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.
No comments:
Post a Comment