January 26, 2018--Trump vs. Obama

Donald Trump launched his political career by savaging Barack Obama, beginning with the birther racism to accusing him of being a stealth Muslim to doing all he could first as a candidate and now as president to discredit and dismantle everything that was accomplished during the Obama eight years in the White House. 

It is as if Trump wants to nullify Obama's presidency (more racism) and delete his name from history. To make it as if Obama was not president. Forget that--to make it so that he never existed. 

For Trump's most ardent followers this is the definition of how to make America great again: Purge the country of people of color and anyone who is not Christian. Actually, not a Protestant. 

If one is looking for the Trump policy agenda all that is needed is to take out a list of Obama's achievements and invert them. Voilà, the Trump agenda is revealed. For example, most recently, most dramatically Obama-annihilating, Trump allowing all states bordered by our oceans to license oil companies the unfettered right to drill.

Try as Trump might to pull off this campaign to overturn Obama's record and place in history, the facts, assuming anyone is interested in them, present a very different picture.

Case in point, a recent Joe Scarborough op-ed column in the Washington Post, "The Damage Trump Has Done, Documented."

Drawing on data about the state of the economy from a January article in Forbes Magazine, not exactly a Bernie Sanders endorsed publication, "Trump's Economic Scorecard: One Year Since Inauguration," Scarborough compares how the economy fared during each presidency.

Most self-vaunted is the run up of the stock market. Trump claims there is no better evidence that his economic policies are working and that this is in contrast with the "failed" Obama record. During the first year of the Trump presidency the run-up in the Standard & Poor's average was a noteworthy 19.4%. But, though he never fails to reject the idea that he inherited a heating-up economy from Obama, the market did even better during Obama's first year--rising on the S&P an astonishing 23.5%.

In regard to jobs created Trump's numbers were lower in 2017 than in any of the first six years of Obama's presidency. And the unemployment rate declined faster under Obama than during Trump's first year in office.

The budget deficit last year was $666 billion, whereas it was a declining $585 a year earlier under Obama. And the national debt, a favorite target of conservatives, is now accruing at a more rapid rate than during the years of the Obama administration.

Then the trade deficit, an important indicator of economic health, was worse last year than in any of Obama's eight years.

There are things to criticize when it comes to the Obama record about the economy (for example the unrelenting growth in the gap between the wealthy and middle class), but things with Trump in regard to the economy, acknowledging its early achievements, are for the most part not as noteworthy as during the Obama years. 

One thing is certain, President Obama's record, which, in spite of Trump's obsessive assault on it, continues to endure while we may soon see the dismantling of the Trump presidency itself. And over time we will also see how history regards each of them. The outline of that, regardless of the Trump posturing, is already clear.

May 6, 2015--Liking Obama Again

A friend who back in 2008 supported the candidacy of Two-Americas John Edwards and then Likable-Enough Hillary Clinton after he dropped out, subsequently offering lukewarm support for Barack Obama when he defeated Hillary and then went through the same disillusionment cycle most of his supporters did after he was elected president when he couldn't seem to get much done domestically or act consistently internationally, over coffee the other day declared that she had gone back to liking him.

"Really?" I asked, a bit incredulously knowing her tepid interest in him.

"Yes, really."

"Tell me," I said.

"Well, first, consider the alternatives. John McCain and then George Romney. Does anyone think either one of them would have been a better president?"

"Actually, millions do. Have you checked out Fox News lately or radio talk shows?"

"Touché. But, since no one here is listening, I mean does any smart person think either McCain or Romney would be better?"

"I'll have to think about that since it feels a little elitist."

"Let me help you," my friend offered, "Those who still prefer McCain or Romney would have us at war with Iran. How does that sound? Part of my point is that we're not bombing them because Obama, who was mocked back in 2008 for saying he would negotiate with the Iranians, may be in the process of pulling off a truly historic deal which, if we got very lucky--and neither Republicans in the Senate nor Netanyahu in Israel mess things up--could, with Iran's help, redefine for the better many of the disputes and wars in the Middle East."

"I agree. Obama has messed up with red lines in Syria and not seeing the ISIS threat soon enough, but he knows the history of the region and realizes that when dealing with all the rivals factions one size for certain does not fit all."

"And so it may be one of those things-could-be-much-worse deals. Not my favorite reality--I'd like it to be simpler and more infused with hope and possibility--but life there is not reducible to a string of clichés."

"And domestically? Obamacare? I thought you hated that," I reminded my friend. "That he bargained away any possibility of Medicare for all, the famous single-payer option, when he may not have needed to."

"Well it's true that I think he was too quick to take that off the table but look at the results. First at least 16 million people now have medical insurance who didn't before Obamacare and even impartial parties acknowledge the cost of medical care has gone down and along with it so has our deficit. His critics were wrong on all fronts--that no one would sign up and costs would skyrocket. Obama gets a B+ from me for that."

"What about the economy? Yes, the stock market more than doubled during his six years in office, but what about the middle class and those in poverty? Didn't things get worse for them while the top one percent or five percent got richer and richer?"

"Again, no one wants to hear this anymore (though it's still true), but look at what Obama inherited and look where we are today."

"It's true," I said, "No one wants to hear about George W. Bush, saying it's now Obama's economy."

"It is. It is. But to ignore the economic crisis Obama inherited is not only unfair but intellectually irresponsible. To make a valid assessment of what Obama has done and failed to do it's necessary--beyond spouting talking points or making things up--to look at where things stood in January 2009 and how they are today. I already mentioned that the deficit is down by about two-thirds, unemployment levels are at 20-year lows, wages have ticked up a bit, the banks are being held somewhat more accountable, and the real estate market for most is stabilized. We also are seeing a strong dollar and are rapidly moving toward energy independence."

"And Obama gets credit for all of this?" I was skeptical.

"Of course not, but he's getting all the political blame for the widening gap between rich and poor (even by Republicans whose tax polices are really more responsible for that) and the continued slippage in the wellbeing of the middle class. So he's entitled to credit about the things that are working better."

"Anything else?"

"Well, this is admittedly just an outline. The full picture is more nuanced and balanced. This is to give you a glimpse of why I am liking Obama again."

"You never loved him."

"That's true, but I was enthusiastic about his election and to a lesser extent his reelection. But there are others things to like."

"Such as?"

"Immigration reform. I know it's controversial and maybe even illegal, but his executive order was a big, bold deal."

"Agreed."

"Then there's Cuba for another. A big another. About Cuba I say, enough already. They are not a threat and though the Castros are still in charge, somehow, with countries such as Saudi Arabia, to cite one example, we have decent relations even though they are the opposite of a democracy. In fact, there's more freedom in Cuba. Women can drive and everyone gets educated."

"And they have the best cigars."

"Also," holding up her cup for a refill, "better cafe con leche."

January 14, 2015--It's Not His (Obama's) Fault

My Florida friend Henry is counting the days until the end of the Obama administration.

"Only 664 to go. Days," he said jauntily the other day. "When I checked this morning on the Obama Countdown Clock that added up to 15,959 hours or 957,393 minutes. None too soon for me."

"You're pretty serious about this," I said. "I know you haven't liked him from the beginning but now you really seem to hate him. You're a smart guy otherwise, so tell me why you do."

"He's screwed everything up. In the Middle East, in race relations (and you know I'm not a racist), and especially the economy."

"The economy?" I couldn't let him get away with that. "I know you can't stand Obamacare and what you claim it means to you as a small business owner--though as I've pointed out to you through the years it's actually good for you with your staff of less than ten. But isn't the rest of the economy in pretty good shape exactly a week short of his having been in office six years?"

"Good shape? With so many still employed, salaries of middlc-class workers not growing, and all those young people still without jobs or underemployed?"

"Much of that is true. Things are far from perfect, but what do you say about his list of accomplishments--starting with gas prices. Aren't you impressed that that gas-guzzling pickup of yours is costing you at least $1,000 a year less to gas up than it did two, three years ago? You were blaming Obama for high gas prices then so does he get some credit now that they're lower?" He didn't respond.

"And what about your favorite--the stock market? When he took office it was languishing. But yesterday the S&P 500 Index closed at 2,023. That's a 145% percent increase. Not bad, yes? And a big deal for middle-class workers who have much of their retirement savings in stock funds. Does Obama get any credit for that?" Fiddling with his coffee, Henry didn't respond.

"And unemployment? The rate last week dropped to 5.6%, the lowest since 1999, the last year of the Clinton presidency. What do you think about Obama's role in that? You didn't hesitate to blame him when it was much higher so now that it's significantly lower, what do you think?" Again he ignored me.

"Then your actual favorite--inflation. You remember how five or six years ago you were touting Peter Schiff as your economist of choice who was predicted that because of Fed and Obama fiscal policies inflation would soon be at Weimar Republic levels and you were buying gold to protect yourself from the sky falling? How's the inflation rate looking to you now at 1.3 percent? These days we're actually worried about deflation. And how's your $1,900-an-ounce gold doing? The last time I checked it was way off its panicky peak and was selling for only $1,240 an ounce. And what's Schiff peddling these days? Not anything positive about the Obama Economy I suspect." More silence.

"I could go on but these are a few highlights which could also include low interest rates, a stronger dollar, how the deficit has been cut by more than a half--from $1.4 trillion annually to $514 billion-- and how America is becoming energy self-sufficient. So I guess this means you hate Obama for other reasons. Enlighten me. I'm willing to say you're not a racist, but what is it then?" He stared at his watch and said he needed to run. He had a meeting he needed to get to.

After he left Rona and I continued the conversation. She said, "One of my favorite things besides conservatives refusing to give Obama any credit for the improved economy is their explanation about why it's better. That they can't deny--that's it's better."

"I know where you're going with this."

"First, all of a sudden the leading Republican candidates for the presidential nomination are expressing concern about inequality and the plight of poor people."

"I saw that even Mitt Romney is. The same Mitt Romney who two years ago was moaning among rich people in Boca Raton about the 47 percent of Americans who are the 'takers.'"

"And then there was new Republican senate majority whip John Cornyn on Morning Joe two days ago ignoring the question about Obama's role in improving the economy while claiming that the reason things are better is because business leaders, when they saw the Republicans were about to take control of both houses of Congress, began to hire people. He suggested it was a sort of Mitch McConnell bump."

"This is so preposterous--the economy began doing better six years ago on the first day Obama took office and now Republicans are claiming that the good news is the result of the election in November, all of two months ago. I love it."

It was by then time for us to go. "One more thing," Rona said. "Is there really an Obama Countdown Clock?"

"Indeed there is. You can look it up on the Internet. In fact, you can even buy one."

"Amazing."

November 12, 2104--It's the Middle Class, Stupid

I promise--these will be my final comments about last week's midterm election.

My conclusion--It wasn't the economy, stupid, but the middle class.

The two are entwined, of course, but to understand what happened last Tuesday it's important to think about the economy from a middle-class perspective. This is especially true for Democrats if they, in our lifetimes, are to do better at the congressional and gubernatorial levels.

This time around, tactically, in campaigning, Democrat candidates avoided talking about the economy. This was part of their strategy to run as far away as possible from the unpopular president. The little Barack Obama said during the campaign season--again at Democrats' urging--was about how the economy was improving: unemployment was way down, the annual deficit during his first six years was more than cut in half, and the national debt was growing at a significantly reduced rate.

But if you have a job or are working two or three just to stand still, it doesn't excite or motivate you to learn that someone else, who had been unemployed, now has a job. And that person who now has a job might not be that enthusiastic either. He could be working just 20-30 hours a week, receiving no benefits, and earning only a little more than he would receive from various forms of public assistance.

So, very few in real-life situations are impressed economically, emotionally, or politically that the unemployment rate is down a percent or two. In fact, many don't even believe the numbers since they come from the government and are thus suspect. Because it has been a wageless recovery, what they are experiencing is their own precarious, deteriorating financial situation.

If you were in similar circumstances, what would you care about--the unemployment rate or your household's's bottom line?

Even more, who really cares other than theoretically about the deficit and the debt? This may sound cynical but, again, to people struggling with their own debt what's more real--what the government owes or their mortgage?

Those in the middle who are being squeezed hard--with everyone in the family working--may not know the statistics but they do know their earnings for more than a decade have not even kept pace with rising prices. They feel themselves working harder but slipping further and further behind.

And they are right.

The numbers support that perception. Since Barack Obama assumed the presidency, median inflation-adjusted middle-class income has declined. Last year it was $2,100 lower than it was in 2009. And lower still by $3,600 since 2001 when George W. Bush took office.

Blaming the government, especially those seemingly in charge (Obama and the Democrats, not Bush), is one way to deal with what has been happening to the middle class. They thought they were playing by the rules and that the miracle that has been the American economy would reward them or, more likely, their children. That trust has been betrayed.

Not to talk compassionately about this, as the Democrats didn't, not to focus all their progressive energy on the plight of the shrinking middle class, which they also didn't do, is not just politically ruinous but morally questionable.

It is hard to think what to suggest about this sad situation. What policies, what programs beyond empty promises would make a difference for the middle class? What evidence is there that any realistically realizable government policy might make a positive difference? Perhaps a middle-class tax cut? Anything else?

If true, then at least Democrats should take yet another lesson from Bill Clinton--figure out how to notice and feel people's pain and stop telling people what's good for them.

May 17, 2013--My Medicare

Now, from firsthand experience, I understand what that woman was telling me back last spring at a Newt Gingrich rally at the Boca Raton Jewish Center.

We had gone there, not so much because we were thinking about supporting Newt--far from it--but out of prurient curiosity: we wanted to know what Jews in their right mind would support someone who would, if improbably elected, get us involved in a shooting war with Iran the day after being inaugurated. On second thought, maybe for some that's why they turned out to cheer for Gingrich.

Anyway, Newt and Callista were late and we had a chance to chat with some of those in attendance. Beside an overarching obsession about U.S. policy toward Israel (most wanted America to sign off on anything Prime Minister Netanyahu deemed necessary to defend the state of Israel), beyond that was concern about our debt and what they saw to be excessive government spending.

"Just what would you do to cut spending?" Rona asked a woman of at least 80 whose St. John jacket was festooned with Gingrich buttons. "Cut defense?" She shook her head. "Veterans' benefits?" More head shaking. "How about medical research?"

"Absolutely not that," she said.

"So what's left? Maybe Medicare? On that we're spending $800 million a year. More than on defense."

"That's the last thing to cut."

"But isn't Medicare socialized medicine and doesn't it contribute more to the deficit than anything else?"

With this her face became so red that it overwhelmed her makeup and caused me to fear she would soon be in need of medical attention. "I don't want them to put their hands on my Medicare."

"But . . . "

"Don't 'but' me dear. But on the other hand," she growled, pointing at Rona, "they could cut your Medicare."

"That about summed it up," Rona said later, as we drove home. "They want to cut the federal budget but not anything that they feel they're entitled to."

"But it's OK to cut health care for people your age, which, by the way, also includes their children and grandchildren."

"I don't get it, but sad to say I do."

Well, earlier this week I had my first direct experience with Medicare. And, I confess, though I had my doubts about what it would be like--spoiled and used to high-quality private care, I suspected I'd be treated like a patient in a clinic--it was amazing and, like her, I don't want anyone putting their hands on my Medicare.

My first stop was with the orthopedic surgeon. Fifteen years ago he performed orthoscopic surgery on a torn meniscus in my left knee. Recently, I have been having similar symptoms in my other knee and thought I probably would need a similar procedure.

When I called to enquire about an appointment and told his assistant I was now old enough to be covered by Medicare, I was surprised and pleased to learn that Dr. Delany accepts it. To tell the truth I didn't know exactly what that meant; but since he had done such good work on me in the past and was still highly regarded, I said I would like to see him, thinking whatever it cost me out-of-pocket, as the insurers put it, I could fortunately afford it and I did want to benefit by his expertise.

Remarkably he remembered me, or at least my knees, and after catching up about what we had both been up to for more than a decade, he examined me and took five or six X-rays. From that, he suspected I again likely needed meniscus work, but to know for certain I had to have an MRI.

His assistant made an appointment for me for later in the day and when I asked what I needed to do to settle my bill, she said, "Nothing," that I was fully covered by Medicare.

Never before, with my gold-standard Aetna private insurance, had I seen a doctor or had tests done and not been expected to pay at least 20 percent of the cost associated with the treatment. So, to be sure I had not misunderstood, I asked again and again was assured that I owed nothing and would not receive any bills.

"But wait until I have the MRI," I said to the ever-skeptical Rona, who had accompanied me, "I bet it'll cost me at least $200. After all, they are sending me to one of those fancy Upper East Side imagining places where the MRI machines cost $2.0 million each."

And quite posh it turned out to be. And efficient too. I had a 1:30 appointment and by 2:00 was already being inserted into the MRI tube. They used some dreamy classical music to drown out the inevitable pounding; and, when I had my clothes back on and went up to find out what I owed, I again was told that Medicare would cover all of it, including the analysis of the MRI images.

So if I run into that Gingrich enthusiast next winter, I'll tell her about my experiences; but add that not only should Rona and her children be covered at current levels but that this government program should be universalized--Medicare for all--replacing Obamacare with this clearly fine single-payer system.