Tuesday night’s joint address to Congress by newly inaugurated President Donald J. Trump showed an abrupt - and welcomed - change in tone from the one that he gave on Inauguration day, and then continued unabated until now. It was one that made him seem petty, peevish, and combative, especially with the press, and even those of his own party that did not agree with him wholesale.
What those gathered in the Capitol, and those who viewed the speech at home, saw was a smooth controlled, seemingly effortless, show to drive home his agenda; something that newly elected presidents, have done, with great regularity,using the same format, in the past. But, in the first few days in office Trump seemed determined to not embrace any of the traditional aspects of the American presidency, whether in tone, or in practice.
These joint addresses are a set piece: hearty cheers, applause on key, a beaming first lady in her box, (often with guests to illustrate key points), smiling and waving, and cheerful faces, in anticipation of the great man’s words. But, cynicism aside, the template works, and is expected to do so. For Trump to hew closely to it, says that this may be a major transition for the former businessman, and reality television star.
Perhaps a glance at his approval ratings helped --- the lowest of any new president in recorded history - hovering at 38 percent, compared to most in the past who had ratings in the 60 percent. Whatever the reason, both the tone and the style were redolent of Ronald Reagan, the icon of modern conservatism and the advocate of small government.
The speech, largely the work of White House Advisor, Stephen Miller, also had help from Dina Powell, his senior counselor on economic matters, Hope Hicks, who gave the push to condemn the anti-semitic acts, that some have done in his name, and even his daughter Ivanka, who added the more women focused intentions on supported healthcare for women, and established child care.
Style, however does not equal substance, and a closer look revealed holes, often tatters, in the claims that the president made. Perhaps the biggest line was that $6 trillion had been spent in the Middle East on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and fighting ISIS --- yet that figure was false -- it was actually $1.7 trillion, according to the Department of Defense. While the president seemed to include this in the alleged “mess” that he had received from President Obama, a careful look in the history books would have revealed the hands of President Bush, both father and son.
Jobs
To increase jobs for the country, Candidate Trump espoused that he would ensure that American jobs would stay in America,and his early “victory” with Carrier seemed to make the day. After leading a litany of trade deals President Trump announced that others were stepping up to help make America great again. He said, “since my election, Ford, Fiat-Chrysler, General Motors, Sprint, Softbank, Lockheed, Intel, Walmart and many others, have announced that they will invest billions of dollars in the United States and will create tens of thousands of new American jobs.” Yet, these plans had been made far in advance of Trump's election and would have been done anyway, noted factcheck.org as they pierced his claims.
They noted again, as they have often done in the past, “[often] repeatedly, many of the investments announced by those companies were in the works before the election or were largely market driven. Executives of those companies praised Trump’s plan to cut corporate taxes and reduce regulation, but several of them said the recently announced investments would have been made no matter who was elected president, and were part of a years-long investment strategy.”
Continuing with that theme, the president said that there had been such dismal figures in the labor force that there had to be a change. Stopping just short of proclaiming that he had a mandate to create jobs, due to what he had inherited, ““94 million Americans are out of the labor force,” he ignored much of what has been largely reported in the daily press, and that is that many of those are not looking for work, for just cause, and “not evidence of a bad economy.” Trump failed to mention that the vast majority of those who aren’t working or looking for work are retired, disabled, attending school or home caring for family members,” noted the site.
Furthermore, he stated that “more than 1 in 5 people in their prime working years are not working,” but only “so, if you count stay-at-home parents, the disabled and those in school. But the fact is, as Trump took office in January, the unemployment rate among those 25 to 54 years old stood at only 4.1 percent. So in that age group, only 1 in 25 who wanted work had looked and couldn’t find it.”
Once again, despite the repackaging, Trump is still peddling much of the same falsities that he accuses the media of doing.
Immigration
As he waded into the waters of immigration, with that unique coupling of nativism, and fear, he held to the narrative that he has served him well, in effect using a figurative voice: “immigrants, legal or otherwise, are bad for America, and the cost of supporting them, as they take American jobs is damaging the nation.”
Trump stated the following: “Nations around the world, like Canada, Australia and many others have a merit-based immigration system. It is a basic principle that those seeking to enter a country ought to be able to support themselves financially. Yet, in America, we do not enforce this rule, straining the very public resources that our poorest citizens rely upon. According to the National Academy of Sciences, our current immigration system costs America’s taxpayers many billions of dollars a year.”
Trump altered, to put it kindly, the report, and in actuality, what the report said was that “The long-term impact of the legal immigration system on the overall wages and employment of native-born American workers is “very small,” and, “to the extent that negative impacts occur, they are most likely to be found for prior immigrants or native-born workers who have not completed high school—who are often the closest substitutes for immigrant workers with low skills,” according to a press release that accompanied the report.
Taking a focus on taxpayers, where most of the distortion occurs, “the impact of the legal immigration system on government budgets is “mixed,” the report found. State and local governments “bear the burden of providing education benefits to children,” but the federal government benefits from “the resulting educated taxpayers” who work and pay taxes,” is largely beneficial.
As many economists, sociologists and policy experts have found, immigration is good for America, bringing skill sets that many natives don’t have, or help in emerging markets, especially technology, such as in the Silicone Valley.
“The report found that for 2011-2013 immigration there was a net annual cost of $57.4 billion for first-generation adults and their dependents; but second generations create a benefit of $30.5 billion a year, and third-plus generations create an annual benefit of $223.8 billion. “ supporting that view, as they noted previously.
Border Security
Next came border security and the building of the wall on our southern border with Mexico. As Trump has often claimed, “We’ve defended the borders of other nations, while leaving our own borders wide open, for anyone to cross.” That’s nonsense. The border patrol budget more than doubled from $1.15 billion in fiscal 2001 to $3.64 billion in fiscal 2016. The number of border patrol agents also increased over 100 percent from 9,821 in fiscal 2001 to 19,828 in fiscal 2016, when those agents made nearly 416,000 border apprehensions nationwide.”
With the memory of the travel ban lingering, Trump felt it necessary to give a defense of it, albeit in a minor key, when he said that “my administration has been working on improved vetting procedures” because “it is not compassionate, but reckless, to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting cannot occur.”
Not so fast, as factcheck noted “we have explained before, all refugees seeking to enter the U.S. must pass a more rigorous screening than even those entering on a tourist or student visa. And those from Syria, which is one of the seven nations singled out in Trump’s travel ban, are subjected to special measures including iris scans and an “enhanced review” by the Department of Homeland Security. It remains to be seen how Trump will change the vetting process, but the current process, for refugees at least, can take up to two years.”
Once again, and on point, they cite the president as saying, “Trump said that “my administration has been working on improved vetting procedures” because “it is not compassionate, but reckless, to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting cannot occur.”
The facts however, on vetting, belie this statement. Again, fact checking this revealed the following” “As we have explained before, all refugees seeking to enter the U.S. must pass a more rigorous screening than even those entering on a tourist or student visa. And those from Syria, which is one of the seven nations singled out in Trump’s travel ban, are subjected to special measures including iris scans and an “enhanced review” by the Department of Homeland Security. It remains to be seen how Trump will change the vetting process, but the current process, for refugees at least, can take up to two years.”
Repealing Obamacare
Perhaps no Trump speech, anywhere, cannot include a jab at Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, a legislative effort that mandated insurance for all, or face a penalty, but that many thought of as an insurance company. With roots in the legislative effort by Mitt Romney, when he was governor of Massachusetts, the ACA, largely modelled on the Romney plan, became a target of GOP lawmakers ire, even as it helped 21 million Americans with preventive health care, child care and cost-free surgery.
“Obamacare premiums nationwide have increased by double and triple digits,” Trump said, giving the average 116 percent increase in Arizona as an example. But that state was the only one to have a “triple digit” average increase in premiums on the ACA exchange, for individuals who buy their own insurance. Again, factcheck revealed, “As we’ve written before, the average nationwide change was a 25 percent increase from 2016 to 2017 among the 38 HealthCare.gov states. Ten of those states had single-digit increases or a decrease in the average second lowest-cost silver plan. And it’s worth noting that 84 percent of the 10.4 million Americans with marketplace coverage in the first half of 2016 received tax credits that limit the amount those individuals have to pay toward premiums.”.
If anything, the repeal and replacement of the ACA has proven to be the most difficult campaign promise for Trump to achieve, aided by GOP leadership, and the solutions may prove to be detrimental. Simply put, the party proposals that are emerging would shift the burden to the patients, “the very problem GOP politicians complained about under President Barack Obama’s signature health law,” noted the Los Angeles Times.”
Mostly, their solutions would affect those with ACA health plans, but also millions more who rely on employer coverage, or in government plans such as Medicaid and Medicare. Offering “slimmed down” plans that offer less than optimal benefits and require large deductibles, Republicans are in a quandary to best promote this to the public.
They also want “poor people who rely on Medicaid to face more co-payments and higher premiums, citing the need for such patients to have “skin in the game.” On the other hand, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, wants to “provide seniors with vouchers to shop for commercial health plans, an approach that independent analyses suggest could have many patients paying more.”
For nearly 70 minutes the new president gave a mostly warmed up version of his campaign promises, lightened by a dose of nice, but in totality there was nothing new, and in fact, the message was buttressed by more of the alternative reality “facts” that he seems to prefer, leaving many, outside of his ardent supporters to ask: “is that all there is?”
Chicago Crime
One who was left dissatisfied was Congressman Bobby L. Rush of Chicago who, in a statement released Wednesday said that he had invited Trump to visit Chicago, as he had repeatedly mentioned the city as “out of control”, and that he “would send in the feds.” This invitation came moments before Trump gave this first speech before a Joint Session of Congress and “where the president also assailed Chicago’s shooting rate by erroneously stating the current had already surpassed last year’s numbers.”
“Trump’s speech was nothing more than campaign promises on steroids—and what he said about Chicago is wrong and a bunch of rhetoric,” Rep. Rush said. “Four-thousand people haven’t been shot in the first two months of this year; but even if one person in our city is the victim of this reckless gun violence we need solutions, not more propaganda. I invited him to Chicago so he can talk to leaders, citizens and people who are working to reduce violence—but also to understand the other side of this story, and that’s poverty, joblessness and a lack of access to mental health and social services,” also noted in the statement.
As many have noted, Chicago’s violence has deep systemic roots in poverty, racism, and subsequent segregation, that require a thoughtful, multi pronged and lengthy process to achieve relief.
Rush said one solution is the passage of H.R.810 the “Hadiya Pendleton and Nyasia Pryear-Yard Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2017,” which he introduced in February. The bill seeks to increase public safety by punishing and deterring firearms trafficking. Specifically, it prohibits, with respect to two or more firearms, the transfer to or receipt by a prohibited person or a person who plans a subsequent transfer that results in unlawful use, possession, or disposition of such firearms; providing false statements in connection with the purchase, receipt, or acquisition of such firearms; and directing, promoting, or facilitating such prohibited conduct.
Summing it up
If this is the beginning, after weeks of tumultuous press conferences, rancorous remarks, baseless accusations, and legislation without consultation, critics of the new administration are feeling more pessimistic than ever, and Trump’s joint address to Congress offers no solace.