March 30, 2020--TRUMP Care

It is obvious that Trump hates everything associated with Barack Obama. Especially Obamacare.

Not because Trump has problems with what's included in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare's actual name)--I am certain he has no clue about what's in it. But the one thing he does know is that it will always be thought of as Obamacare. 

Ironically, Republicans who hoped it would turn out to be a disaster mockingly labeled it "Obamacare" so the public would forever associate it with Obama's legacy.

Well, they will turn out to be right--the millions covered by Obamacare will always think of it as connected with Obama, the compassionate president who willed it into being.

On the subject of social and political policies named for people, think about the postwar Marshall Plan, named for Truman's secretary of state, George Marshall; think about the Fulbright Fellowship program named for its lead congressional sponsor, Arkansas senator William Fulbright; think about the Nixon Doctrine which articulated a strategy to contain the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe. And of course there is the granddaddy of all doctrines, the Monroe Doctrine, named for president James Monroe, who sought to limit European involvement in the Americas. 

And then there is the aforementioned Obamacare. Different than the generic Medicare and Medicaid. Both could have been named for President Lyndon Johnson--Johnson Care--who was able to get them approved by a reluctant Congress.

On the other hand, in New York City alone there are numerous buildings named for Trump--TRUMP Tower, TRUMP Parc, and TRUMP Plaza. I could go on. And on. 

On all of these properties in huge gilded letters, visible from miles away, we can see the TRUMP name blazoned on the facades. 

(An interesting sidebar--residents of many of these properties have successfully petitioned to have the TRUMP name removed.)

Further, Trump gets malicious pleasure coming up with nasty nicknames for those he opposes or dislikes.

So, among many others, we have Sleepy Joe Biden, Howdy Doody for Pete Buttigieg, and Pocahontas for Elizabeth Warren.

The latest nasty name is the "China Virus." Excoriated for this as racist, Trump has sort of backed off. But he knows his base loves this sort of xenophobia.

But before moving on, I have a suggestion--let's name the COVID-19 virus the TRUMP Virus. 

He's so obsessed with himself that he might actually like this.

May 17, 2019--The Surprising Supremes

The struggle between the Trump White House and the Democrats in the House of Representatives is heating up. 

Congress is attempting to do its constitutionally mandated oversight work. They want access, for example, to the full Mueller report; they are also subpoenaing Trump's tax records; and they want to gather direct testimony from Mueller and, along the way, to have Donald Jr. testify about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Trump is stonewalling everything, claiming executive privilege.

None of this will be resolved as it usually is by negotiations. There is too much bad blood for that and Trump knows how devastating it would be for him if the truth were exposed. 

It will then for certain take months or years for these disputes to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, at the state level, Alabama just passed legislation to eliminate abortions under virtually all circumstances. Including if a women becomes pregnant as the result of rape or insist. This piece of legislation was not designed to be implemented but rather was carefully crafted to reach the Supreme Court and give the now conservative court the opportunity to consider overturning Roe v. Wade and thereby making abortion illegal in all 50 states.

Conservatives feel that with a majority of the nine members of the current court named by Republican presidents (Thomas by George H.W. Bush; Roberts and Alito by George W. Bush; and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh by Trump) Roe v. Wade is threatened as are affirmative action and all forms of support for voting rights. 

But maybe for conservatives it is too soon to celebrate.  

It is by no means certain that Roe and other examples of progressive Supreme Court decisions are doomed. They are seriously threatened, but it is not yet clear they will be overturned. 

Recall that Chief Justice Roberts joined the four liberal justices to uphold Obamacare. I speculated at the time and subsequently that Roberts, perhaps feeling everything that is decided on his watch will be attributed to the "Roberts'" Court, perhaps concerned about how he would be regarded by historians, he abandoned his up-to-then predictable conservative voting record and joined the four liberals to sustain a program that provides medical coverage for 20 million Americans. He did not want to see the Affordable Care Act shredded while he was serving as Chief Justice. He therefore contorted himself and found a way to support it.

But here's the real surprise--the voting pattern of the most recent member of the court: Brett Kavanaugh.

Recall, he is the justice who was accused of sexual harassment and confessed during his conformation hearing that he had a drinking problem. He testified rapturously about how he "loves beer." So much so that he repeated it half a dozen times. 

Did anyone after this and looking at his judicial record think he would even one time vote with the liberal block?

Well, he has been. In fact, he has voted with the liberals more often than any other justice.

In recent months, for example, he voted with Ginsberg and Sotomayor on the death penalty and criminal defendants' rights. In both instances not agreeing with Trump's other appointee, Neil Gorsuch and the other conservatives.

It is premature to speculate how he might vote when it comes to disputes about Trump's claims about executive power. 

There have been more than a few surprises when it comes to justices voting contrary to what one would have expected. There were numerous times when Franklin Roosevelt appointees voted against New Deal legislation and Byron (Whizzer) White, named by Kennedy, turned out to be more a conservative than a liberal. And then there was David Souter, protected by lifetime tenure, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush but turned out, once on the court, to be dependably liberal.

So, keep an eye on Kavanaugh. Along with Roberts he may turn out to be unpredictable. He too may have an eye on history.

January 28, 2019--Joe: "I Like Republicans"

Writing these as I frequently do in real time, sometimes my words tumble out faster than my brain operates and I wind up embarrassing myself. 

Friday was such an occasion and so I want to apologize and set my version of the record straight.

I wrote a snarky piece about Joe Biden speaking in October to a "Republican-leaning" group in Michigan for which he received a $200,000 fee.

I can make myself live with the fee. Ex-president Ronald Regan raked in an astrological $2.0 million in 1989 dollars for addressing some Japanese group and Michelle and Barack Obama are in the process of becoming wealthy with money flooding to them from Netflix and various book publishers.

In addition to playing golf, with the exception of Jimmy Carter, it's what former presidents do after leaving office.

But what I couldn't abide was Joe Biden's shout out at the event shortly before Election Day to Fred Upton, a Republican congressman who was in a tight reelection battle. With the outcome too close to call, helping Upton win could have upset the Democrat's move to retake control of the House. As it turned out Upton won as did the Dems. But still . . .

In my piece I more than implied that Joe pocketed the 200 grand with the, wink-wink, understanding that he would help Upton, who is a big supporter of cancer research, a subject understandably close to Biden's heart.

I get it, but Biden did overlook the fact that Upton is also a leading and ongoing opponent of the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, legislation for which Biden helped work through the system by twisting congressional arms. Then, after it passed, at the signing ceremony a hot mic picked up Biden whispering to Obama, "This is a fucking big deal."

But confronted by the Times front-page story, rather than backing down, claiming as politicians almost always do, that he was quoted "out of context," Biden doubled down and wth a light spirit said he has no inclination to "blunt his instinct toward bipartisanship and compromise."

"I like Republicans!" he said, staking out a moderate position as he thinks about running for president in a field already full of very progressive candidates.

He joked, "O.K., well bless me father, for I have sinned."

Upton said that the praise for him was unexpected and that "it was an immense honor."

Since politically I care only about weakening Trump and defeating him in 2020, if this helps Biden win the nomination and then the election, we can deal with other policy issues subsequently.

In the meantime, I apologize for speaking too soon.

January 7, 2019--Happy New Year From Jack

"I was wondering if I'd ever hear from you again."

Without even a happy new year Jack moved on to his favorite subject--Donald Trump: "2019's going to be one wonderful year," he bubbled. He called less than five minutes after midnight new year's eve, "The way I see things, having Nancy as Speaker is a political gift that will keep on giving."

"We'll see," I said, "Remember who won the recent midterms in spite of the fact that Republicans tried to make it a referendum about San Fransisco's--wink, wink--Nancy Pelosi. How did that work out for you? The Democrats picked up 40 seats and took control of the House. Which will mean that for Trump, who never had to deal with congressional opposition, it's no longer Ryan and McConnell time. He had them in his hip pocket. Pelosi is a whole other matter. She may be 78 but she's at the top of her game and knows how to use power. Just ask George W. Bush, who had to compromise with House Democrats when she was Speaker during the last two years of his presidency and ask John Boehner who as House Minority leader during the first two years of the Obama administration was regularly rolled over by her. Think about the Affordable Care Act--no Nancy, no Obamacare. Twenty million without healthcare insurance."

Jack said, "Don't you think Trump is licking his chops when thinking about running for reelection against Elizabeth Warren while at the same time Nancy is Speaker? Both are red meat for his base. If he was a drinking man Trump would be popping corks tonight."

"I have to remind you of one thing--his base is about 30, 35 percent of likely voters. The last time I checked that's nowhere near 51 percent. Though I'll admit that Trump managed to get elected this time while losing the popular vote to Hillary by about 3.0 million votes. He likes breaking records. Well that's a record he in fact owns, unlike most of the others he claimed to have broken. Like having the most productive first two years of all presidents in history."

"Let's talk in a few days," Jack smirked, "After she actually takes over. Let's see how she's doing then. In the meantime, have a happy year."

True to his promise Jack called again on Saturday morning, less than 48 hours after Pelosi and the Democrats took control of the House.

"If I had called you 12 hours ago it would have been a whole different story."

"What do you mean?" I asked.

"Thursday was a big and I'll admit good day for Democrats. Especially Nancy. She had a bounce in her step that made her seem 58 rather than 78 and looked very hot on the floor of the House in a red sheath dress--red/blue am I reading something into the color of her outfit--surrounded by what looked like 20 grandchildren. They were more excited than she was. It was great TV time for your Dems. Even Fox didn't have talking points about how to trash her. Very kumbaya. And she and other Dem leaders cleverly fended off reporters' questions about impeaching Trump. How there are no current plans to do so--sure--and that we should wait for the Mueller report before thinking about what to do or not do. All very responsible sounding."

"This seems about right," I said, wondering warily about where Jack was headed with this. He sounded too self-satisfied to believe half the positive things he was saying. I didn't have long to wait.

"And then, thank you God, to take over the headlines along came the new Palestinian-American congresswoman from Michigan, Rashida Tlaib. One of two first-time-ever female Muslim members of Congress. Talk about political gifts."

"Oh, her," I said, feeling air slowly begin to leak out of my balloon.

"Yeah, one of the two Muslim members who Nancy changed the House rules for so they could wear head scarves, hijabs I think they're called, on the floor of the House. Rules didn't allow that. But Nancy got them changed as part of the first order of business, thank you very much."

I let him rant on.

"So what did the honorable gentlewoman Tlaib do to thank Nancy? Let me quote her. I wrote it down because you're always lecturing me about ignoring and making up facts. But here's a fact for you, right from Tlaib's potty mouth."

Jack read--"This is from your New York Times as recorded on someone's smartphone:

"People love you and you win," Ms. Tlaib told the crowd Thursday night. And when your son looks at you and says: 'Momma, look, you won. Bullies don't win.' And I said, 'Baby, they don't.' Because we're going to go in there, and we're going to impeach the motherfucker."

"The Times actually dropped the MF bomb in its front-page article. Not an M and a F with a whole lot of asterisks in-between. But 'motherfucker' itself. In print. But before you tell me how to think about this, let me add one more thing--Muslims don't drink alcohol, right? So what was she doing celebrating in a bar Thursday night on Capital Hill?"

"To tell you the truth," I said, "I was unhappy with her. Less than a day after being sworn in she comes out with this? Not that it would have mattered if she said it a month from now. It's inappropriate and, if we're serious about winning in 2020, she should be criticized, including by Democrats. Especially by Democrats. It's not enough to claim, as I am hearing many Democrats doing, that Trump said worse things. He did but shouldn't be the one to set the bar on appropriate behavior.

"And, one more thing--how politically stupid can she be. Teeing this up for Trump and Trumpians? So in 2020, rather than Trump running against Pelosi as the boogyman he can run against someone even better--a Muslim with a foul mouth who says she would talk this way to her six-year-old son."

"What can I say?" Jack said. I could almost see him grinning. "I couldn't have said it better myself. And then from my perspective, to make matters better, Nancy Pelosi, I mean Speaker Pelosi refused to criticize Tlaib, saying, 'I'm not in the censorship business.' I wrote that down too," 

He added, "I can see Trump's people already producing TV ads featuring Congresswoman Tlaib. Mind you, I'm not happy with some of the things he's been up to, including his shutting the government to get the money to build his stupid wall. But you guys can be even stupider. You always seem to shoot yourselves in the foot. Like Hillary calling Trump people 'deplorables.' There was no recovering from that. So 2020--bring it on."

"You guys can't stop running against Hillary. You need to move on. And be sure to call me," I said, "as soon as you get your hand-delivered copy of the Mueller report. I don't think anyone will be able to distract voters by mocking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's dancing. Which, by the way, is pretty good."    

March 16, 2018--Step Aside, Nancy

An important promise that congressman-elect Conor Lamb made during his campaign in southwestern Pennsylvania was the promise that if elected and the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, he would not vote for Nancy Pelosi to again become Speaker. 

In his calm if convoluted style, Lamb said, "I think it's clear that this Congress is not working for people. We need new leadership on both sides. It's not personal" he continued, "It's more about the fact that I expect leaders to get results, and the result of our congressional leadership has been to have people in the district dissatisfied with their performance."

Early in the campaign, with millions of out-of-district money flooding in to underwrite Republican Rick Saccone's efforts, most of the TV ads were about how beneficial the Trump tax cuts are for working people. When it became clear that voters were not buying this "white lie"--they knew the tax cuts were tipped to benefit big corporations and the wealthiest five percent--the Saccone campaign ran no more adds about taxes and switched tactics, airing new ones that claimed if Lamb were elected he would become one of Nancy Pelosi's sheep.

We know how that worked out. 

But, come the fall, in all congressional districts up for grabs, perhaps as many as 125, we know that there will be an avalanche of anti-Pelosi ads. 

GOP campaigns will focus on the few issues that remain for them to try to hoodwink voters--the evils of immigration, guns, and God. But front and center will be ads about aspiring-Speaker Pelosi who they will demonologize  

One thing we know they won't be doing is inviting Donald Trump to come campaign for them as the more he did for Saccone the worse it became for him. His lead in the polls evaporated.

Lamb is right. Pelosi is no longer an effective leader. She had her turn in 2009-2013 and with it made history--as the first female Speaker she presided over a productive House of Representatives where she was essential to the passage of Obamacare legislation.

Now, she is more political liability than asset. For the sake of her party, as her best contribution to resisting Trump's agenda come November, she should step aside now and in so doing reap all the accolades she has earned. This is a better exit from the spotlight than being voted out as Lamb and his-soon-to-be-gathering colleagues will surely do.

There comes a time for all of us.

July 27, 2017--Betty Said: "You're a Swamp Creature"

"I've had it up to here with your bullshit."

Betty gestured that the up-to-here was her throat and slammed the coffee mug on the table before stomping toward the kitchen.

Jack and I looked at each other. "Wonder what's gotten into her," he said.

"I'll tell you what," Betty said from the sanctuary of the kitchen. Jack's voice carries. "You come in here every day and all you want to talk about is your boy Trump. Those are not my words--'your boy'--but yours. As if you and he are pals. I'm sick of him and I'm sick of you."

We could hear her rattling dishes in the sink. She was not only waiting tables but dishwashing. It was the height of the season and every business was shorthanded.

"I didn't know there were rules about what we can and can't talk about," Jack said. I looked around and was happy that for the moment everyone else having breakfast appeared not to be paying attention to us.

From the passthrough window Betty said, "You're such a hypocrite."

"Me?" Jack sounded incredulous. "I'm a hypocrite?"

"If the shoe fits," she said, referring to Cinderella. If Jack knew the reference it would not have made him happy. I enjoyed it and chuckled.

"I can't wait to hear this," Jack said to the room since a number of others having coffee were now tuned into what was happening.

"All I hear is you railing about the government this, the government that. The 'swamp' and that sort of thing."

"Well, it . . ."

Betty cut him off. "And tell me how you earn a living." Jack didn't respond. "I can tell by your sudden shyness that you don't want to talk about that. All you want to talk about is how the government is a swamp and has to be drained and blah, blah, blah. All the time while you're sitting pretty on your government job. I'm sick of it and you."

She came out of the kitchen balancing on one arm three dishes heaped with eggs and pancakes and hash. They were for the booth behind Jack.

"And where do you get your benefits?" Betty glared at him. She turned to the others in the adjacent booth. "I'll tell you where," she said to them. "He works for the highway department. It's a state job. But the state gets lots of money from Washington for the interstate roads and who do you think has his job paid for by that?" She gestured toward Jack, not turning too look at him.

"And, as I was saying, that's how he gets his benefits. Health care that he pays pennies a month for, a state pension where ditto, and a month paid vacation every year. You know how many days vacation I get? I'll tell you--exactly none. And no sick days. If I don't show up for work I get zippo. He, on the other hand gets four weeks vacation, and a dozen personal and sick days. All paid. And paid for by who? The likes of you guys. From your taxes."

Jack sputtered, "I'm talking about the federal government. How it . . ."

"You can't pick and choose buster. If you have no use for the government you need to take a closer look at your own deal. You're a swamp creature too. Like all the people you pick on while you're fat and happy on the gravy train. Paid for, I might add, with my hard-earned money. And yes I do pay taxes. I have three part-time jobs. This one here, four mornings a week, then a hosting job at another restaurant three nights, and I also clean houses on Saturday. Turn-over day. I'm not complaining. These are just facts. But I'm sick of your whining. As if you're the most taken-advantage-of guy in the world. When compared to a lot of folks you have it real easy. A real sweet deal."

"Life is unfair," Jack said.

"That's the best you can come up with? Well pardon my French, but that's just more bullshit. Of course life's unfair--I don't need lessons about that from you--but you need to admit that it's been unfair to your benefit. Talk about unfair. Tell these good people how you got your job in the first place and how much an hour you get." Without pausing she raced on, "Since you won't I will. He makes $22 dollars and hour with time and a half for overtime when he and his crew can wangle it. Up here that's a lot of money. And the only reason he has his job in the first place is because of his uncle who's a mucky-muck in the state Republican Party. He too is quite the complainer. Never saw a government program that he didn't hate. Except the highway department, of course. He's some kind of a no-show supervisor. Talk about the swamp. One thing about these small towns is that nobody has any secrets."

She now was standing opposite Jack with her arms folded across her ample bosom. "So what do you have to say for yourself?" She began to tap her foot. "Notice how all of a sudden he's all clammed up," she said to another couple in the booth behind me. By then they also were deeply interested in what Betty had to say. Both were nodding in agreement.

"I didn't tell you about my health insurance. About his there's nothing for him to worry about. After he retires, which can be after only 25 years, he has insurance for life. Again, paid for by you and me. That's that swampy government again. I'm on Obamacare. Until two years ago, before I got that, I never had coverage. Couldn't afford it. When I needed a doctor I paid for it. Actually borrowed money against the trailer I live in to pay for it. Including when I had my son, who's 15 now. I got help from Obamacare 'cause though I have these three jobs I still didn't earn enough to have to buy into it with my own money. I qualified for a subsidy. But I earned too much to qualify for the maximum subsidy and so the plan I now have has a $5,000 deductible. Which means I go bankrupt if I have to have surgery or something serious."

"That's why Trump wants to fix it, and. . . ." Jack began to say but decided wisely not to complete his thought.

"Yeah, he wants to fix it. Left to Trump, who keeps talking about how beautiful his plan is going to be, he now wants to just repeal it and let 20-30 million lose their coverage. With thousands of people dying for lack of care. That could include me because, I didn't mention it, that I have breast cancer."

"I'm so sorry . . . ."

By then Betty was back in the kitchen.

May 5, 2017--Winners & Losers

Though Republicans members of the House of Representatives did not pause to see what the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office would say about the consequences of the healthcare legislation they rushed to approve, the New York Times did an instant analysis of who won and who lost.

What the Times found should be no surprise and suggests why GOP House members were in such a hurray to vote--if any of them took the time to read the legislation (few did) they might have been embarrassed to be made aware of what was in the bill and what they were heartlessly voting for.

It also might have given them pause before, like needy children, they rushed to Big Daddy at the White House to have him praise them for their dastardly deed. And, yes, to have a Bud Lite together before heading back to their home districts for yet another ten day-vacation. They had after all had to work for their $174,000 salary for two whole weeks since their last "recess."

Here are the winners and losers--

Winners:

High-income earners--eliminates taxes for couple earning at least $250,000 a year.

Upper-middle-calss people without pre-existing health conditions.

Young middle-class people without pre-existing health conditions.

People who opt to go without insurance--the bill eliminates the individual Obamacare mandate.

Large employers--eliminates employer Obamacare mandates.

People who want less comprehensive coverage.

Losers:

Poor people.

Older adults in most states.

People with pre-existing health conditions in many states.

State governments because of cuts in Medicaid--including, little noticed, for special education.

Hospitals--because up to 24 million people will lose coverage and thus hospitals will have fewer patients. Millions will again seek care in high-cost emergency rooms.

Planned Parenthood which will not be allowed to receive any government funds for at least one year.

May 4, 2017--Life Itself Is a Pre-Existing Condition

The current debate about healthcare among Republicans has come down to how the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus and the so-called moderates disagree about how to deal with preexisting medical conditions--

As House of Representatives leadership scrounges around for votes to repeal and replace Obamacare, the debate focuses on how insurance should work for people who have health issues?

The moderates are concerned that tens of millions currently covered will lose their ability to purchase insurance since individual states can opt out of the requirement to offer coverage to Americans who have, say, cancer or heart disease or can charge many times what equivalent polices cost for individuals who do not have preconditions.

Though there would be some subsidies for low-income people these would be inadequate since the GOP version of healthcare insurance is in essence more free-market, for profit in structure than redistibutional. This means the legislation they are pushing is about two things--first, cutting government costs and, more important to Republicans, conservative or moderate, to repeal the taxes high earners are required to pay to help offset some of the overall cost of the Affordable Care Act.

This would mean that if you have a precondition you either have to come up with the cash to buy insurance or go without it. In a market-driven Darwinian world, c'est la vie.

Talking about this over breakfast yesterday, Rona said that everyone older than 50 has one or more preconditions just from having lived that long.

She meant it as a quip since it is not literally true; but, when we went down the list of our family and friends to see how many have one or more preconditions, we found that this is true for almost everyone we know.

Including the two of us! If we had to, neither one of us would be able to secure much less pay for health insurance.

From TermLife's Website below is a very partial list of preconditions that would be disqualifying if Obamacare were replaced by what is apparently about to be approved by Republicans in the House of Representatives.

At least a third of Americans have preexisting conditions that would not allow them to buy insurance or it would be beyond their means to afford if we move back to a market approach.

Everyone has stories about people being denied coverage. Here are two from Wednesday's New York Times--

Larisa Thomason, of New Market, Ala., remembers how her husband got a letter from Humana informing him that his policy would not cover cancer care because a colonoscopy had turned up several benign polyps.

Also, an insurer in Washington refused to cover any treatment to Alice Thompson's reproductive system because a doctor had written in her remedial record that she should have a hysterectomy to eliminate powerful menstrual periods.

This is a glimpse of the future of health care if Republicans in Congress and the White House have their way.

ACID REFLUX (GERD)

ADDISON’S DISEASE

ALCOHOL ABUSE AND RECOVERY

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS (ALS)

ANEMIA

ANEURYSM

ANGINA PECTORIS

ANGIOPLASTY

ANOREXIA

ANXIETY

AORTIC ANEURYSM

ARRHYTHMIA

ARTHRITIS

ASTHMA

ATRIAL FIBRILLATION

ATRIAL FLUTTER

ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER (ADHD)

AUTISM

B

BARIATRIC SURGERY

BASAL CELL CARCINOMA

BERGER’S DISEASE

BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERTORPHY

BIPOLAR DISORDER

BLOOD CLOT

BLOOD PRESSURE

BRADYARRHYTHMIAS

BREAST CANCER

BRONCHIECTASIS

BRONCHITIS (CHRONIC)

BULIMIA

BUNDLE BRANCH BLOCK

C

CANCER

CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE

CELIAC DISEASE

CEREBRAL ANEURYSM

CEREBRAL EMBOLISM

CEREBRAL PALSY

CEREBRAL THROMBOSIS

CHARCOT MARIE TOOTH DISEASE

CHOLESTEROL

CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE (COPD)

CHOLITIS (ULCERATIVE)

CLAUDICATION

COLON CANCER

COLON POLYPS

CONGESTIVE HEART FAILURE (CHF)

CORONARY BYPASS 

CROHN’S DISEASE

April 20, 2017--Tax Scam

I'm dense so it's taken me awhile to figure out why the Republicans so passionately want to
"repeal and replace" Obamacare. Actually, some of the most conservatives want only to do the repealing.

I got swept into believing some of the rhetoric. Obamacare is deeply flawed. True. It does not allow most people to keep their doctors, true; and it is not containing the rise in the cost of either medical care itself or healthcare insurance. Also true.

But, after a little time passed and the Republican talking points were countered, it became clear that the Paul Ryan American Health Care Act is not about healthcare but about taxes--a critical step toward his plan to cut and reform corporate and income taxes.

Here's the math--

In a March 22nd Forbes Magazine posting (not a socialist publication) it was reported that contained in the final version of the proposed bill, after all the deal making with the House of Representatives Freedom Caucus and White House, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that the plan would result in an $600 billion tax cut over the next decade, with at least $274 billion of the cuts going directly to the richest 2%.

Further, Medicaid would be cut, again over the decade, by $880 billion, making it more difficult for low-income taxpayers to secure insurance.

Though from a healthcare perspective it would be a crisis for low- and middle-income people--the CBO also estimated that these cuts would mean that 24 million would lose their current coverage--from a tax-cut perspective it would be a bounty. Again, with the top 5% benefiting the most from the GOP version of tax reform.

Obamacare does include two tax surcharges for high earners--

For couples filing jointly, if their adjusted gross income is $250,000 or higher there is a 0.9% Medicare surcharge and a 3.8% surcharge on net investment income, with the latter being income from certain types of dividends and capital gains.

The Ryan plan calls for the elimination of these two taxes for very high earners.

If this bill were to pass (and although it was set aside last month it is still a glimmer in Paul Ryan's eye and seems to have the support of the president, who feels the need to get at least something, anything done--even something this harsh and regressive) then Congress and the president could move on to what really interests them--massive tax cuts for the wealthy. Paid for largely, and here's the perversely brilliant part, by repealing the two Obamacare tax surcharges. Doing this would yield $1.48 trillion, which would "pay for" most of the additional tax cuts in a manner so as to make then seem "revenue neutral."

Again, this healthcare shell game is not about healthcare but tax cuts.

The claim, of course, is that cutting taxes for the wealthy is really about helping the middle class, because if you cut "job creators'" taxes they will invest in businesses that generate high-wage jobs.

The only problem with this claim is that it's untrue--the massive Reagan tax cuts and the even larger Bush tax cuts did not boost the economy or create jobs.  What was created were massive increases in the national debt--nearly tripling during Reagan's time and doubling under George W. Bush.

In contrast, the debt after Clinton's eight years increased by just 32% and during Obama's two terms, after inheriting a collapsed economy, it went up by 68%.

I am embarrassed to admit that it has taken me this long to finally figure out what is going on and what all the congressional healthcare machinations are about--tax cuts.

March 27, 2017--The System (Sort Of) At Work

In response to my Saturday blog, "The System At Work," where I argued that the defeat of the Republican's attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare was evidence of the system working and that this should be comforting to the fear many progressives have had that Donald Trump is a crypto-fascist, an American Benito Mussolini, a very good friend wrote--

System working? Sort of. 

They will find other ways to gut Obamacare instead of fixing it. The system is way broken. The American people come last. No one wants to find real solutions which would alienate each sides gerrymandered bases.  

Though I understand this view and acknowledge she may be right, I sent a note back to her in which I said--

For me the system working is more than "sort of." 

I've been arguing here for more than a year, as more and more progressives saw Trump to be our own Duce, that we need to give the system a chance to bring him to ground. So, of course, as a result of the repeal-and-replace fiasco, immodestly I think my predictive ability is being confirmed. 

For example, almost as many "moderate" Republicans as Freedom Caucus Republicans were set to vote "no" because they felt the health plan before them was too severe.  

Even more potent an argument for the system working is the diminishment of Trump's perceived power. His perceived power is at least half his appeal and I expect to see it erode further as more people feel released to abandon him. His approval numbers are already at all time lows. And have been falling. Then of course there is the Russian connection ticking. Wait 'til we hear more about the Trump part of that connection. 

This of course doesn't mean we will see an outburst of progressive legislation and behavior. For me it means very little will get done and all things considered that's a good thing. This may also very well mean that Trump will be a one-term president.  

Further, expect to see Ryan go after the Freedom crazies. Mainly to seek vengeance and also to protect his speakership. Rather than the Freedom Caucus being empowered by what happened they are weakened. Note that "only" 15 of the 29 of them were "no's." That means almost half defied their own leadership. 

I also think Trump will back way away from anything having to do with health care. It never was a priority for him. Too wonky a subject and too divisive  A virtual policy tar baby. Just ask Nixon, Hillary, and Obama. I expect to see him focus exclusively on tax cuts and infrastructure. The two things I think he actually cares about and about which he at least knows something. OK, a little. 

He'll need Dems for both and we'll see if he gets them. I suspect only for infrastructure and corporate tax cuts will the Dems play along. They don't want to prop Trump up or help him become successful. Then Ryan won't need the 14-29 Freedom votes. He can make them irrelevant by working with a handful of Democrats.

My friend also wrote that--

Steve Bannon still wants to try to destroy administrative state. Cabinet departments now have fairly low level loyalist appointees who spy and report back on the civil service professionals.

To that, I said--

Having eyes in the departments is not in any way new. Pretty much every modern president has had his plants in most departments. If I were president, I'd want some loyalists there too to keep an eye on who was working on my agenda and who was freelancing. So I don't worry too much about that.  

I worked a lot in a few federal departments in my day and knew a number of people who were there to report back to the Clinton, W, and Obama White Houses. This sort of thing is also common in corporations and NGOs. Like it or not, this is basic management stuff. A way of trying to maintain control of large, bureaucratic institutions. 

But of course I could be wrong about this and if pushed could make the case that all is perilous and that we are doomed. I'm not wired  that way and thus will continue to keep an eye on the system at work.  

Only 65 days into the Trump admin and I already see progress at whittling down the scary stuff. Including Bannon's agenda which after this debacle has little chance of being realized. Expect Trump to move closer to the advice of the practical people (Jared Kushner--when he and Ivanka return from skiing is Aspen) and less to the ideological Steves (Bannon and Miller). I think Trump's already had his fill of the latter.  

He now has a glimpse of what the far-right are really about. They are not his natural constituency--he ran mainly as a populist. Bannon helped guide him into the healthcare mess since the bill that was finally pulled represented "progress" on reducing the administrative state--the end of Obamacare and the beginning of the end of Medicaid.  

So, in sum, I'm OK with the direction in which I see this headed. I'm optimistic about the rest of the domestic agenda. That is won'r get through Congress. 

To me, if you really want to make yourself crazy think about N. Korea, Russia, far-right crazies in Western Europe, laptop bombs . . . sadly I could go on. 

But in spite of this I plan to have a good weekend. I hope that's true for you as well.

And I know she will also continue to challenge me and keep me in line. That's what good friends are for.

She qualifies.

Mach 25, 2107--The System At Work

Many of my friends who have feared that Donald Trump is a crypto-fascist in the mold of Benito Mussolini, that he doesn't believe in representative democracy and plans to overturn our system, need to take another look at the power of the American political system to resist Strong Men and protect itself.

This resistance expresses itself mainly though the power of our vaunted system of political checks and balances.

Take today's defeat of the Trump-Ryan plan to repeal and replace Obamacare. The bill was among the meanest spirited to ever come before Congress with a real chance of being approved. It would have led to the illness and death of hundreds of thousands of Americans. It had the tincture of fascism about it.

But it never even came to a vote.

Forget for the moment the internecine war within the Republican Party that contributed to Trumpcare's defeat. That internal warfare is another illustration of the system working. As do the street demonstrations and dissent-filled town hall meetings.

We may have a totally unqualified and unstable person in the Oval offie, but as of today he and his powers are dramatically diminished and there is no chance that he will turn into an American Duce

Consider this progress and move on to other things to be concerned about and resist. Like tax cuts for the wealthy.

December 21, 2016--Obama's Political Legacy

There's lot of talk about Barack Obama's legacy. There's much that is positive to take note of and important things that will complicate the way he is remembered.

In regard to the latter there is the rupture in our relationship with Russia and chaos everywhere in the Middle East for which he is at least partially responsible.

The positive side of the ledger includes the impressive though imperfect Obamacare, the drawdown of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, the stimulus and economic recovery, and Wall Street reform.

Of a different sort is his political legacy. How many Democrats of high caliber did he inspire to seek high office and how did they in general fare?

By any measure, not very well--

Between 2009 and now there are 12 fewer Democratic governors, 900+ fewer Democratic state legislature seats, 69 fewer Democratic House members, and 13 fewer senators.

And, yes, one less Democratic president--Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton will be inaugurated next month.

This is not the meaning of life, but to progressives who care about the future of the Democratic Party the data require that we search for why this political tsunami swept so many away, wiping out a host of next-generation candidates.

The focus naturally has been on the results of the presidential election. If Democrats engaged in the forensics continue to cling to the notion that Clinton lost because of FBI director Jim Comey's letters and Putin's and Russian hacking, the numbers of elected officials will continue to slide further right.

For one, it's essential to acknowledge that Hillary was a terrible candidate who didn't have a convincing story about why she wanted to be president. Saying it was to make history by electing a woman or because it was her turn, ignored what elections are about--not the candidates, but the people they seek to represent.

For all his craziness, Trump did a much better job of presenting himself. How could a billionaire who lives in an actual gilded penthouse represent himself successfully as a friend of working people? How could someone with an orange face, three wives, and a lifetime of overt sexism gain the votes of 53 percent of white women?

We need to find answers to these questions. And very soon.

I've suggested here that a good analysis of the problems can be found in Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal.

The fact that Democratic Party leaders continue to be stuck on Comey and Putin prompts me to assign it as required reading.

November 22, 2016--Obama's Legacy

Nary a day goes by when there isn't talk about Obama's legacy.

In this weekend's New York Times Sunday Review section for example, in addition to a number of passing references, there is Julian Zelizer's article, "Wrecking Obama's Legacy."

Enough.

Obama himself is so involved with polishing his historical reputation--not wanting his legacy to be only about his being the first African-American president--that the rest of us should leave it at that.  Leave it to him rather than feel that we progressives have a responsibility to protect his reputation and to resist soon-to-be-seen efforts to chip away at his accomplishments. Obamacare, for example which is slated by Donald Trump to be "repealed and replaced."

Good luck with that.

We can see how well this legacy protection is working. During the recent race for the White House Obama spent a lot of time appearing before black audiences in the Carolinas in an effort to explicitly encourage them to vote for Hillary Clinton in order to protect his legacy.

African-American turnout, as it turned out, was much less than projected. Perhaps because his self-serving appeal turned off even black voters.

When campaigning, he didn't just say that Clinton had many programs that would benefit people of color or that she would do a better job than Trump of keeping America safe. What he in effect said was think of a vote for Hillary as a vote for his legacy. His legacy as an African-American president, as if it were disconnected from concerns about America's future.

Imagine the understandable firestorm if a white president toward the end of his term beseeched supporters to vote for his successor because she is white.

Additionally,  it is not up to the liberal media or the rest of us to focus on what Obama accomplished and to feel compelled to promote it. We should be thinking about what's good for America going forward. Especially how to keep Trump from making things worse. Potentially much worse.

If Obama was so concerned about his legacy perhaps when he had majorities in both houses of Congress he would not have traded away the single-payer health care option without a fight or without getting anything in exchange. Now, because of its inherent flaws (not just because of Trump and Paul Ryan) it is collapsing of its own weight.

If he was so concerned about his legacy perhaps Obama would not have contributed to messes with Russia and in Libya, Egypt, and Syria among other places in the Middle East. Maybe we wouldn't have helped catalyze the rise of ISIS.

These among other things will be at the heart of how history will regard him. Thus I understand why he would be concerned.

This is not to say that there are not real accomplishments to be tallied--Obamacare is in fact a step toward wider coverage; we didn't get suckered into further entanglements in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, or in various direct and surrogate ways with China. Then, he made some significant gains in climate and environment policy as well as with energy diversification and self-sufficiency. And, of course, he did many good things to help stabilize and rebuild the nearly collapsed economy he inherited.

But again, none of us should spend one more minute thinking about much less defending Obama's legacy. He has two months to go and we are facing at least four years of Trump and that deserves his and our full attention.

August 22, 2016--Don't Know Much About Algebra

For many, college resumes today. Including for the daughter of our friend Sarah who is a freshman at the University of Maine, Augusta.

She's splendid. This past summer, between high school graduation and her first day at UMA, she was one of three incoming students to be selected to spend the summer in Costa Rica, living with a local family and working as a medical assistant in a hospital in San Jose.

The college was so impressed by what they were hearing about her that they upped her scholarship by a few hundred dollars and asked her to take the lead in beginning a student EMS program at the campus in Augusta.

This should be a sweet time for Alexa, but it is turning into a time of trial.

First, she, as all students, is required to have medical insurance. For middle--middle-class kids this should be no problem--they would be covered by their parents' policy.

The problem is that Sarah is a single mom, works three part-time jobs, and has no employer-provided coverage. In the aggregate, her jobs yield slightly more in income than would qualify her for the subsides provided by the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare.

"The least expensive policy I could get that would also cover Alexa is $385 a month."

"Wow," Rona sad, "That's more than $4,500 annually."

"To be precise, $4,620. With a $5,000 a year deductible. They call that affordable?" Sarah sputtered, "Give me a break. And I voted for him two times. Obama. Why, I'll never know. But I'm a liberal. I suppose that's why. So now what am I going to do about Alexa? Get another job? I'm already working seven days a week."

"What are you going to do?" I asked.

"Good question. See if I can borrow some money from my mother. Not that she has much. Or maybe Alexa will take out a student loan. I hate for her to have to do that. Saddle her with tens of thousands in debt when there probably won't be that many good jobs when she graduates."

"Sad but probably true," I said, "But she sounds special and will probably do just fine."

"It's all about the probablies."

To shift the subject somewhat to something more positive, Rona said, "I'll bet she's excited. She's off to such a good start even though she is just starting."

"She is excited, but good kid that she is the money issues are getting in the way of her feeling positive about beginning college. She's talking about taking a year off, deferring her admission and working to save up enough money to help out with all the costs."

"A lot of young people are doing that. Look at Obama's daughter, Malia, isn't she taking a year off?"

"With all due respect, we're not talking about the same thing. His daughter . . . "

"Touché," I said, "Sorry."

"Not a problem," Sarah assured me, "I know you're trying to be empathetic. But there's one more thing. Something really outrageous."

"What's that?" Rona asked.

"Textbooks."

"They're still using textbooks?" I said. "I would think with the Internet they would be more and more obsolete."

"Not as long as they can make money selling them."

"I know they can be ridiculously expensive."

"Take a guess," Sarah said, "She needs one for Biology and another for her required arts elective, the History of Music."

"When I used to teach, they could be as much as $50 dollars each," I said.

Sarah smiled and gestured that they cost more than that.

"Seventy-five dollars?" Rona guessed.

"I'll save you the trouble,"Sarah said, "You're not even close. It's three hundred for the music text and . . ."

"You've got to be kidding," Rona interrupted.

"I wish I was. And, even more outrageous, the biology book is $400."

"So just two books run $700. I'm staggered. How corrupt this feels."

"That's the right word for it, 'corrupt.' Is it any wonder that people in America are angry? I mean modest hard-working people."

"No surprise at all, I said, "We're fortunate to be financially secure and don't have kids in college but what you're saying makes me furious."

"This helps explain some of the Trump people," Sarah said. "Not the crazies or the bigots, but, frankly, people like me. I'm working my butt off; have no child support from Alexa's father; I'm a feminist--in the way I live, not just in the way I talk--and I'm not a fascist. As I said, I'm pretty progressive. But things have gotten to the ridiculous stage and out of frustration, if Trump wasn't such a jerk--and worse--I can't tell you I wouldn't be thinking about voting for him."

"I think I understand that," Rona said.

"Things need radical change and I'm feeling that voting for Hillary, who I can't stand, would not be voting for someone who'll make things better. She's cut from the same cloth as all the other professional politicians. More concerned about themselves. Don't really get me and people like me. They mouth the words but it's just words to get us to vote for them. Trust them. I did that eight years ago and then again four years later. But what did Obama do that was good for people like me? Including with his famous Obamacare. Again, for people like me, it turns out to be a scam."

"Well . . ." I started to say.

"I know, I may be overstating things. But have you ever worked seven days a week? I'm not meaning to give you a hard time, but I've been doing that now, all on my feet, for more than three years."

"Well . . ." I started to say.

June 29, 2015--Jiggery-Pokery

In his, even for him intemperate rant against the Supreme Court's historic 6-3 decision to uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), associate justice Anton Scalia went further than usual in a descent that went beyond the judicial to the very personal.

More than saying that he fervently disagrees with his colleagues' legal logic, he accused them of participating in a deceitful and dishonest act, even applying the archaic Scottish slur jiggery-pokery to impeach their honor and integrity.

In the old days, which he so reveres, he might have been called out to a duel on the field of honor by one of the other justices. But alas, we will have to endure more of him and more of this because the court, under chief justice Roberts, is going rogue on him.

As the intellectual leader of the court's conservatives, the alleged strict constructionists or texturalists,  for decades dominating the other three to four justices who have placidly gone along with his views of the Constitution (with Kennedy occasionally being a swing vote, agreeing with the four automatic liberals), Scalia now finds himself at times in the minority, especially when the court hands down its most significant decisions, like last week's rulings on Obamacare, same-sex marriage, and the Fair Housing Act. (Do not overlook the importance of the latter.)

Scalia might have been more enraged than ever by Roberts' majority opinion in Burwell (the ACA appeal) where he subtly and without attribution quoted Scalia to himself to support the core of the argument he articulated for the five concurring justices.

It is all about context, as Scalia claimed in cases last year when he employed the same contextual argument--it is all about what the Congress truly intended. In the ACA case, Roberts wrote last week, if one looks at the 900-plus page context of the ACA--as Scalia would have us do in selective instances such as this one for laws he viscerally despises--it is clear that Congress intended the uncovered to be able to obtain affordable health care insurance.

Being quoted this way to justify something he violently opposes clearly got under Scalia's skin and motivated him to deliver his dissent from the bench, a highly unusual occurrence that underscored his fury.

But, again, Scalia's intemperance is less about the Obamacare vote than his sense that the court and American society on key social issues are moving on and he is more and more being left in the retrograde past--multiple meanings intended.

He will learn forcefully now that this is the Roberts' Court, not the Scalia.

June 26, 2015--Obamacare!

With the Supreme Court decision announced yesterday that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is constitutional, in addition to all the lives that will be bettered and saved as a result, there is one jolly political irony for those of us who consider it a pretty good piece of social legislation and feel that Barack Obama deserves to leave office in two-and-a-half years with his reputation, all right--his legacy, enhanced.

Here's the irony--

From literally the day Obama was elected in November 2008, many activist Republicans saw his election somehow to be illegitimate and have done everything they can to bring him down and delegitimatize him and his accomplishments--again, his legacy.

This is not to say that he has been a "great" or even a "near-great" president (if he secures a sound deal with Iran regarding their nuclear weapons program his stature will rise further) or that he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, but all things considered--the economy, the roiled world with its out-of-control nationalisms and terrorism--he has done a rather good job. The economy is decidedly better than the one he inherited and he did end in an admittedly bumpy way the two wars that George W. Bush started and led into chaos.

But still GOP leaders and most of their followers wake up every day thinking about what they can do to undo everything Obama had a hand in accomplishing. Nothing more fervently than the ACA which the House of Representatives under John Boehner's fractured leadership voted to repeal literally dozens of times. There was a time during 2010 after the GOP seized control of the House that they did so every week for months.

Even Jeb Bush yesterday, with all the courage of a marshmallow, vowed to repeal it the day he is sworn into office in January 2017

As a sneering epithet to stigmatize the ACA, Republicans labeled it Obamacare. They couldn't say it enough. It was supposed to remind Americans that this abominable piece of legislation was the result of "his" efforts, the best evidence that he was a European-style socialist.

The name stuck. And isn't it amusing that this healthcare law, which is already providing life-saving coverage for up to 17 million previously uninsured Americans, many of them poor, and now twice has been upheld by a radically divided Supreme Court, will likely remain a permanent part of our social safety net alongside Social Security and more appropriately Medicare and Medicaid?

No other law that I can think of is named for a president. Social Security isn't called Roosevelt-Security, Medicare is not referred to as Johnsoncare, nor is the Voting Right Act named for LBJ. Welfare reform is not Clintonfare. Yes, we have the Monroe and Truman Doctrines but they were promulgated by an executive order, not something hatched with their leadership and then considered and passed by Congress.

Obamacare will be the way the Affordable Care Act will forever be known. So three-cheers for it and Obama.

As Joe Biden was heard to say on an open mike back in Match 2010 when it was passed, "This is a big f---ing deal."

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."