Trump health care plan crashes and burns

Ultimately it was was not supposed to happen; the Affordable Care Act - the legacy of America’s first black president, Barack Obama, was to be demolished. Evan as he outlasted the desire by Republican leaders to be a one term president, the GOP was determined to maligne, trash and dismiss the derisively labelled, Obamacare, that helped over 21 million people obtain health coverage, unto the rubbish heap of partisan defeat.

After 67 failed attempts to defeat it, and after another, of the equally despised Hillary Clinton, for president, then the election of Donald Trump would do it. With braggadocio, falsehoods, snickering, and snideness, it would die, seven days, to the day, that it was signed into law, by a gleeful, Paul Ryan, the speaker of the house, the Iago of this drama.

Then the unexpected happened this Friday, when Ryan had to tell the new president that there were not enough votes and that the bill had to be pulled. No joy in Mudville, and a bellwether for the self-designated populist as he faced his second defeat, after the thinly disguised travel ban to keep Muslims out of the country failed. Now, on the simmering embers of defeat, Trump has to face not only that campaigning is far different than governing (as every president has discovered) but that despite claims to possessing the art of the deal, he may not have it, in the top job.

The Affordable Care Health Act, as the bill came to be known, was flawed from the beginning by switching the Obama tax credits from low-income Americans to younger ones, by increasing premiums for them, and by sending prescription costs even higher, but then as Ryan stated, it was never about health insurance, it was about cost containment.

Then the Congressional Budget Office, a bipartisan, and independent financial assessor gave the bad news: 14 million Americans would lose their coverage, next year, and by 2026, 52 million, with projected cost savings of $337 billion over 10 years, by cutting Medicaid, and eliminating subsidies, from the Obama plan, including some pre-natal plans.

What were they thinking? As observers have noted Trump’s near obsession with removing every piece of Obama’s legislative legacy was a major flaw; but, the other was not realizing (but, then he’s not a politician as Vice-President Pence reminds us) the factionalism within his own party -- those radicals that wanted to make far deeper cuts in the replacement of the ACA, with no concession to even mild attainments -- such as the pre-existing condition, or allowing young people to stay on their parent’s insurance to age 26.

Then there were the moderates who had to face, “the folks back home”, their constituents, who, many of whom for the first time, had real health coverage, and could even cover prenatal and maternity care. Those constituents had made their opposition to the new bill clear, in noisy rebuke, at town halls, and in letters to the local dailies.

To add insult to injury the GOP, as appeasement to the radicals, was ready to sacrifice over 7 million American veterans, by deleting their access to tax credits if they could not use VA hospitals.

There seemed to be no middle course, and any cooperation with the equally despised Democrats was tantamount to apostasy. Could he, as The New York Times said, be “improbably blamed for his party’s shortcomings?”

“It’s really a problem in our own party, and that’s something he’ll need to deal with moving forward,” said Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, an ally of the center-right Tuesday Group, which stuck with Mr. Trump in the health care fight and earned the president’s praise in the hours after the bill’s defeat.”

Cole later admitted that past presidents -- such as the iconic Ronald Reagan -- had to work with Democrats. So, the tide seems to turn -- or is reality beckoning? One thing is certain, rolling back, “a major established social welfare program, [is a fact] that is almost unheard of.”

For 10 years, the Republicans were the party of “no” and so concentrated were they in saying “no” especially to President Obama, that they were left without a plan, so busy were they saying, no. So, now it’s no to their plan, and perhaps a resounding nyet from St. Petersburg on further help from Vladimir Putin. Who supports a loser?

The result, for now, is that the ACA remains, left as Trump said, as an option in his first few weeks in office, to self implode. But that implosion might very well echo off the walls of the Oval Office.

If early efforts at loosening the insurance requirement are left to the wolves, then consider that the insurance requirement is vital in maintaining healthy markets, “because it encourages healthier people to sign up for coverage. And healthier people offset the cost of sicker people. And that in turn keeps premiums in check,” noted the Chicago Tribune.

If it is loosened then premium costs would skyrocket, and increase even more than they did in some area, for some that bought insurance on the marketplace exchanges, put in place by Obamacare. And, as we saw the tax credit benefit for younger people versus older, in the Trump plan, did just that.

In the end, the image conscious Trump who gave half-hearted endorsement to the bill, (and was told to abandon it by his son-in-law Jared Kushner), blamed the Democrats, a  move that even his ardent supporters told him not to do, in the face of his refusal to accept the Democrats offer to work, and fill the holes of the ACA, and put it on firmer foundation.

Behind the scenes he blamed Ryan and Reince Priebus, for their failure to shepherd the bill through, now creating even more tension between two men, whose help he now desperately needs.

His next chance is a tax plan, but the early soundings seem to be as top heavy as his executive orders -- missing an ideology, and hell bent on raising defence from an already near $7 million high. And, then take away from Meals on Wheels, cut the Coast Guard, delete monies from Great Lakes Conservation, and decimate the Environmental Protection Agency? One again, he seems to not even grasp the basics of crafting legislation, as critics have noted.

60 days into the madness of the Trump administration

It’s been 60 days since Donald Trump has been inaugurated as the 45th president of the United States, and from the beginning his actions, both executive and not, have been marked by controversy and conflict, either from the Steve Bannon engineering, or his own actions, be they late night tweets, on social media, or raucous press conferences, that no White House has ever seen, or wants to again.

Shooting out of the gate with a “travel ban” supposedly designed to protect Americans from external threat from terrorists, was quickly undressed as a Muslim ban, and one that was consistent with a plentitude of remarks made on the campaign trail. The resulting chaos at airports with Muslim scholars and physicians, as well as homemakers stuck overseas, seemed to please Bannon, and protege Trump with the ensuing anarchy.

What it omitted, was that no credible external threats or actions had been seen since 2001. All the other came from within the country’s borders. So, if the executive order did nothing to protect us, then it was useless, and beneficial only to those that hated Muslims, of which there are many. The result was a wave of anti-Muslim behavior with hijab wearing women pushed down subway stairs in Manhattan, being soundly cursed while with their children, and in the Midwest, two Indian business men being shot by a gun-wielding vigilante, shouting “Get out of my country!”

In the mix was a corresponding wave of anti-semitism that resulted in the desecration of Jewish cemeteries, and bomb threats to schools, including one on Chicago’s far north side.  To add insult to injury, a Jewish reporter asking the president to say something to stem the tide, at the now infamous first press conference,was told to sit down, and be quiet. While Trump later did speak up, it was a question of tool little too late.

Next up was a tweak of the so-called travel ban, now reconstituted to include those with green cards, and deleting those from Iraq but mostly it was the same order, and faced the same opposition, across the country as a federal judge in Hawaii issued a nationwide halt to the order, that now targets six majority-Muslim countries: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Syria.

US District Judge Derrick Watson issued the halt, saying that the government “had not proved the ban was needed to protect the USA from terrorists trying to infiltrate the country through legal immigration or the refugee program.” Citing that there was “a dearth of evidence indicating a national security purpose,” he also ruled that despite the changes, it clearly violated the US constitutional protections of religion.

Adding to the judge’s order were a mass of supportive states and immigration and advocacy groups; and, simply, even residents to block the ban from going into effect.

With a second failed attempt, at a thinly disguised discriminatory order, it’s not hard for a reasonable person to see that Trump has not only overreached, as he often accused, President Obama, of doing, his actions reflect an ugly bias.

The blowback against these orders and the president’s verbal and electronic statements are now making many feel that getting his way, in the first 100 days, may not always be a given.

In keeping with a campaign promise, Trump has vowed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, colloquially known as Obamacare, with a plan that puts the burden of higher premiums on seniors, and as the Congressional Budget Office opined, 14 million people to be uninsured, next year, and another ten in a decade. The proposal has netted even more than a big bill's share of dissention, and like a house of cards, threatens to collapse, under its own weight.

While no one could argue that the ACA faced some unintended consequences, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as 22 million people have coverage, and better health, seems to undergird the charges that this is directed more at America's first black president;  who, in turn, predicted a plan, largely based on that of a white lawmaker, Mitt Romney, as governor of Massachusetts. For latter there were praise, but the former scorn, and false derision.

With health care as the bedrock of a person’s life, can the GOP compromise on what for many other Western countries, is a given? Or, are they willing to see a loss of care for those that need it, including children?

The chief architect of the bill, waggily given the label of “Trump Care”, has been conceived as less than providing Americans with healthcare coverage, than “cost savings;” for as Paul Ryan, speaker of the House, said, in anticipation of the Congressional Budget Office review: “The one thing I’m certain will happen is CBO will say, ‘Well, gosh, not as many people will get coverage,’” Ryan said on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday. “You know why? Because this isn’t a government mandate.”

As The Guardian noted, “In the run-up to the publication of the CBO report, many Republicans began casting the expected drop in coverage as a consequence of having more choice.”

Turning metaphor into message seems to be the mantra of the administration, even as the prospect of millions of Americans lose health coverage, and the focus becomes skewed in partisan politics, is far than desireable.  Yet, away from the good of the nation has seemed to be part and parcel of the tissue of lies, that the administration seems to try and force on an often gullible electorate.

Illinois Republican Congressman Peter Roskam, recently noted in an interview, with a Chicago radio station, that there were “some good things” that came from Obamacare --- if good is defined as a healthcare program that helped 21 million people, and then recently added 12 million more, is reality welcome in this discussion?

Can anyone support a bill that also will cost America’s seniors higher premiums, while saving money for younger people? The ultimate rewards, for this, according to the CBO are tax breaks for medical device makers, the wealthy, and insurance companies.

For Illinois Democrats, many are receiving constituent blowback with “the overwhelming majority of messages — 1,098 as of Wednesday — oppose the health care overhaul proposed by House Republicans, while just 11 support it, according to the first-term lawmaker,” U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi noed in an interview with The Chicago Tribune. He also added, "To say there is concern bordering on fear is not an overstatement," Krishnamoorthi said.

GOP lawmakers are pushing ahead, despite the CBO estimate, and which some like Roskam even doubt. The haste with he and others after a near six year opportunity to work with Democrats should give pause to those who support the repeal and replacement proposal.

While much of the future success of the Trump administration is hinged on the repeal of the ACA, and its replacement, the ACHA, it is difficult to conceive of a more misguided policy than this one. Can the nation afford to have this man, and his cabinet in office? One indication, is the vote on Thursday, but with 20 GOP lawmakers in disagreement, there may be a chance to prevent this disaster from happening.

Now comes a budget proposal that gives a 10 percent increase in military spending, when The U.S. dwarfs the rest of the world in military spending, with an expenditure in 2016 of nearly 6 billion dollars. The second one following would be China, so pending any eminent disaster, one wonders at the huge increase, and the urgency. It does not seem that the barbarians are at the gate.

If anything, as the Washington Post noted, is a need in technological advancement, as the US is lacking the technical superiority of other countries, especially those in Asia.

Decimating the Environmental Protection Agency, the State Department, Labor, and Agriculture by 31.4 percent, 28.7 percent, 20.7 percent, and 20.7 percent respectively,seems not only unwise but foolhardy, in a modern world that recognizes the needs of climate control, the need for professional diplomats, protection for American workers, and farmers.

Then, in turn, taking money from the homebound through the Meals on Wheels program, help for first time homebuyers, but loading up money for school choice and charter schools --- essentially private schools in a public school system seems even more mad.

This deconstruction of the administrative state, that Bannon is said to want, may mean the destruction of the country.

Feds increase interest rate as U.S. economy strengthens

Mrs. Yellen

In a much anticipated move the Federal Reserve Bank, on Wednesday, raised the interest rate from 0.75 percent to 1 percent, citing the strong growth in the labor market, an increase in fixed business investments, and the proximity to reaching 2 percent inflation, it’s mandated goal.

In even simpler terms, “the message the Fed sent Wednesday is that nearly eight years after the Great Recession ended, the economy no longer needs the support of ultra-low borrowing rates and is healthy enough to withstand steadily tighter credit,” reported The Chicago Tribune in its coverage.

The Fed Chair, Janet Yellen, did note that as inflation creeps towards, 2 percent,  "It's a reminder 2 percent is not a ceiling on inflation, it's a target," Yellen told a news conference after the rate decision was released. "There will be some times when inflation is above 2 percent, just like it's been below 2 percent."

With characteristic understatement, she also said, “The simple message is the economy is doing well, It's performed well over the last several years. The unemployment rate has moved way down, and many more people feel optimistic about their prospects.” and  coming closely on the heels of last Friday’s Jobs Report, this was certainly true with  235,000 jobs added.

It was also a number that exceeded the expectation of most economists, as they anticipated the move by the Federal Open Markets Committee.

The strongest areas for growth were construction, manufacturing and healthcare. And, also, business and professional services, a catch all area, that many economists, are cautious about endorsing, since it can contain almost anything, including temporary staffing employment.

In that same press conference, the chair was asked about the role of the balance sheet in the management of the economy and, as The Washington Post reported, “Yellen said the committee had discussed shrinking the balance sheet but had not made any decisions. The Fed would like to have a higher benchmark interest rate and see the economy on a stronger footing before beginning to pare it back.”

This also signals that there maybe two more incremental raises coming the rest of the year, with most observers, and economists, predicting the the next one would be in June. And, still others state that 2018 might show three more raises.

As an expression of market confidence, the increase also is reflective of a rise, if not a phoenix like rise, from the ashes of 2008, of The Great Recession, it slashed and burned the U.S. economy. But, while there is rejoicing, there is also caution, because traditionally these third year increases do not bode well for the stock market.

Business Insider reminded those that cheered Wednesday’s news, that there is a traditional down side for stocks, when these increases occur, they said, "Many are familiar with the Wall Street adage '3 Steps and a Stumble,' popularized by Marty Zweig, for the tendency of stocks to sell off after the 3rd Fed rate hike in the cycle," said Nautilus Investment Research's Tom Leveroni and Shourui Tian.

"The S&P 500 has endured significantly below average results from 1 to 12 months after 3rd rate hikes in 11 events back to 1955," they wrote in a note on Tuesday. "Six (more than half) of those hikes occurred within a year of a major cyclical top for stocks (1955, 1965, 1968, 1973, 1980, 1999)." The only exception was in 2004, when stocks rallied for another three years before the Great Recession.”

“For banks, higher rates mean they are compensated more for lending. But for companies that make consumer discretionary goods, or things that aren't essential, higher borrowing costs imply that shoppers' spending habits may be reined in,  they explained.

For most consumers the change will be felt gradually, if at all, with the exception of one area - credit card debt, which is tied to the prime rate, which, in turn is linked to the fed funds rate. Greg McBride, chief analyst at Bankrate.com, noted that there is “a direct pass-through to credit card holders.”

With a typical family holding a typical balance of $17,000, and a current rate of $42.00 per year, in interest; if the fed raises the rate, even twice this year, it wall add another $85.00 annually.

Savers will not immediately see a change, but there will be a modest increase in auto loans, home equity loans, and mortgage rates, over time, but the most immediate change seen, will be in credit card debt.

Looking against the background of the increase we can see that the personal consumption price index rose to 1.9 percent in January from 2016, and the Consumer Price Index,  increased to 2.7 percent, giving a rosier picture than recently seen. And, some are seeing this as “new risks to the economic outlook appropriately balanced,” a view which gives optimism to future growth.

One cautionary note -- the GDP is well below healthy economic standards, as the Tribune noted when they said: “And while the broadest gauge of the economy's health — the gross domestic product — remains well below levels associated with a healthy economy, many analysts say they're optimistic that Trump's economic plans will accelerate growth. His proposals have lifted the confidence of business executives and offset concerns that investors might otherwise have had about the effects of Fed rate increases.”

Meanwhile, the next meeting of the FOMC will be May 2 and 3rd.

14 million Americans could lose coverage under GOP plan

Despite the superlatives of President Donald Trump about the virtues of the replacement for Obamacare, there were rumblings and mumblings that millions of Americans would be dumped from their health coverage, and that seniors would face high premiums while younger people would see generous discounts, as the tax credits were switched from income-based to age based. And, that was not the worst of it: the question of cost and how many would lose coverage became dominant speculation.

In a press conference on Monday, White House press secretary, Sean Spicer said that he did not know,but assured those present that they would have the votes to pass the legislation, and that Trump’s “engagement with members” would get them there.

GOP lawmakers have faced intense internal dissension, from those who derisively called it “Obamacare lite,” to those whose worried constituents, especially those from older populations, would face an angry blowback. And, to some observers that was why there was a continuation, in the proposed legislation that retained much of the features of Obamacare, tax credits, to name one, to buy insurance.

Adding to the strain, for Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, who is the chief architect of the proposal is that 40 members of the House Free Caucus, claim that the votes are not there. Perhaps in a concession to those feelings, Spicer noted, that there was a willingness, on the part of the administration, to listen “to ideas that make this a strong, more patient-centered piece of legislation.”

Extending that even more, he said: “We’re not saying that this is the only way forward,” taking a strong step back from comments made earlier. This comes less than a day after Trump stood firmly behind the plan, and a day after meeting with key House committee chairman. But, then even that was open to revision, as he then said he was open to further negotiations.

Why the back and forth? Candidate Trump could promise a blue moon, and his supporters would cheer in support. But, once behind the desk in the Oval Office, things take on a different cast. This is a truism among nearly all who become president, but not since Roosevelt and the New Dealers has a president been confronted with a myriad of self-wrought promises, but that may prove difficult to deliver, especially in the thorny area of healthcare for Americans.

Speed may prove to be the enemy as working at breakneck speed may give, once again, a less balanced legislation, that could prove embarrassing, if not dangerous. Yet, Greg Walden, R-Ore. Says that “the worst thing we could do is hit the pause button and continue Obamacare.”

That could happen when later on Monday, the Congressional Budget Office, a bipartisan, and independent financial assessor gave the bad news: 14 million Americans would lose their coverage, next year, and by 2026, 52 million, with projected cost savings of $337 billion over 10 years, by cutting Medicaid, and eliminating subsidies, from the Obama plan, including some pre-natal plans.

The Chicago-Sun Times noted, that the report “undercuts a central argument that he and other Republicans have cited for swiftly rolling back former President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul: that the health insurance markets created under the 2010 law are unstable and about to implode. The congressional experts said that largely would not be the case and the market for individual health insurance policies “would probably be stable in most areas either under current law or the (GOP) legislation.”

Summing the loss, “The budget office attributed the projected increases in uninsured Americans to the GOP bill’s elimination of tax penalties for people who don’t buy insurance, its changes in federal subsidies for people who buy policies and its curbing of Medicaid, the federal-state program that helps low-income people buy coverage.”

The GOP lawmakers contend that these figures are out of whack because  “coverage statistics are misleading because rising out-of-pocket costs make the policies many gained under Obama’s statute unaffordable.”

If the devil is in the details, then the following scenario is becoming clear: “average premiums for individuals would rise in 2018 and 2019 by 15 percent to 20 percent compared to current law, because Republicans would eliminate the penalties designed to induce people to buy insurance coverage. But beginning in 2020, premiums would begin to fall in comparison to current law, and by 2026 average premiums for people buying individual coverage would be roughly 10 percent lower than current law.

As expected the CBO findings were met with opposition from the White House and the New Department of Health and Human Services, Tom Price who said, “it’s just not believable.” But, Susan Collins of Maine urged her colleagues to slow down and recalibrate. She said, “This is an extremely important debate with significant implications for millions of Americans,” the Republican said. “We need to spend the time necessary to get this right.”

Ironically, as The Guardian reported, “ACA has heated up its popularity hit a historic high in February, according to findings from the Pew Research Center and the latest Kaiser Health Tracking poll. The result is the highest level of support for the law in the 60 tracking polls Kaiser Health has conducted since 2010.”

GOP proposed replacement for Obamacare raises ruckus

Mr. Ryan

As predicted, the Republican blowback against Obamacare, the “repeal and replace”, that has been widely touted by President  Donald Trump and Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, has hit more than a few speed bumps when it was rolled out on Monday, with, as predicted, higher cost premiums, especially for older Americans in their 50s and 60s.

Trump had noted, replacing the Affordable Care Act, was easier said, than done, especially in the face of coverage for over 21 million people, many in rural, as well as urban areas who received preventive care in the form of pap smears, mammograms, as well as simple medications, and vaccinations.

With the issue of health care in America, long a step child of its European cousins, the seemingly impenetrable wall of the insurance lobby, as well as any view that tried to provide even less than universal coverage, which the ACA did, had some people condemning it, even hissing that it was it was “socialism.”

If there was one mistake that President Obama made, with the ACA, it was failing to sell it himself, rather than rely on others in his administration. The subsequent widespread confusion, came to stay, and had many thinking that the the legislation was an insurance program like Aetna, or Unitedhealthcare; but that aside, the GOP has simply now run amuck with Ryan leading the charge.

His answer to use age based tax credits, instead of income, will increase, for those that are older, an increase as much as five times, while those that are younger, would see a savings, according to The S&P Global Market Intelligence report released Tuesday.

An estimated 6 to 10 million people could lose coverage they say, and others less conservative sat those figures could be 2 to 4 million; with at least 4 to 6 million enrolled in Medicaid. Extending the loss, by 2020 there could be a freeze in future enrollment for Medicaid.

As The Hill reported “A 21-year-old, according to an S&P example, might see an average decline of 20 percent in their premium costs. Instead of paying an annual premium of $3,281, they would pay $2,625.”

The American Medical Association, added their voice to the chorus of opposition, when they noted, “By replacing income-based premium subsidies with age-based tax credits, the AHCA will also make coverage more expensive — if not out of reach — for poor and sick Americans. For these reasons, the AMA cannot support the AHCA as it is currently written.”

Also, on board in opposition was the American Hospital Association, for the same reasons. And, taking the  lead, the AMA  plead: “We encourage you to ensure that low and moderate income Americans will be able to secure affordable and adequate coverage and that Medicaid, [Children's Health Insurance Program], and other safety net programs are maintained and adequately funded,” the AMA said in its letter to Congress. “And critically, we urge you to do all that is possible to ensure that those who are currently covered do not become uninsured.”

Ryan has been on record as wanting to dismember Medicaid, and now he has his chance with the AHCA proposal.

Adding to the morass is “the Office of Management and Budget director Rick Mulvaney [who] opines that “insurance is not the end goal here, is it?” Unfortunately, for tens of millions it is. He asserts actual care will be more accessible, but for virtually everyone access is only possible with insurance,” said Jennifer Rubin in an op-ed piece for The Washington Post.

Ryan, incredibly, “declared that coverage didn’t matter. “What matters is that we’re the lowering costs of health care and giving people access to affordable health care plans. The government will always win the war on government-run plans, saying, if we mandate everybody buys what we say they have to buy, then the government will always estimate that they’ll buy it. I just think that’s bogus, that entire premise of that comparison doesn’t work.”

Giving some support to the opposition, but also causing internal dissention within the GOP, are the following senators: Rob Portman of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Cory Gardner of Colorado, and Shelley Moore of West Virginia.

In a joint statement, they wrote: “We are concerned that any poorly implemented or poorly timed change in the current funding structure in Medicaid could result in a reduction in access to life-saving health care services,” and, “We will not support a plan that does not include stability for Medicaid expansion populations or flexibility for states.”

Battling on the senior side is the powerful AARP, whose executive vice president, Nancy LeaMond who said, in her statement, “Older Americans need affordable health care services and prescriptions. This plan goes in the opposite direction, increasing insurance premiums for older Americans and not doing anything to lower drug costs.”

Also on the horizon with the current language are plans that, if offered, would offer less coverage than those under Obamacare, and most, especially seniors would see out of pocket costs, in some instances; but in the absence of hard numerics from the House, it is difficult to predict with any accuracy. Suffice it to say, it’s back to the drawing board for the House before the strains of the Marseilles began to be heard on Capitol Hill.

A kinder gentler Trump gives his agenda for America

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.