Observations on Our President and His Administration - May 2017

Can 62 Million People Be Wrong?

How did Donald J. Trump get 62 million voters on his side?  Why were they drawn to him?  To say they are uneducated, gullible, misguided deplorables is foolish.  Some may be, but so are some of the people who voted for Hillary Clinton.  There are plenty of intelligent, educated people who like Trump.  Why?

My guess is that many people of modest incomes are drawn to his promises and to some extent to his dominant  personality with simple assurances of making life better - sometimes you just want to believe.  Others with high incomes see someone who can cut taxes aimed solely at them: the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), the estate/inheritance tax, and the Obamacare tax surcharge. They all look past his dysfunctional behaviors to what they think he will do for them.  The biggest attraction - jobs.  The slow growth of income inequality that has pushed the nation apart economically has contributed to its political separation as well.  For those left behind over the last 30 years, the president’s offer to “Make America Great Again” is an offer to boost their paychecks.  That’s hard to turn down.  If only it were true. 

Some people will keep their jobs or get their old jobs back - for a while.  But jobs are driven by economic forces that are only somewhat shaped by political actions.  The hard truth is that all of it is interconnected in a global system that is not simply manipulated.  Removing regulations for oil, gas, and coal companies may add a few jobs.  The cost will be clean air and water for everyone else.  Is that fair?  Tax cuts will add to corporate profits, but where will those profits go?  If they go into capital investments will those investments add jobs, or replace them with better automation?  Or will the profits go out as dividends to shareholders?  Or will they boost wages or corporate bonuses?  Will changing trade agreements save some jobs at the expense of others?  Trade is a coin with two sides and only one is being presented.  People are being sold simplicity at the expense of accuracy.


What Do 65 Million Other People See in Donald Trump?

President Trump is a fellow a lot of people find easy to dislike.  Why?

I have a personal inclination to put Mr. Trump into the context of the kid at school you stayed away from because he was a braggart and a bully.  That kind of kid often had a few henchmen that formed his clique, but they were an inherently unpleasant bunch.  I have no proof Mr. Trump was that kind of kid, but his present behavior reminds me of that. 

When someone regularly attacks other people, belittles them, insults them, lies about them, manufactures and distorts “facts” to fit his own narrative, lies about himself, and boasts about accomplishments that are not his, he runs counter to the behavior of most people.  When someone is antagonistic toward others, it invites other people to respond in the same fashion toward that person.  Mr. Trump reaps what he sows.  There are people we instinctively like and people we don’t.  Mr. Trump falls into that later category for a lot of us.  It may be “gut feel,” but it derives from little bits of behavior that add up to put the other person on a scale somewhere between attractive and repulsive, or safe and dangerous.  While “likeability” is not a requirement for office, unpopularity is definitely a detriment to getting support for an agenda.

President Trump, as I observe him, speaks without conviction except when it comes to his own personal aggrandizement or any proposal that he thinks will contribute to that.  He is animated at self-serving rallies, but deadpan when delivering most prepared addresses.  His oratory belies any sense of conviction in his message when it is professionally scripted.  His body language is often stiff with a stern countenance.  This is a man who, in public situations, does not exude personal warmth or even a true sense of concern for others, no matter what he mouths.  His sentences are disjointed and at times make no sense.  Experts analyzed the change in his speech pattern from his earlier years compared to today and there is a clear muddling of his train of expression.  At age 70, our president may be showing the signs of age or worse.  We now know about his  notoriously short attention span and we have evidence of his disdain for facts and accuracy.  We know his staff shapes information to appeal to his ego needs by inserting his name in documents.  We can see his distrust for information from sources other than his family or what he personally gathers himself.  We can infer his buy-in to the Steve Bannon world view from his rhetoric and actions.  All this adds up to the risk there will be bad presidential decision making.  Throw in nuclear weapons and the prospects are beyond scary.


House of Cards and Filling an Inside Straight

Filling the White House with relatives is a symptom of Mr. Trump’s lack of trust in outsiders.  When you run a business, you can assume that others will try take advantage of you.  It’s an unfortunate fact of life.  When you run your business in a way that takes advantage of them, you double down on your distrust.  Mr. Trump trusts family and a few close associates, hence the presence of what amounts to a royal court in the White House.  The many meetings Trump has held with leaders of various groups are good in one sense, but sadly revealing in another.  Trump trusts what he hears first hand - his own personal knowledge.  That’s why people are invited to the White House.  It’s great to consult with people as he has done (Obama was too reclusive).  However, when it betrays a distrust of information not gathered personally, it shows a severe limitation on the information available for good decision making.  At some point running the nation, you must trust people you do not know and have never met.

Who are the people being chosen to run the government as department secretaries?  Ben Carson, Betsy DeVos, Wilbur Ross, Rick Perry, Scott Pruitt, Jeff Sessions.  Why have they been chosen?   This just does not seem to be a selection of the best and brightest to run the government.    Skeptically speaking, they seem to be persons who are either easily directed to do a higher bidding, or are henchmen who can be entrusted with a wrecking ball for their departments.  If the White House is the brain for government and its thinking is weak, and the departments are the spine of government with bad vertebrae and slipped discs, then our national body is in bad shape.  In short, the entire executive branch is enfeebled and over time the body of the nation will feel the effects of it.


The Captain and the Crew of the S.S. USA.

It is however, a mistake to demonize all aspects of President Trump and his actions.  Even people we don’t like occasionally do the right thing, or something we do like.  Among these are protecting jobs, enforcing laws, fighting crime, and saving taxpayer dollars.  Some of Mr. Trump’s action do have positive intents and potentially positive outcomes.  Regrettably, others do not. 

The changes that Trump is putting forth are essentially the far right side’s view of running government.  Even if Trump were out of office, that philosophy could be represented by someone else with whom we might be more comfortable as a normal person (Rand Paul, Newt Gingrich, Mike Pence). 

An analogy may help clarify our situation.  We are all on the same boat, the S.S. USA.  We may not all agree on its course, but if we feel the captain and the crew are  competent, we know we will get to the destination in one piece.  We may be uncomfortable with the destination, but semi-comfortable with the journey itself.  In the case of the Trump administration, half the nation is not comfortable with either the course being set or the captain and the crew running the ship.  Hence, the personal vitriol and attacks against the administration itself.  People not only feel their ship has been hijacked, but that the hijackers don’t know how to run it.  Instead of steering it gently to the new course, they have turned the wheel hard over and tossed people about the ship.  The nation is seasick from it.  The novice mistakes, unforced errors, poor tactics, and self-serving behaviors of the administration so far only reinforce the perception of incompetence.  When the National Review prints an article denouncing the president’s claim to conservative credentials, it is clear he has problems on both sides of the aisle.  Mutiny on the S.S. USA is a real prospect.  Whether it will be peaceful or violent remains to be seen.

What are some of the signs the captain and his crew aren’t capable?  Careless tweets top the list.  Erroneous assertions of being wire tapped by President Obama.  Unfounded insistence there were three million fraudulent voters and appointing a commission to investigate this phantom fraud.  Firing James Comey because it would take the heat off the Russian investigation.  Asking heads of two intelligence agencies to put out word that he isn’t guilty of any collusion with the Russians.  Violating normal protocol to share classified information with the Russians.  Attacking the legitimate press as “fake news” when a free press is essential to democracy.  Issuing poorly prepared executive orders that don’t hold up in court.  Denouncing the judiciary when they ruled against him.  Having spokespersons who must backpedal daily to explain constantly changing positions and statements.  Alienating allies with public criticisms.  Congratulating foreign autocrats because they “won” when they are doing things that are against our democratic values.  Feuding with the government ethics office over disclosures and rules.  Trying to camouflage a ban on Muslims as guarding against terrorists.  Touting “extreme vetting” when existing vetting has worked for years.  Denying climate change.  Taking credit for results when the cause of those results comes from the work of the prior administration.  Taking frequent weekend trips at major expense to taxpayers.  Failing to fill many top and mid level positions.  Supporting a rushed and flawed health care bill that wasn’t even understood.  Pushing for a wall on the border because it is popular, not because it will be effective.  Generally wasting taxpayer money on personal whims and beliefs.  There are just so many blunders and missteps and ham-fisted attempts at improper influence that putting trust in Trump is like sending money to the Nigerian banker who emailed you.  The administration’s “oughta know better” meter is off the scale.

Some media pundits postulate that maybe Trump’s actions are a clever negotiating strategy to keep the opposition off balance.  That just isn’t the case.  This is not some clever fox walking and talking like a duck to fool people.  It’s a duck that tweets.

Are we looking at a president who may be psychologically unfit for office and how will we know?  The press and staff hid FDR’s polio crippled legs for most of his administration.  Kennedy’s affairs were kept quiet.  Republicans tried to keep Nixon from being impeached until it was overwhelmingly obvious he broke the law.  Reagan’s Alzheimer’s disease was swept under the rug.  Trump’s staff seems to be doing everything it can to whitewash his errant behaviors.  As a result, the media has to double down in its scrutiny of his actions.


Setting a Course

The administration is taking shape along two lines. 

The first is the philosophy and strategy that originates with Steve Bannon.  Trump, himself, would appear to have only three guiding principles:  1) Win, or claim to win; 2) Look good and get praised; 3) Make a good deal for himself.  None of these has much to do with the agenda of any political party or the welfare of the American people.  The ideology for the administration is provided by Steve Bannon to the figurehead of Donald Trump.  Mr. Trump delivers it to the populace in a style enough people find appealing that it gets bought by them without being understood.  He is the unwitting P. T. Barnum for the alt-right vision of America.

The second is Trump’s determination to deliver on his campaign promises.  Normally keeping promises is a worthwhile thing, but only if the promises are rational and realistic.  George Bush had the courage of his convictions.  Admirable in itself, but his convictions were wrong and we are still living with that problem.  The same holds true for some of Trump’s promises.

By now it is becoming clear what the thrust of the Trump (Bannon) administration looks like, especially with the publishing of the proposed budget.  Given the premise that the government has become its own “deep state” with an overreaching bureaucracy (a view with some merit), the administration seeks to strip away its influence.  Removing over-regulation is not a bad thing in itself.  However, looking at what is being stripped and what is being supported reveals some misshapen priorities.  Defense, which already gets $600 billion a year (half the discretionary budget), gets more.  Education, environment, research, diplomacy, etc. get less.  The sciences and medicine, areas where progress could benefit everyone, are being more than decimated by cuts.  Add to that the appointment of department secretaries whose belief in facts and science is marginal at best, and who bring old allegiances to the industries they now regulate, and the picture is bleak.

Looking beyond just the cuts to who benefits, it is clear that the losers are the general population and the winners are corporations and the already wealthy.  The claim that this is a new style of  budget that focuses on helping tax payers instead of benefit recipients fails to explain that most personal income taxes are paid by a small percentage of top earners.   Three percent of filers pay 52% of all personal income taxes.  Sixteen percent pay almost 80% of all personal income taxes. The tax cut claim sounds like it benefits all, but clearly not as equally as the omission suggests.  It does however, bring to the surface what is going to become a critical decision point for the nation within the next decade.  That is the questions of: 1) What we can really afford to pay for?  2) Who pays for it?  3) Who benefits or is hurt in the process?


The Numbers Crunch

On the other side of the cuts in the budget are projections of economic growth.  Economists estimate 1.9% yearly.  The Trump budget estimates 3%.  That might not seem like a huge difference, but over ten years it is very significant.  It is enough to hide the fact that the budget does not balance.  As the old saying goes, “It the numbers don’t work, work the numbers.”  The Trump administration is only one in a long list of administrations that played fast and loose with the numbers.  George Bush (43) hid the cost of the Iraq war outside the budget.  Obama fudged the real cost of the Affordable Care Act betting on the idea that once it was installed it would be hard to dislodge even when the math went bad - exactly what has happened so far.

One of the central problems plaguing government is the growth of its role in all aspects of society, it’s expansion into benefit plans for the population making them increasingly dependent, and the ever growing federal debt.  As a nation, we will reach a crunch point over all of this.  The longer this is postponed, the more difficult and disruptive the solution will be.

The short story is that we are spending more than we are taking in and it’s been that way for a long time.  Congress is addicted to spending and presidents are addicted to popular programs.  The known elephants in the room are: Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Defense, and the Federal Debt/Deficit.  As the baby boom generation sweeps in to get their benefits, a crisis will develop.  Those benefits are funded by current contributions of existing wage earners, not from a huge pool of boomer savings - that was spent on their parents SS and Medicare.  With many current earners facing stagnant real wages, benefits will require even more taxes or deficit spending.  A national debate will develop over the obligation to take care of aging Americans, versus the necessity of keeping the working population healthy, economically sound, and happy.  To preserve the nation, the young must prevail.

There is no magic math to fix this problem, but a prosperous economy would certainly be a big help.  More debt to fund benefits adds a hidden burden to the young and middle aged.  Eventually the interest payments on the national credit card will overtake the budget.  Even nations can’t make minimum payments forever.  More taxes adds an obvious burden to existing workers.  And, to compound the issue, taking money from their paychecks reduces their ability to fund their own retirements which creates a cascade of fiscal dependency on the government for each subsequent generation.  The economically viable alternatives are to tax the rich considerably more, eliminate benefits for the wealthy elderly (“wealthy” being a very relative term), and cutting benefits for current and future retirees.  None of these is politically possible until the system actually begins to break, at which point the fix will be devastating.  The parents who had their kids living with them for years after school will find themselves living with those same kids again in their old age.  Benefits will be rationed to preserve the health of productive workers over the health of aging retirees.  The “overtaxed” 3 - 16% of high income taxpayers will move or hide assets.  Money protects money.


Future Prospects

As a nation we have been on a teeter totter going up and down as liberals and conservatives alternate control the government.  Sometimes we have been stuck with both feet off the ground as each side held just enough weight to offset the other through the executive and legislative branches of government.  This constant up and down and deadlock has produced little net progress as each side tries to undo the other and reconstruct a different society.  Moderates, moderation, and collaboration have been shoved aside to the detriment of all.  The nation is in an unsustainable situation.  Either moderation will reassert itself, or some event will drastically tip the teeter totter to one side for an extended period.  If we cannot find compromise, we will default to either a society of self-reliance and small government or one of socialism and large government.  The danger is that when one side wins and the other loses, there is a long lingering desire to even the score.

There is a lot to be worried about in this administration.  Some people who like President Trump have labeled this concern as “liberal sour grapes” over a lost election and the failure to keep the nanny state alive.  Some of it is.  However, missing from that perspective are the concerns of independents, moderates, and conservatives who see the man and his agenda as not just a shift in policy, but as a genuine threat to rational governance based on facts, coherent foreign policy, and the operation of democracy itself.  Enough people voted for Donald Trump that now we all have him.  That doesn’t mean accepting what he does is the right thing to do.