settle Syria and the buffer states of eastern Europe, allowing attention to be focused on ISIS and China. 

     - To the dispassionate observer, several of the Democratic questioners - Elizabeth Warren; Bernie Sanders; Corey Booker; Al Franken - have come across as partisan bullies. None of the nominees has risen to the bait to provide a disqualifying response. It seems that all will pass, with the Republicans holding 52 Senate seats. The Democrats will consider it a victory if they can delay the repeal/replace of Obamacare by slowing down the appointment of Tom Price as HHS Secretary; hopefully they will understand that delaying State, Defense, and Homeland Security would have real consequences - for the country, and for them. 

    Enjoy the inauguration. Happy day!!! 

                                                                -----

  This week's bonus video is an excellent example of the partisan bullying - in this case by Al Franken - which has been common in the hearings for Jeff Sessions, Betsy DeVos, Scott Pruitt, and others.

bill bowen - 1/20/18  

    

President Obama's Most Inelegant Exit

    Many of us - perhaps including the President himself - wish that the calendar could miraculously be turned to January 21.  There is often criticism of America's extended electoral process as inviting debate of trivia and personal attacks to retain attention. The ten week stretch between the election and the inauguration is worse, carrying both political acrimony and international risk - particularly when the transition involves a change of parties in the White House. Like everything in this cycle, this time it is worse than normal.

    On the one hand, President Obama is unable to accept that the country has elected enough Republicans at the presidential and legislative level to obliterate much of his legacy in short order. He would have won had he been allowed to run for a third term; the majority of Americans actually agree with his vision of more socialism domestically and less global leadership. Hillary ran a bad campaign. It all stems from our national history of racism. Whine. Whine. Whine. 

    As to the legacy obliteration, he is right.

        - Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, a doctor by training, has chaired the House Budget Committee and authored many unsuccessful "repeal and replace Obamacare" proposals. He will hit the ground running.

        - EPA Director Scott Pruitt, the attorney general from Oklahoma, has brought seven suits against Obama's environmental policies and is a skeptic about the premise that sacrificing America's energy economy will do enough to significantly affect global warming - whatever its cause. He will hit the ground running.

        - Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the senior senator from Alabama, and a strong opponent of immigration "amnesty", will be a strong friend of law enforcement.

        - Homeland Security Secretary, retired Marine General John Kelly, who oversaw Guantanamo and the southern border, will build the (figurative) wall. He will have the backs of the Border Patrol. Companies will be penalized for employing illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants who commit crimes will be deported or incarcerated. Sanctuary cities will be shut down. Visas will be enforced. There will be an "America first" immigration policy. 

    But the biggest risk during the transition is international - where Obama has room to act, and where he is grabbing his last chance to implement his vision without Congressional approvals. The transition also offers an opportunity for foreign governments to exploit a moment of American weakness. 

        - By allowing the United Nations motion to censure Israel for building settlements in territory they have occupied since the 1967 War, President Obama has given away a "land for peace" negotiation position for establishing a "Two State" solution - in opposition to 50 years of American policy.  (Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu claims that Obama initiated the resolution. Time will tell.)  John Kerry's subsequent two hour petulant rant against Israel sets the floor from which Trump must rise. 

        - In an effort to sour relations with Russia as much as possible before he leaves office, Obama will impose sanctions on Russia for hacking and divulging e-mails of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary's campaign chair. The Russians probably did it; it probably made a difference in the election - Hillary was falling before Comey re-opened her e-mail investigation.  Sanctions provide a chance to de-legitimize Trump's election, and to take one last swipe at Vladimir Putin who has outfoxed Obama at every turn. 

        - Obama has informed Congress that he plans to release 19 of the 59 "worst of the worst" Bush-era prisoners remaining  at Guantanamo, despite the fact that roughly a fifth of the prisoners which have been released to date have returned to the battlefield. If he cannot close the prison, he will do everything he can to minimize it - regardless of the consequences. .

    President Obama and John Kerry are totally missing from the most important international development - the "spheres of influence" agreement between Russia, Iran, and Turkey which promises to significantly dampen the carnage in Syria. Fortunately, they need American (and Sunni Arab) money to stabilize and re-build the country, so Trump will be invited to participate once Obama is out of the way. Turn the clock. 

    Those are the "known knowns". What should cause us to hold our breath until January 21 are the "unknown unknowns" - North Korea; the Ukraine; the South China Sea.  As the Democratic "scorched earth" types try to block Trump's cabinet, it is essential that General Jim Mattis at Defense and Rex Tillerson at State get confirmed as a top priority. 

                                                                    -----  

    This week's video is Barack Obama's delusional exit interview with David Axelrod in which he claims that he could have won, had he been able to run again.  

bill bowen - 12/30/16   

The Donald's (Suggested) United Nations Speech

    The Donald loves talking to crowds. Having conquered the Republican challengers and Hillary, he will soon be up to the final group of non-believers - the United Nations General Assembly. Here is a suggestion for what he should say - to be delivered with a teleprompter. 

    " Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: Welcome to New York. What a great city. We love our city, and we love hosting you here. Great people. A great City. 

    " I really appreciate the opportunity to talk with you directly to explain our perspective on the world - you have heard much about me and my priorities in the context of a contentious political campaign and through the distorted lens of a media which openly favored my opponent. I hope that you will listen with an open mind, and that today will mark a new beginning. A commitment to work together.  

    "Let's celebrate the fact that the last 70 plus years have been a period of relative peace and prosperity. After World War II the world leaders put together a network of political, economic, and military institutions which have supported stability in the face of huge population growth and technological advance - the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, military alliances, and international courts to oversee voluntary international agreements. The United States has been a major - actually the major - advocate and supporter in these efforts to keep the world safe and prosperous. We will remain so. 

    "But in three regards, the direction of the system is not sustainable, and the United States will be making course corrections to ensure longer term stability and prosperity. In some regards we have lost our way and taken the easy path; we cannot do this any longer. 

        "First, it is a basic responsibility of every government to protect its borders.  In the past few decades we have lost control of our southern border and failed to keep track of visitors in our country on visas. We now are home to millions who have entered the United States illegally, and millions more who entered legally, but did not honor their commitment to leave after a defined period. This puts our citizens at risk of attacks by terrorists who are committed to harm us. It puts us at risk of criminals who would harm our people and our society. It puts our workers at risk of being displaced by substantially  lower-paid economic migrants. It creates an under-class living in the shadows, fearful of exposure, and ripe for exploitation. As a top priority for the Trump administration, we will be securing our borders and dealing humanely with those millions who are in the United States illegally. We ask your help in restoring a system of cooperation where your citizens do not find it necessary to leave their homes, and where American laws are respected. 

    "Second, we believe in free, fair, and balanced trade, but are no longer able to sustain trading relationships which result in annual deficits of $600 billion or more. This is not good for our financial system; it is not good for our manufacturing capabilities; it is not good for our workers. If we are smart, we will address this together now while we have time to make gradual, but decided adjustments. The goal will be to eliminate all large chronic trade imbalances with our partners by increasing exports of things where we enjoy an advantage - agriculture; energy; high-end manufacturing; financial services - and by reducing import of those things which we can efficiently make here. This will require creativity and negotiation. It will require understanding that the current system cannot continue. It will require acceptance that the game has changed.

    "Third, the United States has been expected for too long to act as the world's policeman. This is not good for the United States and, frequently, it is not good for other countries which are having difficulty establishing the basic structures of government. Many in this Assembly have been partners in this effort - as part of peacekeeping efforts in Africa and the Balkans; as part of internationally-sanctioned support for struggling democracies such as Afghanistan; as allies supporting stability along the borders between major nations. There will be two hallmarks of the Trump administration in this regard: deployment of American resources will reflect a clear understanding of America's interests; and the cost of the American engagement will be fairly shared with any country receiving the benefit of our protection. This policy should not be seen as a sign of weakness or abandonment of our friends. Rather, it reflects the reality that even the strongest nation on earth cannot and should not carry the burden of preserving peace and liberty in all the corners of the earth. Each of your governments should be expected to look out for the well being of your people, to pay your fair share of the cost of maintaining international order, and to work toward good relationships with your neighbors.  

    "There are two subjects of pressing importance where you will see an increased American focus:

        - Radical Islamic terrorism must be eradicated. We pledge to work with all international police  and intelligence agencies to root out terrorist cells before they can attack your and our citizens; and, we pledge the necessary leadership and support to international efforts to  destroy al Queda, ISIS, and their offspring. The enemy is not religion; it is terrorism. It must and will be eliminated.

        - Finally, and importantly,  the spread of nuclear weapons must be stopped. There must be inspection and strict enforcement of the agreed limits on Iran's nuclear program, and we look to cooperate with the countries of East Asia to roll back the unacceptable, dangerous, and destabilizing development of nuclear weapons and missile systems by North Korea. The countries in this room have been successful in the goal of containing proliferation for decades, but the last ten years have been a failure. We will not allow this path to continue.   

    " I thank you for your attention. In selecting Secretary of State Tillerson and Ambassador Haley, I have chosen proven executives and leaders who are committed the policies which I have outlined.  They will be clear in their direction and priorities. Together we can make this a better world.

    "Thank you. Enjoy our great city. If you share these goals you will have a strong partner in the United States of America."

    Trump will not get a Nobel Peace Prize. He will perhaps engage in  self-congratulatory hosannas, like Barack Obama or John Kerry. He will provide notice that there is a new sheriff in town. 

                                                                                -----

   This week's Christmas bonus video is a tribute to the great Leonard Cohen who we lost the day before the presidential election. 

bill bowen - 12/22/2016

Passing the Baton

    George Washington was the greatest of American presidents - yes, he led the rag-tag colonial army to a stunning defeat of the British; yes, he oversaw the Constitutional Convention which defined our federal structure of government; but perhaps his greatest gift to the nation was leaving when his time was up. Many countries have flowery constitutions, but the real test of democracy is the institutional tradition of the ruling group to relinquish power. President Barack Obama seems committed to leaving; many in the liberal establishment are not.

    First, the futile efforts of those in the Denial stage:

        - Green Party candidate Jill Stein's quixotic effort at recounts - joined by the Clinton Campaign - came to naught. With some $7 million from thousands of small contributions, she offered an opportunity for the distraught to "do something".

        -  The effort to subvert the Electoral College is a bit more troublesome. By challenging laws in 29 states requiring electors to follow the vote, the "principled" liberals are advocating violation of their oaths, breaking of clear state laws, and substituting their judgement for that of the voters. In their version of democracy, the elites would not be subject to the will of the great unwashed masses. Again, the Clinton campaign is engaged, but Obama is not.  

        - Out here on the Left Coast the secession effort looks like a caricature from The Onion, but there are many grass-roots liberals who reject federalism, and believe that if they cannot impose their philosophy of government on a country of "Deplorables", they will be able to garner support of two thirds of the states to let them go it alone. While there is a little tingle of "go for it" east of the Sierras, we settled this in 1865. 

    Second, the "de-legitimizing" effort:  

        Obviously we could not have had this outcome "but for" - not the corruption of the candidate as reflected in her e-mails and the Clinton Foundation; not the terrible campaign in which she did not even appear in Wisconsin and burned through twice as much money as the Trump campaign; not the appeal of the Trump message to the Deplorables of Middle America. No, the problem is the Russians. 

        There is no evidence that the Russians or anyone else hacked voting machines or the down-stream systems used to register and compile the votes. (Sorry Jill.) We are, however, in a cyber-age where most communication are not really secure, where groups like Wikileaks will enjoy spreading embarrassing tidbits (often to the joy of liberals; sometimes not), and where intelligence services (ours as well as others) can create mischief. It is worth a review of potential hacking, although there will be little new insight into capabilities, as there will be  much Democratic breast beating about the impact of end-of-campaign exposures of Hillary's team. (Of course, the focus will not be on the substance of the disclosures - the commitment of the Democratic National committee to the defeat of Bernie Sanders; the passing of debate questions from CNN to the Clinton campaign; Hillary's paid speeches in which she professed her love for "open borders"; for example.)  

        The real problem is that this is another example of the politicization of government functions which have occurred during the Obama administration: the use of the IRS to shut down conservative non-profits; the on-again/ off-again engagement of the FBI in the 2016 election; the secret meeting of the Attorney General with the husband of the Democratic candidate; and now the stretch of the CIA from presenting the facts on the hacking to the conclusion of Russia's intent to help the Republican candidate. If we are to remain a successful democracy, these agencies must remain politically neutral, and under the Obama administration they have been used for clear partisan purposes. 

    Third, there is good reason for tens of thousands of government employees, lobbyists, and other hangers' on to fear for their careers. This election was not just about who controls the switches; it is about which switches there should be. Based on the early announcements for the cabinet - particularly Scott Pruitt at EPA, Tom Price at Health and Human Services, Andrew Pudzer at Labor, Jeff Sessions at Justice, and Rick Perry at Energy - there will be strong leaders committed to taking the department in a significantly different direction. In some others - Rex Tillerson at State, James Mattis at Defense - there will be a strong leader, accustomed to having their organizations follow direction.  All will have much cleaning house to do.  The Metro Washington real estate market will be very busy, although there will be more sellers than buyers.

    Out on the conservative fringe there are conspiracy theorists who will not breath easily until the inauguration is  over on January 20.  Bill Clinton's White House staff removed the "W"s from their computer keyboards before their counterparts in the George W Bush administration took over. Fortunately, the Republican House and Senate leadership appear aligned to deliver a transformational "first 100 days", with our without "T's" on the typewriters.   

                                                                                   ----

  This week's video is an interview with LTG Flynn on al Jazeera which provides a comforting insight into the thought process of the next president's National Security Advisor.  

bill bowen - 12/16/16 

 

     

Conversations with Democrats

   This holiday season we can be thankful that Donald Trump is acting presidential, and that there is good reason for hope across a broad swath of policy areas. The best to you and your family. 

    Living in San Francisco provides a unique opportunity to view the response of the Left to the election of Donald Trump. Most are still in shock, accepting that what happened happened, but not being able to process the causes or implications. Some have adopted a confrontational, angry perspective - a broad swath of the country is racist/Islamophobic/sexist/homophobic; eliminate or subvert the Electoral College; secede from the country; take to the streets. Most are questioning what the Trump administration will do, and even a few are re-thinking assumptions about the direction of the national political parties and their own sources of information.  This blog is inspired by the latter two groups. 

    Getting a fair reporting on the transition to the world of Trump is difficult. Democrat sources like CNN fed Democratic debate questions to Hillary Clinton; MSNBC makes no effort to understand the Trump voters. Mainstream Republican sources such as the Wall Street Journal and National Review are suspect - some opposition was to Trump the person, but much was due to his economic populism or his less interventionist approach to Russia and the Middle East.

    Speculation on the cabinet is appropriately rampant - and a simple Google search provides the basic background on each applicant. (Wikipedia is a good starting point.) Divining policy direction is more fraught, with much of the media discredited after their blatant Clinton bias, many columnists  trying to develop story lines to weaken Trump's standing, and a few on the hard right complaining about backtracking. The "Muslim registry" story is a good example, with many in the media distorting Trump's desire to track immigrants from areas of the world experiencing conflict to a false claim that he wants a registry of all Muslims. Each citizen should find a commentator that they trust - troll the list at the bottom of Drudge. Of the fact checkers, Fact Check.org is fair, Snopes is definitely not, and Politifact is somewhere in between.

Some Obvious Directional Changes

    The Obama administration has reached cul de sacs in two major policy areas - the failure of the policy is obvious to all, but the administration has not been able to retreat or alter its path. 

        -- Obamacare is collapsing. There will be a transition in the 2018 enrollment cycle to Health Savings Accounts, competition across state borders, tort reform to reduce costs for hospitals and doctors, and replacing the crushing costs and regulations of ObamaCare. The change will be phased in; it will include high risk pools, coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, and the option of keeping young adults on their parents policies. The individual cost will be less for the middle class; the poor will get less coverage. 

        -- Half-hearted intervention in the Middle East has been a disaster for the locals, for Europe, and for the United States. The foreign policy team being assembled favors agnostic support for local governments, with all attention turned to obliterating ISIS and al Queda. (A specific prediction: within six months, and by the agreement of Russia, Syria will be carved into zones controlled by Assad, the Kurds, and the anti-Assad opposition. ISIS will promptly be driven out of Raqqa.)

    We will have an "all of the above" energy policy as a cornerstone of the plan to resuscitate the American economy. Presidential executive orders expanding the power of the EPA will be quickly overturned; the Paris Climate Change agreement - never having been submitted for Congressional approval - will be disavowed. Drilling will be allowed on federal land. Pipelines will go forward. 

    We will soon have a "constitutional conservative" majority on the Supreme Court. It will likely last for at least a decade.  

Some More Nuanced Directional Changes

    The southern border will be secured. Those liberals claiming foul because some of it will be a fence instead of a wall show the truth of Peter Thiel's statement that conservatives took Trump seriously, but not literally, while liberals took him literally, but not seriously. Time limits on legal visas will be enforced. Employers will be held responsible for confirming legal status of employees. Guest worker programs will be expanded. 

    The sorting of illegal immigrants in the country will take a year or two. Hopefully a set of principles will be articulated shortly after the cabinet is appointed. Hopefully those principles will include a distinction between refugees (who face danger if returned home) and economic migrants; hopefully they will include harsh treatment of criminals and more benign treatment of non-criminals; hopefully they will include permits (but not citizenship) for those who have roots in the community. This problem could have been solved years ago if the Democrats had not been lured by the future Hispanic voting block; the Republicans can solve it to the satisfaction of most, but need to establish a new paradigm while they control the executive and legislative branches.  

    Trade deals will be re-negotiated with an objective of equal benefit. In the 1960's and 70's there was an understanding with Japanese car manufacturers and their government that they could only grow their market share in the United States if they made cars here - the profits went to Japan, but the jobs stayed here. Since the passage of NAFTA, we have had a trade imbalance of $1 trillion with Mexico. The trade imbalance with China remains almost $400 billion per year. The transfer of wealth and jobs will not continue at anywhere near the current pace. Some balancing will be from tariffs which make Chinese goods less competitive; other will come from an understanding that American products (like Liquified Natural Gas) will be the preferred source. Individual companies will be lobbied by the administration. 

    Corporate tax rates will be reduced to be competitive internationally; profits held offshore will be repatriated. Hopefully hedge fund managers will be taxed at ordinary income rates. Paul Ryan's thinking will dominate on tax policy. 

Some Unknowns

    In his final days Barack Obama appears intent on removing any possibility of blocking Iran's path to nuclear weapons in another decade. Hopefully, Trump's team will find a way.

    The "trillion dollar infrastructure stimulus plan" will attract much opposition in Paul Ryan's House. Many conservatives see our current $20 trillion national debt as an existential threat for future generations. Many remember the trillion dollars that Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi showered on well-connected companies like Solyndra and the eventual admission that "shovel ready" projects didn't really exist. 

    There will be an effort to de-politicize core governmental institutions which have suffered under the Obama administration - the IRS; the FBI; the police. This will be the greatest task facing new Attorney General Jeff Sessions. 

    This administration will be very good for those who prioritize liberty, opportunity, security, and personal responsibility. Not so much for those who prioritize support for the poor or see America as an equal player among the 193 members of the United Nations. 

                                                                    ----- 

    This week's video explains Trump's decision to not appoint a special prosecutor for Hillary Clinton, but to allow the legal processes unfold - a good sign for those who have concern for the fundamentals of American democracy.

www.RightinSanFrancisco.com  

     

     

    

         

   

San Francisco: A Cautionary Tale

     Having spent the past week poring over the 314 page San Francisco Voter Information Pamphlet and the 222 page Official California Information Guide, it seems only logical that there is something here worth sharing with local voters, but also some perspectives of broader application.    

The Setting

    - San Francisco is a totally Democrat city with voter registration 58% Democrat, 30% Decline to State, 8% Republican, and 4% other fringe parties. With the exception of a few older judges, all elected positions in the city are held by Democrats. In the context of San Francisco, Senator Diane Feinstein is a conservative and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is a moderate. 

    - California is a bit better, but not much. Registration is 45% Democrat, 23 % Decline to State, 27% Republican, and 5% other. All of the state-wide offices are held by Democrats. Republicans (many from the Central Valley) hold a bare one third in the state Assembly and Senate - enough to block tax increases, but not enough to impact budgets and policy direction. Democrat dominance rests in large part on public support of environmentalism, demographics with only 38 % of the population being "non-Hispanic white", large politically-engaged public employee unions, and an effective Democrat Party infrastructure. 

    - San Franciscans and Californians in general consider themselves to represent the wave of America's future - being a bit smarter and more sophisticated than the great unwashed in the red states - with political policies and government structural innovations appropriate for adoption nationally. With over 12 % of Unites States population, the voice is often heard. 

The Insights

    1. There is no limit to the financial appetite of government. San Francisco's annual budget is $9.6 billion dollars, up 41% since FY 2012.  Longer term residents have their property taxes protected by California's Proposition 13 of 1978, which limits annual increases to 2%, but rapidly escalating housing costs and building expansion yield soaring revenue for the City from folks moving into the northern hub of Silicon Valley. Yet, the 2016 ballot includes six tax increase proposals. (Vote NO on K, S, V. W, and RR. B - funding for City College is OK .) 

    2. Single party rule does not work. With no Republican opposition, the public employee unions have their way. For a city of 850,000, there are 30,600 city employees (one for every 28 residents) with an average salary of $108,000. And that does not include the thousands working for non-profit companies who do much of the social services work, or the school employees; nor does it reflect the generous benefit plans. In the past three years the mayor - thought by the majority of the Board of Supervisors as a budget "moderate" - has created three new city departments. With that, service to residents is so poor that voters are being asked to create a new elected office of Public Advocate with a staff of 24. (Vote NO on H)  

    3. Direct democracy through the initiative process does not work. San Francisco voters are being asked to vote on 17 state level ballot initiatives and 25 local initiatives. Clearly, even the most engaged citizen is not able to evaluate this onslaught or to put anything in a set of budgetary priorities. Why is this one asks? While the evil Republicans cannot be blamed with a straight face, the answer is twofold:

        - State and local politicians like to put their names on popular and visible proposals; if there is some controversy, it is an opportunity to engage their supporters. 

        - When there is no partisan opposition in the legislature it should be easy for the dominant party to get done whatever it wants, but the reverse is true. The dominant party breaks into factions (geographic; philosophic; personal) and is faced with some tax-imposed constraints which force voter approvals. Better to ask the voters to increase the size of the pie than to get into intra-party arguments about priorities.   

    4. There is no solving "the homeless problem". Dealing with the bottom rung of society for humane reasons or to protect the tourist industry has been a priority of ambitious politicians of all stripes in the "City of Saint Francis" for a very long time. Last year the city spent $241 million on homeless initiatives and supportive housing, yet surveys show that the number of folks on the street has has hardly budged from about 7,000 in decades. So this year they are adding a new Department of Homelessness and Supporting Housing, and another $12 million. A portion - maybe a third - require mental treatment, but for the rest "build it and they will come". (Vote NO on C, M, and U) 

    5. The friction between African American activists and the police cannot be avoided, even in the most liberal of cities. As one would expect, San Francisco has the most diverse police force in the country - gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation. The African American population is only 6 % (42% white; 15% Latino; 33% Asian; 4% other), but we have had three police killings of African Americans in the past year, with the third resulting in the resignation of the chief who was an excellent fit for the politics of the city and thoroughly supportive of whatever the Black Lives Matter movement wants. Advocates now want to expand the Office of Citizen Complaints to become the Department of Police Accountability, with an extensive mandate to dictate policies and procedures. (Vote NO on G.)   

    Somewhere there is some wisdom here in the fading moments of the Barack Obama presidency. If nothing else, it is possible to survive in the type of country that Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton would create - as long as the socialists have lots of rich young entrepreneurs to support their campaigns and a booming economy to tax.   

                                                                            -----

    This week's bonus is a compelling short essay, "A Better Choice" by libertarian John Stossel, advocating a vote for Gary Johnson.

bill bowen - 10/21/2016 

The Obama Legacy - Part II (ObamaCare)

     The Affordable Care Act, a legislative victory of the first order for Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, represents both the major fruit of the 2008 Presidential and Congressional elections and a root cause of the rise of Tea Party-led Republicans to ascendancy in the House. In both substance and form it is a primary legacy of Barack Obama. 

On the substance

     As the ACA was passed in March 2010, House Speaker Pelosi famously declared “But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it....”. Actually, there were two parts of the bill, the 906 page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the 55 page Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act. Satisfying all of the politicians and lobbyists for an industry that represents one sixth of the US economy took a lot of pages. 

    The basic framework is simple: 

       - Everybody has to be insured. If you cannot afford it, you will be subsidized by the federal government or through an expansion of Medicaid. If you choose not to pay for insurance, you will pay a penalty. 

       - The system will remain in the private sector - doctors, hospitals, equipment makers, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies. Joe Lieberman won out with his rejection of a "public option" in which the government would replace insurance companies.

        - State or federal "exchanges" were established to facilitate the purchase of insurance by those who were not covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or their employer. 

        - All health insurance plans have a standard set of requirements, with a basic philosophy that the public should not be allowed to purchase coverage which minimally meets their needs, and no exceptions are to be made for religious or ethical principles.

        - A slew of taxes and regulations were implemented to cover some of the cost (a 2.3% tax on medical devices for example), or regulate employer plans (hours of employment for example). 

    Implementation provided a great lesson in the limitations of Big Government. For months the computer system had massive outages and interminable wait periods for potential enrollees. As rollout floundered, arbitrary exemptions were given (often without legal justification): forgiveness for missing sign-up deadlines; delay in closing of high risk pools;  fines for non-complying small business; delays for states setting up exchanges. 

    The advocates believe that the Affordable Care Act is succeeding. Since the implementation of Obamacare, some 20 million people have gained coverage through an exchange, through Medicaid, or through their parents plans. Nevertheless, some 30 million remain uninsured.  The national cost of healthcare - the basic costs; not the insurance premiums - continues to increase at about 6.5% per year, three times the broader inflation rate. 

    The larger picture is that the business model is unsustainable. Major insurers, under the political gun in 2010 to offer plans through the exchanges or incur the administration's wrath, quoted rates based on promises that healthy (low cost) workers would sign-up, that the pricing of service providers would moderate, and they would be temporarily subsidized if costs got outside of "channels". Wrong. Three years into full implementation the major insurers - United Healthcare, Aetna, Blue Cross, - are losing hundreds of millions of dollars. As they approach the sign-up period for 2017, most will be retrenching and increasing rates. In many states those shopping will find a monopoly.  

On the form 

    Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid out-maneuvered John Boehner and Mitch McConnell in threading the needle to get the legislation passed. To avoid the requirement that revenue-related legislation originate in the House, Reid took an existing House-passed bill related to military housing, built the Senate's healthcare bill on it, and discarded the original content. The Senate bill passed the  filibuster hurdle 60 to 39, with the expectation that the House would draft a bill which would go to conference committee. Then Teddy Kennedy died and Scott Brown was elected, denying the Democrats the 60 votes needed since the conference committee outcome could be filibustered. Pelosi then passed the Senate bill "as is" 219-212, with the promise to nervous members of her caucus that there would be a second clean-up bill. By Congressional rules, Pelosi's follow-up "reconciliation" bill could be passed by the Senate with a simple majority if it dealt only with budgetary (and not policy) matters. And so it did, kind of.

    The public sausage-making of Obamacare was a significant factor in the Republican takeover of the House in 2010 - the Louisiana Purchase; the Cornhusker kickback; the cynical promise that abortion would not be covered; AARP's self-serving advocacy; the questionable abuse of the Senate and House rules.  The subsequent refusal of the House to use funding authority to stop implementation led to the radicalization of conservatives. 

    More damaging to the public view of government are the convoluted decisions of the Roberts Supreme Court:

        - For the first time it is acceptable to force citizens to buy something that they do not want from a private company - because it is a tax, although the administration had argued that the mandate was not a tax when trying to get the bill passed;

        - While the law authorizes subsidies for "exchanges operated by the states", it is OK for the administration to also pay for exchanges set up by the federal government when many states opted out. 

    Trump has been too busy attacking immigration and foreign trade to focus on healthcare, and the Democrats do not want to jeopardize their president's signature legislative accomplishment, but alarms have been sounded. As the private insurers bail out Obama himself has called for a "public option", and Hillary has called for a whole new entitlement in the form of mental health coverage. Some signal achievement; some legacy.  

                                                                                -----

  This week's video is a discussion of Bill and Hillary's lead roles in the multi-billion aid effort following Haiti's devastating 2010 earthquake. 

bill bowen - 9/2/16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

    

  

  

 

In Praise of "Subsidiarity"

    Subsidiarity. A principle in social organization: functions which subordinate or local organizations perform effectively belong more properly to them than to a dominant central organization. Merriam Webster. 

    Across the political spectrum there is an increased feeling that the Establishment does not represent their interests. In political terms this usually involves the questions of how large the public sector should be, and what policies it should pursue. Equally relevant in terms of "powerlessness" is the question of where decisions should be made in a multi-layer government. Some of today's dissatisfaction is that over time the answer has migrated to the federal level, with Barack Obama even preferring the international level on some important questions.   

    Some years ago I was intrigued when a Tea Party friend advocated unsuccessfully for the inclusion of "subsidiarity" as a guiding principle for the San Francisco GOP. More recently, Governor Jerry Brown has included "subsidiarity" as a principle for the distribution of state K-12 education funding, with funds from numerous programs consolidated into "block grants", allowing  local school districts to set their own priorities.  Left and Right may not be able to agree on the size of government, but there may be room to agree on where decisions should be made.

    Despite the inexorable migration of decision making authority to central bureaucrats and elected officials, there are two virtues of subsidiarity: decisions better reflect the real circumstances where they are applied; those affected by the decisions are more likely to support them if they are part of the process. 

    Let's take a leap. There is a common thread between the support for Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Black Lives Matter, and Brexit. All four reflect the angst which comes from being powerless in the face of uncaring authority. In Trump's case it is the middle class workers who have been sacrificed for Free Trade and open immigration; in Bernie's case it is those who feel outside of the Establishment with a rigged system; in Black Lives Matter it is a feeling of powerlessness which manifests itself against the symbol of Establishment power, the police; in Brexit it is the bureaucrats in Brussels deciding what crops can be planted and where fishermen can fish.   

    Lets look at a few instances where the tide is running for or against against "Subsidiarity". 

        - Obamacare has a lot of problems, not the least of which is the pressure on insurance companies to adopt underwriting standards which result in financial losses. The problem is, however, unnecessarily compounded by establishment of federal requirements on what must be included in policies, rather than allowing local employers and employees to determine what features best meet their needs.  

        - Environmentalists oppose "subsidiarity" with religious fervor. State or federal mandated environmental study requirements are a much-abused tool to prevent local developers and planning authorities from determining what their communities should look like.  At the upper end, "climate change" agreements from the 1992 United Nations Convention on Climate Change to the 2015 Paris Agreement are used - without formal Congressional approval - to set policies which destroy US industries, determine transportation priorities, and (at least in the case of the Bay Area) form the basis for non-elected bureaucrats to determine housing, transportation, and business development patterns.  

        - The constitutional preeminence of civil rights is propelling the federal government to play an increased role in the management of local police departments. What is needed is agreement by the experts on "best practices" - hiring, training, equipment, procedures, oversight - and an emphasis on "community policing" to develop interactive partnerships with stakeholders to solve problems and develop trust.  

        - An important, under-reported plan of Barack Obama to transfer control of the agency which manages the plumbing of the Internet  from a US entity to an international group including Russia and China, will go forward in October.  Maybe this was inevitable, but it does represent a decrease of American influence as power transitions to a higher level - and there is little evidence that the administration negotiated any benefits in return.  

    The Founding Fathers recognized "subsidiarity" in the Constitution with Article I's discussion of "enumerated powers", with the states retaining authority over everything else.  The 1942 Supreme Court Case in which Congress' power to regulate Interstate Commerce was extended to include an Ohio farmer who grew wheat to feed his own cows represented a low point for those who would prefer to have the power of the government remain close and responsive to the needs and will of the people. Perhaps today's reaction to powerlessness by those on the Left and the Right will represent a turning point - or a least slow down the rate of centralization. 

                                                                                    -----

    This week's video is Ted Cruz' 2015 failed effort to block the transfer of the central administration of the Internet to an international organization.  

 

bill bowen - 8/19/16

 

        

Nobility's Low Ebb

 

        Merriam - Webster presents two definitions for the adjective "noble":

1. Belonging to a hereditary class with high social or political status; aristocratic.
2. Having or showing fine personal qualities or high moral principles and ideals.

       The etymology of the word would show the second definition developing from the first - in part because in past eras the "one per cent" were provided with liberal educations and taught manners as a condition for their acceptance in the ruling class, and in part because they controlled the flow of information about their behavior. Leadership rested on power, but also on a bit of carefully managed moral validity.  One might assume that nobles were noble. 

       No more in 21st Century America - at least as reflected in this presidential campaign. The "race to the bottom" is accelerating with the presumptive Democratic nominee being officially recognized as an "extremely careless" liar, and the presumptive Republican nominee careening from one offensive comment to another.  

       If there were any doubt about whether Lady Liberty still was blindfolded it was erased on July 5, when FBI Director James Comey announced that he would not seek an indictment of Hillary for her behavior which appeared to violate espionage statutes on the grounds that she had not demonstrated intent (which is not required in the law) and it would be inappropriate to use the 1917 Espionage Act under which "gross negligence" would be adequate. Most of the House Oversight Committee questions were political, but Trey Gowdy made the compelling point that, even if specific intent were required, prosecutors regularly view pervasive false exculpatory statements as evidence of consciousness of guilt and intent. Comey acknowledged that Hillary had lied when she had claimed that:

          - Classified information had not been sent or received on her e-mail system;

         - No messages marked as classified were sent or received;

         - She had used the private server for the convenience of having just one device; 

         - All work-related materials were returned to the State Department;

         - No work-related e-mails were deleted from her personal account;

         - Her lawyers read every e-mail in the process of ensuring that a liberal interpretation was used     

               in determining what was to be turned over to State.

       By normal legal standards Hillary Clinton demonstrated specific intent, which Comey relied on and which is beyond what is called for in the statute, and the FBI should have sought prosecution for violation of laws protecting classified information. Beyond that one can conjecture what Attorney General Loretta Lynch thought after conversations with President Obama and Bill Clinton, whether she shared her views and intentions with Comey, whether Comey looked to the lesser evil of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, or if he just thought it would be damaging for the country to have the presidential nominee of one of the major parties be indicted during a run-up to an election.  What is clear is that he held Hillary Clinton to a lower standard than called for in the law and which would be applied to virtually any other citizen.  Ignoble behavior is legally - and probably politically - acceptable from the nobles in 2016.   

      The Republic will survive.  It survived William Henry Harrison, Warren Harding, and Andrew Johnson. It survived the personal corruption of Lyndon Johnson and the progressive incompetence of Barack Obama. It can survive preferential treatment of the political aristocracy - without people being particularly surprised.  It could even survive the increasingly unlikely election of the boorish lout Donald Trump. The real problem is not with the leaders, it is with the potential loss of nobility among the people. 

       The greatest immediate damage  lies in the "little people" who make up the security establishment. What happens to the FBI agents who have spent the last year observing first hand the lawlessness of the Democratic presidential nominee, only to see a different standard applied? What happens to the people of the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office who see their top secret work exposed to foreign hackers with impunity? How do our intelligence and military leaders recruit the foreign nationals who have seen their predecessors abandoned when convenient? What happens to the CIA interrogators who know that Lynch's predecessor wanted to prosecute them, or the members of the military who saw the President and his inner circle abandon an ambassador and his defenders under fire, and then lie about the cause?  These folks need a hug from the American people. 

       The door is open for a generation of cynical nihilists. Maybe this was inevitable after the disappointment of the vacuous promise of “hope and change”. Maybe this runs in cycles and the bottom is being hit. Maybe in the next presidential cycle the public will be ready for a leader with nobility.  A good starting point would be equality before the law.  

                                                                               ----- 

  And continuing on the theme of justifiable cynicism, this week's bonus video is chilling discussion of Google's manipulation of search results in favor of Hillary Clinton. 

bill bowen - 7/8/16

The Republican Senate - 2016

    One important political subject that has been denied oxygen by the presidential campaigns is the partisan fate of the Senate. At one extreme are those who claim that a Trump nomination will cost Republicans the chamber; at the other are those who note that if the Democrats thought that they had a good shot, they would be talking about it. Let's escape from Trump-mania for one week and take a look. 

 Known knowns: 

    - The current Senate has 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats. Democrats need to gain five to take control; four if they elect Hillary. Of the 34 seats up for grabs, 24 are held by Republicans as a result of the 2010 Tea Party wave election. 

     - Eight of the Democratic seats are safe: California (Boxer/retiring); Connecticut (Blumenthal); Hawaii (Schatz); Maryland (Mikulski/retiring); New York (Schumer); Oregon (Wyden); Vermont (Leahy); and Washington (Murray). (I am supporting Duf Sundheim in California, but it is a long shot.) 

      - Fourteen of the Republican seats are safe:  Alabama (Shelby); Alaska (Murkowski): Arkansas (Boozman); Georgia (Isakson); Idaho (Crapo); Iowa (Grassley); Kansas (Moran); Kentucky (Paul); Louisiana (Vitter/retiring); North Dakota (Hoeven); Oklahoma (Lankford); South Carolina (Scott); South Dakota (Thune); and Utah (Lee). 

  Known unknowns:

    - There is remarkable consensus among the top handicappers - Charlie Cook, Stu Rothenberg, and Larry Sabato.  Unfortunately there is little public polling, but what there is supports the experts' consensus. 

    - While there is some possibility of an upset, it is most likely that the Republicans will hold another four - Arizona (McCain): Indiana (Coats/retiring); Missouri (Blunt); North Carolina (Burr). 

    That leaves two Democratic seats and six Republican seats in play for the Democrats to gain a net four or five.

        - The Democrats (estimate lose one):

            -- Nevada, with Harry Reid retiring, Congressman Joe Heck has an excellent chance to defeat former state Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. 

            -- Colorado incumbent Michael Bennett is beatable, but the Republicans have yet to coalesce around a candidate. 

        - The Republicans (estimate lose four):

            -- The Tea Party insurgents who targeted inadequately conservative incumbent Republicans in the last three cycles have found a more positive outlet in Donald Trump, avoiding at least one headache for Reince Priebus and the RNC.      

            --  Republicans are currently trailing in Illinois (Kirk), and Wisconsin (Johnson), and could easily lose both. 

            --  Freshman incumbents are narrowly leading in New Hampshire (Ayotte), Ohio (Portman), and Pennsylvania (Toomey) with recent polling offering encouragement. 

            -- Marco Rubio's vacant seat in Florida has brought a free-for-all in both parties, with the finalists to be decided in an August 30 primary election in what promises to be the highest profile and most expensive Senate contest of all.  

    So the Senate (estimate 51 to 49 Republican) is within the margin of error. But, what about the "Trump Factor", you ask. The simple answer is that turnout matters. The best comparison is to 2008 when both parties had contested primaries and the Democrats benefited from "hope and change" enthusiasm. For the 12 states decided to date where there are "apples to apples" numbers, Republican voters increased from 5.6 million to 9.6 million (+72%); Democratic voters decreased from 9.3 million to 6.5 million (-30%)! Some portion of this may be a cross-over anti-Trump vote; some of the Republicans may stay home whether Trump gets the nomination or not; but there definitely is a lot more enthusiasm on the Republican side, which should be to the benefit of Senate candidates.

    And that's for 2016. For the few who can maintain the longer view, in 2018 the Republicans will have to defend only 8 seats while the Democrats will have 25, so the second half of the next president's term will see plenty of Republican legislation - if we can live that long. 

                                                                                    -----

    This week's video is unquestionably the Romney take-down of Trump. (See particularly minutes 3 to 5 of the 17 minute speech.) The contrast between the two men makes one question the basic premise of democracy. 

bill bowen - 3/4/16

      

     

    

Paul Ryan's Decisive Speech

   Dateline: Wednesday, November 9, 2016

    Rarely has a presidential election turned so decisively on one speech, much less one by somebody other than the candidates. For posterity, I will include that speech by House Speaker Paul Ryan in its entirety:

    "Thank you Donald (or Ben, or Jeb, or Marco, or ... it didn't matter) for inviting me to join you in Columbus on this beautiful October day. The only better day this Fall will be next Saturday in Madison when my Badgers take on the Buckeyes for the Big 10 lead. Today is important; that will be historic. 

    "Since the Republican convention in July I have spent a lot of time with Donald (or Ben, or Jeb, or Marco, or ...) discussing the state of the economy and what can be done to restore growth and guarantee the future of the American Dream. I have also had many discussions with the leaders of the House. I would like to share the shape of our consensus.  

    "The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, placed responsibility for originating legislative budgets in the House where our two year terms keep the members most responsive to the will of the people. The American people, in their wisdom, have given us Republicans a strong majority in the House, and promise to do so for years to come. I am humbled that the members of the House have elected me to be their leader.

    "Whether it is Divine Providence or sheer coincidence, most of my experience has been in the economics of the federal government. I have been Chairman of the House Budget Committee which deals with the allocation of funds between departments and all spending bills. I have also been chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee which is responsible for the tax code, Social Security, and Medicare. I have debated Obamacare and the Stimulus Plan with President Obama. I have been the party's vice-presidential nominee, spending considerable time travelling the nation with one of our great business minds, Mitt Romney. I think it is fair to say, without any false modesty, that nobody in the country knows more about the policy and politics of the federal budget, the tax code, entitlements, and the corrosive effects of deficits than I do. I have put forward specific proposals based on conservative principles in all of these areas. 

    "During the past eight years we have seen the the national debt balloon to $19 trillion dollars, the level of workforce participation decline to the lowest in a half century, the income of the average American family fall by $2000, the debt of our students reach smothering levels, and the security of our seniors' retirement put in jeopardy. Republicans have had answers, but the president has resisted any cooperation in finding solutions.

    "In this November's election, the American people have a clear choice. In 2017 and for the next four years, the Congress will bring forward legislation leading to balanced budgets, reform of the complex and counter-productive tax code, ensuring the preservation of Social Security and Medicare, and providing opportunity for economic growth for all Americans.

     "If Donald (or Ben, or Jeb, or Marco, or ...) is president, those proposals will be developed in cooperation with with the chief executive and they will be signed and effectively implemented. On the other hand, if Hillary Clinton is president, we will face another four years of threatened vetoes, gridlock, and national economic decline. 

    "Rarely has the choice been so clear. Rarely has an incoming president been so able to design, pass, and implement comprehensive and thoughtful legislation to reinvigorate the American economy. We in the House stand ready to support Donald (or Ben, or Jeb, or Marco, or ...). We urge the American voters to do likewise." 

    So began the rout. 

                                        -----

   This week's bonus is a brief video of Marco Rubio discussing the the deployment of a few special operations troops to Syria - talking about the issue, not triangulating between Obama and Trump. 

bill bowen - 11/6/15

     

       

Saving Chairman Ryan

    John Boehner, Kevin McCarthy, and Paul Ryan must look at Nancy Pelosi with envy and admiration. With a 257 to 178 majority after the 2008 election, Pelosi was able to pass the Stimulus Plan and Obamacare; with a 247 to 188 majority after the 2014 election the Republicans are barely able to elect a leader. Some of this is due to the recalcitrance of the 40 member Freedom Caucus, but other factors are also at play. Some considerations:

    1. The Republicans have some structural disadvantages of their own creation. When John Boehner talks of his commitment to the institution of the House of Representatives, he means it, having insisted on "regular order" in which legislation makes its way through committees rather than Pelosi's tactic of having large continuing resolutions and omnibus bills which were dictated by the leadership. Secondly, Pelosi had the carrot of earmarks to buy votes - a tool discontinued by the Tea Party-influenced Republicans. A Republican speaker has less authority and fewer tools.   

       2. Beyond the threat of a veto, it is more difficult when the Speaker does not have the White House on his side. When a vote is close, a call from the President (or his Chief of Staff) can make a difference - particularly if it comes with an offer for help in some other area, like fundraising. 

    3.  Pelosi was highly accomplished and ruthless:

        - She came from a safe district which gave her the latitude to take whatever position was necessary. Back home no Democrat or media outlet dares criticize her, regardless of whether she deviates from Democratic orthodoxy to the left or to the right. 

        - She is a prodigious fundraiser for other Democrats, representing the northern end of Silicon Valley and a major financial center with heavy liberal leanings. 

        - She has had a strong parliamentary partner in the Senate, capable of bottling up Republican initiatives with the requirement for 60 votes to break a threatened filibuster. 

        - She can count votes, knowing when she can afford to allow a Congressman to break ranks to appeal to folks back home, and when it is necessary to require that they commit political suicide as she did with Joe Stupak the leader of anti-abortion Democrats whose votes were needed to pass Obamacare. 

    So, where does this leave a Republican leader facing a need to increase the current $18.1 trillion debt limit by November 3, and reach some 2016 budget accommodation with the President who just vetoed a popular defense budget to bargain for more domestic spending.  

    Let's be positive:

    Paul Ryan has apparently received assurances of support from a super-majority of the 40 member Freedom Caucus, and anticipates endorsement by the 170 member mainstream conservative Republican Study Committee and the 50 member moderate Tuesday Group. He will not travel extensively for fundraising, but had to moderate his demand for a guarantee that there would not be a vote to "vacate the chair" if the Freedom Caucus becomes upset with him. 

    It would be hard to find a candidate with better conservative financial credentials - having fought as a Vice Presidential candidate, chair of the House Budget Committee, and chair of the House Ways and Means Committee budget for proposals to reform the tax code, balance the budget, and reform entitlements. He has gravitas.

    In the House, politics is a team game. Boehner ran out of gas; McCarthy's comments on the Benghazi Committee demonstrated a lack of political acumen; the other candidates for the office received precious little support - even within their sub-caucuses. Hopefully Whip Steve Scalise, Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rogers, and the rest of the leadership team will be up to the task of maintaining order - perhaps with someone from the Freedom Caucus invited to the decision-making meetings. 

    Few politicians are truly stupid or have a death wish. Unlike the pundits like Rush Limbaugh who make a living creating dissatisfaction, even the Freedom Caucus members understand that their disarray increases the power of Pelosi's Democrats and provides good talking points for presidential candidate Hillary and the New York Times. 

    And, with 218 votes needed to pass legislation and a total of 247 to work with, the leadership nose counters can give a pass to a few members who need to look over their shoulders at potential primary opponents. 

    It looks as if Ryan has allowed the House Republicans (and indirectly, the presidential candidate) to dodge a bullet. And he has the potential to be truly outstanding. 

                                    -----

    This week's video is a Fox critique of Hillary's Benghazi testimony. Judge Napolitano's comments at minute 2 are the most interesting - if we had an impartial Justice Department. 

bill bowen - 10/23/2015

     

 

   

    

     

The Politics of Religion and Morality

    Conventional wisdom has it that Republicans had best not speak of religion and morality, even when a majority of Americans agree with them. If they do, it is essential to be right on the facts, and it is helpful to be understated. Recent comments by the Dr Carson and the Pope show a huge contrast in political experience in an age of Political Correctness. 

The Constitutional Framework

    Few principles are as important to the success of America as a nation of diverse immigrants as is religious freedom. Coming from the battles of English religious wars and the persecution of minorities by the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the Founding Fathers used language which Dr Carson forgot and the Pope understood: 

   Article VI, paragraph 3 is explicit: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. 

   The First Amendment is more frequently at issue: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Dr Carson

  The "rookie mistake" exchange with Chuck Todd which got Carson in trouble: 

      Todd:  "Should a President’s faith matter?"

      Carson: "Well, I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it’s inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and is consistent with the Constitution, no problem."

     Todd: "So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the Constitution?"

     Carson:  "No, I don’t; I do not. I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that."

    The media obviously loved it. It is not a claim that President Obama is a Muslim; it is not a claim that the Constitution prohibits a Muslim from being president; it is not even a criticism of the President for refusing to acknowledge "fundamentalist Islamic terrorism". It is an opinion held by a majority of voters. 

    Carson's next-day clarification set a standard for getting beyond political correctness and speaking what the majority of people understand: Sharia law is central to Islam, and is fundamentally opposed to American values - it denies free speech, the rights of women, and the rights of religious minorities. Carson's answer was in the context of the Muslim concept that the state's purpose is to serve the religion. In his opinion, if a Muslim disavowed Sharia law they would be a heretic within the religion, and he would have no problem with their candidacy; he would be equally opposed to either a Christian or a Muslim theocrat.     

     This is probably too nuanced for Chuck Todd or the New York Times, but in the post-911 age it is important that the country come to understand Carson's point. Unfortunately, the rationale came a day late.  

Pope Francis

    While the bulk of the coverage of the Pope's visit has focused on left-leaning policies where he is aligned with President Obama - climate change; immigration; anti-capitalism - there is a nugget where he has pointedly stood up to the President's trampling of religious liberty in ObamaCare.

    In his Wednesday speech, the Pope praised US bishops for their efforts in defending religious liberty “from everything that would threaten or compromise it.”  Lest there be any misunderstanding of his meaning, he later made an unscheduled stop at the convent of The Little Sisters of the Poor to show support for their federal lawsuit against the mandate that their insurance policies include contraception. 

    This provision of Obamacare that would seem to violate the Constitutional provision that no law shall abridge the free exercise of religion has been burbling along since pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak of Michigan got rolled by Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama in 2009 with a failed promise that he could amend the language of the Affordable Care Act to include a limitation of funding for abortions. At least the Pope threw one carrot to the traditionalists in the American Catholic church.  

   This election season promises to be full of wedge issues for aspiring politicians to use to gain attention - the Kentucky clerk supported by Mike Huckaby and Ted Cruz; the Planned Parenthood videos described (with a bit of poetic license) by Carly Fiorina; the immigrants condemned by Trump. This is the season where the brand gets damaged, even if the argument is correct. Hopefully the leaders will be fact-based and understated, and the obvious also-ran's will follow Scott Walker's advice and drop out rather than try to out-Trump Trump.

                                            ----- 

    This week's video is a quick summary of Carly Fiorina's top lines from the September 16 debate - the best performance by any candidate at either of the two debates thus far. 

bill bowen - 9/25/15   

   

 

 

 

San Francisco: Sanctuary City - A Background

     Politicians pander ... and in a jurisdiction where there is one overwhelmingly dominant party, they pander to the extreme. While San Francisco is probably the "worst case" example of ideology run amuk, it is clear that San Francisco's leaders consider themselves above the national law, and that reform will not happen without outside intervention.

    The facts of the nationally famous case are largely undisputed:  

        - An illegal immigrant who had been convicted of non-violent felonies (illegal entry; drug dealing) seven times, and deported five times was turned over by the Federal Bureau of Prisons to San Francisco (at the sheriff department's request) in connection with a 20 year old marijuana charge which was too old and minor to prosecute. (It is unclear why the request was made, but longstanding personal disputes between the sheriff, the mayor, and the district attorney prevented internal coordination.) 

        - Consistent with San Francisco policy, the Sheriff's Department released him in April without informing federal law enforcement, despite an ICE detainer order to keep him in custody.  

        - Two months later he fatally shot to death a randomly selected young woman at a common tourist location.

        - The Sheriff insists that he was operating within City and state policies. 

    So, how did San Francisco get to this insane policy?

        - As mayor in 1985, in response to civil wars in Central America, Diane Feinstein signed the local "City and County Refuge Ordnance" barring city employees from helping federal immigration authorities with investigations or arrests unless there was a court order or state law requiring them to do so. The ban was expanded to include all immigrants in 1989 under uber-liberal  mayor Art Agnos.   

        - In 2012 Governor Brown vetoed the Trust Act, originally introduced by state Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco, which would have restricted California's cooperation in the federal Secure Communities program, which relies on local police to hold undocumented immigrants detected upon arrest until ICE can pick them up.

        - In 2012 State Attorney General Kamilla Harris - a former San Francisco City Attorney and current US Senate candidate - issued instructions to state law enforcement officials, clarifying that federal immigration detainers issued under the Secure Communities program "are not mandatory, but are merely requests enforceable at the discretion of the state and local agency".  Court-ordered warrants are required.  

        - In 2013 the Board of Supervisors and Mayor Ed Lee unanimously approved legislation to prohibit the release of illegals to ICE unless they have committed serious or violent felonies. (Lee, a moderate by San Francisco standards, is running for reelection in 2015.) 

        - In late 2013 Governor Brown signed Ammiano's second attempt at the Trust Act, limiting cooperation with ICE deportation hold requests to those convicted of a serious or violent felony. (Ammiano is out of office due to term limits, but is a potential front-runner for the state senate.)  Harris issued updated directions emphasizing the legal risk for local law enforcement agencies that voluntarily comply with federal detainer requests.

        - In 2014, President Obama, without Congressional agreement, revised immigration procedures to greatly expand amnesty for children, and to replace the Secure Communities Program with the Priority Enforcement Program which replaced federal requests to have local agencies detain felons with requests that they be notified prior to the felon's release.    

        - In March 2014, Sheriff Ross Mirkirimi barred his staff from giving immigration agents "information or access to records of detainees including their citizenship status, their booking and arrest documents, and their release dates." (Mirkirimi is facing a difficult reelection campaign due in part to an admission of domestic battery and departmental performance issues.)  

    And what is the local response to the murder - aside from the broad ducking for cover by City leadership?

    -  A small poll by Survey USA of 625 San Francisco adults surveyed, showed that 46% of Hispanics felt San Francisco should stop being a sanctuary city, 52% of Hispanics think our current sanctuary policy goes too far, 53% of Hispanics say that any undocumented immigrant who commits any crime should be turned over to immigration officials, and that 72% of Hispanics believe in light of last week's shooting, the city should change its sanctuary city policy. (As much as Republicans are embarrassed by Donald Trump, Hispanics are offended by criminals in their community.)  

    - In what is considered as courage worthy of front page coverage, Senator Feinstein declared "I strongly believe that an undocumented individual, convicted of multiple felonies ... should not have been released." No kidding? Also, no indication of what specific policies should be changed. 

    - The liberal leadership of the Board of Supervisors expressed regret to the family of the murdered woman, but emphasized that the "no federal cooperation" policy encourages interaction between the Hispanic community and the police and should not be changed. 

    - The San Francisco Chronicle editorial page contains four arguments:

        -- The fault lies with the Bureau of Prisons for releasing Sanchez to the City when he should have been directly transferred to ICE. 

        -- The root cause is the refusal of the Republican Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. 

        -- This is another example of the need for stricter gun control. 

        -- Donald Trump is a racist. 

    There are a few things that the American people can do:

    1. Elect a Republican president in 2016. A Clinton presidency would not differ greatly from the Obama presidency in refusing to enforce immigration laws. Securing the border requires more than building fences. 

    2. Pass legislation outlawing "Sanctuary Cities" where local law enforcement agencies refuse to enforce federal laws.

     3. Demand that common sense prevail. 

                                        ----- 

        This week's video is a not-too-technical discussion of the Chinese Communist Party's so-far futile effort to control trillion dollar markets. Like the Greek euro crisis, this collapse of a bubble calls into question the economic / political viability of a 21st century economic model. Unlike the Greeks, it could have broad international consequences. 

www.RightinSanFrancisco.com

   

Washington Kabuki

        Kabuki (歌舞伎^?): a classical Japanese dance-drama. Kabuki theatre is known for the stylization of its drama and for the elaborate make-up worn by some of its performers. Since the word kabuki is believed to derive from the verb kabuku, meaning "to lean" or "to be out of the ordinary", kabuki can be interpreted as "avant-garde" or "bizarre" theatre. A perfect definition of Washington, where the Republican Congress is gearing up for a slew of popular legislation,  and the President is demonstrating that he is the real cause of gridlock.

    John Boehner has been in the House for 23 years; Mitch McConnell has been in the Senate for 30.  Both have climbed over plenty of dead bodies to get where they are. The electoral fortunes of their party members in their chamber have been good during the time of their leadrship. Both will give their members the opportunity to participate in the process of creating legslation under "regular process" - unlike their Democratic predecessors who didn't do budgets, didn't allow amendments from the floor, and had all decisions made by a small leadership group. Both are adequately conservative and understand power. They are not rivals and do not aspire to the presidency. Both understand how their chamber and Washington work. Both can be strategic.

    But what will they do, given the lack of the votes needed to override a presidential veto, the Senate Rules requirement that 60 votes are needed for anything substantive to go forward, and the overhang of a 2016 presidential election?  The first week of the year is full of preemptive veto threats from a president who has shown no inclnation to work with members of his own party, much less Republicans. Here is a prediction and a hope:

    1.  They have a joint plan - what are the priorities?; who goes first on each?; how are the differences between the chambers to be managed?; how is the relation with President Obama to be managed? What, after all, is the objective?

    2. Like a teacher on the first day of school needs to establish classroom order, the boundaries of acceptable dissent within the caucus need to be established. Fortunately, Boehner's caucus is large enough that he has a majority of 220 without his insurgents who will be punished - and certainly without any need for Nancy Pelosi's Democrats. McConnell has a larger challenge keeping his 54 in line and getting 6 Democrats to move legislation. (The 6 will vary by subject, but the XL maneuvering shows that 8 to 10 Democratic votes can be peeled off to oppose their president.)

   3. The first round will be pointed kabuki bills designed to satisfy "the folks back home". Approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline (apparent veto); repeal of Obamacare (veto); override of Obama immigration actions (veto); delay of some financial regulations (veto.)  

   4. The real agenda will include thoughtful versions of House bills that died in Harry Reid's Senate. Rather than broad sweeping legislation, they will be broken up into smaller pieces which have public support and which the president might accept (with some horse trading.)

        -- Fast track trade approval for treaties with Asia-Pacific countries which Obama supported but were killed by Harry Reid because of opposition by the AFL-CIO.  This will pass and be signed. 

        -- Modifications to Obamacare - restore a 40 hour work week as the basis for requiring employers to provide health insurance (veto); elimination of the individual mandate (veto); repeal of the medical devices tax; pooling of small business insurance plans; subsidized high risk pools; perhaps weakening the contraception/abortion requirement. (If the Supreme Court applies the wording of the law and rules out subsidies for the federal insurance exchanges,  a broader replacement is needed and Obama will need to compromise.)

        -- Modifications to immigration law - first priority is border security; defund Obama efforts to prevent deportations; deny services to illegal immigrants; require local cooperation with federal authorities. The Republicans retained the hammer by not funding Homeland Security beyond March.

        -- Business tax reform seems possible; Social Security reform will be attempted, but may have to wait for a Republican president.

   5. In a bit longer term, the FY2016 budget beginning in October will move beyond the arbitrary budget limits of the 2011 sequestration agreement, using the normal budget and appropriation processes to reduce discretionary domestic spending, and restore military spending. There will be no vetoes here if Obama wants to keep the government running.

   It will not be enough to accept vetoes and move on. Many of these issues cause a split in the Democratic Party, with Obama representing the "progressive" wing and the Clintons historically representing the "labor" wing. The mantra will be "What would Hillary do?" - on the XL Pipeline which she waffled on as Secretary of State; on Obamacare, which she foretold with her work on HillaryCare in the 90s; on immigration which threatens Bill Clinton's base among working class white voters; on foreign policy which imploded on her watch? 

      Harry Reid's do nothing Senate protected Democrats from difficult votes, protected President Obama from the need to veto House legislation, and made it easy for "Hillary the inevitable" to avoid policy discussions. Given a steady stream of vetoes of popular legislation and a president who is disinclined to help her, she will have to show her stripes. Perhaps the Koch Brothers can fund a hash tag - #WhatWouldHillaryDo? - if the media don't demand her engagement.

                                                                 -----

   This week's video from Capitol Steps is a bit long, but it is very funny.

bill bowen - 1/9/15

 

 

 

The Secure Republican Senate

    Back in November when it appeared that the Republicans might narrowly win the Senate, there was a theme in the liberal press that any victory would be short-lived as the Republicans would have to defend 24 seats in 2016 and the Democrats only 10. Since then Republican prospects have increased measurably: the Republican majority is 54-46, and, while early, the 2016 prospects look good in most of the competitive states.

    While there are minor differences, the general consensus of Kyle Cheney of Politico, Charlie Cook, and Larry Sabato would be as follows for the 34 seats in play:

    Safe Democrat (8)

        California (Boxer); Connecticut (Blumenthal); Hawaii (Schatz); Maryland (Mikulski); New York (Schumer); Oregon (Wyden); Vermont (Leahy); Washington (Murray).

    Likely/Lean Democrat (1)

        Colorado (Bennett).

    Toss-up (5)

        Illinois (Kirk - R); Nevada (Reid - D); New Hampshire (Ayotte - R); Pennsylvania (Toomey - R); Wisconsin (Johnson - R).

    Likely/Lean Republican (7)

        Alaska (Murkowski); Arizona (McCain); Florida (Rubio); Iowa (Grassley); Kentucky (Paul); North Carolina (Burr); Ohio (Portman).

    Safe Republican (13)

        Alabama (Shelby); Arkansas (Boozman); Georgia (Isakson); Idaho (Crapo); Indiana (Coats); Kansas (Moran); Louisiana (Vitter); Missouri (Blunt); North Dakota (Hoeven); Oklahoma (Coburn); South Carolina (Scott); South Dakota (Thune); Utah (Lee).  

     Of the four Republican tossups, Kirk and Toomey do not face known strong opponents, but are in states which favor Democratics; Kelly Ayotte and Ron Johnson are in swing states, and might face proven competitors in Governor Maggie Hassan and former Senator Russ Feinstein respectively. The greatest risk among the seven Likely/Lean Republicans rests with a potential yet unannounced retirement (McCain; Grassley) or a run for president (Rubio; Paul). To the extent that there are Tea Party insurgents, they are in states where Democrats would have little chance of winning anyway. Net, net unless the presidential election is a Democratic landslide or the Republican Senate proves to be destructively inept, the likelihood is good that Republicans will retain control.

    And a longer term view is more encouraging.

    In 2018 the Republicans will have to defend only 8 seats while the Democrats will have 23, plus their two Independents.  

    With each state having two senators the 38 million people of California have only Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein while in the rest of the country there are a few more Red states than Blue states. Charlie Cook's "Partisan Voter Index" has 26 Red states, 23 blue states, and one tie. While Mitt Romney lost by 5 million votes nationally against the incumbent President Obama, he still carried 24 states.

    The Republican farm system is also much better stocked than its Democrat counterpart with 31 governors, 31 lieutenant governors, a 247 to 188 advantage in the House, and control of 69 out of 99 state legislative chambers. These folks are getting name recognition, building supporter networks, and learning how to govern. The chaff will get sorted out and there will be plenty of future Republican stars.

    Tides ebb and flow and Republicans will need to be conscious of demographics as well as policy, but the legacy of Barack Obama will not be found in the remnants of Obamacare. Rather he has been able to establish what could easily be a lasting Republican majority in both houses of Congress.

                                                                                -----

  The most appropriate video for beginning a new year is a repeat of this statement by state Senator Elbert Guillory of Lousiana.

bill bowen - 1/2/15

    

Congress: The Return of "Regular Order"

    There is good reason to believe that the coming Republican Congress will be able to demonstrate that the GOP knows how to govern effectively and can be trusted with the presidency in 2016. In fact, this may be easier than it looks.

    Without knowing or caring how the plumbing really works, the public has given Congress an approval rating of 10 to 15% in recent years. The problem has not been that President Obama has vetoed legislation coming from the Republican House; it is that Harry Reid's Democratic Senate has been a deliberate Black Hole, refusing to consider anything that was contrary to the White House agenda, with the result hundreds of House bills died on arrival, that committees in both houses stopped functioning, total spending was subjected to across the board limits of sequestration, functional budgets have simply been authorizations to keep on doing whatever you were doing, and policy disagreements have languished. And President Obama has found Congress an inconvenient nuisance.

    John Boehner and Mitch McConnell do not need to invent the next social media app or re-write the Constitution.  They just need to return to "Regular Order". And they will. In fact, members of the House and the Senate of both parties should generally appreciate the resumption functioning committees, the opportunity to offer amendments, and meaningful discussion inside and outside of the chambers. That is what they went to Washington to do.

    A quick primer on what to look for in the Regular Order:

        Bills are assigned to bipartisan committees by leadership. Members of the House and Senate are allowed the broadest leeway to offer amendments to legislation. The House and the Senate complete their budgets on time. Federal programs that are not authorized by an authorizing committee are not funded by appropriations bills - and they don't happen. The House and the Senate convene  conference committees to reconcile legislation. Congress pays for emergency spending requests, or at least doesn’t put major spending items (like wars) off-budget.

   Boehner and McConnell each have some shortcomings - particularly on charisma - but like Harry Reid they understand the parlimentary rules of their chamber. They have subordinates who can count noses. In the House Nancy Pelosi doesn't much matter; in the Senate, McConnell can work with Reid.   

The Leadership

    - John Boehner's  official leadership team in the House has been largely together since 2010 - Kevin McCarthy who  replaced the more disruptive  Eric Cantor as Majority Leader in 2014,  Majority Whip Steve Scalise, Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Greg Walden, Conference Vice Chairwoman Lynn Jenkins, and Conference Secretary Virginia Foxx.The only new addition will be Republican Policy Committee Chairman Luke Messer, a policy clone of conservative Indiana governor Mike Pence.

    Paul Ryan  - among the most knowledgeable people ever on federal government finances - will move from the Budget Committee to chair Appropriations where he will stamp all government spending bills.

    - After seven years as Senate Minbority Leader, Mitch McConnell gets to show how well he can manage a 54-46 majority with 60 votes needed for most substantive matters. His team includes Whip John Cornyn, Policy Committee Chair John Barasso, Conference Chair John Thune, and Conference Vice Chair Roy Blunt. All are veterans; none are presidential candidates; none are bomb throwers.

   Personal relations with the President are not much to work with, but not much worse worse than those of  Harry Reid's and Nancy Pelosi who rarely meet or communicate with their Party's leader. At first Boehner tried, and in 2011 thought that he had a grand bargain before Obama increased the tax requirement by an extra $400 billion. McConnell did famously say that his top goal was to make Obama a one term president - two years after the corruption and personal affronts in passing Obamacare.   

  With funding for most of FY2015 taken care of, there can be a policy focus on immigration, and development of a series of popular plans that had been held up by Harry Reid - the XL Pipeline; fast track authorization for foreign trade treaties; restricting the EPA's effort to regulare ponds and streams; some simple changes to the tax code; perhaps some small changes to Obamacare.

  Led by Paul Ryan there will be a review of the 2013 Sequestration Bill which arbitrarily cut "Defense" and Discretioary Non-Defense" spending through 2021. There will be a serious proposal for small business tax reform. With the decision to accept the spending through September, came a commitment to use that time for thoughtful legislation which can pass both houses.

    And a couple of comments on the bleed-over into the 2016 presidential election.

    1. President Obama has shown no particular interest in working with Nancy Pelosi or  Harry Reid, or doing things to make Hillary Clinton look good. His positions will be about helping him, not Hillary or the Democratic Party.

    2. The Senators who may be running for President - Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz for the Republiicans and Elizabeth Warren for the Democrats - are removed from the chamber's power structure - freeing them up to give their speeches, but having little impact on the actual work of the Senate.

                                                          -----

 This week's video is Mark Halperin's take on Jeb Bush entering the 2016 race. One can make a good case for a contest between Jeb, Rand Paul, a Midwest governor, and at most one more serious challenger. 

bill bowen - 12/19/14

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

Beyond ObamaCare: The Evolving Biotech Age

    Premise: The age from about 1910 (Henry Ford) to 1969 (moon landing) contained astonishing advances in transportation. The age from about 1969 (ARPAnet)  through 1980 (Apple II), 1998 (Google) and 2004 (Facebook) contained astonishing advances in information technology. The age beginning  in the late 20th century with DNA mapping and the decoding of the human genome offers a third, likely just beginning, age of astonishing technological advance. All have been American-led; all have exhibited extensive cooperation between the private and public sectors.

    Let's look at a few of today's biological technology headlines in that light.

    1. One of the downsides of the hyperpartisan debates over Obamacare - beyond the increased costs and the intrusion of the federal government into personal health decisions - is the unknown consequence of overturning one sixth of our economy. Some elements, such as the medical device excise tax, have a direct effect of inhibiting investment and invention; others, such as arbitrary service and funding mandates for hospitals, will have a negative impact on research; but, the biggest risk is that cooperation between the private health care sector and government is being traumatized.

   2. On October 9, Gilead Sciences announced FDA approval to sell a once-a-day pill that can cure Hepatitis C in 8 to 12 weeks. With 150 to 200 million sufferers globally, a great humanitarian breakthrough - right? Well, not so much. Gilead will charge $1000 per pill in the US, while contracting with generic manufactuers for the undeveloped world to make the wonder drug available at about $10 per pill. Sometime in the next year or two there will be a debate about how much Medicare and Obamacare insurance policies are required to cover, how research costs are compensated, and who decides who lives and dies when pharmaceutical companies charge more than society can afford to pay.

   3. The early stages of the Ebola epidemic demonstrate that, despite billions spent on the World Health Organization and the Center for Disease Control, neither the world, nor the United States is prepared. There is a tendency to put the tragedy in political terms - Democrats running graphic ads blaming Republican budget cuts (although the current Republican budget contained greater funding for the CDC than Obama requested); the politically-correct World Health Organization blaming the spread of disease on global warming. The reality is that the CDC was unprepared - no clear designation of primary care facilities; no protocol for travel by attending health care professionals; no clear plan for curtailing air travel or increasing inspection at designated airports. Most disappointing is the absence of a credible senior leader to prominantly explain the nature of the problem, what is being done, and what the individual should do.

   4. On the positive side, the application of biological science to yield improvement in agriculture - highlighted by Monsanto and DuPont - has allowed the world population to grow from 5 billion in 1987 to over 7 billion today, accompanied with rising standards of nutrition, while providing some moderation on pressures to convert forests to farmland. Fortunately, the majority of the world is more interested in feeding itself than are the ideological "parties of science" in the United States and Europe who rail against genetically-modified foods as science is applied to reduce the need for water, pesticides, and fertilizer.           

    For those bemoaning the decline of America in diplomatic, military, or economic terms, there is hope for continuing technical ascendency based on our primacy in research universities, the attractiveness of America to global talent, and the generally cooperative relation between government and private enterprise. Hopefully Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and John Kerry will keep out of the way.

                                                                ----- 

This week's video is the President's totally uninspiring public statement on the Ebola crisis.

 

bill bowen - 10/17/14

Education: Think Globally; Act Locally

    In assessing America's international competitiveness, many experts would give us good marks for having deep capital markets, high entrepreneurship, and a "best in class" university system. That is why people come here to invest, start a (particularly tech) business, and get a college or post-graduate education. On the other hand, the United States is well down the international ranks in terms of the business tax code and K-12 education.  The good news - if you choose to accept the challenge - is that education is largely controlled at the state and local level, and that the informed voter can make a difference. Here are some action-oriented thoughts for the November 4 elections.

    Become informed.

    A little bit of searching at www.Ballotpedia.com, your local department of elections, or the school district's web site will explain the structure of the school district, list the candidates, and sometimes provide brief biographies. Some candidates will have their own web sites, but more frequently it is necessary to find local news articles, attend a debate, or do a Google search. Candidates generally welcome e-mails or calls asking for their positions and upcoming events. In September and October they should be in full campaign mode - looking for volunteers to man phones, walk precincts, or donate.

    Everyone claims to favor strong financial management and opportunity for all students, and the largest differentiators in selecting Board members to vote for are generally  the capabilities of the candidate and the commitment to do real work.  That said, there are sometimes real policy differences too, often along the lines of whether the candidate's commitment to students is moderated by a commitment to the teachers' unions, and whether the candidate sees a School Board position as a stepping stone toward higher office. The prior shortcoming reflects in attitudes about compensation, performance measurement, and willingness to address low performing teachers. The latter can lead to a focus on issues that have little to do with education - social issues; environmental issues; school lunch mandates.

    It is worth focusing on what the local school board can really impact. Since Common Core is determined at a state level, it is more meaningful to ask what they think the district should do to implement it rather than initiate a philosophical discussion. On the other hand, charter schools, school assignmnet policies, and vouchers are local issues which offer differentiation among candidates.

    The incumbents and top new candidates are easy to figure out if you have kids in the school. If you don't, ask someone who does. Go to a school board meeting or watch one on public television. Incumbents have a visible track record. .

    San Francisco - an extreme example.

    In San Francisco in 2014 there are issues that offer clear choices for the voter at the K-12 level, at the Junior College level, and at the state level.

    San Francisco has the lowest percentage of residents under 18 of any city in the country. Private schools represent 24% of the k-12 population, including the kids of some 80 percent of households earning over $100,000.  Clearly, the public school system is not attracting a large portion of the students and parents who could make a better system for all students. One factor is a school assignment policy which favors income factors (as a proxy for racial factors) over neighborhood schools in a failing effort to force integration, while requiring high school students to spend hours on buses and minimizing parent involvement in the schools.   One candidate, Lee Hsu, has the courage to champion neighborhood schools.  

    For the past two years the 80,000-student City College of San Francisco has been struggling to stay open despite a revocation of credentials by the Accreditating Commission of Community and Junior Colleges. The largest issues have been managerial rather than academic - particularly an abdication of management by the Board (including several Democrat activists) to a system of "shared governance" by a council of teacher and administrator unions who had little interest in financial managment, made no effort to collect delinquent tuition, and offered outsized administrator salaries. Two totally unrepentant Board members are running for reelection; Thomas Moyer offers a choice for the common sense management needed to ensure the survival of the school. 

    California's State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Torlakson, has rejected federal funds tied to any teacher evaluation system and enthusiastically supported Common Core. In the recent Vergara case a Los Angeles judge ruled that California's teacher tenure laws cause the retention of unqualified teachers who disproportionately wind up in minority-population schools, thus violating the state's constitution which guarantees a quality education to all students. When federal Secretary of Education Arne Duncan applauded the decision, Torlakason vowed to appeal. Marshall Tuck, a former charter school executive, offers an excellent alternative.   

    The issues in education are universal; the manifestations and solutions are local. If America is to regain its competitive edge internationally, it is imperative that we become informed and elect local leaders who understand. Get off of the couch.

                                                                -----

  This week's video is our Secretary of State explaining that the effort that we are asking global partners to join is not a war. The problem - President Obama does not want to go to Congress for approval prior to the November elections. All politics, all the time.  

bill bowen - 9/12/14   

San Francisco's War on Car Owners

     We've got a conundrum out here on the Left Coast. San Francisco is flooded with money for billion dollar transportation projects (partly as a result of our Representative, Nancy Pelosi guiding the 2009 Stimulus Plan) - the problematic Bay Bridge; the billion-dollar-a-mile Central Subway; the new approach to the Golden Gate Bridge; the new Transbay Terminal to receive High Speed Rail (?) But we also have an ideologically-driven set of policies designed to inflict maximum pain on the 79% of San Francisco households who have cars. What's going on?

       In 1999, the voters approved the consolidation of the bus/light rail agency (Muni) with the Department of Parking and Transportation with a charge to be "Transit First". A few years later the Taxi Commission was rolled in. Not wishing to be bothered by constituent complaints about bus routes and Stop signs, the mayor and the Board of Supervisors gave Muni significant autonomy, and for 15 years transportation policy has been set by the agency's governing Board - appointed by the mayor and approved by the supervisors - a majority of whose members must be be regular riders of Muni. The loudest voices? - the Bicycle Coalition and those who envision a "car-free" city.

    The failed effort to dissuade people from using cars falls into two categories: 

    1. Don't build it and they won't come. Where construction codes once required at least one garage space per apartment, new high rise units usually do not have a space. Thousands of parking spaces have been eliminated with new buildings placed on empty lots and bicycle lanes taking an increased portion of the streets; no new parking lots have been build in 25 years. New proposals would dedicate 1000 parking spaces to "ride share" vehicles. With San Francisco growing by 10,000 residents per year, the strategy is to force people out of cars by making parking impossible.

   2. Make car ownership so expensive that most residents will give up the convenience. Rates for City owned parking garages, parking meters, residential parking permits, and parking tickets have all had double digit increases along with a move to Sunday meter enforcement, and the spread of "peak-demand period" meter rates. The MTA and the mayor are talking of adding a vehicle license fee of about $100 per vehicle on top of the $50 fee the state charges. Fees on cars exceed user fares as a source of funding for the public transit system. Some of this is just the normal behavior of a voracious government; more is due to the desire to drive out cars in the name of social engineering. The result is another set of irritants driving out the middle class.

    We may have reached a tipping point. The November ballot will include a $500 million bond to purchase new transit vehicles and reengineer the streets to be more bicycle friendly. The vehicle license fee increase and Sunday parking meters may be deferred until after the bond passes, but they are in the offing.  There is, however, an emerging coalition of neighborhood activists, small businesses, first responders, disabled advocates, and just plain ordinary folks emerging under the banner of RestoreBalance14 with a set of policy prescriptions: limit hours for parking meters; freeze rates; require neighborhood agreement for meter expansion; use a portion of any new revenues to build garages where neighborhoods want them; enforce traffic laws for all modes of transportation; provide representation for all modes of transportation on the MTA Board. 

    Past efforts to reform the MTA or establish performance standards for public transit have fizzled. With the administration able to punish people or businesses who go against the progressive leadership there are many who have historically been reluctant to come forward, leaving lots of Ying and no Yang. But there is hope - the 79% of San Francisco households who have cars despite the 15 year campaign against them value their the convenience, safety, and freedom, and they constitute a solid political base if their advocates are able to tell their story.

                                                        -----  

        This week's video is the exclamation point on Putin's global strategy - a 30 year agreement to supply 20% of China's natural gas requirements, in one stroke diversifying his markets from Europe and cementing a broader strategic alliance.

bill bowen - 5/22/14   

   

 

 

 

.

  

        

    

 

        

The Great Obamacare Rollout

    Let's try to learn something from the Obamacare rollout - not just what the New York Times trumpets, but not just what the Drudge Report headlines claim either. There really is some learning here.

    -  This may be the last gasp of the Obama election turnout machine before he fades as a force in elections. The publicly-funded hundred million dollar advertising campaign and army of "navigators"; the celebrity endorsers; the mainstream media publicizers; the daily social media exhortations of Organizing for America working with the carrot of more free stuff and  the stick of the individual mandate got 7 million folks to fight their way through the complexity and the HHS' technical ineptitude.  The President's palpable relief is understandable.

   - There is good reason that Sibelius cannot answer the obvious and easily-answerable questions about the numbers - how many of the sign-ups were previously insured; how many had had their insurance cancelled; how many have actually paid their premiums;  what are the demographics of the enrollees?  When this journey began in 2009, the claim was that we had to take care of the 50 million uninsured. The administration likes to tout the 7.1 million signed up on the exchanges, the 4 million signed up for expanded Medicaid (about half being normal annual adds), and the 3 million kids being added added under the "slacker-care" provisions. Net, net, Forbes' analysis suggests the total number of beneficiaries at about 7 million.

    - The insurance company actuaries are working overtime. The lack of disclosure of the age/gender/medical condition mix of enrollees suggests that the premiums and deductables for middle class folks who do not qualify for subsidies will most likely need to be bumped significantly (again) in the rates for 2015 to be announced shortly before the November elections. This is, after all, a transfer from the upper and middle income classes to the subsidy-entitled lower class with the money coming partly from direct tax-payer subsidies and the rest from mandate-driven insurance rates.

    - The public is not much concerned about fraud. According to Rasmussen just 19% of likely voters think that the IRS should use their resources to police the "honor system" income claims of those seeking subsidies. Obama's permission slip to ignore the deadline for sign ups drew hardly a yawn. Such is the state of American ethics.

    - The 2014 Congressional elections will see "Big Data" Get Out the Vote efforts, with Democrats using the contact information of the 7 million enrollees (and the 4 million added to Medicare), and the Republicans using that of the millions who had their policies cancelled. Fortunately for Republicans, many of the sign-ups were in liberal states like New York and California, lost causes anyway.  

    - With the last six months' focus on insurance enrollment, there has been little discussion of expanded capacity. The latest "doc fix" to avoid a mandated 24% reduction in Medicare reimbursement rates sailed through Congress, preventing an exodus of doctors, and medical school enrollment is up slightly.

    - The drag on the economy with a disincentive for small businesses to hire and the coming enforcement of the large employer mandate in 2015 continues unabated with the Congressional Budget Office projecting a net loss of the equivalent of some 2,000,000 workers from Obamacare's taxes and hiring disincentives.    

     Good for Republicans, Nancy Pelosi still thinks that Obamacare is a winning issue for Democrats in marginal districts despite being under water in the polls by about 40% to 60%.  Hopefully at least a few Democrats running in Red states will believe her.

                                                            -----

    This week's "bonus" is an excellent article by Dan McLaughlin of RedState about the eight points that Republicans agree on for an Obamacare replacement, and Bobby Jindal's plan. (This may help move the Louisiana governor into the top tier of 2016 candidates.) We normally end with a video, but this is too good to pass up.

bill bowen-4/4/14