Trump's NFL diversion and racial injustice in the U.S.

For over four days the country has heard President Donald Trump bewail the silent protests of NFL football players by kneeling during the national anthem. Their reason is police brutality, often resulting in death, by white police affairs, of black citizens, whether they are doing wrong, suspected of doing wrong, or even leaving the scene of a crime. The problem is not new for the United States, but what is new, for the last few years are videos, some by the so-called dash cams, video cameras,mounted on the dashboards of police vehicles, but very often cell phone videos of the wrongdoing.

The most infamous has been that of the shooting 16 times of African American teenager, in Chicago, Laquan McDonald, a tape that was suppressed by then State's Attorney Anita Alvarez, in light of Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s reelection.  The case galvanized the city, but also the nation, as incident after incident was reported in the media, of black men, in particular, being shot, or killed. And in one remarkable case a CPD officer was photographed, after a perpetrator was killed, standing with his foot on the body, like a big game hunter.

Then there was the accidental shooting of Quintonio LeGrier and Bettie Jones, by police, in 2015, that highlighted the inadequate training in handling mentally unstable aggressors; and once again garnered protest and outrage, when the review association concluded that charges should not be filed against the officers.

No discussion of police brutality, and malfeasance, would be complete without the story of Seattle Seahawks player Michael Bennett who after attending the Mayweather-McGregor fight, in Las Vegas, earlier this summer, heard gunshots, and with a crowd of others ran, and was later confronted by police who held a gun to his head, saying, “I’m gonna blow your fucking head off.”  He also had another officer’s knee in his back and was taken into custody to be released later. Police denied that there was racial profiling, and claimed he was only in custody for ten minutes.

This is the type of maltreatment that has resulted in the NFL protests, and the one that Trump waded into referring to the protestors as “sons of bitches,” and that has dominated the news cycle, for so long. The fact that 70 percent of NFL football players are African American, further fans the racism, implied, if not inherent in the president's statements.

It’s certainly Trump’s pattern that whenever he is seemingly ineffectual on national, and international matters, that he creates a media blitz, replete with rallies of cheering crowds, so that his own weakness as a leader can be deflected. With the problem of North Korea looming larger and larger on the horizon, especially after he called North Korean leader Kim Jong  Un, “Rocket Man” in his recent United Nations speech.

Administration critics have also noted his weak response to the hurricanes blistering the southern parts of the country, and now Puerto Rico, a U.S. possession; it’s clear from the inadequate response that Trump needs to deflect the focus far from him.

What many in the country have not seen, or not wanted to acknowledge, is the continued problem of maltreatment by the nation’s police against black people. While it is only fair to say, that this is not done by all police in all instances, the the durability of the problem requires  specific solutions. Some cities have been more successful than others, in creating them, but many still struggle to do so.

Public response has varied widely, with public disavowal of the president s coming from such unlikely quarters, such as Tom Brady, who has been friendly with Trump. But, there are those who, using social media, against such movements such as “Black Lives Matter,” post on Facebook, pictures with the hashtag, “White Lives Matter,” showing white police officers, in front of squad cars. That prompted President Obama to state that the counter protest was not about a loss of value for white lives, but an affirmation of black lives.

In contrast, a recent Quinnipiac University poll, showed that while three-quarters of African American respondents, were in favor of the athlete’s protest, a much larger number of white Americans did not, showing not only the intractable problem of race, but also the differences in perception of race, by its black and white citizens.

For some, like Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner the issue is not about race, at all, but about patriotism. In his statement, he said, “To me they are disrespecting the foundation of our country, the veterans who risked their lives for our democracy, and the men and women who fight every day and make the ultimate sacrifice.”

While Rauner’s response is in line with the president's (whom he has heretofore had not opined about) it does give credence to a culture war, which, in and of itself, lends to another diversion, and even some oddball statements, such as the one that Sarah Huckabee Sanders made saying that if the protests were about the police, the protesters should be focused on the police on the field.

The problem is not simply the egregious conduct of some police officers, but at its heart the protests, at its most basic level, are about racial inequality in the United States. The police behavior is a symptom of that inequality.

President John F. Kennedy noted, in a televised speech in June of 1963, after the National Guard was pressed to protect the enrollment of two black students to the University of Alabama, that, “One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free.”

Since that time equality has been made in some areas, but not others; with the seemingly impossible election of a black man, to the presidency. Barack Obama, faced not only fierce opposition by his Republican opposition, much of it was race based, as former President Jimmy Carter, publicly acknowledged.

Obama also faced nearly daily slanders, racist cartoons, and jokes, against his goals and intentions, no matter how noble they were; and he was labelled, as a secret Muslim, another growing prejudice for America.

In the none too distant past, during the 1968 Olympics as the U.S. National Anthem played, American gold medalist,Tommie Smith, and bronze medalist John Carlos, held their fists aloft in a black power salute to protest racial injustice that had torn apart the fabric of the nation, with race riots, and the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr, and Robert F. Kennedy.

After their wins, they were stripped of their medals by the head of the International Olympic Committee.

With the Trump remarks, (that he can’t let go of, or refute), much like his regrettable comments after white supremacists marched in Charlottesville, developed a groundswell of support in his appearance in Alabama, ostensibly to support the runoff candidate, Luther Strange, for the Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions, when he became attorney general.

Unremarkably, considering the location, the crowd ate it up, reported National Public Radio, earning the 45th president of the United States, the dubious title of “The Great Divider.”

Returning to the problems of the CPD, as they attempt to grapple with the complaints, and reactions not only from the McDonald case, but also the Department of Justice investigation, under the Obama administration, from then Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

She reported that DOJ “found “reasonable cause” that the police department engaged in a pattern of using excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. She blamed that partially on “severely deficient training procedures” and “accountability systems.”

The Chicago Police brass has now said that all police officers must face 40 hours of training on the use of force, but now, “The union representing rank-and-file Chicago police officers has asked the Illinois Labor Relations Board to block the department from implementing new policies regarding the use of force.

In response, “Chicago Fraternal Order of Police President Kevin Graham said the Police Department violated its contract with the FOP, because the changes were not negotiated with the union,” reported CBS radio affiliate, WBBM Chicago, this Sunday, on its radio program, “At Issue,” where he was interviewed.

Kevin Graham

Graham said the department also did not consider the effect the new policies would have on the way police do their job, and that he was concerned,and objects to the training held at police stations, where the ebb and flow of police operations would be impeded.

Saying that the police “don’t get the credit that they deserve,” for doing a tough job, he also remarked that he did not subscribe to the “few bad apples theory,” promoted by some, and that he felt that the Civilian Office Of Police Accountability, the replacement of the old Independent Police Review Authority, itself, needed citizen oversight, supervision to avoid unneeded punishment of police, such as sitting in a squad car, smoking a cigarette, to which Dellimore expressed some incredulity.

IPRA was roundly condemned by community activists for never convicting abusive, and negligent police, and the hope was that COPA would be able to change that history.

Graham also objected to the longer form of the old contact cards, used whenever police are called in to respond to complaints of an individual’s behavior, that now also have to be entered into a computer.

Hiis remarks express a seemingly unwillingness to take accountability for police actions, and behavior, something that even a rank-and-file office worker has to do. This certainly makes the necessity of change in police accountability, in Chicago, an uphill battle.

On the national scene Trump has drawn his battle lines, asking crowds to boycott NFL teams that employ protesting athletes, and also for television boycotts of NFL games, a move that will garner much attention, and spilled ink, and anxiety among advertisers and team owners, but also, and most importantly, take attention from his own inadequacies, and avoid the real problem, of racial inequality in the United States.

Last ditch effort by GOP to tank Obamacare looks doubtful

The long arm of politics beckons once more as the Republican party tries, for what seems the upteenth time, to repeal  the Affordable Care Act, in large part to score a victory for the moribund administration of President Trump, as he hobbles towards the abyss; where many supporters have asked themselves what good is he, if he can’t deliver on the things that they want most: the border wall with Mexico, and repealing the ACA, known to most as Obamacare.

If all politics are local, then this last ditch attempt by Sens. Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, their call to arms has become even more urgent as they want to use the budget reconciliation process, for a simple majority vote rather than wait till the end of September when they will be forced, by Senate rules, to have 60 votes to pass the proposal.

What would be jeopardized,and even, abandoned is the fate of over 22 million Americans whose access to medical care will be jeopardized, since the Graham-Cassidy bill will take the tax monies anchored to Obamacare and transfer them to the states, in dramatically reduced amounts, especially for those that took Medicaid expansion to shore up access to care.

The program, long targeted, ever since its inception, from President Johnson, by the GOP, as an entitlement program, and now seems the right time to pick it off, especially since party leadership is growing increasingly nervous about the prospects in the 2018 mid-term elections, where they could easily lose their majority status, and with the scenario of having the White House, but with minority status in Congress.

Currently, there are 70 million Americans benefiting from the program, but the bill would see low-income people immediately lose these benefits, along with the homeless, and those whose income disqualifies them from Medicaid, but who get a benefice to gain some much needed help; thus affecting many moderately low-income families.

Exactly who will lose what, and in what measure is largely up to an anticipated, but truncated, report from the Congressional Budget Office, who is expected as early as Monday to offer an analysis, in part, which prompted Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to wonder aloud how any member of Congress could go to their home district and promote the bill without the facts.

With the true spirit of partisanship, Sens. Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray were forced to give up on their long-held bipartisan efforts after being shunted aside by Graham, in an effort to put this as a victory for the GOP.

In a recent statement, Murray noted, “My goal is to defeat their new proposal,” said Murray. “It’s horrendous for patients. It’s horrendous for advocates. The list is endless.”

The ramifications, both large and small, played out with Alexander who said, in his more restrained statement,”during the last month, we have worked hard and in good faith, but have not found the necessary consensus among Republicans and Democrats to put a bill in the Senate leader's’ hands that could be enacted.”

But Murray sees it differently. She believes they were close to reaching a deal until GOP leadership decided to put a freeze on her bipartisan health care plan, opting for repeal and replace legislation, instead of improving the compromise bill.

If we hold any disbelief that leopards can change their spots, then this is it.

As with the last attempt, opposition from the heavy hitters has come from the American Medical Health Association, the American Health Association and others, and “The groups largely have been shut out of the process, and their opposition didn’t stop the Senate from voting on a repeal bill in July or the House passing its repeal bill in May,” reported The Hill.

“This proposal would erode key protections for patients and consumers and does nothing to stabilize the insurance market now or in the long term,” AHA President Rick Pollack said in a statement Tuesday; The AHA, which represents nearly 5,000 hospitals and other care providers, said the Graham-Cassidy proposal could put coverage at risk for “tens of millions” of Americans.

Lawmaker support for Graham-Cassidy is mixed at best, with Sens. Ron Johnson, Asa Hutchinson, Chuck Grassley and John Cronyn backing it, but not, are Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Rand Paul,and now Sen. John  McCain.

Hovering on the bench was John McCain who, saying how close he and Graham are, and even joking that he doesn’t do anything without the other's consent, his coyness, irritating to some, sharpened the game even further, especially when Graham said, “I can’t think of anything I’ve done of consequence, politically, that hasn’t been with John.”

That changed on Friday, when McCain announced that he “cannot in good conscience” vote for the bill. McCain said he cannot vote for the bill without knowing how it will affect premiums, how much it will cost, and how many people it would help or hurt.

"Without a full CBO score, which won't be available by the end of the month, we won't have reliable answers to any of those questions." he said, in his statement.

While some might rejoice in that news, the zeal to repeal and replace Obamacare is still high on his list, lest he be misunderstood, he said "I would consider supporting legislation similar to that offered by my friends Senators Graham and Cassidy were it the product of extensive hearings, debate and amendment. But that has not been the case.”

Paul’s objections are decoupled from most of the the others because he feels that this bill does not go far enough in dismantling Obamacare, whereas some of the others are focused on the population and geography of their respective states, such as Collins, with her mostly rural population, dependent on community care centers and hospitals; all of whom would be decimated, as it would have been with the last GOP repeal attempt.

Currently there are outliers, such as Sens.Ted Cruz of Texas, and Mike Lee of Utah, who have also expressed the same sentiments as Paul, and could easily, as CNN explained, by “burnishing their reputations,” by withholding support.

Vice President Pence, along with the president, are “undeterred” in their desire to score a legislative win, and with with characteristic antagonism, the latter, issued a tweet, lambasting McCain, for his decision.  

Graham for his part has said this is a choice to rid the nation of socialism, echoing critics of the ACA, but which seems mostly an attack on the liberal progressive agenda associated with former President Obama.

The proffered solution of block grants face several problems” inadequately funded to the task of providing even basic coverage; based on state population; and lacking enough time to make assessment, based on desired outcomes. In short a deeply flawed bill.

Perhaps the most vexing aspect of the proposal are the waivers, given to states to remove protection for those that have preexisting conditions, kicking the stool from underneath those most in need.

Adding further fuel to the fire is that insurance companies would be able to charge older customers five times as much as younger ones, a departure from the current three level increase.

In what can be seen almost as payback, the bill calls for an overall dollar increase to the states (some critics are calling it a reward) to those that did not take the Medicaid expansion option, they will see substantial increases, and those did, will see decreases.

For example, Oklahoma would see a near 88 percent increase and Massachusetts would see a 10 percent decrease; along with other states such as California, and which just happen to hold large Democratic majorities.

Naked partisanship coupled with “gotcha” politics makes one wonder how much, or how little, the GOP truly cares about the health care of the nation. Writing for the Washington Post last October, Paul Waldman noted, in a succinct summary of what could have been done to fix the holes in the ACA, said that “If they were being honest, Republicans would admit that their real goal is to get the government out of the business of offering or even guaranteeing coverage, and that they don’t really care how many people are uninsured.”

Now with blood in the water, and the chances of recent support being iffy, at best, the next option for Trump is to sabotage Obamacare, which he began last month, by not renewing contracts for those companies that handled enrollment at public places such as supermarkets, and libraries.

This has now intensified and the recent news that the enrollment website would be shut down each Sunday from 12am to 12 Noon could also be a harbinger for even more sabotage; but the official reply has been that this is routine maintenance for the system, despite occurring during the enrollment period.

Lost in the shuffle or point, counterpoint, is the somewhat eponymous architect of the bill, former President Obama, who, in remarks, at an event sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, in New York, this past Wednesday, said, it was “aggravating” to defend his signature healthcare law from Republican attacks.

“When I see people trying to undo that hard-won progress for the 50th or 60th time … it is aggravating.” and also that  “It’s certainly frustrating to have to mobilize every couple of months to keep our leaders from inflicting real human suffering on our constituents,” he said. “But typically, that’s how progress is won and how progress is maintained.”

.

Dealing with illegal immigration: Trump's Waterloo?

The recent rescindment of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals for those youth that were brought to the United States, as children, by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has brought up the old canard of illegal immigration to the surface -- an often ugly fight that pits those that feel there is a difference between native born Americans, and those that migrate from other countries.

Adding to an age old nativist debate that reached its zenith in the 1860s, with the “Know Nothing Party” when the country saw a steady influx of the Irish, that created an ugly core of prejudice, that resulted, in anti-Catholicism, coupled with racist cartoons that tried to cobble together “atypical” Irish facial features, with images of mitre-clad snapping alligators at America’s shore, at its worst; and only marginally better with vaudeville characters of Paddy the Irishman, with his whisky and brogue.

Now with three-quarters of the beneficiaries of the DACA  being Mexican, much of the same ugliness has been transferred to them. Then topping a slew of long-held negative, and racist comments, came presidential candidate, Donald Trump, who characterized, in a stump speech, that nearly all Mexican immigrants coming to the U.S. were rapists, and murderers.

Now, as president, we have been told that he has wrestled with the dilemma of the DACA youth, and wanted to be fair, yet his actions belie that narrative, as he has held firm to his base, and their mantra of “build the wall,” amid the chants of “USA! USA!” hovering in the background like a movie score.

Trump’s 2016 presidential  campaign capitalized, largely, on fear-based prejudices that many Americans harbored towards immigrants from Mexico, and Central America. Add to that came the age-old pejoratives such as “wetbacks” and “jungle monkeys”, which stand in direct contrast to the stated ideals written on base of the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

The quote is from Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, “New Colossus”, and the welcoming sight of Lady Liberty, must have warmed the heart of many immigrants, not only from Ireland, but from Southern Italy, and Eastern Europe, to name but a few, fleeing from famine, war, and hunger.

It’s been often said, that had these Mexicans, and Central Americans, come from Northern Europe, and been Protestants, the hue and cry, for border walls, would be absent.

The resulting furor has not, as Lincoln said, been the “better angels of our nature,” yet many people in the nation cling to the negative, as well as the pejoratives, and Trump cleverly played on these prejudices, rallying his base, as well as the hackles of those opposing him.

Going even further is the attempt by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi to come to some sort of agreement for the DACA youth, last week, whose enterprise and hard work has earned them even bipartisan support.

Stymied by the waffling that is characteristic of the 45th president, they found themselves at odds with their press statements, and those of the White House press secretary, who denied that there was an agreement, only to state that no final agreement had been agreed upon.

Long a divisive factor in the GOP, between hardliners, and those moderates that look towards a path to citizenship, the dominant force erupted into a chorus of condemnation, after the announcement of the potential Schumer-Pelosi deal by Breitbart News that labelled Trump as “Amnesty Don”.

Fast segue to TV personality, and conservative radio host, Dr. Laura Ingraham who has been quoted as saying: “The No. 1 reason I voted for him was for the immigration. I want the wall. I want it to be seen in space like the Chinese wall.”

The issue has had a long shelf life for the Republicans, in what has often been seen as a litmus test for loyalty; and those that are more moderate, and are in accord with a belief that the DACA dilemma can be solved with an agreement for stronger, and more, border security, now face the vociferous voices of anger, from the extreme right, and who shouted so loudly that Trump was forced to state, “The wall will happen.”  

For all of the fear, the actual illegal immigration on the southern border has actually decreased from its peak in 2009, and went lower in 2015, as has the influx of unauthorized immigrants from Mexico, according to the Pew Research Center, who concluded that, “There were 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2015, a small but statistically significant decline from the Center’s estimate of 11.3 million for 2009.”

In addition, Mexicans have plummeted as the dominant group as unauthorized immigrants. But, for many, including Sessions, immigration, illegal, or legal, is the call to arms, with almost religious fervor, statistics, or not, with a deeply held conviction that this is not simply, a litmus test, but the defining issue for the GOP.

Much of that opposition began as early as 1986 when President Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which regulated employer identification of the immigration status of their employers and attempted to, but was not entirely successful in sanctions for employers who knowingly hired illegal immigrants.

While the bill seems relatively mild, by even the standards of that day, and allowed less than 4 billion for legal immigrants, with some caveats, as knowledge of the history of the U.S. and its government, and some English proficiency; the base, even for the avuncular Ronald Reagan, fumed.

Then George H.W. Bush came in with more in the form of the 1990 Immigration Act, that brought waves of legal immigrants to the U.S. in predetermined fiscal years, and and created tiered categories of admission, that survive to this day; and then President Obama, with DACA, which came on the heels of a failed immigration bill that fell short of the 60 votes needed to override a filibuster.

Now the wrath be upon them that do not agree, and the deepening divide, and into the quagmire came Pelosi at a planned event, on Monday, in San Francisco, innocently and unsuspecting, to promote her proposal to Trump, for the DACA youth was confronted by a group of “angry young immigrants chanting "all of us or none of us" shutting down the news conference.” reported National Public Radio.

“Chanting "we are not a bargaining chip," the protesters upstaged Pelosi and her fellow Democrats. The confrontation went on for about 30 minutes, according to one published report. The chant was an apparent reference to reports that the Democrats might agree to Trump's demands for enhanced border security and other measures in exchange for an agreement to protect the estimated 800,000 recipients of the Obama-era program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.”

It’s going to get a lot rougher and the number one question is whether, the Dems can win playing by the rules; will Trump score a legislative victory by triangulation, that is by working with the Democrats, or will his base, fueled by the thundering, and condemning rhetoric of Ingraham and the redoubtable Ann Coulter, who in a Twitter rant, said, “At this point, who DOESN’T want Trump impeached,” survive unscathed, even in office.

Trump seeks bipartisan support for tax reform

Last week Treasury Secretary Steve Minuchin announced that the Trump Administration was ready to begin its effort at tax reform, something that has been promised, but not realized, since February.

What is different, he says, is that the White House will not do a hand-over to Congress, as it did with the DACA rescindment, but will, instead be actively involved in the process; some observers, are saying this is a maneuver to position President Trump into a more visible role in legislation -- and hopefully win -  since he has had no legislative victories since taking office.

As is well known, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act was the most prominent loss,  which was preceded by the Muslim Travel Ban, which was largely derailed by the U.S. appeals courts.

In short, Trump needs a win.

While tax reform has bipartisan support, and the recent agreement with Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, seems to suggest that there just might be an iota of bipartisan work, in this area, there are several key issues, that might just prevent that: Number one on the list is lowering the tax rate for the wealthy, followed by repeal of the estate tax, and last, but not least, the elimination of state and local tax deductions.

Even stickier, is funding tax cuts without swelling the national debt, an effort, that even the more creative economic talents say is the hardest to do. Next up, is lowering the corporate tax rate, one of the bugaboos in the effort and one that led to some notable defections in corporate mergers with foreign companies, and moving headquarters to their side, to avoid the high US rate; this was seen in the headline grabbing proposed merger of Allergan and Pfizer, which failed under the Obama regulations, but could be given new life under Trump.

Of the current U.S. corporate tax rate, Trump thinks that he can change it from the current rate of 35 to 15 percent, while Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, feels that a figure in the 20s might be more feasible.

All things being equal, there are some realists, such as Rep. Richard Neal, the top Democrat on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, who remarked, that there is “a certain volatility at the White House, where minds and moods change very swiftly.”

Earlier, this year, in April, in what was widely seen as a public relations move,  Trump unveiled a tax reform plan that said little, promised much, and left nearly everyone wanting more, than was given; and, in fact what was on a single page memo that contained mostly retreads from the campaign.

At its best, it showed that the “so-called” reform highlighted the president’s determination to give tax breaks to the wealthy, while middle-class and working families received nearly zero benefits.

Mnuchin and Gary Cohn, director of the National Economic Council, claimed that the proposal was the “most significant tax reform since 1986” and that it would pay for itself, with a 3 percent increase in the national economy, yet others were not so sure, among them Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist of the Economic Outlook Group, who said, that it was conceptually flawed, and “unlikely to go far in Congress.”

In what many are calling a tailwind decision, last week’s announcement, of the new engagement by the White House, may also partly be in response to an oft repeated observation that the president, is behaving mostly as a bystander, rather than being a participant in crafting legislation.

Cynics also point to the fact that the earlier proposal held the long cherished desire by Trump to eliminate the estate tax, and the alternative minimum tax, known as the AMT (which limits the amount of deductions, and other benefits, available to the wealthy); which in the partial revelation of his 2005 tax return, showed that without it, he would have paid far less in taxes than the $31 million that he did pay.

If all politics are local, then the state tax deductions proposals make people, closer than they appear. No finer example can be the the controversy to remove the deduction of the cost of state and local tax payments, a real benefit for those that live in high tax states, like New York and California; and that also happen to have Democratic majorities.

Crain’s New York Business acknowledged, “that provision especially benefits New Yorkers because city and state tax rates are so high here. It allows the average filer to deduct roughly $20,500 annually from his or her federal taxable income, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

The Catch-22 with this, is that it has been estimated that the elimination would increase New York City residents' taxable income by $28 billion, causing their collective federal tax bill to rise by $8 billion a year.”

Further complicating the process is that Mnuchin and Cohn, while acknowledged experts in the field, have gotten into hot water, the former by demanding that, in a meeting with the House GOP lawmakers, that they raise the debt ceiling, as a personal favor to him.

Cohn prominently criticized the Trump’s response “to white supremacist marches in Charlottesville, Va., raising doubts about his clout with the president,” acknowledged The Hill, a prominent inside-the-beltway publication.

Both men have no strong ties to either the Washington power elite, or the conservative majority; but that might also be a political liability, despite their influence and expertise.

Much like the sword of Damocles is the need to salvage the GOP legislative agenda, hanging over their heads.

Tying the hands of the Senate is that with a slim Republican majority, there is a strong need for the support of the Democrats; something that the president jeopardized with his public censure, and call to arms, for Missouri voters, when he recently said that Sen. Claire McCaskill, who had publicly opposed some of his plans, should be voted out of office, if she did not comply.

On Tuesday, the president hosted a dinner party for both GOP and Democratic senators that was labelled “highly prodiuctoive” and a “good first start,” by White House spokesperson, Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

CBS News confirmed that Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Indiana; Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-North Dakota; Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia; Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pennsylvania; and Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, were in attendance.

Performing well for the press seemed to be the order of the day, and “In a statement following the evening's events, Manchin said that he was "glad to join the president tonight to discuss how we can work together in a bipartisan manner on tax reform."

Continuing in this praiseworthy, and collaborative vein, “. . .the Democrat said he continues to fight for a "simpler tax code" for his state's residents, he noted that he was still looking forward to working with Mr. Trump and his Senate colleagues "on both sides of the aisle on tax reform."

Trump, meanwhile, made up for trashing McCaskill, by praising Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, and on a recent visit to her state of North Dakota called her “a good woman” and invited her to come to the stage.

Working with the other party, was a hallmark of the Clinton administration where after defeats, President Clinton used triangulation, a Washington term for working with the other party, to gain his most notable successes, such as welfare reform. But, for Trump, “If he can’t pass tax reform – a heavy lift under the best of circumstances – by the end of the year, some observers predict electoral trouble for the Republicans in the November 2018 midterms,” said the Christian Science Monitor.

“I think the Republican Party survives if it can prove that it can govern,” says John Feehery, who was the spokesman for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

While the Trump team is hoping for a victory, as is the GOP leadership, there are some conservatives who are in doubt. In a recent blog post for The Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin noted: “It’s not at all clear what would be in the tax cuts, for we have yet to see an actual plan, nor is it clear that the GOP will have the benefit of a reconciliation process that requires only 51 votes in the Senate. For that, they’d need a budget resolution to attach the reconciliation instructions and meet the so-called Byrd Rule, which among other things prohibits any increase in the deficit beyond the 10-year window.”

Notwithstanding, the 2600 page tax code is a brute that many have tried to tame, but even in the most recent effort, in 1986, under President Reagan, change was not possible without bipartisan support and what it produced was significant: changes from corporate to individual tax liabilities, and a reduction for some, and for many low income people, no tax liability, at all.

Facing Trump are the challenges of defining what is a “child” for tax purposes; can corporations be taxed on earnings that they make domestically, or can it be extended to overseas; and, what should the corporate tax rate be?

Then there is the president’s long-held opposition to the estate tax that he lugubriously referred to as the “death tax,” which his opponents see as currying to his wealthy friends, and not the average income American. Yet, in a further desire to improve his optics, Marc Short, the presidential liaison to Capitol HIll noted, at a breakfast hosted by The Christian Science Monitor, that “I think that the president first and foremost – rather than party affiliation – looks at what he can do best for the American people and to fulfill the promises he made on the campaign trail.”

If the whole effort fails, then beyond taking small gains, that would be divisive, like reform of the ACA exchanges, “there is the very If Republicans don’t get their save-their-skins-and-the-party tax plan, I suspect you’ll see a bunch more congressional retirements, a whole lot of alt-right challengers and a really angry GOP donor community. At some point they might even begin to ask: What good is Trump if he can’t get us anything we really want?,” notes Rubin.