October 1, 2019--2018 Midterms

If one needs evidence about the importance of voting, look no further than the 2018 Midterms.

If people hadn't turned out the Democrats would not have gained control of the House of Representatives and if that hadn't occurred we wouldn't know about Rudy Giuliani freelancing in Ukraine; we wouldn't have learned as we did yesterday that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was on the line in July when Trump attempted to get the Ukrainian president to come up with dirt about Joe Biden and his son; and we wouldn't have heard about Attorney General Bill Barr's intentional mischaracterization of the Mueller Report and all the other scut work he has done to protect and cover for his president.

And who knows what breaking news there will be today.

So, if you know of anyone who says they are not planning to vote unless Bernie or Mayor Pete or Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden is nominated, take them aside, put an arm on their shoulder, and remind them of this.

November 20, 2018--Jack's Take

"I know, you think I've been ignoring you"--that had occurred to me--"Well, I have been. Since Election Day." Jack was on the line. 

"How," Jack said. "did Obama put it after the 2010 midterms? That he and the Democrats took a 'shellacking'? Well, that just happened to us. Republicans in general and Trump and his people specifically. As he put it, it was as if he was on the ballot. Which is true. He made the election all about him and try as he might to spin what happened as a big win it was a disaster."

"I agree with this but frankly I'm surprised you are feeling this way. You prided yourself for having been the first person in town to put out Trump lawn signs. And the first person I know who very early on--when he seemed like a joke--to have predicted that not only would Trump win the nomination but also that he would win the election."

"Well let me then be the first Trump person you know to predict that if he runs for reelection (and that is not a certainty) he will lose. Except for two things."

"What pray tell are those?"

"Number one, if you guys nominate Bernie or, number two, you nominate Warren. Two losers. Even a weakened Trump would easily beat either one of them. They're going to win Pennsylvania or Ohio or Michigan or Florida or Wisconsin? States that the ultimate winner needs to carry? Get real. This is not going to happen with a candidate who will be almost 80 in 2020, who's from Brooklyn originally and now from Vermont, a socialist no less? Or a Harvard professor who's from Massachusetts? From my perspective it should only happen."

"I don't entirely disagree with you," I said, "The Dems this time around were really smart about who they ran for Congress. Military veterans, some in the right places who are social conservatives, a few deficit hawks, some who go to church regularly, and others who support the Second Amendment. Up in Maine one of the Democrats running for the House--and who won, Jared Golden--ran a whole bunch of commercials that included video of him on a rifle range."

"Yeah, they ran a lot of Republicans who pretended to be Democrats."

"Not true," I said, "the people I am talking about are mainly Democratic moderates and they appealed to a lot of people who in the past were called 'Reagan Democrats' because for decades they had voted the straight Democratic ticket but switched to vote for Reagan after the Democrats began to run candidates who were too elitist, too liberal, too out of touch with average people. Like Michael Dukakis."

I continued, "But what about the Mueller investigation? What happens if he issues a report that exposes all sorts of criminal activity carried out by Trump and his family?"

"That would be the best thing that could happen to us."

"What?" I was incredulous, "It's only 10:30 in the morning but have you been drinking?"

"No, and I'm taking my meds." He chuckled, sounding like the old swaggering Jack.

"I'm glad to hear that, but deal with the issue--what will happen when Mueller exposes all sorts of crimes--big ones--backed up with  emails and recordings of cell phone calls and the corroborating testimony of Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, and a half dozen others? I fail to see how that could that be good news from your perspective."

"Look, it's obvious that all Republican in Congress and the right-wing media are terrified that if they say anything critical of Trump--forget negative--he will support people when they are up for reelection to go after them in primaries. No matter what he does a core of Republicans, maybe half of them, will stick with him and vote as he tells them to vote. Even, remember, if he kills someone on Fifth Avenue. In other words, Trump would primary anyone who says a critical thing about him. At least that's what has them shaking in their boots." He paused to hear my reaction.

"I need to run in a few minutes so could you speed this up?"

"You're back in New York, the Big Satan, for a couple of days and already you're in a rush."

"Well, I am. I happen to have a doctor's appointment."

"Nothing too serious, I hope."

"I'll let you know the next time we talk. But, please, finish your thought about Mueller."

"Simple--his report will give these quivering Republicans political cover."

"I think I see where you're heading with this."

"If Mueller provides conclusive evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, Republicans will begin to back away from Trump, claiming their behavior--behavior they look forward to displaying since softening up their rhetoric is the only way to save themselves. They will say, 'What are we supposed to do with this mountain of evidence? Ignore it?' They have no choice but to back away from Trump while absolving themselves of blame. They might even fool enough people to win some primaries, rescuing themselves because by 'reluctantly' (put that in quotes) accepting what Mueller reports they will be able to pretend that they were reluctant Trump supporters all along. It will remove what wind is left in Trump's sails. It will be like hiding behind Mueller's skirt. This is why the ever-slippery Lindsay Graham is sounding as if he is uncoupling himself from Trump. He'll soon be on the lookout to find someone new to cuddle up to."

"I can see all of this happening. But why, from your perspective, is this good news? With your boy, Trump being brought down?"

"Here's the dirty little secret." Jack lowered his voice as if not wanting to be overheard. "Because Trump is being exposed as a loser. His whole thing has been to present himself as a winner. Remember during the campaign he kept saying, 'There will be so much winning you'll get tired of winning?'"

"I remember that."

"Well, after Election Day and the Mueller report he won't be able to get away with saying that anymore. Seeing nearly 40 Republican seats in the House flip to Democrats doesn't look like winning. Especially to Republicans in Congress who care only about their version of winning--getting reelected. Wait and see what will happen to Republican senators up for reelection in 2020 if they stay rafted up with Trump."

"But you already have him either not running in two years or if he does defeated by a Dem other than Sanders or Warren. So you have me totally confused about what you think or would like to see happen. Not what Republicans in general or members of Congress are up to. Let me put it to you directly--do you want Trump to be reelected or defeated? Or maybe just disappear?"

Half ignoring me, Jack said, "After last Tuesday there's blood in the water and everyone in Congress knows that. The Mueller report will just be the clincher. But crucial nonetheless since the Republicans can use it to justify their own independence from Trump and will not need to depend on riding his coat tales."

"But," Jack continued, still hushed, "Here's the secret--Trump will lose even to Elizabeth Warren."

"What?" It's that bad for him? I thought you said she or Bernie would lose? Now I'm totally confused."

"To tell you the truth I was trying to make myself feel better. I wasn't thinking things through. I was trying to begin to reconcile myself to a very unpleasant situation. The prospect of Warren or Sanders in the White House."

"But, remember me and my lawn signs," Jack said, "In the prediction business I have a pretty good track record. Though next time around things won't turn out so good."

"Again, what are you predicting? We're on the phone but I can feel you smiling. Like you're playing with me. And now I have to go, without enough time to be able to figure out what you're saying about your own position."

"Good luck with the doctor," he said, laughing and hanging up.

November 7, 2018--The Economy, Stupid

Briefly since I was up all night listening to the election results--

First, I did pretty well with my predictions. 

Beto O'Rourke did lose by about three points (which for a Democrat in Texas is remarkable) and one would think that would end any talk about his president possibilities in two years, but last night on MSNBC there was chat about his running and in this morning's New York Times speculation about his potential candidacy.

Then, by far the biggest headline from the evening's results was the Democrats winning control of the House of Representatives. By a somewhat bigger margin than predicted by most. Adam Schiff, who will become chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, essentially announced that in January there will be wide-ranging investigations of Trump and his minions, including demands that they have access to his tax returns. 

The takeover of the House by Democrats will also assure that Mueller's eventual report will see the light of day. Even if Trump fires everyone associated with the investigation Schiff and his colleagues will have the power to subpoena it and make it public. 

And, one bonus from Schiff's ascension, is that we won't have to pay attention anymore to the departing chairman, Trump funky Devin Nunes.

On the Democratic side there did not appear to be any stars waiting for 2020 to be born. Perhaps Gavin Newsome, who will become California's governor might turn out to be credible. I know nothing about him (all talk about California presidential candidates have thus far centered around Senator Kamala Harris), but as my father would point out if he were still around--he has "presidential hair."

Finally (and then back to bed) though James Carville's insight when it comes to national elections is that it's always the economy, stupid, that was not true last night. It was about healthcare, healthcare, healthcare and immigration, immigration, immigration. And, yes, concern about Trump's abhorrent behavior. A full 30 percent said to vote against him was a major reason why they turned out.

Thinking about going forward, it will be important to see how many white women and young people voted, for whom, and by what numbers. Because by 10:00 am today the 2020 election moves to center stage.

November 5, 2018--What Are We So Afraid Of?

It is not inappropriate, the day before the most consequential midterm election in memory--perhaps in all of American history--to explore the power of the defining political issue--Fear.

This time around, we really do have nothing but fear itself to fear.

Fear is the central theme, the emotion being evoked by the defining presence in the campaign--Donald Trump, who has nationalized the process. 

Rather than this election being about Congress, which by definition is what midterm elections are--they occur midway through a president's term of office, usually his first term, by its nature it is about 435 separate House of Representatives and this year 35 separate Senate contests--Trump has turned it into something different, something unprecedented. 

Because of Trump's behavior--daily or twice daily rallies, endless political tweets and interviews--this midterm is a version of a presidential reelection campaign. In this case, Trump is seeking something resembling reelection (or minimally a vote of confidence) after fewer than two years in office. 

He has absconded with the electoral process and has tried to make it all about him. 

I suspect he has succeeded. 

Instead of the Democrats having an outside chance to pick up two or three Senate seats (and thus regain the majority), as a result of Trump's endless campaigning the Republicans are likely to flip a couple of seats and thus hold onto the majority, and rather than a Blue Wave that would see Democrats flipping 50 seats in the House, it looks as if 30 is more likely (which thankfully is just enough to regain the speakership).

This is the conventual wisdom. But I worry since this also feels like deja-vu all over again, Remember how "everyone" thought Hillary would easily defeat Trump in 2016? 

Retrospectively we know that fear then was also something Trump was perversely skilled at stoking.

This time, he has focused on the alleged threat represented by a so-called "caravan" of Central Americans heading north through Mexico toward the U.S. border. Taking his talking points from Fox News, Trump, without foundation, tells those attending his rallies that not only do the marchers include "very tough people, "M-13 gang members, but also how many are infected with exotic diseases, including leprosy (which though not easily contagious sounds very frightening and, for the Evangelicals in his base, is the disease most frequently mentioned in the Bible).

Caravans of asylum-seekers are not new. There have been any number of them over the years. Most recently, in April, on Trump's watch, 1,500 headed toward San Diego. About 300 made it. Only 14 were arrested. Almost all others were mothers with young children. Objectively not much of a threat but rich fodder for demonologizing.

The current caravan is estimated to be larger. Still 800 miles from the border, based on the April numbers perhaps 700-800 will reach U.S. Customs at about Christmas time. Impartial observers report that as in the past most are mothers with children.

Nonetheless, this minimalist threat is enough to incite Trump's most fervent followers. His order to send up to 15,000 U.S. troops to join the 20,000 border patrol agents in defense of the border (which is illegal for the military to do) is a fearful over-deployment of resources. But it does contribute to fear about the magnitude of the threat. It is thus more a political than a tactical move. After Tuesday, no matter the results, expect this military ploy to evaporate from the headlines.

More disturbing, what has happened to us? To Americans? Why have we become so fearful? How can it be that this caravan of women and children is enough to paralyze more than a third of the population?

Have Americans who responded so bravely to real threats such as the attack on Pearl Harbor and on 9/11 the World Trade Center, become such wusses that we need the Army to protect us from women and children in flip-flops marching 1,000 miles to seek asylum?

For a depressing number of Americans the answer appears to be yes.

October 23, 2018--Political Slut

Midterm election day is just two weeks from today. 

Two weeks at the end of a campaign can be a lifetime in voter mood swings. And, if you agree that this is the most consequential election of our lifetime, I hope you will consider how I am viewing it.

More than anything else voters need to restore some check and balance to the current political situation. James Madison was right--our system is designed to have divided government in order to prevent the emergence of a totalitarian leader. We face that prospect today. It is aided and abetted by the fact that the president and both houses of Congress are in the control of just one party.

Since the president is not on the ballot (except as a self-nationalizing surrogate), it is essential to flip at least one House. I think, forget the Senate. If anything, Republicans are likely to increase their majority there by at least two seats. Three or four incumbent Democratic senators are likely to lose and at most two states will switch from red to blue. Thus, the Senate will almost certainly remain in Mitch McConnell's gulag.

The House, though, is another matter. There, I am projecting, that as many as 35 Republicans will be defeated but only two or three Democrats. Enough to return the House to Democratic control.

But with Trump, the unusual often turns out to be the new usual. He has made this election about himself and has demonstrated the capacity to bring about electoral surprises. For example, two years ago by winning the presidency.

So, I say, when considering who to vote for forget totally issues that may be close to your heart. Become the same kind of political slut I am--obsessed about only one thing: winning.  

If you are passionate about gun control (I am) ignore the fact that the Democrat from your district running for the House is against what you consider to be meaningful gun control, hold your nose and vote for him or her anyway. (The Democratic House challenger here in Maine is featured in his TV ads as comfortable at a rifle range.)

If you are committed to single-payer healthcare--Medicare for all--(as I am) and if your Democratic candidate opposes this because he or she sees it as a budget-buster, for the moment forget that and vote for her or him.

And if you feel so strongly about preserving unfettered abortion rights that in all other circumstances it would be a litmus-test issue for you (I generally do feel this way), for the good of the larger cause, take a few deep breaths and pull the lever for the Democrat running in your district who supports some limitations on abortion--say, late term abortions--because unless he or she does take this position, to line up with the will of her or his potential constituents, the Republican will win and this will undermine the larger agenda--the desperate imperative to win back the House.

You get my point.

After we win, we can go back to debating issues. To do so now is a luxury we cannot afford. 

Also, during this final two weeks get involved. 

Make get-out-the-vote calls. Especially to Hispanic voters. Even if you are agoraphobic or have medical issues, you can do this from home in your pajamas. There is no excuse just to vote. Get directly to work. It is that important. 

There is no underestimating how empowered Trump and his people will feel and be if the Republicans retain control of all three branches of government (also, add the Supreme Court with its 5-4 conservative majority to this list). Unless some limitations are imposed on Trump's power by defeating him in at least the House (where serious investigations can take place as soon as January 1st) it will be a dangerous and depressing two or six more years.

Trump needs to be deflated. Right now. In two weeks.

January 30, 2018--November 6, 2018

It's not too early to mark this date on your calendar. 

It's midterm Election Day and on that date there is one thing, actually the only thing we can do to begin the process to remove Donald Trump from the presidency. 

And thus it is the most important day in decades. 

Forget fantasies that the Robert Mueller investigation and eventual report will bring that about. No matter what he finds Republicans until January 1, 2019 will control the House of Representatives where Impeachment must originate and there is no way, even if Mueller has Trump on tape and plays the tape of Trump directing Michael Flynn and his sons to lie to the FBI and Congress, it will not matter to Trump's followers or GOP lawmakers. They will see those tapes as fabricated by the FBI just the way they believe TV feeds of the landing on the moon were shot on a Hollywood sound stage.

They will claim it is fake news, that a conspiracy within the FBI, CIA, and Department of Justice is responsible for the findings and thus should not to be taken seriously. 

Democrats will attempt to keep the process going, so will most of the media, but at most it will be a 10-day story with business returning to usual as the public quickly becomes bored with the whole thing. It will be right in the middle of the football season and what can one expect.

Only Trump's rock-solid 30 percent of the population will remain on the alert. These are the most conspiratorial-minded of Americans, the least informed, the most paranoid. As crazy as they may be, combined with the billionaire GOP donors they control the Republican party and House members especially are in thrall to them.

But unless Republican House members are trounced in November, which at the moment seems possible--but just possible--we will not have just two more years of Trump but a total of six more.

So we need to get activated right now. 

We need to volunteer to work for our local Democratic committees. Especially in the purple or swing states. We need to pay particular attention to House members, all of whom are up for reelection with the exception of the growing number, mainly Republicans, who have already announced they will not be seeking reelection. 

And it is essential that we contribute and raise money to fund the cost of campaigns for Congress. Someone, all of us, need to chip in to offset the tens of millions the Koch Brothers are already making available to GOP candidates. And who, as a result, after the election, will be owned by the Kochs.

There is the cliche that an occasional election is the most consequential of our lifetimes. Most times it isn't. This time it may be true.

Koch Brothers

November 11, 2014--Liberals

Shortly before leaving Maine we had breakfast with two very liberal friends. This was about a week before the recent midterm election and part of what we discussed was how they thought the results would turn out.

"Don't believe the polls," Arnie said, "He may be behind, but I feel certain LePage will be reelected governor. And easily. In fact, I predict we'll see a Republican sweep across the country."

"Why's that?" I asked. My read of things was that the GOP had a good change to take control of the Senate but thought Dems would do well in governors races.

"That's because we liberals don't get off our fat asses for midterm elections. We save our political energy for those years when presidents are elected. But we're good at complaining--in fact we make an art form of it--but when it comes to taking action we're not so good."

"Wouldn't you think," Jim said, "that women, young people, and minorities would be racing to vote this time around? Because if they don't, say goodbye to reproductive health care and, for that matter, health care more generally. And what do you think will happen to voting rights and education funding, especially money to help low-income youngsters pay for college?"

"When all the votes are in," Arnie said, "we'll hear all the whining and moaning and groaning on MSNBC."

"And excuse making," Jim added. "How the system is broken. Blah, blah, blah."

Sure enough, things turned out even worse than Arnie and Jim predicted and, yes, there is now all that liberal finger pointing.

Back in New York, after the election, I took up the conversation with other friends. They too complained that the system is broken. When I asked them what they had done beside sending out some checks to favored candidates and causes they avoided eye contact. I'm not even sure they voted. But they were full of jizzum about, again, the broken system.

When I said that I felt the system was broken only for us liberals, that conservatives are feeling pretty good these days about the system, that they are looking forward to that system getting government out of their lives (that should only be) and out of the business of spending their tax money on people who don't want to get off their duffs and work to feed their kids.

"Well," Sarah said, "that's because they have all these beliefs, unverified ones by the way, about the natural order of things. A version of survival of the fittest where competition and the market will take care of our problems. That is, if we leave things alone. As you know from history, this just doesn't work. But, if they believe," she said sarcastically, "to them it must be true."

"I agree with some of that," I said, "But let me ask you something--in fact, let me also ask myself something."

"What's that?" an equally frustrated Doug asked.

"Are there any beliefs that we have? Liberals I mean. Beliefs that are equally not verifiable from evidence?"

"You mean all the research and talk about the fundamental, even neurological differences between belief-oriented versus evidence-oriented people and how that affects political behavior?"

"Maybe. But not to get into that discussion, which in my view is based on still insufficient evidence, I'm simply asking if we who consider ourselves open-minded and minimally fact- or scientifically-oriented, if there are things we just believe."

Both Sarah and Doug stroked their chins, trying hard too come up with something they believe that was based on something like faith. I too sat sipping my coffee, asking myself the same thing, admitting it's not something I had thought too much about, satisfied as I am with how objective and rational I considered myself to be.

"Wait, I have something," I said all excited.

"I can't wait to hear this one," Doug muttered.

"Here's something I think that goes to our political and ideological core--don't we believe, without supporting objective evidence, that government should play a significant role to help our most vulnerable citizens?" Sarah and Doug stared at me blankly.

"You know, in health care, education, housing, things of that kind?"

"I'm not following you," Doug finally said.

"Look, I support all of these programs. At least the ones that work, which is a whole other conversation. But what hard evidence can we cite to support these beliefs?"

"The evidence that student loans help millions go to college who otherwise couldn't afford to."

"Again, I favor that. But that's about outcomes, not the truth from nature that tells us what must to be done. To support programs of this kind is not written on tablets but is based on following a set of beliefs about how we should behave toward each other. It's the right thing to do, I feel certain about that, but it's justified by how I feel about our various roles as citizens. I believe that's how we should behave as individuals and governments. With 'feel' and 'believe' underlined. Again, these core values are not evidence-driven. Maybe the outcomes are objectively measurable but not the underlying principles about the appropriateness or requirement that we act this way.

"Maybe," I continued, "we don't even having 'inalienable rights,' that these too are not from nature but socially constructed."

"In other words," Sarah offered, "you're saying we're no different than those who believe in a very limited role for government? Let the chips fall where they may in a survival-of-the-fittest mode?" I nodded. "I'm not interested in living in that kind of world."

"Neither am I," I said, "But I think it's a good idea to recognize, to acknowledge that we're not so different than conservatives in that much of our political core is as belief-driven as theirs. We obviously believe very different things and come to very different conclusions, but like them believe we do."

"If this is true," Doug sighed with a sense of resignation, "we are to some extent jerking ourselves around. Thinking about ourselves as superior--intellectually and, worse, morally superior to the Tea Party folks and their GOP enablers."

"Which is why," I said, "we too often sit around analyzing and complaining and excuse making. We're good at all of that and maybe even get it right--at least I believe that," I winked, "But I don't think it's helping us push back or do well at the polls--nationally, at the state level, and locally. We're losing on all those fronts. The other side is now even out-organizing us. They have the energy and momentum. OK, because they are more fervent in their beliefs; but since we share strong beliefs too we had better get up off our couches and turn off our iPhones and get to work.  Especially locally because that 's where the future leaders are coming from."

"I did notice a bit of a generational shift in last week's election results," Sarah said, "The Democrats felt old to me and the Republicans more youthful and energetic."

"Hillary beware," Rona said.

"One more thing," I said. "I know you have to run, but here's another problem that's under-discussed--Evidence is that minorities aside, Democrats, true liberals like us, are better educated and much more affluent than your average middle-class and rural conservatives--excluding billionaires like the Koch brothers of course--and we thus have been big beneficiaries of the Bush-era economic and tax polices, all of which were made permanent during the early Obama years."

Sarah was looking at me skeptically. "You, too have benefitted, " I said to her. "And me as well. Without getting into specifics, I have paid much, much less in taxes the past 14, 15 years than previously. And, I confess, I like that and thus do not feel that motivated to agitate to pay more. Even if it went to programs I believe in and at least theoretically support. I say 'theoretically' because I'm not that much good when it comes to political action and mobilization. I'll confess--I like my lifestyle and don't want to see too much of it change."

Doug said softly, "I think you're right," he glanced at me, "We have been too full of ourselves, believing that if we get the policies right the politics will follow."

"Obama said the same thing Sunday on one of the talk shows," Rona said.

"That view feels a little arrogant to me," Sarah admitted.

"I agree," I said, "I think so-called 'average people' perceive us and our policies this way. To them we come across as knowing better than they do what's best for them."

"I need to think about this some more," Doug said, staring into his empty coffee cup.

September 8, 2014--Two Cheers for Obamacare

I've been wondering why we've been hearing relatively little recently from Republicans about Obamacare. It had been thought that in the run up to the November midterm elections the GOP would be all over it, savaging it as an assault on both our freedom and the federal budget. It was to be their political trump card. The route to majority control of both houses.

Could it be that there is now relative silence because Obamacare is actually . . . working.

Many millions have signed up, and with the exception of some anecdotal horror stories the vast majority with health care coverage for the first time are happy with it; and, perhaps most surprising, in spite of all the scary stories about how the Affordable Care Act would bust the budget, it has in fact not only been cost effective but has already been contributing to deep cuts in the federal deficit.

Just as Obama said it would.

So then two cheers for Obamacare. It is too soon to offer three because, though the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's projections show significant downward trends in overall Medicare costs (the result in part of aspects of the ACA law) and thus dramatic deficit reductions over the decade, we still do not know how many more will sign up, how much subsidy they will require, and the nature of the care these new enrollees will require.

The CBO, adjusting for inflation, recently reported that the average amount spent annually per Medicare recipient declined from $12,000 each in 2011 to $11,200 this year and will be reduced further to $11,000 per Medicare enrollee by 2017. Technically, this is called "negative excess cost growth."

All told, the CBO is projecting that, as a result, over the next ten years the federal deficit will be reduced by $715 billion. Nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars.

To be fair, this good news is not fully the result of the ACA. This downward trend is also a consequence of "young" Baby Boomers becoming eligible for Medicare for the first time and the apparent, not entirely understood, reduction in costly tests, treatments, and drug use. All good things as our health care system has grown bloated with over-testing and the over-selling of unneeded treatments and medications.

This $714 billion in savings dwarfs all deficit reduction plans being discussed, including Paul Ryan's draconian budget.

Wouldn't it be good if we could stop playing demagogic games with the budget and health care and get on to the real problems we face--how to create more jobs, improve the treatment of veterans, fix our crumbling infrastructure, improve public education, and tackle the inequality crisis.

Why am I not optimistic?