What's Behind the Rise of Trump?

This is from the introduction to What’s the Matter with Kansas? – How Conservatives Won the Heart of America  

The poorest county in America isn’t in Appalachia or the Deep South. It is on the Great Plains, a region of struggling ranchers and dying farm towns, and in the election of 2000 the Republican candidate for president, George W. Bush, carried it by a majority of greater than 80%.

The county in Kansas that author Thomas Frank referred to back in 2004 no longer holds the dubious distinction of being the poorest county in America. But to be sure, this is not because of any improving economics there but is instead because so many other poor rural counties across America are suffering through their own economic misery.

The premise of Frank’s book is that Kansans (and by extension others in rural America) have tended to vote based on their conservative social values while at the same time voting against their own economic self-interest. While Republicans promote their pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay social agenda, their economic agenda typically benefits the interests of big money and big business to the detriment of the working man. For example, tax cuts for the rich – good! Unions to bargain for better wages and working conditions – bad!

Frank observes time after time that even with economic conditions progressively deteriorating – no problem! Vote Republican! It’s those conservative moral values they hold so dear that are really the most important.

But as poverty spreads and persists in rural America, the natives are getting ever more restless.

There are a number of reasons for the increasing hard times in rural America. For example, in Appalachia, working in a coal mine was just about the only way to earn a decent (albeit a dangerous) living. But the demand for coal is decreasing and the fewer mines remaining are becoming more automated.

And elsewhere, more and more manufacturing is leaving America for Mexico and other countries with lower wage economies. The most recent example is the announcement of Carrier planning to move its manufacturing in Indiana to Mexico.

There is anger and resentment of what is a largely white population towards others that they blame for their plight. Maybe it’s the immigrants from Mexico whom they feel are taking away their jobs. Maybe it’s the blacks and Hispanics whom they feel are "screwing over whites". Maybe it’s the Muslims they feel may be invading America and need to be kept out.

If only someone understood what they were feeling. If only someone would come along and ‘tell it like it is'. That someone turned out to be Donald Trump.

And while all politicians are there to tell their target audience what they want to hear, it is a demagogue like Trump who widens the area of acceptable political discourse beyond all recognition. Mexicans “sending their rapists”, building a "big, beautiful wall" to keep out the Mexicans, rounding up and shipping out the 11 million undocumented who are already here along with a border policy that would keep out all Muslims “until we figure out what the hell to do” are now acceptable subjects for discussion for not only some voters but also in the media.

And while the media, especially those on the right are singled out for blame here, it overlooks the even greater effectiveness of social media sites like Twitter. Outrageous beliefs masquerading as facts can be easily be re-tweeted by both Trump himself or his like-minded supporters and spread like wildfire. Hate groups who want to spread their venom and endorse somebody like Trump can more easily stay under the radar of scrutiny.

So what we have is a Republican Party which through its endless catering to the rich has neglected the needs of its working class voters while selling them a bill of goods around preserving moral values. Can Trump do better for his supporters – or is he just selling his own bill of goods to dupe his voters?

Logic strongly argues for the latter. Some of crises he conjures up to stir up his followers are at the least overblown if not downright untrue. For example, it is easy to paint a picture of swarms of Mexicans invading us over the border like this video of a border crossing from Morocco. But the reality is that immigration from Mexico has been declining to the point now that net immigration from Mexico is now into negative figures. That’s right, more Mexicans are now leaving America than are coming here!   But that is hardly something to fire up your supporters over. This makes the talk of the giant wall supposedly to be paid for by Mexico even more absurd.

And what about the Muslims? Do we keep tabs on the Muslim citizens here to know where they are? And do we ban a group from entering our country based on their religion? Both are creepy, not to mention unconstitutional. And unless Trump can devise a ‘Muslim detector’ how do we even positively identify these people?

Other issues like the loss of jobs to countries with low wages are very real fears. But how much of this would truly be under Trump’s control if he were to become the President? The story on the Carrier closing discusses not only the human costs but also the decisions behind the announced move. Large investors in companies like Carrier often exert relentless pressure on CEOs to squeeze every last nickel of profits from their businesses. 

United Technologies [Carrier's parent corporation] faces pressure from investors hungry for earnings growth in an economy that’s only modestly growing at home, and falling in important overseas markets like China and the Middle East. Although the company’s stock has vastly outperformed benchmarks in the last few decades, the shares have badly trailed the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index over the most recent five years.

Wall Street is looking for United Technologies to post a 17 percent increase in earnings per share over the next two years, even though sales are expected to rise only 8 percent. Bridging that gap means cutting costs wherever savings can be found…

Since it is a given that corporations exist to maximize their profits, how much control can Trump truly expect to exert on where a company makes its product? Tariffs as Trump has suggested may be an option (if Congress approves) but runs the risk of a dangerous and possibly catastrophic trade war that could kill millions of US jobs. In addition, many of our jobs are also being lost to automation. Does he propose to also make automation illegal? This is not to say there are no solutions to this problem. But this is to say that the issue is a very complex one that defies the simplistic solutions his followers can rally behind.

When all is said and done, will a man who was born wealthy and has devoted his life to increasing (along with bragging about) his wealth really look out for the interests of those who are less wealthy? Here are a couple of clues. Like just about all Republicans, he is proposing a tax cut that will disproportionately benefit the very wealthy in addition to exploding the deficit. And this would then presumably require massive spending cuts in either social programs or the military to try and balance the budget – and for Trump who promises to “make the military great again" it is safe to say that it won’t be the military!

And secondly, does Trump favor any raise in the minimum wage to provide at least some relief for those at the bottom of the economic food chain? The short answer to this question is No! 

Nuff said?

Desperation in the GOP

With his latest Super Tuesday primary victories, Donald Trump is getting what looks to be more and more of a stranglehold on the Republican presidential nomination. And with it is an air of desperation in the GOP (along with some in the media). What else would you call it when The Washington Post publishes an editorial titled GOP leaders, you must do everything in your power to stop Trump?

THE UNTHINKABLE is starting to look like the inevitable: Absent an extraordinary effort from people who understand the menace he represents, Donald Trump is likely to be the presidential nominee of the Republican Party. At this stage, even an extraordinary effort might fall short. But history will not look kindly on GOP leaders who fail to do everything in their power to prevent a bullying demagogue from becoming their standard-bearer.

Then there is The New York Times offering this article, Inside the Republican Party’s Desperate Mission to Stop Donald Trump

The scenario [GOP strategist and fundraiser] Karl Rove outlined was bleak.

Addressing a luncheon of Republican governors and donors in Washington on Feb. 19, he warned that Donald J. Trump’s increasingly likely nomination would be catastrophic, dooming the party in November. 

So this leads to the question - Is the Republican Party really concerned about Trump’s behavior as a “bullying demagogue”? Or is it more about their fear of a catastrophic loss in the general election? It appears to be more of the latter.

It was all the way back to Trump’s first speech after announcing his candidacy that he famously spoke about Mexico sending their “rapists” across the border into America.

As outrageous as that opening salvo was, Trump’s toxic rhetoric has only escalated since then – with the Republican Party (with only a few notable exceptions) having done little or nothing to repudiate any of his remarks.

Trump previously came to political fame by spreading so-called ‘birther' nonsense claiming he had evidence of President Obama being born outside of the US. This is part of the narrative that the president just isn’t a legitimate occupant of the White House. (Trump later gave the same ‘birther' treatment to Canadian-born Ted Cruz and now by inference, even American-born Marco Rubio???)

Back in 2011, Trump then said that he had come up with evidence on Obama's real birth information during an investigation in Hawaii. “I have people that have been studying it and they cannot believe what they’re finding,” Trump said. We are still waiting for that evidence to be released.

Then it escalated to - Obama is a secret Muslim, Obama wants to take your guns, the government wants to take away your freedom (so you better arm yourself!). This gets reinforced by Fox News and conservative talk radio.

This in turn gets the right-wing fringe players into the act with for example, the group who tried to ‘take their own land back' in Oregon. Then there are the hate groups like the KKK and batshit crazy anti-gay religious groups who offer their endorsements of GOP politicians (you must check this out this video!!).

(For the interested reader, there is www.rightwingwatch.org a very interesting site which offers daily updates of the goings on of those on the wacky right.)

Once enough of these people are worked up into a lather, conditions are perfect for a demagogue to step in and take control. One who speaks these people’s language and ‘tells it like it is'. Enter one Donald J. Trump.

And while it wouldn’t be fair to say that the Republican Party is directly responsible for all of the toxic rhetoric, they are most definitely enablers of it. Instead of directly refuting the sometimes outrageous falsehoods being spread around, they just play coy and say things like they can’t tell people what to think or say.

With Trump now a heavy favorite to gain the nomination of one of America’s two major parties. One can only wonder what our plight looks like to the rest of the world. Can you imagine the UK Parliament debating over a measure to ban a future US presidential nominee from entering the UK? Well, it's true!

So the big question is whether Trump really has a chance to win the general election in November, assuming he is nominated. Just the mere thought of this is enough to cause nightmares! Fortunately, past presidential elections have shown that the GOP would have to land at least 40% of the Latino vote to win a national election (and perhaps higher in some key swing states.) By comparison, Mitt Romney in 2012 got about 23%.

Considering the relationship between Trump and the Latino population, Trump will be hard pressed to even do as well as Romney, let alone improve upon his results.

So maybe we can now breathe a big sigh of relief?

Before we get too complacent, we need to note Italy’s experience with their prime minister Silvio Berlusconi which has a lot of eerie parallels to our own experiences with The Donald – except that Berlusconi actually got elected as their prime minister!

However, it should be noted that there are some storm clouds ahead on The Donald's seemingly smooth journey to the nomination. This just in! Trump University Fraud Suit Can Proceed, Appeals Court Rules.

A fraud allegation against Donald Trump’s education program can move forward, a New York state appeals court said Tuesday in a ruling likely to fuel controversy over an issue Mr. Trump’s opponents in the Republican presidential primaries have seized on in recent weeks.

New York Attorney General​ Eric Schneiderman sued the now-defunct Trump University in 2013 for $40 million, alleging that Trump University was a sham that exploited Mr. Trump’s celebrity status to persuade people to enroll in expensive courses that failed to deliver on their promises. Trump University defrauded students by billing itself as a real estate school and charging students as much as $35,000 without having official accreditation, Mr. Schneiderman alleged.

The fraud allegation around Trump University is not a new one. But until recently brought up in attacks by Marco Rubio, it has largely flown under the radar. But that will likely change.

With GOP nomination looming, Trump is slated to take witness stand in fraud trial

Here’s a part of the political calendar that nobody in the Republican Party seems to have noticed: This spring, just as the GOP nomination battle enters its final phase, frontrunner Donald Trump could be forced to take time out for some unwanted personal business: He’s due to take the witness stand in a federal courtroom in San Diego, where he is being accused of running a financial fraud.

That makes it all but certain that the reality-show star and international businessman will be forced to be grilled under oath over allegations in the lawsuit...the final pretrial conference is now slated for May 6, according to the latest pleadings in the case.

While this may not affect his winning the nomination, it would certainly provide lots of ammunition for his general election opponent.

But if that opponent is Hillary Clinton, she may be reluctant to make an issue of Trump's legal problems because of legal problems of her own.

Hillary's Victories Mean Painful Legal Choices for DOJ, WH

Clinton voters are oblivious to the dangers. Polls show they no longer consider her “honest and trustworthy,” but they still don’t think she has committed any crimes. Countless Clinton supporters have told me, “These investigations won’t find anything. The Benghazi hearings proved it. This is simply a partisan witch hunt.”

They are half right. The Benghazi hearings proved, once again, that Congress has the investigative prowess of Homer Simpson. They are right that Republicans hate her. Divided as the GOP is, it is united in thinking Bill and Hillary are corrupt, self-serving liars.

But the GOP is not leading the criminal investigation. The FBI is. 

Stay tuned. There’s more craziness to come!

America Still Needs Medicare for All

The competition for the Democratic Party nomination between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders is definitely heating up as we start the primary election season. Although it lacks the venom of the Republican fight, Hillary and Bernie have some serious disagreements on the issues (unlike Hillary and Barack Obama back in 2008) which will give voters more of a real choice of whom to vote for.

Hillary, citing her pragmatism, wants to make incremental changes to our government to make improvements. Bernie believes the system is broken and nothing less than revolutionary change is going to effectively address our problems.

Nowhere is this contrast more evident than their positions on how to improve health insurance for Americans. Hillary feels that working with the Republicans to improve the Affordable Care Act (better known as Obamacare) makes far more practical sense than trying to replace it with a more controversial single payer system that Bernie (and I) advocate.

For those not familiar with what ‘single payer’ insurance means, here is a brief explanation. In the US, health insurance (for those under 65) is purchased from a network of private insurance companies. By contrast, a single payer system uses the government to take the place of the private insurance companies. It alone collects premiums (in the form of taxes) and it alone pays benefits when needed to its citizens.

Contrary to conservative rhetoric, single payer (along with the dreaded Obamacare) are not a “government takeover of healthcare”. The actual providers of the care do not work for the government (as opposed to those working for the Veterans Administration).

In the US, single payer as a political position is too hot to handle except for the most liberal politicians (such as Bernie Sanders). But despite its reputation in the US, single payer is the de facto standard for health insurance in most of the rest of the industrialized world. And for good reason! Single payer systems are much more cost-effective due to their lower overhead and lack of a profit motive compared to private insurance - and all of its citizens are covered! As still another dubious example of American Exceptionalism, only Americans among those in the industrialized world are subject to financial ruin just for getting sick!

So can such a seemingly controversial idea as single payer work in the US? Well, it does already in the form of Medicare for those over 65! Advocates like Sanders just want to expand the Medicare program to all Americans. Yes, Medicare does have its problems but it does work despite only covering the oldest and sickest among us. Adding all of the remaining younger and healthier people to the risk pool can only make the program more viable.

So circling back, can Obamacare be improved to offer the same advantages as those provided by a single payer system as Hillary is advocating?

Let’s start out by saying that Obamacare was a great step forward for America because it addressed the problem of those with preexisting conditions not being able to get insured. And Obamacare has recently celebrated a milestone in now insuring over 90% of Americans! Whoopdee doo!!

But in a nation of over 300 million, that means we have about 30 million who are still without health insurance in addition to many millions more who are underinsured. A couple of weeks ago, 60 Minutes reran a story about what is known as the Health Wagon, essentially a large repurposed Winnebago winding its way through Appalachia back roads to provide free medical care to its many people who despite Obamacare, still do not have access to health insurance.

Many of those stepping aboard the Wagon were obviously quite sick from neglect because they couldn’t afford a doctor. Some eventually died because help came too late. It was heartbreaking to watch. Here is the video link so you can watch this if you haven’t already. All I could say to myself out loud over and over was, “We can do better than this!”

So finally, what about the politics around all of this? Whatever the merits of an idea, it is unfortunately politics that often determines what turns a dream into reality.

It has been said that single payer is impossible in the present political environment so pursuing it is little more than tilting at windmills. But when it comes to trying to improve Obamacare, the Republicans in Congress have made it quite clear that their obsession is not to improve Obamacare but to destroy it. Sorry, Hillary!

So if the half loaf requires just as much political heavy lifting as the full loaf, why not just go for what we want and need in the first place? And as long as Obamacare is still around to serve as a placeholder, we have nothing to lose by going for what’s best for our nation as a whole!

It is worth noting that the great social advances in our history such as Civil Rights, the end of slavery, and women's suffrage were also at one time, politically impossible. But if enough of us can mobilize behind a truly important cause like making access to affordable healthcare a right for all Americans, we can move mountains! Giving up is just not an option!

America Must Do Something About Its Drug Pricing

Every so often, there is somebody in the news who stirs up almost universal outrage. In late 2015, that person would almost certainly be Martin Shkreli.

Mr. Shkreli has emerged as a symbol of pharmaceutical greed for acquiring a decades-old drug used to treat an infection that can be devastating for babies and people with AIDS and, overnight, raising the price to $750 a pill from $13.50. His only mistake, he later conceded, was not raising the price more.

When Shkreli was shown after being arrested, it brought cheers to many even though his arrest for securities fraud had nothing to do with his controversial drug pricing.

You would think that someone so reviled would provide a great business opportunity for somebody to sell dartboards with his likeness on them. And you would be right.

But in fairness, many others have received the same treatment from Kentucky anti-gay marriage activist Kim Davis to…the Pope???

Shkreli defends himself by saying that he was only doing what any good CEO would do which is to make as much profit for his company as possible. True enough. But at what cost to others?

And while Shkreli enraged many because of the blatant cockiness behind his pricing tactics, is this any worse than what so-called Big Pharma is doing to the American people?

...in some ways, Mr. Shkreli, chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals, has taken the heat off other drug companies.

Most drug companies do not increase prices fiftyfold overnight, as Mr. Shkreli did.

But they often increase prices 10 percent or more a year, far faster than inflation. And those 10 percent increases — on drugs for common diseases like diabetes, high cholesterol and cancer — have a far bigger impact on health care spending than the 5,000 percent increase on Turing’s drug, Daraprim, which might be used by about 2,000 people a year facing possible brain damage from a parasitic infection called toxoplasmosis.

The marketing of cancer drugs has drawn particular attention. Check out this TV ad, A Chance to Live Longer.

So you may ask, how much does this drug Opdivo (in combination with another drug, Yervoy) cost?

The cost of cancer treatments has drawn scrutiny from doctors such as Leonard Saltz of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, who estimated earlier this year that the Opdivo-Yervoy combination would cost the average patient $295,000 for a little less than a year of treatment. If all advanced cancer patients in the U.S. received drugs at that estimated price, he projected, the total cost would reach $174 billion per year.

There are a number of very difficult ethical and practical considerations here.  In addition to the astronomical cost is the knowledge that the drug will likely only extend life by a few months. According to the video, "half of the Opdivo patients were alive 9.2 months versus 6 months for chemotherapy". And on top of that, the proposed drug combination according to the article has a much higher toxicity rate.

Decisions on how or whether to use drugs like these can only be done by the specialist. But here is a drug being marketed directly to patients who are in a fight against end-stage cancer which really comes across as preying on their desperation. This is another (albeit an extreme) example of why it is unwise to have prescription drugs marketed directly to consumers. As another example of 'American Exceptionalism', America is the only country in the world (other than New Zealand) that allows this!

Presumably one of the rationales behind giving pharmaceutical companies a free reign on pricing is to be assured that there will be enough profits for research to find future drugs. But these companies spend far more on marketing than research.

In addition, the lack of a universal health insurance system in America creates a system with higher drug prices.

The US is an outlier among industrialized nations: it’s the only rich country that does not offer a publicly funded health system, relying instead largely on private insurance. This affects the pricing of drugs in several ways that are independent from the actual regulations imposed on pharmaceutical companies.

First, and perhaps most importantly, the power in setting the price for drugs is skewed toward drug manufacturers. Unlike countries where universal health coverage is in place, the negotiating is left to individual care providers rather than being in the hand of a large, publicly funded buyer that’s able to negotiate since it purchases most (if not all) of the drugs.

Just to add insult to injury, the US does have its own universal health coverage but only for those over 65 in the way of Medicare. But at Republican insistence, Medicare is barred from negotiating for lower drug prices!

So while the issue of drug pricing in the US is a complex one, there is much that can and should be done to improve the situation for Americans. Drug pricing has become an issue in the upcoming presidential election (at least for the Democratic candidates). It is up to us voters to make our voices heard on this issue!